The Press.
London, England, 1858-07-24 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT

On the order for the second reading of this bill,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected to intrusting such
extensive powers to a board which was not a repre-
sentative body, and asked whether the rate was to
fall upon the occupier or owner, or both ?
Mr. AKROYD objected to the Government guarantee,
contending that the sum of 3,000,0001. would by no
means cover the amount required for the proposed
plan, and that a system of deodoriza►ion, which had
been proved to be successful, might be carried ont at
less than the annual interest upon the sum to be
guaranteed. He urged the house not to be led
rashly to put its name on the back of the bill, but to
take time for consideration

Mr. LOWE observed that, before the Metropolitan
Board of Works were permitted to raise 3,000,0001.,
to be spent at their will, it was reasonable to ask
whether they were worthy to be trusted with such
powers, and whether the money would be spent in
a manner most beneficial to those from whose pockets
it would be taken. He compared the plan of the
board with that of the Government referees, and,
after a close examination of details and figures, gave
the preference to the latter, as the most effectual, and
ultimately the least costly.
Mr. HEADLAN considered the Metropolitan Board
of Works, supposing it to be a representative body,
ill-calculated to execute a grand engineering plan.
The house, he said, should not hand over this
money to an irresponsible board without some
security that it would be properly administered. The
ratepayers would be better satisfied if the works were
carried on upon the responsibility and under the
authority of the Government, and be thought the
right thing would have been for them to undertake
the work at first and altogether. He deprecated
the commencement of the board's expensive scheme
until every other expedient had been fully tried.
Mr. S. WORTLEY suggested various objections to
the proposed plan, not excluding that pointed out
by Alderman Cubitt—namely, the danger of inter-
cepting a large body of water from the river. He
appealed to the house whether the Metropolitan
Board of Works, which did not represent property
or any large class of the community, commanded the
confidence of the public? He had always heard, he
said, a different opinion expressed.
Lord J. MANNERS observed that the house had
justified the saying that it had hot and cold fits. A
fortnight ago the Government had been called upon
to settle this question within twenty-four hours; and
now, after they had framed a scheme, which they
deliberately recommended the house to adopt, they
were told it would be better to postpone action.
They had not proceeded with an undue precipitation ;
he knew no question which had been more
thoroughly thrashed out. If the opinion of the
house was that there should be no decision come to
this year, the responsibility of inaction must be upon
the house ; on the part of the Government he
repudiated it. The only way in which the action
of the Government could be brought to bear was
contained in the four corners of the bill. He insisted
that the Government should not undertake such a
work ; that its expense should be borne by the
locality ; and that the municipality already estab-
lished as a representative of this great metropolis
should be intrusted with the work. In reply to
Sir H. Willoughby, he said the rate would be a
sewer's rate, and what was commonly called a land-
lord's rate.
Mr. Gi.snirrosE said he thought Lord J. Manners
was mistaken in supposing that the speeches to
which he had referred were accusations against the
Government ; they were confessions of the difficulty,
in which he (Mr. Gladstone) participated, in which
those were placed who were called upon to assent
to the principle of a bill which contained provisions
so important. The body intrusted with the expendi-
ture of so large an amount of money should be
popularly constituted; but though the board was in
theory a representative body, yet this was not suffi-
ciently palpable, and, when be considered who was
to be ultimately responsible for the payment of the
money, and for any further expenditure beyond the
3,000,1)001_ this was a vital point.
Mr. Alderman CUBITT supported the bill, repeating
his suggestion as to the danger of diminishing the
volume of the river.
Mr. CONINGHAM, on the contrary, viewed with con-
siderable alarm the proposition that the metropolis
should be handed over to the Metropolitan Board of
Works and the adoption of a scheme that, in his
opinion, would fail in its objects.
Sir B. HALL said be was not one of those who
desired to throw over this question ; on the contrary,

711

he should vote for the second reading of the bill;
but he called the attention of Lord J. Manners to

the second clause, to which he objected, which

enabled the Metropolitan Board of Works to establish
outfalls, with deodorizing works, in any part of the

metropolitan area.
Mr. KENDALL was anxious, before anything was
done, that the whole subject should be well con-
sidered.

Mr. JOSEPH LOCKE said be bad met with many
persons who did not consider the scheme of the
Metropolitan Board of Works the best that could be
adopted. It was in evidecce that deodorization
could be carried on upon the banks of the Thames,
and if this process were employed at all it should be
before leaving the Thames. He thought it would
be better for the Government simply to guarantee
the money, without involving itself in any scheme
wb atever.

Mr. HENLEY remarked that this was exactly what
the bill did ; it gave no indication of any particular
scheme ; it only required that the nuisance should
be got rid of. For this purpose the bill disembar-
rassed the Metropolitan Board of Works from the
restrictions which had hitherto hampered their
operations.
Mr. STEPHENSON said, after much consideration of
the subject he had come to the conclusion that
nothing would effectually answer the purpose but an
intercepting system, which could be accommodated to
any extension of London. He could not understand
the objection to intrusting the Metropolitan Board
of Works with the undertaking ; they were in posses -
sion of all the information necessary for carrying it
out. He supported the bill.
Sir J. SHELLEY approved the intercepting system,
and should vote for the second reading of the bill ;
but he was alarmed, with Sir B. Hall, at the second
clause. _ _ _

Sir G. LEWIS assented to the principle of giving the
proposed powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works ;
but, with reference to the clause empowering the
Government to appoint a superintending inspector,
he objected to the Government incurring any respon-
sibility for loss in case the plan turned out un-
successful, on the ground that their inspector was
cognizant of what was going on. The Government,
he said, should assume no more responsibility than
was incidental to the guarantee.
Mr. JOHN LOCKE opposed the bill, which he pro-
nounced an incomprehensible measure.
Lord EBRINOTON and Mr. CLAY made a few
remarks, and
Mr. PULLER, after speaking in condemnation of the
bill, moved to defer the second reading for three
months ; but this motion was not seconded.
Lord PALMERSTON hoped the house would agree to
the second reading of the bill, and not prolong the
evils of disease and suffering caused by imperfect
drainage. These evils, he observed, could be cured
only by intercepting sewers ; but be believed it was
unfortunate that the Government persisted in
limiting the outfall of the tunnels to a point so near
the metropolis as Barking. creek. He thought it un-
fortunate, too, tbat so large an amount of fertilizing
matter was about to be thrown away.
After some remarks by Mr. Cox, Sir W. Cod-
rington, and Mr. Butler, the bill was read a second
time.
On the report of the Committee of Ways and
Means,
Mr. WILSON, who had given notice that he would
call attention to the report of the Committee on
Harbours of Refuge, understanding that it was the
intention of the Government to appoint a royal
commission, refrained.
Sir J. PAZINOTON stated that such was their
intention.
Mr. Lrnnzi.r. and other members, nevertheless,
addressed the house upon the subject.
The Caseczmoa of the EXCHEQUER intimated his
intention not to proceed this session with the Chinese
Passenger Act Amendment Bill, the Superannuation
Law Amendment Bill, and the Police Force (Ireland)
Bill.

The report was then agreed to.
CORNWALL

NINES BILL.

On the order for going into committee upon this
bill,

Mr. A. Slum objected to proceeding with this bill,
which defined rights of the Crown in which the
public had an interest, until copies of all the docu-
ments, cases, and opinions of counsel, submitted to
Sir John Patteson, and upon which his arbitration
was founded, were laid upon the table. He moved
to that effect.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL gave the history of the
bill, the object of which was to carry into effect the
arbitration of Sir J. Patteson, to whom it had been
referred to ascertain the respective rights of the
Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall to minerals
between high and low water mark, and below low
water mark.
After a few words from Mr. WYLD the amendment
was negatived, and the house went into committee

71.2

upon the bill, the clauses of which were agreed to
with amendmens.

THE JEW BILL.

On the order for going into committee upon this bill,
Mr. KNIGHTLEY, an opponent of the bill, said he
thought that if the Lords intended to admit Jewa to
Parliament it would have been wiser to agree to the
bill sent np to them by the Commons than to pass
this queer measure of an Irish compromise, acoompa•
nied by reasons why its provisions ought not to be
acted upon by the house.
Mr. GILPIN characterized the bill as a miserable
subterfuge and only a little better than nothing at all.
Mr. BENTINCX declared that by the bill a direct and
aggravated insult was offered to the House of
Commons and to the Jews themselves. He contended
that the house was bound to include Turks, heretics,
and infidels in the bill.
Mr. SPOONER thought the bill a great disgrace to
the other branch of the Legislature, and that it was
an insult to this house to ask it to agree to a
measure every word of which was reprobated except
the object it was to carry out.
Lord J. Russo's., at the request of Mr. Spooner,
showed that there was nothing unconstitutional in
the provisions of the bill.
Upon • division, the ayes, for the committee, were
144, and the noes 40.
The house then went into committee upon the

bill, when
Mr. SPooNER moved to add a proviso to the first
clause, " That such resolution be not acted on till the
oonsent of the Crown be signified to both Houses of

_
Parliament."
The motion was negatived, and this and the other
clauses were agreed to without amendment.
The house next went into committee upon the
Government of New Caledonia Bill, and afterwards
upon the Civil Bills, dm. (Ireland), Act Amendment
Bill, the clauses of which were discussed at much
length and ultimately agreed to.
(Aber bills were forwarded a stage, and, the re-
maining orders (the aggregate number being forty)
having been disposed of, the house adjourned at half-
past two o'oloak.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TCESDAN.

SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BELL.
On the order of the day for going into committee
on this bill,
Lord Sr. LEONARDS protested against the farther
progress of the measure, severely condemning its
object, which is to extend the jurisdiction of the
Encumbered Estates court to unencumbered estates,
and to give indisputable titles to estates that are not
for sale. It would revolutionize the whole law of

property-
The Loan CHANCELLOR defended the provisions
of the act. The operation of the court bad been so
beneficial that owners of unencumbered property
created burdens on it for the purpose of bringing it
within the action of the court. Its powers had
therefore been extended by the present act.
Lord CRAN'WORTH supported the bill, with the ex-
ception of the thirty-first clause, which enables pro
prieturs of estates who do not intend to sell them to
obtain, by application to the court, a certificate of
title that cannot afterwards be disputed. For what
honest purpose could any one require to bo fur-
nished with such a title? Against this clause he

...
strongly protested.
The Earl of WICKLOW expressed the same objec-
tions to this part of the bill as those pointed out by
Lord Cranwortb.
In committee a division was taken on this clause,
which was agreed to by a majority of 19, the numbers
being 29 for the clause and 10 against it. The bill
then passed through committee.
The Medical Practitioners' Bill went through
committee, with some amendments.

INDLi. BILL.

On bringing up the report of the Government of
India Bill, Lord ELLENBoaouolt moved an amend-
ment which removes any possible doubt that the
expenses of the Indian Government are to be de-
frayed from the revenue of India only. It was
agreed to, and after a brief discussion the report was
received, and the bill ordered to be read a third time

on Thursday.
Their lordships then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS—ThEsDAy.
INDIA.

Lord STANLEY, in reply to Mr. Buxton, said, in
the present state of India the intelligence from the
disturbed districts was very defective, and neither at
the Board of Control nor at the East India House
was he able to obtain any information concerning the
execution at Jellalahad, by Mr. Money, of the
Tehsildar ; and, with reference to another question—
Whether, under existing circumstances in India, it
• would not be desirable to offer a complete amnesty,
with certain exceptions, to all who laid down their
arms—he reminded the house of the instructions
which bad been sent out to the Governor. General in
Council (extract* of which he read), and of the ex.