(in the absence of Mr. Hume) moved the resumption of the Adjourned Debate on the question—

"That it is expedient that the constitution and practice of all Committees on Private Bills, in future Sessions of Parliament, should be assimilated as nearly as may be to those of Committees on Railway Bills; and that it be an instruction to the Committee for revision of Standing Orders to make provision accordingly."

The hon. Gentleman adverted to the various changes which had been made in the constitution of Committees on Private Bills for the purpose of securing an impartial tribunal, and to the want of success which had attended those changes. In reference to Railway Bills, however, the House had resorted to a new principle. Such Bills were referred to Committees consisting of five members, who were entirely unconnected with the district to which the Bills related. Testimony was generally borne to the infinite superiority of that system. Difficulties were experienced and complaints were made in consequence of the attendance in Committees on Private Bills of Members who had a local interest, or might be supposed to act under the influence of their constituents. Indeed, he recollected on one occasion, when, as chairman of a Committee on a Private Bill, he had to give a casting vote, that a Member of the Committee who voted differently said to him, "You were perfectly right in the vote you gave, and I was perfectly wrong; hut what could I do with such a number of my constituents present?" Local Members might be present in Committees to assist; but they should have no voice in the decision. The opinions of Parliamentary agents and others possessed of the greatest experience was in favour of the exclusion of local Members; and he might further state that the House of Lords had adopted that system.

thought, considering the importance of the Motion, that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) ought to have been present to support it himself. Its adoption would do nothing but impose duties of a most severe and arduous nature upon Members of the House in regard to Private Bills. Hon. Gentlemen would be compelled to attend to every gas, waterwork, or paving- Bill—to Private Bills, in short, of all descriptions, and to sit in the Committee-rooms dealing with most uninteresting matter. From the nature of the private business, it would he impossible, when it was increasing to so much, for hon. Gentlemen to do justice to the subjects. He thought, indeed, the time was approaching when the House of Commons would see the necessity of rejecting that description of business, and of appointing that tribunal thoroughly to investigate the preliminary matters which formed the groundwork of all proceedings up stairs, reserving to itself the power of finally adjudicating. He would give every opposition to the Motion.

observed, that the mode of conducting private business was a matter of public interest and imperial concern. He feared, with his hon. and learned Friend who had last addressed the House, that much of their business was of a character which rendered another tribunal perhaps more appropriate. But he was satisfied that the large accumulation of their business, public and private, would make it physically, morally, and intellectually impossible for the House to get through it efficiently. With respect to the question which was then before the House, as to whether it was or was not fit that they should commit all Private Bills to one and the same kind of tribunal, composed of Members without local knowledge or local interest, his opinion was, that local interests ought to be represented. How much would it increase the expense, for instance, to send a Rochdale Gas Bill or a Rochdale Paving and Lighting Bill to a Committee which knew nothing about the local merits of the question, and who would have to depend altogether for their information on the counsel employed? The increased expense might be a comparatively light matter in the case of a large interest like that of a railway from London to Dover, but it might bear rather heavily upon the parties concerned in a Private Bill like that he referred to. He must say he was not prepared to adopt a measure which, although prospective in the present instance, had been deliberately rejected by a majority of two to one when it was proposed to apply it to the present Session. He concurred entirely in the propriety of that decision, and he heard no reason assigned which, in his judgment, was sufficient to justify the House in reversing it.

supported the Motion. He did not see the force of the objection urged by the two hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken as to the oppressive labour which this new system would throw upon Members. There was no new work to be introduced; the work was already done by Members; and all that was proposed was a new method of doing it. The hon. Members had also talked of the increase of private business being likely to lead to its being done out of the House altogether by a judicial body: that might be a very proper arrangement; but it was inconsistent with their other argument, that local bodies ought to be represented in the management of the private business, because there would be no representation of local interests in such a tribunal as that proposed. He begged to remind the House that the present Motion embraced other objects besides that of assimilating the constitution and practice of Committees on Private Bills to those of Railway Committees, in the matter of selecting Members. There was the practice of sending groups of Bills to the same Committee, and the practice of making the attendance of Members compulsory, both which practices would be a great improvement in regard to Private Bills. With regard to the representation of local interests in the Committees, he admitted that in a few cases it might be a disadvantage to exclude it; but, on the whole, he was inclined to think that that disadvantage would be more than compensated by having the Committee entirely selected.

hoped the House would pause before it adopted this resolution, and not deprive constituents of the benefit of their representatives. This was a constitutional question. He recollected that the predecessor of the present Speaker declared that it was not according to the constitution to deprive constituencies of the benefit of their representatives. He should be inclined to support the resolution, provided it were modified so far as to allow local Members to have a seat in the Committees along with the selected Members. Supposing the Bill related solely to some particular borough, he would have the Member for that borough on the Committee; suppose it related to a county, he would have the two county Members on it; and supposing it related to more than one borough, he would have the Members for each of the boroughs on it. He thought such a plan as that would be a great improvement.

concurred in thinking it would be highly inexpedient to adopt this proposition. He had lately sat on a Railway Committee along with four hon. Members of great talents, and they had all felt themselves exposed to much inconvenience from having no local information. The railways referred to them were all in Scotland, and there was not one Scotchman on the Committee. The consequence was, that they felt great doubt if they had given a proper decision in all cases. They did the best they could, and he hoped their decisions were right; but they acted under great disadvantages. And how could it be otherwise, seeing that the House appointed men whose principal qualification was ignorance of the subject? Such a tribunal, for want of a better, might be adopted with respect to railways; but he hoped it would continue to be an exception—at all events, until a better and more matured plan than this was laid before the House.

said, that the hon. Member for Oxford had argued that the House ought to decide against the Motion, because they had already given a decision against it in the course of the present Session. He (Mr. Strutt) begged to remind the House of the circumstances under which that decision was given. The hon. Member for Dumfries brought forward a Motion on the subject on the second day of the Session. Objections were taken to his bringing it forward at that time; and the Secretary of State for the Home Department stated, that he did not wish to express an opinion either for or against the Motion; but, considering that it had been brought forward without the House having long notice of it, and considering that the subject had not previously been submitted to a Committee, and did not come before the House with the weight and authority of a Committee, he hoped the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the Motion. The hon. Member for Dumfries consented to withdraw it; but this having been objected to, a division unexpectedly took place, and it was rejected. It was not rejected, however, upon its merits, but for the reasons he had stated. Now, however, the resolution came before the House recommended by the nearly unanimous opinion of a Committee who had fully discussed and considered the matter. He must say for himself that when he sat on a Committee as a local Member, he felt that he was placed in a painful position. His constituents naturally, and he must say rightly, because he was their representative, expected him to attend to their interests; while, on the other hand, he felt that he was there in a judicial capacity, and that he ought to pay no respect to mere local feelings. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had said, that Members were selected whose qualification was ignorance of the facts. But what was the qualification of jurymen? In the case of jurymen it was felt that impartiality was much more important than a knowledge of particular facts, because the want of information might be supplied by counsel and evidence, whereas impartiality could not be supplied by any other means. Having long entertained that opinion, and having previously given his vote in favour of it, he felt bound to repeat that vote; because all the experience he had had in private business, and of the working of the two systems, had convinced him that the House would act wisely if they adopted the Motion then proposed, and formed their Committees on a uniform system.

was of opinion that a broad distinction existed between Railway Bills and Local Bills: the former related to matters in which the whole country was interested; the latter referred only to subjects which possessed no interest beyond the localities to which they applied. If local representation should be shut out from Committees on Private Bills, the consequence would be, that many points of great interest to the inhabitants of the localities affected would fail to be investigated. If it should be deemed expedient to prevent local Members from voting in the Committees, at least allow them the privilege of being present and taking part in the proceedings.

said, that he had the honour of having served upon a Committee with the Speaker before the right hon. Gentleman was placed in the chair, in which the question now under consideration was raised in immediate connexion with the private business of the House, the duties connected with which the right hon. Gentleman discharged in so admirable a manner. The question was no less difficult than important, and its difficulty was enhanced by the divided authority which prevailed respecting it. The opinion which the Speaker expressed before he was appointed to the chair was decidedly in favour of the change now proposed; but, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Lord Dunfermline, maintained that local representation in private Committees was, on constitutional grounds, not only defensible, but necessary. Then, again, the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, who had perhaps greater experience with respect to Private Bills than any other Member of the House, and whose integrity in dealing with them was universally acknowledged, opposed the resolution; whilst the hon. Member for Hants declared his intention of voting for it. The observations which had been made relating to the manner in which the proposed change would affect the convenience of Members, would not in any respect influence his decision on the question. When a Gentleman undertook to act as a representative of the people, he did so under the implied, if not the express condition, that he would sacrifice his convenience and devote his time to the public service. The question to be decided, therefore, was, what was for the public good with respect to the matter which they were then discussing? He did not believe it would promote the interests of the people to put an end to representation as respected private business. He could not concur in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. Bernal), that the time had arrived when it was desirable to cut off from the House all jurisdiction with respect to private business. With due diligence and the proper appropriation of time, he believed the House would be able to discharge all the duties which at present devolved upon it. He should be sorry to see the House part with any of its functions, the due discharge of which elevated it in the opinion of the public. The resolution before the House recommended that Committees on Private Bills should be assimilated as nearly as might be to Committees on Railway Bills. The words "as nearly as might be" gave a character of ambiguity to the proposition. At the close of the Session, and in the last hour almost of an expiring Parliament, it would be neither wise nor expedient to affirm a proposition which on the face of it appeared to propose so extensive an alteration, and yet was so ambiguously worded that it might produce no substantial result. If, therefore, the Motion were proposed to a division, he would vote against it.

said it was true that no plan had been submitted to the House, but it was the object of the resolution to refer the matter to the Standing Orders' Committee, in order that they should draw up such regulations as they might deem necessary. If he must choose between the existing practice and the alteration proposed, he preferred the latter, and would therefore give his vote for the Motion.

said, that he would support the Motion. From his peculiar position he had no interest in the matter; but he wished to state distinctly, as the result of the experience of many years, that he thought it would be a great improvement to adopt the same system for Private Bills as for Railway Bills: it was, perhaps, the last opinion he should give in that House before retiring to a private station.

was sure the House would receive the opinion of the hon. Gentleman with great respect, and would hear with regret that they were about to lose the valuable aid they had derived from his long experience in this important part of their duties. With regard to the question before them, he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) that any great constitutional principle was involved in the Motion. The only question for them to decide was, how they could best form an impartial tribunal for the trial of Private Bills. The constitutional principle was equally involved in the rule laid down with regard to Railway Acts. His own opinion was strongly in favour of assimilating more closely the system of Committees on Railway and Local Bills; but he thought Members connected with the locality need not be entirely excluded from the proceedings; they might attend and take part in the inquiry, but should have no vote. He knew that Members were frequently placed in a difficult and dangerous position from their constituents urging them to vote one way, while their duty as judges compelled them to decide another.

could not lay claim to the experience of many Members who had spoken in that debate; still, he had not been without considerable experience both on Railway and other Private Bill Committees. He admitted that the question of excluding from Committees on ordinary Private Bills all Members with local or personal interests, was not free from some difficulty; yet he had no hesitation in giving it as his opinion, that in the balance of advantages, the preponderance was decidedly in favour of assimilating the practice to that on Railway Committees, and confining the tribunal in principle to selected Members. He had not arrived at the conclusion of his hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth (Mr. Bernal), that the time was come when the House must altogether part with its jurisdiction in private business; but he was very sensible of the vastly increased weight and responsibility of that department of the functions of the House; and sure he was, that if the House meant permanently to retain it, they must apply timely reform in that respect; and he considered the present a step in the right direction for the purpose.

knew that political contests were often fought on local Bills. He was fully convinced that if they rendered the tribunals before which Private Bills were tried, impartial, it would raise the dignity of the House, and confer a benefit on the public.

said, the opposition to his last return was founded entirely on his conduct on a local Bill. He wished to see Members act as judges, not as advocates.

said, his noble Friend the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) had given notice of a Motion for that evening relative to the window tax. He hoped that his noble Friend would consent to withdraw that Motion. He should not have objected to the discussion of the subject if it had been introduced at an earlier period; but at this stage of the Session such a Motion would involve great inconvenience, and he trusted it would not be persevered with.

begged to state, in reply to his noble Friend, that no one was more anxious than he was to promote sanitary measures. His attention had chiefly been directed to this subject by the report of the Committee (on which many Members of the Government had sat) on Lord Lincoln's Bill. That report pointed out that one great defect in the Bill consisted in its not embracing the window tax; and he considered that no sanitary measure would be complete if this subject were omitted. It had not now been his intention, however, to enter at any length into the question; he had wished only to take that opportunity, on going into Committee on the Health of Towns Bill, to call attention to the remarkable fact that within the last three or four years the number of houses having eight windows, which was the lowest class under the assessment, was getting fewer and fewer, and that no less than 7,000 houses of this description had fallen out of the assessment since the window tax had been increased under Baring's Act, in 1841. If, however, the course he had proposed to take would interfere with the arrangements of the noble Lord, or unnecessarily detain the House, he would withdraw the Motion; and he trusted that, if in any future Session he were enabled to call the attention of Parliament to the subject, the Government would accord it that consideration which its importance deserved.

proposed that the House should meet on the next day to forward some Railway Bills.

I am unwilling to offer any opposition to the progress of public business; but I do think that going on with these Bills to-morrow, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government suggests, is a course which will be productive of great inconvenience to many Gentlemen, who, never expecting that any important business would be proceeded with on Saturday, or, in fact, any business at all, have made arrangements and engagements which will prevent their attendance. Saturday has always been a holiday, and the Government have given no notice of their wish to alter the custom. Besides, I cannot really see what there is so pressing as to require a departure from the regular course.

We only propose to take those stages of Bills to which there will be no opposition to-morrow. Objections have been frequently made in the House of Lords to the lateness of the period of the Session at which Bills go up to them from the House of Commons. I do not propose to go on with the Health of Towns Bill to-morrow; but as there are so many stages of other Bills which will be unopposed, we wish to proceed with them. It was not unusual for the House to sit upon Saturdays. They had done so in previous Sessions.

said, as the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) seemed to be so anxious to economise the public time, he would recommend him not to waste it in discussing Bills which were not to be passed. Thus many important Bills had been brought forward this Session of Parliament; among the rest, the Health of Towns Bill and the Railway Bill. As regarded the former, there was not a single town in the kingdom whose interests the measure did not affect. In the object of the measure he entirely agreed; but the means by which that object was to be achieved were the most crude, unprepared, and undigested—and the most critical—if he might use the term—to be worked out. In short, this Bill could not possibly pass without consuming many most laborious evenings. There were hosts of objections to it; and he might say the same thing of the Railway Bill. The two Bills were quite enough of themselves to occupy the House of Commons for the next six weeks, and most laboriously too; and after all, he was quite sure neither one nor the other of them would pass into law during the present Session. There was a Motion now before the House, to which he was speaking. There was another most important Bill to be considered—the Poor Law Amendment Bill. That was a very important Bill, he repeated, and must be carried. His noble Friend (Viscount Duncan) had withdrawn a Motion which was deemed of great importance by his constituents; and he was quite sure that, unless his noble Friend felt deeply the necessity of yielding to the wish of the Government, he would not have given way. He hoped that the obliging disposition of his noble Friend would be reciprocated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government— that he would well consider the position of public business, and not burden Parliament with unnecessary labours, which could result in no practical advantage— which would take up a great deal of time, and do no earthly good. Where was the use of fighting and wrangling over Bills which could not pass? He could not help thinking that these two measures were pressed upon the noble Lord by parties out of doors, who did not stop to consider what course would best conduce to the public welfare.

, on moving the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Health of Towns Bill, said: I wish to say a few words in reference to what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath upon the Health of Towns Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, this Bill is to be met by a host of objections; but I do not think that is any reason why either the House or the Government should take it for granted that the measure is not to pass—at least without such objections having over been stated. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Poor Law Amendment Bill "must pass," and that it was most important it should pass; but the hon. and learned Gentleman might upon this Bill be met with his own declaration upon the Health of Towns Bill; for there were many objections to it— many hon. Gentlemen who thought it ought not to be passed. We, however, discussed the Bill, and heard the objections against it; and I can see no reason why the Health of Towns Bill should not be proceeded with in the same manner. I think, Sir, that if the Government acted upon such suggestions as those of the hon. and learned Gentleman—if they gave as a reason to the House of Commons for not proceeding with an important Bill, that there were a great many objections against it, that they would be liable to just censure for neglect of duty. My remarks apply to both Bills. I now, Sir, move that the House go into Commit-tee on the Health of Towns Bill, so that we may at all events hear what those formidable objections are.

did not wish the noble Lord to withdraw these Bills, or any other Bills; but he asked him not to press upon the House any measures which he did not think he could carry out. What the noble Lord had just said as to listening to the formidable objections against the Bill, convinced him that the noble Lord had made up his mind that it could not be carried out. If, however, they were to have a discussion upon the measure, the sooner it was commenced the better.

thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) exceedingly unjust and unfair towards the noble Lord. What would the hon. Member have the Government do— what could they do with this Bill but that which they were doing? This measure, or a nearly similar one, had been recommended by the highest authorities in that House. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had recommended it. In fact, the utility of a sanitary Bill, and the necessity for it, was admitted in all quarters; and yet when the Government brought it forward, they were taunted for not abandoning it. Surely nothing could be more unfair. He knew the Bill had many enemies; but he exhorted the Government to persevere with a measure which had been recommended in three Speeches from the Throne, and which was called for by the unanimous feeling of the country. Let them, therefore, go into Committee upon the Bill; and even if they were not to go through with it during the present Session, they would, at all events, have put in the point of the wedge—have established a principle upon which, he trusted, the new Parliament would act, and carry it into full operation.

thought the most advisable course for the noble Lord to pursue would be to state upon Monday next to the House what Bills the Government took an interest in, and which they determined to proceed with; and what Bills would be thrown overboard altogether. Such a course would be conferring upon the House a great obligation; for then hon. Members would know the amount of work which was to be really done, and upon which they were at present completely in the dark. With respect to what had been said by the hon. Member for Bath, he thought there was much point in his observations; but at the same time, he must say that he felt indebted to the Government for bringing forward the Health of Towns Bill, and trusted they would go on with it, and endeavour to pass it into law. In his opinion, the Government deserved the public thanks for pushing it forward, and would, even if unsuccessful in their efforts, be entitled to the public gratitude. There might be good objections to the machinery of the Bill; but he thought there was nothing in the details which could not be modified and amended in Committee. He would conclude by again expressing a sincere wish that the Government would not abandon this measure, and, unless overpowering difficulties presented themselves, to persevere in the laudable resolution to which they had come.

said, that although he sincerely desired to see the object of the Health of Towns Bill arrived at, he must say that the measure before Parliament proposed to accomplish that end by such unconstitutional means, that he could not support it. The most arbitrary and unconstitutional power was given to an individual nominated by the Crown—a power which completely nullified several Acts of Parliament which had been formerly passed for the protection of the property with which this Bill was to interfere. Then the property upon which this inspector reported was to be handed over to a town-council or a board, and by them dealt with as they thought fit, the proprietors having scarcely a voice in its valuation or further disposal. Why not leave the matter to be managed by the town-council, with the consent of the parties? They had acted in this way with gas companies—why not with water works, where the property amounted to several millions in value? Why should the management of such valuable property be intrusted to a parcel of tradesmen, who, in many instances, knew nothing whatever about it? If the compulsory clauses of the Bill were loft out, he should have no objection to support it; but if they were to be included, he considered them to be of so arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional a character, that he should feel it to be his duty to give the measure all the opposition in his power. It was something new in legislation to pass a Bill empowering the parties taking the property of others to take it not upon the terms of the owners, but upon the terms which those parties themselves thought fit. It was surely hard upon owners, after investing immense sums of money in large, useful, and expensive undertakings, to be deprived of those undertakings at the very time when they might hope to derive some profit from their investment.

thought the noble Lord should have told the House what Bills the Government intended to proceed with tomorrow. Some hon. Members were engaged in transactions of importance upon the Saturday, and had engagements which they could not dispense with; so that, from want of due notice of the wish of the Government, they must either run the risk of omitting to discharge their public duty, or break up their arrangements. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend (Lord G. Bentinck) in this respect. He thought it a great pity that the noble Lord (Lord Duncan) had withdrawn his Motion respecting the window tax, which was one of great importance, particularly as regarded the health, the comfort, and. the enjoyment of the poor; and upon the whole a subject which might be discussed with a much greater prospect of practical advantages than that now before the House. It certainly was a singular time to bring a measure of so much magnitude under discussion, when they were on the very eve of a dissolution, and every day expecting to be sent before their constituents.

thought this was an ill-considered Bill, and that it involved provisions of a most unconstitutional and arbitrary character. He held in his hand a petition from a rural parish near Exeter. The petition set forth that the inhabitants of this town had, at a considerable expense, got up a good system of drainage; but if the present Bill were to be passed, the parish he spoke of would be included in the corporation of Exeter; the waterworks would be taken into the hands of the corporation; and the inhabitants of this rural town heavily taxed for that which they had at present at a comparatively cheap rate.

trusted that his hon. Friend who had just sat down, and who entertained such objections to the Bill on behalf of Exeter, was at least ready to state that Exeter was prepared to meet the cholera, which, when it visited England, was worse in Exeter than any other town. For himself, he must say that he had received communications from his Yorkshire constituents to give this Bill his most strenuous support; and, in fact, the only complaint he had to make of the noble Lord who had charge of it was, that he had not included the city of Westminster in its operation. The stinks, the foul air, and the malaria in that city, among which it was his misfortune to live, caused him deeply to regret that the noble Lord had not included in his Bill the cities of London and Westminster.

denied the charge brought against the city of Exeter by the hon. Member.

also vindicated Exeter from the charge brought against it, and said there was scarcely a town in the kingdom where such large sums were spent in the improvement of the place. He complained of the noble Lord for bringing in a measure of such an unconstitutional character, which would put a large proportion of the agricultural districts under the municipal authorities, or under the power of commissioners appointed under this Bill. The same thing was done at the passing of the English Municipal Bill; and though a Boundary Bill had been introduced to ex- empt the small districts in the neighbourhood of towns from the pressure of municipal burdens, yet the town interest had been strong enough to prevent that measure from passing. He, therefore, trusted the agricultural interests would persevere in their opposition to this Bill, unless the noble Lord would undertake to exempt from the operation of this Bill all lands in the neighbourhood of towns which derived 110 benefit from the operation of the Bill.

said, there was nothing in the Bill which was intended to include the rural districts, or that would affect the landed interest in any way. The only extension of the Bill bearing upon this subject was intended merely for the purpose of including those streets and buildings which might be outside of a town; but there was no intention whatever to include the rural districts themselves.

expressed the sentiments of a large body of his constituents when he said that he hoped the noble Lord would proceed with his Bill. It was a useful measure. No objection was made to it except on the part of certain water companies; and be believed that the Bill had been so modified as to meet even their wishes. It would tend to promote the health and comfort of the inhabitants of large towns; and when it was recollected that Dr. Lyon Play fair had stated that the loss created by sickness and death arising from causes which might be prevented amounted in Manchester and Sal-ford alone to not less than 1,000,000l. sterling annually, he thought that no one would wish to avoid any little trifling taxation, for the sake of accomplishing so important a benefit. He was not aware that this measure had any application to the rural districts. Hon. Members connected with those districts were very sensitive; hut he could toll them that in the suburbs of large towns landowners had derived great advantages from the industry of their neighbours, and he knew cases where landowners had their incomes advanced from 5,0001. to 20,0001. a year, without doing a single thing to promote the welfare of the inhabitants by whom they were so much benefited.

had given notice to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of his intention to call the attention of the House to a matter relating personally to himself in connexion with an important subject which had been lately under discussion. It would be in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, at the close of his brilliant oration, had stated, with reference to certain allegations he had made, that no distinct notice had been given to the Junta of Oporto—that their vessels ran the risk of being taken if they crossed the bar of the Douro—that no person, who had the means of knowing the facts, could deny conscientiously that full notice had been given to the Junta. The right hon. Gentleman had also said, that the bearing of his (Mr. Borthwick's) statements cast a serious imputation upon the character of the British officers who commanded the military and naval forces. The right hon. Gentleman read extracts from two letters; and when he heard those letters read to the House, he certainly thought it did appear that there was no fair ground for the allegation be had made; and a subsequent communication with the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), who had courteously shown him the originals, justified him in the acknowledgment he had made that he had been misinformed, and that some notice had been given (not a categorical notice) to the Count das Antas and the Junta, that if the ships left Oporto and put out to sea, they might be taken by the British forces. He put the noble Lord in possession of the name of his informant—a person of high character and position, and who was incapable of stating what he did not believe to be true. That gentleman bad addressed to him the following letter:—

Mr. Speaker, the controversy which the hon. Gentleman has been carrying on with my right hon. Friend, about any notice having been given to the Junta, scorns to me rather a discussion as to the meaning of words than as to the fact. For the hon. Gentleman has entirely restated the fact on which my right hon. Friend founded his assertion; and the only question between them is, whether the announcement made to the Junta was or was not sufficient to convince any reasonable man that there was danger in the ships going out of the Douro? I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and think that the notice given to the Junta was complete. But the hon. Gentleman has altogether passed over one fact which was distinctly stated by my right hon. Friend—namely, that a previous notice had been given to the Junta. The hon. Gentleman says that there was no declaration of war. Why, as to a formal declaration of war from the Three Powers to the Junta at Oporto, that I must say was not exactly a thing to be expected. But surely the hon. Gentleman forgets that on the 15th of May, Colonel Wylde and the Marquess de Espana, having gone to Oporto in order to communicate with the Junta certain articles on the part of the Queen, and having received from the Junta a refusal, unless there were coupled with those articles ten other articles which were totally inadmissible, Colonel Wylde made a formal communication to the Junta, of which this is a part:—

hoped, as the House had just submitted to listen to questions of a merely personal character, they would indulge him for a few minutes whilst be also explained a matter that was personal to himself. He was extremely sorry to interpose for a moment, in proceeding to the public business; but as it was the first it was the most fitting time he could take to set himself right with the House upon a matter of difference which had occurred between himself and the hon. Member for Weymouth—upon a matter of fact, on the previous evening. It related to what had taken place during the sitting of the Andover Union Committee. The hon. Member had stated distinctly that he (Mr. Villiers) had made a statement to the House which was untrue; and when he expressed his belief that he was correct, the hon. Member interrupted him, in what he thought was an unparliamentary manner. He was anxious to show that he was right; and if, in the warm manner he had replied to the hon. Member, there was anything unbecoming, he was extremely sorry, and he begged to express his regret to the Speaker of the House. He had stated that he had objected to the manner in which the hon. Member for Weymouth had conducted the examination of Sir Frankland Lewis; and he had said that the hon. Member had attempted to examine Sir F. Lewis upon a matter that was of a private rather than a public nature. The hon. Member had said there was no truth in that assertion; that he had been misled by an incorrect report in a newspaper; and that the statement was neither verbally nor substantially correct. As he was coming into the House that evening, he received a letter from Sir F. Lewis, containing a statement of what had occurred on the occasion in question. It stated the substance and the words which the hon. Member for Weymouth had distinctly denied having put; and it went on to state that several Members of the Committee had objected to the question being-put, and that the writer (Sir F. Lewis) had most earnestly desired to be allowed to answer it. The room, however, was cleared; and on the re-opening of the business, the hon. Member (Mr. Christie) put his question, but in a different form from what he had at first proposed, which was—

"When you ceased to be a Poor Law Commissioner, was it after an arrangement had been made that your son was to succeed you? "

Being resolved to leave no doubt upon the subject, he (Mr. Villiers) had, previously to the receipt of Sir F. Lewis's letter, referred to the report which had been published in the Times newspaper on the day after the examination, and it ran thus:—

"Mr. Christie: Did you not leave the Commission on an arrangement that your son should succeed you?

"Sir F. Lewis (under great excitement): I particularly wish to answer that question.

"Mr. Wakley: I think it ought to be answered.

"Here four or five Members of the Committee began to speak all at once, and much confusion having ensued, Mr. M. Sutton, the Chairman, and other Members, proposed to clear the room.

"Sir F. Lewis: Oh, pray let me answer the question. I entreat, for my honour, that you let me clear up this point.

"Mr. Sheridan: Yes, but we had better clear the room first.

"Sir F. Lewis: I entreat you let me answer it.

"The Chairman and Mr. M. Sutton: We had better have the room cleared,

"Sir F. Lewis: Oh, lot me answer it—pray, let me answer it.

"The room was cleared notwithstanding Sir F. Lewis's very earnest appeal, delivered in a tone which left no doubt of his earnestness, but which caused a great deal of laughter. On the return of parties,

"The Chairman said, the Committee were unanimously of opinion that he should have an opportunity of giving what answer he liked."

That was considered an authentic account of what had taken place; hut he had referred also to the official report made to that House of the evidence. It ran thus:—

"When you ceased to be a Poor Law Commissioner, will you inform the Committee whether you ceased upon an arrangement being made for your son to succeed you? In putting that question, I am anxious to explain to you that I do not refer to any arrangement which might not have been made with perfect propriety, and without any imputation against either you or your son. The only object of the question is to ascertain, whether, on the appointment of your son, upon your retirement, you ever cautioned him against Mr. Chadwick?"

What related to the objection on the part of the Committee to the original question, was of course omitted from the Parliamentary report; hut the House would see that there was no connexion between Sir F. Lewis's giving up his place as a Commissioner, whether in favour of his son or not, and his warning him against Mr. Chadwick; and it would see that the hon. Member had actually put the question, which involved the matter which he said related to private and not public affairs. His object was to set himself right with the House, and to show that what he had stated was true.

thought the inhabitants of the places near Coventry had taken unnecessary alarm at this Bill, as it would not affect them. He fully concurred in the objection urged by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln against the Bill, on the ground of the metropolis being excluded, being of opinion that there was no part of the empire in which its application was more needed; and he still entertained the hope that the noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth) would he induced to include the metropolis in the operation of the Bill. He did not believe that he would encounter any opposition in taking such a course, now that the grounds of opposition which existed to the former measure had been removed. If London were included in the Bill, he should give it his cordial support.

was afraid the neighbours and constituents of the hon. Member had good reason for differing from him on the subject; they had taken good legal advice upon this measure, and had been informed that the words "towns and districts" were used almost convertibly in the earlier clauses of this Act; that any district which came under the operation of an Order in Concil was to be deemed a town for the purposes of the Act; and that so large a discretion was given to the Commissioners that there was nothing like a clear definition of the places which would come under their control. He objected to the Bill on the ground that it involved a principle which had recently been called the "tentative principle," or, in other words, the principle of getting in the narrow end of the wedge. He objected to the establishment of a commission, and to the issuing of Orders of Council which, during the recess of Parliament, would have the force of Acts of Parliament, and which would impose taxation upon those who had been before exempt, and for purposes from which they could derive no benefit. How unjust it would be that the agricultural districts around Coventry should, by one of these Orders in Council, be put upon the same terms and taxed in the same manner as Coventry itself; for what benefit would they derive from lighting, and watering, and paving the city of Coventry? Yet there was no limit to the discretion of the Commissioners. There was nothing whatever to limit the discretionary power of the inspectors; but he did not object to the Bill merely on that account; he objected to it on the ground that it usurped the powers which were now placed—and which ought to continue to be placed in the hands of the municipal authorities. Instead of this, a new authority was proposed to be introduced totally foreign to every principle of the English Constitution. In the United States he was told that there were very strict provisions relative to the matters treated of in the Bill now before the House; but he should like to see any Minister of the United States propose to introduce such an interference with the rights and duties of municipal authorities as was proposed to be introduced into England. He did object to such tentative policy, because he regarded it as a departure from the free principles of the British Constitution, and a gradual usurpation, behind the backs of Parliament, of the power which ought to belong to the representatives of the people, and one step more towards the adoption of the continental system of centralization, to which he was decidedly opposed. He objected to it on the ground of the espionage which it would introduce; and he would earnestly entreat the House not to allow the wedge to be introduced at all, especially under present circumstances. By the measure it was proposed at one sweep to clear away boards of commissioners which had frequently been instrumental in conferring great advantage on the communities which possessed them, and that too without the slightest fault being alleged against them. It was provided that the moment the inspectors made an unfavourable report on the state of matters entrusted to commissioners, that then the functions of the local boards should cease, and be at once transferred to the town-councils. That was the bait which was held out to the town-councils; but he was happy to say that these bodies generally were too well aware of the consequences of taking this bait to allow the apprehension to be entertained of their swallowing it. Consider this also: by the provisions of the Bill powers might be taken for all purposes; and he would ask the noble Lord to say whether the powers to be so taken would not include the administration of justice—whether, as the clauses stood, districts annexed to boroughs would not be removed from the county magistracy, and placed under the municipal magistracy? [Lord MORPETH: Yes, they will.] This was another startling exhibition of the tentative policy. Not only was provision made for the management of sanitary and other matters, but by the general terms of the Bill the House was called upon to disturb the criminal administration of he knew not how many large districts of country. He must say that he could not but look upon this measure as a disguised attempt to bring about changes in the institutions of the country of a kind and to an extent of which the people were little aware. He trusted, however, that the Members of the House of Commons who held popular principles would support him when he said that the institutions of England should not be so changed behind the backs of Parliament. Let the House adhere to the great principle of making such powers as those contained in the Bill emanate from Parliament alone. No man entertained a higher regard than he did for the prerogative of the Crown, or would do more to support and maintain its just rights; but he would assert that it was a dangerous thing to allow Ministers to interfere in the way proposed with the administration of criminal justice. He trusted the House would not proceed one step further in such a course of policy till a future Session, when it might have become fully aware of the consequences of the step it was called upon to take, and be in a position to limit the powers to be invested in the respective parties.

could not altogether understand the new-born principle of popular feeling on the opposite side of the House. He was extremely jealous of it. [An Hon. MEMBER on the Opposition side of the House: Hear, hear!] That cheer perfectly explained the hon. Gentleman's notion of his jealousy. The hon. Gentleman fancied that he was hunting for popularity. He was not; and he did not think the hon. Gentleman would gain his own object by his course. But this Bill was a very important one. It had been introduced for the benefit of the majority of our fellow-countrymen, and deserved to be considered without regard to any claptrap politics. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwickshire objected to it because it introduced the principle of the continental system—the principal of centralization. But, if centralization were fairly explained, it meant persons carrying into execution certain duties under immediate responsibility to Parliament. He thought that the noble Lord deserved the thanks of the country for attempting by this Bill to unite all the scattered and disorganized elements, and consolidate them into one measure for the general benefit. But there was one district which was distinguished above all others for the density of its population, and for its numerous applications for legislative interference. If he were asked to put his finger upon the centre of the district, he should place it on St. Paul's Cathedral, and should sweep a circle of about thirty miles around it, giving a population of upwards of 2,000,000. Now, London differed much from Manchester, inasmuch as the population of the latter was comparatively new, and the interference of the Legislature in the town had been small and unimportant; and, consequently, the variety of laws requiring consolidation did not apply so much to Manchester as to London. He had every desire to support the noble Lord, to admire the boldness of his attempt, and to assist him in his benevolent intentions; hut he found the gallant Knight suddenlyt errified with the very phantom of the evils he was about to consign to oblivion; and which the more formidable it became, made him the more afraid. The noble Lord had gone to Bath, and there he found pestilence; he had crossed to Manchester, and pestilence was there also; he rushed to Birmingham, and there all the abominations—no matter of what description—could not resist his interference; he then swept round to London, and there, frightened by a phantom, he struck his flag, and cut—[An Hon. MEMBER: His stick.] Yes, and cut his stick! The vernacular was the fittest language for describing the somewhat ignoble flight of the noble Lord. He recollected that, when the Municipal Corporations Bill was brought in, if they had pointed out to them a scene of corruption more foul than another, it was on the other side of Temple Bar. He was not afraid of the other side of Temple Bar; and why should the noble Lord be afraid? He could not suppose that the electors of London had influenced the noble Lord. The noble Lord himself had a most remarkable constituency, living in compact masses. It had been his pleasure, as it was his duty, often to travel through the district represented by the noble Lord; and he had found that Leeds, Huddersfield, and Sheffield—those vast hives of our industry, wealth, and power—were not exempted from this Bill. The noble Lord did not shrink before his own constituency; and yet he would exempt London from the purifying influence of this measure. Why, he would ask, should not he have his sewer inspected, and his gaslights directed, under this Bill? Why should the noble Lord extend his fostering influence over the whole of England except for four miles round London? If such a thing had happended in New Zealand, he should have said, that the excepted place was tabooed. Would it be pretended that the corporation of London was distinguished by perfection—that the city was free from all filth and impurity? But there seemed to be something in the old associations of the city which struck terror into the Treasury bench. Let a Bill be brought in which affected the corporation, and the next thing would be a civic banquet, and Her Majesty's Ministers sitting down at the social board receiving all sorts of incense; and then noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen would get up to praise the city of London, well knowing in their hearts that if there was a corrupt place in this country it was that city of London. The noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) had spread his net wide; why was it cut, and this great fish let out? He (Mr. Roebuck), at least, would not act the part of the mouse, but would rather assist to reconstruct the net. Let not hon. Members be led away by the name of the city of London. Time was when it was the centre of all that was great and liberal in this country; and he could look back with pride upon that era when it was foremost in the fight of freedom; but now it was a large mass of individuals bound together simply by the ordinary routine of life—a mass, however, from its very density and immensity, requiring the most sedulous and careful attention of Parliament.

regretted the delay which had taken place with regard to this Bill. The noble Lord, when he introduced it, assured the House that it was a question of humanity, of morality, of economy; but, above all, he asserted that it was one of pressing necessity and imminent emergency. If then the measure itself were pressing, what was the nature of the opposition which had prevented its being proceeded with? Up to the latest reports the whole of the petitions that had been presented against the Bill was 21, with only 287 signatures. For an alteration in the details of the Bill, 16 petitions had been presented with 336 signatures; whilst 105 had been presented in favour of the Bill, with upwards of 32,000 signatures. This was the way of judging whether or no a measure was popular. If then, it were so popular, and if it were a matter of such imminent emergency, why was it so long delayed? Did hon. Gentlemen doubt the necessity of such a Bill, and that it should be extended to the metropolis? Let him then refer them to a few statistics relative to the graveyards of the metropolis, and then inquire whether such a measure was not required? Before a Committee of that House, which investigated the subject, witnesses stated that in one place 200 feet square, 70,000 persons had been buried within the century, in the graveyard of Enon Chapel, 50 feet by 40 feet, and 12,000 had been buried there since the year 1823; in the Lock chapel yard, only a quarter of an acre in extent, 7,000 persons had been buried very recently; in St. Martin's graveyard, one acre in extent, 14,000 persons had been buried within the last ton years; and in Spa-fields, two acres in extent, 29,000 within the last fourteen years. With these facts before them, the House ought to know what really were the difficulties in the way of a mea- sure which had been before Parliament for seven years, and for which there was such a general demand, and whether those difficulties were of so serious a nature that the ordinary resources of a Government could not overcome them. This measure did not stand alone; the conduct pursued with regard to it was part of a system of vacillation; we seemed to be come to a system of postponement and indifference. The Government had principles, but appeared determined not to face danger or incur risk on their behalf. We had to look in vain for any of that energy and earnestness which the chivalrous character of the noble Lord at the head of the Government led people to expect. All was conciliation and compromise. The Government had "stooped to conquer," and fancied that giving way to an opponent was the surest method of converting him into a friend. They could not at this moment carry any measure which depended upon their strength and vigour, because, by the course they had pursued, they had lost their influence. When the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) broke up that confederation which had been so mighty, he gave the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) a strength which a Liberal Administration had never before possessed; and that noble Lord might in a single Session have remedied many mischiefs and evils if he had then taken a correct estimate of his position. But, such was the undecided conduct of the Government, that hon. Members were going to their constituents without the power of giving them any clue to the intentions, any guess of the policy of the Administration. If he (Mr. Horsman) should be asked what had been gained by the substitution of the noble Lord for the right hon. Baronet, he could not deny that he had hoard stated more than once—that while under the Government of the right hon. Baronet liberal principles were steadily advancing, under the Government of the noble Lord they had gradually receded. That might be heard in many directions: it was the opinion of a great many persons in that House; and as, in the coming Parliament, the noble Lord would be judged by a different standard from that by which he had been judged in this, he was no friend to the Government, or to Parliament, or to the principles he held in common with the Government, who did not tell the Ministers those truths, by a knowledge of which it might by and by be too late to profit.

said, there was no essential difference between his own sentiments and those of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, more especially when the hon. Gentleman stated that the right hon. Baronet who was last in office had carried into effect professions which he had not made, whilst the noble Lord had not carried into effect professions which he had made. He agreed also with the hon. Gentleman in thinking, after the large promises which had been made, and the great expectations which had been raised, that it was not a little disappointing to find that the Bill fulfilled none of those expectations, and complied with the requirements of none of the petitions which had been presented on the subject. The petitions which were presented in favour of a measure for the improvement of towns, and the establishment of sanitary regulations, related to a great and general measure; but the measure then before the House was not of that character. The measure excluded from its operations the city of London; but if it were a good and remedial measure, and calculated to be really advantageous, why, he would ask, was any part of the kingdom excluded? If it were a stringent and cogent measure, on the other hand, why should any part have the advantage of an exemption from it? Why did they, in that case, propose to exclude a great and powerful body, like the corporation of London, from a measure which they imposed upon other parts of the country? They had no right to make such an exclusion. Although he was not the representative of London, yet he felt the deepest interest in the character of the city, and he heard with pain many observations which the hon. Member for Bath had made, and many of the assertions which he had cast upon it. He regretted that there was not a single Member for London present to answer the hon. Member for Bath, but that the hon. Member's speech was made at dinner hour—and there was no representative of London present, in consequence, to reply to it. When he objected to the attack of the hon. Member for Bath on the city of London, he felt it necessary to say that he agreed in the general tenor of the hon. Member's speech. That hon. Gentleman had said, that if he had a compass in his left hand, and wanted to describe a circle within which the greatest necessity for sanitary regulations existed, he would place the point of the compass at St. Paul's, and would within that circle in- clude a population of two millions. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bath in thinking that such a densely crowded district required the application of the best sanitary regulations; but according to this Bill the densely crowded city of London, which would be included in that circle, was not to be included in the advantages that such a measure was intended to bestow. He had no doubt that the measure was brought forward with a beneficent intention; but what was the effect of excluding the city of London from its operation? It was this—that the other metropolitan districts said to the noble Lord who introduced it, "If you exclude London from the operation of your measure, why do you not exclude us?" If there was such a general desire for a measure of this nature, why did the representatives of those districts ask to be excluded? If the measure was so desirable, why not include London? Did not the Lord Mayor of London require as pure an atmosphere as the Lord Mayor of York? Or, if the Lord Mayor of London was excluded, had not the Lord Mayor of York a right to ask for a similar exclusion on the part of York and Sunderland? This measure he had no doubt was well intended; but the omission of London was to be looked upon either as an exemption from an evil, or an exclusion from a benefit, and in either case he did not see why such an exemption should be made. The Bill before them was drawn up, he had no doubt, by a very able person—for he was sure the Government would employ none but an able person to draw it up—but it was like some other Bills, drawn up apparently by the same hand, beginning with a provision for the establishment of commissioners and other officers, and then providing for their salaries. He hoped that with such good intentions as the Government had on this subject, they would yet be able to introduce a better plan than that before the House, and one which would give more power to the local authorities. In conclusion, he would say that be believed they would find it impossible to carry the Bill with this exemption of London; but he believed they were pledged to the exemption. If they were not pledged, they could state so to the House, and thus place all parts of the country on a fair and equal footing.

Sir, although during the course of this discussion I think the Government has been treated not in a very friendly or candid spirit, yet I confess that my anxiety is wrapped up in the measure itself. Since I first had the honour of introducing the Bill, I have been exposed to a good deal of attack; but such must he the fate of every one who introduces a measure like this, which includes so many various and complicated interests, and I have therefore no complaint to make in that respect. I was first attacked for including the metropolis—I am now attacked for excluding it; but I am not sorry that in the first instance I proposed to include it, although I failed in the attempt. In proposing the measure, I included all that I thought the exigency of the case required; and I agree, as fully as any one who made me the subject of censure tonight, that the district now excluded requires improvement and sanitary regulations as much as any part of the country; and if, after all I had heard previously to the introduction of the Bill, any doubts remained in my mind on that subject, they would have been removed by all the representations and remonstrances, and even reproaches, which I have since received, and which have been well calculated to confirm me in my original impression. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire asks me if I am pledged to this exemption of the metropolis? I have already declared in my place in Parliament that it was not my intention to include the metropolis in the measure during the present Session; and I could not in good faith include the metropolis now. I have been asked why I left it out? and in reply I need only appeal to the knowledge of hon. Members of what has recently taken place in this House—to the subjects which have been under discussion, and the time which has been occupied by them, and to state that when I found out—not as the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth said, that I questioned the equal importance of this measure with any others that have been introduced—for I did not think any of them could go beyond this in importance—but when I found their immediate urgency in connexion with the condition of the sister country, and considered that they would consume so much of the necessary time of the House, that they would not permit me to carry into effect the whole measure which I originally proposed, I reluctantly consented to defer the part of the Bill which related to the metropolis for the present Session. I state the simple truth—the exclusion was caused by want of time. There was not time under the circumstances which I have described, to deal with a matter so complicated as the sanitary state and improvement of the metropolis; and I felt, therefore, that I had no option but to omit the provisions that referred to the metropolis, and to retain the portion which now remains. The hon. ember for Bath says that I have cut my stick. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no.] At all events I have endeavoured to save this brand from the burning. I have been asked why have I not introduced this Session any provision with respect to intra-mural interment? That is a most excellent object; but the period of the Session at which we have arrived, as well as what has passed to-night, convince me that I have enough on my hands; and if I am able to carry the remainder of the Bill during the present Session, I think it will be no mean achievement. So far from objecting to the reproaches which have been directed against mo on this ground, I ought rather to invite them; for they will keep public attention alive, and will next Session compel me, or whoever shall more worthily fill my place, to carry out the measure more fully. Those who represent me as deferring the prosecution of the Bill, and abstaining from bringing it forward in its original shape, from any regard for my own leisure and case, have little idea of the life I have led since last Easter; and I can assure the House that there is only one abiding result fixed in my mind, namely, to do what I can, when I can, and where I can, to promote the great work of sanitary improvement. Beyond any imputation on the Government or me for our conduct in this business, my chief anxiety is with respect to the subject itself; and I can assure hon. Members if they had the opportunity which I have had of receiving letters setting forth the general apprehension which prevails, and describing, I believe I may say, the actual presence of fever and disease in their worst forms in various parts of the country, aggravated by the vice and deficiency of the existing sanitary regulations, in the absence of such regulations as this measure would introduce—if they read the accounts of the loss and waste of health, and life, and happiness and strength, which are going on—not within the portion of society possessed of the means of ease, or persons in the sphere in which we generally move, but persons whoso lot is cast in hardships and privations—hardworking mechanics and labourers, living in toil and suffering—if hon. Members had the opportunities of ascer- taining the sufferings of those persons from the want of sanitary regulations, they would not object to me for undertaking the responsibility of introducing this measure, knowing, as I do, to what an extent the mischief prevails, and how much sanitary regulations would do to check and prevent it. Let hon. Members only reflect how important it would be to legislate on this subject, and to give the necessary authority, without the delay of another year, for carrying on the inquiries which it would be essential to institute, and for making the requisite plans and surveys which must be preliminary to any plan of general legislation, and which would probably take a year in themselves; so that if we postpone all legislation this year, and do not give authority for making these plans and surveys, we must, I fear, defer for two years any general plan of sanitary improvement. When I last addressed the House I quoted returns made by the Registrar-General from 117 districts in England and Wales, for the quarter ending the 30th September, 1846. I regret to state that the next succeeding return, that for the last quarter, only confirms the accounts which I then gave of the increase of mortality. The Registrar-General states—

"In the summer quarter of 1846 the mortality was greater than it had been in any quarter of the seven preceding years; and in the last winter quarter, ending March 31, 1847, 56,105 persons died in the districts which make the returns—a number greater than has been registered in any corresponding quarter, and 6,030 above the corrected average. The deaths in the quarter, in all England and Wales, may be estimated at 120,000. Upon the whole, the health of London, like that of the rest of the country, has been below the average; and although the causes are to a certain extent accidental, and as we may hope transitory, it is evident that the health of towns in England is at present stationary, not to say retrograding. It must be admitted that, on the whole, the Health of Towns Bill is an excellent measure, and well calculated to diminish the evils which have been discovered, and of which the effects have been recorded in these periodical returns. It concentrates offices that ought not to be separated in the hands of the municipal authorities, still maintained in close connexion (as they always have been) with the Crown; it seeks to secure water, pure air, and a little sunshine for the inhabitants of cities—now so large, active, and important a part of the population—and to extend to the house and street of the tradesman, artisan, and labourer, a share of the advantages which, elsewhere, are the boon of nature, by the use of means which have been suggested by science, and sanctioned by long experience. 'The reasons of the baleful influence of great towns, as it has been now exhibited, are plainly—first, the irregular modes of life, the luxurious debaucheries and pernicious customs which prevail more in towns than in the country; secondly, the foulness of the towns, occasioned by the uncleanliness, smoke, the perspiration and breath of the inhabitants, and putrid streams from drains, churchyards, kennels, and common sewers.'—(Dr. Price.) The mortality has a tendency to increase as the population increases; but the unhealthful tendency can be counteracted by artificial agencies; in other terms, the mortality of cities in England is high, but it may be immeasurably reduced."

Now, though we have omitted London from the provisions of this particular Bill, I trust when the opportunity is given to the House to legislate for the remaining towns of England, that the House will not refuse to take such means as lie open to them to reduce that mortality which those who have the best means of ascertaining the facts state can be immeasurably reduced. The petitions on this subject have been referred to. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire treats them lightly, and says that they do not refer to the Bill now before the House; but, at all events, the petitions from the country do not refer to the state of the city of London: they would naturally look to themselves; and it is from the towns and districts of the country that petitions proceed in favour of a measure which does refer to them, though not to the city of London. The provisions in the present Bill were announced as intended to apply to corporate towns in the country, and they remain in the Bill still. Of the petitions which have been presented in favour of the Bill, there are, from corporations and commissioners, 13; from clergymen, magistrates, and religious communities, 28; from inhabitants of towns, 47; from medical men, 30; from working men and operatives, 6; and from associations, 43: in all 187. This analysis comes up to the month of May; but up to the present time there have been 220 petitions presented in favour of the Bill; and the total number of petitions presented against it have been only 22. I trust that this preponderance of petitions in favour of the Bill, and the almost total absence of petitions on the other side, will serve to show in what direction the public opinion of England, as respects those quarters which will be affected by the Bill, manifestly points. A resolution has been forwarded to me, which was passed by the Health of Towns Association of the Metropolis. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of York thinks proper to depreciate that body; because I can assure him that it consists of men of the greatest talent and information, reckoning among its members many of the clergy and of the medical profession, and others who are particularly well qualified to judge of the benefits that would be derived from the present measure. The resolution states—

"That it is desirable that the attention of Parliament be especially called to the important fact, that the clergy and members of the medical profession, who, from their intercourse with the poorer classes residing in the metropolis and large towns, are peculiarly well qualified to judge of the benefits they would derive from the enactment of a general sanitary measure, have very generally petitioned in favour of the Health of Towns Bill now before Parliament; and that among this number are the most distinguished physicians and surgeons in the kingdom, including the presidents of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons of London, the medical and surgical officers of the metropolitan hospital, and the faculty of Glasgow."

Now, although I have no doubt that sordid motives have sometimes been attributed to those who have taken a leading part in promoting this measure, and it has been stated that they are desirous of getting places under the arrangements which it will be necessary to make by this Bill, yet I am sure that the president of the College of Physicians, the president of the College of Surgeons, and the members of the different medical faculties of the country, are utterly incapable of being influenced by sordid motives. I do not now, in seeking the consent of the House to go into Committee, think it necessary to refer to the special working of the different provisions of the Bill. I trust that when the time comes for doing so, I shall be able to show that though the Bill does enact that there shall be a general and special superintendence, it does not seek to supersede or paralyse local agency, and that the great object of the Bill is not to deter, but to assist, local exertions by central wisdom and experience. I trust that I shall show that though these superintending powers have been placed in one body, it is because it must be manifest from all experience that powers of this kind can be only exercised by one controlling management; and I hope to be able to show, that, with respect to waterworks companies, though the Bill allows a compulsory purchase of them, their claims have been regarded with special consideration, as is, indeed, admitted by themselves. I shall be ready when we go into Committee to consider and discuss all the special clauses and provisions of the Bill, and to see if they can be properly amended; and I hope the House will not refuse to take that preliminary step, but will proceed to the consideration of the Bill with an anxious desire to work it out and make it effect all the good of which it can be rendered capable. I do feel an. anxiety for its success not founded on party or personal considerations, but an anxiety grounded on the afflicting and appalling accounts which I am daily receiving from every part of the country, and which, I confess, have produced such an effect on my mind as to induce me to mix almost actual entreaty with the appeal which I now make to the House, not to refuse to go into Committee, and see if you cannot make some effective progress in the great work of sanitary reform.

, in explanation, said, that he had spoken on the Bill as a Government Bill, and as a scheme of Government policy; and so far was he from imputing personal blame to the noble Lord, that he thought he should have treated him with the greatest injustice if he had done so.

was glad the hon. Member had made that explanation, as every one must admit that the noble Lord deserved great credit, not only for his praiseworthy motives, but for the great labour and attention he had bestowed on the subject. He, however, could not vote for going into Committee, because he did not think the provisions of the Bill fully carried out the preamble. The preamble set forth that whereas farther and more effectual measures ought to be enacted for the better draining, ventilating, and so on of all cities and boroughs; but in considering the Bill it would be found that it was as universally applicable as it professed to be. It appeared to him that the promises made by the noble Lord when he obtained leave to bring in this Bill, had not been fully carried out. He recollected that when the measure of municipal reform was carried, that the objections raised to the city of London being excluded from its operation, was met by promises that its abuses, which were acknowledged to be many, should hereafter be reformed; but, from that time to the present, no Bill for that purpose had been introduced, and the abuses of the corporation of London still remained unreformed. They ought, therefore, before they assented to go into Committee on this Bill, to inquire what was the state of the metropolis; and for an answer to that question he had only to refer to the petitions before the House, signed by the physicians and surgeons of the metropolis, by the president of the College of Physicians, which urged the House to extend the provisions of this very Bill to the city of London and its environs. Had hon. Members read those petitions? Did they know the state of the city of London, and the districts around it? In the name of humanity he called on them to pause before they went into Committee. He did not ask them to say nay to the principle of the Bill, hut he did request them earnestly not to listen to any representations for the purpose of excluding the metropolis from its operations. He held in his hand a petition which was put into general circulation by a society which had taken a great interest in the question of sanitary regulations, namely, the Labourers' Friend Society; and they had there an abstract from a statement made by a deputation which waited on the Lord Mayor, no longer since than the 26th of May last. It stated that the sanitary condition of the metropolis was most deplorable; that there was a want of proper drainage—a want of water—a want of common sewers, and, in short, a want of every arrangement necessary for the maintenance of the public health. It appeared from a statement made by Dr. Lynch, that "of all the thirty-six wards the ward of Farringdon street Without was perhaps the worst; the houses were built back to back, admitting of no ventilation—that the privies wore under the staircases, and communicated with cesspools, the exhalations from which poisoned the air around—that in the places where there were sewers, the want of water and the faultiness of their construction rendered them useless, and noxious and pestiferous gases were generated by the accumulated filth which remained within them. In many places the cesspools overflowed, and their condition was so dreadful that the dust contractors' men refused to perform their duty, except they were bribed by a gratuity." The hon. Member described other abominations, of a like character, which were common in this ward; and then asked the House and the noble Lord whether they ought to be permitted to exist any longer, or whether, after reading such statements, the noble Lord would persist in excluding the metropolis from his Bill? What he complained of was the partiality of the measure. He was not one of those who were led by political prejudices, as the hon. and learned Member for Bath said they were who sat on the Opposition benches; on the con- trary, he was willing to give his best attention to the Bill of the noble Lord; but he rose chiefly to beg him to defer it for the present. He was certain that clause after clause would give rise to lengthened debates, and that it would occupy a great extent of time. He believed its intentions were excellent, and he agreed that it was necessary some such Bill should pass; but that Bill was too partial, it gave the Commissioners too much power. He alluded particularly to the 12th Clause, which gave them jurisdiction not only over the limits defined by the Reform Bill, but the power to add half a mile more if they pleased, and, consequently, agricultural districts would be subjected to the same taxation as the towns for sanitary benefits which they did not share. [Lord MORPETH: They must contain streets or buildings.] He asked hon. Members to look at the clause, and see if it said one word about streets or buildings. It was true that since the Bill had been printed he had received four or five folio pages of corrections, and it was, indeed, difficult to know what the Bill was. He hoped and trusted the noble Lord would listen to the remonstrances which had been addressed to him, and consent to withdraw the Bill for this Session. He was no enemy to the Bill, and if he sat in the next Parliament he would do all in his power to make it as perfect as possible; but as the Bill now stood, he felt it his duty to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lincoln.

said, that as it was his intention to vote for going into Committee on the Bill, he should have abstained from saying a word on the present occasion, if by that course, looking to the hour of the night at which they had now arrived, he could have facilitated the progress of the measure. But he rose in consequence of so large a portion of the present discussion having turned on the omission of the metropolitan districts from the Bill, as he considered that for that omission he might be in some respects responsible. At all events he was the individual, he believed, to whom the noble Lord alluded as having pressed for the omission not of the city of London, but of the whole of the metropolis, when the Bill was first introduced, inasmuch as he expressed his apprehension that the inclusion of London would insure the failure of the measure. It was his fear that such complicated machinery as would be applicable to London would not be ap- plicable to the country; and, vice versâ, that the machinery suited to the country would not suit London. He was bound to say that the necessity for excluding the metropolis, with the view to legislation for those districts in a separate Bill, appertained far more to the measure which he had had the honour to introduce, than to the measure brought in by the noble Lord, because the noble Lord had introduced totally different machinery, giving far greater authority to the central body than he had proposed, and taking far more summary and compulsory powers to obviate the inconveniences which he had felt, arising from the existence of local acts and boards of commissioners, which undoubtedly complicated any proposal for dealing with this question as regarded London. Whilst, however, he claimed for himself a fair share of responsibility for having urged the noble Lord to exclude London from the operation of the measure, he, nevertheless, felt justified in stating, that the Bill in its present shape, and with its present machinery, if good at all, was perfectly applicable to the | metropolis. At the same time, he did not mean to imply any approval of the machinery of the noble Lord's measure. He stated the objections which he entertained to the machinery when the measure was introduced, and would not now enter into any discussion upon that point, which would with more propriety come under consideration in Committee. It appeared to him that the noble Lord, in framing this measure, had gone beyond the sound principle which he laid down in the course of his speech, when he stated that the proper course to pursue was, to maintain local authority and superintendence over all operations of this nature, and only to assist them by central authority. The Bill went greatly beyond that object, for the central authority which it provided would completely control, if not entirely supersede, all local authority. When he urged the noble Lord to exclude London from the Bill, he did not wish to exclude it from all sanitary legislation; on the contrary, he believed that it required to be subjected to legislation of that description more than any other part of the country. Although he had thus briefly intimated some of the objections to which the Bill was obnoxious, he would vote with the noble Lord for going into Committee, because he was unwilling to have it supposed that he was adverse to the great principle of the measure; and he still hoped to see the details to which he objected amended in Committee. Before sitting down, he would take the liberty of offering a suggestion to the noble Lord. If, in consequence of the present evening having been lost at this late period of the Session, it should be found necessary to abandon the Bill, he begged the noble Lord to consider whether it would not be expedient to introduce a Bill—it might consist of but a single clause—to give to town-councils and commissioners for paving and draining, the optional power of carrying into operation in their respective districts the provisions of a Bill called the Towns Improvement Consolidation Bill, which had just passed the House of Lords. That Bill contained some very useful provisions; and if the noble Lord should find it expedient to adopt the suggestion which he had thrown out, he would have the satisfaction of knowing that the Session had not been allowed to expire altogether without some sanitary legislation.

said, that if the present measure was to be abandoned because London was excluded from its operation, Parliament might, on the same principle, have rejected the measure of corporate reform passed some years ago, from which the country had derived much benefit. He would vote for going into Committee.

, in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) as to rural districts being exempted from the operation of the measure, observed that he did not know what the intentions of Government might be upon that subject; but certainly as the Bill was drawn, its provisions were applicable to every district in which 300 householders should sign a petition in the manner prescribed in one of the clauses. It was, however, very difficult to ascertain what the Bill really proposed to enact, for so many other Bills were incorporated with it that no one but a special pleader could understand it. The Bill should be reprinted, in order that the House might know exactly what it was intended to enact. He complained that the Bill did not deal with the admitted evils which existed in this metropolis, while it would interfere with numerous petty interests throughout the whole kingdom. He considered that the principle of the measure was good. He admitted that sanitary reforms were much needed; but he also thought that this Bill proposed to carry out those reforms by bad means, and he did not think it was capable of being altered in such a manner as to render it a good and efficient measure. By the Towns Improvement Bill, no house could remain thatched after the lapse of seven years; and if this rule were applied to the rural districts, he would ask the House to consider what would be its effect. It was provided by the same Bill that no house should be built without party walls; but was it intended to enforce that regulation in the country districts? He considered that many of the provisions contained in this Bill were most objectionable; and he therefore felt it his duty to vote against going into Committee.

, who rose amid cries of "Divide, divide!" said, that he presumed he had as much right to address the House as any other Gentleman; for as he had been closely connected with several important cities and towns, he had had opportunities of acquiring some information on the subject. His principal objection to the Bill was, that it had been introduced at so late a period of the Session, that a fair opportunity could not be afforded for considering its provisions; but if no other objection had existed, the fact that the city of London was to be exempted from its operation, would have induced him to oppose it in its present form. He could not conceive why the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) did not, in the first instance, propose a measure for improving the sanitary condition of the city of London and the metropolitan districts; for the Government would then have an opportunity of vigilantly watching the operation of the scheme—of ascertaining from their own observation how far it was successful—and of determining whether it was advisable to apply it to the whole country. He called upon the House not to pass one law for the city of London, and another law for the provinces, but to do away altogether with class legislation. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said that there was a strong feeling in Yorkshire in favour of this Bill; but from his own observation he could not think that assertion was well founded. He admitted that there was a very general feeling in Yorkshire in favour of the adoption of some sanitary regulations, and that petitions praying the House to consider and sanction such measures had been presented from corporations and from public meetings. But it must be remembered that the persons who signed those petitions had not seen this Bill, and that, though they might consider some sanitary regulations ought to be adopted, it did not follow that they approved of the measure now before the House. He hoped the Bill would not be pressed during the present Session. Let the Government first experimentalize upon the city of London; and if they found their scheme work well there, then they might extend it to the country. He thought the evils resulting from defective sanitary regulations had been very much exaggerated, and he hoped the House would pause before they gave their assent to this measure. He blamed the Government for excluding London from the Bill, since, from its immense population, it was worse than any other place in the kingdom. He hoped the House would oppose the passing such a Bill this Session, and that in the next, the Government would be prepared with a more acceptable measure—one avoiding centralization; the country was sick of centralization, of commissions, of preliminary inquiries—of all sorts of jobs. The people wanted to be left to manage their own affairs; they did not want Parliament to be so paternal as it wished to be—interfering in everybody's business, and, like all who so interfered, not doing its own well.

said, in explanation, that he had presented numerously signed petitions from the people of Hull in favour of the Bill; and, therefore, it could not be said that he was unacquainted with the views of his constituents on this question.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland has certainly made what I consider the very first objection against going into Committee on this Bill, which, if the premises were sound, would be a valid argument against that proposition. He says there is no need of any further inquiry—that the towns conduct perfectly well their own affairs—that there is no need of centralization—and, therefore, that this Bill is totally unnecessary. If the right hon. Gentleman be right, undoubtedly any legislation on this subject would be quite unnecessary; but I appeal to all the reports which have been made, to all the facts which have been stated, to show that some Bill is necessary, and that the local bodies cannot be trusted entirely, without some further measures, to adopt those sanitary reforms which are required for the health of towns. The right hon. Member for Sunderland and other hon. Members have used an argument which I think tends to a conclusion quite opposite to that which they wish to establish, that the metropolis should be included in the Bill. Their argument would naturally be, that, as it is said there is great need of further improvement in the metropolis, and remedies are required, we should go into Committee on the Bill, and insert the clauses by which the metropolis should be included. But they say quite the contrary; they say, if London is not to be included, where there is so much filth and disease, only think what a hardship it will be that Exeter and Hull are obliged to be cleanly and wholesome; how painful it will be to find that these towns have got improved drainage, sewerage, and means of health, whilst the same advantage is not given to the metropolis. Now I cannot think that those towns will be so very sensitive, or that they will think, because the metropolis has not the benefit of this Bill, therefore their towns are to remain dirty and unwholesome. As to the reasons why the metropolis is not included, I will say that, at all events, such was the view taken by the noble Lord opposite, who devoted great attention to this subject, of the measure proper to be introduced. The very first clause of the Bill of 1845, says, that the Act shall extend to all places in England and Wales, excepting London and the places within five miles of Charingcross; and till 1846 the noble Lord did not bring in any Bill including the metropolis. No doubt he thought a Bill affecting the metropolis would be necessary. So we think likewise; but he did not consider it necessary to begin with the metropolis. He thought it would be advisable to begin with other towns, and that to take the metropolis first would only lead to serious difficulties. Some hon. Members say, we will not consider any measure till you have introduced the metropolis; and the hon. Member for Somerset says he is against considering this Bill, because there are a great many long clauses in it which will require very long protracted discussion. If so, surely twenty or thirty clauses for the metropolis will require more. I was certainly not one of the metropolitan Members who made a representation to my noble Friend that London ought not to be included. I should certainly have been very glad if the whole metropolis could have been included in the Bill; indeed I think there can be no doubt that with respect to parts of England and Wales, more inquiry is necessary; and whilst wishing to go into Committee on this Bill, I should certainly keep in view the necessity of adopting a similar measure for the metropolis. With respect to the noble Lord's suggestions for improving the machinery of the Bill, I can only say that anything which falls from him will be listened to by Government with the greatest attention, because I know he has applied himself very much to the subject; and his good judgment upon these matters is, perhaps, more to be listened to than that of any individual Member of this House. The House has already sanctioned the principle of the Bill, and I hope they will now consent to go into Committee.

wished only to state that he had certainly been in communication with parties opposed to particular clauses of the Bill; but he believed the majority of the West Riding of Yorkshire were decidedly in favour of its principle, and therefore he should vote for the measure.

did not mean to detain the House many minutes. The Bill, with all its improvements, was a very bad Bill, a very vexatious Bill, and a very anomalous Bill. In the first place, it excluded places which required more inspection than the towns included in it; next, it included all other places which required very little attention or inspection; and next, towns that were not incorporated were not to be included, unless they so chose it; and these were the very towns on which the Bill ought to be imposed. Why not do that which was plain—let every town that petitioned for inspection have it? He was not in favour of these commissioners and inspectors. It was a very expensive principle, a very unsafe principle, and a very unsound principle. The people were clever enough to manage their own affairs. The people in London were not more clever than those in the country. If they were, how did it happen when they wanted to put a top on Nelson's pillar, they had to send to Birmingham for a man to do it? He saw the man and knew the man who did that for them—who put a capital on their Nelson's pillar. He read all the reports on this matter—they were grossly exaggerated. The commissioners, like all other persons in their situation, wished to make themselves of importance. There was a mania now for sanitary measures. In fact, there was an insanity in sanity. There was more mortality now than formerly, it was said. It was quite true; and the reason the people were dying was because they had short, bad, and insufficient food. To show how easy it was to misstate matters connected with sanitary reform, he would only instance a report of Mr. Chadwick in 1841, in which that gentleman had drawn a comparison between the mortality in Birmingham and of Bridlington. That statement was exaggerated, and could not be relied on. He believed that it was impossible to carry the Bill this Session, and therefore he should not give his support to it.

wished plainly and distinctly to say that he was for a Health of Towns Bill, but not for a Bill which excepted that part of the kingdom which, if the Bill had any virtue at all, should most especially be comprehended. This exclusion was his justification for voting against the Bill.