The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-23 00:00:00

EAST SMITHFIELD ROAD BILL.
AGLIONBY rose to move the second reading of
',B bill, and said that in doing so he would only state the
t:
'tqle kets as they had come to his knowledge. He could
I'er for
kt but regret the opposition of the hon. and learnedill, whose view mem-
the Tower Hamlets to this bill, with
:silect to this bill, and whese motions in opposing it were
t„ktelY different to his (Mr. Aglionby's). He moved the
eerid
•reading of this bill under very peculiar circum-
iOateices• He had never heard of it till very lately, and he
w.nothing whatever of the place to which this bill re-
or of the individuals who promoted or opposed it.
di! regretted very much that the hon. member for Mid-
; 'sex was not in his place ; he regretted it the more, as it
iraPosed upon him (Mr. Aglionbv) the duty of rnov-
L'IR the second reading. It was originally his (Mr. A.'s)
gaention to oppose the second reading of this bill, and on
the exparte statements which he had read, his impression
Las strong that this bill ought not to pass. Since that,
rwever, he had read the statements of the other side, he
c'ki, seen the petitions in favour of the bill, and he had
'ls upon the case made by the opposite party, that he was
tt liberty to hold himself open, and to take that view of
he case, which, upon consideration, it should be found to
ti,eserve, Since then he had seen the statement made by
the
opposite party, which he believed had been put into
41e hands of hon. members pretty generally at the door,
kid no doubt remained on his mind that the bill ought
to go into committee—that he should be discharging his
duty to the public, and to the hon. member who was
enable to bring the bill forward by moving the second read-
and he hoped that the same reasons and arguments
Lead that house to the conclusion. He would not go
details, because he was aware that many hon mem-
bers, who were more conversant with them, would address
the house ; but he felt it his duty to state how the parties
41,4 w stood in reference to each other. In 1812 the streets
e 11t East-Smithfield required repair, as it was found ex-
fit,,,lelY inconvenient to the public to pass in some places
tb-7the encroachment of houses. There was no doubt
thehyd parties now applying for the removal of the bill
ae a strong interest in it, but he stated this because,
ter d'd not wish to suppress facts, but put the mat-
fairly before the house. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The proprietors of the London Docks made an advance of
1),,e,Y to make the ways passable, and a bill was passed
s.,a"(ing the trustees to pull down ; but when it
1
s" discovered that in order to do this it would be neces-
itrY for the trustees to purchase the land, it was then
t(1)11441 necessary to raise money. The trustees applied to
1.4 Loudon Dock Company, and borrowed from them,
sue bill
to the estimate that had been made, 30,000/.
bill granted a power to the trustees to borrow that
I)4_, , carry into effect the projected improvements. As
x'q Often been the case that sum fell short of the actual
stePrense, and a bill passed enabling them to borrow 10,000/.
and that sum of 40,000/., so advanced by the
4 "Prieters of the London Docks was actually expended
°ll the improvements. That money was to be repaid
nth interest at 5 per cent. according to the provisions of
the act; and it was secured to the London Dock Company
by
power to levy a toll upon horses and carriages, and
lay a certain rate upon houses built, and to be built,
The receipt
it was supposed would be equal to pay the advance.
receipt of tolls fell far short of the London Dock
t74lPany's expectations ; and, up to the present time, the
•estees were in arrear to that Company no less a
l
4n41,, than 22,000/. interest, making in all 62,00/.,
os; seine odd hundreds. The Act of Parliament
t tfor 21 years and one session, and that session was the
heheY were then sitting in. Therefore the only chance
W London Dock proprietors had of obtaining their money
t° Come to that house and ask a renewal of the Act.
eY had reduced the sum due to them to 42,000/., by a
ivucession of 20,000/. ; and that sum of 42,000/. they had
treasonable and fair claim to, and he (Mr. A.) trusted
house would not refuse inquiry before a committee,
4 enable them to be reimbursed some part of that
large
sum. The statement of the opposite party was
that this was a monstrous, unjust, and oppressive pro-
eding and that the object of the company was to
Place. (Oil bars across the streets. In support of that as-
'ni on, they had circulated papers headed, " Breach of
Faith," one of which had been put into his (Mr. A.'s) hand,
t be had generally found that when people had recourse
ill hard names there was always a lack of argument. Why
aclkhl ibe called a breach of faith for men to come for-
d rd and ask parliament to allow them to obtain what was
O‘tii, to them ? Did it not look more like a breach of faith
ti,thwe Part of those who would prevent them from obtain-
jea "eat
the p they had lent? It had been alleged that the ob-
°` had
bill was to erect toll bars across
bue I,lll°st frequented thoroughfares of the metropolis,
Wh,:le (Mr. A. ) denied that such was the case,
ord "'" then became of the argument of its opponents ? The
1)Y tell bar erected was in a private street leading to the
i.,r7as, and it had nothing to do with the great thorough-
tons That tolls were levied umany chartered corpora-
throughout the kingdompon goods coming into
be7rket was universally admitted, and why had no outcry
shat
raised against them ? He (Mr. A. ) understood
,114 t a toll was levied upon Ludgate-hill, and he heard a
1,0,t time ago, for the first time, that a toll was levied at
t: were
4s tue-bar. The opponents of the bill said that these
to be abolished at the end of twelve or fifteen
Yes
1.; 'B, but that was with the understanding that the
and interest should have been then repaid.
""irthe
lit company asked was that their case should be in-
iro, and that certainly would not place the opbpo-
tes,?: the bill in a worse position, as they could then
hZe.,ir case, and all their allegations and proofs would
With -iru and inuired into. t was evident, from the
dete Claus-
rTn eof the bill, that theft lls should only cease and
asked;ne when the money lent had been repaid. He
ne house, in justice and fairness, not to refuse the
llelsa7Y which was sought for, and then all parties would
taini Isfied. The hen. member, after apologising for de-
biii 11g the house so long, concluded by moving that the
Arlie now read a seconetime.
eof• ItYNG opposed the second reading. The Dock
te,:::Pany. did not borrow money to make this line of
kri",eWhich was about 150 yards in length ; they ex-
eera.d their own money, and they were allowed to levy a
althoo,,%:011 for a given time, which had expired ; and
tlii,ll„'" they had received immense sums of money, in-
aiioCg as, much as 10,000 guineas, from his Majesty's
LIN tney wished still to keep up this tax
‘‘,Q ithe public. It was quite unaccountable
tell tnev had done with money. He could say that this
bar had always been a grievance, and he never can-
fa4ied that street, without being remined of the dissatis-
,eirtZ of the inhabitants on this subject. Under all these
tisfastarices, he never opposed any bill with greater sa-
tor
aeco • LUSHINGTON moved that this bill be read a
be ,(1 time that day six months. He hoped that he should
the aple to satisfy the house that the petitioners against
tkeasure had, at least, justice on their side.
Loa, dispute there were three parties concerned,
.the
ileiviZt Dock Company, the inhabitants of the immediate
tiorourhood, and the public at large. The London
141,it Company had a great interest in the result of the
e,4 In 1805 the London Docks were established at an
,I,Pense of three millions of money, and a scheme was
71,ised to obtain 180
Lfalient entrance to the froad, for securing a more con-
h_Y portion of the money so .e
It was absurd to contend that
expended was expended for the
trek of the public, for the
directors were the trustees of
we,se stock reposed in their hands
thee not authorised to lay out a farthing prfoprietors, and
iotbFxcept
lfor
advantage of the proprietors, and fo rgth'aatn d
.I:eft on y.
comen otunded
ptZeuld say that it was altogether a false
paro tthoatf
nonce for the London Dock Company to
,the and state that they were volunteers on the
LimketTPle--they were volunteers for their own individual
U„"ave b; if they had adopted a contrary course they would
;ilk guilty of a violation of the trust reposed in them.
act of p tle circumstances this company had . obtained an
«h 0 had
of the provisions of which his hon.
ft the t, had sported this bill with so much ability, had
tor'rilsstees
the
in. considerable doubt. By that act 29
of th e appointed, of whom twenty-four were direc-
"ad adv e Loudon Dock Company ; they (the company)
aneed
ertak_ money to the amount of 30,000/., and had
1710 w then` to purchase the necessary buildings. And to
tate One manner in which this was performed, he would only
ease •which
o wer a house belonging to one of those
Parish 1 appointed trustees, and which was rated by the
n -
07 wit, ) 40/., was purchased by the company for
0/ w
dual in run a fraction, and this sum wos paid to the in-
-47. ,)011"f__Miestion. It was no wonder that the money
,ghtest „`4'Pet laded; under such a system there was not the
- ...sac, of .
uPela th economy ; they had not merely imposed
e mos greatest and crowded part of the where he the quantity of mercantile business