§ MR. MUNDELLAasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that in consequence of the rejection of the Birmingham Sewerage Bill by the House, the promoters are individually liable for the expenses incurred in endeavouring to comply with two Injunctions of the Court of Chancery; whether he is further aware that the property and revenues of the Corporation of Birmingham are liable to sequestration by the Court of Chancery for non-compliance with its Injunctions, thus depriving a town of upwards of 350,000 inhabitants of all municipal government and control; and, what steps the Government propose taking to afford the relief necessary under such circumstances?
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was not in a position to impugn the statement of his hon. Friend, and was afraid it must be admitted that, in consequence of the rejection of the Birmingham Sewerage Bill, the promoters might be liable to heavy expenses. There was, however, a Bill of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman), the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Bill, now before the House, which dealt with subjects of the character referred to, and he knew no other remedy for the difficulty than one suggested by that Bill. With that view the Government thought it important, under the circumstances, that an opportunity should be given of taking the opinion of the House in Committee upon the clauses of that Bill, and would be prepared to give facilities for that purpose.