The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-09 00:00:00

1111 PERIA

rIAMENri.

HOUSE OF. COMMONS—(THIS DAY).
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
Mr. H. HERBERT reported, from the Southampton
election committee, that H. E. Bower, a witness sum-
moned before the committee, had misbehaved himself, by
refusing to give evidence, and he had, therefore, by the
direction of the committee, committed the witness to the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to await the pleasure
of the house.
LONDON DRAINAGE BILL.

Sir B. HALL moved that the consideration of this bill
be postponed until the 6th of April.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS seconded the motion.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the drainage of London
was a great public work, which must be carried out by
somebody. In answering a question on a former night,
the Secretary of State for the. Home Department, said
that it very much depended on the success which this
great private company formed for the drainage of Lon-
don might have, whether the Government would bring
in a measure to enable the Commissioners of Sewers to

borrow money on the rates. This company proposed to
drain the metropolis by two great arterial sewers, the
expenses of working which were to be coyered by the
profits of the manure which would be thus collected.
The guarantee clauses, by which the profits of the com-
pany, should they fall below it, were to be made up to 3
per cent. would be better considered in committee, and
he was not prepared to say that the company would
give up their project if this guarantee were rejected.
He should press the second reading now, in order that
the details might be considered.

Mr. T. DURCOMBE thought that the whole scheme
was ridiculous and absurd. He understood that the
manure when got would not be worth a farthing. He
should vote against the second reading of the bill when-
ever it was presented.

After a few words from Sir De Lacy Evans and Mr,
Sotheron,

Lord PALMERSTON said that some great system
of drainage was absolutely necessary, and the question
was whether it should be done by private enterprise or
by the metropolis itself. He thought if a private com-
pany were disposed to undertake it, it would be much
better to allow them to do so. Even when the works
projected by this company were executed, there would
still be a great sum needed for the repair of district
sewers. He did not believe that this guarantee
would be needed, but it was a matter for the considera-
tion of the committee, and he should, therefore, support
the second reading of this bill, without any adjourn-
ment.

Lord SEYMOUR supported the second reading of
the bill, because he thought that, if this great work
could be carried out by a private company, it would be
an immense benefit to the metropolis. He had been in-
formed that to drain the north bank of the Thames
alone would cost about 1,500,000/., and he did not
think that was a burden which the metropolis would be
readily brought to take upon itself.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY said he looked with some sus-
picion on this bill, because he had reason to believe that
it was backed up by the corporation of London, the
Commissioners of Sewers, and the Board of Health--
the three great nuisances of the metropolis. (Hear.)
Believing that the ratepayers of the metropolis ought to
have time to consider this guarantee; he should vote for
the amendment.
After some remarks from Mr. V. Sculley, Mr. Divett,
and Mr. Cayley, the house divided, when there ap-
peared--
For the second reading
Against it

Majority

111
16

. 105

The bill was read a second time.
Mr. MACKENZIE presented a petition from the
working men of Liverpool against the opening of the
Crystal Palace on Sundays.
A great number of petitions were presented against
the admission of the Jews into Parliament.
Mr. MIALL presented a petition praying for
National Arbitration.
Mr. SPOONER presented petitions from Staffordshire
against the Maynooth grant.