The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNEpkir EVENING, JULY 11, 1860.

day from Sir Samos Hudson, that no pressure

GAS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,

Mr. STANILAND moved that it go into committee this
day three mouths. He reminded the house that a com-
mitter had already sat upon the subject for 21 days, having
as their chairman the right honourable gentleman the
memter for Wiltshire, and as they decided in favour of
the bill, he confessed it was no easy matter to reverse
their decision. It was, he contended, the policy of Far

liarnent to encourage the investment of capital, especially
in railways, and in 1847 large sums were expended by gas

and water companies under the provisions of a bill

then introduced. The gas companies were not
opposed to uniform legislation, and they were quite
prepared to assent to that portion of the bill. If

the time had arrived when alterations should be made for

changing the management of gas companies, let it be done ;
but if they wanted to interfere with the rights of private
property, as the present bill did, why let the Government
bring in such a measure of confiscation, and if it did it would
find it would be placed in a large minority. He would,
therefore, conclude by moving that the chairman should
leave the chair. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. ESTCOURT stated, as a member of the com-
mittee, he could say that from first to last they had not lost
sight of the interests of the gas companies. The hon. mem-
ber had complained of the proposed reduction of dividend
from £lO to 18, and also of the proposed reduction in tho
price of gas. On the 19th day, when the committee thought

heir difficulties were ever, and when they had not come to

any fore al resolution, the counsel for the opponents of the
bill intimated that they would feel it their duty to appeal
to another place—meaning an appeal to that house ; but he
(Mr. Estcourt) was of opinion it would not be permitted to
appeal to that house upon questions of detail which had
been investigatei by the committee. lie wished it to be
understood that every one of these 22 companies received
their bills on the principle of competition ; but in 1857 they
found that combination was a better principle than that of
competition, and they said distinctly to the consumers that
the companies would not be rivals to each other. It was
then the duty Gf the committee to provide for the protection
of the public, and therefore the committee thought that in-
spection was indispensable. But it was said that the com-
mittee had come to a conclusion which the house ought to
reverse. He thought it would be very hard if those who
wanted to give protection to the public on the one hand and
to act fairly to the interests of the gas companies on the
other—it would be very hard if they could not make this
bill one that would accomplish all that was desired. (Hear.)
He thought all parties might fairly accede to his suggestion.
Sir G. C. LE WIS said that when a bill had been examined
at great length by a select committee, it is not respectful to
them that the house should review in detail the opinions
of the committee, but inasmuch as some things had come to
light since the committee sat, and which they did not know,
it seemed to him well if the suggestion of the right hon.
gentleman wore adopted, and the bill re-committed to the
same committee to adjust the conflicting claims of the par-
ties. He hoped the committee would at once consent to re-
port progress to carry out the suggestion for the re-com-
mitment of the bill to the same committee, and with the
permission of the committee.with that object in view, he
now moved that the Chairman would now leave the chair.
Mr. HENLEY thought the bill should go perfectly free
to the committee, and when the bill came out of that com-
mittee the house also should be perfectly free to form its
judgment upon a bill of this importance.
Lord It. CECIL thought it was not worth while to re-
commit the bill, if after that it was again to be subject to
discussion and re consideration in that house.
Sir MINTO FARQUIIAR thought the proposal which
had been made a fair ono, and he hoped the bill would be
again referred to a select committee. Ho would, however,
never concede the principle that the house should always
accede in silence to a bill upon the report of a select commit-
tee, and without consulting its own judgment.
➢lr. STANILAND was willing that the bill should go
again to the committee, but upon the distinct understand-
ing that it was competent for the house to deal with the
bill after it came out of the committee.
Sir J. SHELLEY said nearly the whole of this question
had been agreed to by certain parties, but there were cer-
tain questions reserved for the consideration of the select
committee, and he believed the preamble of the bill was
agreed to. He had no objection that the bill should be re-
ferred back to the committee, but it was the duty of the
house, after that was done, to see that it was afterwards
discussed clause after clause.
Mr. ESTCOURT asked the hon. member who repre-
sented the company whether, if the bill were referred back,
all further opposition would cease.
Mr. RUSSELL said there were some points in the bill

which required great consideration, but if the companies
were to consent to it it must be on a clear understanding
that a full inquiry take place. The companies especially
objected to the clauses which appointed inspectors, and
would not consent to it.
Lord R. CECIL observed that after the declaration made
by the hon. gentleman it was obviously a waste of time to
proceed further.
Ultimately, after further discussion, the motion that the
Chairman leave the chair was (apparently by inadvertenoo)
agreed to, so that when the Speaker resumad the chair no
report could be made.
SMITHFIELD MARKET, STREETS, AND
IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

The house next went into committee on this bill, and all
.the clauses having been agreed to without a discussion the
house again resumed.
Mr. BOUVERIE, on bringing up the report, moved that
the bill be referred to the Committee of Standing Orders,
in order to ascertain if they were properly complied with.
Sir G. C. LEWIS thought that the motion was a specu-
lative one, and that no grounds were given for entertaining
it, and he should therefore oppose it.
Sir JAMES DUKE said, that every thing necessary was
done, and there was no necessity to delay the bill.
Mr. BO UVERIE thought no injustice would be done
by referring it to see if the standing orders were complied
with.

Mr. NORRIS was of opinion that that motion would
only have the effect of delaying it, and probably prevent its
passing during the present session.
Sir M. PETO thought that inquiries should be made,
which the standing orders required.
Sir G. C. LEWIS believed the course proposed was an
unusual one, and ho should vote against it.
Mr. MASSEY thought the bill should be referred, as
proposed, to the Standing Orders' Committee, to see if the
rules of the house were complied with.
After a few welds from Mr. Alderman CUBITT and
Mr. S. ESTCOURT, who expressed an opinion that the bill
should not be sent back to the examiner,
Mr. BOUYERIE thought the examiner ought to be
asked whether the new work proposed required that notice
which it was admitted had not been given.
Mr. HENLEY said it was much better that small delay
should be incurred than that the rules of the house were
broken through.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND did not consider that pri-
vate interests were involved, and hoped that the further
progress of the bill would not be delayed.
Mr. BANKES STANHOPE protested against any
course being taken which would retard the consideration of
the bill by the house.
The house then divided when there appeared—
For the motion
Against
Majority

The motion was negatived, and the report ordered to be
received.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.
The house .went into committee on this bill.
On clause 3,
Mr. ADDERLEY moved that, after the words "void
and voidable" there should ho inserted " except as against
the doper; or settler, or his representatives." If the clause
were left as it stood at present, it would be perfectly
nugatory, and many Roman Catholic charities would not
be enrolled.
The ATTORNEY-•GENERAL for IRELAND said
that the amendment would have the effect of defeating the
object of the bill, which was to relieve Roman Catholic
charities from the disabilities that had been placed on them
by statutes which were repealed. The object was to place
these cheritieS under the general law of the land, and to do
so they must be relieved from the liabilities now pressing
on them. No advantage would be given to Roman Catho-
lic charitiei which Other charities did not enjoy.
Mr. ADDERLEY said this clause went to deal with
those Catholic charities since the passing of the Mortmain
Act and the passing of this bill.
Mr. LOWE hoped the right hon. gentleman would not
press his amendment.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he should support the amend-
ment.
Mr. PULLER said the object of this bill was to place the
Roman Catholic charities on the same footing with Pro-
testant charities. He should therefore oppose the amend •
ment.

Mr. SELWYN would suggest that the amendment
should be postponed till the Ist clause was brought up

again.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. PULLER said the effect of this clause would bo to
make a charitable bequest made by a Protestant on his
death-bed void, but valid in the case of a Roman Catholic ;
and he therefore moved as an amendment, that both should
be put on one footing.
Sir G. LENVI S said it appeared to him that the clause
was incorrectly drawn up, as it made enrolment within the
year cure the defect under the Mortmain Act.

Mr. SELWYN repeated his objection to the clause.
Mr. LOWE said, by the Mortmain Actßoman Catholics
were outlawed, and they ought not now to be held respon-
sible for endeavouring to evade that law.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said it would not be fair to place
the Roman Catholics in a better position by this clause
than other religious bodies wore placed in this country.
Mr. WII.A.LLEY was opposed to the bill, and suggested
that it should be withdrawn, and a bill introduced instead
under the responsibility of Government.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said it seemed to him that the clause
was correctly drawn, and he hoped therefore that the coin-
mittee.would not agree to the amendment.
After some further discussion, the committee divided on

the question, that tho words proposed to be left out Mend
part of tho bill, when tho numbers were—

Ayes
Noes

Majority
Mr. HENLEY moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, as they had now been 13 hours in the house, and it
was time to go home. (Cries of "Go on" and " Report
progress.")
The committee then divided upon the motion that the
Chairman report progress, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against it

-30

The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Mr. IVIIALLEY moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress. The question was one of the greatest importance,
and this was no hour for legislation upon it.
Mr. VANSITTART moved the adjournment of the
house.

Mr. HENLEY said he understood that when clause 3
was passed, the Chairman was to report progress.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr.
Deasy) hoped the house would consent to go on with the
bill.

Mr. VANSITTART again moved that the house do
now adjourn.
Sir G. C. LEWIS consented that the Chairman report
progress, and that course having been agreed to, the house
resumed.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.
This b'll, as amended, passed through committee.
The house resumed.
DOMINICA HURRICANE LOAN BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
LOCOMOTIVE BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive having been agreed to,
Mr. D. GRIFFITH moved a clause to follow clause 5
" That any municipal corporation, on its being made out to
the satisfaction of the council of such corporation that the
use of any locomotive engine on the public road is likely to
be injurious to the public safety, may, under the provisions
of the Municipal Corporations Acts, make a by-law de-
claring, that it shall not be lawful, without permission pre-
, viously obtained, to run any locomotive engine or carriage
on the public roads within their jurisdiction, or any such
portions of them as they shall think fit; and every person
using any locomotive contrary thereto shall for every such
offence, on summary conviction thereof before any two jus-
tices of the peace, forfeit any sum not exceeding ten
pounds."

Sir G. C. LEWIS opposed the clause.
Some discussion ensued, and the clause was negatived
without a division, and the bill havingpassed through com-
mittee, the house resumed.
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION (No. 2) BILL
This bill was read a third time and passed.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL.
This bill was brought in and read a first time.
Several other bills were also brought in and read a first
time, after which the house adjourned at a quarter to two
o'clock.