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

was either good or bad ; in this case he conceived that
it would be most beneficial.. The central authority was
not intended to pat a!) se local t xertiovs, but to promote
their desultory and ttra4lnig ,fforts, and to stimulate
those efforts, and to render them more valuable than
heretoiore, and not to strip them of power, be-
cause he defied any one to put his finger
on any portion of the Bill which took away
the right of management from local authorities ; in fact,
the Government were anxious to leave the manage-
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 opi-

nion, to entrust the management to local agency, reserv-
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 B►ll came principally from York
and Lincoln.— (Hear, hear.) But the Paving Board
and many of the inhabitants of Lincoln had sent a po4
tition to that House, which the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber (Colonel Sibthorp) had presented, in favour of the
Bill. He felt as much interest. in the p• osperity of the
ancient community of Yo►k as the Honourable
Member (Mr. Hudson). But from a statement
read by the Noble Lard, it appeared that the main
sewerage was defective, and that though the main streets
presented a fair appearance, the poorer streets were
sadly neglected. Li 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 improvenitnt. If they
did not appoint the c.immission, they would lose the
services of many eminent men well qualified to discharge
the duty of commissioners and inspectors. He trusted
the House would adopt the Bill as it had been amended.
Mr• HUDSON said the report from York was most
fallacious, and had been deni,d by many mtdical men.
If they would give the corporation the necessary means,
they would efft!ct 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 it.
He objected to that portion of the Bill which provided
that the rate-payers should defray the expense of ina
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 SHITHORP said that the City of Lincoln,
in petitioning in favour of this Bill, was not aware of
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 5/. in case of his questions not being
answered. The inspector might ask whether the Lord
Mayor went to bed ;ober every night, or any such other
question.—(Laughter.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the system of cen-
tralisation proposed by the Noble Lord, was one most
utterly alien to the constitution of the country, Ito
powers might be exercised in the most arbitrary matte
nor, 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, he
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 length-
ened one, and yet that city was selected as a fit spot to
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 to
the correctness of the allegations of Dr. Laycock 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 cer-
tainly thought that there were many objections to be
taken to the means to be adopted as a means of remedy,
and these objections be should take an opportunity of
making when they went into the details of the Bill.
gr. PALMER said that to a certain extent foul air
roust 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 small
a remuneration.
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 time 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 seen ed unfa;e,
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.—(blear, 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, he 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 30,0004 to pre-
pare.—(Hear, hear.) When be 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 then, some explanation on that subject.
The Noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods
on he introduced this measure of sa-
-2.1‘...!;..5.aw h
irons, which did not
sdouwtc
etohutel
id:
se
naxvuceml utbdteer
lLondon,iovfe
sssick
told them that it was estimated that in theonwdaoo:
oeothpeeirrsosannsaatoryyearerr
alnadtiorne
iml
fyloai
metropolis
00e
wouldsp, 0:0 statements
s.
two
Theawdod Noble Lord told them that the mea-
surenieightwereyearsns
an
correct,
amoreha to life and ease the
half
aa
s Londonyear.
ex-
cluded from the operation of this Bill ? He was afraid,
however, that the
:ehetpikxLeetoiiateptnfn(lito:nclnniLondon
statementsarashg)Cdosiett,uenemnoitanpretynot 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 shotpd 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 he
hoped that information would be given to the
RUSSELLCom-
mittee
readts
awsesecond
oneads
canvassed
ivynmNdtehdoti
adirbemhittfosweetsyhhsewbnhtesi
seeeßhnli
eegyhdeorgefwnfuoonrßaLaetcteeewchdtgiao:thrl
ihiairrl
scoudnet(l
idetiwith,
lenNtfunhn,, theybteh
before
eewereree
wg
going
ieonkwgs
at once.—(Hear, hear.)
adgi
seL7osrasdnianJgOitwilsaNms
s
paLnßtßaTtiwhnnhosooui
haesdteri
rrsosleeed,
sasrwbsebNtanwtilrakeysoloos)chenb(ubaoomtnlgou ohedohfsiCommittee,
fheygeLttdaEhteeottdchtol
the
raaosederyebanol
representatives,cFe.
connected
eaeshinti
fanrtcyc,
odadisrtfsedteoevilmt ydenafaNet
Committee.
debate,mr now,mpwei which
was
tifeceoehir.
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,
as it would render the measure impracticable and almost
unpo.isible to be carried through Parliament. Those
texts were, 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
Wett:bwhdrtlmoeoehifroseperFddotcroNrresimnjoti s
yoeepeozbntonnhholdol
represent,
ff: