Star.
London, England, 1825-03-16 00:00:00

{~~.

.•.

wee 688,0001. fora granite terrace the whole length ofi'
the River, and persons were ready to contract for the.
work at that.sum..He had thought that if a plain un-
adorned teri*e could be made for 408,0001. the House'
could not scruple to make the sum up to what would
produce an highly ornamental one. He had at first
been Inclined to stop at Waterloo-bridge, but found it necessary to
go on to make the work advantageous. If any injury would be
done, compensation would be made to the peasant as well as the
Duke. He hoped he would be allowed to bring in the Bill. He
had hoped that Petitions would have been presented in favour of
and not against the Bill.
Mr. CROKER said, that the measure took the ap-
pearance alternately of a public and a private Bill ; a
proceeding altogether anomalous. When the Hon.
Gentleman appealed to the candour of the House, the
proprietors on the banks .had at least an equal claim.
A friend of his had a small property (4001. a year) and
since the present plan had been talked of, he had re-
ceived notice from his tenants to quit. The banks of
the River were in their present state from the nature of
commerce. Great doubts were felt as to the consequences
of the removal of London Bridge, where at low water the depth
was five feet, nearly the depth opposite to Somerset-house. Great
changes must take place in the bed of the river, and be would put it
to the House, if they would venture to make any change, till the
effect of the removal of the bridge should be known? He was not
ultimately opposing the Bill, but wished the House to pause for
the present.
Sir J. YORKE knew not how his Hon. Friend would
cross Waterloo-bridge, or get to Somerset-house. The plan would

not be palatable even to the foot-passengers.
• Mr. A. ELLIS thought the Hon: Member had not
been fairly dealt with, as there was no objection to tile principle
of the Bill.
Lord PALMERSTON said, the question was, if the
general proposition should be entertained, while
Abe objections were made to details not then, before
the House? The Chair had decided that the Bill
could only be introduced as a private one.— The
plan appeared to him alike conducive to orna-
ment and utility. He could not see how the removal of Lon-
don Bridge could be any objection to the Quay. There was at pre-
sent no proper communication between the two ends of the town,
which, in some places, was attended with actual danger. Ile trusted
tbe measure would, at least, have due consideration.
Sir R. WILSON should support the measure, but
could give no pledge as to the details. Should the measure prove
Injurious to private property; he should oppose it.
Mr. Secretary PEEL thought that the time had not
yet arrived when a scheme of. such extent as that con-
templated .by the Bill, could be advantageously at-
tempted. Considering the importance of the proposed
measure, as regarded the navigation, he thought it
much better to postpone the consideration of the Pro-
jected plan, until the removal of London bridge should
be executed. Really, the state of the river was of very
great importance. He (Mr. Peel) had seen a man
standing under the fifth arch of Waterloo bridge upon
dry ground. It seemed to him that the water had a
tendency to recede on the Southwark side. Gentlemen
said, that strangers always asked where was our river?
but they might indeed ask this question, when an enor-
mous quay of thirty feet high was built, blocking up
the view. As to the facility of communication, considering the
exposure of the new quay to the sharp south wind, and that there
shall be two turnpikes on the line, he (Mr. Peel) doubted very
much whether any individual would take advantage of the new com-
munication. Ile wished the Honourable and gallant Gentleman
would take up some other project, useful or ornamental, for four
or five years, and then he might conic down and ask for a discus-
sion upon the project now before the House.
Mr. BARING thought the plan was one of absolute
necessity for the common conveniences of life. The plan
would be highly advantageous in the way of establishing markets,
and the increased rapidity of the current would scour away the
mud, and add to the health of the inhabitants units banks.
The House divided on the question.
In favour of bringing in the Bill 85
Against it . 45--40 Majority.
MISCELLANEOUS. .
The Imperial 'Mining Company (Ireland) Dill Wits•bcoughtin
Mr. il. Suaw, and read the first rime.
General G ASCOY VF, presented a Petition from the Mayor, &c.
of Liverpool, against the Manchester Rail Road BIM
The Alliance Marine Insurance Company's Bill was read the
thlid time and passed.
. Alderman BR! OGES presented a Petition from the London
Coal Gas Company, against the Oil Gas Company's Bill.
Mr. CA LCRA FT presented a Petition from the Duke of Nor-
folk. against the Thames Quay Bill.
• Mr. A BERCROMBY presented a Petition from the Chartered
Merchants of Edinburgh, against the Leith Dock Bill.
A Petition was presented from the London Duck Company,
against the South London Dock Bill.
'Dr. LUSH INGTON presented a Petition from .500 Mechanics
of Unwhouse, in favour of the Equitable Loan Bill.
Mr. V. FITZGERALD presented a Petition from the Magis-
trates of Clare, iu favour of Provincial Banks in Ireland.
Mr. S. RICE obtained leave to bring in a Bill fcr the establish-
ment of Provincial Banks in Ireland.
Mr. DAWSON presented a Petition from the Noblemen and
Gentlemen of Ireland, in favour of the same Bill ; also a Petition
from the Merchants of Ireland, for repealing all restrictions on
Commerce between every part of the United kingdom.
Mr. MACKENZIE: presented a Petition from Ross. in favour of
the Small Debts Act; also a Petition in favour of the Scotch Judi-
cature Bill.
Mr. H. DAVIS presented a Petition from the Parish of All
Saints, in Bristol, against the Assessed Taxes.
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE PETITION.

Lord PALMERSTON presented a Petition from the
University of Cambridge, against any feather conces-
sions to the Roman Catholics. The Petitioners felt
themselves strengthened in their anxiety on the subject
by the language lately employed by the Catholics, both
here and in other parts of Europe, in which, among
other things, they conceived was to be discovered a general distaste
for civil liberty.
Mr. BANKES, junior, lately warned the House
against believing that any change had taken place in
public opinion on the subject of the Catholic Claims
and from all he had since learnt, he must protest against
such a notion being well-founded. He should also take
the present opportunity to express his regret at the
manner in which, both in that House and elsewhere,
the Petitions of the Established Clergy, in opposition to
the Catholics, had been treated during this Session. All
other classes in the State had some of the body to re-
present them in the Commons but the Clergy, and he
was therefore particularly grieved to see these Petitions received
with sneers and scoffs from the opposite Benches.
Mr. HUME denied the charge preferred by the Ho-
nourable Member against his (Mr. Hume's) side of the
House. He and his friends certainly regretted that the
one class, which ought to be the most liberal, enlight-
ened, and charitable, should still persist in prejudices
which all others had cast off. He regretted to see the
Clergy a century behind the rest of the community ;
but he denied that he had said anything disrespectful of theist on
the occasions alluded to.
Mr. DICKENSON said, that the Petition to which
allusion had just been made was one of the most exem-
plary kind. It was conceived in the most respectful
language, and upon all accounts was entitled to respect
and consideration. Yet it had been received in a man-
ner which would have better suited a bear-garden than an assembly
like the Howe of Commons.
Sir ELIAB HARVEY observed upon.the sneer and
ridicule which generally marked the reception of any
Petition on this subject from the Established Church.
He sincerely believed the Members of that Church felt

**,