CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 26 July 1859)

§ COLONEL FRENCH
said, that in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) he wished to move that the Bill be recommitted to anew Committee, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed on Friday. He founded the Motion on the ground that the Chairman of the Committee had prevented the continuance of a certain course of examination, the object of which was to show that, while the Gas Clauses Act of 1847 restricted other gas companies to a profit of 10 per cent, requiring that any further profit should be applied to the reduction of the price of gas, the City Gas Company had deprived the public of that advantage by increasing their capital by surplus profits from £200,000 to £300,000. The opponents of the Bill considered the course taken by the Chairman of the Committee as tantamount to a denial of justice, and he consequently moved that the Bill be recommitted.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
seconded the Amendment.

§ MR. BARROW
said, that as the Chairman of the Committee by whom the Bill had been considered, he felt bound to oppose the Motion. He would acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. and gallant Member in giving him verbal notice of his intention to make this Motion; but at the same time he must complain that notice had not been given to the other Members of the Committee, who were therefore not present to oppose it. The Committee over which he had presided were perfectly unanimous in the decision to which they had come; as, he believed, were the Committee of the House of Lords, which had considered the question previously. The opponents of the Bill attempted before the Committee, by a cross examination of the first witness, to show that the company had received large profits and bonuses in bygone years, but 462 the continuation of that line of examination was deemed irrelevant by the Committee, as they considered that the main question for their consideration was whether the sanitary condition of the metropolis would justify the retention of the gas works in the present locality within the limits of the City of London and in the midst of a dense population. The Committee had certainly declined at that stage to go into the secondary question of pounds, shillings, and pence. They had received the most satisfactory evidence from scientific men of the highest character that the works of the company were conducted in a most satisfactory manner, and that the health of the neighbourhood was not in the least degree affected; also that the police on duty in the district, who were said to be sufferers by gas works, were, on the contrary, the healthiest section of the City police. The Committee had reduced the maximum price of the gas, and had added clauses to ensure its greater purity; and, having taken such steps to protect the public interests they were of opinion that the Bill should pass. Under these circumstances he trusted the House would support the decision of their Committee.

§ MR. MASSEY
said, he must oppose the Amendment. He thought the proceeding suggested by the Amendment was as unprecedented as assuredly it would be inconvenient. The Committee to whom it was proposed to refer the Bill would not be vested with greater powers than those which the Committee who had considered the Bill were possessed of. He could understand a proposition to refer the Bill back to the same Committee, but it would be a reflection on that Committee to adopt the Amendment, while no satisfactory result could follow from such a proceeding. The appeal asked for was not one from an inferior to a superior jurisdiction, but from one jurisdiction to another on an equality with it. In his opinion, however, no case for a reference had been made out.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, there was no imputation whatever sought to be thrown on the Committee by the present Amendment. All that was imputed was simply a mistake of judgment. When there was an appeal from the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the matter was remitted back to the whole Court, and no imputation was thought to be cast on the Judge by that course of proceeding. He was greatly surprized to hear from the hon. Member that the making-of gas was not injurious 463 to health. Any person who lived in the neighbourhood of King's Benchwalk would bear very different evidence. Hon. Members of that House complained of the bad smell proceeding from the Thames. He had no hesitation in saying that the bad smell of the Thames was greatly caused by the refuse of the gas companies flowing into it. He cordially supported the Amendment.

§ MR. BARROW
said, that that evidence had satisfied the Committee that no offensive refuse from the gas works was discharged into the Thames.

MR. EWING
said, that three barristers, who lived within 150 yards of the works, and a number of chemical witnesses were examined by the Committee, and their evidence was to the effect that no disagreeable effects were experienced from the gas works, in consequence of the efficient way in which they were conducted. The surgeon of the police force in the neighbourhood likewise declared that the police suffered no inconvenience in respect to their health from the works. The refuse of the gas did not go into the Thames, but was carried away in close vessels. As a Member of the Committee he should strenuously oppose the Amendment.

COLONEL NORTH
said, that no less than seventy-eight barristers residing in the Temple, 453 householders in the neighbourhood, and 692 consumers of gas had signed a petition in favour of the company. He had been over the building, and thought it was impossible for anything to be better conducted. There was no smell of any description whatever, and he trusted the House would not allow the Bill to be referred back to a Committee.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he attributed the Opposition to the Bill to a rival company. It was an extraordinary proposition, after one Committee had been appointed by the House to try the matter, to refer the Bill to another.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
thought it was hardly fair to say that the opposition to the Bill was wholly interested; for he believed that there was an opposition on the part of the Corporation of London founded on public grounds. At the same time he should support the decision of the Committee unless some extraordinary ground was alleged for referring the Bill to a new Committee. The ground in this case was that the company in going before the Committee for a renewal of their term, and seeking to convert it into a perpetuity, alleged the great 464 expense they would be put to in removing their works, and that evidence was excluded by the decision of the Committee which would have shown that, great as that expense might be, the profits of the establishment had been proportionate, the Committee resolving only to listen to evidence on the question of the public health. He did not dispute that the Committee had a discretion so to decide, though he had considerable doubts whether they arrived at a correct decision, but he was not prepared to say that he would give his vote in favour of the present Motion.

§ MR. EDWIN JAMES
observed, that when a new trial was moved for in a court of law, the Judges decided on that Motion by reference to the evidence previously given, but the House was now called on to decide in favour of a new inquiry without being in possession of the evidence taken by the former Committee. If there were any nuisance created, the company could be indicted. He was informed there had been an indictment and a conviction standing over, but that told in favour of the company, for if the nuisance had not been abated, the conviction could have been enforced at any moment.