The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-25 00:00:00

This Bill was also read a third time and passed.

The Leeds Waterworks Bill (No. 2), and Lytham Im-
provement Bill were both read a third time and passed.
The report on the Eastern Counties Railway (Ilford
to Tilbury Fort and Southend, with a Branch from
Vange to Battle-bridge), was brought up.
The reports on the Kingston-upon-Hull Dock Com-
pany, and Liverpool Insurance Company Bills, were
further considered.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Mr. WARD rose to move the recommittal of this
Bill. He said a Bill on this subject was brought on at
an early period of this session, the object of which was
to disjoin the interests of the Corporation and the
Crown on the Thames Conservancy. The Hon. Gen-
tleman then went into the details of the Bill at con-
siderable length. It would be necessary to make an
outlay of 45,0001. on the improvement of the river.
The gentlemen who had been consulted on the ques-
tion in the city concurred in the terms proposed
by this Bill, but the great difference was as to
the constitution of the Conservancy Board. That
board was to consist of nineteen members, it being
proposed to infuse new blood into the management. It
was proposed that ten of these should be appointed by
the City, the rest by Government, but to that proposi-
tion the City would not accede. It was then pro-
posed that these should be appointed subject
to a veto on the part of the Crown. An Hon. Member
of the Committee had said, that that proposal having
been made, it was inconsistent with the dignity
of that House to make a second 'proposal, but
he was happy to state that the city had wisely recon-
sidered that decision, and at a meeting at Covent-
garden, a resolution in conformity with such a change
of opinion had been passed.
Mr. HUME said that he did not think that the Com-
mon Council of the City of London were the proper
parties to undertake the clearing of the river ; he
thought that the responsibility ought to rest upon a
much higher power than that of a self-elected corn-
muity such as the Common Council. It gave them a
control over the property on the Thames from the
mouth up to the Nore. It was proposed to the
Common Council that one-third of the committee
should be chosen by the Crown from parties in-
terested in the Thames, but after a long debate
the Common Council refused that offer. He thought
that it was beneath the House of Commons
to enter into any such arrangements as those which had
been proposed. For what was it proposed, according to
Mr. Walker's suggestions, to entrnst the expenditure of
500,0001. to a self-elected body, who might, after
all, reject the proposition of the Committee,
and he did think, therefore, that it was un-
worthy of the dignity of the House to re-commit
the Bill to the same Committee as that which had pre-
viously sat upon the subject. In 1836 there had been a
similar Committee, and they had reported strongly
!totuflogeatnithnherse read
dihe measures which were at that time adopted
in the Government of the river, and it would appear
that considerable loss of life had ensued in consequence
effect
cfeerhoitme ft
that
haratetpttohe existed.hretnocfonthaeiCommitteetei
n g The
interestsHeonn.
tiGhneetnshutlebe
jcmeocantn:
eenatioy of the River were injurious to the naviirtinn.