The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-15 00:00:00

TETTENHALL AND ATCIiERLEY CANAL.

Mr. HAWKE S moved the second reading of the Tetten hall
and Atcherley Canal Bill.
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY did not rise for the purpose
of taking the sense of the House against the second reading
of the Bill, as he thought the objections which might be
brought against it would be best stated in the Committee.
He was, as he had already said, a shareholder in both the
canals ; and he could state to the House that the Staffordshire
and Worcestershire Canal had reduced their tonnage from
two shillings to one shilling. He had been the instigator of
that measure, and he did not think in honour that any Bill
could be brought forward for the purpose of lowering that
compensation. All he asked was that the Bill should go into
Committee, when these facts could be stated, and then
when the Bill came for a third reading, he was satisfied he
would have laid sufficient grounds for the House to reject it.
Mr. ORMSBY GORE said the present Bill would be a
very serious advantage to the great iron manufacturing and
mining districts in that part of the country who were at pre-
sent subjected to a heavy tax. Independently of this, the canal
would be a means of shortening the distance considerably, and
he believed the opposition to it was nothing more than
monopoly against the interests of the public.
The Bill was then read a second time.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented v. petition from
the provost, magistrates, and town.council of Edinburgh
against the Trinity Harbour Bill.
Mr. PARKER presented a petition from Sheffield against
the Sheffield and Rotherham Railway Bill.
Mr. DENNISON presented a petition from Dorking in
favour of Stevenson's line of railway, and praying the House
not to pass the Bill for Sir Joins Rennie's line.

IRWELL NAVIGATION.
Lord F. EGERTON presented a petition from the Trus-
tees of Ihe Duke of Bridgewater against the Irwell Naviga-
tion Bill, praying to be heard by counsel against it. He would
take that opportunity of confirming every statement made in
the petition, and of complaining that he was compelled to pre-
sent the petition in consequence of one which had been pre-
sented two days ago by his Honourable Friend the Member
for Bradford.—(Hear, hear.) It was rather unusual to have
petitions presented to that House affecting any Member of it,
without giving him notice of the intention. He did not blame
his Hon. Friend, but he believed there would scarcely be found
another attorney in England than the one engaged in this
transaction, who would put a number of petitions in the
hands of an Hon. Member, without stating to him what their-
contents were, especially when they were of so peculiar a
nature. He hoped the present petition would be referred UP
the same Committee as the other, where they would be con-
sidered.

Mr. HARDY said that some short time since he had been
requested by a solicitor he knew, when he went the Northern
Circuit, to present four petitions in favour of the Bill, and
agreeably to that request he bad presented the petitions.
When he did so he was not at all aware that the Bill eit'aer
affected the Noble Lord or the other Noble Personage who
had petitioned.

The petition was ordered to be referred to the Committee.
MANCHESTER AND CHESTER RAILWAY-
Lord F. EGERTON presented a petition against the IMl'an•
chester and Chester Junction Railway Bill.
BRIDLINGTON PIER BILL.
Mr. BETHEL moved the second reading of jlis
The Bill was not one of those schemes of which so many had
lately been submitted to Parliament ; it was Inerely an ap-
plication to renew a Bill which Parliament bad granted front
the time of William 111.

Sir E. CODRINGITON supported the Bill. It should
be known that for one vessel lost in consequence of a southerly
wind, there were ten from the effects of a northerly one.
Mr. HARLAND moved that the Bill be read a second time
this day six months.
Mr. PEA SE opposed the Bill.
Mr. LABOUCHERE and Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported the
amendment.

Mr. CHAPMAN thought there was no man of common
humanity who would oppose the Bill.
Mr. R. TREVOR supported the amendment.
Mr. B. THONISON felt called upon to support
the second reading of the Bill, considering that the
people of Bridlington had a claim upon the House for the
protection of their lives and property.
Sir GEORGE STRICKL AND supported the second
reading of the Bill, being perfectly convinced, if the harbour
was not kept up, many human lives would be lost.
Mr. P. THOMSON thought this was one of a class of
private Bills which subject the country to taxation. H°
should give it his opposition. It was not the mode in which
the subject should be brought before Parliament. In his
opinion the subject ought to be brought forward as a public

After a few observations from Colonel SIBTHORP,
strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when the numbers were—.
For the second reading •83
Against it
Majority against the Second Reading-23
DORCHESTER LABOURERS.

In reply to a question from Mr. WAKLEY,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that his Majesty had granted a
free pardon to all.the Dorchester convicts.—(Cheers.)
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know from his Majesty's
Attorney-General what course it was intended to pursue with
respect to a measure which had been very unequivocally ap-
proved of by that House—ho meant the Imprisonment fur
Debt Bill ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was authorised to
state that a measure of the same nature as that which had al-
ready received the sanction of that House would very shortly
be introduced into the House of Lords, and after the decided
opinion expressed in the House of Commons this arrangement
would, in all probability, be the most likely to facilitate its
ul-
timate success.—( Hear, hear.)