HC Deb 27 July 1854 vol 135 cc883-4

Order for Committee read.

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

LORD SEYMOUR

objected to proceeding with the Bill at that late hour. An outlay of 600,000l. was involved in the provisions of the Bill, and the House ought to be fully acquainted with all the particulars before proceeding further with it. Many details of the Bill also required further explanation.

SIR J. V. SHELLEY

hoped the noble Lord would reconsider the 6th clause, which would materially interfere with the interests of the wharfingers along the banks of the Thames. That clause would be likely to cause a great outcry on the part of those interests.

SIR B. HALL

said, another point of great importance was the cost of erecting embankments against the tidal waters. The whole expense of this would have to be borne by those occupying the frontage, while those behind would enjoy the advantage of having their property defended. They surely ought to be liable for some portion of the necessary expenditure.

SIR J. PAKINGTON

moved the adjournment of the debate.

Amendment proposed, "That this Debate be now adjourned."

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that the clause referred to had been suggested to hint by persons who believed that their operation would be beneficial. The principle of the Bill was, that the local authorities should make their own sewers, so far as they could, and reserve to the direction of the Commissioners the construction of the great trunk lines which were to carry off the general sewage of the whole metropolis; and it was in accordance with this principle that he had agreed to these clauses. Should the machinery prove in any respect imperfect, it could be amend- ed. His anxiety had been to render this Commission as far as possible representative of the wants of the metropolis. He had, therefore, requested the Members for the different boroughs each to recommend a Commissioner, which had been done. The Commission, therefore, although nominated by the Crown, would represent the interests of the various districts. It would be for the Commissioners, and not for the Home Secretary, to determine the question of square or tubular drainage. The 600,000l. to which it was proposed to extend the power of the Commissioners to raise by loan, was necessary, to enable them to commence the construction of the two great out-fall drains, one for the north and the other for the south side of the river; works which the hon. Member for Lambeth well knew were of urgent necessity; and if the Bill were not agreed to, they would be delayed for another year. It was possible the machinery might not be quite perfect, but he would endeavour to make it so. If the House objected he would not press the going into Committee that night.

LORD SEYMOUR

said, that, so far from the power of authorising the formation of separate sewer districts being left in the hands of the Commissioners, the Bill expressly placed the power with the Home Secretary.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he was going to make an alteration in the Bill to transfer this power.

Motion and Original Question withdrawn; Committee deferred till To-morrow.