The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 2, 1861.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—MAY 1.
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP BILL.
Order for second reading read. Motion made and question
proposed, " That the bill be now read a second time."
Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and
at Vae end of the question to add the words "upon this
day six months." Question put, " That the word 'now'
stand part of the question." The house divided—. Ayes,
145 ; Noes, 191.

The following also ran :—Eastern Princess, Rapparee,
Sooloo, Barb Pigeon, Khadidjah-colt, Undergraduate.
Betting-6 to 5 agst Malta, sto 1 agst Eastern Princess,
and 6 to 1 agst Cowley.
Cowley made running to the bUshes, where Malta went
up to him and won easily by a length and a half, Hand-
some Jack was a bad third, Eastern Princess fourth, Un-
dergraduate and Khadidjah colt fifth and sixth.
Renewal of the Sweepstakes ofso sovs each, for 3-yr-olds ;
colts, Bst 71b, and fillies, Bst, 21b, not engaged in the Two
Thousand Guineas or One Thousand Guineas Stakes.
A,F. 6 subs.
Mr. Saxon's Big Ben, Bst 3lb (L. Snowden) 1
Lord Fitzwilliam's Zingaro, Bst 71b . ...... (Rogers) 2
Betting-3 to lon Big Ben.
Zingaro made running at a fair pace to the bushes, where
Big Ben closed with him, and, after a slashing race, won by
a neck.

Jockey Club Plate of 50 sovs. B.C.

Mr. Savile's Parmesan, 4 yrs, 7st 21b (Phillips), walked

over, and received 25 sovs.

A Sweepstakes of 50 sous eacb, h ft, for 3-yr-olds ; colts;
Bst 101 b ; fillies, Bst 6d. D.M. 4 subs.
Duke of Bedford's Asteroid received ft.
Mr. Fitzwilliam has purchased Wallace LI Mr. Swindells,
The price is stated to have been 3,000 guineas.

BETTING AT NIGHT.
ONE THOUSAND GUINEAS,
sto 2 agst Preceptress
7to 2 agst Fairwater
4to 1 agst Lady Louisa
6to 1 agst Brown Duchess
Bto 1 agst Sweet Havlthorn
THE DERBY,
sto 1 agst Dundee
9to 1 agst Rouge Dozen
500 to 400 that a horse in the race for the Two Thousana
beats Diophantus in the Derby.
Lord Strathmore and Mr. Fitawilliam have challenged for
the Cup.

ROYAL COMMISSION OF THE E J18..4N1r-

LENT OF TILE lI:LAME&

Yesterday the Royal Commissioners appointed to
consider the different plans for the embankment of
the Thames resumed their sittings, at the offices of
the commission, in Victoria-street, Westminster.
The Lord Mayor was in the chair_ The other com-
missioners present were—Sir Joshua Jebb, Captain
Galton, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Maclean, Captain Burstall,
and Mr. J. Thwaites.

The first plan received and considered was one
by Mr. A. Brooke, civil engineer, who described it
as an embankment from Westminster-bridge to
Queenhithe Dock, the cost of which he estimated
at £146,760, and he was prepared to name a con-
tractor, who would undertake the work for the sum
he had stated. He proposed to execute the work
in connection with the low-level sewer. There
would be 8,580 feet of quay, with four lines of rail-
way, which together with the quay would make a
total cost of £273,972; without the public landing
the cost would be £146,760. His original plan
was to have an embankment on both sides of the
river, which would include six quays. The em-
bankment on the north and south sides bf the river
would be about five miles. He proposed that there
should b 3 two quays opposite the St. Katharine
Dock, another at Rotherhithe, which form an im-
provement to the entrances of the great docks. All
this could be done at considerably under the extra-
ordinary expense which the public were inclined to
believe it would be attended with. The embank-
ment on the north side would pass under two arches
of Waterloo-bridge, and two of Blackfriars-bridge.
He proposed to erect a series of magnificent landing
places, to be formed of granite. He proposed that
they should be formed on the same principle as the
quays on the river Tyne, as there could be no ques-
tion as to their durability, and an enormous saving
would be effected. He proposed to drive in piles,
saw them off about three feet above low-water
mark, and then lay the platform on the top of
them. As to some portion of the land that
would be inclosed, he thought it should be given
up to the wharfigers, as a compensation for being
disturbed from the wharves near streets leading to
the Strand. The waggons coming from these
wharves offered great obstructions to the streets,
and he thought, if possible, it would be desirable
to remove this trade to some other spot more to
the westward. If the wharves were to be con-
tinued, and they were obliged to keep the trade
there, the coal might bo taken over the top of the
quay. He would have a second or lower quay,
from which the coal could be landed at a low part
of the tide. He had very great doubts whether
a railway would be wanted ; but if one was to be
established, it could be done in conjunction with
the low-level sewer. The sewer could be on the
land-side of the embankment, and the railway on
the top of it, with a bedding of concrete, so as to.
keep the tunnel perfectly water-tight. The adop-
tion of this plan would afford facilities for cleaning
the sewer, which he believed would become choked
up by heavy materials passing into it, and in many
other cases would have to be cleaned out by manual
labour, The adoption of this railway would enable
persons to be carried to Westminster Abbey and
the Houses of Parliament, which would be imprac-
ticable by any other railway, as it would be impos-
sible to compete with the penny steamboats. He
did not think that there was room for the forma-'
tion of docks, or if there was this part of the river
was not the proper site for them.
Mr. E. B. Walmsley's plan was next considered.
He said his plan was one detached embankment
from the main line of the shore, running along the
present wharves. He had mainly considered eco-
nomy and convenience, without interfering with
existing interests, for if the wharves on the banks
of the river were to be taken away, the vitality of
the trade would be destroyed. His line of embank-
ment would take the course of the present steam-
boat piers. A part of his plan was to make a
canal into which, by means of lock-1, barges could
enter at any state of the tide. He did not propose
to make a railway, as he believed that there would
be a great objection on the part of the owners of
house property to it. He proposed to lay down a
tramway, with horses and carriages, which would be
more convenient to the general public, because they
could stop and take up passengers ad libitum at
short distances. In the embankment he would put
the low level sewer, and in the solid embankment
there would be places where steamboats could land
their passengers. There would be also openings
under the roadway to allow the barges to go into
the canal behind. On the embankment would be
a crystal arcade, which would be one of the most
attractive promenades and places of business in the
metropolis, if- properly carried out. The arcade
would be of immense length, about 60 or 60 feet
high, and as many wide, in which every descrip-
tion of articles might be displayed. This plan
involved no question of compensation, and, indeed,
if any compensation was required, it ought to be
from, and not to the wharfingers, as they would be
enabled to get into the canal at all states of the
tide. At present they were compelled to lie for
seven hours at a time, resting on the mud, to the
great injury of the barges, and waiting for the tide.
The canal would always be kept full, but he could
discharge any quantity to let in fresh water,
merely retaining sufficient to keep the barges
afloat. Were his plan to be adopted, no craft ought
to be allowed to remain in the river to the incon-
venience and danger of the navigation, but all
should be compelled to be in the canal.
Mr. Weller said his plan was for an embankment
from Westminster-bridge to Queenhithe Dock, by
means of two viaducts. One of them would com-
mence at Whitehall-place, gradually rising until it
passed on the level of Waterloo-bridge, passing
on a level with the terrace of Somerset House. It
then passed the Temple-gardens by a double
viaduct, which would be a great advantage, enabling
them to be enlarged bey and their present size. The
cost of his plan he estimated at £500,000, including
compensation if any was to be made. The low
level sewer would be put into the embankment.
A space of ground would be formed in front of
Somerset House, which might be rendered available
for gardens. There would be a roadway of 40
feet wide, with a bracketed pathway of 10 feet on
each side. This railway, as the ground would not
have to be paid for, would yield an immense
revenue.

Mr. C. Aicken, civil engineer, proposed an em-
bankment on both sides of the river west of Lon-
don-bridge, as tar as circumstances would permit,
cutting off two arches of Waterloo-bridge and
three of Blackfriars. The width of the river would
be at Westminster 820 feet, at Charing-cross 940,
Waterloo 980, Blackfriars 760, Southwark 700,
London 800. He should surround the foundations
of the bridges by coffer dams, so that they might
not be affected by the additional scour of the river.
The total estimated cost of the works would be
£844,000.
Mr. Bardwell, of Queen-square, explained his
plan, which was also for an embankment from
We9tminster-bridge to Queenhithe, embracing the
low level sewer.

One or two plans of a similar description were
also presented, and the Commissioners adjourned.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

The propositions of Lord Palmerston for amend-
ing the manner of transacting business in the House
of Commons, when divested of the technical lan-
guage in which they are couched, amounts substan-
tially to the following:—That committees of supply
may be fixed on any day on which the house meets
for despatch of business ; that on Mondays, Thurs-
days, and FridayaGovernment business shall have
precedence ; that the motion on Friday for ad-
journment until Monday shall be abolished, and
that instead of it a motion for going into supply
shall be substituted: and, finally, that if a bill is
referred by the house to a select committee it shall
not, unless the house otherwise order, be referred to
a committee of the whole house. The last proposi-
floe may be extremely useful, if the House of Com-
mons will only give effect to it by appointing
committees in ,which it has confidence, and
leaving legislation in their hands. There •is no
doubt that in matters involving no party
feeling, but a considerable amount of nice
and technical detail, much time may be
saved by this means, and legislation of a better
staple may be obtained. Of course, also, the con-
cession of a third day of the week to Government
is a very considerable and practical improvement.
The facility which it will give to ordinary legis-
lation is very great, and the facility it would give
to the passing of the estimates would be equally,
great, were it not for that rule, which the commit-
tee have neglected to' touch, which leaves no cer-
tainty as to the employment of a night devoted to
finance, except that finance will be the one subject
effectually excluded from discussion.
But the question which the committee were
mainly appointed to,eonsider, and ott_which their
decision is of the greatest practical consequence, is
the motion for the adjournment on Friday. The
committee state their objections to the discussions
which are thus originated. They are inconclusive,
for no amendment can be moved; they are irregu-
lar, because they have no reference to the question
before the house; they are unsatisfactory, because
various subjects are entertwined and confused, and
they are dangerous, as tending to a relaxation
of the rules of debate, and throwing upon the
Speaker an invidious responsibility, since it
is impossible to reduce to order a proceeding in its
very nature and origin disorderly. Nevertheless,
these questions are convenient, as affording prompt
opportunities for _discussing matters of immediate
interest. They supersede the necessity of formal I
motions, and give a latitude to questions and
answers accompanied with reasons. The committee
think that a range as unlimited as that now assumed
on the adjournment until Monday may be taken on
the motion for going into Supply, and they conse-
quently recommend the substitution of the one
motion for the other. If this turns out to be a cor-
rect estimate of the relative effect of the two motions,
it would be mere verbal pedantry to cavil at the
substitution of the one for the other, but we confess
that the identity of the two is by no means clear,
and that we should be glad of further information
on the subject. The committee themselves say,
in a subsequent paragraph, that the proposed
proceedings of Friday evenings, unrestricted,
though desultory, would be conducted accord-
ing to the established rules of debate, on a
suitable motion, and with an appropriate con-
clusion. This is exactly what we fear. The
difference between the present plan and the plan
proposed is just the difference between a motion
and a question, and we fear this difference will be
found to be no inconsiderable one. The man who
asks the question need not have made up his mind
as to the subject on which it treats, or, if he has
made up his mind, he may assume a diffidence
which he does not really feel, and pretend to with-
hold his opinion till he has obtained the informa-
tion he requires. The proceeding is in its nature
colloquial and informal, and can therefore ordi-
narily be condensed within very moderate limits.
But the man who makes a motion must commit h:m-
self to some clear and definite view. No man of
sense will do this without being prepared to support
his view, and thus a few simple sentences will swell
into an elaborate oration. Decisions of the House
will be asked for and obtained on subjects on which a
decision of the House is not really wanted. Besides,
with very rare exceptions, a question is considered
as an affair between the member who asks and the
Minister who answers it, but motion made and
question put from the Chair is a fair challenge to a
debate of any length, in which everybody feels
that he has a right to intervene. It thus seals
that the statement of the committee that the range
will be equally unlimited under the proposed as
under the present practice must be accepted with
some reservation. The subjects discussed may be
the same, but the manner of discussion will be very
different, and that difference will be all against the
time of the house.

We hope, before the motion is agreed to, the
House of Commons will seriously consider what is
to be gained by thus shutting up the safety-valve
which blows off all the ill-humours of the body poli-
tic, or rather condenses a vast mass of expansive
and explosive steam into a few drops of cold and
harmless criticism. We are disposed to think that
these discussions, of which nothing worse, it seems,
can be said than that they are irregular, a little com-
plicated, and perhaps slightly undignified, save an
amount of time and prevent a degree of jar and
friction in the working of our institutions which we
shall never appreciate till we try it. The necessity
for many Blue-books is talked away in a few minutes
by such answers to quest ions as Lord Palmerston
and Lord John Russell are in the habit of giving.
Parliament does not meet to legislate only, nor only
for the purposes of Supply and Ways and Means.
It meets also to ventilate, and explain subjects of
popular discontent, and to keep the minds of the
people in sympathy and harmony with the institu-
tions under which they live. This has been effec-
tually accomplished by the much-decried Friday
Questions. We greatly doubt whether formal
motions will effect it half as well.— Times.

THE SUPPLY OP COTTON .FROM AUS.
TRAM-A, INDIA, NATAL, JAMAICA, 4e.

A writer in a contemporary says :--There are
two principal causes (one commercial, the other
political) why the people of Lancashire have been
slow to take practical action in the direction of
helping themselves to an increased supply of cotton.
If you will grant me space in your influential
columns I will explain the former of these causes ;
the latter may be made known at a future time.
As a rule, on commercial questions, the cotton-
spinners and people of Lancashire low the lead
of some half-dozen individuals ; to a considerable
extent, therefore, these parties are responsible for
the past inaction of Lancastrians in relation to the
vital question of our cotton supply.
"Antipathy to public companies" is the com-
mercial cause alluded to. I must here explain
that, by various processes, the parties who, but
a few months ago, were pleased to designate
public companies as "bubbles," have been induced
to become either directors of, or alders and
abettors in, the formation of public cotton pro-
curing companies. The arguments in favour of
public companies are too strong to be resisted.
Who would like to see the great joint-stock
corporations of our country destroyed ? Are not
their directors and shareholders peers of the realm,
or the best specimens of our oldest country and
most opulent commercial families ? And, including
insurance, steam navigation, gas, railway, tele-
graph, and other public companies, the dividends
range chiefly from four to eight per cent.; which is
more than can be obtained from investments in the
public funds or land. To designate public com-
panies as " bubbles" is absurd, seeing that the iden-
tical parties who so speak of them are in the con-
stant habit of travelling on joint-stock railways, of
forwarding quick messages along joint-stock wires,
of sending foreign letters in joint-stock steamers,
and of burning joint-stock gas—in short, they make
an hourly use of joint-stock companies. If, then,
these gigantic associations are at once useful, pro•
fitable, and highly respectable, how can they be
bubbles ? Some persons dislike " limited" com-
panies because they are compelled by law to attach
the word ' limited" to the name of the company ;
but is it not a fact that multitudes of gentlemen
who possess both sagacity and wealth have con-
nected themselves with limited companies ? Is it
not more respectable to be associated with a public
company which declares honestly that its liability
is limited, than with bubble private arms which
trade on unlimited credit with a limited capital ?
Of course I do not disparage respectable firms. In-
dividual capitalists and private firms have had their
opportunity, and they have left ua at the mercy of
slavery and republicanism for a supply of cotton,
thereby imperilling not only the imperial revenue,
but the daily bread of millions of workpeople,
many of them being women and young persons.
The legitimate province of public companies is to
accomplish by means of associated power that
Which private individuals cannot or will not
achieve; therefore the time has arrived when pub-
lie companies must obtain by growth or purchase
such supplies of cotton as are needed.
Public companies can
speedily develop the