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

COMMUTED PENSIONS.

Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to ask the Secretary-
at-War what decision had been come to respecting the
restoration of their pensions to the commuted pen-
sioners, so many of whose petitions have been laid before
the House at different times during this session; and re-
specting the arrears claimed by the petitioners, consist-
ing of the amount they would have received had the
warrant of 1834, authorising the restoration of these
pensions, been made known to them?
Mr. FOX MAULE said the parties referred to by the
Hon. and Gallant Colonel were pensioners who had
commuted their pensions 15 years ago—who had gone
out to North America on their own affairs, and who now
sought to be again put on the pension list. He thought
the proceedings of the Treasury in respect to these com-
mutations had been quite proper, and be could not see
what possible ground there was for persons who had
received value for their pensions 15 years ago to come
forward and claim to be placed on the pension list again,
and to have, in addition, the arrears paid to them.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES' BILL.

Sir R. H. INGLIS said the Joint-stock Companies'
Bill stood on the list for to-night. It was a most im-
portant measure. It gave great power to joint-stock
companies, and repealed the provisions of all former
Acts relating to joint-stock companies. He trusted,
therefore, that it would not be brought forward for dis-
cussion at a late hour of the evening.
Mr. M. GIBSON was understood to assent to the re-
quest of the Hon. Baronet, but denicd that the Bill
either infringed the letter or the spirit of former Acts.
Mr. ROSS rose for the purpose of making an expla-
nation on a personal matter. He had been represented
in the Times of that morning—(Cries of " Oh. oh !")
to have stated yesterday, that a spirit of jobbing pre-
vailed throughout all Irish society. He denied having
said anything of the sort. What he said was, that it
was most unjust to represent Irish society as being
tainted with any such spirit.—(Hear, hear.)
ACCIDENTS IN COLLIERIES.

Mr. BAILEY wished to know what power the ma-
gistrates had to interfere with regard to colliery explo-
sions. Scarcely six months passed without accidents
happening, and he thought it right that some inquiry
should take place with the view of ascertaining the case,
and of providing a remedy against them.
Sir G. GREY said that an inquiry could not take
place unless circumstances rendered it necessary.
Mr. HUME quite agreed in the opinion that an in-
quiry should take place when any of these accidents
occurred, and hoped that Government would also take
steps to inquire into the collision of vessels at sea, with
a view'of adopting measures to prevent the great loss of
life which frequently occurred from them.
Mr. FORSTER complained of the imputations which
were cast upon the owners and masters of collieries with
regard to these accidents.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said that he had this information
from Mr. Itob,:,rts, a solicitor, of Manchester, and lie had
no doubt of the accuracy of the facts.
NAVIGATION (No, 2) BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed the second reading
of this Bill till twelve o'clock to-morrow,

HEALTH OF TOWNS' BILL.
Lord MORPETH moved the order of the day for
_ _

going into Cumrnittee upon the Health of Towns Bill.
Mr. G. PALMER said that, in his opinion the clauses
of this measure upon which they were about to go into

Committee were most unconstitutional. The Bill in its

operation must necessarily deprive many corporate bodies 1
of powers and privileges which they had hitherto exercised
with great advantage to themselves and to the public. The
responsibility for the acts of the Commissioners who were
to put this Act into operation were to rest upon one Com-
missioner, who was to have a seat in that House. They
all knew what was meant by that responsibility, and
hew easily it was to be got rid of. He objected to the
principle of any compulsory sale of property belonging
to public bodies and private parties, not under the ope-
ration of a proper Act of Parliament, but at the discre-
tion of one individual who might never see the spot, or
know the detailed circumstances of the case with which
he had to deal. He should resist this Bill upon prin-
ciple alone, and not from any other interested motive,
and he should therefore move that this Bill be committea
that day three months.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that he had paid some
attention to this Bill, and he did not think that all the
parties interested in this matter were thoroughly ac-
quainted with the dangerous power which it placed in
the hands of the Government. The Noble Lord who
had proposed the Bill had in the first instance limited its
operation to four miles, but he had suddenly, and
without any reason, increased its operation to ten.
He was informed that there were sixteen metropolitan
Members in that House, and the fear of the opposition
of these sixteen Members he supposed had induced the
Government to exclude London from the operation of
the Bill. He had the honour to represent the important
city of Lincoln, and he had no doubt he should have the
same distinguished honour in the next Parliament ; and
he could tell the House that his constituents were
as clean as the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor
of London or the Common Council of the
city of London, and they did not require any super-
vision of this sort. They did not want a commissioner
to be continually coming down and telling them that they
had no right to do this, that, and the other. Local
government was the essence of the constitution, and he
could not consent to pass a Bill which proposed to strike
a blow at the foundation of all local governments
throughout the country. He condemned this partial le-
gislation, and unless the Government changed their sys-
tem of proceeding they would lose the support of all who
now voted with them.
Mr. W. BROWNE said that this was the most im-
portant Bill which had been introduced during the ses-
sion. The state of Liverpool at the present moment
was most deplorable, for want of proper sanatory
regulations. There were not less than from six
thousand to seven thousand people ill of fever
at the present time in the hospitals of that town, and
unless some preventive measures were taken, the most
incalculable evils would be entailed upon society. A
medical gentleman told him that during last week no less
than 1601. ha I been spent in providing coffins for the
poor.
Mr. MACKINNON said that the principle of the Bill
was good, but there were some things omitted which he
believed were calculated to effect much good, and which
he would wish to see introduced into it. For the reason
which he had already given, he should give his cordial
support to the Bill.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. PALMER,

Mr. SPOONER wished to make some abservations
upon what fell from the Hon. Member for South Lanca-
shire. It hat been stated that the borough of Liver-
pool was in a most distressing state, and that had been
urged in s,ipport of this Bill. Why did the Noble
Lord not come down and ask for a special Bill for this
special purpose, instead of applying a permament Bill
to a temporary emergency? The Bill was one which
gave inquisitorial powers of the most unbounded nature
to the commissioners appointed by Government, to the
injury and detriment of public and private property.
Much had been said about excluding London from the
operation of the measure. If it were a proper one why
exclude London from it, and if it were such as could
not be applied to London itself, why apply it at all.
After a few words from Mr. BARNARD, which did
not reach the gallery,
Mr. NEW DEGATE (who rose amidst loud cries of
" Divide") wished to know why four miles, as the limits
of this Bill round a city or town, should have been in-
creased to ten miles, and why so many new clauses had
been added to it?
Mr. HUDSON rose amid loud cries for a division. He
assured the House that he had dined, and would not be
put down.—(Laughter.) He could not understand why
London was omitted from the Bill, and he objected to

the unlimited power given to the towns to fix rates.
This power he would give to no corporate body, as he
believed it would operate with the greatest injustice. He
also thought it extremely objectionable to establish so
expensive machinery, as was created by the Bill, and to
give the whole management of the towns under its ope-
ration into the hands of young gentlemen who might be
wholly incapable to discharge the trust, and would be
the nominees of the Minister of the day. He saw no
reason why London should be excluded, and he thought
there was no magic circle ef 10 miles round St. Paul's any
more than there was round St. Peter's of York.—

(" Hear, hear," and laughter.) He hoped the House
would resist this attempt at centralisation. He had no
hesitation in saying that this commission was one of the
grossest jobs ever attempted by any Government. He
would use his best exertions to defeat the Bill in every
stage, and he hoped the House would join him in that
determination.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down appealed to the metropolitan
Members, and hoped they would not vote for going into
co--I.—. Ix- .6...31.A f.Lo olicosamattata,C vt uielrtieing
connected with London was a strong reason why they
should vote, and on that clause exempting London from
the operation of the Bill he would vote for its omission.
He believed the Bill would increase instead of diminish
the value of property, ae drainage and cleanliness
would necessarily produce that effect. Whatever objec-
tion, however, there might be to its details, they could
be discussed in Committee, and he should, therefore,
support the motion.
Captain PECHELL was also in favour of going into
Committee, where the various amendments might be dis-
cussed, and the Bill made in accordance with the views
of the House.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK thought it was a very strange
and suspicious circumstance, that all who were to be ex-
empted from the operation of the Bill were in its favour,
and all who were brought under its provisions were
against it. He thought the omission of London was ex-
tremely objectionable, and though he gave her Majesty's
Government credit for good intention, he considered
the measure would not effect the good which they an-
ticipated. Believing that it was a crude, ill-digested, and
imperfect measure, and not sufficiently comprehensive in
its character, he would vote against going into
Committee.
Mr. F. BERKELEY was connected with a very large
city—the City of Bristol—which was in favour of the
measure, and the inhabitants of it thought it very
strange that so large a city as London should be opposed
to it.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee ll7
Against it
Majority —9l
On our return to the gallery we found
Lord MORPETH explaining that he intended to re-
duce the commissioners from five to four—one of whom
only was to be a paid commissioners.
The House then resolved itself into Committee on
clause 1.
Mr. HENLEY said that the Bill would only create
patronage, and he would put it to the Government
whether it would not be better to have one general Bill
for sanatory regulation, and to omit altogether all those
clauses which related to the appointment of commis-
sioners and secretaries. He concluded by moving the
omission of the clause
Lord W. PO WLETT did not object to the principle of
the Bill, but objected to many of the clauses. He con-
sidered that sanatory regulations could only be properly
carried out under the management of a central com-
mission.
An HON. MEMBER did not think that the intervention
of commissioners was necessary for the purpose of pro-
moting the health of towns ; he should, therefore, sup-
port the amendment.
Col. SIBTHORP wished to know the salary of the
paid commissioner and the probable expense of the
central office. As the Noble Lord had redticed the
number of commissioners, perhaps he would think
proper to reduce the number of inspectors. The House
ought to have the fullest information on the subject. It
seemed to him, however, that the Bill would create a
number of new offices which the country could do well
without. He should offer all the opposition in his power
to the Bill passing into a law.
Mr. SPOONER also wished to know the salary of the
paid commissioner, and deprecated any secrecy on the
subject. Surely the Noble Lord had not come down to the
House to seek the passing of a Bill which would entail
great expense upon the country, but of the amount of
which he was ignorant.
Mr. MACKINNON supported the clause as it stood.
He defied them to bring the Bill into operation without
the aid of a central board. The Noble Lord had stated
the expense of the commission.
Col. SIBTHORP—But he had not stated the salary
of the commissioner.
Mr. MACKINNON—WouId they prevent the sane,
tory.of improvement of the country if it could be effected
by giving the commissioner a salary of 1,5001.?
Sir W. CLAY said the word " centralisation" in this
country had almost gained the signification it obtained
during the time of the French Revolution; but if cen-
tralisation meant the diffusion of information on the sub-
ject of sanatory reform, and the collection and arrange-
ment of information, he considered that a body of this
kind was necessary.
Mr. HUDSON said the Bill would give the com-
missioners enormous powers—such as sending down
surveyors at great expense to make plans, which would
not be paid by the metropolitan members—(Laughter)—
but by the rate-payers. He considered that the sanatory
government of towns should be left in the hands of local
boards, over whom the inhabitants exercised direct con-
trol. In the city of York, the sanatory condition of the
town was entrusted to a board, who had the entire con-
fidence of the inhabitants, because they discharged their
duties properly and economically. Although he did not
materially object to the Bill, he considered that it would
be well to leave the management of towns to local
boards. He could not understand why London was to
be exempt.—(Hear, hear.) The Government might,
by their majorities pass the Bill ; but they would ulti-
mately regret its adoption.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped
that they would remodel the Bill, and extend it to all
towns.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord AIORPETII said the bums necessary to carry
out the Bill would be voted by the House; but he mighi
state that the Government did not intend to propos:-
that the paid commissioner should receive a higher sa-
lary than 1,0004 a year.—(Hear, hear.) Centralisation

was either good or bad ; in this case he conceived that
it would be most beneficial. The central authority was
not intended to paralyse local exertions, but to promote
their desultory and straggling efforts, and to stimulate
those efforts, and to render them more valuable than
heretofore, and not to strip them of power, bes
cause he defied any one to put his finger
on any portion of the Bill which took awe,
the right of management from local authorities ; in fact,
the Government were anxious to leave the manages
ment of towns to local agency and to popular feeling.
The report of the Committee of the House recommended
this, and the Government had simply adopted their opis
nion, to entrust the management to local agency, reser's
ing to the Crown the right to step in and see that they
did not neglect their duties.—(Hear.) He found that
the opposition to the Bill came principally from York
and Lincoln.—(Hear, hear.) But the Paving Board
and many of the inhabitants of Lincoln had sent a pe-
tition to that House, which the Hon. and Gallant Metes
ber (Colonel Sibthorp) had presented, in fasour of the
Bill. He felt as much interest in the prosperity of the
ancient community of York as the Honourable
Member (Mr. Hudson). But from a statement
read by the Noble Lord, it appeared that the main
sewerage was defective, and that though the main streets
presented a fair appearance, the poorer streets were
sadly neglected. In the districts which were properly
seweraged, the average duration of life was 38 years,
and in those improperly seweraged 24 years ; showing
that York would admit of great improvement. If they
did not appoint the commission, they would lose the
services of many eminent men well qualified to discharge
the duty of commissioners and inspectors. lii trusted
the House would adopt the Bill as it had been amen.Lect
Mr. HUDSON said the report from York was moss
fallacious, and had been denied by many medical men.
If they would give the corporation the necessary means,
they would effect all the improvements that would be
necessary.
Mr. T. BARING was in favour of a central authority,
as he conceived the greatest good would accrue from
He objected to that portion of the Bill which providati
that the rate-payers should defray the expense of itf
spection. He did not like the principle of not allowing
local authorities to determine the rates that ought to be
levied for this purpose, and to expend them.—(Hear.)Colonel SIBTHORP said that the City of Lincolnt
in petitioning in favour of this Bill, was not aware Vf
the increased powers which were given in it, nor of the
increase of the area of four miles into ten. Neither
were they aware of the increased amount of expense
they were placed under by it, and the arbitrary autho-
rity given to the inspectors under its provisions. The
questions which the inspector was empowered to ask,
then, was of the most inquisitorial nature, and there
was a penalty of 51. in case of his questions not being
answered. The inspector might ask whether the Lord
Mayor went to bed sober every night, or any such other
question.—(Laughter.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE said that the system of eery,
tralisation proposed by the Noble Lord, was one most
utterly alien to the constitution of the country. Its
powers might be exercised in the most arbitrary man-
ner, and its ramifications might be extended in any
direction, in violation of all other constituted authori-
ties. If there were no other means of regulating the
towns of this country than by a central authority, his
should say let such authority be constituted by all
means ; but when they could do without it, and had
done without it, why should such a power be placed
over them without any immediate necessity ? The
Noble Lord had quoted the average duration
of life in York, but it appeared upon an inquiry, that
the average duration of life there was rather a lengths
ened one, and yet that city was selected as a fit spot td
place under the arbitrary operation of this measure. He
believed that this measure, if introduced, would lay the
first step to a system of interference by Government
which would injure the constitution of the country.
Mr. R. YORKE said that he could bear testimony td
the correctness of the allegations of Dr. Lsycock as to
the sanatory state of the city of York. He should not
be doing justice to his constituents if he denied that the
city of York was capable of improvement, but he cos
tainly thought that there were many objections to be
taken to the means to be adopted as a means of remedy,
and these objections he should take an opportunity of
making when they went into the details of the Bill.
Mr. PALMER said that to a certain extent foul air
must always exist in large towns, and he did not believe
that this Bill could, by any one of its provisions, remedy
that evil; and it would have the further objection of
being very difficult in its application. The salary voted
for the paid commissioner was to be 1,0001. If they
expected the work to be well performed by this commis-
sioner, they ought to pay him well, and not give a man
who was to be entrusted with such large powers so smal
a remuneration. 1

Mr. ENT W ISLE said he was very anxious to assist
in doing all that could be done to remove distress and
disease; but he did not think the present Bill one which
would remedy one of the evils which now existed. The
system was one which would lead to much trouble and
confusion, and as such he felt himself at perfect liberty
to vote against it.
Mr. WAKLEY said that the great objection to this
measure was encouragement of the vast and unlimited
powers it gave to the commissioners, and yet a few days
since they had passed a Bill—the Poor-law Bill
which was then before another assembly—the clauses
of which gave to the Poor-law Commissioners power
so vast and unlimited, that the powers given in the pre-
sent measure were as nothing to them. This Poor-law
Bill was passed with acclamations, and yet they now
denied these minor powers in a measure nearly as im-
portant as the Poor-law Bill. The city of London was
to be excluded from the operations of this Act. This
was not the: first thno that the influence of the city of
London had prevailed in that House. When the Muni-
cipal Corporations Act was passed in 1837, they had
demanded to be excluded from its provisions, and
they were excluded, although much against the will
of the Noble Lord. This seemed unfair,
and it was so, particularly in this instance.
If there was any city in England which
required some such sanatory regulation as the present,
it was the city of London. Hon. Members could hardly
conceive the state of abominable filth in which many
parts of the city of London now were, and that filth
spreading abroad disease, and giving rise to crime in its
worst forms; therefore he thought that the metropolis
should be placed under the operations of the present Act.
He for one should vote for these commissioners, though
it was partly against his inclination, and he certainly
hoped that the paid commissioner would be one of the
medical profession, who would be better enabled to dis-
charge the important duty which devolved upon him,
than any other person of different acquirement and
education.—(Hear, hear.) The rates of mortality
in many of the manufacturing towns were frightful, and
in Manchester alone it was known that 13,000 persons
beyond the average bills of mortality had perished for
the want of some such sanatory measure as the present.
If such a state of things was permitted any longer to
continue, that House would be answerable for all the
mischief that might arise, and he therefore hoped that it
would give its sanction to this measure.
After a few words in explanation from Mr. HUDSON,
Mr. HENLEY objected to this measure, in conse-
quence of the great difficulty which would be experienced
in putting it into operation, when the Towns Improvement
Clauses Bill could have been put in force at once, and
with less trouble and opposition.
Mr. HOWARD believed the Bill would give far more
satisfaction to the country if it were allowed to pass as
it now stood than curtailed and amended, as proposed
by Hon. Gentlemen opposite. With regard to the city
of London being excluded from the operation of the
Bill, ho thought the Bill ought not to be impeded on
that account. London was of immense magnitude, and
ought on that account to be legislated for alone.
Lord G. BENTINCK said he could confirm the state-
ment that the corporate towns of the country looked
with a considerable degree of alarm at this system of
centralization. He was not surprised at this alarm, when
it was remembered that shortly after the Noble
Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests came into
office, he called upon a gas company in Glasgow to
make a return, which would have cost 30,000 L to pre-
pare.—(Hear, hear.) When he remembered that the
city of London was represented by the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, he could not help think-
ing that there was some secret mischief in this Bill
which the Noble Lord was afraid to apply to the place
he represented. Be that, however, as it might, he
hoped that before the discussion closed, the Noble
Lord would give them some explanation on that subject.
The Noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods
and Forests when he introduced this measure of sa-
natory regulations, which did not then exclude London,
told them that it was estimated that in the metropolis
alone their sanatory regulations would save the lives of
10,000 persons a year, and reduce the number of sick
by 70,000. The Noble Lord told them that the mea-
sure would add eight years more to life and ease the
metropolis two millions and a half a year. Why, then,
if these statements were correct, was London to be ex-
cluded from the operation of this Bill ? He was afraid,
however, that the statements could not be relied on.
They were a delusion, and the measure was promoted
by the Government more for the sake of patronage
than a desire to benefit the country. Under the Poor-
law Administration Bill between five and six thousand
officers were placed under the control of the Govern-
ment, and it was, therefore, the more necessary that
they should not give them the additional patronage to
be conferred upon them by this Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
But before they proceeded further with this measure,
they ought to show something of the salaries to be paid
to the officers to be appointed under this Bill, and be
hoped that information would be given to the Com-
mittee at once.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Bill they were now
discussing was read a second time nearly three weeks
ago, and its merits were canvassed again before going
into Committee, and yet the Noble Lord was now, for
the sake of delay, attempting to renew the debate, which
was brought to a close before they got into Committee.
The Noble Lord had taken up the frequently-repeated
assertion of the city of London being excluded froze the
Bill, because the First Minister of the Crown was one of
the representatives of that City. But he (Lord John
Russell) might observe, that neither his Noble Friend,
nor anybody else, had explained the fact that the Noble
Lord who had been late Commissioner of Woods and
Forests (the Earl of Lincoln), and who did not represent,
and was not connected in any way with, the city of
London, had introduced a Bill on the subject, which had
not comprised that city; and that the first time the city
of London had been included in a Bill of this kind was
in the Bill of his Noble Friend (Lord Morpeth); and
also that on the occasion of bringing in this latter Bill
the Noble Lord the Member for Falkirk (the Earl of
Lincoln), who had himself brought in a measure on the
subject, had objected to the metropolis being included,
is it would render the measure impracticable and almost
impossible to be ec.rried through Parliament. Those
wei-t, he thought, a complete answer to the re-
peated insinuation respecting the omission of the metro-
polis. The present question was, whether there should
be any central body or power authorised to put the

8.
,V