The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-17 00:00:00

ITCHEN BRIDGE PILL.

Mr. PENLEAZE presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Fair, and another petition, signed by 2,000
of the inhabitants of Southampton, in favour of the bill
for building a bridge over the river lichen. The hon.
member, after preventing the petitions, moved that the
bill be read a second time.

The Marquis of CHANDOS said that this was a case
that called for the attention of the house. This was ori-
ginally a petition or a floating bridge, which waa referred
to a committee, who reported aeainst the bill. The peti-
tioners finding that they could not carry it as it then stood,
altered it from a floating bridge into a steam contrivance
for the conveyance of passengers over the river. In his
opinion this could not ba called a bridge. It was to be
neither of wood nor stone, and it would considerably in-
terfere with the convenience of a great number of persons.
He (the Marquis of Chandos) had already presented a
pet,con, signed by 400 of the inhabitants of Southampton,
against the bridge, which showed that there was a strong
opinion upon the subject. It would also very much inter-
fere with the passage of vessels on the river, and he
thought that it would be better to retain the present good
ferry than to build a bad bridge. For these reasons,
though he had no personal interest whatever in the mat-
ter, he would move as an amendment that the bill be read
a second time that day six months.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had no more personal interest
in the hill than the noble lord, but defended the cocduct
of the Hitches Bridge Company, who had done everything
in their power to meet the wishes of the Admiralty Board,
and to promote the comfort and convenience of the people
of S ruthampton. _ _

Mr. ROB. INSON supported the bill.
Some conversation took place between the SPEAKIR
and some hen. members as to whether the standing orders
hid been complied with ; they requi,el that the number
and amount of subscriptions should be stated in the bill.
Mr. CARTER observed, that the committee would
have power to make the necessary inquiries.
The SPEAKER said it appeared that the first intention
was to erect a stone bridge ; but now it was designed to
have a floating bridge only. The subscribers ought to
have the option of one or the other, but if the bill was
cut short in the second reading the subscribers would be
prevented from executing either design.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said he had been in-
structed by the shipowners of Hull to oppose this bill,
under the impression that it was to b.! a fixed bridge, but
after the explanation he should not oppose it ; but wished
it to be postponed until after the recess, in order to satisfy
himself on that point.
The SPEAKER suggested that postponement would
bt of little avail, as the committee could suppiy or obtain
the information required.
The bid was then read a second time, the amendment
being withdrawn.
CHURCH PATRONAGE.
Lord ORMELIE presented petitions from Auchter-
order, Kingsforth, Thornhill, and Buchan, against church
patronage in Scot:and. Likewise, a petition from the
Wesleyan Methodists of the Poole circuit, against the
union of Church and State. The noble lord dissented
from the prayer of !he last petition.
Mr. SJNCLAIR supported the prayers of the peti-
tioners.