The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-26 00:00:00

LONDON (CITY) GAS BILL

On the motion for the consideration of this bill,
Colonel FRENCH moved that the London (City) Gas
Bill be re-committed to another committee, to be appointed
by the Committee of Selection, and that the committee
have leave to sit and proceed on Friday. He took objec-
tion to this bill because the company had contravened the
Act of Parliament of 1847, by which gas companies were
restricted to a dividend of 10 per cent., and any surplus pro-
fit was to be• applied to the reduction ef the price of gas
to consumers. The company had also, in violation of the
act of Parliament, raised their capital from £200,000 to
£300,000, and taken additional land.
Mr. BARROW said he was chairman of the committee
before whom this bill was investigated, and he defended
their conduct. It was considered by the members that
some irrelevant matter was brought forward with reference
to the financial part of the subject when they were hearing
evidence in regard to the sanitary point involved. They
decided that they would not then deal with the former part
of the question, as there were numerous witnesses waiting
to be examined relative to the latter, and counsel then de-
cided on withdrawing the petition. In adopting that course,
ho thought they acted wisely, for there was' an over-
whelming mass of evidence adduced to show that, in a
sanitary point of view, there were no objections
to the workse of the [company being carried on without
alteration of their site. That evidence was composed of
persons best qualified to give correct information, mainly
medical officers resident, the police and the Poor Law Board.
From their united Testimony it appeared that the means
adopted by the company purified the refuse that accumu-
lated from the manufacture of gas. He believed if they
rejected the bill they would be doing an injury, not only
to the company, but to the public.
Mr. MASSEY was strongly opposed to the motion for
recommitting the bill.

Some further discussion ensued, in which Mr. Roebuck,
Colonel North, Mr. Williams, and other hon. members
took part.
Sir G. C. LEWIS considered thkt unless some extra-
ordinary grounds were shown they ought not to accede to
a motion like the present, and he did not think any such
grounds existed with regard to the committee before whom
this bill was tried. At the same time, he had considerable
doubt whether the committee had arrived at a correct con-
clusion.

After a few words from Mr. E. JAMES in support of the
committee,
The amendment was negatived without a division.
The bill was, then considered, and ordered for third
reading. -

[LEFT SITTING.]

THE CONFE.RENCE.

(From the Morning Post.)
It seems clear that until Lord John Russell's
promised statement of the Italian question shall be
made it would be premature to form any opinion of
the aspect which that question may assume. At pre-
sent we know very little either of eventualities or of
arrangements already entered into, and when Lord
John has undertaken before the end of the week to
sift the whole question, the least that the public
can fairly do is to suspend the expression of their
judgment. It is even doubtful whether there will
be a Congress at all. So far from France and
Austria being in accord on the settlement of Italy,
here, at starting, is the cardinal point of divergence
on the Italian question. When the first intelligence
of the Peace of Villafranca reached this country it
Was assumed to indicate as complete an alliance be-
tween the two contracting Powers as the Peace of
Vienna in 1809 had established between them fifty
years before, or as the Peace of Tilsit had ushered
in between France and Russia. It was generally
said that France and Austria were about to settle
the whole Italian questinn between themselves.
Now, however, it turns out that the chief Power to
disagree with France on the preliminary of a set-
tlement—namely, a Congress, is Austria herself. So
much for the accuracy of first impressions. All this
is very reassuring towards the Anglo-French alli-
ance, but it heightens the difficulty of forming a
judgment, at the present moment, as to the course
which any particular Government should take, To
propose a motion, for instance, like that of Lord
Elcho, restraining the British Court from taking a
part in negotiation, of the basis of which we know
so little as at present, would be simply to display
either our indiscretion or our humiliating readiness
to be made the tool of a faction. We see, then, that
the great obstacle which has hitherto opposed an
agreement on the subject of a Congress rests in the
opposition of Austria, not as one of the parties to
the Peace of Villafranca, but as the head of the
anti-reform party in the Italian peninsula. No
one is more anxious for such a Congress than the
Emperor of the French, and this is perhaps suffi-
cient evidence that his cessation of hostilities was
not the result of any compromise in the sincerity
of his Italia: ) professions. If a Congress shall meet,
then its assembling must be taken as a pledge of
the predominance of anti-Austrian policy among
the Courts of Europe in such a degree as to be irre-
sistible ; add it can hardly be questioned that the
acts of such a Congress must bear some conformity
when it meets to the.public voice by which it shall
have been convoked.

A Congress, therefore, to settle the affairs of
Italy would be a point gained, inasmuch as it would
represent the vanquishing of the principles of Aus-
trian and Papal government. When, consequently,
we arrive at this point, if we do arrive at it, we
shall entertain more hope for the future. This,
however, would be in itself by no means a decisive
ground of action in reference to the participation of
England in the new Settlement. We must have not
only the implied pledge, arising, as we have seen,
from the convocation of a Congress ; we must have
a distinct understanding of the questions to be sub-
mitted to it ; of the spirit in which they shall be
discussed ; and of the disposition of certain Powers
either' to modify or enlarge the bases which have
at present been publicly laid down. The Treaty of
Villafranca, indeed, contains provisions which
would be less unsatisfactory to the British public
if there were pledges for their proving facts
and not phrases. When it is said, for example,
that "salutary reforms" shall be introduced into
the Italian States, the English people wish to put
their own construction on the term, and to have
some guarantee withal for the fact. We have, then,
two principal classes of facts to ascertain, on which
we are now ignorant, and which in themselves must
largely govern the future of Italy. The first is,
whether there shall be a Congress or not ; the
second, what is the nature of the changes and re-
forms, either in development or in modification of
the Treaty of Villafranca, on which the Powers
composing such a Congress will agree.
The question of the share to be assumed by this
country in the proposed settlement .at a proposed
Congress is thus one on which no discreet man would
commit himself until these points were ascertained
and, more especially, whether there would be any
Congress at all. The tendency of such a motion as
Lord Elcho's is distinctly unfavourable to the
Liberal cause in Italy; for, assuming the very ab-
surd hypothesis of its being carried, the effect would
be to prevent the summoning of any Congress.
Great Britain is at this moment the mainstay of
Italian reform in Europe, and the scheme of a Con-
gress is one of of the methods of working out that
reform. From the moment, therefore, that it was
known that the hands of the British Government
were tied by a legislative
_vote, the cause of
Italian reform would immediately expire. In a
word, a Congress can be convoked only either as a
mummery or as a reality. If it be the former, then
let it sit, though the British Government will
have no concern with it; but if, on
.the contrary
it be preceded by distinct pledges of its reforming
activity, then that will be the only available method
of working out any sort of Italian freedom, and the
participation of Great Britain will assuredly be
essential to the success of the cause. The present
crisis may or may not present a great opportunity
for the settlement of Italy on a firm, and, considering
the instability of human hopes, a satisfactory, basis.
If, however, more favourable anticipations should be
realised, it is of not less importance that the Italian
settlement should have the general sanction of
Europe. It is of the utmost conse pence that it
should be place on such a basis that no future
dispute between France and Austria shall subvert
it. It is earnestly to be dc sired that such a system
of isolated arrangements shall not be encouraged as
shall always enable one Power to draw the sword
in a belief that he will encounter only one other
Power. This system leads to isolated, destructive,
perpetual, wars. If, indeed, the settlement be a bad
one, this is inevitable. But if British influence can
change its aspect, then let it also contribute to
strengthen its foundation.

--
THE LAST OF THE OLD IRISH BRIGADE.—Count
Nugent, the last surviving officer of the old Irish Brigade,
has just died at his country seat in the Department of the
Seine et Oise,-in the 86th year of his age.
A supplement to the London Gazette of Friday
last, published yesterday, contains a number of papers
relating to India, the substance of which has already ap-
peared in our columns.