wished to inquire of the noble Lord the President of the Council whether he had any objection to lay on the table of the House the correspondence which had taken place with foreign Powers, relating to the treaty of the 2nd December, 1854, and especially any document communicated to the Russian Government, containing the interpretation placed by the English Government and that of France on "the four points," not for negotiation but for acceptance?

I cannot at present say whether it is possible to lay on the table any of the correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards the correspondence generally, I wish to say that it would not be usual, nor for the convenience of the public service under present circumstances, to lay it on the table; but there may be one of those papers which it may he possible to lay on the table, and I will consider that point before I give a final answer. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend has asked this question, I may state generally what has occurred with respect to "the four points," and in what state that question stands at present. At the end of November the Russian Government, through their Minister at Vienna, declared their acceptance of what are called the four points; and on the 2nd of December a treaty was signed between France, England, and Austria. On the 28th of December a meeting was held by the Ministers of France, England, and Austria, at Vienna, with Prince Gortchakoff, the Minister of Russia. At that meeting the French Minister read, on the part of England and Austria, as well as his own Government, the interpretation which the three Powers had put on the four points which were to be considered as the basis of negotiation. I will mention only that, with respect to the third point, it was proposed by that interpretation to put an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea. Prince Gortchakoff stated that he would not agree to this interpretation, but that he would request further instructions from his Government. Ten days afterwards he informed Count Buol that he had received those instructions, and on the 7th or 8th of January another meeting was held at the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, at Vienna. At that meeting Prince Gortchakoff read a memorandum, which he said he had received, containing the views of his Government. It was replied to by Count Buol, Lord Westmoreland, and Baron de Bourqueney, that they had no authority to receive any such memorandum, and that they must require, as the basis of negotiations, the consent of the Russian Plenipotentiary to the interpretation of which he had already received a note. The Russian Plenipotentiary, Lord Westmoreland states in his despatch, then withdrew the memorandum he had read, and declared his acceptance, on the part of his Government, of the communicated interpretation as the basis of negotiation. My hon. Friend will see that by that Act the Russian Plenipotentiary accepted this interpretation as the basis of negotiation, of course reserving to himself the power, when this basis shall have been laid down in a definite article, of making any observations on the part of his Government which he should think proper. The Government of Her Majesty have declared their readiness to enter into negotiations on this basis, but hitherto no full powers have been given to any Minister to negotiate.

wished to ask if the noble Lord opposite would consent to produce a copy of the protocol of the 28th December, explaining the four points laid down in the note of the 8th of August?

wished to know whether the House was to understand that negotiations were actually going on, or that they were suspended?

With respect to the question of the hon. Baronet, I beg to say that is a point I have reserved for consideration, and I doubt whether that protocol can now be laid on the table. As to the question last put to me, I beg to say that negotiations have not yet begun.

understood the noble Lord to say that certain terms were offered to Russia, and that, after some deliberation, Russia had consented also to that one of the four points which had for its object to put an end to the predominance of Russia in the Black Sea. He hoped the noble Lord would not withdraw from that, and he wanted to know whether instructions were about to be sent out for the purpose of opening negotiations, as the noble Lord left the House to infer the contrary? Would, when a distinct proposition had been accepted, instructions for the prosecution of negotiations be sent out?

I have already stated that Her Majesty's Government have expressed their willingness to negotiate on those points, and I cannot state anything further at the present moment.

wished to ask the Secretary at War whether any arrangement had been made by which wounded soldiers in the hospital at Scutari were enabled to transmit money from their pay to their friends and relatives at home?

said, instructions had been given to the paymasters so far back as last May to afford every assistance in their power for this object; and Lord Raglan was requested, with a view to give greater publicity to the facilities provided for the remittances of money, to issue a general order relative thereto. In September last, when depôts were formed at Scutari, instructions were issued to the paymasters, especially with the view of calling attention to the facilities existing, and having heard of remittance orders not being obtained, he sent out orders on the 27th of December last that the greatest care should be taken in order that the wishes of the soldiers might be complied with; that unnecessary forms should be dispensed with; and that the money they desired to remit should be sent to their relatives with promptitude.

then rose and expressed a hope that he should be excused for soliciting the attention of the House, as he was about to address them on a question of vast interest, and one of no little difficulty in respect to legislation. He proposed to introduce two Bills, both tending to the same object. It would be in the recollection of the House that towards the close of last Session a Bill was introduced for the purpose of continuing the system of the Board of Health, with certain modifications, and an intimation was given that a Select Committee would be moved for at an early period of the present Session for considering the manner in which the Act of 1848 had been carried out, and for determining what alterations should be made. The House of Commons, however, decided that the system should be put on an entirely new footing; and it was enacted that the department relating to the public health should be presided over by a Member responsible to that House. As he had accepted that responsibility, he did not consider it consistent with his duty merely to move for a Select Committee, and then leave the question wholly to that Committee; but he deemed it more convenient and more proper to bring in a Pill making such amendments of the Act of 1848 as he conceived to be advisable. Should it meet with so much favour from the House as to pass the second reading, he should then move that it, together with another Bill of which he had given notice, should be referred to a Select Committee in order that they both night be considered fully in detail by gentlemen practically acquainted with the operation of the law, from whom valuable suggestions might be expected. He thought he might ask for this assistance without fear of meeting with a refusal, for the subject was not one of a party character. If he considered that referring the Bills to a Select Committee would retard the accomplishment of sanitary improvement he should not ask the House to adopt that course, for he was most anxious that some measure on this subject should pass at a very early period of this Session, in order that, if it should please Providence to afflict the country again with such a pestilence as prevailed during last summer, such precautions might be adopted as legislative foresight could devise. The most convenient course for him to pursue would be to state briefly the origin of the present law, to point out its various defects, and show the manner in which he proposed to deal with them. He would not at the present moment say one word with respect to the necessity of some measure of sanitary reform, for that would be admitted on all hands; it would, however, be his duty to call attention to the various courses taken in reference to legislation and attempts at legislation on this subject. He found that various reports had been made to that House either by Committees or by Royal Commission on the question of sanitary improvement. In 1840 a Committee of that House sat, and made a valuable and useful report in favour of a similar proposition to the one he was now about to submit to the House. Front 1840 to 1845 inclusive Commissions were appointed, and they made reports all in favour of the same object. It appeared also that the subject had been referred to in the Speech from the Throne in January, 1847, in November, of the same year, and in September, 1848. He would now notice the various attempts made to legislate on this subject. In 1845 a Bill was introduced, based on the principle of centralised Government authority, but so much objection was felt to it that it was found impracticable. In 1847 another Bill was framed, of a rather more liberal character; but, great powers being still retained by the Government, much objection to it was entertained, and the Bill was not proceeded with. He now came to another Bill, introduced, in 1848, by the Earl of Carlisle (then Lord Morpeth). It was introduced on the 8th of February, but did not become law until the 31st of August, in consequence of the great opposition given to it. That measure was to endure for five years, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament, but no attempt was made by its promoters to renew it until the eve of its expiration. The Bill, as introduced, contained provisions of a most arbitrary character; but some alterations were made in it through the Committee. When the Act was first passed, the demands from various districts to have it applied to them were very numerous, but, they rapidly fell off, as the Act became unpopular and difficult to work. From August, 1849, to December, 1849, there were nineteen applications; in the year 1850 they rose to sixty-six, but in 1851 they sank to thirty-six; in 1852, to thirty-seven; in 1853 they were twenty, and in 1854 they fell as low as nine. This showed that there was something wrong in the Act. The defects of the Act were unquestionably many, and he had therefore determined to apply to Parliament for an entirely new one. He proposed to repeal the existing Act altogether, retaining, however, those parts which were useful and inserting them in a remodelled form in the Bill which he should ask leave to introduce by the side of the new matter, in order to avoid the necessity of a perpetual reference to a repealed Statute. He had always thought the manner in which provision was made for the application of the Bill was very objectionable. At present, on a petition from one-tenth of the rate-payers the Board of Health had power to send down inspectors, and to take all the measures necessary for the application of the Act in places where there were defined boundaries and no local powers, without any reference to Parliament; but in places where there were no defined boundaries, and where there were local powers, the board had to apply the Act by provisional order, and to obtain the sanction of Parliament afterwards. He had always thought, too, that great delay took place in the application of the Act in consequence of the very complicated machinery which had to be set at work; but this he proposed very much to simplify. Another point which had been urged upon him very strongly was the inconvenience of the present system of giving several votes to one voter, and he proposed that, for the future, instead of one voter having, as he might now under Sturges Bourne's Act, any number of votes from one to six, each voter should have only one vote. Another grievance which had been greatly complained of, and which was, no doubt, often felt to be very galling, was, that local boards could not dismiss their surveyor, or appoint or dismiss their medical officer, without the permission of the General Board. During the time that he had held the office of President of the Board he had never interfered in these matters, because he was aware that if he had refused to sanction the dismissal of any officer the local board would easily have carried its point by stopping the supplies, when, of course, the official in question would cease to act. These clauses, therefore, had generally been nugatory, though in cases where attempts had been made to enforce them they had, no doubt, been found most galling. Another point was the limit at present placed to the borrowing powers of local authorities. There were many places which, though not wealthy, found it desirable to carry on great works, and at present they could only borrow money for such a purpose to the extent of one year's rateable value, and were obliged to repay the sum so borrowed in thirty years. He should propose to increase the capability of borrowing to the extent of two years' rateable value, and, while retaining thirty years as the general term for repayment, to give power to the Board of Health, under special circumstances, to extend it as far as fifty years. There was one most objectionable feature in the former Act, which had, no doubt, in some measure, impeded its successful working. Under the old system the General Board of Health appointed inspectors, who were sent down to places which petitioned for the application of the Act, to survey and to make reports, and these gentlemen were permitted also to give estimates for the construction of the works, and even, in some cases, to carry out the works themselves. He would show the House what were the consequences of such permissions, and then, perhaps, they would no longer be surprised to find that the Act had got into bad odour, for localities not unnaturally expected that when Government inspectors were sent down to make surveys and to prepare estimates, those estimates would, at least, be guarded. He would first read a list of the towns where the original inspection had been made, and the works ultimately carried out by the same inspector, contrasting, at the same time, the estimated and the actual cost. At Ashby-de-la-Zouch, the estimate was 6,500l.; the actual amount raised on loan, 8,000l. At Alnwick, the estimate was 6,500l.; the amount raised, 11,000l. At Croydon, there was no estimate, but the works cost 49,062l., and much of the work had to be done over again. At Ormskirk, the estimate was 7,500l.; and the actual amount, 10,000l.; giving total estimates to the amount of 20,500l., and actual cost, 29,000l.—a difference of nearly 9,000l. Next came towns where the works were carried on by an inspector who did not originally visit the town. At Launceston, for instance, the works were estimated by one inspector at 4,500l., but they were carried out by another for 7,800l.; at Rugby, they were estimated at 11,609l., and carried out for 18,000l., making a difference in these two towns of more than 9,000l. between estimate and actual cost. These were towns where the works were now completed, but there were others where the works were still in progress, and in these, too, the difference was quite as great. First, with regard to cases where the towns had been inspected and the works carried on by the same inspector. At Berwick-on-Tweed, the estimate was 14,500l., and 10,000l. had already been raised on loan; at Southampton, the estimate was 63,490l., and the amount now raised, 60,000l.; at Burslem, the estimate was 11,300l., and the amount raised, 14,589l.; at Epsom, a small town, the estimate was 7,012l., and the amount raised 15,921l.; at Rotherham, the estimate was 18,009l., and the amount raised, 30,500l.; at Selby, the estimate was 6,929l., and the actual amount raised, 8,600l.—making a total amount of 121,240l. estimated cost, and 139,610l. expenses actually already incurred. The most remarkable instance, however, was that of Dover, where the town had been inspected by one inspector and the works carried out by another. In this case, the estimate was 16,500l., and the actual cost incurred was 50,000l.—making a difference of 33,500l. He had only been able to find one case in which the cost of the works had been less than the estimate, and that was Knighton. Here the estimate was 2,700l., and the cost of works, 2,100l. By the Act, however, of last Session, it was arranged that the inspectors were to be paid by salaries, and the inconveniences to which he had just alluded were therefore obviated. He had conceived it to be his first duty on entering office to carry out the decision of the House of Commons, and it was with this view that the following letter had been written to the gentlemen appointed to act as inspectors—

"General Board of Health, Aug. 31, 1854.

"I am directed by Sir Benjamin Hall to say that he will appoint you as superintending inspector, and will recommend the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to assign you a salary of 800l. per annum, commencing from this date. It must be distinctly understood that you do not, directly or indirectly, by yourself or by a partner, become engaged in any surveys, contracts, or works, and do not enter into any business or speculations during the time that you arc connected with this department. The Act under which the appointments are made is limited in duration to one year, and until the end of the then next Session of Parliament; and you must not consider yourself entitled to have any claim upon Her Majesty's Treasury for compensation or otherwise in case your services should not be required beyond that period, when a reappointment, if approved by the then President, will be necessary. I am directed further to refer you to the section of the Act which relates to the appointment and dismissal of officers engaged by this Board."

In order, too, to carry out still further what he understood to be the intentions of the Legislature, he had looked through the various instructions given to the super- intending inspectors, comprised in a volume of 300 folio pages, and he had had these compressed into such a shape that the inspectors could read them at the public meetings which they might have to attend. These were as follows—

"The inspector is to show that there is no intention or desire on the part of the General Board of Health to force the application of the Act upon the district against the desire of the inhabitants. He will state that those ratepayers only who will derive direct advantage from the works will be charged with the cost of such work. The superintending inspector will especially urge that the object of the inquiry is to elicit facts for further consideration, and not to make out a case for indiscriminate application of the Act. He will seek the aid of all parties best qualified to afford information, and will so conduct the proceedings as to give every one the opportunity of being heard, and he will invite all persons, especially those who deny the want of improvement, to accompany him in his tour of inspection. Having ascertained the existing state of the district, the superintending inspector will examine and consider how far it may be advisable and practicable to apply the remedies of the Public Health Act within such cost as the inhabitants might be reasonably called upon to bear. To arrive at any accurate conclusion as to the cost, proper plans setting forth the levels, &c. must be furnished, and these plans are not to be undertaken by the superintending inspectors, but by persons selected to act by the local authorities after the locality shall have adopted the Act; but it will be the duty of the superintending inspector to make such general examination as will enable him to pronounce as to the practicability of remedial measures, and this may frequently serve for preliminary guidance of the local board and their surveyors in working out the necessary plans. It will generally be desirable that the superintending inspector, after completing his inquiry, should attend another meeting of the inhabitants before leaving the district, at which meeting he will state the conclusions at which he may have arrived and the recommendations which he will be prepared to make. An opportunity will thus be afforded to receive suggestions, and consider any objections which may be raised, all which may facilitate further proceedings. He will at the same time explain that all statements which may be transmitted from the locality to the General Board in reference to his report will receive the fullest attention and consideration."

Not very long ago a petition had been sent up from a large place in the north of England of not less than 20,000 inhabitants, praying to have the Act applied, and directly after it came a strong counter-petition praying that the Bill might not be applied. An inspector was sent down to the place; he attended a public meeting at which he read these instructions, and the consequence was that the people, on receiving this strong assurance that it was not the intention or the wish of the Board of Health to force the Act upon them, im- mediately withdrew their opposition, and gave the inspector all the assistance in their power. A petition had just been received by the Board in favour of the application of the Act, signed by the majority of the ratepayers, and it was the intention of the Board to apply the Act. He came now to the provisions of the Bill which he was about to lay before them. It consisted of 170 clauses, and might be divided into three parts—the first relating to the constitution of the General Board of Health; the second, to the manner in which the Act was to be adopted and applied; and the third, to the powers and duties of the local boards. With regard to the first point, he proposed that the General Board of Health should substantially remain the same as at present constituted. With regard to the second part, he proposed that the Act should be applied either by adoption or by application. The first step to the adoption of the Act would be that a certain number of ratepayers—ten, at least—should present a requisition to the chief local authority—called in the Bill the summoning officer—who would then call a public meeting, at which the adoption of the Act would be discussed. If the decision was in favour of its adoption, the resolution of the meeting would be forwarded to the General Board of Health, and upon that the Board would proceed to apply the Bill. When, however, there was a difference of opinion on the subject, the summoning officer was to appoint a day for taking a poll of the rate-payers, and if the poll were favourable to the adoption of the Bill it would be forwarded to the Board, but, if not, of course the whole matter would drop to the ground. Power was also given to the Board of Health to apply the Act to places having no defined boundaries, and to portions of places, on the receipt of a petition signed by one-tenth of the ratepayers. On the receipt of such a petition the Board would proceed to send down an inspector, and, on his report, would make a provisional order for the application of the Act. As the law at present stood, that provisional order would be binding on the locality; but he proposed that it should first be sent down for the consideration of the inhabitants, and should not be applied unless they signified their willingness to accept it. With regard to the compulsory application of the Act, power would be given to the General Board of Health to proceed at once to put the Act into operation in places in which it should appear from the Registrar-General's report that the mortality exceeded twenty-three in 1,000. There would also be power to attach portions of places, in which the mortality was found to be excessive, to adjoining districts in which the Act was already in force. He came next to the powers and duties of the local boards. They would be empowered to appoint and remove officers, and in many respects would exercise the same duties as at present. He proposed, however, to take some very large powers, to which he would invite the special attention of the House, because, if this proposition were sanctioned by the Legislature, it would not only interfere with many of the existing duties of Parliament, but also supersede the necessity of applying to Parliament for local Acts. They were powers which had been long desired, and in favour of which the House of Commons had reported over and over again in reference to the subject of private Bill legislation. If any one wished to know what the opinions of Commissioners on this point were let him read the report issued in 1847, in which the proposition he was now about to make was fully considered and also recommended. If, however, hon. Members should think that large folio volume too great a task to wade through, he would advise them to read the admirable article in the Edinburgh Review of this month, in which the suggestions of the various commissions were succinctly summed up. Perhaps the House would allow him to read a short extract from this article. The writer said—

"These abuses of private Bills Committees have been the subject of discussion almost annually during the present century in both Houses of Parliament; there are upwards of seventy long Reports, in which the delay, expense, and general inconvenience of our private Bill system have been from time to time pointed out. Some salutary changes have certainly been made in the institution of Committees, the mode of selection, and the reduction of the number of members, and the more important reform has been carried of providing, by general law, for several subjects hitherto dealt with only by private Acts; but the system of private Bill legislation and the greater portion of the inconvenience still remain."

He held in his hand a list of the improvements Bills relating to water supply, gas, and markets, that had been prosecuted in that House between the years 1850 and 1855, inclusive. The number of these Bills was as follows:—In 1850, there were proceeded with 47; in 1851 there were 53; in 1852, 70; in 1853, 85; in 1854, 96; and in 1855 notices had been given of the intention to prosecute 77; making a total within those years of no less than 428. He had been informed by those who were best qualified to advise him as to the probable cost of prosecuting these Bills that if he put down the sum of 2,000l. for each, exclusive of the expenses of opposition, he would be quite within the mark. Therefore, a sum of not less than 856,000l. had been spent in the prosecution of private Bills from the year 1850 down to the present period. Now, the proposition he was about to make was this—that where the local Boards desired to acquire land, either in or out of their locality, for purposes of drainage works, water supply and the like, it should be in their power to acquire it without the necessity of coming before a Committee of the House of Commons. In order to make himself distinctly understood on this subject, which was one of very great importance, he would read the clause that had been prepared in reference to it. It ran thus—

"Every local board shall have power to purchase any land necessary for carrying into execution the above objects (drainage, water supply, &c.) And for the purposes of this section the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall be incorporated with this Act; but the exercise of the above powers shall be subject to this restriction, that no such reservoir as aforesaid shall be made, nor shall any land be purchased, under the compulsory powers of the said Lands Clauses Consolidation Act for the purposes aforesaid except with the sanction of the justices assembled at some court of quarter sessions, such sanction to be obtained by the local board who have projected any such work in manner hereinafter mentioned."

The Bill then went on to provide that the local boards should publish notices in the newspapers of their intention to apply for the sanction of the justices, and should also serve notices on the owners and occupiers of the land to be taken; and persons whose property might be injuriously affected by the construction of the works would have a right of appeal before the justices, the decision of such justices to be binding on the local board. The effect of these provisions would be to exempt the local boards giving notice from the necessity of appearing before that House, which everybody knew was not the most satisfactory tribunal in such cases, but to require them instead to go before the court of quarter sessions sitting in the immediate locality where the land was to be taken, and which was, therefore, more likely to arrive at a sound decision. If he were now proposing to grant these powers in the case of schemes undertaken by private enterprise, such as railways, for instance, this course might be open to grave objection, but where the property was required not for purposes of speculation, but for a public object, to be carried out by a public body for the benefit of the inhabitants of the district; and the tribunal to which the matters would be referred would consist of gentlemen conversant with the circumstances and requirements of the locality, and, therefore, well qualified to pronounce whether the powers sought for ought to be conferred. He had stated this part of his plan not with the view of eliciting much discussion upon it on the part of the House at that moment. Hon. Members would have ample opportunity for giving it that consideration which it demanded at a subsequent stage of the Bill. If he were allowed to introduce the measure, he should feel it his duty to make the various local boards acquainted with its provisions, and enter into communication with the proper parties to ascertain whether such powers as he had described could be safely granted, or whether they were liable to such serious objections that Parliament ought not to assent to them. In his own opinion, very few persons could object to such a proposition. Of course, those who derived professional advantage from their practice on Private Bill Committees might not view it with any great favour, but he did not apprehend that on any other ground serious objection could be offered to it. He had stated already that great complaints had been made in consequence of some deficiencies in the former Bill as to the regulation of the building of new houses and the re-erection of old. He wished to put a stop, if possible, to the power of building houses in streets not only side by side, but also back to back, so as to entirely preclude any outlet or inlet for air except in front, and utterly to prevent the construction of the outbuildings which were indispensable for the proper accommodation of every dwelling. He had received communications on this subject from Sunderland, Leicester, Coventry, and other places; and these clauses were suggested by some of the largest towns in the kingdom. With regard to slaughterhouses—great nuisances—it was proposed that no new one should be allowed to be built without a licence, and every slaughterhouse would have to be registered. The local boards would be enabled to erect slaughter-houses on their own land. Powers would also be given them to levy rates and raise money on mortgage, as at present. He proposed that they should also make by-laws, but such by-laws as inflicted penalties would be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. At present the ratepayers very frequently had no means of knowing how their money was expended; and he, therefore, proposed that every local board should make an annual report of what it had done during the year in the execution of the Act, and send a copy of it to every ratepayer, and also one to the General Board of Health. The sum which the General Board of Health had sanctioned the raising of, upon mortgage, amounted to a total of 585,477l.; yet no authority existed in that Board for seeing how the outlay it had sanctioned had been incurred. He therefore proposed that the Board of Health should have power to inspect the town, and discover whether the money had been expended in conformity with the plans originally sent up and approved. Having taken this power, he thought the General Board of Health ought to make a Report annually to Parliament of what it had accomplished in pursuance of the Act; and the Bill would contain a provision to that effect. He would not trouble the House further. He had already sketched the general outline of the Bill, which would provide that the Act should not be applied to any town without the consent of the ratepayers, excepting in cases where the mortality was excessive; that parts of places might adopt the Act; that the necessity for having an Act of Parliament for local improvements should be almost entirely avoided; that the General Board of Health should have power to see that the money borrowed under its sanction by the local boards had been appropriated in accordance with the scheme which the ratepayers had themselves sent up. In the Bill of last Session it was provided that the Act should be continued for one year, and thence to the end of the next Session of Parliament. He proposed now that this Bill should be continued for two years, and thence to the end of the next Session of Parliament. He believed that by that time the House and the country would have had ample opportunity of knowing how far the measure was applicable to the objects it was designed to meet, and whether it had proved successful. His own impression was that it would he a most useful measure for country districts. He felt persuaded, if the individual placed at the head of the department over which he now had the honour to preside would make up his mind not to set up fanciful theories or to seek to determine every case according to one inflexible rule, but would examine into the peculiarities of each district and apply the Act to it in conformity with its special circumstances—that then the office which he held would be respected rather than shunned, and he believed that that department—though it might not be one of the highest in the State—might be made one of the most useful. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to introduce a Bill to alter and amend the Public Health Act.

was glad that the right hon. Baronet had taken up this question, which was one of very great importance. He much approved referring the Bills to a Select Committee. He understood that the first Bill did not apply to the metropolis, but that the Nuisances Removal Bill did. It was necessary that the Government should allow evidence to be taken before the Committee, as many important trades would be affected by the second measure.

then rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Nuisances Removal Act. He said that his hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) had stated very truly that the Bill he had just introduced did not affect the metropolis. The fact was that the Bill could be only applied or adopted under very peculiar circumstances, and therefore it did not affect any particular district whatever. But the Bill he was now about to introduce would affect the metropolis most materially, and he intended that it should have that object. He knew of no place which ought to be dealt with by legislation in reference to those nuisances of which they had heard so much during the late epidemic more than the metropolis. He would state as briefly as possible the provisions of his second Bill. During the late epidemic the existing Act was found to be wholly inoperative. Innumerable complaints were made to him of the inadequacy of the Act; some by persons honestly anxious to carry out its provisions effectually, and others by persons desirous rather of evading the fulfilment of their duty, and urging the cumbrous mode of procedure they had to go through and other pleas as excuses for not carrying out the Act. The local boards had no power, except under order in Council, or under the orders and regulations of the Board of Health, to appoint those officers whose duty it was in every locality to assist in suppressing nuisances as soon as they arose, and in keeping the country free from such abominable evils. When the epidemic broke out, great anxiety was shown by the local boards to do what was necessary to stay the ravages of disease in their districts; but everything was hurry and confusion; there was no method, and a vast deal of expense was incurred in consequence. As soon, however, as the scourge ceased—and he saw this to be particularly the case at present in the metropolis, as well as throughout the country—the supervision likewise ceased, and things relapsed into the same state as they stood in previously to the appointment of these officers. He could state that on the 12th of August, when he took office at the Board of Health, there was hardly an inspector in existence for the whole of the metropolis; and he had the greatest possible difficulty in making some of the boards of guardians appoint inspectors. In the case of Clerkenwell, for instance, he was obliged to threaten to cause an inquest to be held if any person died in a district which had not been previously visited under the direction of the board of guardians. He did have an inquest, and the case was fully proved before the jury, which had a salutary effect in inducing this body to do its duty to some extent. He must mention the measures taken for affording medical aid during the late fearful visitation in a parish containing 190,000 persons, and having property of the rateable value of 500,000l., as it illustrated the way in which the people were cared for in certain districts of the metropolis. On the 12th of August last a circular was sent out by the sanitary committee of the board of guardians of Lambeth to 120 medical men of that parish, offering to enter into engagements with them to attend the poor of the parish professionally, and to pay them for their services at the rate of 1s. 6d. for every diarrhœa patient, and 2s. 6d. for every cholera patient—the patients to be afterwards referred to the medical officer of the district. This was the remuneration offered to these medical practitioners by the authorities of a parish which could have raised 2,083l. by a penny rate on its annual rental. The case of St. James's was deplorably bad; and a special report would be made and laid before the House relating to that sad disaster. Happily there were some admirable exceptions to this state of things. St. George's, Paddington, Islington, Marylebone, St. Pancras, and some other great parishes rendered him all the assistance that he could have desired, and set an excellent example to the rest of the metropolis, as would appear from the inspector's reports, which would also be laid on the table of the House. One very remarkable feature was, the happy effect produced where constant sanitary supervision had been adopted. The most beneficial results had also been attained by the exercise of common care, as in the case of the model lodginghouses of the metropolis. At the Streatham Street model lodginghouses, Bloomsbury, where fifty-three families resided, there were but six cases of diarrhœa, which yielded speedily to medical treatment; at the model houses, Bagniggewells, where there were 175 inmates, no case of sickness occurred; at the kindred establishment in St. Giles's, where there were 104 inmates, there was not a single case of sickness; and at the other institutions of the same character similar results were visible. He wished next to show the House how the City of London had been spared during the late epidemic. He had in his hand the report of Mr. Simon, the medical officer of the city, whom he had consulted in framing these Bills, and to whom he took that opportunity of expressing his thanks for the valuable assistance he had rendered him (Sir B. Hall), ever since he had held his present office. In his report to the City Commissioners of Sewers, Mr. Simon said—

"In your population of 130,000 there have died from cholera during the last few months 211 persons, of whom 26 were under five years of age. This mortality has been at the rate of 16 to every 10,000 inhabitants of the city. Its distribution among your several sub-districts is given in the annexed tables, which also indicate, through successive weekly periods, from July to November, the gradual rise and decline of the disease. London generally has suffered from the recent epidemic less than from that of 1849. The cholera deaths of the metropolis were then at the rate of 60 per 10,000; now they have probably not exceeded a rate of 45; so that this visitation, measured by the proportion of deaths, has been 25 per cent lighter than the last. But in favour of the city there has been a difference greatly beyond this metropolitan average. Our cholera deaths of 1849 amounted to 728, on which our recent mortality of 211 (since the population is nearly fixed) shows a reduction of 71 per cent. In the former epidemic we contributed to the metropolitan mortality almost one-twentieth of its total; we have on this occasion contributed less than one-fiftieth. Our former contribution was little under what should have been inferred from our proportionate population, if the disease had been equally allotted to the metropolis; on this occasion our share has happily been less than two-fifths of what, on that principle, might have been predicted to befall us."

Mr. Simon then went on to say—

"A year ago, considering these things prospectively, I could not but feel great alarm as to what amount of epidemic suffering the City might experience. Former encounters, too, had shown how vulnerable we were, and it was impossible to forget the well-known tendency of the disease to revisit places which it has once ravaged. But against those threatening auguries at least one good was to be counted. Unlike the rest of the metropolis, the city had a sanitary government. For some years you had been giving care to the physical condition of public health. You had paved and sewered the City, even through its courts and alleys. You had established daily scavenging; you had almost abolished cesspools; you had put water within reach of all; you had done something (little was in your power) against overcrowding; you had set on foot the periodical inspection of houses, with a view to their better cleanliness."

He (Sir B. Hall) was now going to ask the House to give such powers to every part of the kingdom, as far as they could be made applicable, as was at present the case with the City of London, and, by so doing, he was sure that they would prevent much misery and save to a considerable extent human life. He proposed to place every district in England under the local authorities, and to empower them to remove and prevent the recurrence of nuisances—to deal with those houses unfit for human habitations, and to provide for the abatement of those nuisances caused by parties carrying on offensive trades. The Act would also compel the local authorities to make out an annual account of their proceedings, and to furnish a copy to every ratepayer. He would also go further than this, and in cases where local authorities neglected to do their duty, left their powers in abeyance, or showed great carelessness, he thought it the duty of the Legislature to compel those local authorities, who had voluntarily undertaken their duties, to carry them out, and even to impose a penalty for neglect. He begged to call the attention of the House to a report, one of the most valuable ever published on this subject. He alluded to the report of the commission sent to Newcastle to inquire into the recent outbreak of cholera in that town. The report was drawn up by Mr. Simon, Mr. Hume, and another gentleman. He desired to bring this case prominently before the House, for it was not one in which some miserable pavingboard was concerned, or one which existed in any small parish. The corporation of Newcastle was described by the Commissioners as not only being "ancient, wealthy, and influential, but as having for at least seven years possessed under its own Local Acts, in 1837, 1846, and 1853, unusually extensive sanitary powers." The town was said to afford remarkable facilities for draining, and that under the Acts of 1837 and 1846 the corporation "obtained complete powers of supervision and extensive powers of control over the formation of new streets and the erection of houses, including the provision of proper domestic conveniences and other important points." Under the Local Act of 1846 they obtained power to lay down rules for cleansing and whitewashing filthy and unwholesome dwellings, and to make regulations for the registering of lodging-houses and the maintenance of cleanliness therein. It was also enacted that the owner of every house unprovided with necessary outbuildings should provide them, and that no house should be erected without them. Powers were also given for the cleansing of all necessaries, ashpits, &c., and for the management of public necessaries, for compelling owners of houses to pave the streets on which the houses abutted, for regulating the keeping of swine, and for compelling manufacturers to consume their smoke. By the Act of 1853 the town-council were empowered to cause streets to be sewered, drained, &c., to make regulations as to the levels of houses, streets, drains, &c.; to order the closing of dwelling-houses unfit for human habitation; to order the erection of necessary outbuildings to hotels and public-houses; to carry private drains into the common sewer at the expense of the owner; to cause the owner of a house to repair and cleanse the private drains. It was also enacted that no house should be erected or rebuilt until the drains were made, and that all manufactories, fireplaces, and furnaces should be constructed so as to consume their own smoke. These Acts were obtained at great cost. And in January, 1854, a commission was sent to Newcastle to inquire into the causes of the late outbreak of cholera. They stated that the average of deaths for fifteen years was 28·6 in every 1,000, and they ascribed the virulence of the outbreak of cholera to the neglect of proper sanitary measures by the town council. In the words of the town surveyor, the Local Acts "have been a dead letter altogether." The powers conferred on the town council by these Acts were also said to "have been allowed to remain wholly inoperative," "no exercise or enforcement of them appeared to have taken place;" and again, the commissioners spoke of "the entire neglect by the town council of their apparently unlimited power as to cleansing filthy and unwholesome dwellings." "There are districts in Newcastle which were more ill-conditioned, probably, than any other districts of anything like the same area in Great Britain." Many of the necessaries and ashpits were so built that the liquid filth. "oozed through the walls" of the houses, and new houses presented the same evils as old ones, and many of them were" utterly unsewered and undrained." The corporation property was said to be, if possible, in a worse condition than any other;. "a great part of their tenanted property was really unfit for human habitation, and should be condemned as such." It was suggested to the commissioners, that the Act was not enforced because the town council held house property. Inspectors had found in one room from 9 to 15, 16, 17, and 19 persons. Cholera had broken out "in rooms in which as many as 20 or 25 occupiers were congregated," which gave but 50 cubic feet of air for each. person, and the stench in the rooms was described as overpowering. No advantage had been taken of the Labouring Classes Lodging-houses Act (1851), and there was no map of the drainage. Only 1,421 houses had water-closets or any drainage; the remaining 8,032 were "entirely unprovided." In Sandgate, a district adjoining Newcastle, it was said that out of a population of "4,600, perhaps not 100 had right of access to any private necessary, and at the very lowest computation, more than 9–10ths of that resident population, besides the casual population of the shipping alongside, were wholly dependent on a single public necessary." "In another district, containing 3,000 inhabitants, there were but one public and one or two private necessaries," and 15,000 families had no right of access to any private necessary. The Board of Guardians had frequently proceeded against the corporation, to make it abate or remove nuisances of its own creation, and the power of enforcing the consumption of smoke had been "left entirely in abeyance." The expense occasioned by the outbreak was 35,000l., which might, the commissioners stated, have been avoided by timely precautions. He would undertake to say that there was no corporate body with greater powers than Newcastle; and, if those great bodies neglected to carry out the powers entrusted to them for the benefit of the public, he thought that the time was arrived when they ought to compel them to do so. He proposed, therefore, to establish a local authority in every district, and to order that such local authority should for the purposes of the Act appoint and remunerate a sanitary inspector, who should be a constant officer, and, in case smaller parishes might not he able to pay a separate officer, it was proposed that the surveyor of highways might also, in connection with his own, hold the office of sanitary inspector. He was aware that various objections would be raised by persons carying on offensive trades to anything in the Act which could be regarded as infringing the liberty of the subject, and he had endeavoured as strongly as possible, by the provisions of the Act, to guard against any such charge. He proposed, as the ground for proceeding, that the officer under the local authorities should ask for power to inspect premises between 9 o'clock in the morning and 6 in the evening, and, in the ease of the person in occupation refusing to allow him to do so, then for him to go before a justice, and state that he had reasonable cause to believe that a nuisance existed contrary to the provisions of the Act, and thereupon the justice should haze power to issue a summons, and before. two justices the case might then be determined. He now came to the case of houses unfit for human habitation, and he proposed to ask the House to prohibit the use of such houses until they were rendered fit for human habitation. He wished to show the House that he had good grounds for the provisions on this subject contained in the Bill, and he would, therefore, read an extract from a report issued in the Labourers' Friend with reference to Wild Court, in the vicinity of Drury Lane. He had lately, with Lord Shaftesbury, visited the neighbourhood in question, and seen the deplorable condition of Wild Court, which contained 13 houses and, as nearly as could be ascertained, 200 inhabitants. The report he had alluded to stated that—

"None of the basements are at present occupied except as lumber places, and are in a most filthy state, emitting at times effluvia the most foul, partly in consequence of the accumulation of animal and vegetable matter, which is thrown in through the area windows, and through holes made in the ground-floors, and partly from the occasional overflow of badly-constructed dry brick drains which passed beneath the floor, in some instances not more than three inches. There is no paving to these floors. In the houses 2, 3, 4, and 5 the necessaries are large open holes, sufficiently capacious for a man to fall into; they have risers of wood rails, but no seats. Fortunately the rails are fixed too high for children, or accidents must now and then occur. This is one reason why the yards are constantly in such a filthy state."

It was impossible to describe the state in which these houses were. In some of them there was actually a sewer running through the bedrooms in which the people slept. He had made personal visits to this and other places, and had instituted inquiries, and all he could say was, that they were in such a disgraceful state of filth or—to use the only word—beastliness that he should be sorry to have one of his dogs sleep in them, and he thought, when they saw that human beings occupied these dwellings, that they ought to insist on the owners putting them into a more decent condition. That these houses were not the property of poor people, but of men who collected high rents on every Monday morning, and who turned out the poor wretches from these places for any neglect of payment, would be seen by the following extract, which had reference to Charlotte Buildings, Clerkenwell. The book contains many drawings. Among them is one exhibiting an attic in a state of repose. Mr. Godwin says—

"This, if possible, exhibits greater poverty than below. The walls are full of large holes, and the light is visible through the roof. The rent of the attics is the same as of the floor below. It may seem strange that the price of rooms should not vary, but this uniformity is effected by the landlord removing those whose necessities are greater or who may be a shilling or so in arrear of rent to the upper quarters. The first feeling, after visiting this place, is that of astonishment that persons should be allowed to let such dilapidated buildings to these poor people, who really pay more than a fair rent for a good house. The rooms are seldom unoccupied, and the loss trifling. The rent would be 41l. 12s. per annum. The population of this small court is immense. If we take an average of 15 persons in each floor of the houses visited—and this is greatly below the number—we find 60 persons are occupying one house, and 900 are in the court. Something should be done with Charlotte Buildings. Few of the countless throng who flood the paths in Gray's-inn-lane have any knowledge of the hotbed of disease and vice which exists within a dozen yards of them."

He proposed to take powers to put a stop to these miserable dwellings; and, also, that after a justice had made an order for their prohibition an appeal might be made against such order after giving 14 days' notice. He proposed to deal with offensive trades—not by any new enactments, for he knew the objections that would be raised to such; and had in preparing the present Bill looked through local Acts, seen the powers already granted, and had only taken such powers as had been already granted by the Legislature. These powers were expressed in the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, and he proposed to take powers for suppressing any nuisance that might arise under the Clauses of that Act. He had also taken from the Privy Council the power of issuing orders, as given under the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act. With regard to the non-performance of duties under the Act, he should propose—as in the case of the surveyor of highways, who was liable to a fine of 5l. for neglect of duty—that in every case where notice of a nuisance had been given, and no steps taken for its removal, it should be lawful for a justice, on the oath of one witness, to inflict a fine on the inspector or person appointed by the local authorities who should appear to the justice to be liable for such neglect. He wished, also, that the House would insist on an annual account being made by the local authorities to the ratepayers, of the money paid, and received, and of the steps taken by them under this Act. These were the general provisions of the Bill, and he desired that it might, together with another which he should ask leave to bring in, be referred to a Select Committee. He was not aware, as it contained no new enactment with reference to the removal of nuisances, whether it would be necessary to take any fresh evidence on the subject, but, should it be deemed so, he would not oppose it. He was only anxious that some enactment on this subject might soon take place, in order that, should they again be visited by the dreadful infliction of the past year, they might be prepared to meet it with some measure of real and useful legislation. The right hon Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Acts, 1848 and 1849.

wished to say a word or two on behalf of the creators of nuisance. He was aware that they were not popular, but still he thought that they suffered some hardships, for in many cases they had carried on their trades for forty or fifty years in districts at first thinly in- habited, but in course of time the public had come to them, their neighbourhood had been largely built on, and then they had been complained of as nuisances. He knew of a case in which a person, one of his constituents, had occupied for years a strip of land as a market garden; a row of houses had been built opposite it, and he was complained of as a nuisance for manuring; his land in the ordinary way. He thought that some provision ought to be made by which compensation might be insured to parties for removing in such cases.

asked whether there was any intention of placing the burial grounds under the control of the Board of Health, or whether they would remain under the control of the Secretary of State for the Home Department?

replied that they would remain as at present, and he could not now state whether any alteration would take place with respect to them.

asked whether it was contemplated in the present Bill to establish local authorities within the great metropolitan districts? He knew that there was a great feeling with reference to this subject, and he could never understand why the metropolis should be deprived of the benefits of municipal institutions.

said, that one of the great objections to the system at present in operation in the metropolis was, that there were too many local authorities. He had given notice of a Bill for the 2nd of next month, by which he proposed to create bodies which would be empowered to carry out the provisions of these Nuisances Removal Acts and the other works necessary for the improvement of the sanitary condition of the people of the metropolis; they would also have large powers conferred upon them for the administration of their local affairs.

thought it would be very undesirable that the House should embark in the complicated and difficult question with regard to the local government of the metropolis, without having first made up their minds as to what were the principles they proposed to apply to the general sanitary legislation and local government of the rest of the empire. He therefore hoped some progress would be made with the general Bills before they entered into the question of the metropolis. He could assure his right hon. colleague that he should have his earnest support in carrying out measures for which he had long contended, and he rejoiced at the prospect of comprehensive and effective legislation upon this subject.

asked whether it was intended to give the local authorities power to deal with the question of wharfage in many of the low districts, particularly in Southwark, which were liable to be overflowed by the Thames?

said, the subject ought to be dealt with by a separate measure.

said, the expense of carrying out the alteration to which the right hon. Gentleman referred ought not to fall upon the owners and occupiers of wharfs, but upon the public, for whose benefit it would be undertaken.