The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 20.
The Srsaxisa took the Chair at Four o'clock.
METROPOLITAN SEWAGE MANURE COMPANY.
Colonel WOOD moved the second reading of this Bill, and
stated that a misunderstanding existed with respect to the mode
in which the operations tlis company were intended fo be
conducted. The company were quite willing to have a clause
inserted in their Bill by which the Commissioners of Sewers
would be empowered to divert, alter, or make any
corrections in the sewers. The reservoirs would not be open
spaces, but would be inclosed and secluded from the atmos-
phere, so that no contagion could be communicated to the sur-
rounding neighbourhood.
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON believed that all the papers
connected with the Sewage Manure Company had not, in the
first instance, been deposited in the Private Bill-office.
Colonel WOOD thought that no advantage ought to be taken
of an unimportant omission to prevent the second reading.
Mr. ETWALL asked if it was for a mere speculation that
powers were to be given to a body of individuals to concentrate
all the filth of London in a neighbourhood where it would be a
nuisance to the inhabitants.
Sir R. INGLIS thought it desirable to postpone the second
reading of the Bill until the opinion of the gentlemen who had
been appointed to investigate the matter should have been
ascertained. He should move, therefore, that the second
reading be postponed for a week.
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON thought that the proposed plan
would be inconsistent if it contemplated any alteration or
interference with the present sewage of the metropolis.
His Hon. and Gallant Friend had stated that he thought it
most unfair that the Government should oppose the Bill on
account of the report that had been laid before the House, inas-
muche
as certain papers had been withheld from them. He
laidH
(Mr. Sutton) admitted that certain papers had not b
before them—those papers were not withheld bute mislaid. But
the plan of the promoters was, rt of the gentle-
accordingtoth i
most objectionable.—( Hear.) The second rep°th t they thought
men to whom this matter was referred stated
that with certain alterations, which they specifieda in their
publiif the Bill were
re-
port, no danger would accrue t
passed. They also stated that,. with certain reservations, the
carrying out of this plan might not occasion. any general
alteration in the sewers. If those two points were made out
to the satisfaction of the Government they would not oppose the
Bill; but if they did give it their sanction, it must be on the
understanding that by so doing they must not be precluded
from approving of any other more comprehensive scheme
which might be brought under the consideration of the House
at any future period.
Mr. K. YORKE opposed the Bill. One fact at once ad-
mitted the imperfection of the scheme—namely, that since last
Thursday the company proposed to remove two of their
clauses. These clauses were proposed to be excluded from the
pressure on the company from without since Thursday last.
The Honourable Gentleman who now represented the
northern district of Lincolnshire, but who, some years
since represented the city of Edinburgh, allowed a project
similar to the present one to be carried, and the citizens of
Edinburgh, though much annoyed, had no means of getting
rid of the nuisance. It was impossible to pass the Bill in its
present state without further inquisition, and at any
rate the House should adopt the recommendation
of the Honourable Member for oxford with reference to the
committee, and he should be quite content with such a course,
but under the existing circumstances he felt it to be his duty
to move that the Bill be read that day six
Househ
to p
Bill to be read a second time. He had heard all the cbjections
that had been raised to this Bill, including the scientific objec-
tions, and the principal one relative to the river, all of which
he thought had been disposed of, and he trusted the House
would not act in so narrow-minded a manner as to refuse the
second reading of the Bill on the grounds that had been stated.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER agreed with the Hon. Baronet the
Alember for the University o Oxford, that the second reading
of the Bill should be postponed for a week, in order that the
Government might have further time to consider the subject.
He had heard nothing in the course of this discussion that, in
his opinion, should induce them to accede to a second
reading of the Bill, because he was of opinion that the
works which it sought to construct, would not be for the
public advantage, but for the purposes of private
speculation and emolument. He thought on that
round they ought to defer its second reading for a week.
(hose on whose land the soil was emptied had a perfect right
to use that soil if they thought proper for the cultivation of
their land. He concluded by moving as an amendment, that
the second reading of the Bill bo postponed until this day week.
Mr. HAWES considered this a very important Bill, because
it had a great public object in view—and, therefore, he
doubted its success. The objects of the Bill are, first, to
improve the drainage of London; and, secondly, to free the
Thames from the filth which the sewage carried into it,
which, instead of being lost, as now, would be carried in
another direction, and subsequently applied to the
cultivation of land. Well, then, the subject or
object of the Bill being important, but the machinery being
unsatisfactory, it might fairly be referred altogether to a Select
Committee to report generally upon the object and details of
the Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ELLIOT YORKE, as one of the inhabitants of the
district about to be affected by these works, said he must pro-
test against the Bill, and expresss a hope, on behalf of the
whole of the inhabitants of his neighbourhood, that the House
would not allow it to be read a second time.
Dr. BOWRING could not see any harm that could arise
from the second reading of the Bill and their going into
committee on it. Seeing that the Bill was desirable they
ought to go into Committee, when they could fully inquire into
its merits, and see whether there was really any foundation for
the objections that had been made.
Sir DE LACY EVANS could not see any force in the ob-
jections that had been made. There was now great difficulty
in recognising the original features of the Bill, there had been
so many changes made in it in deference to parties who started
objections to it. The 6th and 18th clauses had already been
altered, but that it seemed did not satisfy the parties opposed to it.
The Bill was for carrying off the liquid and not the solid con-
tents, and there would be, consequently, a large deposit at
Vauxhall-bridge. It was well known that in the parish of St.
John's and St. Margaret's great injury was inflicted by these
deposits. He did not wish to offer any factious opposition to
the Bill, and he would consequently suggest to his Hon. Friend
that the motion should be withdrawn.
Mr. UUME said there could not be a subject of more im-
portance to the metropolis than this. He had no hesitation in
saying that it was a subject that had only been partially consi-
dered and acted upon—( Hear, hear)—and that the proposi-
tion of the Honourable Member for Lambeth was the sound
and proper course.—( Hear, hear.) Full information should be
obtained on this subject, and he had no objection, therefore, to
the appointment of a special Committee—a Committee
of 15 not of s—( Hear, hear)—to take the whole subject into
consideration. ;He must say, in answer to the Hon. Gentleman,
the Under Secretary of State, that he was very much
surprised that he should oppose this Bill after the
letter he had read to the House. That Hon. Gentle-
man should recollect that it was the intention of the
Government, as far back as ten years, to have sur-
veyed the whole of the metropolis, for the purpose of intro-
ducing such A measure as this. He hoped, therefore,
that a special Committee would be appointed to take into con-
sideration the objects of the Bill, and afterwards make a full
report to the House.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS thought that a sufficient case had
not been made out for the appointment of a Committee.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT would accede to the proposition
of the Right Hon. Baronet Sir Robert Peel, that the Bill be
referred to a Select Committee.
Colonel WOOD concurred in the opinions expressed by the
Secretary at War and the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER was understood to say that he would
withdraw his motion.
After a few words from Mr. Hawes, Mr. Hume, and Sir G.
Grey, which did not reach the gallery, in consequence of the
confusion prevailing in the House,
The debate was adjourned until to-morrow.
Mr. WAKLEY said that the House should take a more de-
cided course on a question of this importance.—(Cries of
" Chair, chair," and " Order.")
The SPEAKER reminded the Hon. Member that there
was no question th'n he'ore the House.
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed :
North Staffordshire Railway ( Churnet Valley line).
North Staffordshire Railway (H ireeastle to Sandbach).
North Staffordshire Railway (Pottery line).
SHEFFIELD AND MANCHESTER MIDLAND
JUNCTION RAILWAY.
Mr. SHAW brought up the report of this Bill.
MANCHESTER AND ASHTON-UNDER-LINE RAIL-
WAY (DUKENFIELD and GLOSSOP BRANCHES).
Mr. GREENE brought up :he report of this Bill.
DUNSTABLE RAILWAY.
On the motion of Lord HARRY VANE, it was agreed
that counsel should be hoard on this Bill before the Com-
mittee.
HYDE AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY.
Mr. SHAW brought up the report on this Bill.
RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
On the motion of Lord HARRY VANE, this Bill was read
a second time.
Mr. AINSWORTH presented several petitions from the
landowners and others on the lines, against the Shropshire
Union Railway and the Trent Valley Railway.
MR. W. SMITH O'BRIEN.
Mr. SHAW gave notice of a
motion, that when the Com-
mittee on Group 11 had closed its. labours, and givenin its final
report, he should move(thaetarllhre. W. mith O'Brien be dis-
charged from custo.— H
GERMAN CUSTORIS TARIFF.
Mr. WODEHOUSE wished to put a question to the First
Lord of the 'Treasury relating, to the German Customs Tariff.
Ile referred more particularly to the letter from the Earl of
Westmoreland to the Earl of Aberdeen, dated Berlin, Nev. 8,
1842, respecting the increase of import duties on woollen and
printed cotton goods, as well as other articles of manufacture,
to take effect during the years 1843, 1844, and 1845. He
wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet had any
objection to lay this letter and any other documents which he
had received on this subject on the table of the House?
Sir R. PEEL, who was indistinctly heard, was. understood
to lament that the Hon. Gentleman had not given timely
notice of his intention to put the question. To what docu-
ment did he particularly refer ?
Mr. WODEHOUSE said to any letter; on the subject of
any date.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was understood to object to lay on the
table of the House any documents relating to the alteration of
those Customs Laws, but he should have no objection to lay on
the table the Customs Duties of the Zolverein for 1845, 1846,
and 1848.