The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-31 00:00:00

Fultnouth Water.voas.

Inverness Harbour and Navigation.
Inverness Municipal and Police, &c.
Rathmines Improvement.
Tuustall Paving, Lighting, Cleansing, Watching, Im-
provement, and Market.
SHIPLEY GAS BILL.

Mr. GREENE wished to call theltention of the
House to a special report from the Committee on the
Shipley Gas Bill, showing a direct variance, on the part
of the Committee, from the report of the surveying
officers appointed under the Act 9 and 10 Vie., c. 106, to
make the preliminary inquiries, and moved that the Bill
be re-committed.

After a few words from Mr. H. BERKELEY,
Mr. HUME moved that the Bill should be referred to
a Select Committee up stairs.
After a few words from Mr. Brotherton, Sir W. Clay,
Dr. Bowring, and Mr. Aglionby,
Mr. CARIM ELL said, that as a Member of the
Private Bills Committee, he wished to say one word,
and he did not wonder that the Hon. Baronet with whom
he had served was anxious that the proceedings of the
Committee should not be judged by the present case.
The circumstances were these : there was a large
district which required ligliing by gas, and it
was desirable by every means to save expense,
and with the furtherance of that object the
Commissioners had sent down surveying officers to see
what really the state of the case was. Their repert was
in every respect favourable to the object of the petitioners,
but it was stated that the population of the district were
quite unable to bear any heavy expenses ; and with a
view to save the outlay, the Committee had agreed to
avoid any of those preliminary expenses which are so
frequently made the grand difficulty in obtaining an
Act of Parliament. Notwithstanding all this endeavour
the Lion. Member for Cockermouth wished the Bill to
be treated as an opposed Bill, and this was the way in
which the expense was to be saved. He sincerely trusted
that the Hon. Member for Lancaster would oppose such
a course with all his might. He had only to say that be
had personally no interest whatever in the district ; but
he could not but observe that he was now not at all sur-
prised at the way in which the able reports on railways
had been treated when they had been made by the Board
of Trude.

Mr. STRUTT said it was extremely unfair to judge of
the utility of those local inquiries by one instance. He
should give his support to the original motion, but at the
,ame time he did not wish to cast the slightest slur
whatever upon the report of the local officers.
After a few words from Mr. GREENE,

Mr. HUME thought if the local surveyors had been
called it would have been satisfactory. But as it was
not to be drawn into precedent, he would withdraw his
amendment.

The motion was then agreed to.
SUTTON HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT.

Mr. STRUTT moved that the Sutton Harbour Im-
provement Bill bo referred to the Commissioners of
iilways, and that the said Bill be not considered in
Committee until the Commissioners shall hava reported
upon the Bills promoted by the London and South-
Western Railway Company, in cohformity with the
rei,ilutions of this House oo the 23d day of February.
Agreed to.
DUBLIN IMPROVE \LENT BILL.

O:+ the motion for the second resting of this Bill,
Mr. GREGORY begged Mr. Smith O'Brien to post-
pone the second rea.:ing till after Esstwr, in consequence
•.f the absence of certain returns which he had moved
for rela•i•e to the Bid, and he mowed accordingly.
Mr. GROGAN setionded the motion.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN had n 4. objection to the post
ponetnent of the Bill if the Government considered such
a course advisable.

Mr. I). BROWNE o?posed the postponement. There
had been no reason given to justify it. The corporation
or Dublin, who were the promoters of the measure, re-
presented a constituency of 200,000 persons, and they
were very desirous to have it carried into effect. He
thought, therefore, it would be a great injustice to them
If it were postponed, and would lead to the
belief, already strongly impressed on them, that
if it were postponed, and would lead to the
belief, already strongly impressed on them, that
Lhere was one law for Ireland, and another for this
c,untry.

Mr. 'HERBERT was in favour of postponement, that
thy might have an opportunity of reading the evi-
dence, so as to enable them to come to a
proper conclusion on the merits of the Bill.

NIT. LABOUCHERE said he should not have inter.
posed to prevent the Hon. Gentleman from pursuing
the course he had thought proper to adopt, but he (Mr.
Labouchere) must say that he still adhered to his
opinions on the subject, and ho was prepared to give
his assent to the principle of the Bill. He conceived
the principle involved in the Bill was, whether or no
the city of Dublin, the second city of the United King-
dom, should have municipal privileges equal to the cities
in this country, and to which they were so justly entitled.
There were some of the positions put forward by the
corporation of Dublin to which he could not assent,
but he was told that they were ready to withdraw
what was objectionable. He would take this opportunity
of stating that he held in This hand a petition,
signed most numerously by the inhabitants of Dublin,
in favour of this Bill. He was prepared to proceed in
that course which had for its object the improvement of
the municipal condition of the Corporation of Dublin.
The Earl of LINCOLN said that the Bill stood at
present before the House in this position. At the sug-
gestion of the Honourable Gentleman the Member for
Montrose, the Noble Lord at the head of the Woods
and Forests commissioned two gentlemen to investigate
this subject, and they, after a careful examination into
every point, reported most strongly against the Bill.
Now, surely this was a prima facie case against the Bill.
His Hon. Friend did not call upon them to reject this
Bill, but he said they ought to ascertain the facts that had
influenced those gentlemen in coming to a decision before
they came to a decision in favour of this Bill. He
thought that they should ascertain what the circum-
stances. had been that had influenced the promoters.
Now, he should like to see the evidence before he
would say that the report was borne out. If the
Right Honourable Geutleman had carefully considered
the subject he would be aware that these powers were,
in a great majority of instances, not vested in the muni-
cipal corporation. Until very lately in Liverpool the
powers for paving and lighting were not vested in the
municipal corporation. It was a monstrous proposal
to say, after persons had been appointed under the Act
to make a legislative investigation of this subject, for
the express purpose of saving expense to all parties,
that they should not have time to hear any further evi-
dence upon the subject. He should therefore support
the motion for the postponement.
Lord NIORPETH did not wish to extend the dis-
cussion, and he rose to suggest, as the evidence was not
yet printed, that the further consideration of the Bill be
postponed till after Easter. At the same time, he might
remark, that if the second reading was now agreed. to,
it would not be against tee usual course .adopted in
reference to private.l3ills, even when it was necessary
that the evidence should be printed.
Mr. HUME thought it was desirable to postpone the
second reading of the Bill. He would certainly advise
that until the evidence was printed and placed in the
hands of Members of the House.

Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL hoped that the suggestion
for the postponement would be agreed to.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said. as the House appeared to be in
favour of the postponement of the Bill, he would nut
press the second reading at present.

The measure was accordingly postponed till after
Easter

CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY (N.. 2)
(EXTENSION AT CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD)
BILL.
On the motion that this Bill be read a second time,
A short discussion ensued, in which Lord Sandon,
Mr. W. O. Stanley, and Mr. R. Collett, took part,
The Bill was read a second time.
STEAM COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LONDON