§ MR. PELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that under the 63rd section of the Birmingham Improvement Act, 1851, the Council of the borough of Birmingham is authorized, with the sanction of 1129 a meeting duly convened, to make application to Parliament for the purposes of any Act relating to that borough; whether such meeting was not held on February 16th, 1872, pursuant to the provisions of that section, which authorized the application to Parliament for the Birmingham Sewerage Bill of the present Session; and, whether under these circumstances any liability for the expenses of that application attaches to the promoters of that Bill individually, as stated by him in reply to the honourable Member for Sheffield on Monday, July 1st, and then adduced as a reason for the Government affording facilities for the passing of the Municipal Borough Funds Bill?
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the answer which he had given on the 1st of the month to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) with respect to the Birmingham Sewerage Bill was founded on the general law, and that the Act of 1851 had not been brought under his notice. He might add that he thought the argument would remain intact, in favour of the Bill of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman), because the municipality having to rely on the Local Act, to prevent its members from being liable as individuals for the expenses of such application, it seemed clear that the general law was deficient. At the same time, though it was no part of his duty to give a legal opinion, he was not satisfied that the Act would operate in the manner indicated by the hon. Member.
§ MR. LEEMANasked the honourable Member for South Leicestershire, with reference to his Question to the Right honourable the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, as but for the special Act referred to in such Question, the cost of the Birmingham Sewerage Bill must have fallen on the Council of that borough, and that the Select Committee has refused to hear further evidence, he will withdraw his Motion "to refer the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Bill back to the Select Committee," and so aid in conferring the like powers and indemnities on all other towns, as he alleges are possessed by Birmingham?
§ MR. PELLsaid, he thought the two Bills were hardly compatible; but if he could satisfy the artless curiosity of the hon. Member for York he would. He would only say that having regard to 1130 the circumstances he, (Mr. Pell) felt himself justified in continuing his present course of obstruction.