WESTERN UNION CANAL BILL. (Hansard, 15 May 1820)

§ Mr. C. Dundas
moved the second reading of this bill.

§ Mr. Bright
seconded the motion, and contended that it must prove eminently advantageous to the trade and navigation of the Thames, as well as to those parts of the country through which the intended canal was to flow.

Mr. Smith
moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. Alderman Wood
remarked that the sheriffs of London were in waiting with a petition against it, and professed his own opinion that the undertaking could lead to no other end than a sacrifice of capital on the part of those who embarked in it.

Mr. Lyttleton
condemned the proposed measure, as a gross violation of private property.

Mr. Baring
thought generally, that such undertakings were productive of benefit to the country, and that they ought to be patronised. He could see no reason to prevent the House from considering the present measure.

Lord F. Osborn
was of opinion that the good expected from the projected undertaking was not sufficiently extensive to induce the House to interfere with private property.

§ Lord Nugent
was in favour of going into the committee. He did not think that the interests of the persons complaining would be materially affected by this bill; and such being the case, the House had a right to consider the public advantages that were likely to be derived from it.

Mr. Philips
was of opinion, that the arguments in favour of going into the committee greatly outweighed those that were adduced against that proceeding.

§ Mr. P. Moore
observed, that those who were favourable to this measure had given up the idea of making a cut to Eton; but still the canal would come within one mile of that college, and very great inconvenience would be the consequence of its approaching a place where a great number of young persons received their education. A very unpleasant intercourse, prejudicial to the morals and manners of the students, would be the result. The provost and fellows of Eton had also a wharf, which produced a considerable profit; and they were of opinion that the advantages which they derived from that wharf would be lost if the canal were formed.

Mr Alderman Heygate
said, that the public advantage, and not private interest 347 should be consulted in a case of this kind He thought the bill ought to go to a committee, where it would be properly examined, and rejected, if good grounds were not adduced for carrying it into effect It should also be recollected, that this project had been in agitation for upwards of thirty years.

Mr. Cripps
said, it had been stated that the city of London laid out large sums of money in improving the navigation of the Thames. If so, they had ex pended it to very little purpose; for goods were now six weeks, and even two months going down to that part of the; country where he resided. He would oppose a canal projected for mere speculative purposes, but he would support a measure which was likely to be so beneficial as the present.

Mr. Bennet
said, the city of London had not improvidently lavished their money in improving the navigation of the Thames. That part which was under their jurisdiction was very much improved.

Mr. Hart Davies
said, the projected canal would be a work of great public benefit. If they went into the committee, it would be found that the landholders were favourable to it.

Mr. Ascot
observed, that every person who traded between London and Bristol would be benefitted by the formation of the canal.