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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING-, JULY 2, 1847.

those efforts, and to render them more valuable than
heretofore, 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 popuhr feeling.
The report of the Committee of the House recommended
this, and the Government had simply ad..:ted their ()pi-
nion, to entrust the management to ioc,, 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 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 Mem-
ber (Colonel Sibthorp) had presented, in favour 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. 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 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 it.
He objected to that portion of the Bill which provided
that the rate-payers should defray the expense of in-
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 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 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. NEWDEGATE said that the system of cen-
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, he
should say let such authority be constituted by al!
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 bad 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. L sycock as to
the sanatory state of the city of York. He should not
he 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 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 small
a remuneration.

Mr. ENT VV ISLE said ho 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 sad 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 muck against the will
of the Noble Lord. This seerred 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, he thought the Bill ought not to be impeded on
that account. London was of immense maenitude, and
ought on that account to be legislated for alone.
Lord G. BENTINCK said he could confirm the sta.e-
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 30,0001 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-
the
represented. Noble Lordße
think-
ing that there was some secret mischief in this Bill
applytwhaest,.al'hreaisvdeytoer,asit might, he
hoped that before the discussion closed, the Noble
to the place
he which
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 he
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 asked him to explain why the
city of London was excluded from the Bill, and he
would do so in a few words. When this Bill was first
introduced, it included the city of London, hut the Noble
Lord the late Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests
recommended that London should be excluded from tho
Bill, and left for separate legislation. Upon that recom-
mendation the clause relating to the city of London was
struck out of the Bill. The Noble Lord had dwelt a good
deal upon the patronage the Bill would give to the Go-
vernment, but the Noble Lord's estimate of the patronage
was erroneous, for the local offices to be appointed under
the Bill, would be nominated and controlled by the
local authorities, and not by the Government. All the
power the Bill gave to the Government was that of i
seeing that a the various towns throughout the country
proper sanatory regulations were adopted by the local
authorities ;and be, for one, thought that power was
neither great nor objectionable. The Noble Lord called
upon the. Government to give the Committee some ex-
planation of the salaries to be paid to the officers to be
appointed under this Bill ; but as the votes for the paid
commissioner and his inspectors would have to be taken
in a Committee of Supply, he thought that would be the
best time of giving such information.
After a few words from Mr. ROLLESTON,
• Lord JOHN MANNERS admitted that the object of