The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-28 00:00:00

ST. PANCRAS PAVING BILL.

Sir S. WHALLEY moved the second reading of the St.
Pancras Paving Bill.
Lord STORMONT opposed the second reading of the
Bill, on the ground that it was intended to amalga-
mate the several district Boards of the parish into one
Board, and thereby to saddle the exorbitant debts of some of
the districts upon the rest. The parish was divided into nine-
teen districts, but so much opposition was anticipated from
two of them, that the promoters of the Bill had thought proper
to omit them. The Noble Lord spoke in so low a tone of
voice that only a few words could be heard in the reporters'
gallery. He concluded by moving that the Bill be read a
second time this day six months.
Mr. TOOKE, having opposed the Bill during the last
session, now saw no reason to alter his opinion. The
public would gain nothing from the proposed change, for the
power of the Committees would fall into the hands of the
vestry, very few of whom attended. He had presented several
petitions from inhabitants, and more had been presented
from bond-holders, who were of opinion that their claims
would be prejudiced, by having a fluctuating body like the
Vestry substituted for the respectable trustees. He therefore,
with pleasure, seconded the motion of the Noble Lord.
Mr. HUME would ask whether it was fit that 17 Boards
should exist, with 500 members, while the parish had a re-
spectable vestry of 100 individuals elected by open poll ? It
would give a greater security to the bondholders than they had
now. He trusted the House would let the Bill pass the
second reading, and in the Committee every disposition would
be shown to afford the best security to every individual.
Mr. WILK S said that, though at the risk of the censure
of his Hon. Friend, he was prepared to give a vote against
the Bill, as he had done before, and he trusted that the
House would, as they had done before, sanction his vote by
throwing out the Bill. Parliament had no right to abolish
the security of any individual who had lent his money upon
the full security of the rates, bridges, &c. which they now had.
Sir S. WHALLEY said, that by the Bill the vestry were
enjoined to raise a particular rate for the payment of the inte-
rest and capital of the debt, so that the House would see at
once that the security was not in the least impaired. The last
Bill was thrown out because it was opposed by the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel), who said, " except the Foundling
Estates, and I will vote for the second reading." They had now
excepted those estates, not to him only, but in justice to the
case, for they were situated in two different parishes.
Sir R. INGLIS said the case was not one of party politics
at all, and he trusted that the day would never come when
local bills would be so decided.—( Cheers.) Though St.
Pancras was called a parish, it was not to be confounded
with those small parishes common in other parts. It
covered a very large extent of ground, and contained both
town and country parts then was it fair that those
country parts should be under the same regulation as the
town ones? He trusted the Bill would be thrown out by as
large a majority as had taken that course last year.
Mr. F. MA ULE hoped the Bill would pass. He would
vote for the second reading, on account of his abhorrence of
any public business being done by self-elected bodies.
Mr. BYNG would vote for the second reading, as he
thought it would be much to the advantage of the parish, by
abolishing a great number of useless Boards.
Mr. H. BULWER rose amidst loud cries of " Divide,
divide." He said he would support the second reading of the
Bill, and he was sure if the Right Hon. Baronet, Sir R. Peel,
had been in his place, he would have had his support.
Lord STORMONT made some remarks across the table.

Mr. BU L WE R did not know whether the Noble Lord meant
to say that he did not believe the assertion made by him, ( Mr. B. )
( No, from Lord Stormont.) He had the authority of the
Mirror of Parliament for saying, that if the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet were present, he would support the present Bill, as it had
not now the clause to which he objected.
Lord STORMONT explained that all he meant to say
was, that had the Right Hon. Baronet been present, he (Lord
Stormont) did not believe he would support the Bill.
Sir S. WHALLEY said, when he spoke to the Right
Hon. Baronet, he then said he would support the Bill in its
present shape.
After a few words from Lord EASTNOR and Colonel EVANS,
the Gallery was cleared for a division.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when the numbers were—
For the second reading
For the amendment ll5

Majority against the Bill 2
Mr. E. S. RUTHVEN brought up the report of the Corn•
Itittee on the Dublin Oil Gas Company Bill.

CAALO.:;' C,;-::\ FT.T%OTION.

Mr. STEWART MAJORIBANKS, as cf thr
Carlow Election Committee, reported to the House that the
Committee had decided that Messrs. Kavenagh and Bruen
were not duly elected—that the election was null and void,
and that neither the petition nor the opposition to it was
frivolous or vexatious.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that the House at its
rising do adjourn to Monday next.---Carried.
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN, as an individual, would enter his
protest against the House adjourning for two days at that ad-
vanced period of the session, and when so much business was
to be done.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. O'CONNELL having given notice of his intention to
bring. a question of breach of privilege before the House, and
it being necessary to have a witness to prove the fact at
the bar of the House, he bad since ascertained that the
witness was not in town, and he would therefore beg to with-
draw it, and now gave notice of his intention to bring it for-
ward on Wednesday next.
Mr. TOOKE begged to ask the Hon. and Learned Gen.
tlernan °yip os it e (Sergeant Goulburn), who was the Chair-
.

man of the Commissioners, what amount of compensation the
clerks of the Exchequer were to receive for certain loss of
fees they incurred ?
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN said a great mistake had been
published in a widely circulated newspaper, respecting this
compensation. It was said it amounted to 30,0001., whereas
it only was 10,0001.
In reply to a question from some Hon. Member,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that on Monday next he
would bring forward his measure for Municipal Reform.
When he had not a seat in the House he was informed by his
Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that
he had agreed to fix Monday next for the consideration of the
Hon. Member's (Mr. Cayley's) motion relative to the cur-
rency. He (Lord John Russell) hoped his Hon. Friend
would select some other day for bringing forward his motion.
Mr. CAYL E Y could not comply with the request.—
( Cries of " Oh, oh.") He had already given way twice ;
and although he was aware of the great importance
of Municipal Reform, yet when he considered the
great distress of agriculturists, which he thought a revision
of the currency would remedy, he could not consent to post-
pone his motion.
Mr. HUM E hoped, notwithstanding, that the Noble Lord
would bring forward his Bill, and have it printed.
Mr. O'BRIEN asked the Noble Lord the Secretary for
Ireland whether he intended to bring in any Bill to amend that
part of the Irish Reform Bill, which related to the registra•
tion of votes?

Lord MOR PET II replied in the negative.
Mr. O'CONNELL had given notice that he would bring
forward a measure to that effect, and he would do so if the At-
torney-General for Ireland would not do so.
In reply to a question from an Hos. MEMBER,
Lord MORPETH said the return of the Commissioners for
Municipal Enquiry would be laid on the table in a few days,
and then he would give an answer.
Mr. SHAW asked the Noble Lord when he would lay his
Bill for Irish Municipal Reform on the table ?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that he would bring it forward
when the Attorney-General for Ireland arrived.