Lords Sitting of 4 May 1841

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Downshire, and Viscount Duncannon, from Portsmouth, and Portsea, for the Jews Declaration Bill.—By the Marquess of Downshire, from Ireland, and Surrey, against any Alteration, and by Earl Fitzwilliam, from Manufacturers in Yorkshire, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Earl Fitzwilliam, and the Marquess of Normanby, from Members of the Socialists, for an Inquiry into their Opinions.—By Lord Hatherton, from a place in Lincolnshire, for an Alteration of the Turnpike Acts.—By Lord Sondes, from Ufford (Northampton), against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.

DRAINAGE OF TOWNS.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas desirous that the city of Oxford, should be exempted from the operation of the bill. The provisions of the bill could be carried into effect by the civic authorities of Oxford, under certain local acts, instead of its object being carried out by commissioners appointed under this measure.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he would rather come to some understanding with the noble Duke as to the single case of Oxford, than postpone the bill which had been so repeatedly delayed for the purposes of making further alterations.
Lord Lyndhurstinquired whether the noble Marquess would allow a separate bill to be introduced with reference to Cambridge.
The Marquess of Normanbyanswered in the negative. The noble and learned Lord ought to have made this proposition earlier.
Lord Lyndhurstwas of opinion, that the bill should be postponed. He knew very little about the measure. It was originally introduced, he believed, without any discussion at all, and read a second time without observation. It was then referred to a Select Committee, of which he was not a Member.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the measure had been discussed; and if the noble and learned Lord was not present at the discussion it was his own fault. He (the Marquess of Normanby), at the opening of the Session, gave a full and ample explanation of his intentions; and on the second reading of the bill a discussion of considerable length occurred. If, therefore, the noble and learned Lord was not in his place on those occasions, he had no right to complain. As to Cambridge, he understood that there were no such local acts there as those which applied to Oxford.
The Earl of Riponexpressed a wish that Birmingham should be exempted from the operation of the bill, as he understood Oxford would be.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the noble Duke had stated that Oxford ought to be exempted, in consequence of the existence of certain local acts; but such a proposition did not at all apply to the town of Birmingham.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas of opinion that the measure should be postponed. There was no necessity for proceeding in such a hurry. The present Session was not about to close immediately—at least, so far as he knew.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, it certainly was right to consider whether local acts, passed for the Government of certain towns, were sufficient for carrying the objects of this bill into effect. The Select Committee had not overlooked that point. The committee had inquired, and they found generally, that those acts were not applicable to the purposes of the bill.
The Earl of Riponasked whether, with reference to those places where local acts gave certain powers to the civic authorities, it would not be convenient that those bodies, armed with further powers, should be employed to carry the provisions of the measure into effect, instead of the whole business being conducted by commissioners appointed under the bill? He did not want a general clause, but he wished the town of Birmingham to be placed in the schedule as one of the exempted places.
Lord Ellenboroughcould not agree to the proposition, that in every case where local acts existed all the powers contemplated by this measure should be given to the body appointed under such acts. This measure had already been much considered. The noble Marquess had made a speech stating his intentions in the first instance; lie had shortly after introduced this bill, which was discussed on the second reading, and then referred to a Select Committee. He never recollected more attention to have been paid to any measure than was paid by the committee to this bill. Every clause to which they agreed, or which they rejected, was fully considered. He did not know of any measure for many years brought under the consideration of Parliament that, in his opinion, was of greater importance than this bill, because it respected the comforts of the people, the wants of the people, the health of the people; because it was a pledge to the whole of the labour-

1449
ing classes of this country that their Lordships would willingly do whatever they could for the comfort and happiness of those classes; because it showed that they were anxious to give to the labouring and working man a home, where he might enjoy that comfort, without the possession of which it was impossible that education could produce those moral effects that otherwise would spring from it. The statement of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), which was echoed by the whole House, was decisive on this point, and ought not to be forgotten. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not, for reasons of a light, trifling, or temporary nature, retard the progress of this measure. He trusted, that instead of giving increased powers to bodies constituted under local acts, they would strictly adhere to the principles of the bill, and give this great boon without delay to the labouring classes of the country.
The Marquess of Salisbury The Marquess of Salisbury moved a clause, for the purpose of excluding from the operation of the bill those lands that were already drained by water-courses under local acts.
Clause agreed to.
The Earl of Haddingtonobjected to the powers which, under this act, would be given to the sheriff or sheriff-depute in Scotland, instead of to the commissioners of supply. Commissioners of supply were spread all over the country, and to them ought to be intrusted the power necessary for carrying the bill into effect. He should propose, that in a limited time after the passing of the act, the commissioners of supply should hold a special meeting; that they should divide each county into districts; that they should appoint committees for each, and that those committees should have the necessary powers for carrying the bill into effect. With that view, he should move that the words "sheriff or sheriff-depute" in the 42nd clause be struck out; and "committees of commissioners of supply" be inserted in lieu thereof. He should then move a clause enacting "that within three months after the passing of this act the commissioners of supply shall specially meet, and divide the counties into districts, and that they shall proceed to appoint committees for carrying the bill into effect."
Viscount Melvilleopposed the amendment.
The Marquess of Normunbysaid, he had
1450
endeavoured to ascertain what machinery would be best calculated to carry out the object of his bill in Scotland—a country with respect to which he possessed very little local knowledge, and, from the information which he had received, he thought it was better to place the power necessary for bringing the provisions of the hill into operation in the hands of the sheriff or sheriff-depute, rather than in those of the commissioners of supply.
Amendment negatived.
The Earl of Ripon The Earl of Ripon moved that Birmingham be placed in the schedule. There were certain commissioners of sewers in that town under a local act, whose powers had not been repealed or altered by the present bill; and, if nothing were done, these commissioners and the town council would have conflicting jurisdictions, opposed to each other. Now, there was no reason why these powers should not be continued in the local commission. They had performed their duties for thirty years in a manner which had given satisfaction to all classes; but, at any rate, the anomaly which this bill would cause ought to be prevented. He, on this simple ground, moved that Birmingham be added to the schedule.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that his noble Friend had omitted to mention an important distinction between the commissioners of the town of Birmingham and the commissioners of other towns inserted in the schedule; and also the distinction between them and the commissioners of the town of Oxford. All these commissioners were elected in the same manner by the rate-payers, but the commissioners of Birmingham were self-elected. He thought if this power were not given to those who were subject to popular control, it should be given to those for whom the Executive was responsible. For this reason, amongst others, he should oppose the amendment.
The Earl of Warwicksaid, that these commissioners were universally looked up to and respected at Birmingham, and, despite all the political excitement that had taken place in that town, had done their duty.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that this bill would not transfer the power from the commissioners; it would merely give the Crown a power of selection.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that his object was to prevent confusion in the town of Birmingham, since all who read the Act

1451
would find that these commissioners were able to do many things which must bring them into conflict with those whom the Crown might appoint.
In answer to a question from the Earl of Wicklow,
The Earl of Riponsaid, that he apprehended the amendment would not preclude any other persons from sitting as commissioners, but, if it did, it would not make any difference.
The House divided—Content 69; Not-Content 36: Majority 33.
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington moved, that Oxford be added in the bill to Manchester and York.
The Marquess of Normanby assented.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time and passed.

BOROUGH IMPROVEMENTS.
On the question that the Borough Improvements Bill be read a third time,
The Duke of Wellington moved with respect to Oxford similar to that which he had moved when the third reading of the Drainage Bill was under consideration.
Motion agreed to.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he had, on a former day, presented several petitions from the rated inhabitants of the town of Birmingham, praying that the town of Birmingham might be excluded from the operation of the bill, and he now, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, rose to move a proviso to that effect. He would state in a few words the grounds on which he made that proposal. They bore some resemblance to the grounds stated by his noble Friend in the former amendment. There had been for thirty years a local Act applicable to the town of Birmingham, and the commissioners under that local Act had powers similar to and corresponding nearly to, the powers proposed to be given to the town council by this bill. They had exercised those powers entirely to the satisfaction of the people of Birmingham, and he might appeal to gentlemen resident in that town or in its neighbourhood, to state whether a greater portion of improvement had not taken place in it within those thirty years, under the jurisdiction of the commissioners, than in any other town in this kingdom. The commissioners, who were men of all parties and sects, had acted with the greatest cordiality and harmony; but this bill proposed to substitute for them the town council, which was notoriously the most party body in the empire—the
1452
most radical body in the empire—the most sweeping and unmeasured in every step in which, it had proceeded. He could only say, that all its conduct had been in conformity with its original creation. He would mention one instance. There was a Borough Court in Birmingham, which had a registrar, and it was usual to give such an appointment to a lawyer, or to a person who had some legal knowledge; but this town council appointed, not a lawyer nor a person who had some legal knowledge, but the editor or manager of a Radical journal in that town. He would ask, was the House willing to entrust such extraordinary powers—such unlimited powers—of taxation, with no appeal to the commissioners who had so well exercised their duty, or would they entrust them to a town council, composed of party men, and influenced by the principles which he had stated? He was sure that they would not hesitate, and he was sure that they would all be of opinion that the town of Birmingham ought to be excluded from the bill. He, for one, would repeat, that he would not consent to give such large powers to a party body, constituted in such a manner. It might purchase whatever property it pleased, and give whatever price it pleased, without any control or appeal. Another inconvenience would be this:—It might be proposed to purchase some property. The commissioners might say, "Give such a price;" and the town council might say, "Give such a price." Now, who was to decide between them? Nothing could be more absurd than allowing such conflicting jurisdictions to exist in one town. It was ridiculous while the one competent jurisdiction existed to establish a concurrent jurisdiction. It was on these grounds that he proposed, by way of proviso, "that nothing in this Act shall extend to the town of Birmingham."
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he thought that there was no danger that the powers proposed to be given to the town council would be abused. He admitted with the noble and learned Lord that nothing could be more undesirable than that there should be conflicting jurisdiction in the same town: but the Act under which these commissioners were appointed was only for five years, and that time had almost expired. The Act was intended for a temporary purpose—that purpose had been answered, and as the object of the bill now before the House was intended to introduce one general system of improve-

1453
ment in large and populous towns, he hoped the noble and learned Lord would not press his motion.
Lord Ellenboroughwas anxious that the House should act on a uniform principle. His noble Friend near him had recently carried an amendment to this effect—that the commissioners under the local act at Birmingham had discharged their functions so satisfactorily, that it was quite safe to delegate to them the additional powers under this act. Did he understand his noble Friend to exclude Birmingham by his present amendment?
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that the form of his motion would exclude Birmingham. But be had no objection so to frame the provision as to vest the existing commissioners with all the powers given to the town councils by the act.
Lord Ellenborough: That obviates all my objection.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that after the decision which had been come to on the former amendment, it was not his intention to press the House to a division against the motion of the noble and learned Lord. He must, however, protest against Birmingham being made an exemption from the system of popular control.
Motion agreed to.
Earl Stanhope Earl Stanhope moved a proviso, excluding the borough of Derby from the operation of the act.
The Marquess of Normanbyopposed the motion. The reason for this motion was not the same as the last. The commissioners in Derby amounted to about 400,
Amendment negatived, Bill passed.
The Buildings Regulation Bill was also read a third time and passed.
House adjourned.