Commons Sitting of 20 February 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Controverted Elections, Chairmen's Panel appointed; on Shannon River appointed; on Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market, Mr. Locke and Mr. Corrance added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Ecclesiastical Titles; Capital Punishment within Prisons; Lee River Conservancy; Railways (Extension of Time); Sunday Trading (Metropolis)*; Metropolis Subways.*
First Reading—Capital Punishment within Prisons [36]; Ecclesiastical Titles [37]; Lee River Conservancy [38]; Railways (Extension of Time) [39]; Sunday Trading (Metropolis)* [40]; Metropolis Subways* [41].

ARMY—APPOINTMENT OF SIR HENRY STORKS.—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whe-
986
ther Sir Henry Storks has been appointed to an office under the Secretary of State for War; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of that office and the salary attached to it. He would further beg to ask the right hon. Baronet to state whether this office was an entirely new creation; and what is the position of the new officer with regard to the other heads of Departments under the Secretary of State for War; and what is his controlling power?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, it is quite true that Sir Henry Storks has accepted an office under the Secretary of State for War. Sir Henry Storks will be placed at the head of a new branch of the War Office, to be called "The Control Department;" and his title will be "The Controller-in-Chief," with the rank and position of an Under Secretary of State. The salary of Sir Henry Storks is fixed at £2,000 a year.

FOREIGN OFFICE AGENCIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAYLEY POTTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to give a Return of the names of the Persons for whom the Clerks in the Foreign Office now act as agents, or have so acted at any time during the last five years; of the emoluments which such Clerks have individually received for such agency during the last five years, and the amount received by them from each Person; and whether there is any truth in the statement which has appeared in the public press that the agencies in the Foreign Office are to be abolished?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, I have no objection to give a Return of the names of those persons for whom Clerks in the Foreign Office now act, or for the last five years have acted, as agents. With regard to the emoluments, I am prepared to give the aggregate annual amount received by each agent, as that may become a matter of public interest should any question of compensation arise. I do not think it would be fair to give the amount contributed by each individual, as that is purely a matter of a voluntary and private character, no Diplomatic or Consular officer being required to appoint an agent. With reference to the last part of the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that the question of the abolition of these agencies is under consideration.

INDIA—BANK OF BOMBAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DYCE NICOLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Bombay Government has been authorized to take shares in, and resume a connection with, a new Bank similar to that existing with the institution now being wound up under Act 19 of 1857 of Legislative Council of India; whether, as stated in a recent Memorial of Shareholders, £2,000,000 had been lost of the original capital of £2,090,000 of that establishment; and if he will lay before the House the whole of the Correspondence connected with the liquidation of the old and the reconstruction of the new Bank of Bombay?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is the case, Sir, that the Bombay Government has been authorized to take shares in the new Bank of Bombay, and to resume a Government connection with it. The connection is not to be precisely the same as that which existed with the previous Bank; because I believe it will be more convenient to appoint a Government Inspector with sufficient powers than to have Government Directors. But that is a point still under consideration. With regard to the amount of loss of capital, I am not able to say exactly whether the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers is accurate or not. The Memorial of which he speaks is, I suppose, the Memorial still in preparation, which has not yet been sent to the India Office. I suppose a very large amount of capital has been lost, but the extent of it I am not able to give. With regard to the Correspondence, I shall be prepared to lay it before the House.

UNITED STATES—POSTAL TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that the Government has already given notice to the Government of the United States to terminate the Postal Treaty between the two countries, which has only been in operation a few weeks; and if so, what are the reasons for adopting so unusual a course?
  MR. HUNT: Sir, when the Post Office authorities began to bring the Convention into operation it was found to require revision upon certain points. In order to put himself into a position to negotiate
  988
  such a revision, the Postmaster General found it necessary to give notice to terminate the Convention. Correspondence is now going on between the British Post Office and that of the United States with a view to an improved Convention.

SCOTLAND—JUDICIAL STATISTICS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government are preparing to take steps for the annual compilation of Judicial Statistics for Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply, that the Government fully recognized the importance of having a more comprehensive and minute system of Judicial Statistics than had hitherto been obtained, and steps had been taken for that purpose. He was about to introduce very shortly a Bill containing some clauses to impose on the officers of the Courts the duty of making such Returns.

  BANKRUPTCY BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, When he intends to bring in the Bankruptcy Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am not, Sir, in a position to name the day, but it will be introduced, I believe, in the other House of Parliament in the course of a very short time.

ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Abyssinian Expedition, Whether the Estimate of the probable expenditure, presented to the House in November last, when the Expedition was sanctioned, is likely to be exceeded; and if so, whether he is prepared to state to what extent, and what are the circumstances which account for the same?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have no reason to believe that the Estimates for the Abyssinian Expedition have been exceeded.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to his statement that he had no reason to believe that the Estimates of the Abyssinian Expedition had been exceeded, Whether this referred to the sum

  989
  of £2,000,000, which was the amount at which they had been placed according to the popular impression, or to the sum of £4,000,000, which the right hon. Gentleman had himself specified as that to which they might probably reach?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I thought, Sir, my previous answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite was sufficiently explicit. I can only say to my hon. Friend that I have no reason whatever to believe that the general Estimate I put before the House has been exceeded.

MURDER LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EWARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to re-introduce the Murder Law Amendment Bill, introduced by them in the last Session of Parliament, or any similar Bill?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I am not, Sir, at present prepared to say whether I shall be able to introduce a Bill. The difficulties of the subject are very great, and each successive Bill that is introduced creates new difficulties. With respect to the latter part of the measure of last year relating to Infanticide, of the hon. Gentleman, I certainly think it would be desirable to introduce a similar Bill, but I cannot at present say positively.

EAST INDIA CANAL COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, If, having failed to obtain the consent of the East India Canal Company for the sale of their stock at par, he has agreed to advance them money, and on what terms?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I must explain, Sir, that the East India Canal Company has two undertakings, which are distinct—the one in Orissa, on which they have already expended a large sum of money, and the other in Behar, on which they have laid out little or nothing. The proposal made on the part of the Government of India was that the Company should part with both those undertakings. I have now to say that, if they are willing to part with the Behar undertaking, the Council of India would be prepared to make them an advance for the purpose of enabling them to complete their works, or
  990
  such portion of them as might be agreed on. They have not as yet entered upon the terms of that advance. I have received a communication from the Company this day, which places the arrangement with regard to Behar beyond any doubt, and I hope to-morrow to be able to settle with the Council of India the terms upon which they will be prepared to arrange the offer of a loan.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he proposes to make the advance to this Company—the amount being, as he understood, nearly £1,000,000—without the sanction of Parliament?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know on what authority the hon. Gentleman has stated the sum to be nearly £1,000,000. I believe it will probably be necessary for the Company to apply to Parliament for further powers, as their borrowing powers might not be sufficiently extensive; but, as far as the revenues of India are concerned, the sanction of Parliament is not required.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman referred to Orissa or Behar.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I referred to Orissa. The expenditure in Behar would be very small.

ARMY—TENDERS FOR CLOTHING.

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. EDWARDSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his intention, with reference to the Contracts now about to be made for Army Clothing, to require that public tender shall be invited for the supply of each article; and, whether he will state when the invitations for such tenders will be issued?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: It is intended, Sir, to obtain a certain proportion of all the Army Clothing by contract, in order that they may be enabled to compare the cost of the clothing made in the factory, with that made by contract. Invitations for public tenders will very shortly be issued.

PLYMOUTH BREAKWATER FORT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of War, as he has informed the House that the experiments ordered to test the principles upon which

  991
  the Plymouth Breakwater Fort is now being constructed are not to be under the control of the Committee appointed to superintend the trials of the Malta and Gibraltar Shields, Whether he will state under whose supervision the proposed experiments were to be conducted, and by whom the results are to be reported to the House?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I should be very sorry, Sir, if it was to be inferred from the answer I gave on a former evening, that I entertained the slightest objection to refer the trial of the Plymouth Breakwater Fort to the same Committee that had conducted the investigation into the merits of the Malta and Gibraltar Shields. On the contrary, I have the greatest confidence in that Committee, and should be very glad to intrust to them any further inquiry. But at the head of that Committee is my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) one of the Lords of the Admiralty, and it would not be consistent with his duties at present to engage in a protracted inquiry. I shall, therefore, be obliged to appoint another Committee. Things will not be ready for the trial for a month or six weeks, and, therefore, I am not prepared to say at this moment to what Committee I shall intrust the conduct of the experiments. I intend, however, to confide the superintendence of the trials to some fully competent body.

ARMY—FEVER IN THE MAURITIUS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the 86th Regiment, having been detained on its way to the Mauritius at Algoa Bay, owing to the prevalence of fever in that island, was ordered on with instructions not to land unless the fever had abated; that on its arrival there in Her Majesty's ship Tamar on the 27th of December last the authorities of the island met and decided that the fever being then on the increase the regiment ought not to be landed; that the regiment was landed on the 28th of December, and that fever is now spreading amongst the troops; what are the circumstances that justify the landing of the said Regiment at the Mauritius, or that demand the presence of European troops in that island during the prevalence of fever there; and, whether it is the fact that by reason of this fever, of two companies of Engineers lately stationed there, but sixty men remained, and
  992
  of the entire force of Artillery but 100, and that the 13th Regiment also suffered most severely from the same cause?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I must beg the hon. Gentleman to do me the favour to repeat the Question to-morrow. Information of this kind does not come in the first instance to the War Office. I should be sorry to give an imperfect answer to a Question upon circumstances which I fear are of a very serious and painful nature.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would repeat his Question to-morrow.

  THE ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
  Captain VIVIANIn reply to Captain VIVIAN,
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, I have already laid the Army Estimates on the table, and I expect they will be in the hands of Members probably not later than Monday next. When, however, I shall be enabled to submit them to the House depends upon the course of public business.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. MAC EVOYasked leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Act of 14 &c 15 Vict., c. 60, intituled "An Act to prevent the Assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom," and of Section 24 of 10 Geo. IV., c. 7. It would be in the recollection of the House that the subject was discussed several times last Session, and a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Acts referred to in his Motion. The Committee sat a considerable time, and heard a great deal of evidence in support of the object which he had now the honour to bring before the House. He believed it was the wish of the House that there should not be a lengthy discussion on this matter; and he would, therefore, simply ask leave to bring in a Bill to repeal those Acts which had been recommended to be repealed by the Committee to which he had referred.
  MR. GREVILLE-NUGENTseconded the Motion.
  MR. VANCEsaid, the hon. Member for Meath had forgotten to state that the Report of the Committee upon which his Bill was founded was only carried by a majority of 1, that majority being caused by the absence of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, then Attorney General for Ireland, and now Vice Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Chatterton), who was absent

  993
  from the Committee on official duty in Ireland. He did not now mean to oppose the Bill; but he should certainly give it every opposition in his power on the second reading.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having last Session called attention to the proceedings and the Report of the Select Committee, it was not his intention now to enter into the subject again. A draft Report had been proposed by the representative of the Government in the Committee (Mr. Walpole), in opposition to the Report upon which the House was now asked to act, and that draft Report was only rejected by the vote of the Chairman, the hon. Member for Meath. Remembering that, and seeing that the object of the Bill was the formal and legal establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, with all the privileges claimed by that Church, and with all the appurtenances of temporal power which that Church asserted; and seeing that the proposal involved a very serious change in the Constitution of the United Kingdom—seeing that it aimed at that which he believed to be a direct invasion of the Prerogatives of the Crown—he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government—and he hoped the Home Secretary would give him an answer—whether it was their intention to support the Bill in its future stages? He asked this question because he knew that in England, in Scotland, and in the North of Ireland there was a very strong feeling that no such invasion of the Constitution of the country ought to be sanctioned by Parliament. The concurrence of Her Majesty's Government in that view might reasonably have been taken for granted after what occurred upon the Select Committee last year; but circumstances had lately arisen which rendered it exceedingly dubious as to what might be their course on any important subject of this kind, and he therefore should feel obliged if the Home Secretary, or any Member of Her Majesty's Government, would inform the House whether it was the intention of the Government to support the Bill on its second reading and on its future stages?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not say what course the Government would pursue in regard to the Bill until it had been laid on the table, and they had an opportunity of judging as to its proposals. At present he should not offer any objection to the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to
  994
  correct a misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance), who supposed that the decision of the Committee was arrived at by reason of the absence of the hon. Member the Attorney General for Ireland; the fact being that the majority would have been larger but for the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, so that the majority in favour of the Report was not accidental.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he believed that the hon. and learned Member for Exeter was not present during any part of the Committee's proceedings, and could not therefore have voted. The fact was, that the Report of the Committee was carried by the casting vote of the Chairman.
  MR. SCHREIBERsaid, that the fact was, that the Report was carried by a majority of 1, by reason of the absence of the hon. Member for Whitehaven.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to repeal the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter sixty, intituled, "Anl Act to prevent the Assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of Places in the United Kingdom," and of Section Twenty-four of the Act of the tenth George the Fourth, chapter seven, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACEVOY, Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, and Mr. LEADER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 37.]

IRELAND—SHANNON RIVER.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL FRENCH COLONEL FRENCH moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the manner in which the drainage and navigation of the River Shannon has been carried out under the direction of Her Majesty's Government, and what steps should be taken to complete the work for which a compulsory levy of £300,000 has been made on the adjoining counties? One Member, who was already in office, had written to him to say that it would be impossible for him to give the necessary consideration to the question.
  MR. HUNTsaid, as he had only just learned that his hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade would not be able to serve on the Committee, he (Mr. Hunt) would suggest that the hon. Member should propose another name.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the manner in which the drainage and navigation of the River Shannon has been carried out under

  995
  the direction of Her Majesty's Government, and what steps should be taken to complete the work for which a compulsory levy of £300,000 has been made on the adjoining counties."—(Colonel French.)
  And, on March 17, Committee nominated as follows:—Colonel FRENCH, Mr. WILLIAM ORMSBY GORE, Sir EDWARD DERING, Mr. ACLAND, Mr. GREGORY, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, General DUNNE, Mr. LAIRD, Mr. AGAR-ELLIS, Colonel VANDELEUR, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Mr. POLLARD-URQUHART, and Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WITHIN PRISONS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for carrying out Capital Punishment within Prisons, said, it was not necessary to make any lengthened statement; but that he ought to apologize to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) for taking out of his hands a subject with which on former occasions that hon. Gentleman had dealt with great credit to himself. There was no doubt the hon. Gentleman would not resent the intrusion, but give his support to the Bill, which was just the same as that introduced last year. He might perhaps say with reference to the subject adverted to by the hon. Member opposite who had sat on the Commission, that he was as anxious as the hon. Member himself, to legislate on the law of murder; but the greatest difficulty had arisen amongst lawyers as to what was a sufficient definition in order to carry out the recommendations of the Commission; therefore he had confined himself at present to bringing in a Bill which had hitherto not been fully discussed, but probably it would be better to take the discussion on the second reading. As the Bill had been printed before, in the same form, he trusted the House would allow it to be introduced.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought that Commissions on Capital Punishment had raised questions of great importance, and he feared these Commissions were likely to supersede the action of the House. This was a matter on which mankind at large had an instinctive feeling, and he thought they should take heed that in carrying out capital punishment in a private manner they did not suggest to criminals the way in which to commit crimes.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he begged to thank his right hon. Friend for again bringing forward this Bill, and he hoped he would press for a second reading at an early day. He did not think it was at all necessary that the Bill should be discussed at this stage. The Bill had been before the country for the last two years, and had recently been discussed in the House of Lords, when it was passed by a large majority. He had met with no opinion in the country against the Bill; therefore, he hoped discussion would be postponed to the second reading.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, that he had given notice last Session, that when this Bill was brought forward he should move that it be read that day six months, and he was still of the same opinion with respect to the Bill. There were some philanthropists whom no experience could alter; but he thought, after the past year and the executions at Manchester, some change might have taken place in their opinions. This would not be the place to enter into the opinion of the House of Lords; but if it were, he thought he could deal with it. It was a most serious matter that a Government should take up a Bill of this kind, and he begged to give notice that when it was brought forward for a second reading, he would move that it be read that day six months.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEgave notice that when the Bill came on for a second reading he should renew his Motion that it be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. MITFORDjoined with the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) in the hope that his right hon. Friend would lose no time in asking the House to agree to the second reading.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he had a very strong objection to the principle of this Bill, because it was a very serious thing to enact a law by which private death should under any circumstances be inflicted. If this extreme punishment were inflicted at all, it should be in the face of the sun and in the eye of the people. He was aware of the inconveniences which arose from public executions; but still they were better than having them in private. His own opinion was that it was impolitic to administer the punishment of death at all, but so long as it was administered it should be in public.
  Motion agreed to.

  997
  Bill to provide for carrying out of Capital Punishment within Prisons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. WALPOLE, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 36.]

LEE RIVER CONSERVANCY BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the Preservation and Improvement of the River Lee and its Tributaries, and for other purposes, said, that the Bill was brought in in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Report of the Select Committee on East London Water Bills, which sat last Session, under the presidency of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and it carried out the recommendations of the Pollution of Rivers Commissioners, appended to their Report on the River Lee, which was issued in May last. The object of the Bill was the preservation of the purity of the water. It dealt, indeed, incidentally, with the navigation, but only in the way of transferring authority from the old Lee trustees to the new Board of Conservancy. The Bill did not deal at all with a most important branch of the valuable Report of the Committee—that, namely, relating to the constant supply of water, the internal fittings of houses, the pressure to insure a sufficiency of water in case of fires, and other points of a kindred nature. Not that the Government dissented from that portion of the Report; on the contrary, they fully concurred in those recommendations, but they deemed them beyond the scope of the present Bill, which simply dealt with the conservancy of the River Lee and its tributaries; and they thought those points should form the subject of a separate Bill—if for no other reason, because such provisions ought to be applied to all the water companies of the metropolis, and would involve the repeal of old Acts which were not incidental to that special question. While altering the constitution of the authority in charge of the Lee, the Government had no wish to cause a revolution or to destroy the Lee trust, which under the able presidency of the Marquess of Salisbury had worked extremely well, and done even more than might have been expected when its constitution and powers were taken into consideration. That Bill would re-constitute it with smaller numbers, fuller powers, and an enlarged jurisdiction, and also strengthen
  998
  it by the addition of representatives of the various interests affected. The old Lee trustees, 120 in number, were converted into a constituency, to elect seven members of the new Board of Conservancy. The traders on the river and bargeowners would elect one, the New River and East London Water Companies one each, the Board of Trade two, the Corporation of London one, the Metropolitan Board of Works one, and the Stort Navigation one. That would make fifteen, and to that body were to be committed powers for carrying into effect regulations for the preservation of the flow and purity of the water, the prevention of the passage of sewage or offensive matter into it, and the power of making bye-laws to be approved by the Queen in Council on various minor details. No rate would be levied on the inhabitants of East London for these purposes, but an additional payment would be made by the two water companies in return for the increased purity of the water and other incidental advantages they would obtain. The new regulations were proposed to take effect in April, 1869. That Bill was analogous to the one lately passed for the conservancy of the Thames, with the difference that whereas the Thames conservators had jurisdiction for three miles only on each side of the river, that of the Lee conservators extended over the whole watershed; for the manifest reason that in order to preserve the purity of so small a river it was necessary to have control over all the tributary streams which flowed into it. That Bill, though brought in as a public Bill, was really a hybrid one, and therefore he could not fix the second reading; but if the House allowed the measure to be read a first time he would then move that it be referred to the Examiners, and on their Report that the Standing Orders had been complied with, he would give notice of the day for the second reading.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he was glad that the Government had taken up the question of the River Lee. He had sat on the Committee to which two Bills elating to the Thames and its navigation were referred, when it was shown that the state of the River Lee was a great nuisance. He trusted, however, that this Bill would be made more effectual for its purpose than those two other Bills had been found in practice since they became law. The first of those two Acts relating to the Thames was passed in 1866, and as a Member of the Committee upon it he

  999
  deemed himself a party to an arrangement then come to, by which the London water companies were to pay £5,000 a year towards the navigation of the Thames, upon the condition that the river was to be purified by the exclusion of the sewage of the different towns above Staines from it. Since then the London water companies had punctually contributed their £5,000 a year; but till this moment nothing has been done towards carrying into effect the agreement made with those companies. No step had been taken by any of the towns above Staines to exclude their sewage from the river, and he understood that those towns said they could not be compelled to do so, and were determined to go on discharging their sewage into the Thames. He did not know whether the powers of the Conservators of the Thames would enable them to enforce compliance with that condition upon those towns; but, in good faith towards the water companies, in some way or other, the people of those places should be compelled to cease polluting the river. He trusted, therefore, that care would be taken so to frame the provisions of the present Bill as would make them efficacious for the purification of the River Lee; and he hoped, also, that the Government would take into consideration the two Acts relating to the Thames to which he had alluded, for it was useless attempting to purify the Thames in London if the towns situated higher up its banks continued to empty their sewage into it.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he trusted that this would not be the only Bill of this class which would be introduced during the present Session, but that, having dealt with the River Lee, they would also deal with the Aire and Calder, the state of which urgently demanded their attention. The population occupying the basin of the River Lee was about 250,000, whereas that occupying the basin of the Aire and Calder exceeded 1,000,000. The Commissioners, in reference to the River Aire, recommended that there should be a central board, instead of leaving that river to local management; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman's attention would be directed to the suggestion; and he hoped also that provisions, as in the Thames Conservancy Act, would be introduced into this Bill to prevent the deposit of solid matters in rivers.
  Motion agreed to.
  1000
  Bill to make better provision for the Preservation and Improvement of the River Lee and its Tributaries; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Mr. AYRTON, and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 38.]

RAILWAYS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to give further time for making certain Railways, said, it was the measure which he mentioned in his remarks on Tuesday on the Motion for revision of the Standing Orders, as very much wanted at the present moment, and the House, he thought, appeared generally to concur in that opinion. It proposed practically to re-enact the Act of 1847, 11 Vict. c. 3, under which any railway companies were empowered to apply to the Board of Trade within two months after the passing of the Act for an extension of time to complete their works of not more than two years. The House would remember that clauses were inserted in the Railway Companies Act of last Session, empowering the Board of Trade to authorize the abandonment of railways under provisions similar to those of the Abandonment of Railways Act of 1850. Experience had already shown that it would have been well if provisions for the extension of time had been also revived; because, as he stated the other night, we might not improbably see reason in the course of inquiries now in progress to think that extension of time and not abandonment would be the just course, and we might thus be enabled to effect a reasonable compromise between the applicants for warrants of abandonment and their opponents. The proceedings were of the same nature as those in cases of abandonment. The greatest care was taken to secure publicity, and unless the companies carried out fully every requirement for giving complete notice to all interested, the Board of Trade would proceed no further. Indeed, he did not think he was going too far in saying that there was even less chance of changes in a Railway Act being surreptitiously introduced in the course of these inquiries than in the passage of a Private Bill through Parliament in the ordinary way. It might be said that after the expiration of the two years a company might come again for abandonment, and that the proprietors of lands and houses within the compulsory powers might be subjected to loss and inconvenience. That

  1001
  was quite true; but it would be equally the case if the railway obtained its extension of time by Bill, with the difference that it would be enormously more expensive to oppose, as well as to promote; and he need scarcely say that the object of the Government was to save expense not only to the companies which applied, but to landowners and other dissentient parties. Moreover this was a question for compensation, for which there were ample provisions in the Bill, and he might remind the House that in the abandonment clauses of last year the Act of 1850 was amended in this respect, by making the deposit and bond available as assets to meet charges and claims against the company, so that, unless exception was taken to the tribunal, no objection could be urged that opponents were likely to be injured; and with regard to the tribunal it had already been tried. In 1847–8 it dealt successfully with 168 cases, and if Parliament last year considered it worthy of being intrusted with the power of authorizing abandonment, he could hardly think it would fear to impose on it the less important duty of granting extension of time. He quite admitted that such duties, in both those cases, ought only to be temporary, for the purpose of meeting an emergency like the present. As on the previous occasion, these enactments would expire of themselves, the abandonment clauses applying only to Acts obtained before that date, and the proposed Bill only to those companies which come forward within three months. He might add that the Board of Trade were now dealing with applications for the abandonment of twenty-eight lines of railway, and were informed that more would be made. They had also reason to know that immediate advantage would be taken of that mode of obtaining extension of time if Parliament assented to the present Bill.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that he did not mean to oppose the Motion. It was well known, however, that railway companies had of late years obtained Acts for the construction of lines that ought never to have been projected; and he did not think it would be advisable to introduce any measure which would prevent the abandonment of such schemes. But if the Bill were introduced for the purpose of affording further time for the completion of really desirable railway undertakings it might be productive of considerable public advantage.
  Motion agreed to.
  1002
  Bill to give further time for making certain Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEPHEN CAVE and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 39.]

  SUNDAY TRADING (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Bill for the regulation of Sunday Trading in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Lord CLAUD HAMILTON, and Mr. LUSK.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 40.]

  METROPOLIS SUBWAYS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. AYRTON, Bill to make provision respecting the use of Subways constructed by the Metropolitan Board of Works in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON. Mr. TITE, and Colonel HOGG.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.