The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-12 00:00:00

WATER SUPPLY OF THE METROPOLIS.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet the Chairman of the Committee on Metropolis
Water Supply Bills, whether, in the event of the present
session of Parliament terminating about the usual period,
there is any probability of the Committee completing its
inquiry within sufficient time to enable this House to
give any measure for an improved supply of water to
the metropolis that consideration which so important a
question demands.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the Committee were pro-
secuting the inquiry confided to them with much dili-
gence and attention. The House was no doubt aware
that not one, but many, Bills had been referred to the
Committee, namely, the Bill introduced by the Govern-
ment and four or five other Bills presented by different
water companies. Hitherto the Committee had confined
their attention to the first of these, and they had just
got through the case for the preamble, and were
about entering on that of the opposition. The Bill was
opposed by three distinct classes of opponents, namely,
those who thought the supply of water ought to be
placed under the control of an elective body; those who
were interested in the existing water companies, and
who objected to the amalgamation proposed by the
Government ; and, lastly, those who promoted the
new schemes. The Committee were now consider-
ing the C 330 for the first of these three classes
of opponents ; and as their case not only re-
lated to the supply of water, but to the management
of the sewers in the metropolis, he thought there was
little hope of the inquiry terminating this session.
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to know if Govern-
ment intended to move the second reading of the Re-
gistration of Assurances Bill that night.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the negative ; it would
he moved some day next week by his Right Hon.
Friend the Master of the Rolls, and as it was a measure
of great importance he hoped the House would seen° diffi-
culty in passing it this session. He might, perhaps, be
allowed to take this opportunity of stating the course
of public business which Government intended to pursue.
To-night they proposed to take the Supply, and to re-
sume it again on Monday. On Thursday Supply would
be taken again, and if the whole of it was got through
his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would move the third reading of the Customs Bill on
Friday next, but not otherwise. The Customs Bill
would not be proceeded with until after the whole of the
Supply had been gone through.
COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS.

In reply to Captain FITZROY,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated that on Monday
ho would state the course which Government intended
to take with reference to a Bill for amending the Com-
missioners of Sewers Act.
EPISCOPAL INCOMES.

Sir B. HALL wished to ask Lord John Russell,
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Govern
ment to propose any Legislative measures for obviating
the inconvenience and occasional hardship resulting
from the present uncertainty of episcopal incomes, in ac-
cordance with the desire of the Committee on Episcopal
Incomes (Parliamentary Paper, No. 400, page 294)?
Also, whether the bishops who have received larger in-
comes than were assigned to their sees have paid the
surplus over to the common fund, or have retained it?
Also, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners intend
taking legal proceedings for the recovery of the sums
which, according to the last report of the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners, appear to be due from certain
bishops, and if not, what course they propose sto adopt
that the common fund may not be deprived of that
amount so long due, and, as appears by Parliamentary
Paper, No. 153, so repeatedly demanded? Also, whether
it is true that the Bishop of Salisbury has intimated to the
Commissioners that he will receive from them, as a
fired income, the sum assigned to his see, and whe-
ther any other bishop has acted in like ,manner?
Such being the case, of course all the bishops who had
received their sees since that time came under that Act
of Parliament.
__ _ _ _

Lord J. RUSSELL said he had to state, in answer to
the ion. Baronet's first question, that of which the
House was perfectly aware, namely, that an Act of Par-
liament had been passed many years ago by which the
incomes of bishops were fixed, and those who received
anything over the income assigned to their diocese were
required to pay a certain sum. Other bishops were to
receive a certain sum to make up the incomes of their re-
spective sees to the sum assigned. Lately a Bill had been
passed, which provided that the Ecclesiastical Commis
sioners should mske arrangements by which the incomes
of the bishops should neither exceed nor fall short of
the sum assigned to them.—(Hear, hear.) That
was to take ',lace from January, 1849, and with
regard to the bishops whose incomes were greater
since then, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were
considering a scheme for carrying into effect the
provisions of that Act, so that they would receive an
exact sum. With regard to the other bishops he was
not called upon to speak, but it was evident
they were entitled to the incomes which were settled on
them, and that Parliament was no more justified in in
terfering with them than they were in interfering with
any other private property whatever. Those who had
received more than the sums assigned to them by
law, had retained it according to their right by law.
The Bishop of Durham had paid over a much
larger sum to the Curnmissioners than they were entitled
to receive from him; 11,0001.. was the sum settled for
him to pay, besides gulag up an estate of 2,0001. per
annum, which it was calculated would reduce his in-
come to 8,000/. It should be stated likewise that the
present Bishop succeeded two prelates whose in-
comes were 23,0001. per annum, and whose
charities and contributious were of course
commensurate to their incomes. This created a very
considerable demand on the present Bishop, to
which he had responded as far as he was able, to the
amount of no less than 45,000/.—(llear, hear.) The
next question of the lion. Baronet referred to certain
bishops who were obliged to pay over certain sums which
were in excess of the sums fixed for their incomes. Some
of these had received much less than had been fixed
for them, and could not have paid over the sums
required from them without great inconvenience. The
Bishop of Ely was indebted in a considerable amount
to the Commisioners, and at no time had his income
exceeded the income assigned to him. The Commis-
sioners had not proceeded by law fur the re-
covery of these sums, but had merely written
atintervals to acquaint the Right Rev. Prelates of the
amounts due and request payment. The Archbishop of
York had paid all that was due, and the Bishop of St.
Asaph was now making arrangements for that purpose.
In the case of the Bishop of Ely there was every reason
to believe that if he lived the whole sum due from him
would be paid, though the Commissioners, from the
consideration that his income had never reached
the sum estimated, were naturally desirous not to press.
With regard to the last question, the Bishop of Salis-
bury had put into his hands a letter written by him to
the Commissioners so late back as February last, by
which he voluntarily came under the hands of the Com-
missioners.

INDIAN MARRIAGES.
Mr. lIARDCASTLE asked the Secretary of the
Board of Control, with reference to a clause in the Bill
for regulating the marriages of Christians in India,
whether the age of twenty-one years, which is therein
fixed as the age up to which it is expedient to continue
parental control, has bean determined upon with a due
regard to native customs, or simply in accordance with
the rules or iaw in England?
Mr. ELLIOT said that as the Bill ,was intended to
apply to Christians, of course its provisions wore
founded on Christian laws, though, in India, native girls
were married at the early ago of eleven or twelve years.