The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-07 00:00:00

THE SUPPLY OF GAS.

presentedrmfroa
J. B m
theSopnetceials), Gas
to
CommitteeA report
by was
the ir chaian (
gwahtoiom hnsoafd
abpeeentitrieofnerorfeddelfeogracteosnsriedperreastei onntinthgesaelvlee--
rmaol
npar ios
uh
ne se
iol
rtehl ea
tmi
veet metropolis, ies ,s
up
pr epsleyn
ot ef dgtaos haen
dC o
cer-
tainn
into
t o bpial lrsl
ioa nn a theen t s u
,j
he
ec t
cwohmi cmh hadee bs
teaetne
di n tlyr
tdhu creed.
spect to the petition their opinion that it would
assist the committee in the objects for which they
were appointed if a grant not exceeding £3OO were
made to the delegates. They also reported that the
Metropolitan Gas Companies' Amalgamation Bill
aimed at providing for the amalgamation of the
companies subject to the Metropolitan Gas Act,
1860, and for the appointment of commissioners
with extensive powers for fixing the illuminating
power and the price of gas, and also for the appoint-
ment of metropolitan gas referees and examiners.
The bill likewise provided that the maximum price
should be sixpence per thousand cubic feet less
than the minimum price of gas fixed by
the Act of 1860, and that the illumina-
ting power of the gas should after this year
be two candles more than that fixed by
that Act. The committee asked for powers
to petition against the bill, so that they might be
able to appear before a committee of the House of
Commons with a view altogether to oppose the
bill, or to obtain the insertion of clauses to protect
the interests of the Corporation and the citizens.
The Gas Light and Coke Companies Bill was to
authorise the company to erect new gasworks in
the parishes of Barking and Woolwich, and to raise
further moneys, and for other purposes. Among
those purposes was a power for the City Gas Com-
pany to subscribe part of the money required by
the Gas Light and Coke Company. The bill like-
wise contained a clause for capitalising a sum of
£360,000 in respect of profits alleged to have been
expended on their works. The committee said they
had twice succeeded in obtaining the rejection of a
clause like that in former bills, and they were of
opinion that they should be empowered to appear
before the House of Commons and altogether oppose
the bill, or to procure the alteration or rejection of
clauses now in the bill, and the insertion of others
for the protection of the Corporation and the inte-
rests of the citizens.

The report was agreed to, and referred back to
the committee for execution.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.

A petition was presented by Deputy MALCOL3I,
of inhabitants of the ward of Tower, against the
Metropolitan District Railways Bill in Parliament,
and praying the Court to take such steps as might
be deemed advisable to oppose its being passed into
a law. It was referred to a committee for conside-
ratio❑ and report.
A motion by Deputy ATKINS to vote an addi-
tional sum of £250 towards the interior decoration
of the Mansion house gave rise to some opposition,
not on the ground that the money would not be
well spent, but because, as was alleged, between
£6OO and £7OO for a similar purpose had been
hastily voted at their last meeting, towards the end
of a long sitting, and under circumstances which
did not admit of due consideration, and because
upwards of £2,000 was voted at a meeting of the
Court a few months ago for the embellishment of
the interior of the Egyptian Hall and the saloon,
and was now in course of expenditure in that way.
The further consideration of the matter eventu-
ally stood adjourned until Monday, and the meet-
ing separated.

CABINET COUNCIL.—A Cabinet Council was held
yesterday, at the official residence of the First Lord
of the Treasury iu Downing-street. The Ministers pre-
sent were—The Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Marlbo-
rough, the Earl of 31altnesbury, the Right Hon. Gathorue
Hardy, Lord Stanley, the Duke of Buckingham and
Chandos, Sir John Pakington, Sir S. Northcoto, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the ,Right Hon. 11. T. L.
Corry, the Duko of Richmond, Lord J. Manners, the Earl
of Mayo, and the Right Hon. S. H. Walpole.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.—The following
members of the College, having undergone the
necessary examinations, were admitted licentiates in mid-
wifery, at a meeting of the board on the sth lust :
Messrs. Duncan M‘Larty, M.D. Victoria College, Toronto
of St. Thomas, Ontario, diploma of membership dated Jan'
22, 1868, of St. Thomas's Hospital; Hugh Munro APElay.
M.D. Victoria College, Toronto, .Woodstock, Ontario, Jan'
22, 1868, of St. Thomas's Hospital; Richard Henry Prior:
L.S.A. Chichester, January 21, 1868, of King's College.:
and William Douglas, Belfast, January 23, 1868, of the
Edinburgh and Belfast Schools. It is stated that two can.
didates failed to acquit themselves to the satisfaction of
the Board.

am.

Mr. Willis—Well, did you hear the word "
shive-
reens?"—Witness--Yes, "shivereens" or " smithe-

reens."
Mr. Willis—Well, I will ask you one more ques-
tion. Are you still in the police ?—Witness—l

Mr. Willis--Were you not once dismissed ?
—Witness—No, I left to benefit myself. I will
swear I was not dismissed because I trumped up a
case against a respectable man, the bill of which
was thrown out.

Re-examined by Mr. Wontner—When I said
the men were talking in Irish I meant broken Irish.
I will swear that I left the force to benefit my-
Felf, and that I sent in my resignation in the usual
way.
Charles Digby said he was inspector of the It
division, and was in charge of the Deptford po-
lice-station. He remembered the Sunday even-
ing 19th January. From information he received
he went to the prisoner M'Carthy's house at five
o'clock the next morning. M'Carthy came out
of his house about half-past seven. He had
known him before as a labourer in Deptford
Dockyard. Witness went up to him and said,
" I believe your name is Florence Al‘Carthy ?"
He replied, " That's my name." Witness said, " I
believe you were in company with Lyttelton
and others yesterday afternoon when an illegal
oath was administered, first to a man named
O'Leary, and then by O'Leary to a man named
James Boutell. Prisoner replied, " Yes, I was."
Witness then said, " I must request you to go to
the station with me." Prisoner said, " Won't it do
when I come out to my dinner ?" Witness replied,
" No, you must come at once." Witness took
him to the station, and afterwards re-
turned and searched his house in company with
Police-constable Ling. In the front bed-room
witness found in a hat-box two wood-cut likenesses
(produced) of Burke and Duffy. In the same box
was a savings' bank-book, and on the window ledge
of the same room there was a subscription list (pro-
duced.) Inside the mattress of the,bed there were
26 copies of the Irishman. On the mantelpiece in
the room there was a Testament. It was lying on
top of another book, which was covered with dust.
The Testament was quite free from dust. Witness
had seen the witness Boutell once or twice before.
Once at the station and once in High-street.
Cross-examined—Witness first saw Boutell on
the 17th or 18th ult. Witness knew that Ling was
watching Lyttelton. Ling was with Boutell when
witness first saw him. Ling and Yardley were
with him on the second time witness saw him.
Witness never saw Boutell in company with Lyt-
telton. Boutell never made any report to witness.
He did not know Boutell was in Deptford before
he saw him. Witness was not getting up the case
—be was simply a witness. 111‘Carthy, he believed,
took in lodgers.

Sergeant George Cadwell, 8 R, deposed that he
had seen Boutell. He was on duty at Deptford
Station on Sunday the 19th of January. He was
taken in about half-past three that afternoon by the
prisoners Florence M' earthy, James Richardson,
and a man named Daniel O'Leary. O'Leary pre-
ferred a charge against Boutell of being a Fenian.
Ile said he had heard Boutell speak of Fenianism ou
Saturday night. Witness asked O'Leary why he
had not given information to the police. He said
he did not think it was necessary, as he had a special
constable in his house. Boutell said if they wished
for any reference respecting him he should refer
them to Detective Ling. Witness knew Macarthy
by sight, but he did not know Richardson.
They both told me they were special constables.
M'Carthy said that he and Richardson had been
called upon by O'Leary to take Boutell into cus-
tody at the King William, and being special con-
stables they thought they were justified in doing so.
Witness had seen Boutell before this ; but he had
not had any conversation with him. He, however, had
previously received information about him, and in
consequence of that information he declined to take
the charge. He took the names and addresses of all
of them, and gave Boutell's to O'Leary. Witness
afterwards made the report of what had happened
to Inspector Digby.
Cross-examined—Boutell was charged with being
a Fenian. The reason witness declined to take the
charge against Boutell was because he had seen
him about with Ling. He did not know that Bou-
tell had made a report. He had seen Boutell in the
streets by himself.
After some evidence had been taken, the pri-
soners were fully committed for trial.