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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1858.

time a letter was received by a relative, stating they
could not get beyond New Orleans for want of means.
Evidence having been given and a general character,
and the steps that had been taken to discover the wit-
nesses,

The horned judge (3..ilurned the case for the produc-
tion of witnesses from Mr. Devismi's to speak to West's
Land writing.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

BRUTAL ASSAULT ON A WIFE.—John Hunt, a surly-
looking fellow, was charged with the following brutal
assault on his wife, Charlotte Hurst :
Charlotte Hurst said she was the wife of the prisoner,
and lived at 1, Smith's-court, Soho. On the previous
day he came Lorne drunk, wh n she expo,tulated with
him on his conduct ; and she had no doubt she irritated
him by telling him she would leave him. He then struck
her in the face and gave her a black eye. He was not in
the habit of getting drunk.'
Mr. Beadon said it was a gross case, and sentenced
the prisoner to four months' hard labour.

THAMES.
DISTRESSING CASE OF A NORWEGIAN SAlLOR.—Robert
Nelson, a Norwegian seaman, was brought before Mr.
Yardley, charged with stealing a coat, a pair of trousers,
and a neckerchief, the property of Milo Plymouth, and
a pair of boots, the property of Paulus Bruchann
The prosecutors are both seamen belonging to the
Norwegian ship Lima, in the London Dock, and the
prisoner was on beard that vessel on Wednesday night,
and asked for a berth, but all hands were engaged, and
his services were not required. The property was
missing yesterday from the cabin by the seamen to whom
it belonged. The prisoner was taken into custody
yesterday afternoon by Masters, a dock watchman, as
he was leaving the London Dock, with the whole of the
property upon him.
The prisoner in defence said he appeared at
that court on Monday as a witness in a case of felony,
and he lost his ship in consequnce. He applied to his
worship yesterday f ,r relief, and it was refused.
Mr. Yardley said he fully recollected the prisoner
coming to him yesterday, and asking him if he could not
compel a prosecutor for whom he gave evidence to corc-
pensato him, and he told him he bad no power to do any-
thing of the kind. The prisoner, however, did not ex-
plain that he had been a witness in that court, or that
he had lost his ship.
The officers of the court said that it was quite true that
the Norwegian sailor was a witness in that court on
Monday, and two of three prisoners were convicted b 3
Mr. Safe for robbing a German, named Muller, of his
wateb, gold chain. money, and clothes, in a notorious
den cf infamy, No. 18, John's-place, Baker-street,
S'epney. Owing to the interference of the prisoner,
and the information be gave, Muller recovered all his
property, and refused to give Nelson a farthing.
Mr. Yardley—The prisoner was entitled to be remu-
nerated for his attendance by the county, and ought to
have been sent to Clerkenwell for the money. Where
is the prisoner's ship gone to I
The prisoner replied to Calcutta.
Mr. llulberth, an interpreter of Swedish and Nor-
wegian, said he would obtain a ship for the prisoner if
he was discharged.
Mr. Y:,rdley—That is very kind of you indeed, and I
am sure you will never have cause to regret so good an
action. I will sentence th:3 unfortunate man, who bas
been tempted by hunger and distress to commit crime,
to one day's imprisonment, which entitles him to his
immediate discharge.

that any delay which had taken place was due to the
disturbed state of the country.
THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
Mr. HUME, referring to certain rumours tbat se•
rious decay bad taken place in the foundation stone of
the Houses of Parliament, causing the structure to give
way in several places, inquired whether there was any

_
truth in t hem ?
Lord J. MANNERS had in consequence of those
rumours communicated with Sir C. Barry and the officer
who had charge of the buildings, by both of whom he
was informed that there was no ground whatever for the
statement. His lordship read a letter from Sir C. Barry
denying that there was any truth in the rumours re-
ferred to, and adding that, owing to certain causes, a
fracture bad taken place in one of the courses, but which
was of no serious importance; and that such symptoms
of decay were observable in certain portions of the stone
work as was common to all stone buildings in London,
owing to the climate.
PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

Mr. HADFIELD inquired whether it was intended
to proceed with the Probate Act Amendment Bill and
the Divorce Act Amendment Bill, or either of them,
this cession ; and if so, when ?
Mr. WALPOLE replied that both bills were on the
paper for to-morrow (this day), when the Solicitor-Gene-
ral would explain in detail what was intended to be done.
Their present intention was to take those clauses which
were necessary to enable the administration of justice to
go on, postponing the others.
THE MASSACRE AT JEDDAH.

Sir J. ELPIIINSTONE—I wish to ask the Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communi-
cations have passed between her Majesty's Government
and the Government of Tarkey on the r•ubjoct of the re-
cent outrages at Jeddah ? Whether her Mr.j:isty's Go-
vernment have insisted on the summary punishment of
the offenders; and whether they are in possession of any
information whether it is possible for ships of war to
take up such a position in the harbour of Jeddah as to
enable them to give effectual protection to the Christian
population, in the event of any future disturbance ?
Mr. S. FITZGERALD, who was indistinctly heard,
was understood to say—On a former occasion, when my
hon. friend the member for Northumberland aeked a quer:-
tion upon thissubject, I stated that the Cyclops bad been
ordered by telegraph to return immediately to Jeddah,
and instructions were given to our representative at
Constantinople to demand the most amplo reparation for
the outrage which hal been committed, and to insist
upon the immediate punishment of all persons concerned
in it. lam now in a position to state that the Cyclops
. .

at once sailed to Jectia.h, where she now is, and we are
informed by her captain that by lightening her she can
approach close to tlle town, and is u heavily armel that
she can perform 'any service that may be required of her
—besides which she carris very heavily armed beats
for her size. This determination of ber Majssty's Go-

vernment was communicated to the Tuileisl Govern-
ment, and they were informed that orders bad been sent
to obtain, and, if necessary, to enforce summary punish-
ment upon those who had been concerned in the murdtt■
In a subs:quent despatch which has been sent by the
Foreign-office to Sir H. Bulwer, he is instructed to say
that this is a case in which the British Government will
not be trifled with, and even great political objects, as
they regard our alliance with the Porte, mast yield to
the paramount principle of supporting Christian and
British prestige in those regions. It was not enough to
send a general to Jeddah. Troops were wanted there,
but above all a public rxecetion of, the murderers imme-
diately. The Pasha ought to have the power of life and
death without tedious ref?rencestoConstantinople. Three
ships had been ordered to Jeddab, and W 3 should seize
the place if ju,tice was not speedily obtained. In conse-
qneece of these representations on the part of the British
Government, an officer of the highest rank had been de-
spatched from Constantinople with an armed force, who
is authorised to proclaim martial law, and, without re-
ference to the Government at Constantinople, to icflict
immediate punishment upon the authors of the outrtge. I
can state further that not only have the authorities at
Constantinople and the Minister of the Sublime Porte
expressed their deep regret, but the Sultan himso'f has
sent to Sir H. Bulwer to say Viet there is nothing which
his Majesty will not do to to:Ally his own detestation of
the act and to afford reparation; and I may add that his
Majesty has placed a million of piastres at the dkposal of
the British Government, to be disposed of among the suf-
ferers; and has signified his intention of giving an allow-
ance of 4001. a year to the daughter of the French vice-
consul, and a similar annuity to the next representative
of orr own unfortunate consul. (Hear, hear.)
THE REVIEW GROUND AT HOUNSLOW.
Mr. BYNG asked whether there would be any objec-
tion to permit the inhabitants of Hounslow and the
vicinity to pass across the review ground, and to use it
for recreational purposes, subject to proper restrictions,
and at such times as would not interfere with military
duties and regulations?
Gen. PEEL had several times walked across and had
not met with any interruption.

MANUFACTURE OF FIREWORKS IN TOWNS.
Mr. LAURIE asked whether any steps had been taken
to prevent the manufacture of firewerk3 in populous
places ?
Mr. WALPOLE stated that there was an act in
existence, passed in the reign of Wm. 111., the provi-
sions of which, if put in force, would prevent the dan-
gerous practice referred to.
TELEGRAPHIC DESPATCH FROM INDIA.
Mr. WALPOLE read a despatch announcing the cap-
ture of Gwalior. (This despatch appears in another
column.)
METROPOLITAN DE,AINAGE BILL.

The CHAIRMAN having reported progress,
Lord J. MANNERS moved. that the committee on
this bill be resumed.
FRENCH appealed to the Speaker against the
inconvenience of setting casein bills down for the even-
ing sitting and then sub,tituting others. Thera 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
ha f resolved to continue the committee on the Dlainage
Bill until 4 o'clock, and reporting 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 affsteled of giving notice.
The house then resolved itself into committee.
The discussion on Mr. FlEenaelie 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 purity the Thames, and
improve the drainage of the metropelis." If this
amendment were agreed ta, the hon. member would next
move the omission of chose 2. his object was to avoid
pledging the house, to any particular schema of drainage
or purification. One authority was in favour of the plan
of the Metropolitan Board of Works, while wo were
opp teed to it. Tee revolt f the referees on weft .prlis
tan drainage was opposed to it, and the report cf tte
select c naccittee of that house €0 far frem sanctioning
anything in the 'astute of the scheme, gave an opi-
nion in favour of deodorisetion. If deodorisation was
to be adopted, there was no use in making these cos- ly
parallel sewers. lie would prws on the house that they
were doing wrong if they threw their authority into
any particular plan. Re believed that to be the
feeling of the committee, and therefore he prepased
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 conneerion with the second
clause, which laid down where the works might
be. It was c'ear that this was the eecurcencestent of
the definition c f a plan of intercepting to carry off the
sewage to Barking Creek. He wished the act to give
po Jeers to the l'Aetrepoli•an 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 impo,ed 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 for 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 csncur with the hon. gentleman in
' thinking that the house would fix itself with any respon-
sibility by sancti.ming a plan which was approved of by
targ as
reetdheir
as
the Government referees as well as by the referees f the
Metropolitan Board of 'Works. It was true that the re-
ports
ultimate of thoseends werepal tiesco nwceerrneea;: out ontihsetyag m,
bs:thfa
i regarded the adoption of a system of interc
eP
Ingsewers. Why should not the house, before sanctioning the ad-
vance of a largo 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 would 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 intercepting sewers was the bent. The only difference
to by the boos©
question which
cbaeltl them so, w
between
nt
he twos
comtomitteesoutfall,of andr6
ence'if he might
whether it shoul I
would e be
he better not to go too far
d
own Sea R
nhbooe atw. th
oHe Barking
thought
htt thought
oouuC:hrhette
tint
down the river at present. The plan of the Government
referees involved a cost of six millions, while that of the
Metropolitan Board of Works would cost three millions.
Suppose that EIS millions were spent in carrying the
sewage down to Sea Reach, and the science of deodorise-
tion advanced so as to render such an outfall unnecessary,
and when sewage would be made available foragricultural
purposes, a- •
• see a large -xpenditera would hen been unneces:
eerily incurred, Another plan had been put forward,
that of deodoriiiig at the mouths of the sewers in the
Thames.. That evident was not adapted to meet the in-
crease of the luetoopeles. The sewers in the lower levels
of London were buds ef r. a zry to suit the c-x•ent of the
metropolis when they were matle, but as the metropolis
extended towards Ific-ip-toad and Highgate, the sewers
must be Frelonged, aW more sewage would come dowel,
aid if the sewers in the 1 )wor levels were even now in-
adequate, bow much mere so would they be as London
extended. When 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 they now were. .These
were the reasona why ha preferred a eystern of intereopte
lug sewers, and that after years of inquiry ie to the sub-
He hoped the house would allow hind to recur to
an attack which had Ikea 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—(hear, hear)—would excusehim
from being obliged to go into professional matters in
connexion with that subject. But there was one other
part of the attack to which be wished to advert. The
hon. member for Brighton spoke as if he (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 fur the Victoria sewer in his life; a❑d lie 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 Commis,ion of Sewers,
which was a very thankless office. The bon. member
for Brighton drew a conclusion, as he thought meet
that whereas the estimate far the proposed
drainage of the Metropolis was three millions, taking his
(Mr. Stephenson'e) estimate for 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 time. (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 stall 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. Baz►lgette's Dian, 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. gentlem n had accused Mr. Bazal-
eette of using false formulas, and be (gr. Stephensot)
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-
getto with regard to pipe sewers. He (gr. Stephenson)
knew that stoppages did take place in pipe sewers. Tien
there was the accusation against Mr. Bazalgette of going
to the sewers at 12 o'clock at night, and he said no
honest man ought to have been there a' 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 1 (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 ft oln a sense of duty. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
surprised that the hon. member for Whi;,by should have
entered into these details, and have made the remarks
which he bad, af. er 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 ditcussion had nothing
to do with the clause before them. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. CONINGIIA.O 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. Bazalgette had never been re-
futed. He could not allow the hon. 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. CONINGLIAM said the hon. member for Whitby
bad referred to the clause, and had, to a great extent,
confirmed his (Mr. Coningbara'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 had been ex•
preesed by the different members ; one was that no
money ought to be advanced to she Metropolitan B esrd
of Works till the plan proposed was knoxn, 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 hands of the Metropolitan Board of Work?.
(Hear.) He would not enter into the consideration as
to whether they wore 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 rat payers of the metrvolis. That he
thought was the best course, and so to leave the Metro-
politan Thud of Woiks to adopt such plan as they
thought fit.
After a few words from Mr. HEADLAM and Mr. AYIt•
TON',

Mr. COX complained that no answer bad been given
by the Government to a question he had asked, whether
public buildings were to be selected 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 are per.
He also wished to know whether the Metropolitan Board
of Works had not agreed on a plan and submitted it to
the Government.
TheCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the inquiry r f the hon. gentleman was no doubt an im-
portant one ; but it bad nothing to do with the clause ; '
but as the hon. gentleman thouaht that he had been de-
ficieut iu courtesy in not answering his question, be
migat perhape say that when the boo, gentleman put the
question the house was not in committee, and be (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had• already spoken. He
might state to the hon. gentleman that the whole ques-
tions of the rating of privileged buildings had been in-
quired into by a committee, which had reported on the
subject. SJ far as the Government were at present ad-
vised •hey agreed in the recommendation of the commit-
tee, and they did not approve of any buildings being pri •
vileged from rating. (Hear ) It was their intention to
deal with the subjsct, but it ought to be dealt with ge-
neraLy, 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 cinsent to adopt the words
proposed by the right hon. member for Marylebone, but
as he was about to move to expunge that clause, he pre-
ferred the words of the hon. member fer Newcastle as
more general, and not referring to any particular plan.
Mr. PULLER said if the Government carried out
their dechirmiou that it was not their intention to im•
pose any plan on the Board of Works, the second clamor
must go. They would have adopted such a system cf
sewers nod work; as might be necessary to prevent the
sewage from passing, inta the Thames near the metro•
pobe, but there was not any provision to prevent the
sewage when it hal got int) the Thames front being
brought back into the metropolis. They must add to
the first clause such words as would imperse on the board
net only the duty of pr.:venting sewage from goiog into
the Tearnes within the metropolitan boundaries, but to
prevent it from cerning back, or they must adopt the
amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle. •
Mr. TITE said the b 11 appeared to be drawn with
reference to a distinct plan, and he thought all the ob-
jectioes which had been raised would be met by the
omission at the worg "sewers,' for the clause would
then stand thus-e-" ace:riling to such plan as to them
may seem proper, the necessary works"—which would
inc ode sewers if the board should think them necessary,
but would leave, the question entirely epse.
Lord J. MANNERS thought the clause as it at pie-
sent stood was best adapted to carry out the views of
the committee. (Hear )
Lord EDRINGTON hoped his hon, friend (Ur.
Headlani) 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 clews?. 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.
r Mr. HUDSON rose to order, and submitted that the
hon. member was discussing a plan not before the house,
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-
tropelis. (Hear.) The committee which had been sit•
Ling on the subject had madeariany valuable sugge.tions,
and he thought their proceedings would be rendered en-
tirely useless if the house legi,lated before hon. members
had the opportuniiy of examining the evidence, It was
his intention to vote fur the amendment of the hon. mem-
lor-..r for Newcastle.
AlteroaAfße wiiwEogssfariodmt
1)0 Mr. Gd i
ffi
onairryiTioll,
which the house
was placed
Governmentwa s cause. dTbbye thehou
house was
iss Ia
calledetory
uponpropositionof
en-
dorse the Metropolitan Beard of Works' plat), and to
guarantee 3,000,000/. to be laid out in eee:cuting that
plan. Either 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 whicb, if the plan sheuld fail, the house might be
charged with baying sanctioned it.
The committee then divided. Tire numbers were—
For the amendment 34
Against
Majority
The clause was then agreed to,
On clause 2, "Points of outfall, &e.." an amendment
was proposed at the end of the clause, providing that
"the board may mike ou falls at any point or points
within either of the parishesef Kensiegten or Fnlhara on
the left bank, and any print not higher op than the rive!-
' Lea on the het side, nor Deptford on the right side."
Lord EI3IIINGTON protested both against the clause
and the amendment, ae it would be committing ;he house
to a view as to the best mode of purifying the Thames
and effoctiug the mesa drainage of the metropolis, and
thus cause the hon-e to be held renponsitle for every-
thing that might be done under the clause.
M r. 'WINGFIELD obje.eted to the second clause.
Sir J. SHELLEY said the clause would be better
with the ainednuient, but it would be hotter still to strike
out the clause altogether. He hoped the house would
wash their hands of tate whole thing and learn the re-
spousibility on the Metropolitan Board of Works.
Mr. CONINGILaIat said, as he should vote for the re-
jection of the whole clause, he sheuld not press the
amendment of which he pad given notice.
Mr. CUBIIT remarked that if he understood the
eirsuie alight, they might deedeilee aerywhsee and dia.

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 :trnment had
no great wish as to the amendment, which was to relieve
tears which were perhaps rather exaggerated. The 26th
clause, he thought, would afford a sufficient safeguard,
and 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 so far as be was con-
cerned, but he thought the house ought not to pledge
themselves to a particular mode of drainage.
Mr. A YRTON appealed to Government to strike out
the chine. He had studied all the blee-books on this
subject, and their appendices, and the only thing he was
satisfied about was 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 arrived 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.
On clause 4, " power of taking land to apply for the
purpose of deodorising works,"
Mr. CONINGITANI moved an amendment, to pro-
vide that the works should he beyond the metropolis.
Lord J. MANNERS thought the widest possible dis-
cretion ought to bo 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 scientifi 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 reported 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 had better be hft to the board. (Hear.)
Mr. S. WOR,TLEY agreed that the clause ought to
be omitted, and he 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 h-ft the appointment of ouch commit-
tee entirely to the discretion of the board.
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 mach
the opinion of the board itself might bare 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 Beard of Works for tho
purification of the Thames, and for the improvement of
the drainage of the metropolis, have been in all respects
designed and executed confermably 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 would be required for raising that money
after the works themselves had bee❑ coupleted. (Rear.)
The proviso was negatived.
Mr. AKROYD then moved to omit the clause which
seemed to him to introduce quite a new principle. Other
towns corded out necessary improvements without trou-
bling Parliament, and he could not see why London, the
wealthiest city in the world, should coma there begging
for tt.e aid of a Government guarantee? But that was
not all. Even conceding that there slacuhl be a guaran-
tee, he objected to the amount. They had it in evidence
that the deodorisation of the metropolitan sew-
age might be effected for a far less sum than
three millions. Mr. Cooke, the chairman of the Leicester
Sewage Company, bad deposed that the works re-
quired far a p spulation of 103,000 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 re'erred was not yet before bon. 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 protested against proceeding
any further with the subj-ct until the house was in pm:-
session of evidence ief RO much importance. (Ulcer.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was surprised at the observe-
tiens of the hon. gentleman. The metropolis did not
want the Government to risk a f srthing by it. (Hear.)
Mr. HAMILTON said there was hardly a municipal
iutioni in tae kingdom that had not borrowed money
through the Exchequer Commissioners. (Cheers.) There
was no rick in giving the guarantee—the only object of
which was to enable the Board of Works to obtain the
money on easier terms, there beine, in the country a
large 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."
Oa clause 11, " Money borrowed under the act to be
applied only to works under the act,"
Mr. READLAM moved the f ollowing proviso :
" Provided al Nays, 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 (see
cution the objects of this act, or any further sum, with
the sanction of the commissioners of the Treasury ; and
in making any such (assortments it shall be lawful for the
said board to use powers conferred upon them for the
purposes of this act."
Sir J. SEIELLEY thought it objectionable to spend
any more money in experiments. It they offered a bonus
of 10,000/. the board would be completely overwhelmed
with new eel-seines.
Lord J. MANNEPe3 said that the board had all the
power that was necessary. He hoped the amendment
would not be pressed.
Alter a few wards from Mr. EurLER,
The amendment was negatived without a division.
On clause 12,
Sir B. HALL suggested one or two verbal ameml-
mentet, which were 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 Metropolitan .Biard, and it was ab-
solutely e:seatial that Government should have the
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 Com lalle•
sionera of her Majesty's Treasury to entertain serious
doubts as to the eligibility of the course taken by the
Metropolitan Board of Works to effect such drainage, it
shall be lawful for the commissioners of her Majesty's
Tr. asury to suspend the further issue of bonds, deben-
tures, and other securities, on the part of the Metropo-
li•an Board of Works, until the opinion of Parliament
shell have been taken on the points at issue."
Mr. HAMILTON objected to any further responei-
bil:ty 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 the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 14, which provided that the rate shall be
called "The Metropolitan Main Drainage Rate,"
Mr. W. WILLIA MS said that if the rate were assessed
iu the same way as the poor-rate it would produce the
greatest inequality, there being a difference of as much
as 57 per trot. 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 which 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 assesement.
After a Conversation,
Lard J. MANNER 3 promised to introduce some
alteration in the clause on the report.
Mr. JOHN LOCKE com,ilered the clause as it stood
unobj,cismable, provided it was understood that the
rate was to bo levied on the county rate assessment.
After Rome further discussion,
Mr. WILLIAMS expressed 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
&atria 25 were agreed to.
On clause 24,
Goners,' 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 Board of Tiede, stating
that in the oainiou of such lastanerstioeed board the
works proposed to be carried into effect by the said
Metropolitan Bawd 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 affair. As
to the sewage ef Lendon being a nuisance, the town of
"7"l'l°h had laid out a large sum of money in drain-
ing into the river, se as to be a nui:anee to the
metropolis. If any wrong were done under this bill,
parties aggrieved comald 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 inch a power was given to the
Rome Depertenent. He did not think the right of
going to the Court of Chancery against such a powerful
body as the Board of Works teem" I be effective.
Mr. aLKLEY said the Smoke Nuisance 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
considev 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.
Air. 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. He 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 Lot be an in-
dividual mealy who would have to take proceeiings
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 Thames.
Sir B. HALL suggested that the cause should give
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 Wocl-
wich that town had suffered considerably from the
sewage of London being forced into tire, river.
The clause was agreed to, as were alio the remaining
clauses. _ _

It was then proposed by the Government to aid a
chose, saving the rights of ttie Board of Admiralty.
Mr. AYRTON objected to the clause. He did not see
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. MANNERS explained that the clause had
been copied from the Conservancy Bill.
Mr. AYRTON believed that the clause would give
the Admiralty an absolute vato oo 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
be l.rought up on report, and they would then ace 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-
gestion 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 cf the intended
works shall bo open to public inspection for one calendar