Lords Sitting of 30 April 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Conveyance.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Mountcashel, from places in Ireland, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By Lord Poltimore, from places in Devonshire) for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By the Earl of Rosebery, from the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh, against any interference with the system of Banking in Scotland; and from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Corporation of Bath, in favour of the Jews Declaration Bill.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, from Plymouth, against the New Poor-law.—By Lord Lyndhurst, from Birmingham, to be Excluded from the Operation of the Borough Improvement Bill.—By lord Wharncliffe, from the Trustees of Turnpike Trusts in Yorkshire, for Relief, as they were obliged to maintain the Roads although traffic on them had nearly ceased By the Marquess of Normanby, from Birmingham, in favour of the Borough Improvement Bill By Eart stanhope, from Derby, against the Bill.

DRAINAGE OF TOWNS.
The Marquess of Normanbyrose to move the farther consideration of the report of the committee on the Drainage of Towns Bill. He had postponed, he said, this stage until this evening to allow of some farther consideration of the clauses which had reference to Scotland. That delay had been productive of some good, as it had given rise to an amendment which had reconciled noble Lords connected with that country to the bill. The alteration would have, the effect of giving to the sheriffs of counties powers to carry out the provisions of the bill.
The Marquess of Salisbury The Marquess of Salisbury moved the insertion of a proviso to the 5th clause,
"That it shall not be lawful for the commissioners to impede, interrupt, or interfere with the application of any streams or watercourses for the turning of mills, or any other lawful purposes, or divert any such streams or water-courses from their course, without the consent in writing of the parties interested in such streams or water-courses, and the owners of the lands on either side of such streams or water-courses."
Lord Ellenboroughobjected to the clause as restricting the commissioners in the supply of water absolutely necessary for the cleansing of the towns. The noble Marquess, in moving the clause, had in view the interests of the city of Edinburgh. He objected to the introduction of a general clause to effect a particular purpose.
The Marquess of Salisburybegged to correct his noble Friend. There were many towns, besides Edinburgh, which would be affected by the bill.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the want of a proper system of drainage had been proved in evidence to exist to an extent very annoying to the immediate neighbourhood of Edinburgh. Indeed it had gone to such an extent as to be assigned as a reason why the Queen could not inhabit her palace of Holyrood. Under such circumstances he could not see why the noble Marquess should, at the present stage of the bill, propose to exclude Edinburgh from its operation, which would have the effect of continuing the nuisance so much complained of.
Viscount Melvillesaid, that the effect of the bill, as the particular clause was now formed, would be to injure the property of individuals to a great extent. In one case, property of not less than 3,000 l. a-year, would be affected by the provisions of the bill; and as it was property that had been held from time immemorial, he for one was not prepared to destroy it without compensation. As to what had been said on the subject of Holyrood House he would only observe that the Palace had been inhabited by some of the first persons in the country, without any complaint being made, and that some of the longest lived persons in the kingdom had resided in the immediate neighbourhood. He hoped that their Lordships would not, under the mask of what was declared to be a measure for the general good, do a positive injustice to individuals.
The Marquess of Salisburyprotested against being charged with a wish to perpetuate a public nuisance. When the subject was first introduced there was no intention of including Scotland in its provisions, and the parties interested had therefore no opportunity of proving their case.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that when the bill was read a second time he had called their Lordships' attention to a part of the report on which the noble Marquess had founded his bill, and requested that they would take full time to consider it. It was entirely upon the evidence in that report that he had founded his observations, and he had had no desire to interfere with the property of individuals. He did not hesitate to say, that the noble Marquess was in error, when he said, that the extension of the bill to Scotland was not contemplated till the bill went into committee. But it was found, that the working provisions necessary to apply it to Scotland, were different from those required for England, and
1292
therefore it was agreed, that separate clauses should be moved in the whole House. If, as the noble Viscount said, the parties in Edinburgh affected by this bill were entitled to compensation, then the owners of every piece of land in the kingdom that was interfered with for the purpose of this measure, would have an equal claim. He could not but think it a public nuisance for common sewers to be made use of for the pecuniary benefit of individuals who were not even resident, but merely held property there.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, it had been found absolutely necessary to indict certain persons in the neighbourhood of Holyrood House, so great was the nuisance.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, it had been decided to be necessary that the bill should be extended to Scotland, and as there was a difference of opinion in committee as to what should be the nature of the clauses, they were left to the House to decide upon. With regard to the amendment of the noble Marquess, he would say that, as, on investigation, it had been found, that there was some necessity for it as regarded the meadows in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, he would not object to it, if he would confine it to that city, and not extend it to the other towns.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, he was himself owner of a meadow in the neighbourhood of Holyrood-house; and when George 4th was there, no complaint whatever was made. He thought that the clause of the noble Marquess was absolutely necessary, as an act of justice to the proprietors of property that would be affected by the bill.
The Marquess of Salisburythen proposed to modify his amendment, so as to confine its operation to within ten miles of Edinburgh.
The Earl of Mountcashelhoped that the injustice would not be committed of confining the amendment to the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, but that it would be extended to other towns.
The Marquess of Normanbyremarked, that the last observation of the noble Earl was itself a proof of the great inconvenience of adopting exclusive legislation, except under very peculiar circumstances. Would not the proviso to the ninth clause answer every object which the noble Marquess had in view? This bill was not intended to injure the property of any persons without giving them due compensation, but as the case of Edinburgh was the

1293
only one of which their Lordships hail cognizance, he had no objection to include that.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that he felt bound to take the sense of the House on his proposition. He had originally wished that it should be general in its operation, but he had no objection to confine it to Edinburgh.
Lord Lyndhurstremarked, that there were places in Ireland with as strong claims.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the case of Edinburgh had been twice mooted before the committee, and he was bound to conclude that the committee had come to a just conclusion. By the noble Marquess's present proposition Edinburgh alone would be protected, and the effect of his more general proposition would be, to say that only rain water should be used in drainage throughout the country.
Amendment withdrawn.
The Earl of Haddingtongave notice, that on the thud reading he should move an amendment, the effect of which would be to devolve on the commissioners all the duty which, under the bill would devolve on the Sheriff.
Report received. Bill to be read a thud time on Tuesday.
BUILDING REGULATIONS.] The Report on the Buildings Regulations Bill was also received, and the bill ordered to be read a third time.
BOROUGH IMPROVEMENTS.] Report on the Borough Improvement Bill was taken into consideration.
Lord Calthorpe,on presenting a petition from Birmingham, praying that that borough should be excluded from the bill, staled that the power given to the Commissioners was excessive.
Lord Lyndhurstgave notice, that on the third reading he should propose, that in accordance with the prayer of the petition just presented, Birmingham should be ex-eluded from the operation of the bill; and another, that as the Charter of Bolton was now the subject of litigation, nothing in the present bill should affect the question at issue.
Report received. Bill to be read a third time.

AUSTRALIA.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the Committee on the Australia Loan Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, I will take this opportunity of throwing out a uggestion, that it would be much the
1294
best plan to put an end to all the Australian Commissioners, to whom allusion is made in the bill before your Lordships, altogether. A worse system was never adopted for the management of a colony. We ought to place that colony, as the other colonies under the Government of her Majesty, and rule it in the usual way by the Colonial-office. I disapprove of these commissions altogether.
The Bill was then committed, and its third reading fixed, as we understood, for Monday, until which day their Lordships adjourned.