SANITARY AUTHORITIES.

HC Deb 18 July 1872 vol 212 cc1374-403

Clause 3 (Urban and rural sanitary districts).

MR. GOLDNEY

rose to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, believing it would be convenient at the outset to define the bodies to whom the sanitary authority should be relegated. If the sanitary authority were vested in a proper and efficient body, the rather meagre provisions of the Bill would, probably, succeed, but otherwise they could not. As to the Boards of Guardians, they had failed to discharge the duties imposed on them by previous statutes, no fewer than 23 or 24 of which were to be incorporated by the present measure, the principal being the Nuisance Removal Act and the diseases Prevention Act. Boards of Guardians had failed in carrying out the Cattle Plague Act, whereas the counties had effectively administered the objects of the Act. In this Bill, however, the lesson thus taught was forgotten, because it gave to Boards of Guardians more onerous duties than those which they had hitherto confessedly neglected, and put the Bill into operation by machinery which had proved very defective in similar work. A County Board would be a great advantage over Boards of Guardians. Its accounts would be regularly published, and its proceedings would receive greater publicity through the newspapers, and be more widely criticized than those of the Guardians, the only effectual check to whom would be the Local Government Board. The County Boards he proposed should be formed of county magistrates elected at Quarter Sessions, with an equal number of representatives elected by Boards of Guardians. These would have under their supervision the whole drainage, water supply, and sanitary arrangements of the county; and, in addition, there would be a great advantage to the ratepayers in the saving of a multitude of officials. Such an area prevented local quarrels and jealousies among rival and smaller jurisdictions. The details could be easily worked by committees and the surveyors on a sound and general principle. Possibly in boroughs these questions might not arise in the same degree; but with regard to rural districts, as the Bill stood, there would be no guarantee for a really effectual sanitary administration, and at the same time for proper local self-government. He begged to move in page 1, line 13, after "(1)," leave out "urban," and insert "county."

MR. CORRANCE

said, he greatly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had refused his proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in order to ascertain what was the best possible form of rural sanitary authority that could be set up. A long time had since elapsed, during which opinion out of doors had hardened into conviction, but no progress had been made in the House. And what had taken place? It had been found that this question was, after all, the first they must decide, and that, in fact, it required a Bill to itself. That Bill was before them that night; part of it, for certain reasons, he was ready to accept, and part he trusted would, in an amended form, at last find favour with the House. One word as regarded that former part. It concerned the cities and boroughs; and although the organization was not such as, if they had to begin He novo, they would wish to set up, it was of a nature to admit of great improvements, and gradually and progressively it might satisfy their wants. It was not so in the second case; and of that he thought he could undertake to satisfy the House. Now, first, let them consider what were those rural districts which they dealt with? Were they purely country—green fields with nuisances, chiefly in the shape of muck-heaps? Certainly not; but they comprised towns of no inconsiderable magnitude, not yet afflicted with any very definite authorities, but whose other nuisances were on the increase. What was taking place was this—that these towns were poisoning every stream and the water from every subjacent place. Clearly, then, the problem to be solved was not quite so simple as it looked, and although they entered with great advantage into an open field, they must be just so much the more careful that they did not get into the difficulties which were recognized in the former case of authorities they could not get rid of, and law they could not unmake. How did the Bill propose to deal with this? 1. First they had the Board of Guardians and the union, as the largest area and the supreme Local Authority. 2. Then came the new provision for Parochial Committees, meant, he presumed, for the small towns and contributory places of that sort. 3. Then certain provisions for combining such areas for common purposes. He would first deal with the question of the first area and authority thus set up—the union. Was that as an area for sanitary purposes the best? What were the purposes? Prevention of contagious diseases; pollution of water; preventive medical aid; removal of nuisances; and many subordinate details, consequent upon this. Now, what were the special characteristics these things presented. Surely their universality and their general features, independent of locality and local interest. Of these the last only could be said to be local in any sense. And what followed from this? That it was desirable to take the largest common areas obtainable under effective local administrations—for he utterly disbelieved in the theory of Imperial interference in such matters as this. Surely the union did not satisfy any requirements of such a case. But the right hon. Gentleman had referred them to the 25th clause and others, which he quoted and seemed to think capable of remedying the defect. He would accept those clauses as an admission of the desirability for such an amalgamation—he could even contemplate the possibility of their taking practical effect in the urban districts; but of this he felt convinced—that once segregated into smaller rural co-operations, in ten, nay twenty years, they would not hear of an amalgamation taking place—much more likely of litigation and strife. Upon those grounds, then, he said that the union was not the common unit of administration which should be fixed. Then what were they to say of the smaller parochial administration? As a general thing nothing could be worse, for it would simply enable the central local administration to escape from disagreeable responsibility. In the instances alone which he had mentioned of the smaller towns, could they be of any practical use? And now of the authority set up—the Guardians. Now of them many things had been said, just and unjust; what they must ask themselves was this—not what may be their general capability for matters well within their practical knowledge and scope—but whether, in selecting such a body to administer sanitary laws, they were the best fitted for the task. Had they time, inclination, perfect independence? Let them bring a candid mind to bear upon this. Experience and authority were equally opposed to it. We knew they had not inclination both by experience and the testimony of able men, and as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had told them, they would only assume the authority with a view to limit, in their own fashion, the expenses. Well, but had they the time? He could, from some personal experience, assure the Committee they had not. Duties had been crowded upon them, until the burden had become too great. Remember this. As business men coming from a long distance, the calls upon their time were already too great, and he had often known six separate questions of great importance, which had to be dealt with before the question of relief commenced. Then, as regards their independence, they had heard something of the action of town councils and such local bodies in this respect—no doubt the influences brought to bear upon neighbours were very great. But if upon these points they were not satisfied by experience, surely testimony should have some weight. Of course the Report of the Royal Commission was deserving of great weight, and no doubt they duly considered this point; but he confessed that to him, as far as their written record went, it was evidently unsatisfactory upon that point; nor was it in accordance with the evidence they took—a thing which admitted of proof. In that Report, indeed, they seemed to reduce it to a sort of reduction and necessitation, but the reasoning was not to him convincing. There was one other point to which he desired to draw attention before he concluded. The Board of Guardians was, as they knew, composed of ratepayers, being occupiers, almost exclusively, and no direct representation of owners could be said to take place. The ex-officio element did not do this. This was a most important blot. In this respect the formation of the union authorities would be fairer in every respect, and to the provision of the Public Health Act of 1848 (sec. 12 and 13), it stood in marked contrast: and he must regard it as a great blot and objection to this Bill that it did not provide for any direct representation of this sort. For all these reasons he must object to the authority now proposed. He now came to the means they possessed of dealing in a more satisfactory manner with such a question as this, which, he trusted, might be found in the Amendment he should have the honour to submit at the proper time. In character it was simply this—a County Board for a special purpose; and in constitution it met all the known requirements of the case. It would be representative; it would be elective; it would represent owners as well as occupiers upon a common bench; its action would be direct and indirect; it would not be an intermediate authority, but possessing a distinct initiative through the various local committees of a subordinate class. It might be asked, what were the peculiar advantages it would possess? In the first place it would lend itself to amalgamation for various purposes far more conveniently—water-sheds, pollution of rivers, and the like. In contagious disorders it would secure uniform action throughout, and there could be no question that, as a borrowing power, the economy would be great of any money raised upon credit of the rates, for upon the larger arrears the security would be proportionately great. The principle proposed for County Boards and for Valuation Boards were instances in point, and he greatly regretted they had not been adopted; but they had actually an instance of the operation of such machines applied to sanitary matters in the Cattle Plague Act, and this would be found to form the basis of the proposal he should make, except that instead of the Justices alone there would be an element from the ratepaying class. The executive would, as in that instance, be the Board of Guardians acting as the local authority of districts, subject only to the Central Local Board instead of the Government office as they made it in this case. And now one final word as to this. It was against this system of centralization that he protested. They might say it would be strong—he said it would be weak. Was it an evidence of its strength that it dared not carry out the full provision of its own Bill, but shrunk from a show of opposition? Practical expediency determined its adoption; political dependency was stamped upon its action, and all the weakness of dependence upon popular support. Such an authority was not strong, but weak, and it was this he dreaded. Upon those grounds he asked the Committee to consider that question carefully that night, for upon its determination would depend all that they as sanitary reformers had hoped for or could hereafter expect.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

regretted the Bill had been divided into two parts, and he also regretted that it had been mutilated; but he thought it was hardly far to stigmatize those who sought to amend the Bill as opponents of sanitary reform. With reference to some remarks which had been made on a former occasion as to the power which the Bill would place in the hands of the medical profession, he expressed it to be his belief that without the aid of that profession sanitary reform would be nowhere. There were some hierarchies which were probably worse than a hierarchy of doctors. There was the hierarchy of engineers, who thought the earth was created that they might operate upon it, and it was even possible to have such a thing as a hierarchy of lieutenant-colonels. As to the Bill itself, he thought the Board of Guardians, who had quite enough to do as it was, and who were a fluctuating body, would not form a good sanitary authority. His second objection to the Bill was that there was to be under its operation no controlling authority except the Central Board, and that all the rest was to be done by Inspectors. His third objection was that although the Poor Law medical officer might be a very useful person to carry into effect certain portions of the Bill as a general rule, he was not the best person on whom to confer some of the powers which it created. His fourth objection was to the division of powers between the different local Boards, as if there was any difference in sanitary matters between urban and rural districts. Although the Amendments which he had placed on the Paper appeared to him, and those acting with him, to constitute a better Bill than that before the Committee, yet he felt he should be taking the wiser course in withdrawing them, and leaving with the Government the onus and responsibility of preparing at some future time a more complete and efficient sanitary measure.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that although he thought it was necessary that a line of distinction should be drawn, between the urban and rural districts, he felt that the proposals of the Government were very unsatisfactory; and he thought it would shorten the debates on the Bill, if those who agreed in that view took that opportunity of expressing their opinions. It was unpleasant for any Member to appear as the opponent of any measure calling itself a Public Health Bill, though it was only the mutilated fragment of a measure which never was perfect; and it was the more difficult because the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) had charged those who were opposed to this Bill with being enemies of the public health, and responsible for the lives of the people, and as at one time objecting to a Bill because it was too large, and at another time because it was too small. He had never objected to this Bill because it was too large, but would gladly have proceeded with it in the shape in which it was introduced; and if it had now become too small, the blame must be thrown on the Government, who preferred to take up the time of the House by the discussion of the Ballot Bill instead of by the consideration of a proper Health Bill. ["Question!"] But if nine-tenths of the necessary legislation was to be postponed—if the existing law was still to be left in a confused and inconsistent state, at least the little that was done should be well done. They were about to appoint authorities who would have to spend the next 12 months in endeavouring to unravel, with the assistance of lawyers, the meaning of contradictory Acts, and who would hardly have discovered the law before new powers would be thrust upon them. Then, were these town councils, Local Improvement Boards, and Boards of Guardians, the best authorities that could be appointed for sanitary purposes? True, the Sanitary Commission recommended that Boards of Guardians should be made the sanitary authorities, but only on condition that they should be elected for three years, instead of for one year, as without this it would be impossible to procure the proper execution of works which it would require a permanent body to superintend. But there was another point. The Sanitary Commission recommended that if these bodies were to be chosen for the sanitary authorities, their composition should be different from what it was at present. They had recommended that as their powers in relation to property were so stringent, there was good reason why the owners of property should have a more considerable voice in the election and-deliberations of the authority than they now had. Well, he failed to see in the provisions of this Bill anything which gave to the owners of property a fairer representation or more power in the deliberations of the Boards of Guardians than they had at the present moment. But it seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government, even while proposing to institute these authorities, had distrusted their possible course of action, for by the 23rd clause they had taken powers over Boards of Guardians, which were of the most vexatious and stringent character. They would have been less vexatious if they had been still more stringent, because more absolute powers would have prevented that standing conflict between the central and local authorities which might be carried on under the clause as it now stood. The 23rd clause of this Bill was proposed by the Sanitary Commission simply with a view to convenience, and their idea was that there were certain central purposes which could only be carried out by a combination of adjoining districts; but the clause went far beyond that, and gave power to the central authority, by a provisional order, to unite districts for any of the purposes whatever of the Sanitary Acts. In the analogous case of the Poor Law Acts, the central authority had been invested with absolute powers of uniting or dissolving Poor Law parishes and unions. Such powers might very easily be abused; and the manner in which they had recently been exerted in the metropolis must before long command the attention of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman who formerly presided at the Poor Law Board (Mr. Goschen) had carried out these powers as if the ratepayers or Boards of Guardians in the metropolis were a set of wilful children. He had not only united or dissolved unions for proper and legitimate purposes, but to a far greater extent than was right and necessary for the purpose of proper administration. It seemed to him that often the unions made by him were simply for the purpose of controlling those who were thus placed under his power. Instead of "dividing and conquering," his motto was—"Unite and conquer." ["Question!"] This was the question, because the powers which this Bill proposed to give to the central authority were analogous to those of the Poor Law Board, and he was showing how they had been used. If any districts were recalcitrant, if they did not carry out their sewage or other works, the Bill gave power to unite them one with another. The power had been given in the case of the Poor Law Board because it was proved that the local bodies were neglecting their duty. But it was a strange thing, while appointing certain authorities as the best that could be selected, to show your distrust of them beforehand by taking such powers to enforce proper action upon them by the central authority. That was not only bad with regard to the local government of the country; but it was bad for the central authority, and bad for sanitary administration. It was bad for the central authority, because he believed it would give the central authority a great deal too much to do. If the Local Government Board was to be required to exercise such control over local authorities as would make it really a system of central administration, either that duty would not be done at all or it would give the Local Government Board too much to do. Again, it would be bad for sanitary administration. The Poor Law Inspectors at present had quite enough to do to look after the 650 workhouses of England and Wales. But the Bill proposed to put under their inspection the whole sanitary administration of the country, and as the work implied looking into the smallest details they could not do it. All they could possibly do was to receive reports from the locallnspectors—namely, the medical officers of health, who themselves were thereby called upon to report on those on whom they depended for a livelihood. He thus failed to see of what use Poor Law officers would be as officers of health. Besides, an Act of 1860 already required that they should report on the sanitary condition of their districts to the guardians. If these reports had been made, why were Inspectors also wanted under this Bill? What was required in the way of medical aid was advice rather than inspection. He believed that in cases of difficulty, where large sanitary questions had to be considered, Poor Law medical officers were not, as a class, capable of giving such advice. He had no more wish than the hon. Member who said—"Deliver us from the doctors" to be governed by them; but, if they were to control us, he would say—"Let us have an able and competent despotism; but don't deliver us over to the Poor Law medical officers, who either won't act because they will be afraid to do so, or if they do, will be likely to act ignorantly and without experience." If the Bill passed in its present form, it would be a misfortune rather than a blessing, because it would foster centralization, and that at the very time when we were introducing localization into the Army. The measure would institute a number of authorities who, being themselves too often incompetent or unwilling to act, would be puppets of the central administration, and they would be adding one more to the many futile statutes which this House had passed with a view to sanitary improvement.

MR. OSBORNE

rose to ask the Chairman what was the clause before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

The clause before the Committee is the 3rd clause, and a question has been raised on it as to the dimensions of the district—whether it shall be urban or country—which, of course, involves a wide area of discussion.

MR. OSBORNE

Then are you of opinion, Sir, that the speech which has just been delivered is relevant?

THE CHAIRMAN

Having listened to the debate and general tenor of the discussion, I think the remarks of the hon. Baronet were relevant.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

said, the clause proposed to do that which no man in this Committee objected to—namely, that the local government should be divided between town and country; that the whole kingdom should be distributed into town districts and country districts. But, in a most irregular way, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) had proposed an Amendment to this clause, which applied to the 5th clause, and which the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) had given Notice of a good many weeks ago. The question raised by the hon. Member for Chippenham was to strike out the word "urban" and insert the word "county," and to strike out the word "rural" and insert the word "borough." The transposition in order of country before town seemed unimportant, but was really con- fusing, because powers of local government are chiefly required for towns, and in a lesser degree for country. But the object of the Amendment was to make uniform county government for all places except boroughs, and it ignored at least 600 non-corporate towns, already possessed of urban authorities in the form of elected local Boards. Probably no one else took this view. The only point disputed was what the authorities in rural districts should be, for they were all pretty well agreed that boroughs having their councils should be left as they were, and towns not corporate should have elected boards. The question really was, therefore, whether they would have a new country authority or use the Board of Guardians? The Guardians were already in existence, they were already charged with some sanitary duties, and the chief object of the Bill was to compel them to perform those duties. No one had sketched the constitution of the proposed County Board. It was not likely that gentlemen who met in Quarter Sessions could attend to small nuisances in villages distant from their place of meeting, and if they divided themselves into committees, it would come to the same thing as utilizing the present Boards of Guardians. Committees were proposed partly of justices and partly elected by parishes, but that was exactly the Board of Guardians. To say that Guardians were incompetent to sanitary work was to deny their ability to do what they had now to do, and to ignore the fact that they had always risen to responsibilities thrown upon them. The Poor Law had educated farmers to discharge the duties imposed upon them. In like manner the present measure would doubtless train them further in self government, and they would fit themselves for the work which Parliament was now about to intrust them with. He had heard it stated that Guardians were not sufficiently independent, and that they would not dare to take proceedings against their landlords in suppressing a nuisance. He did not believe, and in his own experience he had never found, that they would be deterred from doing their duty by any fear of great landlords around them; but if it should in any case happen that the Guardians were afraid to act, the central authority would, upon the Report of their Inspectors, intervene and say—"If you do not do so-and-so within six months we shall send men down from London to do it and charge you with the expense." The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had remarked that the Bill did not carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission; but this statement was only true to a certain extent. The Commission recommended that the Guardians should be elected for three years in order to make them a more permanent body, and to enable the same men to carry out large and long operations; but it should be borne in mind that they were even now almost invariably re-elected over and over again, and seldom practically changed. Consequently, they were not generally a fluctuating body; indeed, if a Guardian did his duty satisfactorily it was difficult for him to get out of his place. It had also been said that the Guardians had quite enough to do already. The answer to this objection was that they were already called on to perform most of the work which the Bill imposed upon them, and the additional work would be so slight that practically it would not add more than half-an-hour to special meetings of the Guardians about four times a-year. As to the objection to centralization he might point out that the function of the central authority was to guide, assist, and inspect the local authorities, but in no case to do the work for them, except in case of their default. There was, at at all events, nothing in this Bill to increase central authority. That subject had been dealt with, in the way of concentration and reduction, last year. It had been said that there would be more economy of officers if they had larger country districts; but if any union was found to be too small to bear the expense of a staff to itself there was power given to unite itself with some other union. This, in his opinion, would be a much better principle of enlarging areas of existing government than to constitute a a new body of officers. He denied also that this was a "mutilated fragment" of a Bill, and also that it was merely temporary and provisional. It was a proposition complete in itself, and a substantial and necessary complement to the Local Government Act of last year, and the two together made the best possible basis for a Consolidating Act of all the law opinions on the subject next year.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he hoped the Committee would accept the advice of his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Adderley), and that in the division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) it would be understood they were voting on the question of the organization of the local authorities. [Mr. CORRANCE said, he could not for a moment accept as conclusive the issue now raised.] He (Mr. Stansfeld) was anxious to take the opinion of the Committee at the earliest opportunity on that question which formed an essential part of the Bill; but he should hardly be acting with due respect towards the Committee if he did not address himself to some of the remarks which had been made in the course of the debate. He would not discuss at any length the scheme that had been suggested for the construction of a County Board, because his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. D. Dalrymple) had said he would withdraw his proposal. He might, however, take this opportunity to remark that he never thought either his hon. Friend or any of the hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the discussion entertained any desire to impede the progress of the Bill. The hon. Member for Chippenham objected to the scheme embodied in the Bill because he did not believe the Guardians would be a competent rural sanitary authority. Now, it was by no means correct to say of the Guardians that they had failed to exercise the powers they possessed, because hitherto there had been two classes of sanitary authorities. The Guardians were the nuisance authority, under the Nuisance Removal Acts, and the Vestry was the sewer authority, under the Sewage Utilization Acts. Therefore, the Guardians had laboured up to this time under the difficulty of a divided jurisdiction. He did not think, then, it was correct to say that they had failed, or that their failure must be taken as conclusive evidence of their unfitness to undertake the duties with which they would be in-trusted by this Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said the Guardians were incompetent and unwilling—[Mr. CORRANCE denied that he had said they were incompetent.] At all events, the word had been applied to them in the course of the discussion. He was prepared to state, as far as his knowledge went, that the majority of the Guardians in this country were undoubtedly willing and ready to accept the duties which would be intrusted to them by this Bill. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did not like either the Boards of Guardians or the Town Councils; but the hon. Baronet, who had expressed a preference to the county authorities, was himself the very person who objected to the clause under which he proposed to take power for enlarging the area where it might be deemed necessary. There was only one matter which remained for him to refer to. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire had objected to the mode of proceeding by provisional order, and had complained that the proceeding by that method would necessarily be a high-handed one. Legislation, however, which was founded upon provisional order, was invariably preceded by full inquiry and discussion, and the objections urged by the hon. Baronet on this point, therefore, were entirely founded on a misapprehension of the actual state of things.

MR. HUNT

said, that since this Bill had been before the House he had found the opinion general that the Boards of Guardians were not the right authorities to intrust those duties to. He was anxious that they should pass a good Health Bill, and as this measure, when passed, was not to be temporary in its character, it was important that they should not hand the matter over to the wrong authority. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) for their selection was that they were existing bodies, not that, as existing bodies, they were qualified for the exercise of these powers. The fact was, that many of the powers which would be conferred by this Bill were already lodged in Boards of Guardians, and were generally ignored. It would be better that these duties should be in-trusted to a County Board, and the constitution of such a body was carefully framed in the Valuation of Property Bill which he had introduced some few years since, and which was then read a second time with the consent of the Government opposite. Boards of Guardins were elected for a particular purpose, and that purpose they had answered admirably. They were the persons interested in the administration of the Poor Law; but he denied that they had any special interest in the working of the Sanitary Laws beyond other classes of the community. In many instances they would very much be governed by a question of economy, which it was to be feared would militate against the adoption of sanitary measures. If powers of this kind were to be conferred he should very much prefer their being given to the Highway Boards, because those boards were always limited in their area by the limits of counties; so that if at any future time two or more Boards were joined together in jurisdiction, the new district would be all in the same county. A great mistake was made when they allowed Poor Law unions to go over the county boundaries, for this had ever since given rise to difficulty. The only limit which in this particular matter we should have should be the county—a limit which had stood and would stand the test of time. It would be an insuperable difficulty if the boundaries lay not in one but in several counties. The guardians, too, would not take an interest in sanitary matters, and would be subject to local influences—the influences of landlords, for instance—to such an extent that a feeling would grow up in favour of placing them under the controlling power of the head of the Local Government Board. The real power would then be in the hands of the central authority, the very thing it was so desirable to avoid. He, on the contrary, wished to have a County Board, to be composed partly of magistrates elected by Quarter Session and partly of ratepayers elected by the Highway Board, or by the Guardians of those parishes lying within the boundary they would have to control. This would be a thoroughly independent body. Much—indeed, almost everything—depended on the executive officers. They should be thoroughly independent of the district and of everyone within it, and should be subject to no influences calculated to prevent them giving information to the central authority. To secure such men they should devote their whole time to the work, and their position should depend upon their efficiency. These conditions could not be fulfilled unless the districts were large and the local body independent. It was because he was anxious to have a good Bill, founded on proper principles, that he objected to this particular proposition, and he trusted the Committee would pass the Bill with the provision impugned.

MR. WHITBREAD

remarked, that so wide a question could not be exhaustively dealt with in a fragmentary discussion. But what lay at the bottom of the whole, and had been very little touched upon, was this—that if they wanted to have an authority, far-reaching, and extending over all the counties, and to feel the wants of the rural districts, they must have a scattered, large, diffused body. Of course, it would be difficult to move such a body; that was a necessary defect which must be put up with. But how would a bran-new Board inform itself of what was being done in a remote part of the district? It was not a stink extending over the whole county, such as the Quarter Sessions might smell, that it was sought to remove. A nose was wanted in every corner to put an end to the little evils which, in the aggregate, did so much harm. Besides, this suggested County Board would be composed of the very persons who should first be called to account—the landlords and county magnates who sat at Quarter Sessions. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that the Guardians had failed to do their duty. This was unfair, because hitherto they had no power. Having the power he trusted they would awaken to the necessities of the case, and, without concerning themselves so much about the dribbling question of an extra 2d. in the pound, would seek to improve the health of their district, extend the working hours of a man's life, and prevent his children growing up the miserable weedy things that now fed the poor house.

MR. F. S. POWELL

deprecated the suggestion that this was a mutilated fragment of a measure. So far as it went it was complete and whole in itself, though it did not present the same aspect as the original scheme of the Government. It had the merit that the moment the Board of Guardians was constituted the authority, all confusion would cease. The local Boards which this Amendment would abolish, had, on the whole, discharged their functions admirably, and placed the country under deep obligation. It was necessary to retain them, because sanitary work was intensely local, as distinguished from that caused by cattle plague, for instance, and it could be done only by those intimately acquainted with the localities. It was imperative that combinations should be enforced, subject to local inquiry and Parliamentary sanction, because one or two parishes could often defeat a valuable scheme for supplying a district with water. He believed there was a strong feeling in favour of the Poor Law Guardians, and if the Bill were passed and they were invested with larger powers, it was probable they would save many lives during the autumn and confirm their title to public confidence before Parliament could again legislate on the subject.

MR. GOLDNEY

, to enable the hon. Member for Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) to raise the question more definitely, offered to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Description of rural sanitary districts and rural sanitary authorities).

MR. CORRANCE

said, that the time was now come in which the Committee might conveniently divide on the subject which they had so long been discussing. For the purpose of enabling them to do so, he would move in page 3, line 3, after the word "district," to leave out the words to the end of the clause, and insert— For the purpose of this Act the respective districts, authorities, rates, or funds, and officers described in the Schedule to this Act, shall be the district, the local sanitary authority, and the local rate.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 3, to leave out after the word "district" to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "For the purposes of this Act the respective districts, authorities, rates, or funds, and officers described in the Schedule to this Act, shall be the district, the local sanitary authority, and the local rate."—(Mr. Corrance.)

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

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 7: Majority 77.

Clauses 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 10 (As to officer of health and other officers of sanitary authorities).

COLONEL BARTTELOT moved, in line 25, after "nuisances," to insert— Whose several appointments shall be for a period not exceeding five years, but nothing in this Act shall prevent such officers from offering themselves again for re-election. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to agree to this Amendment, which in his (Colonel Barttelot's) opinion was a very important one, because it would enable Boards of Guardians to have some power over these officers of health, and would prevent them from doing as they pleased. Many of these gentlemen did their duty exceedingly well; but there were others who did not do their duty in a way satisfactory to Boards of Guardians. They were good servants, but bad masters.

MR. HENLEY

supported the Amendment, urging the importance of an efficient officer, and the difficulty of satisfying an external authority of the inefficiency of a permanent officer.

MR. STANSFELD

acceded to the Amendment, on condition of its applying only to the first appointments under the Act. The functions of the officer being a matter of experiment, it was not desirable to make the first appointments permanent.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

objected to the Amendment, thinking that a five years' officer, like an American President, would be afraid of displeasing those on whom his re-election depended.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he was not satisfied with the modification proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Was it to apply to the first five years of every officer's tenure, or to the first five years after the passing of the Act?

MR. CORRANCE

said, the Bill had been made almost worthless by entrusting its operation to Boards of Guardians, and the Amendment would reduce it to a nulity by impairing the independence of the medical officer.

MR. HIBBERT

supported the Amendment as modified as consistent with the provisional character of the clause.

MR. PELL

also approved the Amendment, which would facilitate the formation of united districts.

DR. BREWER

thought the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot) ought to be accepted.

MR. STANSFELD

should have preferred at this moment not to have legislated on this subject, but was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so modified as to make the first appointments under the Bill tenable for five years only, leaving the question of their permanency open for future decision.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

thought permanent appointments frequently led to neglect of duty.

MR. CAWLEY

would prefer the Bill as it stood.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

would gladly accept the modification of the right hon. Gentleman if it were understood that the first appointments under the Bill were not to be permanent.

Amendment proposed to insert— The appointment of the medical officers of health first made after the passing of this Act, shall be for a period not exceeding five years.

MR. PELL

said, it appeared to him that the Amendment did not include nuisance Inspectors as well as medical officers, as originally proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot).

MR. HIBBERT

said, it would not, and pointed out that inconvenience would result if such were the case.

SIR MASSEY LOPES

said, he hoped the Inspectors would be included in the Amendment.

The words "and inspectors of nuisances" inserted.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Appointment of committees by rural sanitary authority).

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, that he wished to propose an Amendment to the effect that the committee should be appointed in the same manner as the assessment committee under the Act of 1862—namely, that one-third of the members should consist of ex - officio Guardians. In the first instance he would formally propose, with that object, in line 17, to leave out "may," and insert "shall."

MR. MONK

objected to the whole clause, and hoped that it would be struck out of the Bill.

MR. STANSFELD

said that, in his opinion, this was a clause of considerable value, and, although it was not in the Bill as first introduced, it had been prepared in accordance with suggestions made to him. It was suggested that Boards of Guardians might be too much occupied to transact sanitary business, and that some of their members might be disinclined to undertake such duties, and that, therefore, it was advisable to enable them at the beginning of their year of office to select some of their own number, those who were disposed to undertake and were capable of performing duties in connection with sanitary matters. That he considered a wise proposal; but he was not able to concur in the first Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member by which the sanitary authority would be compelled to delegate their power to a committee. The second Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member he should be able to accept.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he was willing to leave an optional power to the sanitary authority, and would, therefore, withdraw his first Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in line 20, before "and," insert— Provided always, That one third at least of such committee shall consist of ex-officio guardians, but in case an adequate number of such ex-officio guardians shall not exist, then the numbers so deficient shall be made up of elected guardians,

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed, to.

Clause 13 (Powers of inspectors of Local Government Board).

MR. MONK

, who objected to unnecessary interference with the local authority, moved, in line 20, after "board," insert— Upon the application to such board of one-third of the members of any local board or sanitary authority or of one-twentieth of the persons rated in the district. This would assimilate the clause to the provisions of the Local Government Act.

MR. RATHBONE

said, the Inspectors were depositaries of valuable information which would be very useful at the Board, and their presence should be encouraged.

MR. EYKYN

desired that it should be made clear as to whether the Inspec- tors would have authority to attend meetings of town councils. His objection to the clause would be met if the Inspector attended only when the sanitary authority was summoned to meet such Inspector.

MR. STANSFELD

believed the Poor Law Inspectors were always favourably received by Boards of Guardians, because they were able to give valuable information; but as town councils were municipal as well as sanitary authorities, the Inspector would not necessarily have any business at their meetings, and he had so drawn the clause that they would have no right to attend town council meetings.

MR. MONK

was satisfied with the explanation which had been given, and would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

said, the exclusion of town councils from the operation of the clause would cause dissatisfaction.

MR. STANSFELD

was sure no Inspector would be refused admission to a town council when it was dealing with sanitary matters.

MR. CAWLEY

was of opinion that it would be very difficult to interpret that part of the clause giving power to the Inspectors to examine witnesses.

MR. STANSFELD

explained that Poor Law Inspectors could hold inquiries, examine witnesses, call for the production of papers, and inspect works, and it was intended to give Local Government Board Inspectors similar powers.

MR. HIBBERT moved the insertion after the word "shall," in line 23, of the words "for the purpose of any inquiry directed by the Local Government Board.

MR. M. CHAMBERS

said, the Committee were quarrelling with plain words. The clause meant that whenever the Inspectors went to a town they had powers with reference to Sanitary Acts similar to those which they had under the Poor Law Inspection Acts. If the Committee inserted too many qualifying words they would produce difficulty. The clause, as it stood, was very well framed.

MR. C. S. READ

conceived that the insertion of the proposed words would make the clause better understood.

Amendment (Mr. Hibbert) agreed to.

MR. STANSFELD moved to insert, in page 7, line 27, after "Acts," the words "the sanitary authority of the district of Oxford shall not for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a Local Board."

Amendment agreed, to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed, to.

Clause 15 (Expenses of rural sanitary authority).

COLONEL BARTTELOT

wished to know what was intended by the "expenses in relation to disinfection." If one part of a parish was excessively dirty, was the whole district to bear the expense of cleansing or disinfecting it?

MR. STANSFELD

said, those expenses were so small he did not think that the matter need be considered.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

thought the right hon. Gentleman, by such a provision, was putting a premium on dirt.

MR. HENLEY

hoped that in the Interpretation Clause some sound construction would be given to the word "disinfection." It was a very wide word. If a cottage was whitewashed, was that "disinfection?"

MR. HIBBERT

observed that the local authority under existing sanitary Acts was empowered to disinfect premises and charge the occupier or owner.

MR. HUNT

said, the question was, whether this clause did not override the provision in the existing Acts so as to remove the charge of whitewashing from the owners or occupiers, and place it upon the ratepayers at large.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), and would introduce such a definition of the word "disinfection" as he hoped would meet the views of the Committee.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH moved, in page 8, line 9, to leave out "providing hospital accommodation." The question was, whether the ratepayers were to provide hospital accommodation for all people who were not paupers? To say the least, this was a question for grave consideration.

MR. STANSFELD

objected to this Amendment. Under existing Acts the local authority had power to provide hospital accommodation. The expense must either be general or special. It could not be special because the hospital accommodation would be provided for the whole district. The omission of the words would make no practical difference in the working of the clause, and he resisted, not so much the Amendment as the inference which had been drawn from their presence.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, all his anxiety was to prevent a wrong inference being drawn.

Amendment agreed, to.

Clause, as amended, ordered, to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Mode of raising contributions in rural sanitary district).

MR. CORRANCE

said, he proposed to raise an important question by moving an Amendment. In the debate on the question of local taxation it had been agreed, by nearly all on that side of the House, that with respect to new rates, there could be no objection to their division between owner and occupier; and thought that the rate here contemplated might be so divided very fairly, and that its division would promote improvement, because it would do something to supply the lack of interest felt in property by an occupier holding under a short tenure. The Cattle Plague Act, he might remark, contained a similar provision, which was introduced at his suggestion. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving at the end of the clause to add— Any person who is not the owner of the premises in respect of which he is rated under this section of the local rate, may deduct from the growing rent due to the owner of such premises, one half of the rate payable by him for the purpose of this section, and every owner shall allow such deduction accordingly. The owner for the purposes of this Act shall be the person for the time being entitled to receive the rack rent of the premises, in respect of which the rate is made on his own account, or who would be entitled to receive the same if such premises were let at a rack rent, including under the term any rent which is not less than two thirds of the net annual value of the premises out of which the rent arises.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not agree to the proposal of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman having stated this evening that he thought local taxation would be one of the first things to be considered next year, it would be most unwise to enter into a discussion of the present proposal, which dealt only with a small portion of the subject.

MR. STANSFELD

thought the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) was quite conclusive.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Port Sanitary Authorities.

Clause 18 (Sanitary authorities of ports).

MR. GOURLEY moved that the Marine Board of the Port of London, with the addition of four members elected by the Corporation of Gravesend, and the deputy-chairman of the Trinity Board should be the sanitary authority for the said port.

MR. STANSFELD

, in reply, said that several Amendments had been put on the Paper bearing on this question; but neither the Amendment now proposed, nor that of which notice had been given by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), proposing the "Conservators of the River Thames," made provision for meeting the expenses of the port sanitary authority, because the two authorities they proposed had no rating powers. Another proposal to insert the Metropolitan Board of Works had been made by the Chairman of that body (Colonel Hogg), which had rating powers over the whole metropolis. Then there was a fourth proposal, which he should now have the honour of submitting to the Committee. It was to the effect that the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the City of London should be the port sanitary authority, and should pay out of their corporate funds all expenses of such port sanitary authority. He made this proposal on the strength of a letter he had received from the Common Council of the City of London. It was dated Guildhall, July 11, and was to the effect that at a meeting of the Common Council, held that morning, it was unanimously resolved to undertake the duty of acting as the sanitary authority of the port of London under section 18 of the Public Health Bill, and to pay all the expenses of carrying the Bill into effect out of their corporate funds. The letter communicating these resolutions to him concluded with a statement that the Court of Common Council, by the course they had taken, would secure the rate- payers—the riparian ratepayers—from any addition to the rates for the purposes of this Bill.

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

had no reason to suppose that the inhabitants of Gravesend would be otherwise than satisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

COLONEL BERESFORD

objected to the proposal, on the ground that a new authority would be constituted for the port of London.

Amendment (Mr. Gourley), by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANSFELD moved that the Corporation of London be the central authority in the Port of London, and pay out of their corporate funds all the expenses thereof.

COLONEL BERESFORD

thought the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was merely to save a small sum of money. There was already a very able authority who could deal with the sanitary requirements of the port, and who had, in fact, exercised a sanitary jurisdiction for a long time. He moved as an Amendment, that the Thames Conservancy Board be the riparian authority.

COLONEL HOGG

said, he had given Notice of a proposal that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be the authority; but he joyfully accepted the offer of the Corporation, and thought their funds would be very properly applied to this purpose.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought the Thames Conservancy Board the proper authority.

Amendment (Mr. Stansfeld) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

MR. PELL

asked what the sanitary authority meant, as there were urban and rural sanitary districts mentioned in this Bill?

MR. STANSFELD

said, that this would be regulated by provisional orders, and he would take the necessary power also to decide about the expenses.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 (Alteration of areas and local authorities).

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the effect of the clause as it stood would be that a rural district might be com- prised in an urban district, and subject to all the rates of the urban district against its will. It was no doubt provided by a later part of the Bill that an Inspector must first go down and make inquiry as to whether the rural district should be included or not. But the Report of an Inspector on the subject would be very different from the spontaneous act of the people themselves. The clause would give power to the Local Government Board to impose rates on the ratepayers without their consent, and that certainly required some explanation. He begged to move in page 12, line 30, and the following lines, to leave out the words "or it may, by a provisional order, declare any portion of" &c.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the case which it was proposed to meet was this—An urban population had availed itself of the Local Government Acts. Outside that district another urban population had grown up which rationally ought to be included within its limits. The ratepayers of the urban district might be desirous of taking in those outside, but the latter might be unwilling. It was not proposed to override the opinion of the inhabitants either of the one or the other by the ipse dixit of the Local Government Board, but by legislation according to the forms of procedure best adapted for securing a fair hearing. That would be done by means of provisional orders, so that any one interested would be entitled to be heard in opposition.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it might cost £1,000 to fee counsel and come to Parliament to oppose, and the population of the outlying districts might not be a corporate body having funds at their disposal, but the money might have to be subscribed out of the private purses of individuals if they wished to come to Parliament.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

regarded the system of provisional orders with considerable distrust. It was perfectly possible that a Bill grossly unfair to a small district might slip through the House. It would no doubt be right, in the case of a portion of a rural sanitary district adjoining to an urban one, which had so far increased in population as to have become a really urban sanitary district, that it should be joined to the urban district, whether it wished it or not; but in the case of a really rural district there would be no just reason for such a course. He suggested that some limit of population might be mentioned in the clause, beneath which limit it should not come into operation.

MR. GOLDNEY

thought that there would be hardship in imposing all the expenses connected with the provisional orders upon the locality. Clause 43 seemed to say that the sanitary authority should pay them.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that the provisional orders would be brought forward by a public Department, and therefore the expenses would not be very heavy.

MR. GOLDNEY

But who was to pay them?

MR. STANSFELD

The locality interested.

MR. GREGORY

observed that the words in the clause were at present very wide, and he suggested that some qualifying words should be inserted to prevent any injurious operation of them.

MR. STANSFELD

thought that such words would not be of much avail. The criticism of the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) seemed to be placed upon a wrong basis. There would be no object in oppressing any particular locality, and the sensible thing to do would be not to distrust a Government Department in a matter of this kind.

MR. CORRANCE

feared that the object of the clause was to throw a part of the burden of the towns upon the rural districts.

MR. HENLEY

said, it seemed to him that the clause did not provide that sufficient notice should be given to the parties interested, in order that their case against the making of a provisional order should be heard. But he was quite sure it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that due notice should be given to those parties.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he intended to accept an Amendment which had been proposed by an hon. Member for the purpose of providing that no provisional order should be made without previous inquiry in the locality concerned, which inquiry should not be held without at least two weeks' previous advertisement in the local paper of the intention to hold such inquiry, and the parties interested should have an opportunity of being heard before a Com- mittee upstairs against the making of a provisional order.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK

thought that if a quasi-urban population objected to joining the opposition to the making of a provisional order, it would be a hardship on that district to make it pay the expenses of such opposition.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that it would create confusion if a rural district should be attached to an urban population for the purposes of this Act, and should not be so attached in reference to highway matters.

MR. NEWDEGATE

observed, that the rural districts adjoining urban districts would be placed in this position: It would be proposed to place their holdings under the higher rating of the urban localities, and if they resisted they would have to pay the expense of that resistance, and would be rated afterwards. What justice demanded was that the district in which it was sought to include them should be burdened with the expense of opposition, whether it was successful or not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GOLDSMID moved in line 27 the insertion of the words "on the application of the authority of any sanitary district."

MR. F. S. POWELL

hoped that the Amendment would not be accepted.

MR. DODSON

thought that the Amendment would lead them to an absurdity, inasmuch as it would authorise the application to be made by any rural district who might have no concern in the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Union of Districts.

Clause 24 (Formation of united districts).

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH moved, in line 23, to leave out the words "for any other purposes of the Sanitary Acts."

MR. STANSFELD

could not accept the Amendment.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

thought it would be a very gratuitous and useless limitation of the Act to say that the districts themselves might not even apply provisional orders for purposes of general utility.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 39 (Repeal of Section 151 of Public Health Act, 1848).

MR. STANSFELD

explained that this clause was proposed to repeal the provision in the existing law which relieved local Boards or other parties from the necessity of putting a stamp on any agreement, mortgage, or other document whatsoever to which those Boards were parties.

MR. MUNTZ

observed that this clause was not in the original Bill. He would divide the Committee against it.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the exemption would be extremely unequal even in the sphere within which it would operate. It would grant to towns what was refused to the country.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 30: Majority 111.

MR. J. G. TALBOT moved that the Committee report Progress. There were Amendments of importance on the Paper, and it was too much to expect the Committee to proceed further at that time of the morning.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 121: Majority 76.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 (Public Works Loan Commissioners may lend to sanitary authority on security of rates).

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY moved, in page 20, line 40, to leave out "thirty" and insert "fifty."

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress."—(Colonel Barttelot.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 102: Majority 46.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Newdegate.)

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

had no objection, if it would facilitate the Progress of the Bill, to withdraw his Amendment and bring it up again on the Report.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 103: Majority 56.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.