§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he opposed the Bill on the ground that it would seriously interfere with the manufactures of this country. His objection to the measure was this, that the science of combustion was not in that state that they could legislate in the belief that in those manufactories, the subject now of complaint, they could dispose of their own smoke. The mere statement of the facts connected with the case was sufficient to show that they were utterly unable to do so. His hon. Friend the Member for Lymington said, only keep up a steady lire, and all that was consumable would be consumed; but he (Mr. Roebuck) knew otherwise he knew, that in the iron and steel manufactories of Sheffield, such was the process, requiring different degrees of heat, now low, and again suddenly increased, that it was quite impossible for them to keep up a steady fire, or to avoid raising a considerable amount of smoke. By the 8th Clause of the Bill, however, it was provided that in case of opaque smoke being seen issuing from any chimney for 194 a longer time than was required for kindling a fire, any one might complain and compel the owner of the chimney to show that he was not guilty of a nuisance under the Bill. What, then, was opaque smoke? What would the hon. Member do with Sheffield? he might say, take it out of the Bill, hut there were other towns similarly placed; and with regard to Sheffield, the Bill was quite incompatible with the business of that town being carried on. Their profits now were chiefly made up of small items economically saved, but which a steady fire, regularly worked throughout the process under the compulsion of this Bill, would entirely eat up, so that the manufacturers must either break through the law, or give up their business. What he said was, that he was against any attempt at legislating upon this subject in the present state of the science of combustion. He should therefore move that the Bill be committed that 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.
§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
said, the manufactory with which he was connected must be entirely shut up in case the Bill were allowed to pass. He opposed it from no desire to foil its object, for he had himself expended 1,200l. on various patents for consuming the smoke; hut, he was sorry to add, they had been unsuccessful in effecting the purpose.
§ SIR G. STRICKLAND
was well convinced that the smoke of manufactories in crowded towns was a great nuisance, which the manufacturers themselves were desirous of remedying, but had hitherto failed in doing. He recommended, however, as experiments were making for the purpose, that his hon. Friend should withdraw the Bill for the present Session, and bring it in next year, when the results of those experiments might be in a more satisfactory state.
§ MR. BANKES
said, he should vote for going into committee on the Bill, if his hon. Friend persevered. The object was one requiring their attention; and if the Bill was not perfect, they ought to go into committee to amend it as far as possible. He knew that society was impressed with the desire of having this great and growing nuisance put down. He heard with regret 195 that the manufacturers of this country were making small profits, and were unable from foreign competition to tear the operation of such a Bill as that, He heard it with regret, but not surprise; and he answered, that while it was no argument against the Bill, it was conclusive against those who differed from him in their commercial policy. The time was come when they must attend to the health of Her Majesty's subjects. Much had been said of burial in towns, and much of the inconvenience arising from the graveyard immediately in the vicinity of the House; hut he was convinced that much of that inconvenience arose from the manufactories in the very neighbourhood of the palace they were in, from which a nauseous effluvium had been pumped in upon them since the debate began. He appealed to Mr. Speaker whether he had not often reason to complain of that nuisance, and he appealed to the House whether they ought to go to extravagant expense for the purpose of having such an atmosphere pumped in upon them. The evil grew every year, and whether from manufactories near the House or across the water, he could show from the dead or dying state of a noble avenue of lime trees attached to Westminster school, that the atmosphere was most unhealthy. He hoped the House would not reject the Bill.
hoped the House would not consent to go into Committee on the Bill. Some of the healthiest trees possible were to be found in St. Paul's Churchyard—a locality one would suppose extremely likely to be visited by smoke. The measure would tend to drive manufactures out of the country. Much had been done towards effecting that object already. There were the inspectors of factories, with their spies and informers, and there was the Ten Hours Bill, one of the most mischievous measures ever passed into a law. He regarded the noble Lord at the head of the Government as deeply responsible for that measure, inasmuch as it was entirely contrary to the commercial principles which he had ever professed. There was no end to such kind of legislation, and, if persevered in, there might, in time, be a Bill to prevent expectoration in the streets.
§ SIR C. BURRELL
said, as some had spoken of the difficulty of effecting their object, he should instance in Mr. Cubitt's steam engine on the Grosvenor estate, which he saw in full action, without 196 emitting any smoke whatever. That was an instance of success in the effort to prevent smoke.
§ MR. BRIGHT
said, that there were two or three reasons why he objected to this Bill. In the first place, the first clause was one which was worded in a manner which would prevent the Bill being of any use except to annoy those with whom it would interfere; and he asked the hon. and learned Attorney General to express his opinion on this point. If the hon. and learned Member would turn his attention to the last three lines of the first clause, he would find the word "opaque" mentioned, about which there was the greatest difference of opinion. He was not sure whether smoke being opaque or not might not depend on the colour of the sky beyond it, on the different circumstances of temperature, and on the different positions in which it was seen by an informer. The clause said, "that opaque smoke shall not be permitted to issue from any chimney of a furnace for any longer period of time than is bonâ fide necessary for the kindling of the fire of such furnace." With regard to the greater proportion of furnaces to which this Bill would apply, this did not meet the case; the smoke was not caused by any process of kindling the fire; because, in the manufacturing districts, fires were not allowed to go out except once in two or three weeks, when the boiler and flues were being cleaned. It was necessary, even when a steam engine was not at work, and during the night, that there should be steam in the boiler to heat the manufactory and premises. The smoke was not made when the fire was being kindled; that so rarely happened that it was not worth thinking of; it was when the fire was being stirred up; when fresh coals were being placed upon it—and there were a multitude of cases in which, from the overloading of steam engines, from the defective nature of the draught, and from the inadequacy of what is termed boiler room for raising a sufficient steam easily, it was absolutely necessary to poke up the coals; and smoke would be caused under all possible circumstances. He defied any two men to come to any settled opinion as to what time was necessary. It might depend upon the shape of the furnace to some extent, the height of the chimney, the strength or weakness of the draught. It might depend, also, on the very material which they were burning, and with which, in cases to which the words of the Bill 197 specially referred, they were attempting to light their fire. He did not hesitate to say, so far as the clause was worded, that if he had the strongest opinion in favour of a Smoke Bill, it was impossible this clause could have the slightest effect, except to irritate those in all trades who would be likely to be brought under the operation of the Bill. That was one part of the question decisive against the Bill. He believed that no one would get a conviction from an honest magistrate if this Bill were to pass. The hon. Member for Lymington had in his possession a curious old book, which he had shown to him (Mr. Bright). It was written by Evelyn in the time of Charles II., 1661; he complained of the smoke being such a nuisance in London, that although he came to Whitehall to refresh his eye by the presence of His Majesty, it was impossible for him to do so. He wrote about glass-houses, sugar-bakers, and against the establishment of fire-engines at London-bridge and York-buildings. He said that the health of London was very much deteriorated, and that it required 10,000 persons from the country every year to keep up its population. He said further, that in 1644, when Newcastle was besieged, and few coals were brought to London, there was an excellent crop of fruit in orchards in the Barbican, and the Strand; but that after that time, such was the influence of smoke in the city, that it would puzzle any gardener to find such fruit there. There was an exaggerated report that at that time a gentleman felt the smoke of the city to be so deleterious to him, that when he came from Hampstead to attend the Royal Exchange, he had his horse saddled at the door of the Exchange, and when the pros-sure upon his lungs became too great he mounted and rode even for his life, and he described nothing to be equal to the desperate condition of London except the Grotto del Cane or some other subterraneous habitation. All this was as true now as it was then. He believed that extravagant statement at the opening of the Bill, as to its being expendient to take measures to prevent the injury to the health and comfort of the people which was occasioned by the smoke issuing from certain chimneys and furnaces, was a gross exaggeration. It was not stated that the health of towns was any the worse in consequence of the existence of manufactories and the prevalence of that smoke which manufactories produced. The hon. Member for Lyming- 198 ton was so anxious to pass this Bill, that he was not very particular whether he included anybody or nobody. He excluded the constituents of the hon. Member for Sheffield; and he (Mr. Bright) was not sure that if he sat on the other side of the House, he should not be excluded also. If it were true that smoke could be prevented at a moderate expense, and that it would be an actual saving to the proprietors of these furnaces, he was quite sure that such was the competition amongst the manufacturers of this country—such the anxiety to save money, and such the anxiety also to purify the atmosphere and benefit the public, that these projects, if feasible, would have spread throughout the whole of the trade; but when there were fifty different methods of doing this, and not one of these had been found applicable to the great variety of furnaces that existed, he thought it might be fairly taken that hitherto science had not discovered a mode of putting an end to the smoke nuisance, except such as made it almost impossible for manufacturers to submit to it; and he could give several cases in which the Bill would be unable to be worked, because it was impossible for the most ingenious magistrate, or the greatest number of witnesses, to prove who was the guilty party. He was acquainted with a case which would set this Bill at defiance. He knew a mill in which there was no chimney, but the smoke passed through underground tunnels into another chimney, and issued with the smoke belonging to quite a different firm. How would it be possible to say who was responsible for this smoke? He knew a ease in which twelve or sixteen boilers and furnaces connected with three different mills, were brought by different flues into a largo chimney. If a person had nothing to do but watch the concern, it would be impossible to discover who made the smoke, and who was responsible under the clauses of this Bill. He asked the hon. Gentleman to leave this question to those ordinary motives which had promoted so many improvements in this country. If he Would leave this question to the good feeling of the manufacturers, who would not willingly put the; public to any trouble or nuisance, it would be found that, whenever science should offer them a mode by which it could be done at a moderate expense, without endangering the durability of the boilers, the manufacturers would adopt such plans as were offered. There were persons who were now 199 endeavouring to prove that certain plans were efficient, and as soon as this proof was offered the plan would be adopted. He did not know what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was going to say, hut he did not think that he was in a position to comprehend the difficulties of this question he thought the House would not consult its dignity by legislating on matters of this kind.
§ MR. CUBITT
, having been referred to in this debate, thought it right to make a short explanation. His brother had the object of consuming smoke much at heart; he had laboured greatly at it, and certainly with some success, hut at a very great expense. Recently he had spent 400l. or 500l. upon it. He (Mr. Cubitt) also had steam-engines in his works, and he would give a great deal to purify the atmosphere of London; for that was certainly a much more important object than economy; hut he could not consume the smoke which his engines produced. The subject, however, occupied the attention of many active minds; science was making rapid strides, and he hoped the day was not far distant when the object would be accomplished. He should be glad to assist in promoting such a purpose; but under these circumstances the present measure appeared to him immature.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that though the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had proposed that this Bill should be postponed, at all events to a future Session, and though he was willing to admit that any opinion of his own on a matter of this scientific description was of very little weight, he had come to the conclusion, if the hon. Member for Lymington should think it worth while, at this period of the Session, to go into Committee on his Bill, of voting for his Motion to that effect. And he should do so on the ground of a report emanating, not from a Committee of that House, but from a commission appointed to inquire into this subject at the instance of the noble Earl the Member for Falkirk, when on the Woods and Forests, consisting of Sir Henry De la Beche and Dr. Lyon Playfair. He confessed that the opinion he was inclined to entertain was, that it would be practicable, without any great difficulty or very great expense, to oblige parties in a great degree to abate the nuisance of the production of smoke in such large quantities as was in many instances the case. At the 200 same time he would say, that if he thought that by attempting to do this they would be incurring the slightest risk of diminishing employment, it would be an act of insanity to try to effect anything of the sort. But from this report of these competent and impartial persons he could hut think that, under certain guards and limitations, the object of this measure was not unattainable, and one which the House ought not to refuse to consider in Committee on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then road a passage from the report in question, which did not recommend any attempt to meddle with open furnaces, hut suggested that the interference to be attempted should be confined to closed chimneys connected with boilers that worked stationary engines, exempting potteries, iron works, glass works, and some others. He considered that this report was a well-reasoned and sensible document, and a much safer guide for them than a Committee of that House could be; and if the Bill of the hon. Member was framed mainly on that report, and confined itself to the furnaces therein referred to, not meddling with those trades with which interference would be mischievous, he must say that, believing the time was come when, without undue interference with the industry of the country, they might do something to abate an admitted nuisance, he could not, if the hon. Gentleman thought proper, under the circumstances of the case, and at that period of the Session, to ask them to go into Committee, refuse, for his own part, to do so.
§ MR. THORNELY
said, all regulations for the consumption of smoke ought to be left to the municipal authorities of each locality. The hon. Member for Lymington had, upon his recommendation, agreed to exempt iron works from the operation of the Bill; and it appeared he had also consented to exempt potteries. These exemptions, and the necessity for them, showed that the whole subject could only be safely left to local supervision. By that means the smoke would be consumed whore it could be; and where it could not, the parties would be left free. He suggested, therefore, that the Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session, and a measure introduced in the next, giving to local authorities the power of making such regulations as were suited to the particular district.
§ MR. SPOONER
concurred in the suggestions of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. In many instances it was ut- 201 terly impossible to consume the smoke, and any attempt to enforce such a Bill as the present would most certainly stop a great number of manufactories. He admitted the possibility of stopping the issue of opaque smoke from the top of the chimney; but to do so involved great expense and careful management. If manufacturers incurred the expense, how could they always ensure men of sufficient skill to work the necessary machinery? They had been told that mines and iron and lime works were to be excluded by the Bill; but as the clause now stood, the owner of any work where smoke was produced, must prove before a magistrate that it was impossible for him to consume his smoke before he could be exempted; and they all knew that it was only a question of expenditure, and that by going to enormous expense, the consumption of smoke would not be impossible in any case. They should not be guided in their legislation exclusively by philosophic principles, without any regard for practical matters. The Bill as it stood applied to mines, which were generally situated in districts where smoke could be no nuisance whatever. He believed there was not a single work the owner of which would not apply for exemption; so that the Bill, though nominally one for preventing smoke, would practically be a Bill for exempting all works from interference. He did not think there was a single clause in the Bill to which he would not feel bound to move an amendment, and he therefore thought it useless for them to go into Committee upon it.
§ MR. PARKER
thought his hon. Friend would save them a great deal of trouble if, after all that had been said against the Bill, he would consent to take another year to consider the objections that had been raised. His object in rising was principally to call attention to the fact that in the exemption clause there was actually no exemption, and he did not sec how any manufacturer in any town in England could escape under it as it now stood. Nobody liked smoke if it could be avoided; but it was absolutely necessary that they should carry on their manufactures. If any one could come forward and show that he had discovered a cheap and economic method of preventing smoke, the House would not be justified in refusing to adopt that method; but nobody could say that such a discovery had as yet been made. The gentlemen appointed on the commission were no doubt able scientific men, but they 202 did not understand the manufacture of cloth, or the processes of working in metals. He had a much greater respect on such a subject for the practical opinions of the metal workers in the town which he had the honour to represent, than for the views of those excellent philosophers who had been quoted; and he knew that the opinion of those practical men was, that in consequence of the necessity of altering the heat during the different processes of the works, it was impossible that the provisions of this Bill could be complied with.
§ MR. G. SANDARS
did not think that the opinion of the hon. Member for Manchester was in accordance with those of his constituents on this subject. He would beg leave to read a letter which he had received from an eminent scientific man, an engineer in Lancashire, in reference to this Bill. [The hon. Member read an extract from the letter, in which the writer stated his belief that it was quite practicable to consume the smoke in factories without the incurring of any great expense, and that the clause in the Manchester local Act worked well.] In his opinion, if manufacturers refused to consume their smoke, the Legislature was bound to compel them to do so.
§ MR. CARTER
said, that the Royal Agricultural Society, of which he was a member, and to which many hon. Gentlemen opposite no doubt belonged, strongly recommended the erection of stationary steam engines on farms; but if the Bill passed, these engines would be compelled to consume their own smoke, though it could be no nuisance. He knew a case where, in a purely agricultural district, a miller had recently erected a small engine, to be used on the occasional failure of the supply of water, and yet that man would be left at the mercy of any discarded servant who might choose to lay an information against him. He thought it unfair to apply the same rule to a country district, and to a locality like London with a quarter of a million of houses.
§ MR. WILSON PATTEN
said, if his hon. Friend divided in favour of going into Committee he would vote with him, though at the same time there were many of the details of the Bill in which he could not concur. He believed that in Manchester, for instance, it was very possible materially to diminish the quantity of smoke without incurring much expense; but at the same time he thought it would be advisable to try whether science could not discover 203 some better process for the purpose than any that had yet been suggested. On looking over the Amendments of which notice had been given, he must confess that there was scarcely one of them to which he should not give his support. He could not see why the clause in the local Act of Manchester could not be made applicable to other towns in the manner recommended by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton; and it should be recollected that it was only the great accumulation of smoke in manufacturing districts that was injurious to health, and it was to such districts only that their legislation ought therefore, in his opinion, to be directed.
§ MR. MACKINNON
said, he had only a single observation to make. He certainly thought there was a good deal of truth in the observation of Sir Robert Walpole, that the country gentlemen will, like their own sheep, lie down to be fleeced, but if you touch the manufacturing interests they will yield nothing but grunts. The hon. Member read an extract from the report of the Committee that sat on the subject six years ago, and said that both it and the report of the commission left no doubt but that it was quite feasible to prevent smoke in all cases.
said, that the measure was one which would overwhelm the manufacturers with ruin. The House had already hurt them severely by shortening the hours of labour; now they were about again to interfere with their liberty of action in a manner that would be hurtful to the master, hurtful to the poor, and consequently hurtful to the nation at large.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 64: Majority 19.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ On the 1st Clause,
§ MR. MACKINNON
really thought the word "opaque" was so easily understood that he could not supply a better. "Opaque" was that which was not transparent, and which was not pellucid—that which you cannot see through—that through which when you looked, you could not see the sky beyond, nor the light. Really, hon. Gentlemen might as well ask him to define what was good and what was 204 bad, as to require him to define the meaning of "opaque."
§ MR. ROEBUCK
begged the Committee to remember that they were really about to do a very serious thing. They were about to pass an Act of Parliament the meaning of which wholly turned upon the meaning of this one word. His hon. Friend defined "opaque smoke" to be "smoke that you could not see through." But he (Mr. Roebuck) said that there was no such thing. There was no smoke of the kind. He had never seen smoke through which, however dense it was, he could not see the sky. But he had often seen volumes of very heavy smoke. Now, if they did not define their meaning accurately, there would be endless disputes and difficulties arising out of the construction of the Act. They had no gauge for smoke. It was not like heat, which could be measured by a thermometer. He considered the clause contrary to common sense.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, it would be utterly impossible for any magistrate to decide upon the fact of whether the smoke were opaque or not, in the sense mentioned by the hon. Member for Lymington. He thought the definition should be left to the common sense of those who would have the carrying into effect of the Bill. But with regard to those persons who had been punished under the local Acts, he should say that they were usually old and known offenders.
§ MR. C. W. WYNN
said, that the carrying into effect of the Bill did not depend upon the meaning which would be applied to its terms by the common sense of the magistrates, but upon that which the informer chose to attach to them. It was the informer who would come forward and say that he had seen opaque smoke. There should be a closer definition in an Act of Parliament than that which they had heard from the hon. Gentleman.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL
observed, that if the clause were to stand, it would require amendment. Many hon. Gentlemen might desire to get at a definition of what constituted smoke, who could not vote for the clause in its present shape. He, for one, could not vote for the clause as it now stood. In fact, the clause and the Bill itself had been most inartistically drawn. It made smoke itself an offence. Whatever might be the difficulty in the way of defining opaque smoke, the present attempt at definition certainly made that difficulty greater; for it would necessitate 205 a manufacturer having a witness outside his premises to rebut the informer, if the promoter of the Bill desired the success of such a measure, he must adopt one of two courses—he must proceed by common law for an offence, or he must require the informer to give notice on the spot of the existence of the nuisance; and if the nuisance were continued, it would constitue an offence.
§ SIR J. GRAHAM
said, that, had he been present on the occasion of the recent division on this Bill, he certainly should have voted with the minority against it. This was not a subject now for the first time brought under the consideration of Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had no doubt unadvisedly used the bold expression that this clause was contrary to common sense. Did the hon. and learned Member know whence this Bill had come? Much was the criticism expended in another place on the manner in which Bills were sent up to the other House. The hon. and learned Attorney General, however, had stated that, apart from the merits of the clause, its construction was so inartistic that it defeated its own purpose. The clause, as it had come down from the other House of Parliament, was directed ad rem, non ad personam. Nothing could be introduced in the shape of prohibition which would not interfere with the most important branches of our manufactures. He had always felt great anxiety with respect to the application of a legislative remedy, hut had always come to the conclusion that the common law could supply the only remedy. If a nuisance became intolerable, the common law provided a remedy. Make this a statutable offence, and you interfered with the most important branches of that manufacture carried on by the means of these furnaces. A Bill more absurdly drawn it had never been his misfortune to witness. He was prepared to vote in favour of the rejection of the clause, and against the further progress of the Bill itself.
§ After a few words from Mr. E. DENISON, Mr. MACKINNON, Mr. WALPOLE, and Mr. BANKES
§ SIR J. GRAHAM
continued, He said, that, having the character of the House very much at heart, on the whole he was sorry to hear that the original draft of this Bill emanated from a Committee of that House; and he was much more sorry that the hon. Member for Lymington, after the experience he had had on this question, 206 should adhere to the original form of the Bill, because they had had frequent discussions in that House, in which trade after trade had been successively freed from the operation of the measure, and each trade that was not exempted loudly protested against the Bill, as one the operation of which was injuriously directed against them, He therefore thought that experience would have taught the hon. member that the Bill in its present shape was altogether impracticable. But the discussion proceeded, and the more he heard of this matter, the more was he convinced that the objections to the measure were most grave; and he very much doubted whether these objections could be overcome by any attempt to frame a clause like this, affecting the vital interests of the manufacturing districts. The hon. Gentleman relied particularly upon the Acts applying to Leeds and Manchester. But statements had been made which asserted that by the adoption of the improved machinery for preventing the nuisance from opaque smoke, an effluvium had been produced of so noxious a character, that the parties would be liable to prosecution for one nuisance which they necessarily committed in endeavouring to avoid another! The more he heard this subject discussed, the more he was convinced that it was useless to attempt by statute to deal with an evil of this kind. By endeavouring to prevent it, they would do more evil than they could do good; and where the evil was of such a magnitude as to constitute a nuisance, and a jury were satisfied that the party was guilty of inflicting a public nuisance, there was a remedy at common law. He did not think that there ought to be a summary remedy; for he knew that the use of smoke to an immense extent was necessary to carry on the manufactures of the country; and he did not think the manufacturers should be subject to the vexatious proceedings of common informers, He did think, there-fore, that the remedy ought not to be too summary. on the other hand, where, from false economy or neglect towards the public, a nuisance was inflicted, the remedy of a trial before a jury was available. For the reasons he had stated, he was opposed to the further progress of this Bill.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE
had stated that he did not concur in the views of the right hon. Baronet. On the contrary, founding his opinion on a public document which he believed ought to carry the greatest weight—he meant the report of the 207 commissioners appointed by the Government, Sir H. De la Beche, and Dr. Lyon Playfair—he thought in the manufacturing towns there should be some obligation on the part of those who produced smoke in large quantities, to adopt what he believed to be a cheap and easy mode of consuming their smoke. Therefore he was favourable to the principle of this Bill; but he had never wished to disguise from the Committee his belief that this was such a delicate and difficult subject, that it was necessary that any measure to be prepared on the subject should be framed with the greatest care and caution, otherwise greater evils would be done than those they attempted to remedy; and therefore, although he had voted for going into Committee, he did express a hope that the House would anxiously and carefully consider the provisions of the Bill. The discussion that had taken place, and especially the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, had satisfied him that the Bill was not such a Bill as, without very great and material alterations, the House, in justice to the great interests concerned, should allow to pass into a law. It appeared to him that it required altogether to be recast and reconsidered; and in the present period of the Session, he did not think that degree of attention which the Bill required could be properly devoted to it. Therefore, he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw his Bill, and bring it in again next Session, in a form obviating some of the great objections which he thought very justly entertained against it in its present shape.
§ After some observations by Mr. C. VILLIERS and Sir G. GREY,
§ House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again Wednesday 25th July.
§ The House adjourned at two minutes before Six o'clock.