The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-13 00:00:00

GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANIES BILL.

Mr. ADAIR moved the ftr.::her amendment of the re-
pot:; on this bill.

Mr. TITE strenuously objected to the bill. it sought
to erect a seises of immense gas works in the neighbour-
hood of Victoria-park, and for that reason he would
not be a party to giving the powers asked by the bill. He
pointed cut a site which might bo most advantageously
occupied by the company, but they refused to entertain
the proposal, and they proposed to erect works in close
proxim;ty to Victoria-park, which had recently cost
the house £75,000. The Board of Works had
spent £25,000 in making approaches thereto, and
the expense of the parl-, which was now about
to become permanent, was £6,000 per annum; all
this was to go for nothing, because the gas company
had made up their minds to erect the works on a site
which would inconvenience and discomfort thousands of
the poorer classes. He moved that the repo' be further
considered that day three months.
Lord J. MANNERS seconded the amendment. If it
was proposed to erect gas-works -in the neigh-
bourhood of Trasalgar-squaro a great and fire-
pressible outcry would miss in consequence of
the injurious odour that would be emitted from
the works, and would totally destroy all vegetation in St.
James's Park. He could see no difference between Vic-
toria and St. James's Park ; and as he should stand up to
the utmost of his power for the one proposal, so he strenu-
ously objected to the powers sought to be obtained by this
bill.

Sir J. TROLLOPE said the hon. member for Bath had
adopt ad a most ungracious course in moving the rejection
of this bill, because that was the effect of I.'s motion. The
Board of Works had petitioned against the bill, and they had
done their best to impede the bill in committee, and after the
best consideration their objection 3 had been found unten-
able. The hon. gentleman, despite all that had been done,
now moved the rejection of the bill on the consideration or
the report of the bill. He, as chairman of the committee
to which the bill had been refer:ed, said he hoped the
house would not agree to the proposal of the ken. menhir.
It was not, as was generally supposed, intended to vote to
erect gas works in the middle of Victm:a-park ; the
site proposed was a marsh ; not a house near
it for a considerable distance, and it was surrounded by
water, so that the great outcry that had been got up
against it was absr-d.

Mr. B. ROPE said ho had visited the spot, and he
assr-ed the house he could not call the proposed site a
deset:, waste. The gasworks, if erected* would become an
intolerable nuisance, and therefore he shou'd sup- pot the
motion of the honoutible member for Bath. If these
works were sanctioned it would in effect be iav:ling
people to disfigure and make the metropolis as objection-
able as possible. The whole question appeared to him to
be whether the company should be called- to lay down a
little more piping by moving their works from the re-
quired site or not. He hoped the house would give the
motion of the hon. gentleman the member for Bath its ap-
proval and assent.
Mr. AYRTON said the question to be decided by the bill
was not confined to the erection of a limited amount of gas
works, but whether they would allow two gas works to
unite, and for them to concentrate their whole establish-
ment near Victoria Park. He thought that because a
nuisance already existed near Victoria Park it could not
be laid down as an argument to introduce a far greater
one. (Hear, hear.) Apart from that he was of opi-
nion that the erection of these immense works would,
in addition to becoreng a nuisance, be positively dange-
rous to the surrounding property from fear of exp:osion.
Mr. W. COWPER said the erection of those enormous
and gigantic gasworks near Victoria-park would be ex-
ceedingly objectionable. (Hear, hear.) Ho, for one, could
not consent to become a party to subjecting all those who
went to the park for enjoyment to breathe the noxious
vapours that emanated from gasworks. On public
grounds he thought it the duty of the house not to sanc-
tion any bill which would endanger the health or pollute
the air near Victoria-park. The country had spent a geat
deal of money in forming the park for the benefit of the
working classes at the eastern extremity of the metropolis,
and now all was to be destroyed because two great gas
companies proposed to unite and concentrate all their
works within six hundred or eight hundred yards
of Victoria-park. He could not see why the gas
companies could not go elsewhere, as there were plenty of
places away from habitations where gasworks might be
erected without injury to any one. He hoped the house
would not reject the proposal of the hon. member for
Bath. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had been solicited on the
part of a large hospital established to combat with con-
sumption to use his utmost endeavours to prevent the
erection of ages works in close proximity to that establish-
-4 meat. IN thought ouch a proposal at once highly inju-

rious, and therefore he should support the motioi t of the
hon. member for Bath. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. BUTLER trusted the house would giveits assent
to the amendment of the hon. member for Bath, encl.! thus
rescue hundreds of thousands of industrious artisans from
the nuisance that was sought to be imposed upon i Zorn
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. PAULL said he should give his vote in support of
the bill, because he thought the great outcry that
had been got up against it totally groundless. The great
opponent of the billwasurhthoeod. (popltarlear,
, hpreeaarc,haenrd a d
laughter.)
Je
agitator of the neighbourhood.
It was for the house to say whether this redoubtable per-
son should dictate to them where they should allow the
erection of gas works. He contended that the gas works
would not produce a nuisance, because all the gas manu-
factured was to be pu-ified by a process which would alto-
gether relieve it of its noxious properties.
Sir R. PEEL said he thought the opinion of the com-
mittee ought to be maintained. He objected to the hon.
member for Bath standing up in that house as the standard
of taste. He thought that when a committee of that house
had decided that the site selected was a fit and proper
one, it was highly ridiculous for the house to blindly
follow the adv:ce of the hon. member for Bath. He
should like to know whether Battersea Park was de-
stroyed by the gas works that existed in the locality—
(lear, hear) —or whether Bath, wl:ch was one of the most
beautqul places in the counts;, was disfigured by the gas
works that existed there. (Hear, hear.) He hoped the
house would support the determination of the committee.
Mr. LUSK supported the amendment of the hon. mem-
ber for Bath. •
ntruil
adsotoapietr
oeot protect
itrTu
leteeihmdeee;iinterestslnetc.wt ghezerve
Alderman LAWRENCE said he felt certain the house
s
wwasLooo
ehnoiilotfl4t.the poor of the east end of
aaslnstue niwstaa to
es e suchidt
that
t proposaltheg
but it was pro-
posed to remove them; like those from Brick-lane and the
CulLain-road, to a proposed site near Victoria-park. If
these works were of the salubrious nature that some
gentlemen would have the house believe what need was
there of removal at all? (Hear.)
Mr. L. KING hoped the house would support the de-
cision of the committed, and reject the amendment of the
hon. member for Bath.
Mr. STANILAND said as a memberooftedthe
the eommhoitotesee
wtoowolhdicshupthpeeithilehaddeobeisieono referred,it had, after
af hre hp
the g-eatest consi-
deration, ari:vect at.
The house then divided, when there appeared
ler the amendment 1:38
Against it
31 Majority

The amendment was therefore lost, and the report was
furLher considered, and the VII ordered to be read 4 third
time.

Lord DUNKELLIN gave notice of his intention to move
in committee on the Reform Bill that the .£7 borough fran-
chise be a rating, not a renting franchise.
In reply to Mr. SiNDFOUD,
Mr. LAYARD stated that the papers relating to the
Conference would be shortly laid on the table.
Mr. H. VIVIAN, in a long and interesting speech, full
of elaborate scientific calculations, and showing as well a
minute practical knowledge of the subject, moved for a
Royal Commission to inquire into the extent of our coal-
fields, the consumption of coal, and other points connected
with this question. After some prefatory remarkg, he
div:ded his subject under these heads—the depth at which
coal could be profitably worked ; the amount of coal actu-
ally known to exist, and which might possibly exist in
undiscovered coalfields ; the rate of consumption, and the
necessity of economy. In dealing with the first point he
combated Mr. Hall's assertion that coal could not be worked
below 4,0001 L, remarking that it would cut off from the
South Wales district 24,C03 million tons, of the value of
£64,000,000, and showed by relating a cerise of practical
experiments which had been made that the objections to
deep pits on the ground of temperature, pressure, and ex-
pense 15 ere unrounded, and that they could be worked
with as much health, comfort, and safety to miners, and
with as little expense comparatively, as shallow pits; and
that hitherto, as a matter of experience, the additional cost
of sinking deeper had been more than compensated by the
additional amount of coal obtained. He gave some inte-
resting details as to the extent of our known coalfields
which he placed at 2,770 square m'ies, containing 84,000
million tons, but gave many strong reasons and quoted
high authorities for believing that under the Permian and
other strata there existed coalfields three or fopr times as
extensive, which were within the reach of man, and that in
all probability the south of England was full of attainable
coal. On the question of future consumption he declined
to make any predictions, but contended that consumption
ought not to increase at a more rapid rate than the popu-
lation, which was at present about one and one-fifth per
cent. ; and applying it to the manufacture of iron, he showed
by a rea'uctio ad absurdum that Mr. Jevon's theory of geo-
metrical progression in the consumption was fallacious
and entirely untrustworthy, concluding that there was no
ground for the dismal prophecies which had been uttered on
this point. By the adoption of the "long wall" system, in
place of the "pillar and stall," ho showed that considerable
economy might be obtained in the working of coal, and in
regard to its consumption he indicated various inventions
which had been and might be expected to be made to effect
_a. large saving. He adverted, in sonclusion, to Mr. Tor-
ren's amendment for confiding the inquiry to the Geologi-
cal Survey,and gave his reasons for preferring a commission
composed not only of scientific but practical men.
Mr. LIDDELL seconded the motion, and, though not
apprehending any imminent failure in our coal supplies,
urged the necessity—looking to the importance of the ma-
terial to our commercial superiority—of adopting every
safeguard for the economical consumption of co.:I.
Mr. WC. TORRENS moved, as an amendment, "That
a special report as to the extent, quality, and cost of work-
ing coal in the United Kingdom be directed to be made by
the persons charged with the conduct of the Geological
Survey." He did not press it very forcibly, but insisted
that, in whatever form it was conducted, the inquiry should
be thorough.

Sir G. GREY intimated that the Government, being
fully sensible of the importance of accurate information on
this subject, would grant the inquiry, and being unwilling
to delay the completion of the important work on which
the Geological Survey was engaged, they preferred the
proposal of Mr. Vivian, to confide the inquiry to a Royal
Commission, on which it was hoped Sir R. Murchison
would serve.

Sir. R. PEEL, Mr. SAMUELSON, and Col. Sys expressed
a preference for obtaining the information through the
Geological Survey.
Six G. Bowyer, Mr. Bazley, aud Mr. Pease thanked the
Government for granting the inquiry, and
Tha CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to
some reflections of Sir G. Bowyer in a former speech of his,
explained that ho had not shared in the apprehensions of
an actual exhaustion of the supply of coal, but had simply
expressed an opinion that we could not go on producing
our present amount without risking a rise in price; and,
in defending the decision of the Government as to the form
of the inquiry, pointed out the superior advantages of a
commission on which both practical and scientific men
could meet.

The amendment having been withdrawn, the motion
was agreed to.
Mr. MELLOR moved for a Select Committee to consi-
der the importance of creating a harbour of refuge at New-
haven ; but Mr. M. GIBSON objecting to the motion, it was
withdrawn after a short conversation.
Mr. MORRIS called attention to the state of the law re-
gulating the removal from Great Britain to Ireland of per-
sons receiving relief, and to tho injustice of maintaining a
system which, he contended, acts in favour of Great Bri-
tain alone.

Mr. VILLIERS admitted that in former times the law
had worked harshly, but maintained that the recent Union
Chargeability Act had removed many hardships, promis-
ing, however, to consider favourably any further changes
which might be proposed if a longer experience of that
Aet should show them to be necessary;
Sir C. O'LOGHLEN obtained leave to bring in a bill
to regulate and improve the tenure of land in Ireland, the
object of which he explained to be to foster the granting of
leases for 21 years.
Mr. LEEMAN obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend
the law in respect to the sale and purchase of shares in
banking and other companies.
Various other orders were forwarded a stage, and the
house adjourned at fivo minutes past 1 o'clock.