The Express.
London, England, 1858-07-20 00:00:00

(Stamped id. Additional.) . [TWOPENCE.

would be fit and proper to occupy the high Milos he would
be called upon to fill, and thoroughly qualified to discharge
=meant functions attendant upon it. These names
he lent to the Secretary of State, and the latter should
mos two, the remaining one to be the president of the Me-
tropolitan Eserd of Works. He proposed that the chairman
sheald be pedd • salary of not lees than 1,6001., and not more
then 2,00ff1. • year, and that he should hold office during
pod behaviour. This body would have power to levy rates
hoe improvements, and also,when necessary, to take land out
of their district for the purpose of outfall works, as at pre-
sent it was not possible to carry out the drainage of the me-
=labecame there was no power to make the arterial
rlegond a certain limit. This board would have power
to mike intercepting sewers for the purification of the
Thames, and would be empowered to borrow money
from the Treasury, to be paid within fifty years.
That was the scheme peopoeed by the government, but the
house thought proper to alter it, and determined that the
chairman should be elected by the board, who, of course, 's-
leeted one of their own body. And with regerdito the power
of borrowing money from the Treasury, that provision was
also struck out. He wished now to call the attention of the
noble lord to the second clause of the bill. By the first
clause the Metropolitan Board were directed to commence
their work within • reasonable period. In the second clause
the points of mobil were defined. They were to be
not higher than the west t ask of Barking Creek on the one
side, and not higher than Creamer Point in Erith Marshes
on the other ride. He thought that point mach too near
London ; but that wee • matter for oonsiderstMn in com-
mittee. He objected strongly to the proviso which
enabled the Metropolitan to discharge the enrage, if
they should think fit, in any part of the metropolis. It weal&
be extremely difficult, Hoot impossible, to establithdoodori
works within the metropolitan area at the outline of the
sewers, and he trusted the noble lord would reconsider that
point before giving power to the board to erect deodorising
works in the midst of densely populated district... (Hear,
hear.) Reference had been made to the case of Leicester ;
but the evidence in that case showed that the deodorising
works were Is the open. Now in London they could not be
in the open. For the reasons which he bad stetted, he trusted
the proviso would be struck out. (Hoer, hear.)
Mr. KENDALL said it was most desirable the house
should know the position to which It stood. It was asked to
give a guarantee to the extent of 3,000,0001. Bat would
that sum be sufficient ? The referees stated that instead of
3,000,0001. not less than 6,000,0001. would be required, and
in his opinion it was not unlikely that the sum required
might amount to 9,000,0001. or to 12,000,0001. Then with
respect to the question of deodoristelon, Mr. Cook had stated,
with respect to Leicester, that he could completely deodorise
the sewage of 100,000 persons for 6,0001., and maintain the
works for 1,2001. annually. For the sum of 180,0001. he
could deodorise every portion of the metropolitan sewage,
and carry on the work. for 38,0001. a year. Perhaps
that amount might not be woolly correct ; but the
opinion of Mr. Cook was booked by that of
other gentlemen who understood the subject. His
mimics was that the subject was not quarter investigated;
but be believed the bill would pass, es it appeared to
acceptable to the house.
Mr. LOCKE (Rooftop) thought that • bill much more
simple In its details than the one before the house would have
answered the
Mr. HENLEY that he thought the case was
• simple one. If parliament thought the country
ought to pay for it, then the government ought to carry
out the work. If, on the other hand, the metropolis
ought to pay for it, he thought it but fair that those who
paid for it should have the carrying out of the work. They
teal had some experience of this matter. Government having
• veto had brought things to • dead leak, and with regard to
the drainage of other great towns, he did not think that the
interference of a government department had been attended
with happy results. He repealed that any of the schemes
would go far to prevent, if it did not altogether prevent, the
Dtlialllloll, and he believed that if this bill passed, it would set
• body to work that would do something.
Mr. R. STEPHENSON trusted that the house would come
to a &deka in favour of this bill, unless they intended to
leave the matter where it was. But he should strongly ad-
vise the government to built upon the intercepting system
being carried out.
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 govern-
ment to appoint a superintending inspector, he objected to
the government incurring any responsibility for lose in case
the plan turned out unsue.oessful, on the ground that their
inspector was cognisant of what wee going on. The go-
vernment, he said, should assume no more responsibility
than was incidental to the guarantee.
Mr. JOHN LOCKE opposed the bill, which he pro-
nounced ma incomprehensible measure.
Mr. PULLER, after *peaking in condemnation of the
deter "" • for three months;

it was the Wend= of the arovenuaeat to appoint a royal
oreandesion to wand= sad ftdie on the sites of harbours
of refuge, in accordance with the report of the select um.
tuittes.

Replying to Mr. LABOUCHERE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
government would not proceed this neesion with the Chinese
Passenger Act Amendment Bill, the Superannuation Bill,
and the Police Force (Ireland) Bill.
The report was then agreed to.
CORNWALL SUBMARINE MINES BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on the Cornwall
Submarine Mince Bill,
Mr. A. SMITH objected that certain documents ought
first to have been produced, seam bill interfered with private
lInOLICITOR-OENERAL denied this. The only
object of the bill was to regulate the respective right? of
the Queen and the Duchy of Cornwall.
The bill then passed through committee.