Sitting of 30 April 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2o Industrial and Provident Societies.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIE TIES BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to improve and consolidate the existing Acts relating to co-operative societies. The history of these societies was somewhat curious. When they first came into existence, their capital was formed of contributions of 2d. a week. It was in 1844, when temporary distress prevailed in Rochdale, that the operatives of that town thought it was desirable that they should act together for their mutual benefit in a more decided and business-like form than they had ever done before. Their place of meeting was a small room, in a street appropriately called Toad Lane, and the weekly contribution was 2d. each. From so modest a beginning the co-operative movement, by dint of good management, frugality, and a steady adherence to the admirable system of paying ready money, had attained to a pitch of prosperity which was highly creditable to the working classes of this country. It had been productive of great moral, social, and commercial benefits, and deserved the highest praise and consideration of that House. The societies were certainly entitled to have the law relating to them made plain, intelligible, and straightforward—and it was with that object he had introduced the Bill then under consideration. He had beep furnished by those who were interested in the question with a list of the co-operative societies in whose names they had addressed him. At the present moment there were 150 co-operative societies in existence, with 48,184 members, owning a capital of £336,290, and doing a

1091
business which, in the course of last year amounted to the extraordinary and almost incredible sum of £1,512,117. Those enormous results were the best arguments that could be adduced in proof of the importance of the subject, and they had been achieved within a period of less than twenty years by the prudence and frugality of working men, who had taken their own business into their own hands, and in the management of it had exhibited the characteristic qualities of resolution, bravery under difficulties, a determination to carry a point which they knew to be a proper one, and a great power of self-control over their own wishes, fancies, and desires, so that not a single farthing should be spent except for the general good. Two-thirds of the present Bill were merely re-enactments of existing statutes, and the other third consisted of new provisions. He would briefly state the additions which he proposed to make to the law now in force. Co-operative societies found it absolutely necessary to have power to hold more than one acre of land. When they first obtained a legal existence, in 1852, the experiment was then an untried one, and Parliament was naturally cautious in the amount of power with which it chose to invest these newly-created bodies. Moreover, at that time Parliament had not yet sanctioned the principle of limited liability; but now, when limited liability had received the sanction of the Legislature, he could not but hope that any little scruple or jealousy which might have existed in 1852 had been swept away long ago, and that there would be no objection to allow cooperative societies to hold more than one acre of land. Another clause would enable them to build, to lease, to rent, and to sell house or any other kind of property. He also asked that they might be allowed to invest their surplus funds in any other societies or companies they might deem advisable. Co-operative societies were so intertwined together in their pecuniary arrangements that they might almost be said to be affiliated, and yet they were carrying on their business independent of one another. He thought they should be permitted to invest their surplus funds in the business of other societies. He likewise proposed to extend to them the principle of limited liability, and in another clause he asked the House to allow them to use a portion of their funds for purposes of education,
1092
recreation, and mutual improvement. The Bill of 1852 had reference exclusively to the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act which was then in existence. Among the purposes enumerated in the first section of that Act, passed in 1850, education had its place; but it was subsequently erased, and hence it was doubtful as a legal question whether the societies formed under the Friendly Societies Act of 1850 still retained the powers which they possessed at their formation, or whether those powers had not been limited or curtailed by the Act passed in 1855 or 1856. The result was that the Registrar in England refused to allow the purpose of education, while the Registrar in Scotland permitted it. He asked the House to give a general power to co-operative societies to apply a portion of their funds to the purposes of education and mutual improvement. He was not aware that any hon. Member intended to oppose the Bill. It had been suggested that the Bill was unnecessary, inasmuch as the Government were promoting a measure which would cover the whole of the ground, and that there was no occasion for special legislation on behalf of co-operative societies. It was not only his duty but his interest to receive respectfully any criticisms or suggestions which might come to him from the Government, but he doubted whether the Government measure really covered every part of the ground occupied by his Bill, and he knew it to be a fact that the cooperative societies themselves were anxious to have a special law of their own. Hitherto they had grown and prospered under a special law, consisting of two statutes, and all they wanted was that those statutes should be consolidated and amended. The high moral qualities which they had exhibited during the last fifteen years entitled them to the consideration of Parliament, and, even if it were necessary to copy into the Bill the clauses of the Government measure, he thought they should be gratified so far as to have an Act of their own. It would be his duty, in any case, to take care that, the provisions of the Bill should harmonize with those of the general measure proposed by the Government, and in effecting that object he had no doubt he might confidently reckon upon the valuable aid of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. The advantages derivable from co-operative societies were not to be measured by those which had already accrued. In

1093
the principle of co-operation among working men the true solution was to be found of many of those questions which at present vexed the nation and troubled Parliament. Sanitary progress was arrested because the lower classes could not be persuaded to regard as benefits the regulations devised for their health and comfort, while those interested in mechanics' institutes had arrived at something like a deadlock. Co-operation would lead the working classes to see and acknowledge the necessity of such sanitary regulations as authority might enforce upon them, and it would rectify the error from which mechanics' institutes were suffering—namely, that the work had not been begun at a sufficiently low level. They ought to go down to the very bottom of society, and then by working upwards, their success, if not rapid, would be uninterrupted, and eventually complete. Another question to be solved by the principle of cooperation was that of education. One of the most difficult problems of the day was to what extent and under what conditions Parliament should assist the efforts of individuals in carrying on the work of education. Although the Educational Code had undergone two, if not three revisions, he could regard it only as a provisional Code, and he was persuaded that the true solution of the question was to be found in enlisting the sympathies, wishes, and understanding of the working classes in the work by means of the principle of co-operation. He asked the House to strengthen that breakwater which had been a protection to co-operative societies against the storms and winds of the deep sea. They had not embarked in a pleasure-boat, but were men pulling for their lives in a more skiff, and deserved to be protected from the surging billows which surrounded them on every side, and which might engulf them at any moment. The object of the Bill was simply the consolidation of existing Acts, which worked well, with some few alterations, amendments and additions which experience had suggested to the parties most interested in working them out. As he had stated, he relied on the assistance and admirable counsel of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to make the provisions of the Bill harmonize with those of the excellent measure introduced by the Government. He moved the second reading of the Bill.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had no objection whatever to offer to the second reading of a Bill which had certainly been introduced for objects which in themselves were most admirable. Any encouragement that could be offered to the parties it was intended to benefit would, no doubt, be well bestowed. The only criticism to which the Bill was liable was, that it merely proposed to enable provident associations to do those very things which they would be enabled to do under the provisions of the measure already before the House, and which had been carefully framed with the view of including cases of that description. He was not prepared to say, however, that there might not be Provident Societies as to which the Bill might be said to take up different ground. Of course, he guarded himself against being supposed to admit that it would be expedient to have two Bills before the House at once, proposing to deal with the same matter; and it would be much more desirable if the Bill were limited to those objects that required to be specially dealt with in reference to associations of that particular kind; but if his right hon. Friend would give his assistance in making the provisions of the two Hills consistent, he should be quite satisfied with that assurance.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he wished to thank his right hon. Friend for the very able and excellent manner in which he had brought forward the Bill. After the experience they had acquired of the working of the present Acts, the large number of persons who availed themselves of them, and the great advantages which had resulted from them in stimulating industry and forethought, the House was bound by every consideration to give fair play and power of extension to these Friendly Societies. He gave every credit to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for the pains he had taken on this subject, but there might be some points still that required alteration. These societies had grown up in such numbers and with such capital that they required additional means to enable them to spread their benefits to other places and in their own districts. Why should they not be permitted to have a larger amount of land? And why not also allow them to engraft on their societies the powers given by the Act for limiting the liability of partners? The members of those societies would thus have much greater facilities than they now possessed for acquiring by

1095
their own means improved dwellings, perhaps with small gardens attached. Poor-rates would thus be lessened; the health and comfort of the people promoted, and a stimulus given to the humbler classes to elevate their own position in society.
Bill read 2o, and committed Wednesday.

INNS OF COURT GOVERNMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING DEFERRED.
  Order for Second Heading read.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that he should move that the second reading be fixed for Wednesday next.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he had had some communication with the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer) on the subject of the Bill. It was thought it would be more convenient for the legal profession to take the discussion on Tuesday than on Wednesday, when they could not so well attend in their places.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

METROPOLITAN LOCAL MANAGE MENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
  Clause 90 (Affixing Names of Streets by Vestries and District Boards).
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he felt an objection to the power given by the clause to the Metropolitan Board of Works to affix names to private residences. He hoped the Committee would not confer such a power on the Board, and that some thing like discretion would be used in giving new names to streets.
  MR. TITEexplained, that great confusion was occasioned by the multiplication of the same names in different parts of the metropolis, and that it was desirable the Board should have the power in question.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, he should support the clause, on the ground, amongst others, that it would greatly facilitate the postal service.
  MR. SLANEYsuggested, that the Board should take a hint from the American cities, where the streets, when not numbered, were called after the names of certain trees.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he proposed to add to the end of the clause a proviso, to the effect that it should not apply to
  1096
  the City of London or the liberties thereof. The authority of the City of London had the power, under the Sewers Act, of altering the names of the streets in the City, and he objected to extending the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the City for the same purpose.
  MR. BRISTOWremarked, that it had been decided by the Court of Common Pleas that the Board of Works already had the power by law of changing the names of streets within the City.
  MR. COXsaid, he hoped that if power were granted to the Board, they would use it with discretion, and preserve the old names and landmarks in the City with which they were associated.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he supposed that the changes would be made in the modern parts of the metropolis, and thought that, the discretion might well be left to the Board.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he should support the clause, as he was not inclined to except the City from its operation. He hoped, however, that it would be carefully exercised, and that old landmarks would be preserved.
  MR. HEADLAMremarked, that the Metropolitan Board already possessed the power of altering the names of streets in the City of London, and the clause merely provided for the continuation of the existing power. If no practical inconvenience had arisen from the exercise of that power, why should they introduce an exemption that was not in the former Act?
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he thought it was unadvisable that there should be two conflicting authorities, and he would therefore suggest, that before the Metropolitan Board of Works changed the names of streets within the City, they should consult with the corporation.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Clause agreed to; as were also clauses 91 to 94.
  Clause 95 (Licensing Cowhouses).
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, it would be impossible for the justices of the peace to carry out the various duties imposed on them by the clause.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, the justices must, of course, depend on the reports of the district boards and vestries. The duties of the justices, therefore, would be for the most part ministerial.
  MR. AYRTONremarked, that the Go-

  1097
  vernment must at some time or other, appoint special justices of the peace for the metropolis.
  Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 96 to 110.
  Clause 111 (Interpretation of Terms),
  MR. AYRTONobserved, that the definition given of the words "new street" would operate injuriously on the owners of property who had complied with the existing law, by compelling them to put down the solid pavement required, not by the owners, but by the growing wants of the whole neighbourhood. They might make the law with regard to subsequent acts as stringent as might be thought necessary; but he objected to a retrospective operation of the clause.
  MR. TITEsaid, the clause had been carefully prepared to meet the great evils which had arisen from the circumstance of the district Boards being called on to put down expensive drainage to a few houses built at a distance from existing roads. The operation of the Bill would only extend back to the period when the jurisdiction of the Board originated.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he desired to confine the definition "new street" to streets made after the passing of this Act. With a view, therefore, of leaving out all the words giving the clause a retrospective operation, he would move the omission of the words, "or which may have been formed or laid out since the 1st of January, 1856."
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, he thought there was a considerable amount of equity in the suggested alteration, and he therefore assented to it.
  Words struck out.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to move the insertion of a clause continuing the powers of the Finsbury Park Act until the 17th August, 1865.
  MR. COXsaid, that the inhabitants of Finsbury had a right to complain of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who, having taken the matter out of the hands of the promoters of the original Bill for the making of the park, had failed to carry out the Act which they obtained for that purpose.
  MR. AYRTONsuggested, that instead of giving the powers objected to to the Board until the year 1865, the powers should be merely conferred for one year, and that 1863 should be substituted for 1865.
  MR. COXsaid, the clause might as well be struck out if the powers were only given to the Board for twelve months.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would not object to the alteration.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to move a new clause constituting Plumstead and Lewisham into separate districts, with power to send representatives to the Metropolitan Board of Works.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, he must oppose the clause. The Bill was an amending Bill only; and did not propose to deal with the constitution of the Metropolitan Board.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he wished to move a clause to the effect that the several parishes of the Plumstead District Board of Works, including Plumstead, Eltham, Lee, Slidbrooke, and Charlton, should, on the 1st of January, 1863, cease to be united and form one district; and that the parish of Plumstead should form one district, and that there should be a Board of Works for such district. The Secretary for War had no objection to the clause.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, he must object to the clause as altering the constitution of the District Board, as well as altering the constitution of the Metropolitan Board. Other parishes had made similar requests, but the Committee had not thought proper to grant them.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he rose to move the insertion after Clause 83 of the following clause:—
  "The ninety-ninth section of the firstly-recited Act is hereby repealed; and in lieu thereof, Be it Enacted, that whenever the freeholder of any court, passage, or public place, not being a thoroughfare, is vested in the same person or persons as the freehold of any adjoining house or houses, the owner or owners of such adjoining house or houses shall be deemed, for the purpose of the recited Acts and this Act, to be the owner or owners of such court, passage, or public place, and the paving thereof shall be done by such owner or owners, if so directed by the vestry or district board."
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  MR. TITEsaid, he should oppose the clause as unnecessary.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to draw attention to the state of certain houses in Stamford Street, and various other parts of the metropolis, which had remained in a dilapidated condition for many years. He thought some power

  1099
  ought to be given by the Bill to prevent the destruction of property in that way.
  MR. BRADYsaid there were thirty or forty such houses, and they were not only a disgrace to London, but an injury to society, and he thought it would be a good remedy to make the owners of such property pay the rates and taxes, just as though the houses were occupied.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the authorities had a remedy when the houses became in a dangerous state. If the houses were not dangerous, the only remedy at present was for the owners of the adjoining property to purchase them.
  Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 46: Majority 28.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he would then bring up a clause to be inserted after Clause 95, giving vestries and district boards power to contract for the removal of manure from stables and cowhouses. His object was to deal with manure in the same manner as dust was dealt with, and to compel the owners of stables to remove their manure before it became a nuisance to the neighbourhood. During the winter months the manure was removed, because the farmers having then nothing else to do, it paid them to come into town to take it away; but in the summer months, when their avocations were numerous, the manure was allowed to accumulate in the metropolis. All the officers of health approved of the clause and testified to its necessity.
  MR. TITEsaid, he thought the clause went altogether too far.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSconsidered the proposal monstrous.
  MR. AYRTONsuggested, that on the bringing up of the report a more moderate proposal should be made.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, he had to move the insertion after Clause 108, of a clause empowering the Metropolitan Board of Works with the sanction of the Secretary of State, to subdivide districts in schedule B, in case of increase of population.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he objected to the clause as it empowered the Board with the consent of the Home Secretary, to alter entirely the whole constitution of the Board. If the circumstances were so grave as to render a change necessary in the constitu-
  1100
  tion of the Board and form new districts, the change should take place under the authority of Parliament.
  MR. TITEsaid, the clause applied only to the outlying parishes.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, the clause appeared to him to be necessary to carry out the objects of the Bill. He would suggest, however, as a proviso, that the number of the Metropolitan Board should not be increased or diminished by any such alterations.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the outlying districts, which when the original Act was passed were only green fields, were now portions of the metropolis, and therefore it was necessary to create such a power as that which was contained in the clause. He thought, however, that no division of any parish should take place unless the new district contained not less than 50,000 inhabitants.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought the limit of increase should be fixed, and it ought to be clearly defined under what circumstances the subdivision should take place.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTobserved, that he did not regard the mere assent of the Secretary of State as a sufficient safeguard for the proper application of the powers of the clause.
  MR. LOCKEcontended, that the assent of the several subdivisions of a district should be had before a separation was permitted.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the effect of the clause would be to induce outlying parishes to see how they might alter and carve matters to suit their own interests. It would be far better that any change should be made with more deliberation and better safeguards.
  MR. COXsuggested, that the clause should be applicable only to districts possessing 2,000 rateable houses.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he thought it would be much better not to place any limitation upon the discretion of the Secretary of State.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he had to propose that the following Clause should follow Clause 108:—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall make the City of London or the Liberties thereof liable to contribute towards any of the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Board under the provisions contained in' The Metropolis Gas Act,' 1860, or the Act to amend the Metropolis Gas Act, of

  1101
  the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth years of Victoria, chapter seventy-nine, or to any expenses already incurred by the Board in the execution of the firstly and secondly recited Acts which the City of London or the Liberties thereof would not have been liable to pay if this Act had not been passed."
  The City was exempted from, the liability referred to by the existing Act.
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it was only by the neglect of the House of Commons that the City was exempt from that liability. The City shared in the benefit of these Acts, and he did not see why the City should not bear its share of the expense.
  MR. COXsaid, the City was exempted by the Acts from the expenses, and he did not see why they should be incidentally charged with them.
  MR. AYRTONconsidered, there was no necessity for legislation on the subject.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, the clause merely left things as it found them.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, then surely there was no necessity for the clause. The City had no right to come to the House and say that they were not liable to the expenses of those Gas Acts, one object of the Acts being to test the purity of the gas. The City had the benefit of the Act, and it was monstrous that the City should receive the benefit and seek to throw the expense on the rest of the metropolis.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he considered the proposition most unjust.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he thought that all the parishes that were benefited by the Gas Act ought to contribute to the expense of it.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 23; Noes 56: Majority 33.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, he had to move the addition of a clause saving the rights of the Crown and of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he then rose to propose a number of clauses abolishing the existing mode of electing members of the Metropolitan Board of Works by the vestries, and providing that they should in future be elected annually at the same time as the members of the vestry, and by the persons entitled to vote in the election of vestrymen. The existing
  1102
  mode of election was, in his opinion, most unsatisfactory; and the change which he proposed had been recommended by a Committee which had inquired into the subject. He was also anxious that the number of the Metropolitan Board should be increased, but for that change he admitted that he had not the authority of that Committee. The various proposals which had been made for reforming the Corporation of the City of London, and the large council which it had always been proposed to establish for that municipality, was however a good authority for his desire to increase the number of the Board which had to regulate the affairs of the whole metropolis. The Common Council of the City of London consisted of 232 members, and a Conservative Lord Mayor in his Bill to amend the corporation, proposed that the number should be 170, while the Government in their Bill proposed that the number should be 150. He thought, therefore, that he should be justified in fixing the number of the Metropolitan Board at 150. At the same time, he did not wish to embarrass the discussion of the mode in which the members of that Board should be elected by connecting with it a debate as to what should be the number of that Board; and therefore he should not at that moment make any proposal upon the latter subject. An attempt had been made to create a prejudice against his proposal of a new mode of electing the members of the Board by a circular which had been addressed by the Lord Mayor to Members of that House. That circular ran as follows:—
  "I wish to direct your serious attention to the Amendments proposed by Mr. Ayrton in the Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment Act. They constitute, in fact, an insidious attempt to construct a democratic corporation for the whole metropolis, under cover of amending the law as relates to the management of a local Board. It is doubtful, I think, whether the introduction of such a scheme is admissible by the rules of Parliament as an amendment upon such a Bill, involving as it does a virtual repeal of Lord Llanover's Local Management Act. A body is proposed to be created which will consist of no less than 172 persons—an alarming fact—who will be intrusted with a vast power of rating, representing virtually population merely, without any counterbalance by which property will receive its fair share of influence. To construct an exclusive democratic chamber of this kind, speaking in the names and dealing with the destinies of three millions of people, appears to me a dangerous experiment, and one which I think Parliament is little prepared to deal with, unless it were by a Bill introduced upon the responsi-

  1103
  bility of Her Majesty's Government. You will excuse the liberty I take in submitting these remarks to your consideration.
  (Signed) "WILLIAM CUBITI."
  "Mansion House."
  Now he (Mr. Ayrton) thought that the Lord Mayor, before he penned that circular, ought to have ascertained the truth, and then to have stated it. It was not likely that he (Mr. Ayrton) would propose a democratic constitution without regard to property; he did not profess democratic principles, and never had done so. How untrue the assertions of the Lord Mayor were, was shown at once by the fact that he (Mr. Ayrton) proposed to place the power of election in the hands of those who now elected vestrymen, and who, as they must be persons occupying houses rated at £20 per annum, could not be persons without property. It might be more fairly objected that he had not proposed to make the election sufficiently popular; but in the present state of things he had thought it better to adhere to the existing franchise than to propose that the members of the Board should be elected by persons having a smaller qualification than was at present enjoyed by the electors of vestrymen. There was another reason why he wished to impress the matter on the Committee. Almost every district of the metropolis was now represented by a local journal, conducted with as much ability as a leading newspaper was some twenty years ago. These papers kept the district well informed upon their rights and political situation. That was an additional reason why the members of the Board should be elected by the districts themselves. The objections to his proposal all resolved themselves into this—that the vestries did not wish to lose the power they possessed. If a higher body were introduced to interfere with all the petty jobs of a parish, the parochial mind was outraged, and they considered that a revolution was at hand. He wondered how the two hon. Members for Kidderminster and Bath, sitting behind the Government bench could oppose his views, notwithstanding the political paralysis under which the House was suffering with respect to all liberal feelings. He appealed to his hon. Friends against the vestrydom of the metropolis. He (Mr. Ayrton) would be sorry to be the lackey of the metropolitan vestries. He would prefer not to have a seat in that House; and he believed he held his seat direct from the electors. Vestries were very ex-
  1104
  cellent people; but if the constitution of those bodies were altered, their members would at once rise in the social scale. Why was it that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board was to take no part in the Exhibition which was to take place on the following day. There was painful proof that the Board of Works did not now possess the confidence or represent the feeling of the metropolis, and it was only by some such mode as he proposed that it could be brought into harmony with the inhabitants of London. The hon. Member concluded by moving the first of the clauses.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he should oppose the Motion on the simple ground that so great a change, even if it were desirable, ought to be submitted to Parliament in the shape of a separate Bill.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he might refer to the Report of the Committee over which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had presided with such signal ability and patience, for the purpose of showing how slight was the foundation on which the hon. Member had built up his argument. He did not deny that greater weight might attach to the deliberations of the Metropolitan Board if the Members were directly elected; but he felt bound to express his sense of the extreme importance of maintaining in his present position the gentleman who now filled the office of Chairman of the Board of Works, and at the same time his marked admiration of the manner in which that gentleman had devoted his great talents and the whole of his time and attention to the extremely difficult and complicated duties connected with that office. He thought the present time singularly inappropriate for a sweeping change, when the Board was engaged in carrying out one of the largest constructive works ever undertaken.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he always found that whenever a proposition for change was brought forward, somebody was sure to find out that it was not the proper time. He had always been a supporter of the Metropolitan Board, and he entertained the very highest opinion of the gentleman who presided over the Board; but there could be no doubt that their influence would be increased by the adoption of the principle of direct election. Surely, if that body had been elected by the public, he thought that the chairman would have met with as much

  1105
  consideration on an occasion like the ceremony of the following day, as the chairman of the Corporation of the City of London. It was due to the Metropolitan Board of Works to say that the point for which they had passed a vote of thanks to the the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was not for introducing his Bill to make a road across Kensington Gardens, but for sending them the heads of that Bill. Sweeping changes were always objected to as inappropriate, but the present time was as appropriate as any other, because the Metropolitan Board of Works would always have important works to discharge; moreover, the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend would only have the effect of introducing the principle of direct election gradually. It did not go to the removal of the whole of the Board at once. One-third would go out in May next year, and all his hon. and learned Friend proposed was that that third should be replaced by men elected by the ratepayers. Thus two-thirds of the present body would be undisturbed, and he believed that a large proportion of the remainder would be re-elected. What ob-objection was there to the Board being elected by the same persons who returned Members to that House? It was also to be remembered that there were many useful persons who had a great objection to serving on vestries. He thought the plan of his hon. and learned Friend had been misunderstood, and he wished that the election of this body could be placed in the hands of the ratepayers.
  MR. AYRTONexplained, that he would leave the present constitution of the Board unchanged until the month of May, 1863, and that he would then have a third of the members elected, while another third should be elected in 1864 and another in 1865.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Wednesday next.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS,
  MR. BRANDsaid, he might be allowed to state, for the convenience of the House, that the first order for to-morrow would be the Markets and Fairs (Ireland) Bill. It had been the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill first, but the representations made to him that day by a deputation had induced him to postpone
  1106
  the further consideration of that measure to Thursday, the 8th of May.
  House adjourned at ten minute before Six o'clock.