The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-21 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

Yesterday a special meetingof the Metropolitan Board
of Works was held in the Council Chamber, Guildhall ;
Mr. J. THwAITES in the chair.
The minutes of the last board were read and confirmed.
The board then proceeded to consider, in the first in-
stance, a statementsubmitted, showing the financia.lcon-
dition of the several parishes and districts, with the par-
ticulars of outstanding loans and mortgages, and an esti-
mate of the sums to be raised by the board for the year
ending 31st Dec., 1856 ; to assess such sums, or such
other sums as the board shall deem necessary, on the
various parts of the metropolis, and to direct the issuing
of receipts for obtaining payment of the sums assessed.
The names of the parishes were here given in detail,
with the sums that would be required from each, which
have already been published, making a total of
116,2281. Bs. 10d.
A deputation from Kensington attended with a memo-
rial from that parish, praying the board to relieve the
memorialists and the parishes of Chelsea, Fulham, and
Hammersmith, from having to bear the whole cost of
constructing the Counters Creek drainage works, in ad-
dition to their proportion with other metropolitan pa-
rishes of the costs incurred in carrying out the general
scheme.

Memorials were also presented from Chelsea, Fulham,
end Hammersmith. _

Mr. HAIrKES moved that the prayers of the memorial
from the inhabitants of Kensington and others be com-
plied with, if the board had the power to do so, or could
obtain power for the purpose.
Mr. D'ITPANGER seconded the motion.
Mr. TURNER moved an amendment to the effect "That
the memorial be received, and the prayer thereof be taken
into consideration, when the board shall be called upon
to determine in what proportion the various districts or
parishes of the metropolis shall contribute to the main
drainage."
Mr.'2SNow seconded the amendment.
Mr. HAWKES having replied,
The CHAIRMAN pat the question, when there appeared
For the amendment 2O
Against it. -17
Upon a division being called for, there appeared—
For the amendment
... 23
Against it 3-20
Mr. STEVENS then moved another amendment, to the
effect that the prayer of the memorial be referred to the
Committee of Works and Improvements, to report the
result to the board. _ •

Mr. WRIGHT seconded the amendment.
Mr. Deputy HARRICOX supported the amendment.
Messrs. Hows, Poulton, and Leslie objected to the
referring this subject to a committee.
The amendment was put and negatived.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR then moved another amendment :
"That the memorials be referred to a committee of the
whole board."
Mr. SAVAGE seconded the amendment.
Mr. TURNER objected to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN then put the question, when there
appeared

For it
Againgt

13
11-2

Mr. Lino then moved an amendment, " That the
memorials be printed and circulated among the members
of the board."
Mr. TURNER seconded the amendment, which was
put and agreed to.
Mr. RORERT TAYLOR presented a memorial from the
parish of Lambeth, praying the board to suspend the
issuing of a precept, until an inquiry has been made as
to the sum said to be due from that parish. He com-
plained that the late commissioners of sewers had con-
structed a long sewer through the whole of Garratt-lane,
Tooting, in which, through its entire length, there was
but one house, while the populous neighbourhood of
Ciapham-road had no sewer up to the present time,
although the inhabitants of that part of Lambeth had
over and over again paid the amount that would be re-
quired. He concluded by moving that the prayer of the
memorial be printed.

• —•
Mr. BRISTOW would put it to the chairman, as a mat-
ter of order, whether the motion could now be put, as
Mr. R. Taylor had given no notice of that motion, but
merely that he would present a memorial?
The CHAIRMAN conceived that the motion could not be
put, as notice had not been given.
Mr. R. 'TAYLOR said after the ruling cf the chairman
he would not of course press his motion, but should move
that the memorial be now received, which was put and
agreed to.
Mr. TURNER said, to save the time of the board, by
entering into a long discussion on the various parts of
the financial statement, he should move, " that, in the
first instance, the opinion of the board be taken upon
the column having reference to the rateable value."
Mr. DALTON seconded the motion.
Mr. BRISTOW moved, as an amendment, " that the
whole of the financial statement be referred to a com-
mittee of the whole board."
Mr. DOULTON seconded the amendment, and said that
not!' this ponderous statement of figures was presented,
the parish of Lambeth had looked for ward to him and his
bi other representative for Lambeth for a cheque for a sum
'of 15,0001, which they believed to be owing to them by
the late Commissioners of Sewers, but instead of that
happy state of things they were now called upon for a
contribution of 10,142/.

Mr. H. L. TAYLOR opposed the amendment.
Mr. DIFFANGER was strongly opposed to referring
the subject, or any other, to a committee of tha whole
board. It ought to be discussed in public, so that those
who would have to pay the rates should know from the
transactions of the board why they were called upon to
pay them.

- Mr. Deputy ITIRRisoN objected to the delay that
would be created if they adopted the amendment, and
they were not to suppose that expenses would stand still
by such a course. He thought the act of Parliament was
explicit as to the rateable value of the property, and they
wererequircd to rate the property on the basis there
pointed out. He altogether objected to deferring this
question, considering that the board was at the present
tune going on upon borrowed capital.
The amendment was then put and negatived, and
afterwards the original question was put and carried,
there being for it, 16 ; against it, 7.

Mr. TUfINER then moved that the first column be re
fermi back to the finance cr some other committee, with
instructions that they do not examine the property-tax
returns for the City of London.
Mr. LESLIE seconded the motion.

This subject led to a long and uninteresting conversa-
tion, and on a division, the motion was negatived by a
majority of 13 to 8.
Another division took place on the question of ad-
journment of the board, which was carried by a majo-
rity of 14 to 8.
The board then adjourned at a quarter-past 4:o'clock.