The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-12 00:00:00

THIRD READING•

The Blackburn Corporation Improvement Bill and the
Ilebden Bridge Gas Bill.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
On the motion that this bill be further considered,
Mr. CRAWFORD moved that the further considera-
tion of this bill be deferred until the 26th of April,
and that in the meantime the evidence taken
before the select committee be printed and circulated.
The hon. gentleman then stated the circumstances that
had led him, on the part of the corporation of London,
the merchants and traders therein, and the Metropolitan
Board of Works, to oppose the proposition of the direc-
toinakea great station in Queen
said, would be a direct act of
vtoircstoorif tah-sistrereati which, he
vandalism. He contended that the carrying in effect
of the proposition he had mentioned could not be
termed a public improvement, but, on the contrary, it
would be a very great public inconvenience. The point at
which it was Proposed to disgorge the traffic was already
the most crowded portion of the City, and the adding to
the immense traffic that of a large number of railway pas.
sengers would produce an amount of confusion that it was
almost impossible to conceive. He denied that the sub-
way would at all tend to remedy the anticipated evil, and
therefore he hoped the House would agree to the proposi-
tion he had made.
Mr. CMGs, the chairman of the select committee to
which the bill had been referred, said that many of the
statements that had been made to the House had not
come under the consideration of the commission. He
thought the course taken by the hon. member an exceed-
ingly inconvenient course, in raising the question at that
time and in that House, the more so as it was certain
the bill, before it became law, would have to go before
th 3 Committee of the House of Lords, where all the
evidence of the Corporation and other persons could be
heard. He denied that there would be any station in
Queen Victoria-street, but said that the entry and egress
to and from the railway, would be in the houses at the
corner of Bucklersbury. Nothing like the station as
stated by the hon. member, would be visible in the new
street, end therefore this great act of vandalism, of which
the hon member complained, would not be committed.
Mr. DODSON appealed to the bon. member not to perse-
vere with his motion, as if the bill was considered that day
it coull not be read a third time until after after Easter
There would, therefore, be ample time to have the
evidence printed, and then he would also be in a position
on the motion for the third reading to move the rejection
of the bill if he felt it his duty to do so.
After a few words from Mr. Beresford Hope and Lord
Elcho,

Mr. CRAWFORD adopted the suggestion of Mr. Dodson
on the understanding that on the motion for the third
reading he could move the re-committal of the bill.

The motion was then withdrawn.
NEW MEMBERS.

Mr. KENNAWAY took 'the oath and his seat for East
Devon. The hon. gentlemen was introduced by Mr.
Kelowich and Mr. Scourfield.
THE SEA QUEEN.

air. Mart= UMW= askgsl tho_ BecrotAntiQ tb.o

rSoard of Trade whether any inquiry had taken place oy
the Board of Trade respecting the loss of the Sea Queen
off Yarmouth on the 13th of February last, when the
captain, officers, and a- crew of twenty-four hands all
perished. The ship left Shields laden with coals and
bound for Mteasra, her registered tonnage being 677 tons,
and actual tonnage 903 tons ; but it is believed that she
left Shields with more than 1,110 tons.
Mr. LEFEVRE said in consequence of the communication
he had received from the hon. gentlemen he had ordered
an inquiry to be made.
DEPTFORD DOCKYARD.

Sir Jomic FIAT asked the First Lord of the Admiralty
whether the Mr. Austin whom he had stated to have pur-
chased a portion of Deptford Dockyard for £1,500 was the
same Mr. Austin whose name appears as security for the
contractor for the extension works at Chatham dockyard;
and, whether the purchase money has been paid, and if
he could state to what industrial purposes Deptford yard
has been applied by Mr. Austin to afford employment at
Deptford.
Mr. CHILDMIS said he could not see the precise object of
the question, but he might say that Mr. Austin was the
same person who had been accepted as surety for another
person four years ago. The purchase-money had not
been paid, but thdagreementhad been signed, but not the
final contract. He did not think he should be justified in
asking to what purpose se had been turned.