The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS
'AMENDMENT BILL.

The consideration of this bill in committee was then re-
sumed.

On clause 111, which renders the measure retrospective
so far as new strt ets are concerned,
Mr. AYRTON proposed to take away that retrospective
effect by moving as an amendment, that the measure have
only reference to new streets to be funned a ter the passing
of this Act.
Mr. BRISTOW having consented to the amendment,
the clause was agreed to as an amendment in terms of it.
Mr. E WART complained of that portion of the clause
which extended the time for the formation of Finsbury
Park for three years longer, and to the hardships the owners
of the property required for that undertaking were subjected
by having such arbitrary forms hanging over their heads
for three years longer.
Mr. AYRTON suggested, as a compromise, that, in-
stead of prolonging the time for three years, the extension
should only be for one year, and expire in 1863.
This having been agreed to, the clause was further
amended, and the remaining clauses baying been agreed to
the committee proceeded to consider the new clause put on
the notice paper.
Ur. Alderman SALOMONS moved a clause to the effect
that each of the Plumstead and Lewisham districts be em-
powered to appoint one member to the Metropolitan Board.
The clause was objected to by Mr. BRISTOW, and nega-
tived without a division.
Mr. ANGERSTEIN next moved a clause to the effect
that several parishes of the Plumstead District Board of
Works, including Plumstead, Eltham, Lee, Kidbrooke,
and Charlton, shall Cu tho Ist Janu'iry, 1863, cease to be
united, and to form as at present one district ; and that
from that date the said parish of Plumstead shall form one
district to bo called the Plumstead District Board of
Works; and that the said parishes of Charlton, Eltham,
Lee, and Kidbrooke, also form one district to be called the
Charlton Board of Works.
Mr. BRISTOW could not give his assent to the clause,
as other districts, such as Hackney, would think they had
been unfairly treated by the measure.
The clause was then negatived without a division.
Mr. LOCKE moved the insertion of the following clause:
—" Be it enacted, That whenever the freehold of any
court, passage, or public place, not being a thoroughfare,

is vested in the same pen en or persons as the freehold of
any adjoining house or houses, the owner or owners of
such adjoining house or houses shall be deemed, for the
purpose of the recited acts and this act, to be the owner or
owners of such court, passage, or public place, and the
paving ;thereof shall be done by such owner or
owners, if so directed by the vestry or district board."
There were several houses in the parish of St. George the
Martyr, Southwark, of the description indicated by the
clause, of which the owners were unknown, but which were
nuisances in the districts where they were placed.
Sir GEORGE GREY said the Board of Works of the
district had, at present, the power of removing those houses
if they were proved to be in a dangerous state. And he
believed the owners of them were, for the most part, bank-
rupt. He could see no use for the introduction of the
clause.

The committee then divided, when there appeared__
Fur Mr Locke's clause
Against it
Majority against the clause —2B
The clause was therefore lost.

Mr. AN GERSTEIN next mover)
a clause to put slaugh-
ter-houses on the same footing as cow-houses, which was
agreed to, and ordered to he added tl the bill.
Mr. LOCKE moved a clause in effect that one month's
notice be given to vestries or district boards of applications
for licenses for slaughter houses, or places for the purpose
of slaughtering or killing horses, or other cattle not killed
for butcher meat, so that they might, should they think fit,
show cause against such licenses being granted.
The clause was agreed to.

Mr. BRISTOW moved a clause to be inserted after clause
95, empowering vestries to appoint clerks, collectors, and
treasurers, and to take security for them, but Mr. AYRTOX
having pointed out that the clause went beyond the scope
of the act, it was withdrawn.

On the motion of Mr. LEWIS, a clause was agreed to
empowering any visiting or district board to put an end to
any powers of appointment of registers of m eights and
measures existing under any local act in their parish or
district.

Mr. BRISTOW moved a clause empowering the Metro-
frlitan Board of Works, with the sanction of the Secretary
of State, to subdivide districts in case of increase of popula-
tion ; but that in no case should the number of members of
the Metropolitan Board be increased.

Mr. Alderman SALOMONS was in favour of the clause
generally, but objected to the latter part, as to there being
no increase in the Board of Works.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY would also support the clause,
provided it stipulated the amount e 1 population at which
such division might be considerea
.".," ."" " ne saw no reason why
ib
should not be an increase in the number of the Board of
Works.
Mr. AYRTON objected to the clause, and after some
further discussion the clause, with some verbal amend-
ments, was agreed to and ordered to be added to the bill.
Mr. CRAWFORD moved a clause to the effect that, the
city of London should not be liable by any thing contained
in this act to contribute towards any of the expanses in-
curred, or to be incurred by the board under the provisions
of the Metropolis Gas Act of 1861, or the Act to amend tho
Metropolis Gas Act.

Sir J. V, SHELLEY said as the city of London reaped
the advantages of these acts as well as others they should
not be exempted from payment for those advantages.
Mr. AYRTON hoped the clause would not be pressed,
as it would introduce a different system outside the City
from that in operation inside.

Mr. BRI SIOW said he had no objections to the clause,
as it simply left things as they were before this act.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY—If that be so, what is the use of
the clause at all. It was one of the most monstrous pro-
positions he ever heard of for the city of London to come
to that house and-say that they wished to be exempt from a
payment in respect of an improvemeat of which they had
received the full advantage.
Mr. LOCKE said when on the first introduction of this
bill, they found the Corporation of the City of London and
the representatives of the Board of Works in that house in

determined opposition as to this measure, and when they
found them now agreeing on the point of exempting the
City from a just debt, it was the duty of those who repre-

sented the metropolitan ratepayers to stand up against such
conduct. (Cheers.)

The committee then divided, when there appeared--
For the clause
Against it
Majority against the clause
The clause was consequently lost.
Mr. AYRTON then moved a clause in reference to the
manner of electing the members of the Metropolitan Board
of Works. The object and effect of the clause was that the
members of the Board, instead of being elected by their re-
spective vestries, should be elected by the ratepayers at
large. It appeared that such had been the effect of the
notice he had given of his intention to introduce
that clause that the Conservative Lord Mayor of the city of
London had found time out of his other duties to write a
circular to the members of that house warning them of the
terrible consequences that would result from such a clause,
_ _

and asking them to oppose it. That letter was dated from
the Mansion-house, to give it all the cclat of civic dignity,

and it stated that he was about to create a democratic body
for the government of the affairs of three million of people
in the metropolis, and which would be attended with con-
sequences of a revolutionary character. (Laughter.) But
what this Conservative Lord Mayor wanted was that these
three million of people should be governed by a body with
whose election they had nothing to do, and he had no
hesitation in saying that were his Conservative friends on
the Opposition benches of the same opinion these members
would not be so numerous—nine-tenths of the men to
whom he proposed to give the right of electing
this board possessed at the present time the right
to vote for members of Parliament, and was
that an evidence that such board was to be of
a revolutionary character ? He did not at present propose
to make any alteration in the numbers of the Board, but
conceiving their mode of election to be unjust to the rate-
payers, he would move the clause in question; and he
would appeal to his learned friends who had charge of this
measure to assent to it, and not consent to become the
lackeys of these vestries.
Lord ENFIELD opposed the clause, as after going
through the measure he considered it out of place now,
at the close, to bring up a clause altering the constitu-
tion of the board which it had established.
Lord J. MANNERS had no doubt that were the Me-
tropolitan Board of Works elected directly by the rate-
payers they might beconle:a more popular body, but he
could not see how they could make the change
at the present time, or in the present form.
That board was now executing works of a very important
character, and which every one admitted were carried on
with efficiency, and it would, he thought, at present be
unnecessary to interfere with them. If the hon. gentleman
would afterwards bring in a separate bill on the subject he
could have no objection to it, as he admitted the principle,
but he did not think this the proper time.
Sir J. SHELLEY supported the clause.

A quarter to 6 o'clock having arrived,
The CILunItIN left the chair, and the house resumed.
RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY
(REVENUES OF INDIA).
The report on this bill was brought up and received•

ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. BRAND intimated that the first order of the day
taken to-morrow would be the Markets and Fairs (Ireland)
Bill, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had con-
sented to postpone the further consideration of the Inland
Revenue Customs Bill until Thursday the Bth of May.
The house then adjourned at 10 minutes to six o'clock.