The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-17 00:00:00

BILL.

This bill passed through committee.
CHELSEA-BRIDGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. BENTINCK rose to object to the bill. The bill was
opposed to principle, and perpetrated a breach of public
faith.
Mr. CONINGHAM regretted the bill did not go fur-
ther, and throw the bridge open altogether.
The house then went into committee.

On clause 3,
Sir J. SHELLEY proposed in line 14, after " the" leave
out down to "aforesaid" inclusive, and insert "passing of
this act." The effect of the amendment was to declare, that
after the passing of this act tolls would no longer be levi-
able on foot passengers crossing Chelsea-bridge. There was
not tho slightest doubt that the remission of the tolls would
enormously enhance the value of the Government land in the
vicinity. 31(1,0001. had been expended in the formation of a
park at Battearsea, but no sooner was the park formed than
a toll was placed on the brid4e conducting to it, which
amounted to a practical exclusion of the working classes
from the park.
After a few words from Mr. O'BRIEN in opposition to
the motion,
Mr. B. STANHOPE objected to the motion, and said
that if the proposal of the hon. baronet were acceded to,
the necessary consequence would be that the House of
Commons would never again be got to authorise an ad-
vance of public money for local purposes.
Lord J. MANNERS said that if he could have come to
the conclusion that the abolition of the tolls on Chelsea
Bridge violated no breach of public faith, no one would be
more ready than he was to consent to their abolition.
However, Parliament in its wisdom having laid down cer-
tain conditions when the money for the formation of the
bridge was advanced, ho must roluetantly vote against tho
motion of his hon. fiend. Argument on the question there
could be none, as he believed it was beyond dispute that
the imposition of the toll on the bridge precluded the
poorest class of the community from taking advantage of
Battersea-park.
Mr. CONINGHAM and Mr. WILLIAMS supported
the amendment.
Mr. J. LOCKE contended that the principle laid down
by the First Commissioner of Works was the most extra-
ordinary he had ever heard. They might depend upon it
that no one would offer a shilling advance for land near
Battersea-park unless that toll were removed off the bridge.
The question at issue, therefore, was as interesting to the
public at large as to the community in the neighbourhood
of Battersea-park.
The committee divided—
For the amendment 4l
Against it 113
illy jori ty.
Mr. B. STANHOPE, in page 3 line 9, proposed an
amendment, the end of which would be to require the
repayment of the interest due on the loan advanced by

• -
Govern tnent for the formation of the bridge and the ap-
proaches thereto.

Lon' J. MANNERS opposed the amendment.
Mr. COLLINS and Mr. BENTINCK supported it.
The committee divided--
For the amendment
Aga,instit
Majority .•
Major SIBTHORP then proposed an amendment, the
effect of which was that no tolls shall be levied on foot
passengers crossing the bridge on Sundays.
Lord J. MANNERS would consent to the adoption of
that amendment. (Cheers•) But he must remind the
house that the consequence of its adoption would be to

.. 45
116

BIRTHS.
BROOKE—On the 15th inst., at 2, Oak Villas, Hanger
lane, Stamford-hill, the wife of Thomas Brooke, Esck°
of a son.
Cool►—On the 14th inst., at 10, Princes-street, Hanover'
square, Mrs. Geo H. Cook, of a son.
LESLIE—On the 15th inst., at Little Hothfield, the Wife'
of Captain Leslie, of a son and heir.
WYATT—On the 15th inst., at 69, Oxford-terrace, gill
Arthur HarveylWyatt, of a daughter.