67

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONSOF ENGLAND.

ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

THE ninth election of Fellows to fill the vacancies in theCouncil of the College under the new regulations, was heldin the Library of the Royal College of Surgeons. Lincoln’s-inn-Fields, on Thursday, the lst inst., between 1.30 P.M. and4 P.M. The result of the voting was as follows :-

MR. GEORGE JACKSON ... ... ... .......

Mr. Howse and Dr. Ward Cousins were therefore re-elected,and Mr. Owen, Mr. Godlee, and Mr. Cheyne elected mem-bers of the Council.609 Fellows voted by proxy, 4 votes were received too late,

and 4 were found to be invalid ; 46 Fellows voted in person.

Parliamentary Intelligence.. _ "

NOTES ON CURRENT TOPICS.

The London Water Question.ON Monday, June 28th, the House of Commons gave a second reading

to the Bill of the Government to strengthen the hands of water con-sumers in London in seeking redress of grievances from the supplyingcompanies. In the debate which preceded the second reading Mr.Chaplin spoke of the Bill as a more or less temporary one, pending the<report of the Royal Commission on the water supply of the metropolis.

Prisom Bill.’This Bill has been withdrawn by the Home Secretary on the ground

that he saw no prospect of passing it during the present session.Burial Grounds.

The Committee of the Houie of Commons on burial grounds beganits inquiry at Westminster on Tuesday, Jane 29th, when it received.from Mr. Adrian, Assistant Secretary of the Local Government Board,- evidence as to the state of the law with regard to burial grounds andGhe powers and duties of the Lo3al Government Board in the matter.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

THURSDAY, JUNE 24TH.Rural Postmen and Medical Advice.

Mr. Luttrell asked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing thePostmaster-General, whether he would take steps to supply all ruralpostmen with free medical attendance in the same way as postmen intowns, or, in the event of the Department being unable to grant freemedical attendance where there were not sufficient postmen to warrantthe employment of a medical officer, whether an allowance could bepaid to rural postmen when they had to seek medical advice.-Mr.Hanbury replied that rural postmen who resided in, or started from, atown where the Department had a medical officer were entitled to freemedical attendance, and those who resided more than three miles fromthe town could obtain advice and medicine free at the surgery, butbeyond this the Postmaster-General was not prepared to go.

Rabies.Mr. Hazell asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether

he was aware that considerable dissatisfaction was telt at the order forthe muzzling of dogs in the borough and county of Leicester upon theground that there had been no proved case of rabies in that county forseveral years, and that the order would cause much inconvenience tothe agricultural residents; and whether, under these circumstances,he could hold out any hope of an early revocation of the order.-Mr. Walter Long replied that he was aware that some dissatisfactionhad been expressed at the inclusion of any portion of Leicestershire inthe area in the Midlands to which muzzling orders had been applied,but in view of the fact that two cases of rabies had been reported duringthe last few months, and that there had been others in adjoining coun-ties close to the Leicestershire boundary, he felt it his duty, in theinterest of the extirpation of the disease from the country as a whole, toadopt the course which had been taken. He regretted that he did not

see his way to the revocation of the order as suggested.The London Water-supply.

On the report stage of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Bill Mr.James Stuart moved to refer the measure back to the committee whichh.td considered it. He said that for a number of years the quantity ofwater which had been drawn by the Southwark and Vauxhall WaterCompany from the River Thames had been considerably in excess ofthat which they were legally entitled to take from that source, and theThames Conservators had consequently applied for, and had obtained, aninjunction to restrain the company from continuing such illegal action,which injunction they had intimated they intended to enforce. Thecompany had accordingly brought in a Bill to authorise them to legalisetheir overdraft in order that they might be enabled to supply the require-ments of the poorer portion of the population of South London. Themeasure had been opposed on the ground that other water companies, ifduly authorised by Parliament, were willing to supply the district inquestion with water. The London County Council were willing that atemporary measure should be passed which would authorise thecompany to obtain the water from the Thames which would enablethem to meet the demands of the locality for an efficient water-supply;but they thought that the provisions of the Bill should be restrictedto maintaining the status quo of the company until the Royal Com-mission now sitting to inquire into the whole subject of the water-supply of London had reported, and should not confer upon them anynew powers of a permanent character. The measure, however, wentfurther, and directed tne company to bring in a new Bill next sessionwhich would confer new permanent powers upon them. To this pro-posal the London County Council decidedly objected, and he nowproposed.that the Bill should be re-committed to the former com-mittee in order that the objectionable clauses should be struck out, and

’

the measure converted into a strictly temporary one, merely pre-serving the status quo and regularising the action of the company untilthe Royal Commission should have made their report.-Mr. Itankin, oneof the members of the committee, explained that he and his colleagueshad passed the Bill in its present shape because in consequence ofthe injunction against the company having been obtained it was neces-sary that such a measure should be passed in order to prevent awater famine in the south of London. The committee were desirousthat the measure should be a temporary one only, and if it were sentback to them they would have no objection to amend it in that direc-tion.-Sir F. D. Dixon-Hartland, Chairman of the Thames ConservancyBoard, said that the injunction against the company was granted totake effect at the end of twelve months, the interval being allowedto ena)le the company to come to Parliament and legalise their actionand avoid the risk of water famine. The principle upon which theThames Cuns-rvancy proceeded was this, that there was ample water inthe Thames for the whole of London, but the companies must take it ina proper way in the winter months and store it in reservoirs, not with-drawing it in the summer against the interests of navigation when thewater was low. If the House re committed the Bill now it would in allprobability tend to the loss of the Bill, and for the danger of a watertamine next year the House would be responsible.-Mr. Stuart Wortleyassured the House that the only desire of the company was to legalisetheir position and to secure p wer to supply their customers.-Mr.Chaplin said that as President of the Local Government Board hedare not take the responsibility of action which might contribute to awater famine in South London next summer, and if the motion werepressed to a division he must vote against it.-After some further dis- cussion Mr. Stuart asked and obtained leave to withdraw his motion.

FRIDAY, JUNE 25TH. ,

Boarding out Pauper Children.Lord Edmund Talbot asked the President of the Local Government

Board whether, in November, 1881, the Local Government Boarddecided that the boarding-out orders did not refer only to childrenboarded out by the guardians from the workhouse, but whenever theguardians granted out-relief to a child living with a person not legallyliable for its support, that that child would come under the said orders.-Mr. T. W. Rusbell, who rep.ied for the President, said that he had nodoubt that the Local Government Board expressed the opinion as statedin the question with reference to the effect of the order issued in 1877as to boarding out, but as there was some doubt on the subjectthe order subsequently issued in 1889 was in consequence somewhatdifferently worded as regards this matter.