The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-24 00:00:00

SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL.

On the motion that the report on this Bill be brought up.
Mr. WARD expressed his decided opposition to the Bill,
and moved that it be read this day four months.

Mr. MACKINNON express4l his surprise at the opposition
of the Hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) who had been
a member of the first Committee that ever sat on this subject;
but he hoped that the opposition would cease, as he had taken
the Bill up at the earnest desire of several persons in Lan-
cashire and the other manufacturing counties ; and he trusted,
therefore, that the Bill would be allowed to pass.
Sir CHARLES LEMON said that his steam-engines stood
either upon the top of a mountain, or on a bleak moor, or some-
where where it could not possibly affect anybody. He should,
therefore, move that the clause of which ho had given notice
should be introduced into the Bill.

The SPEAKER said that this proposition could not be
entertained until it was decided whether the report should be
received or not.

Mr. E. B. DENISON said that he had received several ap-
plications from Yorkshire to oppose the expenses of the Com-
missioners under this Bill being saddled on the county rates,
and he should decidedly oppose any Bill which was to be worked
at the expense of the agriculturists for the benefit of the towns.
Mr. HAWES opposed the Bill on the ground that it was a
different Bill to that to which he had been a party.
Mr. VILLIERS supported the Bill, and stated that this re-
port was founded on the evidence which had been submitted to
the Committee when the Hon. Member was present.
Mr. HAWES explained that he had been only one day in
the Committee, and had stated to the Chairman his inability to
be there more.

Sir W. CLAY opposed the Bill on the ground that it was
impossible to adopt any apparatus for the consumption of smoke
in soap and sugar matufactor:es.
Mr. MUNTZ said that he was in the habit of using 9.00 or
300 horse power in driving machinery. At one time he would
be using 50 horse power, and ten minutes afterwards 150 horse
power, and he did not think that any business required greater
variety than his, and he would not be selfish ; he should not
oppose the 1311, but he trusted they would all be served alike.
Mr. WILLIAM S said that those ironraasters who had tried
to put in evidence in opposition to the Bill had most signally
failed in their object.
Mr. ESCOTT said that everybody opposed the Bill who had
any personal interest to serve.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. P- ROTHEROE
and Mr. ADAMS joined,
Mr. WA KLEY said that the subject was one of such im•
portance that it ought to be taken up by the Government.
He should advise his friend, the Member for Lymington, to
withdraw the Bill and leave it to the Government, after the
report of the Committee to take upon themselves the responsi-
bility of introducing a measure in the next session, as no
independent Member was strong enough to carry such a
measure.

Mr. G. DUiVCAN did not think the measure would answer
the purposes for which it was intended. He agreed with the
Hon. Member for Finsbury that the Bill should be with-
drawn, and the responsibility thrown on the Government.
Mr. MACKINNON then moved that the report be
brought up.
Mr. WARD withdrew his amendment on the understanding
that Sheffield seould be exempted.
Sir C. LEMON then moved fot Mr. Godson, that the fol-
lowing clause be added to the Bill :—" Provided that nothing
contained in this Act shall extend, or be construed to extend,°
to any steam or tire-engines used or employed in or about any
mines, collieries, iron works, coke works,glass works, or pottery
works, or for the purposes of winning and working, making,
burning, calcining, or manufacturing °Limn, lime, coke, iron-
stone, and glass respectively, anything herein contained to the
contrary not thAanding."

Mr. -HAWES said that there seemed nothing to be done now
but to move exemptions to this foolish Bill. He begged to
give notice that it was his intention to take the sense of the
House on every exemption. He should move that Ireland be
exempted, that Scotland should he exempted ; and, on the this d
reading, he should move that England be exempted.
Sir C. LEMON said that the clause was placed on a diffe-
rent footing to any others, and he trusted, therefore, it would
be adopted by the House.
Mr. B. DENISON objected to the clause.
After some further discussion the House divided, when
there appeared—

'for the clause ... 20
Against it
Majority against the clause —23
On our admission to the gallery we found
Mr. MACKINNON moving that iron-works, copper-works,
&c., should be exempted from the operation of the Bill.
Mr. HAWES said that the House had already decided it
would not entertain such a clause.

Mr. WA K LEY would put it to the Hon. Gentleman whether
he could carry such a Bill as the present during this session ?
Mr. WILLIAMS said the Hon. Member had done all he
could to abolish this measure, and he (Mr. Williams) con-
sidered that he had been extremely ill used ; if it was his
case, he would give up the Bill altogether.
MACKINNON withdrew the clause.
Mr. WA KLEY than moved that the first clause should be
omitted.
Mr. B. DENISON seconded the motion.
Sir J. GRAHAM trusted the Hon. Member for Lymington
would not persevere with the Bill.

Mr. MACKINNON was determined to press the Bill to a

Lard J RUSSELL could not support the Bill further ; he
thought, however, that inquiries might be made during the
recess, which would lay the foundation for the introduction of
an effective Bill during the next session.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that his Noble Friend at the
head of the Woods and Forests was about to lay on the table
of the House a Bill for the health of large towns, in which the
subject they were now discussing would form part. If, there-
fore, the Hon. Member would withdraw the Bill for the present
session, he, on the part of the Government, would undertake
that scientific inquiry should be made on the subject.—( Hear. )
After some further discussion,

Mr. MACKINNON then withdrew the Bill, upon the
understanding that the Government would issue a commission
on the subject, and if it should report in favour of the measure,
that the Government would introduce a Bill next session.
REAL PROPERTY BILL.

This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
DARBY COURT BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed:
STAMP DUTIES BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
MILITIA PAY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.

On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, the House went into
Committee on the Small Debts Bill (No. 3).
The different clauses, with a few verbal amendments, were
agreed to, as were also the schedules, and the report was
ordered to be received to-morrow at twelve o'clock.
ESTATE BILLS.

Mr. GREENE moved that all estate Bills brought from
the Lords be allowed, during the present session, to be read a
second time on giving one clear day's notice after the report
from the Committee on petitions for private Bills shall have
reported either that the standing orders have been complied
with, or that no standing orders apply to such Bills ; and that
the Committees on all such Bills be allowed to sit, on giving
one clear day's notice.—Ordered.

DUDDESTON AND NECHELLS IMPROVEMENT
IIILL.

Mr. SPOONER moved the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. MUNTZ said he had that morning received a request
from his constituents to take a las+ division upon this obnoxious
Bill. It would operate most unjustly upon his constituents, and
he therefore moved that the Bill be read a third time that day
six menths.

Mr. SPOONER said only two alterations had been made in
the Bill, but they were not of such a nature as to give his
Hon. Friend a right to say that it had come from the Com-
mittee in a more defective state then when it was referred to it.
Mr. BROTHERTON said there were seven boards within
the borough of Birmingham, many of which were self-elected,
often causing much useless expense to the inhabitants. The
objections to the Bill were so various, that he could not con-
ceive what had induced the licnse to place it in its present state.
Sir C. BURRELL said that there had been no good ground
shown for reversing the decision of the Committee. He sup-
ported the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. HUME said it was proposed to pass a Bill which would
prevent union of action and economy of system in the town
which it affected. The amount paid for the collection of rates
would pay for all drainage. He knew nothing of Birmingham
personally, but was well aware that the principle of the Bill
would affect most injuriously the interests of that town.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the Bill.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the Bill ..
Against it ... 52_

Majority —26
LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY BILL.

Mr. BECKETT DENISON said the select Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the merits of this Bill had this day come
to a decision, after a protracted sitting extending over a period
of 73 days, and with the exception of two branches to Wake-
field and Sheffield, the Committee had declared that the whole
Bill was proved. He had now to make an application to the
House to divide the London and York Railway Bill into two
or more Bills.
Mr. MILES seconded the motion. .

Mr. WARD did not rise to make the slightest opposition to
the decision of the Committee, but he merely wished to make
a statement on behalf of the proprietors of a competing line to
one of the branches, who had been put to considerable expense
during the 7 3 days, in securing the attendance of witnesses
and counsel before the Committee. The promoters of the
Sheffield and Lincoln line, he believed, was a competing line to
one of the branches omitted by the Committee, and they con-
sidered that it was extremely unfair that this motion should be
allowed to pass without a previous notice, and in fact before the
report of the Committe had been laid before the House.
Lord COURTENAY wished to state the grounds which
had induced the Committee to strike the two branches out of
the preamble of the Bill. The Committee had done so simply
upon the ground that there were other lines before the
committee which might be considered as competing
lines with those branches to which the Honourable Member
had referred, and in justice to the promoters of those lines, the
Committee did not think it right or fair that they should come
to a conclusion upon those branches until these lines had been
under their consideration. With regard to the proposition of
the Hon. Member, he could state that the Committee had
no possible objection to it.
Mr. BROTHERTON suggested that the proposition had
better be postponed till to-morrow.
Mr. BECKETT DENISON said there was not the
slightest wish on the part of the promoters of the London snd
York scheme to prevent the fullest possible discussion
taking place in Committee upon the two branches and the
lines mentioned by the Honourable Member for Sheffield. The
only object they had in view in making this proposal was to
enable the Committee to go on with parts of their Bill, the
preamble of which they had that day proved, in order that it
might not
a fbeew wkej,ibtrdbsacfkroomr thrownair. ‘ WARD
Dr
atonctihAeirn.exEtscseosiTo, whichn.
were quite indistinct,
Lord G. SOMERSET wished to know whether his Noble
Fiiend would state his opinion to the House. whether or not
this motion should be granted. If he thought that the
motion should be granted, he ( Lord G. Somerset) viould, of
course, give his vote in favour of it.
Lori COURTENAY said he could not at present express
his opinion as to whether or not the application should be
granted. An opportunity would be given for adjudicating on a
portion of the scheme, on which portion the. Committee did not
think th Inselves at liberty to adjudicate.
Sir JOHN ',own-IER hoped that the Hon. Member
would postpone his motion to another period.
Mr. DARBY expressed an opinion that the motion ought not
to be postponed.
Mr. DENISON then said he would withdraw his motion.