House Of Commons, Wednesd...
iLr. KEiiNEDY moved the third reading of the Glasgow and Portpatrick roadis bill. The SPEAKER explained to the house certaii amendments which he thlought ought to be inserted in the bill relative to the pow. ers vested its the coemissioners for raising money by means of Ex- chequer bills, for the purpose of carrying the objects of the bill into execution. The amendments were adopteda and after a few words from Lord A. HAMILTOi and lMr. D. GXtLsERT, the biUwasread a third time. Lord A. HAMILTON opposed the passing 6f the bill, on the ground that the inhabitants. of Glasgow, who were deeply interested in the measure, were unfivourable to it. After afew words from AMr. IONTEITI{ in favour of the bill, it vas passed. . ps. SOUTH LONDON DOCKS BILL. AIr. U1. SUAlINER moved that the adjourned debate on the quesion " that the minutes of evidence taken before the South London Docks committee be printed," be resumed. Mr. Alderman HEYGATB opposed the motion, on the ground that many members were absent who would attend but for an un. derstarding that the motion was not to come on to.day. He moved, as an anendment, that the futtherdiscussion of the question bc post- poned to the 10th of June. Mir. MIABERLY supported the motion for the production of the minutes. If such practices as he had seen carried on in this corn- mittee were to become general, it would be almost impossible to get a private bill through at all, as long as there were members who objected to its assing. Alr. S. BOtRNE supported the motion for printing the minutes. He thought that if any member complained of any vexatious delay in the committee,and called for the printing of the minutes, the mo- tion should be granted almost as a matter of coarse. Mr. H. SUAINER denied the haviug given it to be understood that the motion should not cone oR to-day. On the contrarY, be distinctly stated that he would not consent to its postponement. It was necessary that the printed minutes should be before the house, in order to let the steps which were taken to delay the bill be known. If sucb practices were allowed, the longest session would not be long enough to carry aprivate bill throttgh. Alr. F: PA1L ER said that the report of the committee had been by no means unanimously agreed to. The bill, as wevl as another, (the St. Catherine's..dock bill) had been introduced in violation of the standing orders of the libuse. It was not at all proper, in his opinien, to press bills of such importance hastily through the house. MVr. P. GRENFELL thought it impossible that such a motion as that before the houscould berefused. In theoppositon to it, he saw the same disposition to delay which was so strongly manifested in the committee above stairs; and which as he understood, was also evinced in another committee. ]ndeed, one honourable inern. ber, the worthy Alderman (Heygate), had, on the firstday lie came into the committee, most distinctly avowed his intention of op. posing the measure by every delay which the forms of such a tribu- nal as rivate committee allowed. TIhr. ISU.Mu NER bore testimony to the correctness of his hon. friend's statement. After a few words from Sir r,,t. D. CrESPIGNY and Sir E. HARVEY, Mlr. Alderman HEYGATE, in explanation, denied having made an avowal of delay, without qualification. HIe had stated, that if the bill were pressed with sucb extraordinary expedition, he would take corresponding steps to oppose it. Mlr. CALVERT iad understood the worthy alderman to have qualified his avowal of delaying the bill. After a few words from Alderman WOOD, the question was put, and the amendment negatived. On the original nqestion being put- Mr. Alderman HEYGATE opposed it. He condemned the re. port, as being unfounded in some parts, and partial and unfair in others. It was true, that if the minutes of evidence were printed, what was done on both sides would appear; but the whole of one case, on one side had been gone into, and only a small part of the other. The publication of this almost ex parte statement would be calculated to excite a prejudice aainst the other side before the next session. With respect to the bi itself. he had not opposed any delay to it which was not callcd for by the extraordinary haste with which the measure was attempted to be carried through. When the house censidered that by this bill not fewer than 500 hou.ses would be puled down, and 5,000 inhabitants turnedoout, some ofthem exposed to ruin without any compensation for their losses, thev would, he was sure, think that a measure of such importance shoufd not be passed withQut the niost minute examination. At present he wvould withdraw his opposition to the printing of the minutes, in order that it mnightbe said that the charges made against those who opposed the bill were unfounded. After a few words from Mr. C. PELHIAM, htr. CURTTEIS, Mr. MABERLY, Sir E. HtARVEY, and Sir XWr. DE CtESPIGXY, the motion was o,greed to, and the minutes ordered to be printed. CTY XIONDS lXTEsREST REDUCTION BiLL. MlAr. Alderman WFOO]) moved the third reading of this bill. M{r. Alderman C. SMITHE opposed it. After a few wvords from Mr. H. SuJMNER, and a Alember whose name we did not hear, the house divided, when the numbers were, For the bill, 251 Against it, 61 Total, 31; Which not being a sufficient number of members to make a housc, it adjourzed as a matter of course. [ etus unexpected adjournment was a source of very considerable disappointment to vast numbers whio attended in the gallery to hear the ontinuationofthe debate on Ar. Brougham's motion, which now will stand as a dropped order" for to-morrov. Such an ab- rupt termination to the proceedings of the evening cotld not have been anticpated a few minutes before it occurred, as there were, at that time, nearly a hundred members in the house. It was stated as one cause oft he sudden disappearance of so many members, that lMr. Graham's balloon was just then visible from the rwindovs, and that several having gone out to see it, were thereby shut out from the division.] HOUSE OF COMINIONS. WEDNESDAY. JUTNE 2.