The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-13 00:00:00

WATERWORKS' AND SEWERS' BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. REYNOLDS observed that he still entertained
the same objections to the second reading of the Bill
which he had before urged on the House on the motion
for leave to bring it in. The Bill was an attempt to
perpetuate a most unprincipled job. It was an attempt
on the part of an attorney, the sole promoter of the Bill,
to obtain, under the sanction of an Act of Parliament,
payment of a large and unjust bill of costs. He considered
the measure a most iniquitous proceeding against his
constituents, and he should give:its second reading his
most determined opposition, and concluded by moving
that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Sir J. Y. BULLER had understood that the Govern-
ment had made an arrangement on the subject, and
that in consequence the measures were to be with.
drawn. He wished to know from the Right Honoura-
ble Baronet the Secretary for Irelead whether such was
the fact.

Sir W. SOMERVILLE said, that be was sorry he
could not answer the question in the affirmative,
but ho was still in hopes that some arrangement might
be made. _

Sir J. Y. BULLER thcught that such being the
opinion of the Right Honourable Baronet the three
Bills should be postponed for two or three weeks to en-
able the Government to see if they could not effect some
arrangement on the subject.
Mr. GROGAN could have no objection to the adop-
tion of such a course, provided the Government would
agree to bring in a measure upon the subject.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE could not give any such as-
surance.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN hoped the three Bills would
be postponed for three weeks.
Mr. GROGAN denied that there was any job or
injustice contemplated by the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) All
that he asked the House to do was to refer the Bill to a
Committee to inquire into its merits, and if then it
were found to contain audacious or tyrannical clauses,
he, for one, should be quite ready to abandon them.
The LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN denounced the Bill
as being monstrous and impolitic, and declared that it
was the scheme of a speculating solicitor to obtain
costs.—(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. SIDNEY lIERI3ERT supported the second
reading, but he was quite ready to consent to the
abandoment of the Bill if Government were
prepared to take up the matter.—(Hear, hear.) He
feared, however, there was no probability of such a re-
sult, but if Governmet would give an assurance that they
were in earnest in promising to take up the object he
would willingly allow the second reading to be post-
poned.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said be did not like to give
any assurance on the part of the Government that they
would positively bring in a Bill on this subject, but the
Government were perfectly in earnest in their endea-
vours to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
He was not without hopes that a satisfactory result
would soon be arrive d at, and on those grounds he hoped
the Hon. Gentleman would postpone the second raiding
of the measure for the present.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but the
doors were opened. Again strangers were ordered to
withdraw, and again they were admitted without any
result.

Mr. REYNOLDS stated that though the majority
was not in favour of his proposttion, yet a large mi-
nority was in favour. He was not disposed to divide the
House on so small a point as an adjournment. He there-
fore wished to know if the Hon. Baronet had any ob-
jection to adjourn the second reading for a fortnight.

Sir J. Y. BULLER would not consent.
Mr. REYNOLDS then moved that the further pro-
gress of the Bill be postponed for a fortnight.
After some discussion the Rouse divided, when there
appeared—
For the motion ... 110
Against it ... 100
Majority ... —lO
The further progress of the Bill was then adjourned
for a fortnight.
_ _

DUBLIN CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
_ . .

On our re-admission into the gallery we found
Mr. RLYNOLDS consenting to the postponement of
the second reading of the Dublin Corporation Water-
works Bill and the Dublin Improvement Bill for a fort-
night. All he had to ask now was, to bespeak the favour-
able consideration of the House to those Bills when they
came under its ❑otice.
After a few words from Mr. NAPIER, the second
reading of the Bills was postponed, by consent, for a
fortnight.
EASTERN UNION AND EASTERN COUNTIES
RAILWAYS.

O❑ the motion that the Eastern Union and Eastern
Counties Railway Companies (amendments of Acts, and
power to lease, sell, or amalgamate to, or with the Eastern
Counties Railway Company) Bill be read a second time,

Mr. AGLION-BY m:weelan amendment, that the Bill
be read a second time that day six months. If there
were facts to be inquired into the House could ascer-
tain them by going before a Committee ; but if there
were no objectionable principles on the face of the Bill,
as he contended there were, then it was the duty of this
House to stop it in limine, and prevent its going before
a committee. The Bill was what was called an amal-
gamation Bill; but the more important part of it was
found after the preamble, and provided, among other
things, for dividing the old shares among the company.
For what purpose? %V hy,for re-issuingthem as new share?.
The effect of that arrangemeet,vhich was alluded to in
the third section was, to reduce the value of the shares
in the market. He then came to the fourth section.
By this clause of the Act it was declared that
no resolution should be taken which was not sanctioned
by a certain number of shareholders assembled
in public meeting. He was borne out in this statement
by the representations of the Hon. Member opposite,
for if they were to take that Hon. Member's assertions,
and give them credit, he would call their attention to
the terms of clause No. 4. It was all very well to say
that any majorityof the members of the company might
alter the bye-laws, but every one knew that it was easy to
overule the intentions of a minority. He might deal in the
some way with sections 6,7, and 8. He trusted, there-
fore, that the House would refuse its sanction to this
Bill, and moved that it be read this day six months.
A message was hero brought from the Lords.
Mr. COBBOLD, who spoke amidst great interruption,
trusted that the House would not listen for a moment
to what had dropped from the lion. Member, for no re-
presentations could have been more erroneous.
Mr. BROTHERTON objected to the second reading
of the Bill, but thought it should not be delayed for so
long a period as six months.
Mr. HUME trusted that his Hon. Friend, the Member
for Cockermouth would not persevere in his amendment
for delaying the Bill for six months. If he did so 1 e
would move as an amendment that the second reading
shou'd be postponed for a fortnight or a month.
Mr. AGLIONBY then withdrew his amendment.
Mr. HUME observed that he understood the CAD,.
pany could not meet legally within a month, and he
would, therefore, move as an amendment, that the second
reading of the Bill should be postponed for a month.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ll3
For the amendment 54
Majority —.79
The Bill was accordingly read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed.