believed the Bill one of the most important measures of a private nature ever introduced into Parliament, and considered full time should be afforded for its discussion. It contained most extraordinary clauses. The promoters promised two great sowers to be made one on the north side of the Thames, ending at Barking Creek, and the other on the south side, and to erect works at the termini to convert the sewage into manure for sale; hut, fearing that it might not turn out a profitable transaction, and that they would not get a sufficient dividend, they inserted a clause in their Bill to enable them to tax the inhabitants of the metropolis to such an amount as, after paying all their expenses, would provide a dividend of 3 per cent on the capital proposed to be raised. It was said that these works were intended for the improvement of the river Thames. If this was the main feature of the case, and any guarantee of a dividend was to be sanctioned by Parliament for a scheme which might thus be considered of national importance, it became a question whether this guarantee should not be paid for by the country at large rather than by a local tax; but the company being a trading company, and trading for their own benefit, no guarantee should be given. He was told the promoters would not proceed if the guarantee clause were struck out. On the whole it was a most important question to the metropolis, and, in order to give full time to consider the Bill, he bogged to move that the second reading be postponed to the 6th of April.

seconded the Amendment. He thought the Bill ought to be postponed, in order to give the metropolitan parishes an opportunity of considering the details. He believed some objections had been made to it by several parishes. If these objections were obviated, facilities might be given for passing the Bill; but he could not think it could be allowed to pass in its present shape.

said, he had been asked to move the second reading of this Bill, and he had not consented to do so without consideration. This was a great public work that must be done by somebody. The metropolis must be drained. A question was put to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any measure for the purpose of enabling the present Commissioners of Sewers to borrow money on the security of the rates; and the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) replied that that depended very much on a private enterprise undertaken by an association of capitalists who, if he was rightly informed, intended to bring in a Bill to construct two great arterial sewers, one on the north and the other on the south side of London, and that if that project should be approved by Parliament it would render any loan to the Commissioners of Sewers unnecessary. It appeared, therefore, that if this company of capitalists did not come forward, the Commissioners of Sewers would be prepared to undertake this great public work; but he felt confident that the cost to the ratepayers—and he spoke in the capacity of a ratepayer—would be far greater if it were done by the Commissioners of Sewers, than if it were done by a private company. The object of the company was to convert the sewerage into a valuable manure, and thus to reimburse themselves. But it was said that it was wrong for them to ask for any guarantee. That guarantee was that if the profits did not give an amount of 3 per cent, the deficiency should be made up by the ratepayers. It was thought reasonable to make such a proposal, as the ratepayers would derive great sanitary advantages from the drainage. They only asked now for the second reading of the Bill, and they hoped that the Bill might be sent to a Select Committee, in order that the reasonableness of the proposal might be inquired into by the Committee; and it was his private opinion that if the Committee would not permit the guarantee, so great was the confidence of the parties in the undertaking, that they-would carry it out, but he did not think they should be called upon to undergo that risk. The promoters of the Bill did not make it a sine quâ non of their measure; they only asked that it should be inquired into. There bad been a proposal that the ratepayers should share the profits, and there might be a proposal to that effect made before the Committee, if the profits were beyond a certain amount, or it might be proposed that the guarantee should be permissive and not compulsory. He therefore asked the House not to reject the Bill on account of these details.

said, if this were a mere question of detail, he should be willing to agree to the second reading. It was not, however, a question of detail, but of principle involving the right of taxing the public. It was only reasonable to give time to those who would be affected by it to examine the Bill, and he therefore should support the Amendment.

said, he wished the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had tried his experiments with his own constituents; Manchester would never have stood this Bill. He believed the whole scheme most absurd, ridiculous, impracticable. They were going to empower a new body to break up the streets. Why, at the present moment they were almost impassible. What between paving boards, lighting boards, the Commissioners of Sewers, and gas companies, the pavement was in continual motion. The Bill was "to drain the metropolis." Why, what were the Commissioners of Sewers for? He could not understand how the noble Lord the Home Secretary had listened to such a visionary scheme for a moment; and, after all, he understood the manure would not be worth a farthing, or at least nothing near so useful as guano and things of that kind. He was quite ready to vote against the second reading of the Bill at that time, and not to put it off at all.

said, he trusted the House would be favoured with the opinion of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department on this Bill.

said, he thought this a very important question, inasmuch as the object was to effect a great improvement in the drainage of the metropolis, and to do that which must be the foundation of any system of drainage. It was evident that unless they got some great outlet at a sufficiently low level to enable the ends of the drains to be discharged into it at some distance from the metropolis, nothing they could do would have any real or considerable effect. The question seemed to be whether this work, which must be very expensive, should be undertaken by an association of private individuals, who entered into it as a commercial undertaking, or whether the money requisite should be raised by loan, that loan to be guaranteed upon the rates levied on the various parishes and districts of the metropolis. He thought the metropolitan Members, representing the feelings of their constituents, would prefer that this work should be done by private enterprise, rather than by money the interest and sinking fund of which must be defrayed by rates to be levied on the inhabitants of the metropolis. He had, perhaps, rather misled the House the other day when he said that he thought this great work would supersede the necessity of any further material outlay. He had since been informed that the state of the district drains of the metropolis was such that a very large outlay might be necessary in order to place them in effective relation with these main sewers. He was told that there were many districts of the metropolis in which to this day there were no sewers, and that other districts would require a very large outlay in order to have their sewers, which were now much decayed, placed in good condition. It was quite clear, therefore, that there was a want of a considerable expenditure on the other sewers, and that seemed an additional reason why the metropolis should be relieved from the necessity of providing by rates for the construction of so great and expensive a work as the promoters of this Bill proposed to undertake. There was, however, a provision in the Bill to which objection was made, namely, the guarantee of a certain percentage on the outlay. That was a matter, he thought, not for the second reading, but for a Committee, and it might be more properly considered were the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. He must say, stating his own opinion, that if this project held out sufficient inducement to invest a large capital in its execution, a guarantee of three per cent was almost inconsistent with the views which had led them to undertake the enterprise. If it would answer at all, it would answer without that guarantee; and if the guarantee were required, it was an undertaking in which he would not recommend the investment of money. But his opinion was, that the understanding would answer. The point of the guarantee was a question for a Committee; and any difference of opinion as to it, ought not to prevent the House from reading the Bill a second time now, in order to refer it to a Committee.

said, for many years they had been considering the best means of draining the metropolis. Now the House of Commons seemed to object to the Commission of Sewers, which certainly was by no means a popular body. Again, it had been proposed that a Government Board should undertake it, and that was considered still more objectionable. Now another proposal was made, that a private company should undertake the arterial drainage. Now there were great objections to a private company doing any thing of the kind. They had had private companies supplying them with water, and that had not been satis- factory; they put themselves under their power, and had very great difficulty in getting rid of them. But it must be remembered that they had got to drain an immense area, and he inquired some time ago of some engineers what it would take to drain the north hank of the Thames without touching the other side, and they told him he must not expect to do so under 1,500,000l. If this company could undertake to do it, and the ratepayers could he certain of not having any charge made on them, and, at the same time, have the work efficiently done, they would, of course, receive a great benefit, and, therefore, it would he well, with a view to obtain some information on the subject, that the Bill should go to a Committee upstairs. He saw some objection to that, but he thought the matter worthy of inquiry; and if it was to be inquired into, he hoped there would be no delay, because the noble Lord (Viscount Palmer-Eton) said that any Government measure would depend in some degree on what was done with this, and if they delayed they might lose another year.

said, he thought there could be no doubt that the three great nuisances of this metropolis were the Commissioners of Sewers, the Board of Health, and the Corporation of the City of London. He believed the Corporation of London were backing this Bill. He always wished that any measure affecting very important interests should be referred to a Committee; but in this instance, notwithstanding the observations of his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. M. Gibson), he believed it to he a fact that the question of the 3 per cent guarantee was vital to this Bill, because the parties would admit that they had no hope of getting the necessary capital together, unless the House consented to the guarantee. The postponement of the Bill for three weeks would enable the promoters of the Bill to turn round and see whether they were right in this belief. He did not go so far as to say that the measure was absurd, for he wished to see the drainage of London carried out on one large plan, and in such a system the City must he included. Though anxious to refer the Bill to a Committee, he could not consent to the second reading now, as the ratepayers had a right to have the measure well considered.

said, he thought that to refer the Bill to a Committee, which might modify or remove the guarantee clause, would be a great injustice to the subscribers to the company, who had joined it on the faith of that guarantee.

said, that, in regard to the guarantee principle introduced into this Bill, he had been requested by the right hon. Gentleman near him to mention a circumstance to the House—

wished it not to be stated that he had made the request.

Well, then, it had been suggested to himself by his own mind, that this principle of a local guarantee to a private company, which appeared so strange in this country to English Members of the House, was perfectly familiar in Ireland. He could name many instances where guarantees had been required from impoverished districts of Ireland by those metropolitan Members who now protested against the application of the same principle to their own more wealthy constituents. A guarantee of 3½ per cent was given some years ago by the ratepayers of Galway and Roscommon upon the capital expended by a private company in extending their line of railway from Athlone to Galway. Similar local guarantees of 3 per cent were contained in several of the Irish Railway Bills now before the House: amongst others, in a Bill affecting a portion of the country which he had the honour to represent—namely, the Bill for extending the Bandon Railway to Bantry, with a branch to Clonalrilty. In regard to that Bill, the ratepayers of the districts west of Bandon have voluntarily come forward, at public meetings, and agreed to subject themselves to a certain amount of guarantee. Although a railway does benefit the district through which it passes, it is also beneficial to the nation at large. But the Bill before the House was peculiarly-calculated to benefit the inhabitants of the metropolis, whose sanitary condition it would greatly improve. The metropolitan Members who had so constantly advocated the principle of a local guarantee in Irish measures of improvement, and had invariably denounced those Irish Members who, in their phrase, wanted to have "a pull at the Exchequer," now rose en masse to protest indignantly against the application of so very novel a principle to their own case. But what surprised him most in this debate was, that one metropolitan Member, the hon. Baronet the Member for Mary-lebone (Sir B. Hall), who had particularly distinguished himself upon all occasions by his determined opposition to any public grants for Irish purposes, even during the dreadful famine years, had now the modesty to suggest that this London improvement should be made out of the Consolidated Fund. He had looked into the Bill now before the House, and found that the utmost sum which the proposed guarantee of 3 per cent could entail upon the ratepayers, was 30,000l. a year, being, as he was informed, rather less than one halfpenny in the pound upon the rateable property of the constituents of those metropolitan Members, who now so vehemently opposed this portion of the Bill. He thought that, if the principle of a local guarantee was a good one in Ireland, it ought to be also introduced and applied in England. For those reasons he considered that the Bill in its present form should be allowed to go before a Committee.

begged the House not to vote for the second reading of this Bill, with the impression that it was possible for this work to go on as a private speculation, because, in his opinion, that was a perfect delusion, and in voting for the second reading, they would be in reality voting for the guarantee.

said, he had always heard his constituents say they were ready to pay their share towards an efficient system of drainage. Although he did not express any opinion as to the amount of the proposed guarantee, which might be a question for the consideration of the Committee, he thought it would not be expedient to refuse a guarantee to a scheme which would save the ratepayers from expenditure in some other form.

said, he thought the parties who came forward to supply a public want of this kind ought rather to be looked on as public benefactors than as speculators upon the public purse, as they were represented as being. A Committee of the House of Commons had stated that the evils now complained of could only be got rid of through the instrumentality of a private company; and the benefit contemplated was so important a one that, even supposing the payment of the guarantee by the ratepayers was certain, instead of being only contingent, he thought they ought not to refuse their sanction to the second reading.

said, in bringing forward this Bill, he had to propose that it should be read a second time without any discussion, and committed pro formâ, with a view to the introduction of certain amendments which had been recommended by hon. Members opposite, with reference to dog carts, by which much cruelty to animals was inflicted. Should any objection be taken to the Bill, he reserved to himself the right of reply.

, in order to give the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Fitzroy) an opportunity of replying to the future statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury, would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, his object in introducing this Bill was, as the preamble stated, to give the right of appeal in all cases of conviction under the Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, instead of, as now, limiting the right of appeal to cases in which the flue was 40s. and upwards. Much hardship had been suffered under the present system, both in the metropolis and in the country; but he was prepared to state a specific case, in which such a power of appeal as he contended for was imperatively called for. A case had been brought under his notice in which a farmer named David Hill had been summoned before the magistrates at Penrith for alleged cruelty to some sheep. It appeared that these sheep, which had the rot, had been penned in a field belonging to the Rev. Mr. Milner, the vicar of Penrith, who, on discovering this, wrote to Hill, stating that if he did not pay him 4l. for the damage which he considered to be done in contaminating the field, the matter would be handed over to the rev. gentleman's solicitor. No notice was taken of this by Mr. Hill, who then (the Rev. Mr. Milner finding, perhaps, that nothing was to be done in this way) received a summons to appear before the petty sessions for having used cruelty towards his sheep by reason of having driven them whilst in a diseased state, where it was alleged that the Rev. Mr. Milner was present, and took so active a part in the proceedings as to warrant the belief that he was adjudicating in his own case. Mr. Hill was fined the sum of 1l. 19s. 6d. The bench, although pressed to do so by the defendant's solicitor, would not make the penalty another shilling, so as to give the right of appeal, and Mr. Hill being threatened with a prison if he did not pay the money, had no other alternative than to do so. Mr. Hill then made applications to the Lord Chancellors Truro and St. Leonards; but nothing was done by them in the matter, and repeated applications to the Home Office were also unavailing. He (Mr. Buncombe) had received from two of the magistrates concerned in the conviction, letters, which were not impertinent, perhaps, but which were certainly not very courteous; but he had received a petition to present to that House respectably signed, bearing out the facts as he had stated, and there seemed no doubt that if Mr. Hill could have appealed, the conviction would have been quashed. Besides giving the right of appeal in all cases—to the poor man as well as to the rich—he proposed by this Bill to extend the time allowed for entering an appeal to a week or ten days, instead of three days, as at present; and it was his intention at the same time to introduce other clauses with regard to dog carts, and two or three matters in which he thought it would be very desirable to have the law amended. Upon these points, however, it would be better to take the discussion in Committee, after the House saw the form in which it was intended to pass the Bill.

said, that as he was formerly Home Secretary, having been alluded to relative to the case of Mr. Hill at Penrith, he thought it due to the magistrates who had adjudicated in that case to say, that having received a memorial complaining of their conduct, he had instituted inquiries into the matter. In answer to these he had received a statement from the four magistrates who sat at petty sessions, in which they denied that the Rev. Mr. Milner had taken any part in the proceedings as a magistrate, that the fine was purposely imposed of such an amount as to take away the right of appeal, or that Mr. Hill or his attorney ever demanded that it should be increased to 40s.; and they asserted that the charge of cruelty in driving the sheep from Falkirk to Penrith was fully proved. He (Sir G. Grey) then thought that a perfect answer was given to the memorial; and he now found, by the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe), that two successive Lord Chancellors had concurred with him in that opinion. He thought that no necessity for an extension of the power of appeal in these cases had been proved. If it was right that that power should be given without any regard to the amount of fine, then it might possibly be right to introduce a more general measure, applying to other cases than those of convictions for cruelty to animals.

said, he thought that no adequate grounds had been stated to induce the House to agree to the second reading of this Bill, which had, in fact, been introduced to give Ids hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe) an opportunity of bringing forward what he conceived to be the injustice of a case heard in the north of England. He thought, however, that the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had quite disposed of that case. With respect to the extension of the appeal in cases of conviction, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, he must remind the House that there was already a more extended right of appeal here than in almost any other class of convictions. Coder the Assault Act, 9 Geo. IV., giving the magistrates power to inflict 5l. fine, or two months' imprisonment, there was no appeal whatever; under the Police Act, 2 & 3 Vict., c. 71, there was no appeal where the fine was under 3l.; nor was there any appeal under the Scotch Cruelty to Animals Act. He did not therefore see the slightest necessity for extending the right of appeal to cases where the conviction was for less than 40s., especially as an appeal was allowed in all cases where imprisonment, even for a single week, was inflicted. He believed that any extension of this right would be advantageous rather to the rich than to the poor. With respect to the expediency of extending the time for giving notice of appeal, he offered no opinion, but he certainly thought that it was not worth while to pass an Act of Parliament fur so slight an object. The provisions with regard to cruelty committed by dog carts and in other ways were so foreign to the object of the Bill that he did not think they should induce the House to read the Bill a second time.

said, he could bear testimony to the high character of the Rev. Mr. Milner and the Penrith bench of magistrates.

said, he would willingly bear testimony to the respectability of the persons who had signed the memorials complaining of the decision of the Penrith magistrates. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) having inquired into, had adjudicated upon the matter, no one could have questioned his decision; but neither the right hon. Baronet nor the two Lord Chancellors had ever returned any answer to the memorials addressed to them. For his own part, he would take away appeals in all cases, and let cases be settled at once; but still, if there were to be any appeals at all, he thought that there should be no limitation to them. On what principle should a fine of 40s. give an appeal, and 39s. 6d. not? The injury to the feelings was the same in both cases. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Fitzroy) said that the right of appeal was limited in other cases by much more stringent regulations; but he thought that was so much the worse for the law. He should, support the Bill because he did not think that on the difference of 6d. in the amount of a fine should depend the question whether a man had or had not a right to appeal.

said, he had received letters from two attorneys present on the occasion of the hearing of Mr. Hill's case, who both confirmed the statement that the Rev. Mr. Milner did not act as a judge on the information which he preferred. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Buncombe) said he had received not very courteous letters from two of the magistrates. But he (Mr. Hildyard) held in his hand a copy of a letter from the hon. Member to one of those magistrates, dated February 19, 1853, in which he stated that he enclosed a copy of the Bill, and he added, "Should it pass, I trust it will prevent a recurrence of that flagrant injustice which I consider was inflicted on Mr. David Hill." He thought it was an abuse of the privilege of a Member of Parliament to write to a magistrate whose conduct had been arraigned, and who had been acquitted of blame, and to tell him that he had committed a flagrant injustice. As a lawyer, he would tell the hon. Member, that if the magistrate in question were disposed to act in the manner for which the hon. Member apparently gave him credit, and if he were to bring this letter before the Queen's Judges, he would find that he had addressed a libel to this magistrate, and that although in the privilege of speech he was protected in that House, yet that nevertheless he was not justified in casting a libellous imputation upon gentlemen in the discharge of their magisterial duties. He should vote against the Bill, which he could not help fancying was brought forward to enable the hon. Member to represent this grievance.

said, that it was his intention originally to have moved a clause prohibiting the use of dogs in dog carts in the country, as well as in London, giving greater facilities for the feeding of animals while in pound, and for the recovery of any expenses which parties might be put to for so doing; but as he saw that clauses of that nature came scarcely within the scope of the present Bill, he did not moan to persist in that determination. He was bound, however, to add, that no sufficient case had been made out for the introduction of the Bill.

said, he was afraid that the Bill of his hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe) was too much founded on a single isolated case, which would not justify the House in interfering with legislation based upon anything like sound principles. He believed that it would be most undesirable to introduce a right of appeal in cases where the fine was lower than what the law at present allowed. On the contrary, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), that it would be better to do away with the right of appeal altogether, than extend it to the class of cases supposed by the Bill. Such a right, in his opinion, would only work against the poor; for it would enable the rich defendant to crush and oppress by heavy costs the humble prosecutor. And though there was something in the uniformity of practice contended for by the hon. Member for Cockermouth, still he much preferred the line of demarcation which the law at present drew.

said, he had intended originally to support the Bill of his hon. Friend; but on coming to look at its provisions as introduced, he was forced to come to the conclusion that its effect would be anything rather than to diminish cruelty to animals.

, in reply, said, as for what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hildyard) had said would be the consequences if his letter were carried before the Judges of the land, he did not believe a word of it, for he had no faith in the law of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was ready to meet the Rev. Mr. Milner in a Court of Justice, if the latter thought proper. He had made his statement upon the authority of sixteen or eighteen farmers and yeomen, friends of Mr. Hill, and who were quite as respectable as the Rev. Mr. Milner himself. But he had also stated, it seems, that he had received two impertinent letters from a gentleman connected with those proceedings. The first said that he (Mr. Duncombe) had been pleased to assert that "one David Hill"—the House would mark, "one David Hill," just as if he was not quite as respectable and quite as upright a person as the writer—but it went on, that he had been pleased to assert that flagrant injustice had been done by the conviction of the said David Hill; and he begged to ask him (Mr. Duncombe) what he meant by such statements? Now, seeing that this letter was from a clerical gentleman, of course it would not bear such an interpretation, but if it had proceeded from any one else, he must say that its aspect would have been remarkably hostile. However, the reply which had been denominated so impertinent—and, perhaps, it was meant to be impertinent—was to the effect that he (Mr. Duncombe) in his discharge of his public duties had brought in a Bill to prevent cruelty to animals, and that the rev. gentleman was at liberty to draw any conclusion he liked from that fact. But his rev. correspondent was not content with that reply, so he (Mr. Duncombe) had another letter from him, which was a compound of bad grammar and nonsense. Mr. Hassell said, "I call upon you to answer the simple question whether or no"— there's grammar for you—"you include me in the charge of injustice? I require a distinct answer to the question." Whether or no! Why, David Hill himself could not have done worse than that. Now, it appeared to him that "Whether-or-no's" question was not a straightforward and candid one. He wished to know its object, and therefore he wrote to Mr. Hassell, saying—

"I am at a loss to know whether your inquiry is founded on a desire to have my Bill amended. If so, I shall he happy to receive any assistance from you, especially if you should have an amend- ment to propose for the purpose of prohibiting persons in holy orders from officiating as magistrates. I believe that such an amendment would give universal satisfaction to the country, by conducing to that peace and goodwill among men which it is the duty of your office to promote."

said, he begged to move an Amendment in Clause 23, page 12, line 31, after "Act," to insert "in respect of the classes of improvement marked in Clause 8 of this Act, by the numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 8." If his Amendment were agreed to, he believed that the operations of the Bill might be made to extend to a very much poorer description of land than that which it would if the clause remained unaltered; and it seemed to him that the interests of all classes interested in land were now-a-days so clearly defined and protected by law, that no one could have any objection to seeing land of the least valuable kind open, at all events, to receive the benefits of the Bill, more especially as it was entirely of a permissive character. The description of land to which his observations had reference, was not, in its present state, worth more than 4s. or 5s. an acre; and, consequently, under the clause as it stood the expenditure should be confined to 1l., whereas a smaller expenditure than 4l. or 5l. would produce no effect. He begged, therefore, to move that no limitation of expenditure should be applied to those cases.

said, he considered that the Amendment, if adopted, would alter the whole principle of the Bill, and therefore he must object to it.

said, he considered that as the Bill now before the House was based upon an Act which had been found to work most successfully in Ireland, its provisions ought to be strictly adhered to; and the more so, as there were other Bills to come before the House having for their object the encouragement of land improvement in that country, and by means of which the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Greville) would in all likelihood be carried out.

said, there were large quantities of improvable land in Ireland, and it would be well to afford some incentive for their improvement.

argued, at some length, in support of the Amendment, insisting that the 36th Clause of the Bill, as it then stood, invested the Commissioners of Public Works with an unlimited power to increase compulsorily, to any extent, the rent of a tenant whose holding might be improved, even against his will, by the landlord. He contended that if this principle of compulsory valuation wore to be applied in favour of an improving landlord, against an occupying tenant, it would follow, as a just consequence, that it should also be introduced to the same unlimited extent in favour of the tenant, into the Landlord and Tenant Bills, which were now before the Select Committee. The present Bill was one which ought, in his opinion, for several reasons, to have been also referred to the same Committee; but, at all events, the principle of an unlimited compulsory valuation, in favour of the landlord, which was clearly involved in the 36th Clause, was one that should not be introduced in this House without full deliberation and discussion.

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he wished to add at the end of this clause the following Proviso:—

"Provided always, that the said increased rent to be so fixed by the said Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland shall not exceed the sum of 5l. annually for each 100l. so laid out under the provisions of this Act; and that the tenant in occupation, if he feels himself aggrieved by the decision of the said Commissioners of Public Works, may appeal to the assistant barrister at quarter sessions in all eases when the said increased rent shall not exceed 50l. a year; or in cases when the increased rent exceeds 50l. a year, then to one of the superior courts of law in Ireland, whose decision in each case shall be deemed final and conclusive."

said, he thought this would be a dangerous Amendment to introduce into the Bill. He had known cases in which the money laid out was repaid in the course of two years; and if this limitation was adopted, the only effect of it, in many cases, would be that the landlord would not lay out the money.

said, he was opposed to the clause, considering that its effect would be to expose landlords to vexatious litigation.

said, he would suggest the following proviso to the Amendment: "Provided always that the said increased rent shall not exceed the sum of 5l. annually for cach 100l. so laid out under the provisions of this Act, unless otherwise-agreed upon by the landlord and tenant."

said, he would recommend that both the Amendment and the Proviso should be withdrawn, and that the power of appeal should be given both to the landlord and tenant against the decision of the Commissioners of Public Works.

, the Chairman of the Derby Election Committee, appeared at the bar with the Report of that Committee. He said—

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the operation of this Act. In 1847 and 1848 the Earl of Carlisle, then Lord Morpeth, devoted much time and attention to the framing of a measure calculated to give satisfaction—in a sanitary point of view—to the several interests that might be affected by its operation. The objects contemplated by the Public Health Act, namely, improved water supply, drainage, sewerage, paving, and lighting, were doubtless most desir able to be carried out. But in the endeavour to effect these objects, it created a system of centralisation not dissimilar to that which was so much complained of under the Poor Law Amendment Act. The Public Health Act proposed to bring towns within its operation in two ways— in the case of towns having local Acts or Municipal Corporations, by means of what was termed a provisional order, and a confirmatory Act of Parliament; and where there was not a local government, by an Order in Council. It also provided that no interference should take place in any town unless by Petition of not less that one-tenth of the inhabitants wishing to be brought under the operation of the Act. Now, as the House might suppose, it was not a very difficult matter to induce one-tenth of the inhabitants of a town to petition when they were told that by so doing they would get wide streets, plenty of 'water, and comfortable waterclosets, A petition being presented, the Board of Health sent down a gentleman, whom they called a superintending inspector, to see whether the Act should be applied to the place in reference to which the petition was presented, who, of course, always reported that it was necessary to carry out the Act, or his occupation would be gone. A provisional order was then issued, to which the sanction of the House was obtained, without the House really knowing anything about the matter. He (Sir George Pechell) would now explain to the House what a provisional order consisted of. Here was the ease of a town of 60,000 inhabitants, having a good local management of its own. In that instance thirty-five out of the 142 clauses of which the Public Health Act consisted were omitted, as not expedient to be inserted in the provisional order; thirty-seven clauses were adopted out of the Towns Improvement Act; and sixty-three clauses out of the Towns Police Act; and, lastly, eighty-five clauses were struck out of the local Act. So that for the purpose of this provisional order, clauses from the Public Health Act, the Towns Police Act, the Towns Improvement Act, and the local Act, were all embodied in one provisional order. This order being brought down to the House, and placed in charge of the doorkeeper, the Chief Commissioner of Works, as President of the General Board of Health, then introduced a Bill confirmatory of its provisions. Such was the practice where a town having a local management or municipal corporation was concerned. But other places, which were not under a local Act, were altogether differently situated, They had not the same means of fighting against the Board of Health as a corporation, because they were at once brought under the Act by an Order in Council. According to the Board of Health, nothing could be done satisfactorily without the adoption of their rules and regulations; and he (Sir George Pechell) would show the House what had been done throughout Great Britain. By the last return, dated June, 1852, there were seventy-one towns to which the Act had been applied by provisional orders and the subsequent legislation of that House; sixty-six to which it had been applied by Orders in Council; twenty-three respecting which the provisional Orders were pending; six respecting which the Orders in Council were pending; and twelve to which the Board of Health stated it was not expedient to apply the Act at present. Amongst the twelve to which the Board reported it was not expedient to apply the Act was Birmingham. And why? The fact was that Birmingham had repudiated their interference and the Public Health Act altogether. The ratepayers of that town had already twice defeated in this House an attempt to bring them under the operation of the Public Health Act, and they had since obtained a local Act adequate to all the purposes required. In this list of twelve, the towns of Whitehaven, Cambridge, Ashton, Bath, and Whitstable were included. Further, it appeared, there were five towns which had adopted a part of the Public Health Act only, which were not dealt with as others, and were in a great measure independent of the Board. Sunderland was one, Stockton-on-Tees another, Cheltenham a third. Complaints as to the proceedings of the General Board of Health were made by Portsmouth, Dorking, Bromyard, Worcester, Salford, and Brighton. In some cases the local boards repudiated the interference of the General Board; and, in the case of Bromyard, it was contended that Mr. Babbage, the inspector, had gone down against the consent of the majority of the inhabitants, and that his Report was a tissue of absurdities and misrepresentations. He had reported, for instance, to show the state of the town, that in one day three funerals had taken place in Bromyard; but it turned out that these were the funerals of three old women, of the respective ages of 72, 92, and 95 years. Again, the number of ratepayers was 1,938, of whom 1,266 had protested against coming under the operation of the Act, whilst only 336 were in favour of the measure. With regard to Worcester, the mayor and corporation of that city had sent a petition to that House under the corporate seal, and their case was certainly one which required much attention. In fact, the city of Worcester seemed to have been dealt with in a most extraordinary manner. They stated in their petition that the Public Health Act allowed the local hoard to make bylaws, which were not however to be enforced until approved of by the Secretary of State; and it turned out that these people having made some by-laws according to the Act, and sent them up for the approval of the Secretary of State, that right hon. Gentleman finding himself in the immediate neighbourhood of the Board of Health, handed the by-laws over to them, and received for answer, "By no means agree to them." The petition also stated that the calculation made by the superintendent inspector was based upon the number of deaths that took place in seven years, being twenty-three in a thousand, and that in order to have a good case when he returned to Richmond-terrace, instead of taking the sanitary report for Worcester for the last seven years, he went back to the previous seven years to show that the city came within the provisions of the Act. It appeared further that there was a gaol, an infirmary, and a tolerably large union-house at Worcester, and that all these institutions were included in the scale upon which the inspector made his calculation for the district. The consequence was, that the mayor and corporation, and the inhabitants, were opposed to the interference of the General Board of Health, and that the business of the city was now at a standstill for want of the necessary by-laws. The commissioners of the local hoard not being able to transact any business satisfactorily with their surveyor, had dismissed that gentleman; but the General Board had refused to ratify the dismissal, or to allow them to appoint another officer, in whom they had confidence, in his stead. He would now proceed to speak of the expense attending the operations of the General Board. By the last printed return, he found that since 1848 they had received 18,581, and dispatched 56,742 letters; that 1,279 special letters had been written, and 1,030 letters with legal opinions upon the powers to be exercised by the local boards, and that an expenditure of upwards of 20,000l. had been incurred in letters and correspondence; besides the sum of 4,249l. for the Interment Act, and 10,000l. for salaries and costs of litigation. He believed that the proceedings which had in many instances been adopted by the Board of Health had brought upon them as much odium as used formerly to attach to the Poor Law Board. In fact, they were pursuing the same course as those Poor Law Commissioners, in not sufficiently consulting the parties who were the most interested in their proceedings. He had great confidence in the intentions of the right hon. Baronet who was now at the head of the Board of Health (Sir W. Molesworth); and he hoped his right hon. Friend would take care that an inquiry should he made into the complaints of the parties who had petitioned that House—an inquiry not by the Board of Health, but by a Committee of the House of Commons. Something must be done in the matter, and, in his opinion, the provisional orders should come before the House in a tangible shape, and, as they repealed the provisions of local Acts, should be sent to be dealt with by the Standing Orders Committee in the same manner as Railway Bills. He would conclude by moving for the Returns of which he had given notice.

said, he had great pleasure, as Member for Worcester, in second- ing the Motion. The petition from that city had upwards of 2,000 signatures affixed to it, and it represented that the Act was introduced there under false representations, and that if the local board were not invested with some discretionary powers in the execution of their duties, the measure would prove a dead letter so far as the city of Worcester was concerned. Much ill-feeling existed in that city upon the subject; indeed, to such an extent did it prevail, that if, by breaking the law, they could get rid of the officers appointed, and in whom they had no confidence, he believed they would be ready to do so. Unless the Government intimated that it was their intention to take the matter into their consideration, he should himself, on a future day, move for a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Public Health Act in the city of Worcester.

said, that he did not rise, as the President of the Board of Health, to defend all the provisions of the Health of Towns Act, referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet, or to defend the present constitution of the Board of Health itself. Still he must be permitted to say that the original framers of the Health of Towns Act, and the administrators of it, had been excessively desirous of benefiting the public. The premises upon which that Act was founded were, that certain towns and populous places were in an unhealthy state, and that to promote the health of the inhabitants, to guard against diseases, and to prevent fevers, it was necessary that the system of water supply, of drainage, sewerage, and paving, should be amended and improved. In order to bring about these improvements, it was held that two things were requisite to be done: first, that the water supply, the drainage, sewerage, and paving, should be placed under efficient local management; and, second, that this local management should be subject to a certain degree of control, by some department of the Government. These were the objects of the Health of Towns Act, and therefore the General Board of Health had two duties to perform: first, to put the water supply, and the drainage and sewerage of various places, under efficient local management; and, second, to superintend that local management. It must be admitted, with regard to the first of these duties, that it was a good thing that the water supply, the drainage, sewerage, and paving, should be put under efficient local management. That was the object of the Health of Towns Act, and the Board of Health was the Department in which that control was placed. Before the passing of the Health of Towns Act, there was a great obstacle to the carrying out of these improvements, namely, the expense of obtaining a private Bill. Now, the first object of the Health of Towns Act was to enable those places which required these improvements to obtain a private improvement Act at a cheap rate; and it enacted, for that purpose, that upon the petition of one-tenth of the rated inhabitants of any town, or whenever the mortality of that town exceeded a certain amount, the Board of Health might appoint an inspector to inquire into the sanitary condition of the place. The inspector was to report to the Board of Health, and then, within a given period of time, the Board of Health might in certain cases draw up a Report to the Privy Council, and in other cases issue a provisional order. These Reports to the Privy Council, and these provisional orders, were, in effect, local improvement Bills; the former became law by means of Orders in Council, and the latter by means of confirmatory Acts. These were more in the nature of private Acts than public Acts, although they were not required to go before the Private Bill Committee. In fact, the duty of the Board of Health in respect to these Acts was precisely the same as the duty of a Private Bill Committee of that House towards a local Act. There could be no doubt that, by means of the Health of Towns Act, various places had been enabled to obtain local Acts at a cheap rate. According to a return extending over a period of two years, he found that the expense of local improvement Acts amounted to about 2,400l. a piece; whereas, under the new system of obtaining a provisional order under the Act in question, the cost did not exceed 102l. Therefore, if 2,400l. was the average for each local Act, it followed that the total cost of obtaining local Acts for the whole 151 places in which provisional orders had been applied by the Board of Health, would have amounted to no less than 365,000l.; whereas, under the Health of Towns Act, the total cost had only amounted to 15,000l.; thus effecting a saving of no less a sum than 350,000l. He did not mean to say that all the provisions of the Health of Towns Act, or the constitution of the Board of Health, or its administration, were perfect; and, therefore, at the present moment, the Government were taking the subject into their most serious consideration, with the view of both amending the constitution of the Board of Health, and making certain alterations in the Health of Towns Act. He could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laslett) that the case of the city of Worcester was especially engaging the attention of the Government, and they hoped before long to be able to bring in a mea- sure which would give satisfaction both by changing the constitution of the Board of Health, and by making certain alterations in the enactments of the Health of Towns Act. At the present moment he hoped that the House would not expect him to speak more distinctly; but he could assure the House that the subject was under his most serious consideration, and he hoped to be able to prepare a measure which would bring about the advantageous working of an Act which he believed to be founded upon a good general principle, although he admitted that some of its details might require amendment. He hoped that the House would not at present occupy any further time on the subject, but would allow the other business on the paper to be proceeded with.

would only say that he thought that if they could get a cheap mode of obtaining local Acts it would be the best thing they could do, and for that purpose it would be necessary to have the provisional orders of the Privy Council that were now made under the Act put in some clearer form, for the present form made it almost impossible to know what the orders were.

said, he concurred in the opinion of the noble Lord that cheap local Acts would be less expensive than petitions to the Board of Health, while they would be much more satisfactory. At present small towns were left to the mercy of that Board, who enjoyed a sanitary monopoly, and would adopt none but their own plans. Every town in England should have the power of deciding upon the plans to suit it in sanitary matters.

said, he was glad to hear the announcement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) as to the revision of the constitution of the Board of Health, and the amendment of the Act; because unquestionably the Act was not working satisfactorily, and in the orders made under it frequently matters foreign to the purpose of the Bill were introduced.

said, that the statement of the right hon. Baronet as to the cost of obtaining private local Acts, as compared with that of obtaining a provisional order under the Board of Health Act, was a proof of the objectionable manner in which the private business of the House was conducted. It was, in fact, a greater incubus on the enterprise of the country than the Ecclesiastical Courts or the Chancery Courts, which had been so much denounced in that House.

said, he was much surprised to hear one of the youngest Members of the House presume to say that the private business of that House was not conducted in a proper manner. He had seen great improvement take place in the mode of conducting that business, and it was a most unwarrantable assertion for the hon. Gentleman to say it was not conducted properly.

said, he who was not one of the youngest Members of the House, would undertake to prove every word that his hon. Friend (Mr. Whalley) had stated. A large reduction of the expense might be effected in almost every branch of the private business.

reported from the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter of the Petition of William Henry Mackey, complaining of an undue Election for the Borough and County of the Town of Southampton, that Robert Edmund Bower had misbehaved, in refusing to give evidence, before the Committee; and that he, the Chairman, had by direction of the Committee, by warrant under his hand, committed the said Robert Edmund Bower to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, to await the pleasure of the House.

, the Chairman of the Committee, said, that he wished to draw the attention of the House to the facts stated in the Report. Robert Edmund Bower had been tendered by the petitioners as a witness to give evidence before the Committee. Upon the Testament toeing handed to him, he stated that he had conscientious objections to taking an oath. He had then been asked whether he belonged to the sect of the Quakers, Moravians, or Separatists. He replied that he was a Separatist; upon which the form of declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament for that sect was commenced to be read by the clerk of the Committee. When coming to the words, "I do solemnly declare that I belong to the sect called Separatists," the man demurred, stating that in saying he was a Separatist he had meant that he had separated himself from other religious persuasions, but that he did not belong to any particular sect called "Separatists;" and he still peremptorily refused to be sworn. The Committee, under these circumstances, believed that, strictly speaking, it would be their duty to exercise the powers which belonged to them under the 83rd section of the Act of the 11 & 12 Vict., of com-mitting the man to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. The Committee, however, felt great reluctance to exercise these powers, as they were unwilling that a man should suffer in any way for obeying a conscientious scruple; accordingly they adjourned, for the double purpose of giving the man time to consider what course he would adopt, and also of inquiring what course it would be proper for them to pursue. But after taking the advice of those Members of the House who were most competent to give an opinion on the subject, it appeared that if the man persisted in this course, the Committee had no option but to exercise the powers given them by the Act. Accordingly that morning the man had been called before them, when he (Mr. Herbert) explained to him the consequences of refusing to take the oath, and again the Separatist declaration was tendered to him, but he again refused to take it. Counsel stated that the man's evidence was material for the inquiry, and the Committee, under these circumstances, thought that they had no alternative but to commit the man, and to report to the House what had taken place. The Committee now awaited the decision of the House. He begged to move that Robert Edmund Bower should for the said offence stand committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, and that Mr. Speaker issue his warrant accordingly.

said, he would not at present oppose the Motion, but he should probably move that the man be brought to the bar, and asked his reason for refusing to take the oath on the Separatist declaration.

Resolved—"That the said Robert Edmund Bower do, for his said offence, stand committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House.

Ordered—"That the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do bring the said Robert Edmund Bower, from time to time, to the Select Committee appointed to try the Southampton Election Petition, as often as may be required by the said Committee:—And that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly."

, in seconding the Motion, said that he would take that opportunity of alluding to a matter in which he was personally concerned. It had been stated in an influential morning paper of the previous day, that, whereas—

"In 1860, the Admiralty had resigned the dangerous patronage of the dockyard at Chatham into the hands of Sir Baldwin Walker, surveyor of the Navy, who exercised it without regard to politics, the Duke of Northumberland and Mr. Stafford last year took it from him, burked his remonstrance addressed to the Board, and threw the patronage back into the old corrupt channel, so far as actually to degrade the efficient men selected by Sir Baldwin Walker, and put partisans into their places."

He begged to say that the late Board of Admiralty were not at all aware of the charges brought against them by the witnesses before the Committee, for they had no knowledge of what was there stated, except so far as it might be gathered from the examination in chief and the cross-examination, which were often contradictory, and might be taken for anything or nothing. To the statement to which he alluded, he begged to give the most unqualified contradiction, and all he asked was, that the House would postpone its judgment on the conduct of the late Board of Admiralty until the Board should have had an opportunity of vindicating themselves, or, at all events, of knowing what were the charges against them. That was an act of justice which, as jurymen, they would not refuse to the meanest criminal, and which, as gentlemen, he was certain they would not refuse to the late Board of Admiralty.

said, it appeared to him that apart from the savings to be effected by the Bill, there were very grave objections to its principle. An amount not exceeding 1,220,000l. was to be transferred for the purposes of the Bill; but the total debt, with interest, only amounted to the sum of 961,302l. The Bill capitalised the arrear of interest, giving only the local taxation as security. The question would arise if this arrear of interest was the result of malappropriation of the London Bridge approaches fund, and if any monies had been improperly charged on this fund. The Act had been reprinted for the purpose of being made more intelligible to the House; but there were defects in it which still required amendment. The principle involved the liability of the taxpayers of the metropolis; but certain passages in the preamble made the whole Bill most obscure. The House should clearly understand that no further taxation was to be inflicted on the metropolis.

said, he did not think that any statement could remove the doubt which existed with regard to the Report on this subject. The Report stated that 296,000l. interest had been allowed to accumulate up to the 5th of January last. It was a great slur on a public department that such a sum should be allowed to accumulate. He thought that the subject should be referred to a Committee up-stairs.

said, he objected to the Bill being sent upstairs. He did not believe there was any information which might be asked for, that he was not in a position to give. He could assure the hon. Member (Sir W. Jolliffe), as he had on a former occasion assured the House, that, so far as the taxation of the City of London was concerned, so far as the duty on coals was concerned, so far as the whole question of the London Bridge Approaches were concerned, this measure introduced no changes whatever, one way or the other. It was entirely a question as to the mode of applying the money, and with regard to the London Bridge Approaches Fund, whether it should go through one department of the Government or another. One reason why he objected to sending the Bill before a Committee upstairs was, that every day's delay was a cost of 150l. to the Treasury. The object of the Bill was to save 130,000l. to the public, without injuring a human being, as far as he was aware of. Putting himself for the State, the case stood thus:—he had borrowed 895,000l. (which with the interest of 134,000l. upon it, amounted to 1,029,000l.), for the purpose of effecting certain improvements in the City. He had therefore to pay a sum of 30,000l. every year. At the same time he had several unemployed balances at his bankers, and he thought it was better to make use of these for the purpose of getting rid of this heavy annual payment of 30,000l. By doing this he would also relieve the land revenues of the Crown out of a position in which they ought never to have been placed, and would restore to that House the full jurisdiction which they ought to have over these revenues, and which they never would have as long as they remained mortgaged. These claims originated in this way. In 1839, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, under the authority of an Act of Parliament, charged the London Bridge Approaches Fund with a sum of 665,000l. for the purpose of promoting certain improvements in the City of London. But there were no proceeds from that fund at the time, because it was subject to certain prior charges. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests, therefore, undertook to mortgage, and did mortgage, under the authority of an Act of Parliament, a certain portion of the laud revenues of the Crown, as security for repayment of the money. A sum of 895,000l. was borrowed in this way, and the improvements were effected. The interest on this had been regularly paid, but the land revenues continued meantime under mortgage. There were several sources at command for the liquidation of this debt, the principal one being the London Bridge Approaches Fund. But there was a prior charge of 665,000l, on that fund, and the interest upon that principal sum accumulated to 296,000l. He did not mention this to the discredit of any one, because as he had before stated, no revenue would be derivable for some time from that source. Therefore there was due upon the 5th of January a sum of 961,000l. There was also a sum of 30,000l. advanced to the Westminster Improvements Commissioners, hearing interest at 4 per cent, and a further sum of 50,000l. made over as a gift to the same Commissioners, Then there were two sums of 30,000l. each, given on the fulfilment of certain conditions to the Southwark Improvement Commissioners, the one of these sums bearing interest, and the other not. There was, therefore, the principal sum of 1,029,000l., consisting of 895,000l. principal, and 134,000l. interest, borrowed on the security of the Crown Revenues; there were two sums of 30,000l. and 50,000l. advanced to the Westminster Improvement Commissioners; and two sums of 30,000l. each advanced to the Southwark Improvement Commissioners. It was also necessary to allow a certain sum for the interest that might become due on the principal sum of 895,000l. That was subject to certain conditions of notice, so that it would not be in their power to pay it off at once. He took 25,000l. prospectively as the possible maximum amount of that interest. It would be necessary also to allow a liberal amount for interest on the other sums, and for this he allowed 21,775l. Adding all these sums together, the right hon. Gentleman would find that they amounted to 1,216,000l., which would be the maximum of charge on the Consolidated Fund. With regard to the assets, there was 961,000l. to come from the London Bridge Approaches Fund, that is to say, for the principal sum of 665,000l., and the interest of 296,000l. thereon. There was 30,000l. to be repaid by the Westminster Commissioners, and 250,000l. the anticipated proceeds from ground rents. These added together made about 1,241,000l., which was more than amply sufficient to cover the maximum charge on the Consolidated Fund. There was another sum for which he did not take credit, as it would depend on the productiveness of the London Bridge Approaches Fund; but without that the assets were more than sufficient to meet the liabilities. He hoped that he had now satisfactorily explained to the hon. Gentleman and the House the seeming discrepancy between the debt and the sum asked for in the Bill. He was sure that nothing more was required than discussion across the table to insure the approval of this Bill.