The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-02 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 2, 1847.

body of hide misty wee corrupted by a spirit of jobbing,
would be rem/wed.
HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.
The order of the day for the committee on the Health of
Towns Bill having been reed,
Lord MORPETH moved that the Speaker do now leave
the chair.
Mr. G. PALMER complained of the clause in the bill
which related to the compulsory surrender, at the will of
the commissiecer to be appointed under it, of the property
of water companies already established under the authority,
and, as they believed, the security of divers acts of parlia-
ment. He trusted the house would not enter upon the con-
sideration of a measure which authorised so unconstitutional
a proceeding. The powers invested in this commissioner
had hither.", of. and exceeded Owesoner

by the crown
possessed

commie siros to absorb within itself ell local jurisdiction. It
seamed to him that the noble lord had only sharpened the end
of the wedge with which he contemplated breaking up all
local authorities.
Mr. R. YORKE, as the representative of a city very fre-
quently alluded to, must say that he thought the state of I
York, as regarded cleanliness, susceptible of much improve-
ment. Upon the whole, he was of opinion that Dr. Lay-
cock's report was a fair one • though he admitted, with the
right hoe. gentleman the Lord Mayor of York, that the
doctor was a " sanguine" man. (Laughter.)
Mr. G. PALMER thou,ght it would be very difficult to decide
upon many of the matters involved in this bill, and that it
would be best to leave such derision to residents in the lota-
lite. They were, for example, much more interested in de-
what was a be"' „ •- e‘esl or whale.
•••••••••D • . smell, of *um was
some water, than any body of commiegoners or inspectors
amid be.
Mr. ENTWISLE objected to the expense involved in
ouwasissions, and tothe patronage which bodies so constituted
plemel at the disposal of the government. Ile thought local
as 'vision would be much more effectual, less costly, and
Mrs liable to abuse.
Mr. WAKLEY was rather astonished at the new-born
zeal of certain members against commissions, especially
when he recollected how strongly many of those members
had defended the worst commission in the country—that for
the administration of the poor-law. He saw no objection to
a commission in this instance, and he thanked the govern-
ment for the bill generally. lie regretted, however, that the
bill had not been based upon a broader and more distinct
principle. He regretted, especially, that the City of London
had been excluded from its operation. It looked extremely
unfair to other places that the City of London should be so
excluded, for if the measure was good in itself and likely to be
beneficial in its operation, it ought to be applied to the City
of London. lie could state from his own knowledge that no
place in the kingdom more decidedly required sanitary reform.
So bad were some of the courts of the City, in such a state of filth
and misery did the inhabitants live, that the poor never
showed themselves in the day time out of their wretched
abodes. Looking at this bill in a moral point of slew, he
anticipated the best results from it; and he thought this was
a point which had not been sufficiently dwelt upon. With
respect to the clause before them, he should certainly vote
for a commission. lie saw one of the commissioners only
was to be paid, and he supposed that commissioner
would be a medical man, because his salary was fixed
so low. (Laughter.)
Mr. HENLEY thought all unitary measures could have
been carried out by the Towns Improvement Clauses Bill,
without all the expensive machinery of the prawn. bill.
After a few words from Mr. P. HOWARD,
Lord O. BENTINCK said that the corporate towns which
were included in this bill felt great alarm at the centralisa-
tion of power in one officer of the crown. They might be
put to great and unnecessary expenses, which would all be
paid out of the rates. But they bad still further celiac for
alarm in the exclusion from the provisions of the bill of the
metropolis, which was represented by the first minister of
the crown. He hoped his noble friend would give
some reason for this ; and as long as he (Lord G.
Bentinek) was member for King's Lynn, he should
claim for that town the same privileges as were afforded
to the City of London. They were told that it had
been stated by Dr. Play fair that the want of sanitary
regulations in that city caused a loss of 2,900,000/. a year, as
well as the deaths of 10,000 persons, and the sickness of 70,000
more. Besides this they were told by his noble friend that
out of the human " excreta" of every person a sum of 21. a
year was to be gained ; and that to the 5,000,000 of persons to
whom this bill applied he could save 10,000,0001. a year. If
this were ao, why was the City of London excluded from the
bill, unless his noble friend believed all these schemes were
visionary ? He thought, therefore, that they who repre-
sented corporate towns had better endeavour to get rid of
the bill, with all its expensive machinery and patronage.
He should like to know what were to be the salaries of the
officers under the bill ? The power of appointment and the
fixing of the salaries remained in the crown. The noble
lord concluded by expressing his determination to oppose
We bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the bill, the first clause of which
they were now discussing, bad passed a second reading by a
large majority, and to-night a proposal, that the house
should go into committee upon it, bad been affirmed in a
division of 117 to 26 ' and now the noble lord, finding his
efforts disappointed by a large majority, got up and made a
speech, not referring to the clause before them, hut showing
that his object was to throw the bill out. He hail been an-
swering the speech which was made by his noble friend the
Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests in March last.
So astounded was he by that speech—
" Obstopuit steterunque come vox faucibus Ocoee-
- -