tained, become the law for electing Vestrymen as the House, apparently, was not aware and Auditors of Accounts, and otherwise be in of the peculiar nature of the Act which force in every parish mentioned in either of the was to be rendered compulsory upon paSchedules (A) and (B) to this Act which has not adopted such Act, in manner therein provided, in rishes. Under these circumstances, he like manner as if the forty-third Section of the felt it his duty to oppose the clause. said Act were repealed, and as if every such SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that he parish had so adopted the said Act, and notice had on of such adoption had been given as therein dia previous occasion stated the rected.") nature of the amendments which he proposed to make in Hobhouse's Act. They were of a trifling character, and it would be impossible to introduce them into the present Bill, because only those localities likely to be affected by this measure would have the benefit of those amendments. He therefore thought it desirable to bring in a short Bill to amend Hobhouse's Act. He intended to adopt that Act in its integrity. He did not propose to have a system of plural voting in the metropolis, being of opinion that single voting was far preferable in large cities and towns. With respect to the non-adoption of Hobhouse's Act, he might state that in the four most wealthy parishes in the metropolis-St. George's, Hanover Square; St. James's, Westminster; St. Pancras, and Marylebone-Hobhouse's Act was in force. It certainly was not a compulsory Act, and was so clogged with peculiar provisions that its adoption was a matter of great difficulty; and, as a proof of this, he might mention that, at a meeting which took place in Paddington the other day, only eleven persons voted against it, while some 2,800 persons voted in its favour; but as 2,800 ratepayers did not comprehend two-thirds of the whole of the ratepayers of the parish the Act could not be adopted. SIR FREDERIC THESIGER said, the clause was one of considerable importance, and he thought the House would have done right if it had adopted the proposition of the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Ebrington). The clause proposed to import Hobhouse's Act into the Bill; whilst it was said that it would not work with the Bill, unless certain alterations were made in Hobhouse's Act. Now, how could the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill avouch, with any certainty, the passing of the Bill to amend that Act in the manner which he had pointed out. Surely the more prudent course would have been to have ascertained the opinion of the House on that subject in the first instance. Now, what would be the effect of Hobhouse's Act on this Bill. There was no doubt the Bill would impose very considerable charges on property. Now, property ought to be adequately represented and protected. Under the Vestry Act, 58 Geo. III., a scale of voting was provided, by which an additional number of votes was given according to the scale of rating, and no person could possess more than six votes. That principle was carried out in the Poor Law Amendment Act, with an important addition, allowing pro perty to be represented, so that owners, as well as occupiers, were entitled to vote; and if an owner was in occupation, he was entitled to both-both as owner and occupier. Property was thus protected against being overwhelmed by numbers, as it was likely to be under the present Bill. The clause now under consideration proposed to sweep away all such protection, and to force upon the metropolis, by compulsion, Hobhouse's Act, instead of allowing parishes to adopt it or not, just as they pleased. That Act, he believed, had been adopted in very few instances, and therefore it was clear that it was not generally considered a desirable measure. It appeared to him that this clause was a violation of the principle on which the Legislature had proceeded for a great number of years, and the course now proposed was the more dangerous, inasmuch VISCOUNT EBRINGTON said, he did not think there was much satisfaction with the Bill, even among the ground landlords, but the persons most aggrieved were those who laid out their capital in buildingswho were, practically, owners for a great number of years of the land which they were in possession of, and who would have no voice in the disposal of the taxation to which they were subjected. If the sewers rates were paid by the owners, the authorities would have the pleasure of constructing sewers upon other people's property with other people's money, thus dissevering taxation and representation. He believed the Public Health Bill-not the Bill of his right hon. colleague-had worked very well for the interests of the owners as well as for the interests of the poor. He should have the pleasure of supporting the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger), not for the exclusion of Hobhouse's Act from the object for which it was originally intended, but from all such interference as this Bill proposed. MR. WILKINSON said, everything depended on the engagement that the right hon. Baronet would so modify the Bill as to make it palatable to all parties. He (Mr. Wilkinson) had never heard any objection in Lambeth to the system of single voting, though there had been objections made to other parts of the Bill. The Camberwell trustees objected to extend ing the time for taking the poll and other matters; but not a word of objection against the system of single voting. So, likewise, the Camberwell guardians of the poor. He (Mr. Wilkinson) would be glad to see the system of voting by papers replace the present system. MR. PORTMAN said, he could confirm the statement made by the right hon. the President of the Board of Health, that his Bill was satisfactory to large proprietors in the metropolis. the principle of Hobhouse's Act he would certainly have laid the Bill in question upon the table. What he had said with respect to single voting was not that it was good in one place and not in another, but that the plurality of voting might be applicable to some districts; in large towns single voting was much better. He did not desire to prevent the landlords from voting if they bona fide paid the rates; but that was not so, for he had communicated with some of the principal landlords of the metropolis, who had expressed themselves in favour of the Bill, and stated that they invariably had an agrecment with their tenants with respect to the payment of the rates and taxes, and by the 169th clause agreements between landlords and tenants were not to be affected. The practical effect of giving votes in proportion to the value of the property would be that some of the largest parishes of the metropolis would be placed under the control of a few individuals. In St. Pancras, for instance, the bulk of the property was owned by the Duke of Bedford, Lord Southamption, Lord Camden, and Lord Somers; in St. Marylebone, by the Duke of Portland and Lord Portman; Hanover Square district would be under the control of the Marquess of Westminster; and Paddington under that of The agreements MR. G. BUTT said, he considered that it was important that the principle of voting should be ascertained before this Bill was proceeded with. The true principle of voting, as had been stated by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Viscount Ebrington), was, that it ought to be regulated by the charge on property, the Bishop of London. and it would be monstrous to give to those to which he had referred principally rewho were not to bear the charge the power lated to the sewerage rate, which was of fixing any amount of charge. The levied by a Commission appointed by the House must recollect that this was not Crown, and they knew very well that like a case where the charge was leviable Commission after Commission had failed for one year, for it would be for the im- for years past. The sewerage rate was mense works properly contemplated by this leviable on the tenant, and, if he might Bill. The right hon. Baronet said the use the expression, deductible from the principle of single voting was the best for landlord; but, inasmuch as every landlord large towns, but he did not propose to in the metropolis had an agreement with apply that principle to small places. Why his tenant, it would be destroying the not? Why should not owners have the principle of the Bill if he were to leave same facilities given them for protecting out the clause; but he would give this astheir property in the one case as in the surance to show that he was desirous of other? It was most important that this acting with good faith-namely, that as clause, which was the foundation of the soon as this Bill went through Committee, Bill, should be clearly understood, and he and before it came to a third reading, therefore hoped that the right hon. Ba- he would introduce the Bill containing the ronet would postpone it until after he laid Amendments of Hobhouse's Act to which upon the table the Bill for the modifi- he had referred, and would insert those cation of Hobhouse's Act, so that the Amendments into this Bill. House could see what was intended, and do it justice, for he was certain it was the desire of the right hon. Baronet to act as fairly as possible. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, if he intended in the slightest degree to alter MR. WALPOLE said, the principal question was with respect to single voting and plurality of voting, and he did not think the objections on that head had been well met by the right hon. Baronet. the principle were good in the one case If it was in the other; but, in his view, it was precisely where the ratepayers were numerous that they ought to give the power of voting in proportion to the value of the property, so as to create a fair balance of influence between the landlord and tenant. The right hon. Baronet had referred them to the 169th clause, providing that agreements should not be in terfered with; but the 138th clause provided that the tenant should be allowed to deduct the sewerage rate from the rent. The right hon. Baronet had not met the objection that the right of representation would, by this measure, be severed from the power of taxation. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that if the great proprietors granted leases after the passing of this Bill they would take care that their tenants should still pay the rates and taxes. VISCOUNT EBRINGTON said, the definition of the word " owner, ," in the Public Health Act was the person receiving for the time being the rack rents of the land. In hundreds of cases in the suburbs the "owner of property, not occupying that property, had to pay the sewers rate, though by the Bill they would have no voice whatever in the appropriation of that rate. MR. MALINS said, under the Vestry Act no man could have more than six votes, and he was perfectly satisfied with the law as it stood. He believed no one desired that the great landlords should have votes at all representing their interest, but they would be content to take the present limit of six votes. It was found a few years ago that the affairs of the parish of St. Luke, Chelsea, of which he was an inhabitant, had passed under the management of the small tradesmen, and that many abuses prevailed. The gentlemen of the parish took the matter in hand, and, by means of the plurality of votes they possessed, returned a certain number of themselves as guardians, and a marked improvement then took place in the parochial affairs. If the system of single votes were adopted this would be impossible, and the substantial inhabitants of the parish would be deprived of all voice in its management. Every man who occupied a house, however small, would have an equal right of taxing the parish as the man of the largest property. The principle was new, and it was, moreover, unjust; and it was so reasonable a man with larger property should have a VOL. CXXXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.] greater number of votes-to the extent at least of six-than a man of smaller property in the management of parochial taxation, that he (Mr. Malins) should support the Amendment. LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR said, plurality of voting was the cause of discontent in all the metropolitan parishes with which he was acquainted, and in his opinion nothing could more certainly exclude gentlemen from the management of parochial affairs than its existence in a parish. In all the cases of agreement between landlord and tenant with which he was acquainted it was covenanted that the occupying tenant should pay the rates and taxes. SIR FREDERIC THESIGER said, he was quite sure that the proposal of the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) would not meet the objection which he (Sir F. Thesiger) made to this clause, which forced parishes to adopt Hobhouse's Act whether they chose it or not. It was not only fair and just, but it was absolutely necessary, that there should be a plurality of votes, especially in large towns, to protect property. If plurality of votes were abolished in this instance, a blow would be struck at the principle in other instances -such as the Poor Law. He (Sir F. Thesiger) considered the question of such importance, that he should certainly divide the Committee on the clause. Mr. W. WILLIAMS said, he thought that some weight in the matter should be given to the feeling of the parishes. All the great parishes of the metropolis had agreed to adopt the Bill with certain modifications. It, therefore, beloved the Committee to attend more to the wishes of that large portion of the population than to the anticipations of the hon. and learned Member. MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERS said, the majority of his constituents were not satisfied to be compelled to adopt compulsorily the provisions of Hobhouse's Act. There was a meeting of ratepayers at Greenwich, at which dissent was expressed at the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not understand the mode of legislation in this case, because it ap. peared to him very strange to say, that though Hobhouse's Act should be adopted. in the Bill entirely, it should be completely nullified afterwards by a new Bill, which was to overturn all that had been previously agreed upon. With great respect to the Committee, he would submit that U such a course of legislation would be ex- | He was quite ready to diminish the numposing them to strong remarks on the part ber of members in the Metropolitan Board of those who were not thoroughly initiated of Works, but he could not consent to in the way of legislating in that House. reduce it to so small a number as fifteen. The best course for the Committee to He was sure that a Commission by the adopt, in his opinion, was to frame a clause, Crown would be most unsatisfactory after which should say that Hobhouse's Act, the fate of the many Commissions which with certain exceptions, should be adopted had existed during the last few years. In in the metropolitan districts. Several im- order to make the Bill work well it must portant objections to Hobhouse's Act had be put on such a basis as would ensure already been correctly enumerated, and popular feeling in its favour, for people the very first impediment to the working never would be satisfied to have their of Hobhouse's Act was, the impossibility money expended unless they had some of getting a majority of those to vote who control over the expenditure. It should were clearly entitled to vote. This, he be understood that all this Bill did was to thought, might be remedied by a clause give the same powers to the ratepayers of framed to meet that special difficulty. His the metropolis as were enjoyed by the opinion was, that property which was liable ratepayers of provincial towns. He would to be taxed for parochial purposes ought candidly admit that this Metropolitan Board to have a proper voice in returning the of Works could be greatly reduced in vestrymen who had the power of making numbers, but he could not decide what roads, sewers, &c., and charging the ex- the reduction should be until they had pense by way of rate on that property. disposed of those sections of the Bill reAs far as this clause was concerned, he lating to the management of the sewers. must oppose it, though most reluctantly, if He would, therefore, propose, that the made compulsory. clause which affirmed the establishment of such a Board should be agreed to, and clauses 21, 22, and 23, which related to the numbers, should be postponed. Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided:-Ayes 89; Noes 33: Majority 56. Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 2 to 19 inclusive. Clause 20. (Relates to the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works.) MR. H. B. BARING said, he had presented several petitions from different localities affected by the Act, protesting against the irresponsible powers of the Board, and praying that care might be taken to ensure the election of competent persons to be members of it. Unless this was done he was convinced that the Board would be at the mercy of their engineers and staff, and the only business they would have to do would be to register their works. He should rather approve of a Board of scientific persons, appointed by the Crown, but he was afraid they were too much out of favour. He hoped that if the Board was to be constituted as proposed in this clause, the number of members would be reduced, say to fifteen members, they might be paid something like two guineas for their attendance each day, like the board of directors of railways, and be made responsible to their consti tuents. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, he had had a great many representations made to him with reference to this important clause. LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR said, that, the principle of Municipal Boards being generally conceded, the next question to be considered was the number. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not reduce the numbers too much. The City. Commission of Sewers was a very large body, and yet, as he understood, it worked very efficiently. The great bugbear seemed to be the payment. His right hon. Friend thought that the chairman should be paid highly, but others thought he should not be paid at all. That was, however, a matter the consideration of which might be postponed. MR. W. WILLIAMS said, he agreed that time should be taken before the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) determined upon reducing the proposed number of the Metropolitan Board. He did not think the number was too large considering the extent of the metropolis, and the powers the Board would have to exercise. VISCOUNT EBRINGTON said, he must strongly urge the expediency of establishing one central authority over the Commissioners of Sewers. District Boards of management only served to create confusion and encourage extravagance. MR. PERCY said, he was quite satisfied that nothing would be done unless the Metropolitan Board of Works were made as despotic as possible. SIR JAMES DUKE said, he thought that if the number of members of the central Board were curtailed the authority of the Board would be diminished, and great jealousies would be created in the various parishes. MR. APSLEY PELLATT said, he wished to propose an Amendment, the effect of which was to divide the proposed Board of Works into two Boards, one having authority north of the Thames, and the other having authority south of the Thames. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, it was the intention of the Commissioners that there should be only one Metropolitan Board, and he was of the same opinion. There were various reasons why there should be only one Board; the expense would be less than if they had two; and the Committee should consider in what respect the establishment of separate Boards would affect such questions as the embankment of the Thames, which had been before the House. MR. W. WILLIAMS said, he would support the proposal of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Pellatt), in deference to the opinions of influential persons on the south side of the Thames. LORD SEYMOUR said, he looked on this as one of the most important parts of the Bill. It proposed the appointment of a Board with an endless power of assessment, and the right to dispose of the money as it pleased. When they proposed to give them such extensive powers with regard to assessment, they ought, at the same time, to enable them to carry out the whole scheme of the drainage of the metropolis without limit. The metropolis was sick of Commissioners of Sewers; but he must warn the Committee not to run into the other extreme of appointing a Board of Representatives which should prove equally extravagant in its expenditure and defective in its working. It appeared to him that there was a great want of the scientific element upon this proposed Board of Works. With regard to the Amendment, there could be no doubt that the system of sewers must be different on both sides of the Thames; and, therefore, the ratepayers on the south side had some foundation for their claim to a separate Board, and on that ground it might perhaps be desirable to have separate Boards. But, on the other hand, great inconvenience would flow from having two Boards, and there could be no doubt that having one only would be much more economical. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that it was his intention to take the 20th clause, but to postpone clauses 21, 22, 23, and 24, which determined the number of persons to be sent from the different districts to the central Board. VISCOUNT EBRINGTON said, that if the management of the sewerage was to be placed under these thirty-six district Boards, they would be obliged to have thirty-six subsidiary staffs, which would bo overpaid or underskilled, and probably both. If, however, they were to adopt the Motion of the hon. Member for Southwark, and have a second Board of Works, then they might leave to this Board the superintendence of the sewerage on the south side of the Thames. The reason that he wished this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee was, in order that evidence might be taken as to the practical working of the hon. Member's proposal, and in order that hon. Gentlemen might be made aware of the financial and engineering complications of the question of sewerage. MR. HENLEY said, that it was impossible to argue this question as to whether there should be northern and southern Boards without looking at the powers which were to be given to those Boards. This was the most important part of the Bill, if they looked at the want in the metropolis of a system of arterial drainage. Commission after Commission had failed to bring their minds and that of the public to agree as to what was to be done to get means for this purpose, and the way in which it was to be done. He did not think that this would be effected if they had too large a Board-for if they had, a great difference of opinion would arise, and there would not be sufficient executive power in the Board. In the arterial scheme in the present Bill they would have two difficulties to contend with. They would first have to get ratepayers sufficiently liberal to vote the required sum of money to carry out the scheme, and then the scientific men employed by them must have sufficient consideration to fix upon a plan which would be approved of by the scientific men appointed by Government. With reference to the Motion before the Committee, he thought that in order to get the metropolis well drained they ought to have a Board with considerable executive power, and that the greater |