The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-25 00:00:00

BILL.

Sir H. INGLIS wished to know on what day it
was the intention of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell) to proceed further with the Diplomatic Rela-
tions with Rome Bill, as it was still suffered to re-
main on the order- book of the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Government were
desirous to proceed with two Bills of considerable
public importance, which stood on the paper before
the Bill in question, and that until those Bills were
in a fair way of being disposed of, he could not
name the day on which he could take the Bill to
which the Hon. Baronet bad adverted.
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
On the motion that the SPBAKER should leave
the chair,
Mr. SPOONER rose and said he wished to make
some observations with respect to what was done by
the Noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) on Monday
last. And with a view to enable the parties
interested in the matter, he should move that
the House resolve itself into a Committee this day
fortnight. After a great deal of negotiation the
Noble Lord agreed to introduce into the Bill certain
clauses, in accordance with the wishes of certain
deputations who had waited upon the Noble
Lord from various parts of the country, and
who left him on a positive pledge from the
Noble Lord that he would introduce clauses
to that effect in the Bill. The parties had evi-
dence that the clauses were printed at the request
of the Noble Lord,lbut yet at the last moment, with-
out making any communication to Hon. Members
who had interested themselves in the matter, the Noble
Lord caused six clauses to be struck out of the Bill
without the House hardly knowing what was going
on at the time. The parties interested had a right to
complain, as many of them had a large quantity of
capital inverted in waterworks. and as great
injustice had been done to them they ought
to be allowed time to consider the altered posi-
tion in which they would be placed by the Bill.
However important the carrying out of this Bill
was it was still more important that such an occurrence
as that in which he was animadverting should not
occur again. He, therefore, called upon Hon. Mem-
bers, in justice to all the parties, to maintain that for
the future no such sweeping alterations in a Bill
should be made without the due deliberation
and consent of the House. The Bill had
undergone great changes, which had entirely altered
the Bill, and therefore he did not feel justified in
proposing that those omitted clauses should be intro-
duced. If such a proceeding had been taken by any
one else except the Noble Lord, he should have been
justified in applying the terms " juggler" and " trick-
ster" to him, but he respected his character, and could not
suppose but that he had done so under a miscon-
ception. He did not wish to enter into a discussion
whether the adoption of the clausea was advisable or
not, but he took his stand upon the way in which they
were omitted. For two years the parties in question
had been endeavouring to convince the Noble Lord
of the truth of the principles they concluded for ;
and after they had convinced him of their value, it
was too bad for him to turn round, after the pledges
he had made, and destroy all he had done.
The Noble Lord had made upon pledge upon this
subject, and upon no ground ought the Noble
Lord to depart from it. He should, therefore,
move as an amendment, that this Bill be committed
this day fortnight.
Mr. MUNTZ seconded the motion. This Bill as
it stood would act most unjustly toward the public;
and as he was present when the Noble Lord gave
the pledge he now called upon him to fulfil it.
Lord MORPETH said, nothing was more painful
to his feelings than that the Honourable Member
should fancy that he had been wanting in
firmness and good faith, and if the House
were of opinion that such an imputation could be
cast upon him he was prepared to ask the House to
put him in a position to remove it. Be could not, how-
ever, bring himself to believe that the course the Com-
mittee-had pursued was open to the charge which the
Hon. Member had preferred against it, for he appre-
hended that the Bill in no way gave power to inter-
fere with the affairs of private persons without the
intervention of Parliament; but be was quite prepared
to introduce an express proviso into the 66th clause
precluding every local board of health from supply-
ing water with the consent in writing of any com-
pany, should such exist within the jurisdiction of the
board, if that would remove the objections of the
Hon. Member.

Mr. NEWDEGATE thought if there was any
blame to be attached to any one for the suppression
of these clauses it was the Noble Lord. He thought
the clauses necessary, and he believed that the
country generally was in total ignorance of the real
provisions of the Bill.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAFORD trusted the Com-
mittee would agree to the proposition of the Noble
Lord, which he considered to be a perfectly fair one.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN objected to the with-
drawal of the clauses, believing that if they had been
discussed they might have been rendered totally un-
objectionable.

After some observations from Mr. Henley, Mr.
Shirley, and Mr. Hudson,
Sir W. CLAY suggested to the Honourable Mem-
ber for Warwickshire to withdraw his motion, be-
lieving that the couse pursued by the Noble Lord was
calculated to promote the interest of the parties con-
cerned.