The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-28 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Navan
and Bingseourt Railway ; Athenry and Ennis Junction
Railway ; Ayr Water ; Dundee Gas ; Herne Bay Fishery ;
Enniskillen, Bundoran, and Sligo Railway ; Fergus River
Navigation, &c.
CIVIL BILL COURTS PROCEDURE (IRELAND)
ACT 1864 AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Tins EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—London
and North Western Railway (New Works, &c.) (Wales and
Ireland), Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland (No.
2), Nantlle Railway, Northampton and Banbury Junction
Railway (Extensions), and St. Stephen's Green (Dublin).
METROPOLIS SEWAGE AND ESSEX RECLAMA-
TION BILL. _ _

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Sir W. RUSSELL said that he objected to the prin-
ciple of referring questions like those involved
in the present bill to a general discussion of the
whole house, when it should be dealt with in a scientific
manner. As a member of the committee who had devoted
much time to the consideration of this subject, he had come
to the conclusion that the only practical means of utilising
the metropolitan sewage was by adopting the principle
of gravitation proposed in this bill and sanctioned
by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He believed that
the effect of this bill would be most advantageous to local
and national interests, for it had now become an urgent
necessity that the sewage of this great metropolis
should be so dealt with as to prevent its being injurious
to the health of the metropolis, which was the case at pre-
sent, when it was concentrated upon a certain point. He
thought, therefore, that any delay should be deprecated,and
that the three objects proposed by this bill, viz., of rendering
the sewage innocuous, utilising it, and realising a large sum
for it for the rate payers of the metropolis. The same dif-
ficulties that existed in disposing of the sewage of other
localities did not exist in regard to that of the metropolis,
and he thought the evidence was in favour of the assertion
made by the advocates of this bill that the sewage could
be profitably applied to growing crops, and realise a large
sum by those who availed themselves of the sewage
for the purpose of fertilising the cereal or other crops.
The plan proposed by Messrs. Holt and Napier
for removing the metropolitan sewage to a certain distance
from London was in his opinion very practicable, and
would effect the objects proposed. In reference to an
amendment on the paper by the hon. member for London
for postponing the second reading of the bill for six weeks,
he contended that the effect of that amendment, if
adopted,would be to postpone the bills or legislation on this
subject for the present session. (Hear, hear.) He adverted
in terms of eulogium to the services which the noble lord
(Lord R. Montagu) had rendered in committee in regard to
this very important subject.
Mr. CRAWFORD moved that the bill be read a second
time that day six months. He denied that there was any
petty feeling of rivalry on the part of the Corporation
of London, and other opponents of the bill, towards the
Metropolitan Board of Works. In dealing with a question
of this Importance he thought the house should maintain its
privileges in considering the subject with great delibera-
tion. It must be remembered that the merits of this bill was
problematical, as differences of opinion prevailed amongst
scientific men, including that eminent authority, Baron
Liebig, who considered the scheme :of Messrs. Holt and
Napier visionary.
Mr. TITE supported the bill.
After some further discussion,
Mr. AYRTON moved the following amendment :
"That it be referred to a select committee of ten, half
to be nominated by the house, and half by the com-
mittee of selection, and that the committee be instructed
to inquire into the most useful and profitable means of dis-
posing of the metropolitan sewage on the north side of the
Thames."

Mr. COWPER said that a primafacie case had been made
out in favour of this bill, and so far from the Metropolitan
Board of Works having been precipitate in regard to this
bill, he thlught they had delayed the matter too long. It
was indispensable to the health of the metropolis that the
sewage should be conveyed out of the Thames estuary instead
of being permitted to flow back and pollute the water con-
sumed by the inhabitants of London. He did not consider
the qnestion of the profit of the sewage a matter of so
much importance, and he approvedof the proposition of the
hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlete.
Sir W. RUSSELL withdrew his motion, on the under-
standing that the amendment of Mr. Ayrton should be
pressed to a division, but it was agreed to without a divi-
sion, and the subject then dropped.