The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

THIS DAY, ON DAY, APRIL 14.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock,
when
Petitions were presented against the great western
railway, bY Sir C. BURRELL ; and against certain
clause sin the Ashley Road Bill, by Mr. BERNARD.
Five petitions were presented in favour of the St.
i-balicras Paving Bill, by Sir S. Whalley ; and two to
""e same effect by Mr. Holcombe and Alderman Wood ;
agaiest thesen
same bill, Messrs. Grote and Retch pre-
ted two petitions.
tjehe Borough Water-works Bill was read a second
also the Hartlepool Railway Bill.
'lr. \SILKS moved that a petition presented
tiainst the Great Western Railway Bill on the 10th of
elarch last, from individual named Aaron Stanley,
I an 1)0 referred to the Committee—Agreed to.
tt Lord JOHN RUSSELL presented a petition from
e thvestrymen of the parish of St. Pancras, and an. -
oer from the rate payers of the Bedford estate,
' tne said parish, against the St. Pancras Paving Billin
hoiden of TO OKE presented a petition from the house-
the Foundling estate, parish of St. Pancras,
ranother signed by nearly 2,000 rate-payers of the
ilneParish, against the St. Pancras Paving Bill.
e (air. Tooke) thought that the bill was calculated
to
raost prejudicially against the interests of the
Parish.
811. SAMUEL
k.,„ WHALLEY moved the second
Lord`auin of the St, Pancras Paving Bill.
Th. the
opposed the second reading.
blll Was calculated to put the parish to an immense
rc--„ltnse. Mr.; parish was twenty miles in circumfe-
and had been divided into different districts for
tt purpose of enabling the local boards in each dis-
ri t to legislate for that portion with which they were
best acquanted. The object of the present bill was
to consolidate these different boards, which he
fi‘Ltord Stormont thought would be most injudicious.
ue parish vestries had already quite enough to do
Without requiring them to undertake the management
°l' what they knew very little about. It had been stated
that the bill would reduce the parish expenses
',very materially, but he (Lord S.) denied that it woldt
the Nary
that effeet. In a large district of the pans
hiiirewwa.-sere no houses, and one of the objects of the
ofith to levy a rate upon' the agricultural portions
as e parish. To this he (Lord Stormont) objected,
portions
would be most
benefitsunfianir to make the agricultural
which they did not parti-
ons pay for
'Tate. It appeared that a great majority of the
householders were opposed to the bill; and in point of
Property it appeared that the amount in favour of the
ill was 90,000/., while that against it was 230,000/.
The noble lord concluded by moving that the bill be
lead a. second time that day six months.
rkr. HUGHES HUGHES seconded the motion
t` the noble lord, and said, he would not trouble the
'use further than by stating, that of the best con-
aP
Alleration of the conflicting statement made respecting
us hill, he thought it most advisable that it should
Ilet pass into a law.
the'l he SPEAKER put the original question, that
word now, form
Colonel art of the bill.
EVANS rose to support the bill. The
ntoble lord (Stormont) had stated that the only saving
_o the parish from this bill would be the 2,0001. upon
the lighting of the parish ; but was this no saving ?
Tbesides, it was clear, there would be other savings,
tl)colli, for instance, as 594/. in watering, 500/. in clerks,.
of tthoie surveyors' salaries, making altogether a saving
for bout 5,°00L But his (Col. Evans's) chief ground
izie_laPporting this bill, was the great principle admitted
th`" all bills of this nature, namely, that those who have
f management of parish funds should be elected
trk°t "me to time by those who pay those sums.
eras'reent, the commissioners of the parish of St. Pan-
theii,wfere Uot at all responsible for the due. .exercise of
he'unctions, as they were elected for life, instead of
were elected for some stated period. Besides, there
havepresent 19 different boards, unconnected with
have other which it would le of great advantage to
a liter consolidated ; for though the parish was certainly
rag one, yet he did not imagine that upon an aye-
the:, inore than
support iles in diameter. For
kr. reasonsi he would ppothe bill.
ipueszil.e.,seA.nt\e‘d-ES opposed the bill, and said that he had
a petition from the commissioners of the
found against it. The operation of the bill would be
rates
foraost exceptionable. He could state that the
the whr,the Parish amounted to 4,000/. a-year, whilst
arnount%esePense of managing the outlay of them
were nce,t- eelY 130/. a-year. The commissioners
elected by4dvertis the rate..
a self..elected body in this case,. as they were
payers, called together by public
oti
er ement. The bill was still more unjust in an-
theqc,ll.particular. There was at present a debt of
`'UOO/.
upon the parish, and the bill gave the vestry
the —ver of paying off the principle at once,and,at
,Sartle time, of levying rates for the paving and
11hint of the parish. The rate-payers made no corn-
.,Z".t 6against the commissioners, as the charge for
.„'-'uting Was in that parish 9s. 6d. less per lamp than
.„.„1-' axle other parish. The bill gave the vestry the
power to take possession of the whole property of the
sParish, and to convert it into money to pay off the debt.
hey might take the very shrubs and gravel from the
Tsquares for this purpose. In fact, a provision more nearly
PPreaching to spoliation was not to be found in any bill.
Ruere were portions of the estates not in the parish of
till'ancras, for which no provision was to be made,
aICu,P they were equally interested. It was possible
coUrColtioWwhile they were debating this question, a
was deciding against the power of this
IreexsetrY• ( Hear.) The Foundling estate was geperally
paNaceddiegly well paved, but there were parts or it not
at all, yet he thought it would be giving a vestry
the
extraordinary power to authorise it to compel
it. landlords to pave, and then to rate the tenants for
liuttb he hon. member had said something about the
Pn hisels
hoof vestrymen in favour of this bill, but he held
against a list which showed that there were 3,600
L and but 1,900 for it.
ORMONT explained.
grat •,,uOKE would oppose the bill, because it was
tnigit ‘ous interference with public business. It
.hut it aye the appearance of equalizing the rates,
Une(inwrld be found eventually to press heavily and
Siarereaina ;37 in many parts which were yet, and would
~nr a considerable time, unfinished.
:till-el-JAM HORNE said the question was
sweliPeatriluetel: present system, which consisted of 29
consolid()%missions, or whether the whole should be
nittehio.,"‘ed so as to give this parish the benefit of solid
(Hear. which was enjoyed by other parishes.
two There were nineteen independent boards and
11.4_,,,,:trricts without any board, and the question was
seeent_tle
_the general benefit of the parish should be
the
iciondsbeyttoheisntbeitlizr
tret.
;eOH,
oed trhe;rdeifnogr requested
benefit
the general question os metingn theof universaltthe
bil
oenefit of the parish, by giving consolidative. and
wholesome machinery, instead of the present disjointed
Rod unequal system. (Hear.)
Mr. VIGORS supported the bill, and stated,
that,
4t
eportin a vestry called last week to consider the propriety of
.
g the measure, there were 44 in favour of it,
4,4:131 against it—of which latter number there were
ntless than 19 commissioners. Out of the 19 boards
rrrtieisch did the business of the parish, 12 of them were
to
teonsible, were self-electeo, and not accountable
of the Parishioners for their conduct. The machinery
1
sat. Parish would work better, would give greater
I,3,;laction, and would cause a great saving of expense
it htee provisions of the bill now before the house than
.laid hitherto done, and therefore he should support it.
he dideRA.WFORD opposed the bill, believing, as
0,4 that the parish would gain nothing by h
ne.c
' un the contrary, he thought that it would
all thecause a oast profuse expenditure. If it proposed that
tract heworks of the parish should be done by con-
jobl3inf woUld have supported it, but looking at the
t° oppose8. %hieh the bill Would cause, he felt it his duty
th~git.
r•
Public .L.,IILLL said the question was, whether.
°r an c Money was to be expended by a responsible
of Zbeespoiisible body? It was a question arising
the reform of this house. He should support
ex re, feeline• convinced that it would diminish
Pens(!R of t 6 •
t, r. ti A he parish.
" 414 L, COMA opposed the bill, and objected to
Pmeter arish ue of one board to do the business of a
twentyT miles in circumference and five in dia.
the '(:0 very existence of the present vestry was now
7;E. would onsideration of the Court of King's Bench, and
04 on ti?ave been more proper to wait for the deci-
gueed. 'Let question before the present bill was intro-
jobbin, 'eesides, the bill would open a door to great
Place °' and the D-
-8 Which
_, agent's-park, and various other
1,4
41,
040,redioxuoelitddupbe subjected to the rates, were
Pir:sted to bnbeafii
te
remarked, that the impression under
rented ers laboured, from whom he pre-
eom*w_e Petitions that morning was, that the pre-
hey h,an "IdZ i.i,
and fers should
rom be continued in the duty
which they were now