The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-26 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 25.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at five minutes to Four
o'clock.

REDUCTION OF FEES FOR PRINTED DOCU-

MENTS.
Mr. W. PATTEN moved to reduce the fees payable
at the House of Commons for copies of papers and docu-
ments, from five shillings and one shilling to two shillings
and sixpence and sixpence respectively.—Agreed to.
METROPOLIS WATER, BILL.

Lord J. MANNERS moved that it be an instruction
to the Committee of Selection, that they have power to
fix the Committee on the Metropolis Water Bill for
Thursday, the Ist day of April next.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said the House was t,aken by
surprise when this Bill was read the other day a second
time. He considered the Bill was very objectionable,
and if he had been in the House at the
time, be should have opposed the second reading. It
would not remedy a single defect in the present bcid sup-
ply of water to the metropolis. The system of taking
supplies of water from the Thames would still be per-
petuated, though the Board of Health bad reported that
such a source was very objectionable. He hoped the
Government would see the necessity of introducing a
more comprehensive measure on the subject.
Lord J. MANNERS said he had merely taken up
the Bill which was proposed by his predecessor in office.
If the House agreed to refer it to a Committee, ho
hoped they would be able to devise a practical remedy
for very grave and serious evils in regard to ',,he supply
of water to the inhabitants of London.

Lord EBRINGTON protested against a public mea-
sure of this kind being referred to a Select Committee
until the House bad expressed an opinion upon the prin-
ciple involved in it.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE did not think this question
would be settled as the House was now going on.—
(Hear.) If the Bill were referred to a Committee, before
whom the old companies might appear as opponents, no
man of common sense could suppose it would come
out of the Committee this session—(Hear, hear)—it
was utterly impossible. Therefore it was illusory to
hold out any hope that the metropolis could this year
get a better supply of water. He moved to add to the
resolution an amendment to the effect that the Com-
mittee should confine their inquiry to this Bill only.
Sir J. JOHNSTON treated the Bill as an absolute
confiscation of the property of the London water com-
panies. They only paid now 4 per cent. upon their ca-
pital, and if the Bill camp into operation, the sharehold-
ers would not get a dividend of a farthing.
The SPEAKER informed Mr. Duncombe that his
amendment could only be proposed as a substantive
motion. _ _ _

------
Mr. DUNCOMBE—Then I give notice that I will
move it to-morrow.
The motion was then carried.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following Bills were read a third time :
East London Waterworks.

Mansfield Gas.
Patent Solid Sewage Manure Company.
Scarborough Market and Approaches.
Wolverhampton Gas.
LONDON (WATFORD) SPRING WATER
COMPANY.

Mr. HOPE, in moving the second reading of this
Bill, said its object was to give those parts of the metro-
polis now inadequately supplied with water a good and
perfect supply of that important element by rendering
available the water now concentrated around Watford,
and which, they were assured by competent authorities,
perforated by a kind of under-ground drainage into the
sea, and was capable of yielding an enormous quantity.
Mr. HALSEY moved that the Bill be read a second
time this day six months, on the ground that it had already
been rejected by the House; 2d, that it was opposed by
every individual and landowner in the neighbourhood of
Watford; and, lastly, because he was opposed to its
principle. That the supply of water to the metropolis
was defective and ought to be improved, he admitted;
but it surely could not be said that the desired object
was to be accomplished by infringing upon the rights of
private individuals.—(Hear.) He thought the House
was called upon to reject a Bill when, as in this case, it
committed an injury to property for which no kind of
compensation could be given.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said this Bill would to some
extent supply the people with water, and he should sup-
port it.
Mr. ROBERT STEPHENSON said he had been em-
ployed to report upon the subject of the Bill, and with-
out pledging himself to all the allegations of the
promoters, he thought the scheme which the Bill em-
braced was a good one.
Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to have three.questions
answered: first, was it proposed to obtain this supply
of water not from the source of a river,
but by digging a well 60() . feet deep which
would injure the district where is was sunk; secondly,
had not the experiments which had been made failed;
and thirdly, whether this very Bill was not thrown out
last year?
Mr. B. HOPE replied in th• affirmative to the first
question, but the well would not be so deep as 600 feet.
In reply to the second question he denied that the ex-
periment had failed; while with regard to the last ques-
tion the Bill was not referred to a Committee last year,
because the Government took the subject into their own

hands.
Viscount EBRINGTON opposed the Bill, and called
upon the House to lay down some settled principle for
the regulation of the water question. He
denied that the supply of water in the
metropolis was deficient; the fact was more than
half the supply was wasted, and on the south side of
the Thames the land was completely deluged with water.
—(Hear, hear.) He blamed the late Government
for not being governed in this matter by the report
which Lord Carlisle prepared on the subject, and
called upon the House to negative the motion for the
second reading.
Mr. BAILEY also opposed the Bill, on the ground
that ft would inflict great injury on the locality where
the water was to be drawn from.
Sir R. PRICE and Mr. MACGREGOR supported the
Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the Bill was only
opposed by the old water companies, and as there were
68 Members of the House who had a pecuniary interest
in them, they ought at least to abstain from voting on
this occasion.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HUME, the Rouse di-
vided, when there appeared— 196
•••
For the second reading ••• 65
Against it ... ••• •••
Majority ... tiroe.
The Bill was then read a seo°.; gotTSE FOR
ADJOURNMENT OF TO,
BASTE haneellor of the Ex-
Mr. HUME wished to 5:
ilnitigittlCol:l to propose the
chequer whether it was his
ad-
journment of the House n thkeno7wth, oirn the Betvhe
no
tf
of
ther il
to
next? Ho also wishedn
the 7th, what would become of the
motions fixed for
House adjourning o
theLO stßh?
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
The I
find that last rart; and I wish, of course, to follow
the precedent of las
t year, if the 'louse has no ob-
jection—that the House adjourned on Tuesday.
But I find that on Wednesday a motion is to be brought
on by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Devon-
port (Mr. Tufnell), for the second reading of the Pro-
perty Qualification Bill. I should be sorry to interfere, of
course, with any vested interest which the Right Hon.
Gentleman has in the notice book—(A laugh)—but if
he has no objection I will follow exactly the precedent
of last year. Should he, however, insist on maintaining
his position, I will not move the adjournment until
Wednesday; otherwise I will move the adjournment of
the House from Tuesday, the 6L13, until Monday, the 19th
of April.
Mr. HUNIE said the Right Hon. Gentleman had not
mentioned what would become of the notices down for
the Bth. He asked this question because he had a
notice on the paper for that day.—(A laugh.)
Mr. TUFNELL said if it were the wish of the House
he would not press his motion for that day.—(Cheers.)
He hoped, however, that he would be put in the same

position on the first Wednesday after the House re-
assembled

Mr. DEEDES said he was in the same predicament
as the Right Hon. Gentleman, and if he got an early
day for his motion, he hoped the same would not be
refused to him.