COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 22 July 1858 vol 151 cc1934-59

On Question that the House do immediately resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,

COLONEL FRENCH

said, the course adopted by the Government was extremely inconvenient, for hon. Gentlemen expected that the business would be taken in the order in which it stood upon the paper. The Government had given notice of their intention to proceed with two Bills at the morning sitting, and it was now proposed to continue the discussion upon one of those Bills at the evening sitting, thereby completely overriding the arrangement which, according to the printed papers, had been made. The first two Bills on the paper to be taken at the evening sitting related to Ireland. Hon. Members representing Irish constituencies had been kept up night after night until past one o'clock in the expectation that some discussion would be taken upon these measures, and now that they had obtained a favourable position on the paper the Government proposed to proceed with other business.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the House had been occupied at the morning sitting until half-past three o'clock by preliminary discussions before this Bill got into Committee, and by the direction of the House the Report was ordered to be presented at six o'clock. It was, therefore, for the House to decide whether or not they would at once resume the consideration of the Bill in Committee.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, there was no intention on the part of the Government to take any unfair advantage of Irish Members but the reverse. As, however, they had been unable to make much progress with this Bill at the morning sit- ting, he hoped the House would now consent to continue its discussion in Committee.

House in Committee.

Clause 1.

Question again proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. HEADLAM

said, he had at the morning sitting moved the omission of the latter portion of the clause, in order to insert the following words, Such works as may be necsssary for the purifying the Thames and improving the drainage of the metropolis. If this Amendment were adopted he would propose the omission of the 2nd clause. It had been said that the House would not be asked to sanction any particular scheme, but as the Bill now stood it would, in fact, sanction the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was absurd, then, to say that the Bill was not connected with a plan. One authority was in favour of the plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works, while two were opposed to it. The report of the referees on metropolitan drainage was opposed to it, and the report of the Select Committee of that House, so far from sanctioning anything in the nature of the scheme, gave an opinion in favour of deodorization. If deodorization could be adopted, there was no use in making the elaborate and costly system of intercepting parallel sewers. He would press on the House that they were doing wrong if they threw their authority into any particular plan. He believed that to be the feeling of the Committee, and therefore he had proposed words to carry out that desire. By the first clause, as it stood, the Bill defined a particular site where the works might not be, and that was in connection with the second clause, which laid down where the works might be. It was clear that this was the commencement of the definition of a plan of intercepting sewers to carry off the sewage to Barking Creek. He wished the Act to give powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works without pledging them to any particular plan. The two objects embraced by the Bill were the improvement of the main drainage of the metropolis and the purification of the Thames, neither of which necessarily involved the other; and the effect of his Amendment would be to make this clear, to impose on the Metropolitan Board the duty of carrying out these objects with all convenient speed, and also charge them with the whole responsibility of the work, without defining the means of executing it.

MR. STEPHENSON

did not think that by passing the Bill in its present form the House would be at all conob/>itting themselves in the way which the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) seemed to suppose. It was quite clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not devoted much time, professionally at all events, to the consideration of this subject. The hon. and learned Member had observed that the question resolved itself into two distinct parts—the purification of the Thames, and the main drainage of the metropolis. [Mr. HEADLAM: No.] He thought the hon. and learned Member had conveyed to the House that one of these works might be executed without the other. He (Mr. Stephenson) denied that proposition. He maintained that the execution of one involved the execution of the other, for if London were well drained the Thames would he purified, for the impurities of the river resulted from the bad drainage of London. The House was not asked to agree to any plan about which there was any material difference of opinion between the Government referees and the engineers of the Metropolitan Board of Works. No doubt the two Reports made by these Gentlemen were antagonistic as to the end proposed, and their ultimate views; but they perfectly coincided with respect to the intercepting system. Both were in favour of intercepting sewers, and since all parties were agreed on the principle, why should not the House, before it advanced money for some special object, know how that object was to be carried out? He repeated that he did not think the House was committing himself, more especially as the only difference between the intercepting system of the Government and that of the Board of Works was as to the size of the sewers, and the place of outfall. This was unquestionably a subject which deserved careful consideration; but it was a mere question of detail, and involved no principle. He would ask the House, then, to sanction the principle as far as this measure did sanction it, or otherwise the question would be left as open and as unsettled as it was seven or eight years ago, when he first entered Parliament. At that time shoals of devices were brought forward for purifying the Thames, and improving the drainage of London; but these had all resolved themselves into the intercepting system as the basis of action, and after having devoted years to the consideration of the subject, he could conceive nothing more likely to carry out the object they had in view in advancing this large sum of money. The referees only differed as to the outfall. Now, whether or not it might be necessary hereafter to go down to Sea Reach was not a question for the House now to decide. Meanwhile, let them be contented to get down to Barking Creek. For his part, he thought it important not to go too far down the river in the first instance. The plan of the Government referees would, they computed, cost £6,000,000; the plan of the Board of Works would cost £3,000,000. Now, suppose the £6,000,000 scheme were adopted. Four or five years hence some plan of deodorization (which was yet in its infancy) might be perfected, and then they would, perhaps, find they had unnecessarily spent £3,000,000—a sum which would double itself in seventeen years; and therefore, even supposing they finally carried the outfall down to Sea Reach, much in a monetary point of view would be gained by not adopting that plan in the first instance. Moreover, be believed that sewage matter would eventually be made useful for agricultural purposes, and he therefore thought it impolitic to enter into any larger expenditure than could well be helped for the present, if even it were found necessary to carry the sewers down to Sea Reach hereafter. Now, as to the second point—the deodorizing of the sewage, at the mouth of the sewers, on the banks of the Thames—he must state that the system was entirely unfitted to deal with the extension of the metropolis. The sewers in the lower parts of the metropolis were constructed for a population inhabiting an area of about half a mile in width along the margin of the river. If the sewers were prolonged to any great extent, spreading into the high levels on the north side in the direction of Highgate and Hampstead, the amount of sewage would necessarily be increased; but if the sewers in the lower parts of London were inadequate to dispose of the sewage now passing through them, how much more inadequate must they become as the metropolis expanded? With regard to any deodorizing system that might be adopted along the margin of the Thames, supposing, after a month or six weeks of dry weather, during which the sewers had been accumulating a great quantity of filth, and the deodorizing system had been efficiently performing its office, that a storm came on, a tremendous rush of water would then take place through the sewers, and the result would be that the sewers, being totally inadequate to bear it, and the deodorizing machinery inadequate to do its work, we should be in precisely the same perdicament that we were at present, and an enormous mass of sewage would be poured into the Thames. He hoped the House would now allow him to turn to the attack which had been made upon him at the morning sitting by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham); for there were one or two points in that attack which it would be scarcely respectful to the House that he should pass unnoticed. So far as his professional character was concerned, the remarks of the hon. Member fell upon him with perfect indifference. But the hon. Member bad spoken to-day as if he (Mr. Stephenson) were the engineer of the Victoria sewer. Now, he begged to say that he was not.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, that what he had stated was that the hon. Gentleman had made an estimate for the Victoria sewer.

MR. STEPHENSON

had never made an estimate for it in his life; and he now appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw the term "false estimates," which he had used. With respect to the metropolitan sewers, it happened that he had been so unfortunate—as any man must consider himself unfortunate—to be placed upon a Commission of Sewers in this metropolis, the members of which were exposed to every possible abuse, notwithstanding all the time and talent which they had brought to bear upon their duties, and he had found it to be a most thankless office. The hon. Member for Brighton then drew an illogical conclusion, which was rendered still more illogical now that he understood that he (Mr. Stephenson) had had nothing to do with the Victoria sewer, that taking his (Mr. Stephenson's) estimate for the Victoria sewer as a criterion, the £3,000,000 to be guaranteed under this Bill would be extended not to £10,000,000, but to £30,000,000. He admitted that the hon. Gentleman spoke under the influence of spine little excitement when he stated the last amount. But what was the course be had adopted? Why, he first took an estimate with which he (Mr. Stephenson) had had nothing to do, multiplied it three or four times, and then applied it to another estimate with which, if that were possible, he had still less to do. The hon. Member had also talked of his (Mr. Stephenson's) being challenged to mathematical contest with Mr. F. O. Ward. Now, Mr. F. O. Ward had for years been engaged in making accusations against the very active, industrious, and intelligent engineer of the present Board of Sewers; and in reply to the challenge he begged to say that he should not receive it, nor would he, under any circumstances, meet Mr. F. O. Ward on a mathematical problem. The hon. Member had also accused him of using false formula. Now, the word "false" was, he must say, rather an offensive expression.

MR. CONINGHAM

explained that he had not used the term "false formulæ." What he did was, to accuse Mr. Bazalgette of falsifying formulæ.

MR. STEPHENSON

would take the responsibility of that also. Mr. Bazalgette did not falsify formulæ; and the responsibility of asserting that he took upon his own shoulders. He denied that the formula were false or even erroneous. He had devoted his best attention to them; and he hoped that neither Mr. Bazalgette nor himself would be supposed capable of falsifying formulæ for the purpose of bringing about a particular result. Another accusation against Mr. Bazalgette was his having made a falsification with regard to pipe sewers. Now, he could assure the hon. Member that these stoppages did actually take place, because he had himself, with his own eyes, seen stoppages in pipe sewers. As to the other charge of the hon. Member against Mr. Bazalgette, that he had gone into the sewers one night at twelve o'clock, and that no honest man ought to have been there at that hour. Suppose the hon. Member should apply that criterion to that House? He (Mr. Stephenson) had many a time visited great works in which he had been concerned, not only at midnight, but all night long; but could any one justly say that he was a dishonest man for that? Certainly not. Mr. Bazalgette was prompted by his sense of duty in going to a particular point of the London sewers at that time of night, and he would be bound to say that he could give a good account of his reasons for doing so.

MR. CONINGHAM

rose to reply,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

interposed, and said that he was not at all surprised that the hon. Member for Whitby should have desired to make the explanation and statement he had now laid before the Committee; but as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brighton had both had an opportunity of expressing at length their views upon this controverted question, he would remind the Committee that the matter had nothing whatever to do with the clause under consideration.

MR. CONINGHAM

appealed to the Committee to allow him to say a few words by way of explanation. The hon. Member for Whitby had treated the statements he had made at the morning sitting as if they had emanated from Mr. F. O. Ward; but he would remind the hon. Member that he had quoted each of these statements from Parliamentary documents; the charges he had brought against Mr. Bazalgette were upon record, and although ample opportunity had been given him to refute them, he had never yet done so. He had not charged the hon. Member for Whitby with having falsified data.

MR. CHAIRMAN

called the hon. Member to order, and reminded the House that the Question before them was the omission of certain words from the clause. He would suggest, in order to confer unrestricted power of choice upon that Board, the propriety of adding the words, "according to such plan as may to them seem proper." In the Amendment, also, he thought some verbal alteration was requisite, and would suggest that it should run, "such works within the metropolis."

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that two opinions had been expressed by different Members; one was that no money ought to be advanced to the Metropolitan Board of Works till the plan proposed was known, and the other was, that the whole execution of the plan ought to be given up to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was of opinion that the whole matter should be placed in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He would not enter into the consideration as to whether they were to proceed by intercepting sewers or tubular drains, or by the plan of one engineer or the other; but the question was whether the House should or should not throw all the responsibility on the body delegated by the ratepayers of the metropolis. That he thought was the best course, and so to leave the Metropolitan Board of Works to adopt such plan as they thought fit.

MR. HEADLAM,

in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Whitby, explained that he had not intended to say there should be two separate works for the purification of the Thames and the drainage of London. He had no objection to the addition suggested by the right hon. Member for Marylebone.

MR. AYRTON

hoped the noble Lord would adhere to the clause as it stood. He thought the clause was properly framed to get the House out of the difficulties arising from the controversies existing between engineers upon this matter.

MR. COX

said, he had to complain that no answer had been given by the Government to a question he bad asked at the morning sitting whether public buildings were to be subjected to the rate, and what was to be the area of rating. He would divide the Committee on every clause until he got an answer. He also wished to know whether the Metropolitan Board of Works had not agreed on a plan and submitted it to the Government.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman was no doubt an important one; but it had nothing to do with the clause; but as the hon. Gentleman thought that he had been deficient in courtesy in not answering his question, he might perhaps say that when the hon. Gentleman put the question the House was not in Committee, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had already spoken. However, with the permission of the Committee he might state to the hon. Gentleman that the whole question of the rating of privileged buildings had lately been inquired into by a Committee of the House of Commons, who had made a report upon the subject; and, so far as he was at present advised—he spoke his own opinions and those of his colleagues—he agreed with the recommendations, generally speaking, of that Committee, who certainly did not approve of any buildings being privileged by exemption from rating. It was the intention of the Government to deal with that subject; but they thought it ought to be dealt with generally, and not by a side wind, or the introduction of a clause into a Bill of this kind, which referred only to one particular rate. It was not his intention, therefore, to propose a clause in the Bill with the object to which the hon. Member had referred; but the whole subject was under the consideration of the Government, and he trusted that it would be dealt with in a manner that would be satisfactory to the House. With regard to the area of taxation, it was intended that that area should consist of what was called the metropolitan area; and he did not see how in justice they could go beyond it.

MR. COWPER

said, that if the second clause was to be agreed to, he would consent to adopt the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), but as he was about to move to expunge that clause, he preferred the words of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam) as more general, and not referring to any particular plan.

MR. PULLER

said, if the Government carried out their declaration that it was not their intention to impose any plan on the Board of Works, the second clause must go. Otherwise they would sanction the adoption of such a system of sewers and works as might be necessary to prevent the sewage from passing into the Thames near the metropolis, but there would not be any provision to prevent the sewage when it had got into the Thames from being brought back into the metropolis. They must, therefore, add to the first clause such words as would impose on the Board not only the duty of preventing sewage from going into the Thames within the metropolitan boundaries, but to prevent it from coming back, or they must adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle.

MR. TITE

said, the Bill appeared to be drawn with reference to a distinct plan, and he thought all the objections which had been raised would be met by the omission of the word "sewers," for the clause would then stand thus—"according to such a plan as to them may seem proper, the necessary works"—which would include sewers if the Board should think them necessary, but would leave the question entirely open. He should, however, support the Government in whatever course they might deem most advisable.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that having listened attentively to the present discussion, he must press upon the Committee that in his opinion the effect of it was to show that the words as they stood in the clause were the best adapted to carry out the views of the Committee. If, however, it was desired to insert other words he should prefer those which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) in the morning to those which had been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam). If, therefore, the Committee re- jected the latter, and the right hon. Baronet would propose his, he (Lord J. Manners) would give the latter his assent.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Headlam) would not press to a division, though if he did so he (Viscount Ebrington) must vote with him. He regretted that a personal question had been introduced, but the Committee must not think that because Mr. Ward was not here to answer for himself, he must be in the wrong.

MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN

said, that for the sake of simplicity, he should support the clause as it stood in the Bill on the distinct understanding that he was not committing himself to any particular plan.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, that he wished to know if Government had made up their mind not to insist on the intercepting sewers?

MR. BYNG

said, he supported the clause because it empowered the Board of Works to carry out the undertaking according to the plan they might think best, but without committing the House or the Government to any particular scheme.

MR. AKROYD

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Headlam), on the ground that the clause in its present shape gave power to the Board of Works to carry sewage wherever they pleased, provided it were beyond the limits of the metropolis. On every ground of justice the people of the localities beyond the area ought not to be subjected to the accumulated sewage of the whole metropolis; even for the sake of Londoners themselves they ought not to be deprived of the benefit of making visits to the country just outside the town. He could see no reason for pouring the whole of the filth of London into one place, such as Barking Creek, and thought some plan ought to be adopted for deodorizing the sewage.

MR. HUDSON

said, he rose to order, and would submit that the hon. Member was discussing a plan not before the House, instead of confining himself to the clause.

MR. AKROYD

said, the question was whether the sewage should be carried without the bounds of the metropolis. He must also complain that after the Committee, of which he was a Member, had taken evidence on all sides, had listened attentively to suggestions on all sides, and had drawn up a Report with great care, it was now proposed to legis- late without reference to the conclusions to which they had come. He thought there was no use in calling the Committee together if their labours were to be treated in that manner.

MR. D. GRIFFITH

said, he supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. On the authority of the evidence of Dr. Barnes, of the Dreadnought Hospital, he denied that the air of the river was unwholesome. It was desirable that the words of the clause should be as neutral as possible.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, he must press his question with respect to the intercepting sewer.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

remarked that the question had been answered during the morning sitting by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. GARNETT

said, the whole of the difficulty in which the Committee was placed was caused by the unsatisfactory proposition of the Government. The Government had themselves said they had no distinct plan in view, and yet the Committee was called upon to endorse the Metropolitan Board of Works' plan, and to guarantee £3,000,000 to be laid out in executing that plan. Either the Board or the Government ought to have power to deal with the question. But the Bill was nothing less than a daring attempt to amalgamate the authority of the House of Commons with the power of the Board of Works. It was his intention to vote against every clause of the Bill.

MR. YOUNG

said, that the House should either have before it all the plans which had been devised, and go through them all, or should throw that duty on some independent body. The Government had chosen the latter alternative, and so far he thought their proposition fair; but it would not be fair to introduce into the Bill words which, by and by, when the plan failed, and all the money was spent, would enable it to be said that the House sanctioned such and such a plan.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 38: Majority 43.

Upon the Motion of Sir BENJAMIN HALL, the words "for the improvement of the main drainage of the metropolis" were added; and the Clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 2 (Points of outfall, &c. Sewage to be deodorized).

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he pro- posed to alter this clause so as to provide, that if the sewage was deodorized, there might be an outfall in the parish of Chelsea, with other outfalls not higher up than the River Lea on the one side, and Deptford Creek on the other.

Amendment proposed,— To leave out all after the word "matter," in line 15, and insert the words, "the Board may make outfalls at any point in the parishes of Kensington or Fulham, on the left bank of the River Thames, and also outfalls at any point on the left bank of the river, not higher up than the River Lea, and at Deptford Creek on the right bank.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

said, he objected both to the clause and to the words proposed to be added, as they made the House responsible for the success of a scheme which might turn out an utter failure. He had been charged by the noble Lord opposite with being an enemy to self-government. He denied that he was so; but what he did object to was, a half-and-half scheme of local self-government, the responsibility being divided between the Parliament and the Board of Works, leaving nobody accountable for anything that might be done wrong. He trusted, before they had done with this Bill, they would make it rather more logical than it was then, and that if they were to have local self-government in the matter they should give that government a fair chance, and hold it responsible for failure and give it credit for success.

MR. WINGFIELD

said, he had a serious objection to the clause as it stood. As the purification of the Thames was the principle of the Bill, surely the sewage at any outlet ought to be discharged at that outlet effectually. He objected to take so narrow a view of the principle and scope of the Bill, or to confine its operation to the purifying of the metropolitan area only.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he thought the clause would be the better for the insertion of the Amendment proposed, but it would be better still to strike out the whole clause. He did not think, as a member of the Committee, that the evidence they had taken sanctioned them in the idea that deodorization could be carried out to any great extent within the metropolitan area, and he thought the House ought not to take the responsibility of suggesting any mode in which it could be carried out; for if the scheme turned out a failure the inhabitants of the metropolis would then turn round upon them and say they had in the Bill pointed out the very spots where the outfalls were to be. All they had to do was to guarantee the money, and leave the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry out their own plans.

MR. CONINGHAM

intimated, that he would not press an Amendment of which he had given notice, but that he would oppose the whole clause.

MR. ALDERMAN CUBITT

remarked, that if he understood the clause aright they might deodorize anywhere and discharge where they pleased, provided they deodorized during the whole year.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, the Amendment which the noble Lord proposed would determine the highest points of the outfall.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, he understood that the process of deodorization might be carried on at Deptford Creek. An accumulation of sewage at such a spot could not fail to be a great nuisance, and he wished to ask whether this process ought to be carried on in the neighbourhood of a great town?

MR. AKROYD

said, he objected to the scheme of deodorizing only for six months in the year, as the sewage thus poured out in the winter months would form mud banks, which would ferment and poison the atmosphere in summer. They ought to insist upon deodorization for the whole year. He should support the omission of the whole clause. There were Resolutions containing the opinion of parties who paid the rates of the metropolis, and they were consequently entitled to weight and consideration.

MR. COWPER

said, that as the clause at present stood the Metropolitan Board of Works would have full liberty to send the liquid results of deodorization into the river at any point within the metropolitan area, but now the proposition was to continue the deodorization to Kensington and Fulham, and certain parts of the Lea and Deptford. It was said that if the deodorization was effectual there would be no nuisance, and if so, why limit the discharge to these particular points. The wiser course he would suggest would be not to call on the Committee to decide where the points of outfall should be, but to leave the clause as it was.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

observed, that the object of the measure was to accord full liberty to the Metropolitan Board of Works to do that which seemed to them proper for the purification of the Thames, and the effective drainage of the metro- polis. It was in consequence of this that the first paragraph of this clause was inserted by way of protection and safeguard to the inhabitants on the banks of the Thames and in Essex, but, as far as the Board were concerned, they would be glad to be without such a clause. It had been objected that if the Board were permitted to throw the sewage water after deodorization into the Thames, nuisances would arise, and therefore it was agreed to amend the second paragraph. The Government, however, had no great wish on that subject. The clause, amended or unamended, was purely a clause in the nature of a safeguard to relieve apprehensions and exaggerated fears. At the same time he believed the 26th clause would provide ample protection against nuisances, and if, when those interested in the question came to that clause, and found it was not altogether sufficient for their own locality, it might be so amended as to bind the Metropolitan Board of Works so as to carry out their work as effectually to prevent the possibility of nuisances.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

said, he thought it was rather hard to pass a clause which the Government did not wish and the Metropolitan Board of Works did not ask for. He appealed to the Government on behalf of hon. Gentlemen like himself who were neither odorizers nor deodorizers, neither interceptors nor non-interceptors, not to pledge them and the Committee to any particular mode of drainage. He was willing to give the noble Lord all the money, £;6,000,000 instead of £3,000,000 if he wished; but he asked him not to tie the hands of those who were not masters of the question by any such clause as this.

MR. T. BARING

remarked, that here was a clause which the Government did not wish, and which the Metropolitan Board of Works did not ask for. He thought the clause ought not to be forced, and that the House ought not to be either odorizers or deodorizers, interceptors or non-interceptors, and so make them responsible or particepes criminis to any mode of drainage that might be adopted, and so leave it open to the Board of Works to turn round on them and say, that Government forced a particular plan upon the country.

MR. AYRTON

appealed to the Government to withdraw the clause. The House had passed through various phases of opinion already. At first it insisted upon a definite plan; and then, when everybody found that his own would not be adopted, all were opposed to any defined plan. He had read all the blue books and all the appendices; he was indoctrinated with all the schemes, and the more he read of them the less he was satisfied with any. The only conclusion to which he had arrived was the same as that of the hon. Member for Whitby—namely, that they must have an intercepting main drainage. This was a strict necessity, arising from the internal system of drainage in the metropolis. The pouring of sewage into a river was not necessarily a nuisance, it only depended upon the proportion it bore to the waters of the river. At present, unfortunately, above London Bridge, the sewage was to the water as one to fifty. It was proposed to carry it to a point where it would be one to 1,000. But it was a question of experiment to say at what point between these limits the river would be in a healthy and innocuous state. It was necessary, however, to go on at once with the works for the internal drainage of the metropolis, and probably by the time these were finished some project would be devised as to the mode of disposing of it, As it would take several years before they could get to that point, he hoped the Government would not ask the House to commit itself to any particular scheme.

MR. PULLER

said, he thought it would be necessary, if this clause was struck out, to introduce a clause making it incumbent on the Metropolitan Board to carry the sewage to a point from which it could not be floated back again to the metropolis.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause struck out.

Clause 3 (Metropolitan Board may Construct Works on the Shores and Bed of the Thames.)

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he intended to propose this clause for the purpose of preserving the rights of the Board of Conservancy and of the Admiralty.

MR. WARREN

said, he would propose after "may" to insert— With the sanction and approbation of the Conservators of the River Thames and of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, but not otherwise. He should withdraw the other Amendment of which he had given notice.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, he hoped that no provision would be inserted to debar the Board of Conservancy from taking steps for the embankment of the Thames. He thought the rights of the Admiralty and of the Conservators of the Thames should be saved.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, a plan had been proposed for carrying the sewage down the bed of the river, thereby avoiding the inconvenience that would arise to the metropolitan traffic by carrying the works through the crowded throughfares of the Strand and elsewhere, and if this were done it would be quite necessary to save these rights.

MR. NORRIS

considered that if care were not taken powers might be given that would render the Metropolitan Board of Works obnoxious to the conservators of the river.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Powers of taking Land to apply for the purpose of Deodorizing Works).

Mr. CONINGHAM

said, he would move to leave out the words "either within or," so that the deodorizing works might be beyond the limits of the metropolis. He believed that these deodorizing works would not only fail, but that they would be a nuisance to the neighbourhood.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he thought the widest possible discretion ought to be left to the Board.

MR. TITE

said, he could not agree in the conclusion that these deodorizing works would be a nuisance, and quoted the evidence of Mr. Wickstead, engineer, of Leicester, who stated that the deodorizing works there were not at all offensive to the town, and that there was no reason why they should not be erected in the middle of the street without inconvenience to the neighbourhood.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, whenever the Committee heard scientific evidence on this subject it was always sure to be contradicted by somebody else soon afterwards.

SIR CHARLES BURRELL

said, he could bear testimony to the effective power of deodorization by lime as practised by the late Lord Chichester.

MR. CONINGHAM

quoted the opinions of Dr. Hofman and Mr. Whitwell, two eminent chemists, who declared that the process of deodorization was offensive.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (the Metropolitan Board of Works may appoint a Committee for the purposes of the works).

MR. ROUPELL

said, he would move, as an Amendment, that the number of the Committee should be nine instead of fifteen.

Amendment proposed in line 35, after the words "consist of" to leave out the word "six" and insert "fifteen."

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he hoped the noble Lord would strike out the clause, the Board of Works having already the power of appointing Committees for any purpose, provided that such Committees reported all their acts to the Board of Works for its approval. The number of the Committee ought, at any rate, to be much larger than six, but the precise number had better be left to the Board.

MR. STUART WORTLEY

said, he also thought the clause should be omitted. It might, if adopted, give power to a bare majority, and a small number, to take the entire management of the Thames, and so take it out of the hands of the ratepayers.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he was of opinion that six was too limited a number, and the number fifteen was now proposed in deference to the opinions of a meeting of metropolitan delegates. The Board of Works would, of course, determine on the plan, but when it had once done that, it would be far better to leave the carrying out of the plan to a Committee. Besides, the clause left the appointment of such Committee entirely to the discretion of the Board.

MR. AYRTON

said, he thought the clause narrowed too much the discretion of the whole Board as to the constitution of the Committee. He would propose to leave out "of whom the Chairman of the Board shall be one," and insert "and of a Chairman, to be appointed by the Board."

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he had a great objection to this clause. The Metropolitan Board was not elected directly by the ratepayers, but was elected from the vestries, and now it was proposed to give to a Committee of the Board very large powers. Supposing any person placed on this Committee did not do his duty, there were no means of removing him. It would be very likely that the best men would not be put on the Committee, and he hoped the clause would not be insisted on.

MR. STUART WORTLEY

said, he should vote against the Amendment and the clause itself. The real objection to the clause was, that the Committee would be irremovable, and they would be able to act in spite of the general body.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he would assent to the general wish that the clause should be struck out of the Bill.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause struck out, as was also Clause

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (The Treasury may guarantee payment of Moneys borrowed.)

MR. ROUPELL

said, he would propose to add a proviso, to the effect that the works should be inspected by a Government officer before advancing the whole of the money.

Amendment proposed at the end of the clause to add— And no such payment of principal or interest shall be so guaranteed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, except upon a certificate of such officer as they shall appoint, that the works from time to time constructed by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purification of the Thames, and for the improvement of the drainage of the metropolis, have been in all respects designed and executed conformably to the provisions of this Act.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the proposal was a somewhat Irish one. Money was wanted to execute works, and the hon. Gentleman proposed to give the guarantee which would be required for raising that money after the works themselves had been completed.

MR. ROUPELL

said, he would withdraw the proviso, but he thought that, as the money would not be advanced in one sum but in several, before the whole were expended there should be some security to Parliament that the money had been properly disposed of.

Amendment withdrawn.

MR. AKROYD

said, he rose to move to omit the clause which seemed to him to introduce quite a principle in direct opposition to those on which their legislation had hitherto been founded. Other towns carried out necessary improvements without troubling Parliament, and he could not see why London, the wealthiest city in the world, should come there begging for the aid of a Government guarantee? But that was not all. Even conceding that there should be a guarantee, he objected to the amount. Before Parliament consented to mortgage the national resources to effect a local object, a clear and well-defined plan, according to which the scheme was to be carried out, ought to be before them. They had it in evidence that the deodorization of the metropolitan sewage might be effected for a far less sum than £3,000,000, Mr. Cooke, the Chairman of the Leicester Sewage Company, had deposed that the works required for a population of 100,000 would cost about £6,000, and that the plan might be applied to the metropolis. He (the hon. Member) was satisfied that not more than £200,000 was really required; why then should they guarantee £3,000,000? The evidence to which he referred was not yet before hon. Members. [The CHAIRMAN: Then it is quite irregular to refer to it.] He bowed to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman; but he protested against proceeding any further with the subject until the House was in possession of evidence of so much importance.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should think the nation incurred any risk by the guarantee it was proposed to give. The annual rental of London was £14,000,000 and a threepenny rate upon that amount would produce £175,000 per annum, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his calculation of £145,000 had left a very wide margin.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, the hon. Member for Huddersfield had argued as though it was something quite novel for the State to lend money or guarantee loans for municipal purposes, but the fact was that there was scarcely a municipality which had not received authority to borrow money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. The State could run no imaginable risk in giving the guarantee proposed by the Bill; for the rate proposed would be amply sufficient to cover the outlay. Indeed the only object of the guarantee was to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to raise money on easier terms than they otherwise could do. There was a large amount of property in this country which could only be lent out upon Government securities, and it was to enable that money to be lent to the Metropolitan Board that the clause was intended.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 10. (Securities transferable by delivery).

Clause 11. (Money borrowed under this Act to be applied only to works under this Act).

MR. HEADLAM

said, he rose to move the addition of a proviso enabling, the Metropolitan Board of Works to expend a sum not exceeding £10,000, or any further sum, if authorized by. the Treasury in ex- periments, in order to determine the most efficient means of carrying out the object of the Act. As the clause at present stood it would not be lawful for the Board to apply any portion of the £3,000,000 to any purpose except that of constructing works. Considering the great amount of expenditure and the doubts which existed as to the precise mode in which the object could be attained, it was most desirable that the Metropolitan Board should have the means of ascertaining beforehand what was the best mode. There had been evidence given before the Committee which conclusively proved the necessity for further examination. At Leicester a considerable sum was expended in preliminary experiments, which certainly had not been without good effects. He thought the proviso which be suggested would be of equal benefit in the case of the metropolis.

Amendment proposed at the end of Clause 11 to add the words:— Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the said Metropolitan Board of Works to expend a sum not exceeding ten thousand pounds in experiments, with the object of determining the most efficient means for carrying into execution the objects of this Act, or any further sum, with the sanction of the Commissioners of the Treasury; and in making any such experiments it shall be lawful for the said Board to use powers conferred upon them for the purposes of this Act.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he hoped the Committee would not assent to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Where the 'honey was there were sure to be flies, and if it were known that the Metropolitan Board had £10,000 to expend on experiments, he wished them joy of the task they would have in testing the number of schemes that would be submitted to them.

LORD JOHNMANNERS

said, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, inasmuch as by the 25th clause the Metropolitan Board of Works were authorized to expend such sums as might be necessary for preserving the health of the inhabitants during the construction of the necessary works.

MR. BUTLER

expressed a hope that the Amendment would be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12 (Appointment of Inspecting Engineers).

SIR BENJAMIN HALL moved the omission of words, and the insertion of others, the effect of which was to limit the functions of the engineers only to inspecting and reporting on the works.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. D. GRIFFITH

said, he thought it desirable that the Government should have some control over the expenditure of the money. Things might go wrong under the management of the Metropolitan Board, and it was absolutely essential that Government should have the power of interfering. He would move a proviso to that effect.

Amendment proposed at the end of Clause 12 to add:— And should such report, so laid before them by such inspecting engineer cause the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to entertain serious doubts as to the eligibility of the course taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works to effect such drainage, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to suspend the further issue of bonds, debentures, and other securities, on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, until the opinion of Parliament shall have been taken on the points at issue.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, he was of opinion that such a proviso would be likely seriously to interfere with the working of the Bill, and therefore he should object to it. The object of the clause was simply to provide that a statement of accounts should be regularly placed before the Treasury. At the same time he must object to any further responsibility being thrown upon the Government. The very principle of the Bill was to give the whole power to the Metropolitan Board.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Metropolitan Board of Works to levy a rate of three pence in the pound on the property in the metropolis) agreed to.

Clause 14. (Such rate to be called the Metropolis Main Drainage Rate.)

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that if the rating was to be based upon the existing poor rate it would create great inequality of rating, there being a difference of as much as 57 per cent in the assessment of different parishes. It was desirable that the assessment should be on the county rate. The amount of the assessment for county rate was nearly a million more than that for the poor rate in Middlesex.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that the Board of Works were authorised to issue their precept for the rate, and the basis on which they assessed was that of the county rate.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

said, that by certain words in the clause it would appear that the rate was to be levied on the poor rate assessment. In his opinion, however, the county rate represented the value much mere than the poor-rate assessment.

MR. HENLEY

said, the object of the Government was to place the assessment upon a fair tenement value.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he would promise that on bringing up the Report the clause would be so shaped as to provide, according to the desire of the House, that the assessment should be according to the county rate valuation.

MR. JOHN LOCKE

considered that the clause as it stood was unobjectionable, provided it was understood that the rate was to be levied on the county rate assessment.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

expressed an opinion that as this was a permanent work, the ground landlord should bear the burden of it.

Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 15 and 16.

Clause 17 (Rates to be made by Metropolitan Board on default of Vestries, &c., in payment of precepts).

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

asked, on what assessment the rates were to be levied under the. Act, according to the poor rate or the county rate?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

apprehended thot there was only one assessment, which served both for the county and the poor rate?

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that for the county rate the magistrates in quarter sessions determined what was the value of the property of the different parishes, and a parish that was thus valued at £500,000 would probably be assessed at £300,000 for the poor rate.

MR. HENLEY

said, that care should be taken that the gross amount was paid under the poor rate system in the same way as under the county rate assessment.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

explained that the assessment would be according to the county rate, and the distribution according to the poor rate.

MR. TITE

said, that the city of London, for the purpose of putting an end to unequal assessments, had recently been entirely re-assessed on the net rental, and suggested that the same principle should be applied to the whole of the metropolitan districts

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that he had promised to alter the 13th clause, with a view to levy the rate on the county rate assessment. If it was found necessary to alter this clause to effect the same object he would do so on the Report.

Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses from 18 to 25 inclusive.

Clause 26 (Board not to create a nuisance),

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, he would move an addition to the clause, the object of which was to protect places which had spent a great deal of money on their own drainage and might have to fight the Metropolitan Board for creating a nuisance near them. Woolwich had spent £20,000 on its own drainage, and ought, therefore, to be protected against the Metropolitan Board.

Amendment proposed at the end of Clause 26 to add That the Metropolitan Board, for all works to be carried on under this Act, shall first obtain a certificate in writing from the Board of Trade stating that in the opinion of such last mentioned Board the works proposed to be carried into effect by the said Metropolitan Board are not likely to be or to create a nuisance.

MR. HENLEY

opposed the Amendment. It would give a veto over the whole proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think that the constituents of the gallant General had a right to complain, for they had just spent £20,000 and turned their selvage into the river. And as we were told that the metropolis suffered most from the sewage on the influx of the tide, he thought that this complaint of being poisoned came with a bad grace from the representative of that borough. If there was any reason to apprehend the creation of a nuisance the Court of Chancery had the power to prevent it.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, it was not very consolatory to tell those who might be annoyed by the Works of the Metropolitan Board that they could go to the Court of Chancery for a remedy. He thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department was the proper authority to decide questions of this sort. Why should not the Government undertake to prevent drainage nuisances in the sane manner as under the Smoke Prevention Act they prevented the carrying on of offensive trades? Deodorization was surely a trade of that class.

MR. HENLEY

said, the Smoke Prevention Act was against common right, and therefore a power was vested in the Secretary of State for the protection of manu- facturers against the institution of vexatious actions.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he thought that the Government should consider the matter, for persons would not risk proceedings at law, but a simple suggestion from a Secretary of State might stop a nuisance which otherwise would not be abated without spending hundreds or thousands of pounds. He spoke from his experience at the Board of Health during the time of the cholera.

MR. AYRTON

thought the clause was sufficient as it stood to put down nuisances.

MR. COX

said, he believed that this was another attempt to introduce the system of having a veto on the proceedings of the Board of Works. He thought that the clause should stand as it was.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, if there were a nuisance it would he against a locality, and it would not be an individual merely who would have to take proceedings. The suggestion made, however, was worthy of consideration, and he would look into the matter.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought that the towns on the banks of the Thames up the river should be compelled to deodorize their sewage before it went into the Thames.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he would suggest that the clause should give the local authorities power to interfere, and if they did not do so, then that power should be reserved to the Secretary of State to direct proceedings.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, but he hoped the Government would consider the suggestions just made. As to Woolwich, that town had suffered considerably from the sewage of London being forced into the river.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, as were also the remaining Clauses.

On the bringing up of a clause, reserving the rights of the Lord high Admiral,

MR. AYRTON

said, he must object to the reception of the clause. The whole bed and soil of the river were vested in the Board of Conservancy, and that the Admiralty had nothing whatever to do with the Thames; but that they were in the habit constantly of thrusting in arbitrary clauses in cases where they were in no way concerned.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, that the Admiralty had a veto on the proceedings of the Conservators according to an existing Act of Parliament.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

explained that the clause had been copied from the Conservancy Bill.

MR. AYRTON

said, he believed that the clause would give the Admiralty an absolute veto on the whole works.

MR. COX

remarked, that it would be better to let the clause pass at present, as they would be in a better position to discuss it when the Bill should be reprinted. It appeared to him, however, as he understood the clause, that it would place the Metropolitan Board in a worse position than ever; for instead of having to obtain the consent of one Board only, they would now have to get the sanction both of the Admiralty and of the Conservancy.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he did not think that it would be necessary to have the Bill reprinted, and suggested that a new clause should be brought up on the Report.

MR. COWPER

said, the Admiralty's powers extended only to the navigation.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he would adopt the suggestion made, and withdraw the clause for the present.

Clause withdrawn.

GENERAL CODRINGTON moved to insert after clause 3 the following:— That the plans of the intended works shall be opened se public inspection for one calendar month before the commencement of the works at some convenient place within the metropolis; and public notice shall be given by the said Metropolitan Board of the time and place were such plans can be so inspected.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

objected to the clause, which, he said, would serve no good purpose, and might lead to great confusion.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, that as the Government had intimated their intention of considering the propriety of giving the Secretary of State a power of interference, he would not press the clause.

Clause negatived.

MR. ROUPELL moved the following clause:— The Metropolitan Board of Works shall, in the month of June in every year, make a Report of all their proceedings in relation to the main drainage of the Metropolis, and shall, in the said month, send a copy thereof, together with an account, in detail, of all sums expended during the preceding year in execution of the works authorised by this Act, to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, which shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within one month after the receipt thereof, if Parliament be sitting, or if Parliament be not then sitting, then within one month after the next meeting of Parliament.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that what this clause sought to effect was already provided for by the Act of 1855.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, there was no objection to the production of such a Report; and that, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) had remarked, was already provided for.

Clause by leave withdrawn.

MR. AYRTON

said, he would propose a clause enacting that if the Metropolitan Board should raise and pay the money borrowed under the Act from any other sources of revenue which might be at their disposal for the purpose it should not be necessary to make or raise the metropolitan main drainage rate. On a former occasion he had made a statement respecting the taxation of the metropolis, and had indicated that there were several sources of revenue, wholly independent of this rate, sufficient to meet the annual demand on the metropolis; but if the Bill was passed without such a provision as he proposed he might be told hereafter that it was not open to him to raise the question, as the matter was settled by the present measure.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the clause had the appearance of weakening the security provided by the Bill, as no permanent revenue was indicated by it.

Clause negatived.

MR. D. GRIFFITH

proposed a clause, empowering the Board to elect one of its members as deputy chairman, and to grant him a salary of £500 a year. He thought that onerous duties should not be thrown on any one without adequate remuneration.

LORD JOIIN MANNERS

said, he did not see any necessity for the clause, as the general members of the Board had hitherto willingly rendered their services gratuitously.

MR. WILLIAMS

said, he knew most of the Board, and he knew that they would reject the proposal with contempt.

Clause negatived.

Bill reported; as amended to be considered Tomorrow.

The House resumed.