The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-08 00:00:00

amendment proposed t_at, h it
be stOuii alum; he wouiu
divide against it.
Mr. MACKINNON thought the Hoe. Alderman mis-
tmderstool the clause, ishich was really one of a most
humane character.
After a few words from Mr. SEYMER,
The amendment was agreed to, as were some alters-
tipna to other clauses.
The Lords' amendment to clause 30, was disagreed to.
On clause 37 being put,
Lord MORPETII said he was prepared to assent
to the amendment of the Lords, so far as it went,
to make the removal of the surveyors to local boards
subject to the approval of the general board. With re-
ference.to the inspector of nuisances, that was an inferior
office, and he should not raise any difficulty.
Mr. SPOONER objected to the local boards
being thus crampted in reference to their control over
their officers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he could sup-
Pose cases in which this provision would operate as fa•
',Durably for the local boards as for the surveyors.
Captain PECHELL thought this amendment was an
unwarrantable attack upon the principle of local govern-
ment.
Mr. BROTHERTON and Mr. Mon: supported the Lords'
amendment.
Sir W. CLAY thought that as a general rule they
were bound to maintain the principle of local govern-
ment; end he did not think that a sufficient case had
been made out for this amendment.
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS thought that this was only a
proper and wholesome control.
Mr. MUNTZ said, they ought to take care to prevent
collision between the local and central boards. What
could be more calculated to do this than adopting this
amendment? He objected to an increase of crntraliza
tion. If the ratepayers were not able to manage these
matters they had better transfer all such.:powersf to the
central board.
Mr. BROTHERTON believed the clause was neces-
sary to enable the surveyor to perform his duty pro-
Mr. FORSTER contended that public opinion had
never prevented local jobbing, and that therefore some
such clause as this was necessary.
Captain PECHELL complained that the Noble Lord
Was now advocating all those obnoxious principles which
be, had given up on the first introduction of the Bill.
Mr. MACKINNON hoped the Noble Lord would be
induced to give up his amended clause. No central
board would ever dismiss a surveyor improperly.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST thought those who appointed
the surveyor should have the power of dismissal.
Sir W. CLAY opposed the amended clause.
Mr. EWART opposed the proposal, because it in-
volved a divided responsibility. He believed that they
ought not to interfere with local self government.
Mr. URQUHART appealed to the sense of justice of
the Noble Lord not to withdraw half the boon which
he bad on a former occasion granted, because he had
now the support of the House of Lords. He called
uP°o. the House not to reverse the decision which it
had already come to on this principle.
Mr. HENLEY was surprised to hear liberal Members
expressing such extraordinary distrust of popularly-
elected bodies.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the Lords'
amendments merely intended to guard against the im-
proper removal of surveyors; that would be guarded
against by the introduction of the words " subject never
theless, in case of the removal of the surveyor, to the
control of the central board."
Lord MORPETEI reminded the Committee that the
town Of Liverpool had in a Bill, which they themselves
had introduced, provided that the surveyor should not
be removed without the authority of the central board.
Stringers were ordered to withdraw, and the Cum-
Mittee divided, when there appeared—
For the motion

• . .
Against
Majority for the Lords' amendment-20
On the amendment of the Lords_ to clause 40, which
gave the power of appointing the officer of health to the
central board,
Lord MORPETH proposed that the amendment
should be disagreed to.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE the mo-
tion Was agreed to.
Lord MORPETH moved that the Lords' amend-
Menu to clause 41, giving the general beard power to
fix the scale on which maps are to be drawn, should be
agreed to.
Mre HENLEY thought the effect of such amendment
Would be that there would be-no maps at all.
Mr P. HOWARD supported the Lords amendments.
The motion was then agreed to.
„ The Lords' amendments to clauses 43 and 44 were
been agreed to.
Lord MORPETH proposed to disagree to that por-
'mu of the Lords' amendments in clause 45 which im-
-Posed penalties on the local boards. The motion wus
litreeil to.
The amendments to clauses 46, 47, 48, and 49 were
'etAirlled to.
Lord MORPETH was compelled to propose that they
should disagree to that portion of the Lords' amend
ments whist' went to limit the extension of the provi-
sions of the Bill to towns with 5,000 inhabitants instead
of to towns with 2,000 inhabitants, as originally pro-
posed; also, to that portion which gave to a clear majo-
rity of the ratepayers the right of deciding thot the
town ibould come under the provisions of the Bill, in-
steld.ef requiring, as was originally proposed, a majority
of thfeee'fittlis. These ulterations were contrary to the
privifegeeot the House of Pommons, and, therefore, he
propesyd'that they should be disagreed to.
The amendments were then disagreed to.
Lord MORPETH nailed the attention of the House to
the amendment mace by the Lords with respect to the
expense of cleansing drains. In the clause, as it origi-
nally stood, the expense might be charged either to the
district or to the individual. The amendment made by
the Lords gave no alternative, and he therefore proposed
that it be disagreed with.
Amendment accordingly disagreed with.
Lord MORPETH proposed to acquiesce in the amend.
ment of the Lords which restored the " smoke clause."
It had been framed with exceptions to particular trades,
and he believed the adoption of it would be attended
with signal benefit.
Mr. SPOONER moved the insertion of the words
" ironworks and collieries."
Lewd MORPETH had no objection to insert the words
ironworks," but objected to except collieries.
Mr. BRIGHT opposed the clause, and contended the;
it would only render their legislation ridiculous. t
would be impossible to obtain convictions under such a
clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that the
clause contained inconsistencies, and would lead to diffi-
culties. If his Noble Friend would take his advice, he
Would not press it.—(A laugh.)
Mr- MACKINNON contended that Mr. Bright was
not it fair witness in this case, for if the clause was
agreed to, he, like other manufacturers, would be put to
some expense in providing furnaces which would d
con-
,lnirtie their own smoke. If the smoke nuisance was al-
lowed go on unchecked, the atmosphere in the large
-aullfacturing towns would be unbearable. He did not
14Iy that' this clause was pertect, but it might be amended.
The Committee which sat on the subject four years ago,
and• eee;„,
res Was partly composed of some of the most
Bill ee
ehtaollblitte- mbeanutacturers, came to. the conclusion that a
naces and
Gentle- introduced to prohibit smoke from fur-
stettea-engines. He would appeal to the lion.
rnall opposite whether the local Bill for the pre-
7enti" of smoke had, or had not, a beneficial effect in
Manchester?
After a few words from Mr. BRIGHT, in explanation,
Mr. DRV MMOND said there was a good deal of mock
Philosophy in such legislation as that proposed.
Mr- P. HOWARD.said.that it was a tribute which
convenience must pay to the national wealth to submit to
twhat it was proposed to remedy, and he did not believe
was possible to adopt the clauses in the manufacturing
.owns.
Viscount MORPETH-said he believed his Hen. Friend
who had just Sat down represented the tallest chimney
,
England-e(Hear,' and laughter)—but they who in
at House looked upon the question from a point at
Which they did not dwell under its immediate shadow,
could perhaps consider it more impartially. After what
s 11°n: and Learned. Friend the Attorney-General had
saidwith •
respect to the clause, he would not press its
ado etio -!
mach
as it was his wish not to put anything into the
whicZuteh might be supposed unnecessary, a course
fully alilltvieglitot frustrate its object.—(Elear.) But, being
avowed him "hat. was "the smoke nuisance," he
Might "if prepared to support any measure which
tibereafter introduced which had a prospect of
abating that nuisance •
After . •
•
Ms Asa,'" words from Mr. MACGREGOR,
seb "4'-iNTZ said he had never known any practical
thee-13 introduced for the prevention of smoke, except
extension of -boiler-room.
A
r. 4 few 'words from 'Mr. EWART and Mr. MAC-
-..11N0N
rthe clause was .withdrawn.
ies-.1,-fie verbal amendments. toclauses 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
d.l 67 were understood to be agreed to, after a short
uicussion.
The amendments up to clause 80 were also considered,
and
come agreed to and some negatived.
wi..t discussion arose on a proviso added to clause 80,
respect -to-interments in towns, by which persons
ng family vaults in churches were exempt. d.
r• Henley opposed the proviso, as did also Mr. Hume
""ufir, Mackinnon.
T
ells" ArTORNEY•GENERAL agreed that there
good deal of reason in the objections made to the
rreaiso.
th
ent°llel SIBTHORP supported the proviso, and
the
"got it would be au unwarrantable interference with
whprtvate rights to have it otherwise. He would ask
o Hon. Member 'below him (Mr. Mackinnon) how he
ZiO%l like to be deprived of the privilege of burial in
pugrerbroily vault, or in any. vault which might have been
aseu by an ancestor in a church.
tasr- MACKINNON said it had been proved that no-
gin could prevent unhealthy exhalations from arising
eases
of interments within .owns and in vaults;
.u., for his own part he would rather be buried in the
m 4._tddle of the highway than let the maintenance of any
congregation-or
right of his be prejudicial to the health of any
`'oleregation or community.—(Hear, hear.)
rColonel SIBTHORP said, so would he also—
anghter and " Hear")—for his anxiety for the public
..alth was as great as that of his Hon. Friend. But he
conceived his Hon. Friend's argument was most absurd.
::--,(aughter.) It was too late to shut the stable door
When the steed was stolen, and that was the case in the
.present instance.—(Laughter.) For his part he should
ZN., that where his fathers lay there would he lie, be
wo Ipenalty what it might.—(A laugh.) Yes, he
wunid.--(Renewed laughter.)
'The, amendment of the Lords was then struck out.
jeesdi
_clause 85, the amendment of the Lords was re-
'9 the words " general board of health" having been
struce(lk out.
Clause 119, which relates to the power to be given to
the, general board over contracts, having been put,
Adord MORPETH proposed ttutt tin general bow