The Press.
London, England, 1855-07-21 00:00:00

the Government for want of the energy also
lutely requisite to raise our military force to
the standard sanctioned by Parliament.
The estimates voted with such unanimity
included 178 645 British troops, and 14,950
foreign troops. The number actually enrolled
is about 30,000 short of that number. The
effective force of the entire army was—
let of April
17 May
„ June
In the Militia the disproportion between
the number of men voted and the number
enrolled is still more striking. The estimates
were for a total of 136,323 men The numbers
actually enrolled were—

Ist of March,
" April
" June

The estimates submitted to Parliament give,
therefore, an impression of Ministerial vigour
not borne out by the result.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL.
Tuts 13ill, which was to have passed its third read-
ing on Monday last, in a similar quiet manner as it
passed its second reading on the 18th of April (the
period of the Emperor's visit), was passed last
night after exciting considerable discussion. We
shall probably revert to the subject upon some future
occasion if the Bill be not rejected by the Lords,
meanwhile we wiah to Gail atteition to the following
poiuts :
On the introduction of the Bill on the 15th March,
Sir BENJAMIN HALL stated that there existed at least
10,448 persons acting as Commissioners, and " his
" own impression was that the number could not be
" much less than 15,000. He could not ascertain
" the cost of the officers, but his impression was
" that it could not be less than from 70,0001. to
" Bu,oool. a year."
Now, if the new Vestries and Boards dispense with
the services of these gentlemen, which it is believed
is their intention, a heavy compensation for loss of
place will have to be effected, and thus we shall
have two sets of officers upon our hands for salary.
Sir B. HALL admitted that arbitrary powers were
given by the Bill, but stated that all the clauses were
copied from the existing Sewers Bill.
In reply to this, we would ask whether the bill
of 1848, introduced on the 22nd day of July, really
received such full consideration as to make its
clauses an infallible guide?
On the introduction of the Loral Management
Bill, the late Under Secretary for Home Affairs, and
present chairman of committee, opposed it on
various grounds, and stated that "he knew no
; precedent for introducing such a change as
" proposed by this Bill without allowing Puha-
" meat to obtain information in a clear manner, to
" which it might refer with certainty ;" and, speak-
ing of bad drainage, he asked whether the House
" would consent again to consign the whole subject
"to an eternal chaos?" It is true that Sir B. HALL
said, " The Board would have power to make great
" intercepting sewers on each side of the Thames—
" large drains to incept the sewage, instead of allow-
" it to flow into the Thames ;" but Mr. HENLEY very
properly remarked, " They would first have to get
" sufficiently liberal ratepayers to vote the acquired
" sum of money to carry out the scheme" (Times,
May 15.) Now, Sir B. HALL's opinion in 1851
would lead us to suppose that the ratepayers will
refuse the outlay. On the 20th of July, 1851, the then
nupledged President of the Board of Health stated
us the House' "The Noble Lord had referred to the
" scheme of drainage for the northern and southern
" districts of the metropolis. Why, that scheme
" caused the greatest consternation throughout the
" metropolitan districts, for the people were led to
44 suppose that they would have to pay 3,000,0001. or
4' 4,000,0001."
On the same occasion, Lord Joint RUSSELL said :
"The proposal to introduce a great representative
" body into the metropolis to manage these matters
" was one which demanded very grave consideration.
" When the House came tO.consider the question, he
" thought they would find innumerable difficulties in
" the way of carrying out such a proposal."—
Hansard, July 29 ; Times, &c. July 30, 1851.
Has the Local Management Bill received full
consideration ? On the second reading of the Bill,
the House was so empty that even one of the metro-
politan Members proposed " that the House do now
" adjourn," but did not press the motion to a division,
and in the committee which met during morning
sittings the attendance has been almost exclusively
left to the metropolitan Members.
We consider that there has scarcely ever been
before the House a 91910 weighty matter than the