Star.
London, England, 1824-04-14 00:00:00

DUBLIN COAL BILL.

Mr. ELLIS moved the second seading of the Dublini
Coal Bill. He urged the importance of the Bill, to
prevent the Dealers from mulcting the Poor to an enor-
mous and unheard of extent.

Mr. GRATTAN said, that this Act was filled up with
summary powers, and severities of so monstrous a cha-
racter, that they would not be listened to in this coun-
try. This Bill was most obnoxious to Dublin ; and fie
should therefore take the sense of the House on the sub-
ject. He moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be
read a second time this day six months.
Mr. DAWSON supported the Bill, maintaining that
it was requisite to put an end to the enormous abuses
that now existed. Without it the poor would continue to
have no protection.—Sir H. PARNELL opposed the Bill.
Mr. PHILLIPS said, that according to what had
passed, it appeared that all the sellers of coals were
rogues, and all the buyers fools—(A lau,gh). The Bill
was more objectionable than the law as it existed. The
Bill was so objectionable that he hoped no House of
Commons would pass it.—Mr. CURWEN, Lord Low.
THER, and Sir R. SHAW, wished that the Bill might be
allowed to go to a Conimittee.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw.—The numbers were—

For the BM - - -
Against it - - -
Majority against it -
The Bill was accordingly lost.
HAMMERSMITH BRIDGE.

34
47
-13

Mr. H. SUMNER presented a Petition from Richmond, in
favour of the Hammersmith Bridge Bill.
Mr. WHITBREAD presented a Petition from Inhabitants of
Hammersmith in favour of such Bill.
Mr. BY NG presented a Petition from Kensington. also in favour
of such Ibll.

Mr. HYNG moved the second reading of the

Bridge Bill.
Mr. Serjeaat ONSLOW said, that this Bill was un-
necessary and uncalled for. It would interfere with
the rights of a private individual, who possessed Kew-
bridge; and the bridge at Hammersmith was not
wanted. He moved that it be read a second time this
day six months. _ _ _

Mr. HUME tiusted that the Bill would be allowed
to go to a Committee. If the rights of private indivi-
duals were attacked, they would be protected by the
Committee. As to the bridge, it would be a public ad-
vantage; and he therefore trusted that it would be read
a second time.

Mr. SYKES wished to say a word or two for the un-
fortunate proprietors of Fulham-bridge. They paid
15,0001. for the rights of the Ferry ; and they would be
entitled to compensation.
Lord LOWTHER was favourable to the Bill. The
toll at Kew was exorbitant.

Mr. DENISON observed, that the Proprietors of
Fulham-bridge (though they had only paid 9,0001.) were
entitled to compensation, and with a view of obtaining
it he was for going to the Committee. Besides, when
there was so much surplus capital, it could not be better
expended than in the improvement of the country, in-1
stead of sending it to Colombia and Goo knows where.
Sir F. OMMANNEY supported the Bill, and spoke
of the defective state of Fulham Bridge, through which
" horses' feet" occasionally went.
Mr. LOCKHART observed, that proprietors of other
bridges had been told that they should have no com-
pensation; but till some compensation was secured, he
should oppose the BiII.—Mr.CURTEIS was in favcur of
the Bill.

Sir J. YORKE said it was very heart-breaking that
the roads and bridges led to the encroachment on pri-
vate property, and he should, therefore, oppose the Bill.
Mr. BYNG spoke it, support of the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM observed, that the House ought
not to encourage wild speculations. The bridge was not
wanted. As that was the case, private property and
private interests ought to be considered. The bridge
would produce no profit; there were statements of the
profits of the other bridge, and it was found that they
did not produce even one farthing profit.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT trusted that the House would not
set its face against improvements. 'Was the House to
become Dr.y Nurse to the public? No, let the public
embark in favour of fair speculations.
Mr. H. SUMNER spoke in favour of the Bill. The
proprietors of the property on each side of the river
were in favour of the Bill.
Alderman WOOD observe 1, that the Southwark
Bridge had improved the property on both sides of it.
Mr. CROKER was surprised at Sir J. Yorke's oppo-
sition, he who had been the main promoter of Waterloo
Bridge—(Hear, hear)—in which he (Mr. C.) unfortu-
nately had some little share—(Hear, and laughter).
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place. The Bill was then read a second time, and or-
dered to a Committee above stairs.