The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-13 00:00:00

THE PILOTAGE BILL.

Earl RADNOR, after referringto a petition signed by 180
individuals, praying for some alteration in the law relative to
pilotage, said that in presenting that petition he understood the
Noble Duke opposite (Wellington) to say that he would do
everything in his power to effect the object applied for, which
he also understood he said he could do by virtue of his office as
Warden of the Cinque Ports without a fresh Act of Parlia-
liament. He understood further, that it was the intention of
his Majesty's Government to issue a Commission for inquiring
into this subject ; and he begged to ask the Noble Duke, if
that Commission would terminate its labours early enough to
furnish a report, to enable the House to legislate upon the
the question during the present session ?
The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Noble Earl
was mistaken, in supposing he had said that he
could carry into execution the clauses of the Bill to
which he referred. Ho had no power to force the pilots to
reside at any fixed spot upon the coast, for as soon
a 3 they were furnished with their warrants, they wero
compelled to go afloat and cruise upon the coast off
Dungenness. With reference to the Commission, he re-
plied that he believed the report would be furnished in suf-
ficient time to enable the House to regulate this measure
during the present Session.
ABOLITION OF OATHS BILL.

Upon the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND this Bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday
next.

The Duke of GORDON presented several petitions from
Inverness and other places in Scotland in support of the Esta-
blished Church of that country.
Earl FITZWILLIAM presented petitions from the ope-
ratives and master manufacturers of Pudsey, in Yorkshire,
praying for an alteration in the Factory Bill.
Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from the hand-
loom 'weavers of some parish in Scotland praying for relief.
The DUKE OF RICHMOND presented a Petition from
the County of Kent for the Repeal of the Malt Tax. Also a
petition from the same County against the present Tithe Sys-
tem.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock.
On the motion of Mr. EMMERSON TENNENT, the Belfast
and Crumlin Road Bill was read a second time.
Mr. RUTH YEN brought in a Bill to enlarge and extend
the powers of the Dublin Oil Gas Company.
This being the last day for receiving petitions for private
Bills, a great number were presented to the House.
Mr. HODGES presented petitions from various places in
the county of Kent, in favour of the Dover Railway.
NORTHFLEET PIER.

Mr. HODGES moved the second reading of the Northfleei
Pier Bill.

Sir W. GEARY, as we understood, opposed it, but from
the noise in the House, we were unable to catch any of his
observations.

Mr. WARBURTON thought the Hon. Baronet opposite
had furnished no just argument why they should not proceed
with the second reading of this Bill. It was customary to
send such Bills into Committee, and indeed Committees were
established for the very purpose of enquiring into all the cir-
cumstances connected with private bills. The Hon. Member
said it was the enterprise of an individual, and why should it
not be so ? In proportion as he was successful in the enter-
prise the public would be benefited. Let any man doubting the
advantage of such a bill look to the improvements on the Clyde,
and observe the towns and villages rising up there, and then
let him say whether he would do any public service by oppos-
ing this bill.
Mr. WINKS said the arguments urged by the Hon.
Member for Kent tended rather to recommend this bill to the
adoption of the House, than to, induce it to refuse the second
reading. It was said that the erection of this pier at North-
fleet would interfere with Gravesend, but the question was
not one of partiality, but one of public convenience.
Mr. HODGE S hoped the House would agree to the
second reading for the purpose of sending the bill into Com-
mittee.)
Sir W. GE ARY withdrew his opposition, and the Bill was
read a second time.

----111VNCHESTER AND BURY RAILWAY.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from the Manches-
ter, Bolton, and Bury Railway Company, praying for a grant
to enable them to extend the railway (as we understood it)
31 miles further, at right angles from the railway they were
originally appointed to construct. He moved for leave to
bring in a bill for that purpose.
Mr. LITTLETON begged to apologize to the House for
being obliged to trespass on its attention on the introduction
of a private bill, but he had to discharge a public duty. The
petition was from the Manchester, Bolton, and Bury Railway
Company, and prayed for power to make an additional railway.
The Company had not complied with the standing orders of
the House, a compliance with which was the only security the
public had against any imposition on the part of the
Bury Canal Company. In the year 1831, several par-
ties obtained a majority to petition for a Bill enabling them to
convert the Canal into a Railway. He (Mr. L.) did not
mean to say that they were guilty of any impropriety in ob-
taining that power. They have, however, been so rash in their
speculations, that he did not think it safe to intrust them with
the additional grant they sought for, especially as the Com-
pany had offered no security ; and the best proof that they
cannot undertake this project with any hopes of success
is this—that they arc unable to finish the thirteen miles
of the railway they first engaged to complete.—( Hear, heaT.)
He was sure that in making this application he was not asking
anything unreasonable. This perhaps was not a moment when
the standing orders should be enquired into, but the present
was a case of such a nature that he thought he was not tres-
passing on the House in calling their attention to it. The
measure was so unusual, so extraordinary, and so prejudicial
to the public interest, that he felt it his duty to resist it.
Mr. W. PATTEN said he had applied for information on '
the subject, and when the proper time came he hoped to be
able to answer the objections that had been raade.
The SPEAKER was understood to say, that the proper
way would be to refer the petition to the Committee, to in-
quire whether the standing orders of the House had been com-
plied with, and then the question would come in a more regu-
lar shape before the House.
Lord MORPETH said that the question was, whether a
Company incorporated for one purpose could apply for leave to
bring in a Bill for a purpose entirely distinct from the original
one. The company was incorporated for the construction of a rail-
way thirteen miles long, and the present petition was for leave
to add to the railway another thirty-one miles, being to ano-
ther place twice the distance, and involving an expenditure of
three times the amount. If a corporate body applied for a
purpose in which they could not legally act, they ought not to
be allowed to usurp a right that did not belong to them.
Mr. WILK S thought it better that the petition should be
referred in the usual way to the Local Committee. Unless
there was something requiring the interposition of the Com-
mittee upon standing orders they should not interfere.
After some observations from Mr. WILSON PATTEN and Sir
JOHN WROTTESLEY, the petition was ordered to lie on the
table.

Mr. HALL presented several petitions from different parts
of Monmouth, in favour of the Newport Harbour Bill.
Mr. HUME brought up the report on the Chelsea Water
Works Bill.
Mr. D. JACKSON presented a petition from Bandon,
praying the House would take into consideration some mea-
sure for the protection of the Church of Ireland and its
clergy, and complaining of the course that bad been pursued
with respect to the Irish Church.

POOR LAWS.
The Marquis of CIIANDOg, in presenting a petition from
the inhabitants of the town of Stoke Pogis, said it was a pe-
tition of great importance, aff"::.eting the late Act of Parlia-
ment in its operation on the
poor of the parish. In this parish
the inhabitants had alw-
poor, and they aerefe
liccted most loudly to the provisions
dot-11)1%3110d them to
of an Act which c- ire o , unite themselves with 1i.3
s heen able to maintain their own