The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-11 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented against the Parochial
Assesement Act, against the extension of the Wine Licenses
Act to Scotland, fur the rejection of the religious profession
clause in the Consul Bill, and against the Metropolis Local
Management Act, &c.

NUISANCES ILENIOVAL AND DISEASES PRE.
VENTION BILL.

On the motion of Mr. LOWE, this bill was re-committed.
An ineffectual attempt was made to count the house. 04

Mr. KNIG TIT moved the omission of clause 1.

There was no discussion on the amendment, and the
committee divided on the question that the clause stand
part of the Lill.
Ayes
Noes

Majority
The clause was agreed to.

Oa clause 4,

Mr. J. WATLINGTON moved an amendment to the
effect that the expenses incurred exclusively for any single
parish shall be defrayed thereby.
Mr. ANItTON said this was a most objectionable pro-
vision. It empowered a board of guardians elected from 10
Parishes to make an order compelling only one of these
parishes to pay the whole expense. The present system
was very defective, but the defect would be considerably
aggravated by the clause. He contended that the equit-
able principle would be fur the Union generally to contri-
bute to any expenses incurred in carrying out the existing
Act.

Mr. NORRIS thought the suggestion of the hon. and
learned member (Mr. Ayrton) would be holding forth pre-
mium to negligent parishes, and he hoped the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. L3we) would adopt the amendment in his'
bill.

Mr. S. ES'FCOU UT supported the amendment.
Mr. WHALLEY agreed with his hon. and learned friend
(Mr. Ayrton) as to the unjust character of the amendment.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill. There appeared
to be no agreement as to this bill, for everybody had some-
thing to say against some part of the measure. (Laughter.)
He did not find that there was any demand made by the
public fur the alteration now proposed, and which five
years ago was found to create considerable heart.burnings.
Mr. LOWE said he brought the bill forward because the
house, in its pleasure, had destroyed the c;:mtral machinery
for dealing with questions concerning public health, and
transferred their powers to parochial authorities. There
was at present, iu fact, no responsible local authority for
sanitary purposes. Out of 11,000 parishes in England and
Wales no less than 12,500 were without any sanitary
inspector, and he contended that the practice of fining the
parochial authorities for neglect of sanitary precautions
would be utterly impracticable. lie had considered it the
safest course to adhere to the existing law as closely as
Possible.

Mr. ADDERLEY cinsidered that legislation on this
subject was desirable, but objected to the provision in the
clause ImPoxinz salaried sanitary inspectors throughout the
c'llTitrY• Ile would wish the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lowe) to give the committee some information as to how
the existing system worked as far as it was in operation.
Mr. HENLEY entered into some explanations. and re-
peated what he
attempted revivinthratupiruryeevionsly stated, that this bill
inexpedient. that five years ago was found

Mr. S. ESTCOURT saunggTted that in order to meet the
it
should be made in '
views of dissentients
sdteeraad
eorional with boards to ap-
pointthe bill, which would retinl
hieopubasirills.hes.
local inspectors,
they would be by the provisions of the
compelled to do as
Mr. SLANEY said that in severt,
particularly
near manufacturing towns where
the working.classes, sanitary inspectionev:Werea7 n up
for
He considered that so large a number of ix," !n—aPensable,
Present without a responsible sanitary otE mikes being at
cer, was a
Of the necessity that existed for the measure. proof
Mr. LO WE refused to adopt the suggestion of the hon.
m 4ober (Mr. S. Estcourt).
After a few words from Mr. WHALLEY, tho amendment
pas withdrawn.
The clause, with an amendment, was agreed to, as well
air 41ause 5.

On obtuse 6,
7" HENLEY objected to the power:), it proposed to