The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-15 00:00:00

SHEFFIELD MARKETS BILL.

On the motion of an Hort. MEMBER, this Bill was
read a second time.
LEITH HARBOUR DOCKS DUES.
This Bill was also read a second time.
SHEFFIELD CANAL BILL _ _

- ------.---
Mr. PARKER moved the second reading of this Bill.
Lord MORPETH was of opinion that this Bill should
not be proceeded with any further. In the year 1815
the Sheffield Canal Company purchased the lands and
tenements of the river Dunn navigation, subject to the
expense of repairing the roads in the district- In
the year 1836 a similar Bill to the present was
introduced, which was negatived, on a division on
the second reading, by a majority of 36. The
Bill was afterwards thrown out in another session
by the recommendation of a Committee appointed to
inquire into the subject. He thought it was hard that
the townships should be called upon periodically to
oppose this Bill. He would, therefore, request the
House not to allow the Bill to pass through any further

stage.
Mr. PARKER said that clauses might be introduced
in Committee on the Bill for the protection of the town-
ships referred to by the Noble Lord.
Mr. B. DENISON said that there was a strong case
for refusing to read the Bill a second time. A railway
company had now purchased the canal company, with
all its responsibilities, and they now sought for a Com
mittee, in order to throw off themselves the obligations
they had entered into with their eyes open.
Mr. BROTHERTON thought there were ample
grounds for this Bill going into Committee.
Captain EGERTON said that he had been very
strongly canvassed to come down to the House to support
the second reading of the Bill, and a statement had been
put into his hand, a perusal of which had induced him
to come down and resolutely to oppose the further pro-
gress of this Bill.
Mr. S. IVOR I'LEY said, that in consequence of the
Learned Counsel who had chargo of the interests of the
promoters of the Bill, not having been able to attend
before the Committee, and the conduct of the case being
left to a junior, it was no wonder that the Committee
should not be able to understand the nature of the Bill,
and that it was summarily dismissed. He hoped that
the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.

Mr. STRUTT thought that the Bill ought to be al-
lowed to be read a second time, on the ground that the
Bill did not receive a full and perfect hearing before
the Committee upon the occasion when it was referred
to them.

Mr. STANSFIELD opposed the further progress of
the Bill.

Mr. WARD hoped that, after the speech of his Right
Hon. Friend (Mr. Strutt), they would allow the Bill to
be read a second time. The points under discussion
might be considered in Committee.
Mr. E. DENISON thought that this would be a most
unusual step. He would oppose the further progress of
the Bill.
Lord MORPETH would press the matter to a divi-
sion, even after the speech of his Right Hon. Friend
(Mr. Strutt).
The House then divided, when there appeared,
For the second reading 3B
Against it
Majority against the second reading
The Bill was consequently lost.
SECOND READINGS.

The following Bills were read a second dime:—
Birkenhead Improvement (Waterworks and Purchase of
Birkenhead and Claughton Waterworks).
Bristol and Clifton Oil Gas Company.
British Exchange Company.
Caledonian Railway (Edinburgh Station and Branches

to Granton, &c.) ' _
Eastern Counties Railway Extension (Cambridge to

Bedford, &c.)
Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge, Royston, and
Ware line, &c.)
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Branches at
Port Glasgow, and to the Caledonian Railway and
Diversion of Canal).
Leeds, Wakefield, and Midland Junction Railway.
London and North-Western Railway (Bescot and
Wolverhampton Branch, &c.)
London and North-Western Railway (Ormakirk and
Rainford Branch, &c.)
Plymouth and Tavistock Turnpike Road.
Salisbury and Yeovil Railway.
Whiteburn and Kelso and Lauder and Kelso Roads.
Tavistock Turnpike Road.
RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.

Mr. B. OSBORNE gave notice, that in the event of

the Bill to stimulate the profitable employment of the
Poor in Ireland on Railways, introduced by Lord George
Bentinck, being thrown out, he should move the fol-
lowing resolution—" That is the opinion of this House
that one of the real means of promoting the profit-
able employment of the people, and of developing
the resources a Ire/and, is for the Government to make
advances to such railways in Ireland as shall, in the
judgment of the Railway Commissioners, be works
likely to be of permanent utility, and calculated to en-
tail no lasting burden upon the country.
Dr. BOWHING moved that the petition from Malta,
dated the 12th of February, be printed with the Votes.

CASTLEB- AR 'UNION.
Lord DUNCAN said that, seeing the Right Hon.
Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department,
in his place, he rose to ask a question respecting the
Castlebar union. From a report published in the
papers this day, it appeared that the Lord-Lieu-
tenant had dismissed twelve magistrates for being
guardians of this union. Ho asked if the re-
port was correct, and also what steps had been taken
to supply the places of the dismissed guardians,
and whether any instructions had been given to recover
the 1,079 L of poor-rates due as arrears.
Sir G. GREY said it was quite true the guardians of
the union had been dismissed, but it was not by the Go-
vernment or the Lord-Lieutenant, but by the Poor-law
Commissioners,st in whose hands the power rested. The
guardians
require,en s
should according
imm edia
immediately
eleecptitoankeonfethpaltaacef,raenshd
if those do not discharge their duty, then the Poor-law
ylatwak
Commissioners would appoint paid guardians. He had
not received notice of the question, or else he would
have brought the letter of the Poor-law Commissioners
with him ; but that, with the other papers respecting
the Castlebar Union, would be placed on the table of the
House in a few days.
Mr. P. SCROPE wished to know if it was the inten-
tion of the Government to prosecute the guardians for
their heinous neglect of the poor? They had refused out-
door relief under the most distressing circumstances,
and a hundred persons bad :died in the workhouse, on
which inquests had been held.
Sir GEORGE GREY replied that he was in posses-
sion of no information at present as to what course would
be taken.
Mr. SCROPE said that perhaps the Attorney. Gene-
ral would answer the question.
Mr. F. FRENCH said, the Hon. Member (Mr. P.
Scrope) should have given notice of his question, and
the Irish Members would have been prepared to answer it.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE.
Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY wished to ask the Noble
Lord, the head of the Commissioners of Woods and
Forests, whether any application had been made by the
committee of the Wellington statue to remove the scaf-
folding around it, and at whose expense the same was
to be effected ?
Lord MORPETLl—Directions had been given to the
sculptor to remove the remaining portion of the scaffold-
ing, which prevents the view on the north side, as they
conceived a sufficient view was not obtained at present.
—(Laughter.) Certainly they (the Government) thought
a sufficient view had already been obtained. The
question was before the subcommittee and the sculptor.
The sub-committee had stated, that after removing a
portion of the scaffolding, if it should be opposed to the
views of the Goternment to have the statue remain,
they would remove it. The Government was of opinion
that the northern side of Waterloo-place would be
the best site.

Mr. MACKINNON would ask the Noble Lord
(Morpeth) if he was aware that it was considered
. an
indignity to remove statues during the lifetime of those
whom they were intended to honour? Was the
Noble Lord aware that in Pompeii some statues were
placed upon arches, and in almost exactly the same posi-
tion as that of the Wellington statue.—(Laughter.)
Lord MORPETR—With respect to what the Hon.
Gentleman stated, it could not be supposed in the
present state of public opinion to remove the statue,
and
with respect to Pompeii, it could not be supposed tb;t art