The Sun.
London, England, 1833-04-01 00:00:00

DIPERIALPARLIAMENT

THIS DAY, MONDAY, APRIL 1.

The SPEAKER took his seat soon after twelve o'clock.
RIPON ELECTION.
Lord CAVENDISH brought up the Report of the
Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition
again.r the return for the borough of Ripon. The Committee
reported that the. Sitting 111-mb, rs were duly elected, but
that neither the petition nor the opposition thereto was
frivolous or vexatious.
PORTARLINGTON ELECTION.
Captain WEN' YSS brought up the Report of the
Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition
aeainst the return of Thomas Gladstone, Esq., for Per-
tarlington. The Committee reported that Mr. Gladstone
was duly eected, and that neither the petition nor the op-
position to it was frivolous or vexatious.
Mr. Crafer, from the Treasury, appeared at the bar
with a return of duties upon taxed carts.
On the motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, Sturcke's
Naturalization Bill was read a second time.
STRATFORD AND MORETON RAILWAY.
On the motion of the same Hoe. MEMBER, the Strat-
ford and Moreton Railway Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. O'CALLAGHAN, the Clontnel
and Kilkenny Road Bi.l was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. SANDFORD, the Aberzele and
Conway Road Bill, and the Denbigh and Mold Road Bill,
were re id a third time and passed.
Mr. DIVETT brought up the Report of the Committee
on the Exeter Water Works Bill.
LONDON AND GREENWICH RAILWAY.
Mr. Sheriff HUMPHERY presented petitions against
the London and Greenwich Railway Bill from certain
persrns in the borough of Southwark, from the overseers
of St. Olaves, and from the governors of the free grammar
school of St. Olaves.
THE THAMES TUNNEL.
Sir E. CODRINGTON presented a petition from the
proprietors of the Thames 'funnel, praying for aid to enable
them to complete that work. The Gallant Admiral said
the work was peculiarly entitled to the support of the
House. The petitioners had already expended 170,000/
in prosecuting it, and surmounted difficulties which were
never contemplated. They had already shown the prac-
ticability of the undertaking, and the only difficulty now
was the avant of funds. If, then, there was such
a necessity for so many bridges in so short a distance, it
was but reasonable to believe that, in a place two miles
below London bridge (there being no intervening bridge),
such an undertaking as the Tunnel would be of great prac-
tical utility. If the Tunnel were completed, vast quan-
tities of goods would pass through from the Commercial
Docks, which now had to be carried four miles round by
London Bride. If Government would purchase the
property, or would allow it to be sold by lottery, the pe-
titioners would be happy to come forward and meet such
a proposition. In the United States, lotteries were granted
for charities, and in London there was now a lottery for
some property in Glasgow.
Upon the suggestion of Mr. HUME the petition was
withdrawn, in consequence?, as we understood, of some
informality.
SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM BILL.
Mr. COBBETT said he had a petition to present
against the Museum Bill, which it was proposed to have
read a third time this day. The petition was from Mr.
George Soane, the only surviving sun of Sir John Soane.
After stating that the passing of the Bill would be to sane.
tion a violation of those laws by which the social ties are
held together, and that his fatleT must have been itnpro-
perly importuned and persuaded before he could have been
induced to alienate so large a portion of the property,
for that if he had contemplated such an act for
some time previously. he must have made up his
mind to take the necessary Reiss before he had 'ar-
rived at a period of natural 'decay, the petitioner prayed
to be beard in person or by calomel or agent at the bar of
that House against the passing of the Bill, or that the
House would take such other steps as it might deem meet
to prevent the olject of the Bill. The Hon. Member
said that he thought it necessary to observe to the House
that be had never either seen or heard of Sir
John Soane or his son until four days ago. When
the third leading of the Bill was proposed by the
Hon. Member who brought it in, it was his (Mr.
Colaetes) intention to move an amendment. He was
informed, that upon the marriage of Sir John Soane, he
received 30,0001. with his wife, and that George Soane,
the petitioner, had several children, all of whom with
their fat tier were in great distress. He admitted that the
son had given the father great cause for offence, hut he (Mr.
Cobbett) considered that the offence of the son ought not
to be visited on the poor grandchildren. Hon. Members
knew that the law compelled a man not only to support his
children, but his grandchildren, and his great grand-
children ; and he thought they could not justly sanction
such an alienation of property, as the grandchildren of Sir
John Soace must suffer from, if the Bill passed into a
law. He therefore hoped that the House would pause a
little, before it sanctioned the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. HUME trusted that the House would not he led
away by the statements of the Hon. Member for Oldham,
that the Bill would do the most serious injury. He fully
aareed with that Hon. Member in his observation that the
Scriptures required that we should provide for our chil-
dren and grandchildren; but there was one allegation
which he had made, to which be wished to call the parti-
cular attention of the House. From the Hon. Member
for Oldham's statement it would appear that the children of
the petitioner, Mr George Soane, after his death, would
be the heirs of Sir John, and that the petitioner was
the only son Sir John Soane ever had. That was not the
case ; but the fact was, that the children of the elder son,
who was now (lead, would be the heirs-at-law of Sir John
Soane; and if Sir John were to die to-morrow the whole
of his property would go to those children, and the peti-
tioner would not be entitled to la farthing. However the
case might be—whether the petitioner was entitled or
not—whatever rights be had, there was a clause
in the Bill reserving to him and all other per.
eons, the right of Boeing the same as if the Bill
had not passed, and all that the present Bill did was
to enable Sir John Soane to transfer the right in his own
person to two dwelling houses, of the places where the
Museum was to be placed. There was a clause in the
Bill reserving to George Soane, the petitioner, and every
person whatever, every right and title exactly in the same
state in which they now possessed it. The Committee
who had sat upon the Bill had heard Mr. George Soane
against its different clauses, they bad entered most fully
into all the circumstances connected with the case, and wet e
unanimously of opinion that there was no act of injustice
committed by the Bill to any individual whatever. He
therefore trusted that he should be allowed to bring up the
Bill, and that the House would not entertain for a moment
the idea of postponing the consideration of the third read-
ing after the question had been so fully gone into by the
Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the
merits of the Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. BRISCOE trusted that the House would postpone
the consideration of the third reading of the Bill, as he
had been enabled to make himself master of very few of
its previsions, but from what little he had heard of the
subject, be considered it a case of extreme hardship and
great moral injustice.
Sir R. PEEL said in the present instance a gentleinan
of great eminence in art had devoted his own money to
the accumulation of most valuable relics. He had done
so by denying himself indulgences which other persons
in an equal station of life generally had, and he proposed to
present that valuable collection—a most liberal act indeed,
on his part—to the public, and all that he now
asked for was an Act of Parliament to put an end to all
questions as to the validity of that gift. As to the gift
itself, he thought that the House and the country ought
to receive it with the greatest thankfulness. With re-
spect to the suggestion whichhad been thrown out by the
Hon. Member for Surrey, as to his property being placed
in the British Museum, he (Sir R. Peel) had a clause
to p; °pose on the third reading of the Bill, the object
of which was, that the property should be placed in the
British Museum, thereby saving the expenditure of a
great deal of money upon this establishment.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that the clause which the
Right Hon. Baronet had to propose, would answer all
the purposes contemplated by the Hon. Member for
Surrey. He trusted, however, that that clause would
leave it to the discretion of Sir John Soane.—(Hear.)
Sir S. WHALLEY supported the Bill.
Mr. HUME moved thee the Bill be read a third time.
Mr. COBBETT knew nothing of the law as it related
to cases of the present sort. He considered it, and he
thought the House should oontoder it, as a question of
necessity. The law and the prec.,pts of morality, as far as
he understood them, required man, as far as possible, to
protect and give every necessary sustenance to children and
grandchildren ; but by this Bill the House was called
upon to aid and assist in withholding from the donor's
grandchildren thatsustenanee to which they were entitled.
Would that House so uugtneruusly interfere? Would that
House be party to a withdrawal from this gentleman's
grandchildren of their rights of sustenance ? Would it
countenance so unnatural an act ? He hoped, therefore,
that tl e House would not agree to the third reading of the
Bill. It appeared that Mrs. Soane (Sir John's wife)
brought him 30,0001., but he alleged there had been no
settlement, Who was to say how much of the celebrity
and renown arose to Sir John Soane, from the possession of