The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-23 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN DRAINAGE BILL.

The C LIAIRISIAN having reported-progress,
Lord J. MANNERS moved that the committee on
this bill be resumed.

Col. FRENCH appealed to the Speaker against the
inconvenience of setting certain bills down for the even-
ing sitting and then substituting others. There was an
Irish bill which stood firs: on the orders, which had
brought several members down, no notice having been
given that it would not come on.

- The SPEAKER stated that the house in the morning
had resolved to continue the committee on the Drainage
Bill until 4 o'clock, and radorting when they met again
at 6 o'clock, instead of adjourning at ten minutes before
4, as usual. The chairman had reported progress, but
it was for the house to say whether they would remain
in committee now or not.

Lord J. MANNERS explained that the committee
having been continued till 4 o'clock, there had been no
opportunity afforded of giving notice.

The house then resolved itself into committee.
The discussion on Mr. 11xeneses's amendment to
clause 1 was resumed, to leave out, after the word
" speed," to the end of the clause, and insert " such
works as may be necessary to purify the Thames, and
improve the drainage of the metropolis." If this
amendment were agreed to, the hon. member would next
move the omission of clause 2. His object was to avoid
pledging the house to any particular scheme of drainage
or purification. One authority was in favour of the plan
of the Metropolitan Board of Works, while two were
opposed to it. Tee report ef the referees on metropoli-
tan drainage was opposed to it, and the report of the
select committee of that house, so far from sanctioning
anything in the nature of the scheme, gave an opi-
nion in favour of deodorisation. If deodorisation was
to be adopted, there was no use in making these costly
parallel sewers. He would press on the house that they
were doing wrong if they threw their authority into
any particular plan. He believed that to be the
feeling of the committee, and therefore be proposed
words to carry out that desire. By the first clause,
as it stood, you defined a particular site where the works
might not be, and that was in connexion with the second
clause, which laid down where the works might
be. It was dear that this was the commencement of
the definition of a plan of intercepting to carry off the
sewage to Barking Creek. He wished the act to give
powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works without
pledging them to any particular plan. There were two
objects in the bill, the drainage of the metropolis and the
purification of the Thames, and it was possible to un-
dertake the one without carrying out the other. The
words he had proposed imposed on the Metropolitan
Board of Works the necessity of proceeding with the '
necessary works for both these purposes.
Mr. STEPHENSON said he was rather surprised to
hear the remarks of the hon. member foe Newcastle-upon
Tyne. It was clear that the hon member had not devoted
his mind—professionally at least—to the subject. He
divided the objects to be carried out into the main drain-
age of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames
and he said that the one might be carried out without
the other. He (Mr. Stephenson) denied that, for if the
Thames were to be purified, London must be drained
well. He could not concur with the hon. gentleman in
thinking that the house would fix itself with any respon-
sibility by sanctioning a plan which was approved of by
the Government referees as well as by the referees of the
Metropolitan Board of Works. It was true that the re-
ports of those pat ties were antagonistic, so far as their
ultimate ends were concerned, 'out they both agreed as
regarded the adoption of a system of intercepting se were.
Why should not the house, before sanctioning the ad-
vance of a large sum of money, know how the object to
which it was to be applied was to be carried out ! The
only difference with regard to the System of intercepting
sewers was with regard to their size, a question which
the Metropolitan Board of Works woul I have to consider.
Unless the house decided something they would leave
the question just where it was 7 years ago. Every one
who knew anything on the subject agreed that a system
of interceptingsewers was the best. The only difference
ebaeltl wt ebeenmt
so,he twowee
ae to
the committees
outfall, o
e reference, h
wbeter it shoull if he might
be at Barking Creek or Sea Reach, a question which
he thong
itnwoteutled bebe
bdeetcteidredieetbtye tghoe
tOO
00uferer
now. He t
down the river at present. The plan of the Government
referees
Board of Works would cost three million?.
involved a cost of six millions, while that of the
Metropolitan 1 I th
oonueghht
Suppose that six millions were spent
in carrying the
sewage down to Sea Reach, and the
science of deodorisa-
tion advanced so as to render such an . outfall unnecessary,
and when sewage would be made available g riculturel
fora
purposes, a largo expenditure would have been uuneces.
sarily incurred. Another plan had been put
in forward,
that of deodorising at the mouths of the sewers the
Thames. That system was not adapted to meet the in-
creese of the rustropolie. The sewers in the lower levels
of London were built c f a size to suit the cx ent of the
metropolis when they were made, bnt as the metropolis
extended towards Hampstead and Highgate, the sewers
must be pralonged, as more sewage would come down,
and if the sewers in the lower level's were even now in-
adequate, how much more so would they be as London
extended. Wheu a storm of rain came on after a few
weeks' dry weather there was a flush of water in the
sewers, and it would pour into the Thames, and any
deodorising machinery would be inadequate, and things
would be in the same condition as tbey now w ere. These
were the reasons why he preferred a system of intercept-
ing sewers, and that after years of inquiry into the sub-
ject. He hoped the house would allow him to recur to
an attack which had been made on him in the early part

of the sitting by the hon. member for Brighton. He
knew the source from whence that attack came, and it
merited only indifference on his part, and he hoped that
h:s professional position—(bear, hear) —would excuse him I
from being obliged to go into professional matters in
connexion with that subject. But there was one other
part of the attack to which he wished to advert. The
hon. member for Brighton spoke as if be (Mr. Stephen.
son) was the engineer of the Victoria sewer.
Mr. CONINGHAM—I said the estimates were yours.
Mr. STEPHENSON said he bad never made an esti-
mate for the Victoria sewer in his life ; and he called on
the hon. gentleman to withdraw the word " false," as
applied to those estimates. As regarded the sewers, all
he had to do with them was that he unfortunately was
placed on the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers,
which was a very thankless office. The hon. member
fur Brighton drew a conclusion, as be thought most
illogically, that whereas the estimate for the proposed
drainage of the metropolis was three millions, taking his
(Mr. Stephenson's) estimate fur the Victoria sewer as a
criterion, it would be expanded into, not ten, but thirty
millions. To be sure the hon. member was very excited
at the thus. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The hon.
member had introduced two estimates which had nothing
to do with each other, and with which he (Mr. Stephen-
son) had still less to do, and he calculated that the
drainage of the metropolis would cost thirty millions.
The hon. member challenged him to a mathematical
contest, and he had abused Mr. Bazalgette's nlan, and
accused that gentleman of absolute falsehood. That that
was not the case he (Mr. Stephenson) would pledge
his honour and character. This was only a part
of the system pursued by Mr. F. 0. Ward for year.,
and he (Mr. Stephenson) declined the challenge,
and would not meet Mr. F. 0. Ward in a mathematical
contest. The hon. gentlemen had accused Mr. Bazal-
gette of using felse formulas, and he (Mr. Stephenson)
denied that the formulas were falsified; there might have
been error, but that did not justify the term false ; but
he denied that there was error. Another accusation of
the hon. member was that of a falsification by Mr. Bazal-
gette with regard to pipe sewers. He (Ur. Stephenson.)
knew that stoppages did take place in pipe sewers. Then
there was the accusation against Mr. Bazelgette of going
to the sewers at 12 o'clock at night, and he said no
honest man ought to have been there at that hour. If
attending to business at 12 o'clock at night was to be
made an accusation against a man, what was to be said
of the members of that house? (Hear, and laughter.)
He (Mr. Stephenson) had often been at work all night,
and in this instance Mr. Bazalgette only went to the
sewers at that hour from a sense of duty. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
surprised that the hon. member for Whitby should have
entered into these details, and have made the remarks
which he had, after the speech of the hon. member for
Brighton ; but as both hon. gentlemen had had oppor-
tunities of expressing their views, he hoped he might
remind the committee that this discussion had nothing
to do with the clause before them. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONINGIIA.M said that the hon. member for
Whitby had treated the statements he had made that
morning as if they had emanated from Mr. F. 0. Ward ;
but he would remind the hon. member that the state-
ments were quoted from Parliamentary papers, and that
the charge against Mr. Bazelgette had never been re-
futed. He could not allow the hen. member for Whitby
to screen himself behind his professional reputation.
(" Order, order," and chair.)
The CHAIRMAN begged to remind the hon. member
that the question was the omission of certain words in
the clause. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM said the hon. member for Whitby
bad referred to the clause, and had, to a great extent,
confirmed his (Mr. Cuningham's) statement, for he said
that during heavy rains deodorisation was impossible,
and if deodorisation was brought to anything like per-
fection, gigantic sewers would be unnecessary.
Sir B. HALL said that two opinions bad been ex-
pressed by the different members; one was that no
money ought to be advanced to the Metropolitan Beard
of Works till the plan proposed was known, and the
other was, that the whole execution of the plan ought
to be given up to the Metropolitan Board of Works.
He was of opinion that the whole matter should be
placed in the bands of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
(Hear.) He would not enter into the consideration as
to whether they were to proceed by intercepting sewers
or tubular drains, or by the plan of one engineer or the
other ; but the question was whether the house should
or should not throw all the responsibility on the body
delegated by the ratepayers of the metropolis. That he
thought was the best course, and so to leave the Metro-
politan Board of Works to adopt such plan as they
thought fit.
After a few words from Mr. HEADLAM and Mr. ATa
TON,

Mr. COX complained that no answer bad been given
by the Government to a question be had asked, whether
public buildings were to be subjected to the rate, and
what was to be the area of rating ; and he would divide
the committee on every clause until he got an ant ver.
He also wished to know whether the Metropolitan Board
of Works had not agreed on a plan and submitted it to
the Government.
The CHANC ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the inquiry tf the hon. gentleman was no doubt an im-
portant one ; but it had nothing to do with the clause ;
but as the hon, gentleman thought that he had been de-
ficient in courtesy in not answering his question, he
might perhaps say that when the hon. gentleman put the
question the house was not in committee, and he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had already spoken. Ile
might state to the hon. gentleman that the whole. ques-
tions of the rating of privileged buildings had beeu in-
quired into by a committee, which had reported on the
subject. So far as the Government were at present ad-
vised they agreed in the recommendation of the commit-
tee, and they did not approve of any buildings being pri,
vileged from rating. (aear.) It was their intention to
deal with the subject, but it ought to. be dealt with ge-
nerally, and not effected by a side wind in the clause
of a bill which referred to one kind of rating. There was
no intention by this clause to effect the object of the
hon. gentleman, but the whole subject would be consi-
dered. As to the area of rating in the present case, it
would be the usual metropolitan area.
Mr. W. COWPER said that if the second clause was
to be agreed to, he would c )nsent to adopt the words
proposed by the right hon. member for Marylebone, but
as ho was about to move to expunge that clause, he pre-
ferred the words of the hon. member for Newcastle as
more general, and not referring to any particular plan.
Mr. PULLER said if the Government carried out
their declara'ion that it was not their intention to im-
pose any plan on the Board of Works, the second clause
must go. They would have adopted such a system of
sewers and works ae might be necessary to prevent the
sewage from passing into the Thames near the metro-
polls, but there was not any provision to prevent the
sewage when it had got int) the Thames from being
brought back into the metropolis. They must add to
the first clause such words as would impose on the board
not only the duty of preventing sewage from going into
the Thames within the metropolitan boundaries, but to
prevent it from coming back, or they must adopt the
amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle.
Mr. TITS said the b 11 appeared to be drawn with

reference to a distinct plan, and he thought all the ob-
jections which had been raised would be met by the
omission of the word "sewers," for the clause would
then stand thus—" acc3rding to such plan as to them
may seem proper, the necessary works"—which would
inc' ude sewers if the board should think them necessary,
but would leave the question entirely open.
Lord J. MANNERS thought the clause as it at pre-
sent stood was best adapted to carry out the views of
the committee. (Hear.)

17.-.111r:uTO:T Lod:A Lu. fricad (Ur.
Headlam) would not divide, but if he did so he should
feel bound to vote with him.

Mr. BYNG supported the clause, in order to leave
the responsibility with the Board of Works, and not to
commit himself to any particular plan.
Mr. AKROYD said the clause would give power to
the Board of Works to pour the whole of the sewage
into the river Thames wherever they might choose. He
could see no reason for pouring the whole of the filth of
London into one place, such as Barking Creek, and
thought some plan ought to be adopted for deodorising
the sewage. .
Mr. HUDSON rose to order, ard submitted that the
hon. member was discussing a plan not before the houBe,
instead of confining himself to the clause.
Mr. AKROYD said the question was whether the
sewage should be carried without the bounds of the me-
tropolis. (Hear.) The committee which had been sit••
ting on the subject had made:many valaable suggestions,
and he thought their proceedings would be rendered en-
tirely useless if the Mouse legislated before hon. members
had the opportunity of examining the evidence. It was
his intention to vote for the aatendment of the hon. mem-
ber for Newcastle.
After a few words from Mr. GRIFFITU,

Mr. GARNETT said the diffical. y in 'which the house
was placed was caused by the unsatisfactory proposition
of the Government. The house was called upon to en•
dorse the Metropolitan Thard of Works' plan, and to
guarantee 3,000,000/. to be laid out in executing that
plan. Eithkr the board or the Government ought to
have power to deal with the question. But the bill was
nothing less than a daring attempt to amalgamate the
authority of the House of Commons with the power of
the Board of Works. (Hear.) It was his intention to
vote against every clause of the bill.
Mr. YOUNG did not think it fair to introduce words
by which, if the plan should fail, the house might be
charted with having sanctioned it.
The committee then divided. The numbers were—

. 33
. 81
. -43

For the amendment
Against
Mt‘jority ...........
The clause was then agreed to.
On cause 2, "Points of outfall, &e.," an amendment
was propo?ecl at the end of the clnuse, providing that
"the board may in ice ou fa!ls at any point or points
within either cf the parishes of Kensington or Fulham on
the left back, and any point not higher up than the river
Lea on the left side, not Deptford on the right side."
Lord EBRINGTON protested both against the clause
and the amendment, as it would be committing the house
to a view as to the best mode of purifying
the Thanies
and effecting the In tin drainage a the metropolis, and
thus cause the hon=e to be held responsible for every-
thing that might be done under the clause.
Mr. WINGFIELD obitcted to the second clau.,e.
Sir J. SHELLEY sail the clause would ho better
with the amedninent, but it would be bettcr still to strike
out the clause altogether. Ile hoped the house would
wash their hands of the whole thing and leave the re-
sponsibility on the Metropolitan Board of Works.
Mr. CONINGRAM said, as be should vote fer the re-
jection of the whole clause, he should not press the
amendment of which he hail given notice.
Mr. CUBITT remarked that if he understood the
clause aright, they might deodorise anywhere and die.

charge where they pleased, provided they deodorised
during the whole year.
Mr. AKROYD thought the best mode was to get rid
of the clause altogether.
After some further discussion,

Lord J. MANNERS said the first part of the clause
was put in as a safeguard to the inhabitants on the banks
of the Thames. The second paragraph was inserted as a
safeguard against a nuisance derived not from sewage
but from the matter deodorised. The Go 7croment had
no great wish as to the amendment, which was to relieve
fears which were perhaps rather exaggerated. The 26th
clause, he thought, would afford a sufficient safeguard,
an,l if it did not it could easily be altered to be effective
for that purpose.

Sir D. NORREYS objected to making the house deo-
dorisers. If the right hon. gentleman wanted six millions
instead of three, he might have it, so far as he was con-
cerned, but he thought the house ought not to pledge
themselves to a particular mode of drainage.
Mr. AYRTON appealed to Government to strike out
the clause. Ile had studied all the blue-books on this
subject, and their appendices, and the only thing he was
sati,fied about wa-, that they must have the intercepting
system. That would take several years to complete,
and by the time it was completed they would perhaps
have arrive& at a practical solution of what they were to
do with the sewage.

After a few observations from Mr. PULLER,
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the clause
was struck out.

Clause 3 was agreed to without amendment.
Oa clause 4, " power of taking land to apply for the
purpose of deodorising works,"
Mr. CONINGLIAM moved an amendment, to pro-
vide that the works should be beyond the metropolis.
Lord J. MANNERS thought the widest possible dis-
cretion ought to be left to the Board of Works.
Mr. TITE denied that deodorising works need be offen-
sive, and quoted the evidence of Mr. Wixstead to that
effect.
Sir J. SHELLEY observed that unfortunately what-
ever one scientific witness said was always contradicted
by another. (No, no.)
Sir. C. BURRELL said that the works at Chichester
were not found to create the smallest nuisance.
The clause was agreed to.
On clause 5, " The Metropolitan Board of Works may
appoint a committee for the purposes of the works,"
Mr. ROUPELL moved as an amendment that the
number of the committee should be nine instead of 15.
Sir B. HALL hoped the noble lord would strike out
the clause, the Board of Works having already the power
of appointing committees for any purpose, provided that
such committees repor,ed all their acts to the Board of
Works for its approval. The number of the committee
ought, at any rate, to be much larger than six, but the
precise number bad better be left to the board. (Hear.)
Mr. S. WORTLEY agreed that the clause ought to
be omitted, and be believed that Mr. Gladstone and Sir
J. Graham were of the same opinion.
Lord J. MANNERS was willing to substitute fifteen,
the number suggested by the metropolitan delegates.
The Board of Works would of course determine on the
plan, but when it had once done that, it would be far bet-
ter to leave the carrying out of the plan to a committee.
Besides, the clause left theappointment of such commit-
tee entirely to the discretion of the bate,.
Mr. AYRTON supported the suggestion to omit the
clause .

Sir J. SHELLEY likewise objected to the clause.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said that when the committee was
once appointed it could not be modified, however much
the opinion of the board itself might have changed.
L ,rd J. MANNERS agreed to omit both this and the
following clause. (Hear, hear.)
Clauses 7 and 8 (money clauses) were agreed to with-
out discussion.
On clause 9, "The Treasury may guarantee payment
of moneys borrowed,"
Mr. ROUPELL moved to add the following proviso :
—" And no such payment of principal or interest shall
be so guaranteed by the Commissioners of her Majesty's
Treasury, except upon a certificate of such officer as they
shall appoint, that the works from time to time con-
structed by the Metropolitan Berard of Works for the
purification of the Thames, and for the improvement of
the drainage of the metropolis, have been in all respects
designed and executed conformably to the provisions of
this act."
Lord J. MANNERS said the proposal was a some-
what Irish one. (Hear.) Money was wanted to execute
works, and the hon. gentleman proposed to give the gua-
rantee which woold be required for raising that money
after the works themselves had been completed. (Hear.)
The proviso was negatived.
Mr. AKROYD then moved to omit the claire which
seemed to him to introduce quite a new principle. Other
towns carried out necessary improvements without trou-
bling Parliament, and he could not see why London, the
wealthiest city in the world, should come there begging
for the aid of a Government guarantee ? But that was
not all. Even conceding that there should be a guaran-
tee, be objected to the amount. They had it in evidence
that the deodorisation of the metropolitan sew-
age might be effecced for a far lees sum than
three millions. Mr. Cooke, the chairman of the I,,icester
Sewage Company, had deposed that the works re-
quired for a population of 100,000 would cost about
6,0001, and that the plan might be applied to the me-
tropolis. He (the hon. member) was satisfied that not
more than 200,0001. was really required ; why then
should they guarantee three millions? The evidence to
which he referred was not yet before hon. members.
The CHAIRMAN—Then it was quite irregular to re-
fer to it.
Mr. AKROYD bowed to the authority of the right
hon. gentleman ' • but he prateited against proceeding
any further with the subj-ct until the horse was in pos-
session of evidence 6f so much importance. (Hear.)
Mr. NV. WILLIAMS was surprised at the observa-
tions of the hon. gentleman. The metropolis did not
want the Government to risk a farthing by it. (Hear.)
Mr. HAMILTON said there was hardly a municipal
institution in the kingdom that had not borrowed money
through the Exchequer Commissioners. (Cheers.) There
was no risk in giving the guarantee—the only object of
which was to enable the Board of Works to obtain the

money on easier terms, there being in the country a
largo amount of property which could only be invested
in Government securities. (Hear, hear.)
The clause was then agreed to, as was clause 10,
" Securities transferable by delivery."
On clause 11, " Money borrowed under the act to be
applied only to works under the act,"

Mr. lIE'ADLAM moved the following proviso :
"Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the said
Metropolitan Board of Works to expend a sum not ex-
ceeding 10,0001. in experiments, with the object of de-
termining the most efficient means for carrying into txe
cation the objects of this act, or any further sum, with
the sanction of the commissioners of the Treasury ; and
in making any such txporiments it shall be lawful for the
said board to use powers conferred upon them for the
purposes of this act."

Sir J. SHELLEY thought it objectionable to spend
any n.ore money in experiments. It they offered a bonus
of 10,0001. the board would be completely overwhelmed

with new schemes.

Lord j. MANNErts said that the board had all the
power that was necessary. He hoped the amendment
would not be pressed.
After a few words from Mr, BUTLER,
The amendment was negatived without a division.
On clause 12,
Sir B. HALL suggested one or two verbal amend-
meats, which ware agreed to.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH thought it desirable that the
Government should have some control over the expen-
diture of the money. Things might go wrong under the
management of the Nierrnpr,litan Dian], and tc was an-
koluteiy essent►al that Government should have th•
power of interfering. He moved the following addition
to the clause :—" And should such report so laid before
them by such inspecting engineer cause the commis-
sioners of her Majesty's Treasury to entertain serious
doubts as to the eligibility of the course taken by the
Metropolitan B-ard of Works to effect such drainage, it
shall be lawful for the commissioners of her Majesty's
Treasury to suspend the further issue of bonds, deben-
tures, and other securities, on the part,of the Metropo-
litan Board of Works, until the opinion of Parliament
shall have been taken on the points at issue."
Mr. HAMILTON objected to any further responsi-
bilay being thrown upon the Government. The very
principle of the bill was to give the whole power to the
Metropolitan Board.

The amendment was negatived, and th• clause was
agreed to.

On clause 14, which provided that the rate shall be
called "The Metropolitan Main Drainage Rate,"
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that if the rate were assessed
in the same way as the poor-rate it would produce the
greatest inequality, there being a difference of as much
as 57 per crot. in the assessment of different parishes.
It was desirable that the county rate assessment should
be adopted.

Sir B. HALL said that the Board of Works was
authorised to issue their precept for the rate ; and the
basis on whloh they assessed was that of the county rate.
Sir D. NORREYS said that by certain words in the
clause it would appear that the rate was to be levied on
the poor rate assessment.
After a conversation,
Lord J. MANNERS promised to introduce some
alteration in the clause on the report.
Mr. JOHN LOCKE c)n,idered the clause as it stood
unobjvcionable, provided it was understood that the
rate was to be levied on the county rate assessment.
After some further discussion,
Mr. WILLIAMS aprevsed an opinion that as this
was a permanent work, the ground landlord should bear
the burden of it.

The clause as amended, and also the clauses down to
clause 25 were agreed to.

On clause 21,
General CODRINGTON proposed to add the follow-
ing words :—" That the Metropolitan Board, for all
works to be carried on under this act, shall first obtain a
certificate in writing from the Thard of Trade, stating
that in the opinion of such last-rnentior;ed board the
works proposed to be carried into effect by the said
Metropolitan Board are not likely to be or to create a
nuisance."

Mr. HENLEY said such amendment would give a
veto to the Board of Trade over the whole r.ffair• As
to the sewage cf Lclidon being a nuisance, the town of
Woolwich had laid out a large su•n of money in drain-
ing into the river, so as to be a nuisance to the
metropolis. If any wrong were done under this bill,
parties aggrieved could take proceedings in the Court
of Chancery.

Sir J. SHELLEY thought that some body should
have the power proposed in the amendment. In the
Smoke Nuisance Act such a power was given to the
Home Department. Ile did not think the right of
gi.iug to the Court of Chancery against such a powerful
body as the Board of Works would be effective.
Mr. LIENLEY said the Smoke NU/NatlCo Act was in

restraint of a common law right, and therefore power
was given to prevent frivolous indictments.
Sir B. HALL thought that the Government should
consider the matter, for persons would not risk proceed-
ings at law, but a simple suggestion from a Secretary of
State might stop a nuisance which otherwise would not
be abated without spending hundreds of thousands or
thousands of pounds.
Mr. AYRTON thought the clause was sufficient as it
stood.
Mr. COX believed that this was another attempt to
introduce the system of having a veto on the proceed-
ings of the Board of Works. Ho thought that the
clause should stand as it wa..
Lord J. MANNERS said if there were a nuisance it
would be against a locality, and it would not be an in-
dividual merely who would have t 3 take proceedings.
The suggestion made, however, was worthy of consi-
deration, and he would look into the matter.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought that the towns on the
banks of the Thames up the river should be compelled
to deodorise their sewage before it went into the Tnamcs.
Sir B. HALL suggested that the clause should givo
the local authorities power to interfere, and if they did
not do so then that power should be reserved to the
Secretary of State to direct proceedings.
General CODRINGTON hoped the Government
would consider the suggestion just made. As to Wool-
wich that town bad suffered considerably from the
sewage of London being forced into the river.
The clause was agreed to, as wore also the remaining
clauses.
It was then proposed by the Government to add a
clause, saving the rights of the Board of Admiralty.
Mr. AY RTON objected to the clause. He did not sea
what the Board of Admiralty had to do with the matter.
General CODRINGTON said that the Admiralty had
a veto on the proceedings of the Conservancy.
Lord J. MANN ERS explained that the clause had
been copied from the Conservancy Bill.
Mr. AYRTON believed that the clause would give
the Admiralty an absolute veto on the whole works.
Mr. COX suggested that the clause should be
printed and brought up on the report.
Sir J, SHELLEY also thought that the clause should
he brought up on report, and they would then see what
the Admiralty meant.
Mr. COWPER said the Admiralty's powers extended
only to the navigation.

Lord J. MANNERS said he would adopt the sug-
geit'on made, and withdraw the clause for the present.
The clause was accordingly withdrawn.
General CODRINGTON moved to insert after clause
3 the following :—" That the plans of the intended
works shall be open to public inspection fur one calendar
month before the commencement of the works at some
convenient place within the metropolis ; and public notice
shall be given by the said Metropolitan Board of the time
and place where such plans can be so inspected."
Lord J. MANNERS objected that the proviso would
occasion co❑fusion, and it was then put and negatived.
Mr. ROUPELL moved the following clause :--" The
Metropolitan Board of Works shall, in the month of
June in every year, make a report of all their proceed.
ings in relation to the main drainage of the metropolis,
and shall,'in the said mouth, send a copy thereof, to-
gether with an account, in detail, of all sums expended
during the preceding year in execution of the works
authorised] by this act, to one of her Majesty's principal
Secretaries of State, which shall be laid before both
houses of parliament within one month after the receipt
thereof, if parliament be sitting, or if parliament be not
then sitting, then within one month after the mxt meet-
ing of parliament."
Sir B. HALL said that the object of the hon. gentle.
man was already provided for by the existing act.
The clause was withdrawn.
Mr. AYRTON proposed to add a proviso, that if the
Board of Works shall raise and pay the money borrowed
under the act from any other sources of revenue which
may be at their disposal for that purpose, it shall not be
necessary to make or raise the metropolis main drainage
rate. There were several sources of revenue in the me-
tropolis independent of the main drainage rate which
would be applicable to and sufficient for the objects con-
templated, and he desired to reserve the claim of the
ratepayers to those sources. The question would at
some future tune come under discussion, and he eves
anxious that they should not be met by what might ap-
pear as a pledge.
Lord J. MANNERS feared that such a clause would
decrease the value of the security of the rate in raising
money for the purposes of the act.
The clause was negatived.
An HON. MEMBER moved to add at the end of clause
5, " that it shall be lawful for the board to elect one of
their number to act as deputy-chairman, who shalt re-
ceive a salary of 5001. per annum."
This amendment was agreed to.
The preamble was passed, and the house resumed.
CIVIL BILLS, &c. (IRELAND) ACT AMEND-