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. WHALLEY said, 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 pre valence 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 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. WHALLEY said, he would repeat his Question to-morrow. THE ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION. In reply to Captain VIVIAN, SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, I have table, and I expect they will be in the already laid the Army Estimates on the hands of Members probably not later than enabled to submit them to the House deMonday next. When, however, I shall be pends upon the course of public business. ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. MR. MACEVOY asked leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Act of 14 & 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-NUGENT seconded the Motion. MR. VANCE said, 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 from the Committee on official duty in | correct a misapprehension in the mind of the Ireland. He did not now mean to oppose hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh the Bill; but he should certainly give it (Mr. Vance), who supposed that the deevery opposition in his power on the second cision of the Committee was arrived at by reading. 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. NEWDEGATE said, 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 HARDY said, 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. GREGORY said, he wished to MR. VANCE said, 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. SCHREIBER said, 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 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. HUNT said, 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 2 K MR. HIBBERT said, 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. BAZLEY said, 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 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 length-thought, after the past year and the exeened statement; but that he ought to apolo- cutions at Manchester, some change might gize to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. have taken place in their opinions. This Hibbert) for taking out of his hands a would not be the place to enter into the subject with which on former occasions opinion of the House of Lords; but if it that hon. Gentleman had dealt with great were, he thought he could deal with it. It credit to himself. There was no doubt was a most serious matter that a Governthe hon. Gentleman would not resent the ment should take up a Bill of this kind, intrusion, but give his support to the Bill, and he begged to give notice that when it which was just the same as that intro- was brought forward for a second reading, duced last year. He might perhaps say he would move that it be read that day six with reference to the subject adverted to months. 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 GRIFFITH said, 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 MR. SERJEANT GASELEE gave 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. MITFORD joined 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. If MR. HADFIELD said, 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. 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. Bill to provide for carrying out of Capitalit by the addition of representatives of Punishment within Prisons, ordered to be brought the various interests affected. in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. WAL- LEE RIVER CONSERVANCY BILL. LEAVE. FIRST READING. The old Lee trustees, 120 in number, were con 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. verted 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 MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in moving for Board of Trade two, the Corporation of leave to bring in a Bill to make better London one, the Metropolitan Board of provision for the Preservation and Improve- Works one, and the Stort Navigation one. ment of the River Lee and its Tributaries, That would make fifteen, and to that body and for other purposes, said, that the Bill were to be committed powers for carrying was brought in in accordance with the re-into effect regulations for the preservation commendation contained in the Report of of the flow and purity of the water, the the Select Committee on East London prevention of the passage of sewage or 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 sub ject 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 SIR GEORGE BOWYER said, he was of old Acts which were not incidental to glad that the Government had taken up that special question. While altering the the question of the River Lee. He had constitution of the authority in charge of sat on the Committee to which two Bills the Lee, the Government had no wish to relating to the Thames and its navigation cause a revolution or to destroy the Lee were referred, when it was shown that the trust, which under the able presidency of state of the River Lee was a great the Marquess of Salisbury had worked ex- nuisance. He trusted, however, that this tremely well, and done even more than Bill would be made more effectual for its might have been expected when its consti-purpose than those two other Bills had been tution and powers were taken into consideration. That Bill would re-constitute it with smaller numbers, fuller powers, and an enlarged jurisdiction, and also strengthen found in practice since they became law. 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. POWELL said, 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 Caldor 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. 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 |