HC Deb 22 July 1858 vol 151 cc1924-30

Order for Committee read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

MR. BUTLER

said, he thought they were legislating too hastily, and, as it appeared to him, very unfairly on this matter. He would call attention to the fact that the Thames received not only the sewage of London, but that of every town and village on this side of the Cotswold hills, and that, therefore, the whole cost of purifying the river ought not to be cast upon the ratepayers of the metropolis. Further than this, there was a large amount of Government property within the metropolis, such as the Royal Palace, Dock Yards, Government Offices, and other public buildings, which would not contribute to the cost of this improvement, although it contributed to the nuisance. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord having charge of the Bill would give the House an assurance that he would reconsider the question as to the area of rating, he should move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill this day three months.

Amendment proposed,— To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, that he also considered that those who contributed toward the evil complained of should be called upon to contribute towards its removal. An enormous quantity of dirt was brought up the river by the shipping, and he wished to know why the shipping interest were not to contribute towards the works in question?

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he hoped that the House would not now be drawn into a discussion of the principle of the Bill then before the Committee, and he would remind the gallant Admiral that a few days ago two persons were fined for throwing dirt into the St. Katharine's Docks, and that the representative of the dock company then undertook that such practices should be discontinued in future.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he thought that some discussion upon the principle of this measure, the provisions of which were reconcilable with no sound opinion, would be exceedingly useful. He, for one, would not have assented to its second reading had he not anticipated that it would leave that House in a shape very different from that in which it was introduced. He had yet to learn that a body of forty-three gentlemen was the fittest for carrying this work through in the best and most economical manner. It was easy to make speeches on the question, but the difficulties of the question were best appreciated by those who possessed engineering experience. He, therefore, doubted whether the Government had acted wisely in handing over this great work to the Metropolitan Board of Works, in whom, and in their engineer, he had not implicit confidence. If the matter was to be handed over to them, however, why was it not handed to them without any restrictions. He thought there was much exaggeration abroad respecting the existing evils, and that therefore there was no necessity for haste in passing the present measure. At the same time he hoped that what hon. Members had experienced would have the effect of causing them in some degree to realize what sort of atmosphere was breathed by many families in this kingdom during the hours both of work and sleep. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would consent so to amend the measure as to remove the limitations as to outfalls, &c., which were contained in it.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, he thought a little discussion would be by no means amiss. He hoped that an assurance would be given by the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works, that he would consider the suggestions made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Butler). He had more confidence in the Metropolitan Board of Works than seemed to be entertained by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Viscount Ebrington), and did not doubt their competency to perform the work entrusted to them by this Bill. The Government had exercised a wise discretion in not undertaking this task itself, but in committing its performance to the representatives of the metropolitan ratepayers, who had exerted themselves most honestly and fairly, and had devoted the greater portion of their time to the discharge of their duties as members of this Board.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the Government was quite willing that all the points involved in this Bill should be fully considered and discussed, but they thought that the best time to take that discussion would be when the Bill was in Committee. They had not proposed this measure because they shrunk from responsibility, but because they knew that the House would never give to them unlimited power to expend any suns of money they pleased upon the drainage of the metropolis. Tinder these circumstances they were obliged to use the machinery already in existence, and had availed themselves of a body which was constituted for the very purpose of undertaking the work. They had heard much of late of the benefits of local administration and of the value of having the right man in the right place, and from what he had seen of Mr. Thwaites he thought that it was fortunate that they could obtain the assistance of so sensible and practical a man, one who was an honour to his class, and fairly represented all the virtues of which Englishmen were proud. It was quite possible that Amendments might be made in this Bill, but that could only be done in Committee, and therefore he hoped that Mr. Speaker would now be allowed to leave the Chair.

MR. HEADLAM

said, he wished to know whether the Government could say that the Metropolitan Board of Works was fully open to consider this question, and was not by Resolution committed to the plan which went by its name. If that Board was so committed, the House would, in fact, by passing this Bill be adopting that plan, to which he had such an objection that rather than sanction it he should certainly vote against this Bill.

MR. CONINGUAM

said, that if the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Butler), divided the House, he should certainly vote with him, because he saw with alarm the intention of the Government to commit the performance of this great work, the execution of which was estimated to cost £3,000,000, to a Board which had yet done nothing to merit the confidence of the public. If the system recommended by that Board was adopted the drainage of the metropolis would cost, not £3,000,000 but £30,000,000. No reliance could be placed on the reports of Mr. Bazalgette, which, in his opinion, were contrary to fact, whereas everything bore testimony to the superiority of the scheme proposed by Mr. Ward, whose calculations and statements had never been confuted. He thought that some further investigation should take place, because he believed that no scheme could prove successful which did not utilize the sewage and separate it from the rainfall.

SIR J. SHELLEY

said, he did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Conningham), had dealt quite fairly with the engineer of the Board of Works. He begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that the present Board of Works was not responsible for the operations carried on in the Victoria sewer. He hoped that the House would be allowed to go into Committee, with the view of rendering the measure as unobjectionable as possible. The House had not as yet given the Board of Works the opportunity of displaying their skill and efficiency, and he trusted that that opportunity would now be given them by throwing the whole responsibility of those works upon them.

MR. COX

said, the people put no faith in the Executive Government carrying out works economically. As an instance he might mention the Estimate of £750,000 for Westminster Palace, but which had cost upwards of two millions. If the Metropolitan Board of Works had to carry out the drainage of the metropolis, he thought they would carry it out within a reasonable sum. At the same time he must express his regret that the public offices were not to contribute towards the expense, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was prepared to introduce a clause rating them towards it.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, he wished to ask whether it was to be made a condition by the Government that the intercepting plan—that was to say, a succession of tunnel sewers down to Barking Creek—should be adopted.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that the question of the hon. and gallant General, as well as others which had been put to the Government in the course of discussion, could better be answered in Committee.

MR. JOHN LOCKE

said, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman, as he thought the House should not proceed further without hearing from the Government what plan they proposed to adopt. In Committee it was very often difficult to get these matters explained.

MR. CLAY

said, the Bill did not give to Government the power of adopting any plan. It gave the power of doing so to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he had the authority of the Chairman to say that they did not consider themselves pledged to any particular plan.

MR. JOSEPH LOCKE

urged the Government to answer at once the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich.

SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR

said, he must protest against the proposal to assist the main drainage of the metropolis by a grant from the public purse.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated clearly the other night that the Government were not bound to any scheme whatever by the measure they proposed. He did not know how they could give a clearer assurance to the House. He would, however, repeat that the Government were not connected with any particular scheme whatever in connection with the drainage of the metropolis. All the Government professed to do by the present measure was, to place the Metropolitan Board of Works in that condition which would enable them to carry into effect any plan they thought best calculated to attain the desired result. The Government did not interfere at all with their discretion.

MR. STUART WORTLEY

said, that whatever might be the intention of the Government, the Bill clearly pointed to a particular plan. The very first clause directed the Metropolitan Board of Works to intercept the drainage, for example.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

said, he must, again urge that the public offices should contribute towards the proposed expense.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 11: Majority 122.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

House in Committee.

Clause 1,

MR. HEADLAM

said, he wished to move, in line 14, after the word "speed,' to leave out to the end of the clause, and to insert "such works as may be necessary for purifying the Thames and improving the drainage of the Metropolis." His object was to throw upon the Board of Works the whole responsibility of devising the particular scheme that was to be adopted for the drainage of the metropolis. If his Amendment were adopted, the Bill would not express either directly or indirectly any opinion in favour of any plan.

Amendment proposed,— In Clause 1, line 14, after "speed," to leave out to the end of the Clause, and insert "such works as may be necessary for purifying the Thames and improving the drainage of the Metropolis.

Question proposed,— That the words 'according to such plan as to them may seem proper,' stand part of the Clause.

MR. AYRTON

said, he thought that the Amendment would place the House of Commons in a great difficulty, inasmuch as it would in effect be committing the House of Commons to the purification of the Thames. What was "purifying" the Thames? Were the Metropolitan Board to be compelled to convert the Thames into pure drinking water at London-bridge? All they could do was to prevent the river being injured by sewage. He apprehended that the Amendment in its present form could not be acceded to.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he would support the Amendment, with the addition of the words he would propose to prevent the sewage of the metropolis going into the Thames.

MR. STUART WORTLEY

said, he was clearly of opinion that the clause, as framed, provided for intercepting the sewage, and preventing it going into the Thames. He thought that the Amendment would be made much more objectionable by striking out the word "preventing."

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the Bill was one to provide for the main drainage of the metropolis. The clause had been very carefully considered, and was, he believed most intelligibly framed to carry out the objects in view. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would not consider it necessary to adopt the Amendment.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he thought that words might be inserted to meet the views of all parties, and such as would secure, not only the main drainage of the metropolis, but also the purification of the Thames.

MR. HENLEY

said, the object of the Bill was to enable the Board to get rid of the sewage of the metropolis in a manner that would not be injurious to the health of the metropolis, but it did not empower them to apply money to the making of a sewer, for example, through Oxford-street.

It being four o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.