The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-04 00:00:00

in the standing orders of this House relative to Bills
for the consiructi,n of railroaes ; and to rep.rt their
opinion thereupon to this lluu.e from to time.
Agn ed to.
Their Lordships then arlj,urn.d.

Li).-

1-10 USE OF Coil MONS, June 3.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four
o'clock.

THIRD READINGS.

The following Bids were read a third time and pissed,
Amb,rgate, Nottingham, and Boston and Eastern Junc-
tion Railway (Alteration of Line and Erwintits to
Nottinghaup)
Caledonian Railway (Branches to Canonbie, Ste.)
Glasgow, Paisley, Kihnarnock, and Ay r Railway (No. 2).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway, and
Ayrshire and Bridg,.: of Weir Railway (No. 3).
London and South-Western oßailway (Andover to the
Bich pstoke and Salisbury Branch, &e.)
Nlacd,ff Harbour.
Metropolitan Sewage Manure.
Newport, Abergavenuy, and Hereford Railway Devia-
tions.
Newport, Ab, rgavenny, and Hereford Railway (Exten-
sion to Taff Vale Railway ).
North Staffordshire Railway (Alterations and Branches).
ansea and Aannan Junction Railway.
Waterford and Limerick Railway.
E PORTS.

The following reports were brought up, and ordered
to lie on the table.—
British American Land Company.
Direct London and Portsmouth. Brighton and Chiches-
ter, London, Brighton, and South Coast, Lnd London
and South-Western Railways.
Direct London and Portsmouth Railway.
Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.
Gloucester and Hereford Railway and Canal Purchase.
Great Western Railway (Amendment and Extensions.)
Leeds, Dewsbury, and Manchester Railway (Extension
to Wakefield and Junction at Methley, with the
Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole, and the York and
North Midland Railways).
Leeds Central Railway Station.
London and North-Western Railway (Lime-street,
Liverpool, Station, Extension, &c.)
Manchester, Buxton, and Matlock, and Midlands Junc-
tion Railway (Deviations).
Manchester and Leeds Railway (Branch from the Hud-
dersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway to Barnsley,
and Extension of Holmfirth Branch),
Manchestet and Leeds Railway (Alteration of Levels of
Brighouse Branch of the West Riding Union Rail-
ways, and new Line into Leeds).
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway
(Branch at Bugsworth to join the Peak Forest Canal
Tramway and Amendment of Acts).
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway (Branch
from Ashton under Lyne to Oldham).
Midland RaiPatty (S►•ston and Peterborough Railway
Deviations., and Approach to Manten Siattiai).
Oxronl, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway (N 0.2)
(Extensions and Amendment).
Strathtay and Breaflalbane Extension Railway.
Van Dienaen's Land Company.
York and Norin Midland Railway (Harrogate Branch,
Extension, and Terminus).
The reports on the following Bills were further con-
sidered and agreed to:—
Ayrshire Roads.
Falmouth Waterworks.
Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway (Branch to the
Caledonian Railway and Diversion of Canal).
Lancashire, Cheshire, and North Wales Drainage and
Inclosure Companies Incorporation.
Ma-cheater and Birmingham, and North Staffordshire
Junction Railway. -
Scottish Midland Junction Railway (Amendment and
Branch to Laurent, kirk).
Shropshire Union Railways and Canal (Lease to the
London and North-Western Railway Company).
Sunderlainl Improvement, \lark ts, arid Bridge.
BELFAST IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. R. SPOLNER prest•ntecl a petition against the
Belfast Improvement Bil, which was ordered to be re-
Grred to tee CotnnoiWe on the Bill.
COVENTRY. .BANBURY. AND OXFORD
JUNCTION RAILWAY.

On the motion of Mr.-WILLIAMS, it was ordered that
the Committee of the Coventry, ifinhury, and OxforC
Junction Rttilway Bill. have leave to report thii thy.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.

On the motion of Mr. WARD for the further consi-
deration of the report on this Hill,
Sir R. INGLIS wished to know if the Bill had re-
ceived the consent of her Majesty's Attorney-General.
There was a surrender by the Bill of the rights of the
Crown to a private body, which he objected to. There
could be no doubt that the Corporation of London had a
right to both sides of the river, but he was not aware
thattlthe Crown had denuded itself of the eight on the
soil of the river.
The ATTORNEY. GENER4L said that, instead of
fighting out the rights of the Crown in a court of law, it
had been considered desirable to come to some arrange
ment in order to effect a great poblic good, and to dairy
out that arrangement was the object of the present Buil.
Mr. HUME was in favour of the Bill, but against the
mode in which the objects were to be carried out. He
objected to so many aldermen being. members of the
board, considering that the City had no interest in
the measure, but the merchants of London had.
He considered such a board would be altogether ineffi-
cient, and it ought to be revised ; the acting managing
board should have a portion of gentlemen representing
the shipping and mercantile interests of the port of
London. He concluded by moving that the all be re-
committed, with the view of the hoard of conservancy
being reduced from 19 to 12, and that four of their mem-
bers should be connected with the shipping interest.
Mr. WARD opposed the amendment on the ground
that as all the funds tor the improvement of the river
wou!d have to be raised on the cielit of the Corporation
of London, it was but right that they shoul i have the
management. Were the City authorities favourable
to the alteration, he would have no objection to it.
had asked an eminent engineer what would be his
estimate of expense for those improvements, and he had
laid it at 350,0001. Those were the objects contemplated
by the Bill. It appeared to him an immaterial point
whether the conservators consisted of 19 or 12, and
therefore he should oppose the amendment of the lion.
Member for Montrose.

The Earl of LINCOLN said that it was universally
conceeded that the objects of the Bill could not be ti_;und
fault with; the only matter for the consideration of ihe
House was how to carry out these objects, and to re-
concile the conflicting interests connected with the sub-
ject. The Hon. the Secretary to the Admiralty said that
the present state of things had continued so long, that
no other: interest than the city of London could now be
represented. But he could show the House that.
a different course from the present had been pur-
sued in the case of the river Mersey. FroM the
moment that understanding ceased another arrange•
tent had been entered into, which gave entire satis-
faction to the corporation of Liverp.iol. Ile wish, d to
bring this under the notice of the Ilon. Secretary for
the Admirslty ; and though he did not feel ready to throw
any reflections on his conduct, hi• yet might say that he
had not voted as he him, If would have &me it he had
been at the head of the Wood.; and Forests. Ile felt
assured, therefore, that the Bill never could give
satisfaction, and 12- could nit conceive that the
amendment of the Honourable Member for Montrose
would, in any sufficient extent, remedy the evil, and
he should, th,•retore, vote against it.
Lord MORPETH said that, when he entered upon
the duties of the office which he held he found consi-
derable doubt resting upon the circumstances on which

the 1311 Nas founded, ant.: he regrett,d that the speech
of the Noble Earl had shown that there was not

the same spirit ot amicability which had formerly been
evinced. (The Noble Lord then read a letter of Mr.
Pemberton, the solicitor for the Bill, in which that
gentleman stated that be did not expect the suit upon it
to be terminated for perhaps le.•,s than five years.)
It was stated by the City authorities that this suit pre-
vented them carrying into effect' certain improvements
in the river, which otherwise they would be prepared
to undertake. He entertained no doubt whatever
that the funds derivable from the use of the river
ought to be applied to its improvement. Whether
there were means to compel the City autho-
rities to undertake these improvements, he could not
venture to say, but he had agreed to the provisions of
this Bill, believing that it was the safest and t asiest
course to effect that object, and he trusted after this
statement the progress ot the Bill would not be impeded.
The improvements would be carried on under the super-
intendence of the Board of Conservancy, and Govern-
ment would also take care to see that they were of
performed. It was provided by the Bill that the receipts and
expenditure should be first laid before the superior board,
and that all the works should be subjected to an en-
gineer, who would also see that the board carried into
effect all they were bound to undertake by the Bill.
The details of the expenditure would be also laid before
Parliament, and if any circumstance should hereafter
arise of a nature to require legislative interference, Par-
liament might be called upon for its adjulicition.

Mr. DUNCOMBE was not aware, after the speech of
the Noble Lord opposite, how the Bill would detract
from the character of the Corporation. He was of this
opinion particularly after the example set them by the
corporation of the river Mersey. His Hon. Friend
.wished to strike off seven aldermen, but the superior
board alluded to in the course of the discussion professed
to control the aldermanic board. Powers were to
be taken to levy taxes to the amount of 350,0001, for
the purpose of this conservancy. (Mr. Ward made some
explanation, which was inaudible in the gallery.) Well,
at any rate, with the one shilling fee sought to
be imposed, there would be taxation of the public
in some way or other ; at ar.y rate it would bear
heavily on the consumers of coal—( Hear, hear)—but
the principal reason which led him to oppose the Bill
ptuobliacllantl
intentsnt aanptriivaptuerpßoislel—s:
pill
biltiewaps
it was an important Bill, and one which would
materially affect the trade and commerce Of the city
of London—it was a public Bill arid ought to be
submittedtotlie whole House.—(Hear, hear.) Besides,
no one knew anything about the Bill, and he thought
the public was indebted to the Noble Lord (Lord Lin-
coln) for his statement with respect to the Bill. Even if
it came back from the Committee with a recommendation
that the seven aldermen should be knocked off, he should
still look upon it with suspicion.
Mr. WILLIAMS did not think the Bill was so ob-
jectionable as the Hon. Gentleman seemed inclined to be-
lieve. He quite agreed with the observation of the Noble
Lord the late Secretary for the Woods and Forests. He
thought it would be much better to carry out the new
system, rather than that which was proposed
by the Bill. The prcsent board did not consist
of persons tit to manage the navigation of the river
Thames, .and if. they interfered at all they ought to do
so by rendering them an efficient-body.. So many com--
plaints were made against the management of the rivers
that, xA 1836, a COMmittee Qf Inquiry was granted,