DRAINAGE OF TOWNS. (Hansard, 4 May 1841)

§ The Duke of Wellington
was desirous that the city of Oxford, should be exempted from the operation of the bill. The provisions of the bill could be carried into effect by the civic authorities of Oxford, under certain local acts, instead of its object being carried out by commissioners appointed under this measure.

The Marquess of Normanby
said, he would rather come to some understanding with the noble Duke as to the single case of Oxford, than postpone the bill which had been so repeatedly delayed for the purposes of making further alterations.

§ Lord Lyndhurst
inquired whether the noble Marquess would allow a separate bill to be introduced with reference to Cambridge.

The Marquess of Normanby
answered in the negative. The noble and learned Lord ought to have made this proposition earlier.

§ Lord Lyndhurst
was of opinion, that the bill should be postponed. He knew very little about the measure. It was originally introduced, he believed, without any discussion at all, and read a second time without observation. It was then referred to a Select Committee, of which he was not a Member.

The Marquess of Normanby
said, the measure had been discussed; and if the noble and learned Lord was not present at the discussion it was his own fault. He (the Marquess of Normanby), at the opening of the Session, gave a full and ample explanation of his intentions; and on the second reading of the bill a discussion of considerable length occurred. If, therefore, the noble and learned Lord was not in his place on those occasions, he had no right to complain. As to Cambridge, he understood that there were no such local acts there as those which applied to Oxford.

§ The Earl of Ripon
expressed a wish that Birmingham should be exempted from the operation of the bill, as he understood Oxford would be.

The Marquess of Normanby
said, the noble Duke had stated that Oxford ought to be exempted, in consequence of the existence of certain local acts; but such a proposition did not at all apply to the town of Birmingham.

The Earl of Haddington
was of opinion that the measure should be postponed. There was no necessity for proceeding in such a hurry. The present Session was not about to close immediately—at least, so far as he knew.

The Earl of Wicklow
said, it certainly was right to consider whether local acts, passed for the Government of certain towns, were sufficient for carrying the objects of this bill into effect. The Select Committee had not overlooked that point. The committee had inquired, and they found generally, that those acts were not applicable to the purposes of the bill.

§ The Earl of Ripon
asked whether, with reference to those places where local acts gave certain powers to the civic authorities, it would not be convenient that those bodies, armed with further powers, should be employed to carry the provisions of the measure into effect, instead of the whole business being conducted by commissioners appointed under the bill? He did not want a general clause, but he wished the town of Birmingham to be placed in the schedule as one of the exempted places.

Lord Ellenborough
could not agree to the proposition, that in every case where local acts existed all the powers contemplated by this measure should be given to the body appointed under such acts. This measure had already been much considered. The noble Marquess had made a speech stating his intentions in the first instance; lie had shortly after introduced this bill, which was discussed on the second reading, and then referred to a Select Committee. He never recollected more attention to have been paid to any measure than was paid by the committee to this bill. Every clause to which they agreed, or which they rejected, was fully considered. He did not know of any measure for many years brought under the consideration of Parliament that, in his opinion, was of greater importance than this bill, because it respected the comforts of the people, the wants of the people, the health of the people; because it was a pledge to the whole of the labour- 1449 ing classes of this country that their Lordships would willingly do whatever they could for the comfort and happiness of those classes; because it showed that they were anxious to give to the labouring and working man a home, where he might enjoy that comfort, without the possession of which it was impossible that education could produce those moral effects that otherwise would spring from it. The statement of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), which was echoed by the whole House, was decisive on this point, and ought not to be forgotten. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not, for reasons of a light, trifling, or temporary nature, retard the progress of this measure. He trusted, that instead of giving increased powers to bodies constituted under local acts, they would strictly adhere to the principles of the bill, and give this great boon without delay to the labouring classes of the country.

The Earl of Haddington
objected to the powers which, under this act, would be given to the sheriff or sheriff-depute in Scotland, instead of to the commissioners of supply. Commissioners of supply were spread all over the country, and to them ought to be intrusted the power necessary for carrying the bill into effect. He should propose, that in a limited time after the passing of the act, the commissioners of supply should hold a special meeting; that they should divide each county into districts; that they should appoint committees for each, and that those committees should have the necessary powers for carrying the bill into effect. With that view, he should move that the words "sheriff or sheriff-depute" in the 42nd clause be struck out; and "committees of commissioners of supply" be inserted in lieu thereof. He should then move a clause enacting "that within three months after the passing of this act the commissioners of supply shall specially meet, and divide the counties into districts, and that they shall proceed to appoint committees for carrying the bill into effect."

Viscount Melville
opposed the amendment.

The Marquess of Normunby
said, he had 1450 endeavoured to ascertain what machinery would be best calculated to carry out the object of his bill in Scotland—a country with respect to which he possessed very little local knowledge, and, from the information which he had received, he thought it was better to place the power necessary for bringing the provisions of the hill into operation in the hands of the sheriff or sheriff-depute, rather than in those of the commissioners of supply.

The Marquess of Normanby
said, that his noble Friend had omitted to mention an important distinction between the commissioners of the town of Birmingham and the commissioners of other towns inserted in the schedule; and also the distinction between them and the commissioners of the town of Oxford. All these commissioners were elected in the same manner by the rate-payers, but the commissioners of Birmingham were self-elected. He thought if this power were not given to those who were subject to popular control, it should be given to those for whom the Executive was responsible. For this reason, amongst others, he should oppose the amendment.

§ The Earl of Warwick
said, that these commissioners were universally looked up to and respected at Birmingham, and, despite all the political excitement that had taken place in that town, had done their duty.

The Marquess of Normanby
said, that this bill would not transfer the power from the commissioners; it would merely give the Crown a power of selection.

§ The Earl of Ripon
said, that his object was to prevent confusion in the town of Birmingham, since all who read the Act 1451 would find that these commissioners were able to do many things which must bring them into conflict with those whom the Crown might appoint.

§ The Earl of Ripon
said, that he apprehended the amendment would not preclude any other persons from sitting as commissioners, but, if it did, it would not make any difference.