England. If there were, what would be easier than to make it necessary, as a preliminary step to a lease, that this public body should certify that the land was of a proper description to set aside for building purposes, or for improvements by drainage or otherwise? Great care should be taken in this kind of legislation not to give to any parties a power to commit injustice and grievous wrong. The EARL of GLENGALL objected to the Bill as giving enormous powers to tenants in possession of leases for terms of years. He should propose a number of Amendments in Committee, with the view of limiting the operation of the Bill. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE was understood to say, that he should have no objection to make alterations in Com mittee. On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday, May 27. House, the former debt of the union of Ballina was 2,400l., but it was now debited for 21,4407.; the debt of the union of Kilrush was 2,100l., but it had since been debited at 12,000l.; the debt of the union of Listowell was 5,000l., but it had been increased to 12,000l. The whole increase of their debts had been incurred under such circumstances that the landed proprietors had no control over the expenditure. Many of their debts had been contracted at rates of 10 or 20 or 30 per cent above the market charge, for the public works, because the security tendered was bad. And when they were going to transfer a bad into a good security, surely they ought not to be called to pay the same rate. The parishes who undertook these works should be repaid in proportion to what was really expended by them. Such a proceeding would only be a measure of justice. He also objected most strongly to the discretionary power left in the Treasury to declare in what manner the period of payment should be extended, and also to determine when each repayment should be made. There ought to be some regulation in this respect. The Bill also gave a discretionary power to the Treasury to ap DISTRESSED UNIONS ADVANCES AND The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. LORD MONTEAGLE admitted that great debts had been incurred, and appeared to be irrecoverable in many parts of Ireland, and therefore some remedial measures might be forced on them on the subject. It should be recollected, however, that the great bulk of the debts had been incurred in those parts of Ireland where the landed proprietors had no more control over the expenditure of the advances and the rates than the officers of that House. The great portion of those debts were not to be attributed to the landed proprietors of Ireland, but were incurred under the Labour Rate Act enforced by vice-guardians selected by Government, which empowered the officers of the union to throw heavy charges on the several local districts. The same thing had also occurred under the operation of the Irish poor-law. In some of the more distressed unions the debts had been increased in a most most remarkable degree without the landed proprietors having the slightest influence or control in the matter. According to the papers on the table of the among the various electoral divisions and landlords. How such a Bill could have received the assent of the representatives of the people, who were bound to watch over financial matters of this kind, he was utterly at a loss to understand. If the Bill passed in its present shape, it would leave the people of Ireland in a much worse situation than they had hitherto found themselves. This, above all, would be the case, if, as it appeared, no steps were to be taken for the amendment of the poor-law in Ireland. If they left the cardinal vice without remedy, the present measure would only tend to encourage parties to incur new debts. The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE, in reply, alluded to the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) that a period of forty years was given for the payment of the debts. Twenty years was the term in the Bill originally; but statements were made by the distressed unions, that they could not pay the debts in twenty years, and the time was then extended to forty years. He deprecated delay as to this Bill, which was to provide for advances which were so earnestly called for. The noble Lord had never proposed any other mode of averting the calamity; the present "That the Bill be now read a Third Time." MR. M. GIBSON moved the omission of certain words which had crept in by mistake. MR. GOULBURN said, he did not object to this, but must observe on the incon general law. This Bill, to a great extent, was a mode adopted by Parliament with a perfect knowledge of the machinery to be used. If the people of Ireland were led into an expenditure which was necessarily liable to abuse, under the urgency of the occasion, let it be remembered that this portion of the united kingdom had taken upon itself the whole amount of the ex-venience of dealing in a private Bill with a pense. It was, undoubtedly, done in a spirit of kindness and liberality, and as such it had been acknowledged in Ireland; as such it had been acknowledged in the other House of Parliament; and as such it would be long calculated to do an act of justice to those persons in Ireland who had endeavoured to meet the calamities of the times by taxing themselves, and imposing on themselves a burden under these different Acts; and to remedy, to a certain extent, the evils of the law which the noble Lord said had been entirely kept out of view. It had not been kept out of view. It was for the purpose of enabling facilities to be granted for the erection of workhouses, that these expenses had been incurred; it was for the purpose of erecting workhouses in many of these instances which the noble Lord had not fairly pointed out as instances of the misconduct of viceguardians. It was to facilitate the repayment of debts of that kind, that, amongst other objects, this Bill had been introduced, for the purpose of relieving the unions from the debts they had contracted. To repay these persons was only an act of justice. He could give no assurance that the Treasury would abandon the exercise of that discretion which was wisely entrusted to them, of extending the relief from a period of twenty to a period of forty years. On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative. Bill Reported; to be read a Third Time on May 16. House adjourned to Thursday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, May 14, 1850. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Borough Courts of Record (Ireland). Reported.-Registration of Deeds (Ireland). MANCHESTER RECTORY DIVISION BILL. Order for Third Reading read. Bill read 3o, and passed. SUPPLY OF WATER IN THE METROPOLIS Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." MR. REPTON rose to move that it be read a second time that day six months. It proposed to sink Artesian wells in localities most convenient to the company, and thus drain all the springs, and ruin all the mills, without making any compensation either to millowners or landowners. The whole neighbourhood in which this company proposed to operate was against the Bill, which had been urged forward without any reference whatever of its provisions to the Board of Health. Under these circumstances, surely he need scarcely say more against it. He would, however, add that on the best authority it might be declared impracticable. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." reading would virtually amount to a postponement over the present Session. His noble Friend the Chairman of the Board of Health (Lord Ashley), had since stated that he hoped the report would be produced in about a fortnight: that period had also elapsed, but the report had not yet been received. He imputed no blame to the board for this delay, for he believed they had found the subject involved much more difficult consideration than they had expected; but even if that report were laid on the table to-morrow, the House could not at once decide finally for or against these Bills without taking time to consider the recommendations of the board, and the grounds on which those recommendations MR. B. OSBORNE said, he was in a dilemma as to the Bill, having presented petitions in its favour, signed by 35,000 of his constituents; yet he was aware that the landowners and millowners opposed it, and that it was a scheme condemned by the Board of Health, and which had been thrown out by the House of Lords last Session. Upon the whole, however, he was of opinion that it had better be referred to a Committee, and there considered with the other Water Bills which might be read a second time. He was astonished that the Government had not informed the House of their intentions as to the supply of water in the metropolis; and he appeal-were based. Under these circumstances, ed to the right hon. Home Secretary to do knowing nothing of the merits of the Bill, so, especially as the Water Bills had been he did not think the House was in a posipostponed, at his suggestion, to await the tion to interpose further delay, on the report of the Board of Health on the sub-ground of waiting for the report, Wheject. He begged also to ask if there were any truth in a rumour which had reached his ears, that the Government, if the Interments Bill were not agreed to in its present form, intended to take no trouble on the subject of the supply of water. SIR G. GREY said, there was not the slightest foundation for the rumour to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded, and of which he (Sir G. Grey) now heard for the first time. The question of the water supply to the metropolis had been referred to the Board of Health, and he had every reason to believe that the Board had devoted their best attention to its consideration; but it was a subject of great magnitude, and involved many conflicting interests, and had no doubt occupied much more time than had been anticipated. Some time before Easter the Board intimated that they hoped soon to make their report, and suggested the expediency with reference not to public interests alone but to the interests of the promoters of these Water Bills, that they should not be allowed to proceed until after a given time; and accordingly on his Motion an order was made that the second reading of these Bills should not proceed until after Easter. About two or three weeks ago that embargo having ceased, some of these Bills were read a second time; the reference to the Select Committee, however, being deferred until the report of the Board of Health should be on the table. He had offered no opposition to this course, because he felt that to go on further postponing the second ther, after all, it might not be advisable to defer all these Bills till another Session, was another question. LORD ASHLEY said, the Board of Health had now completed their report on this subject, but great labour had been required in its preparation; and a report of such magnitude, and involving so large an amount of evidence, would require many corrections. He had little doubt, however, that the report would be laid upon the table before Whitsuntide. As a private Member, he felt himself called upon to offer his decided opposition to this Bill, and to that which stood next on the paper. He thought that the Watford scheme, even if it were carried into effect, would produce no beneficial results whatever; and he therefore hoped that this Bill would not be proceeded with, at least during the present Session. He believed the report of the Board of Health would develop to the House new sources of supply, and a mode of administration five times cheaper than that proposed by this measure. MR. BAILLIE said, this was a subject of such vast importance that it ought to have engaged the attention of the Government. The Bill would affect most injuriously the rights of private individuals, and he hoped it would be rejected by the House. The House divided:-Ayes 90; Noes 196: Majority 106. Words added, Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Second Reading put off for six months, Order for Second Reading read. SIR W. MOLESWORTH moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said that the scheme which the promoters of the Bill proposed to carry out would be most advantageous to the metropolis, and he hoped the House would assent to the second reading, that the provisions of the measure might be considered in Com mittee. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." MR. T. P. WILLIAMS thought this Bill more objectionable than the last, and moved that it be read a second time that day six months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The company METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS (HEN- considered the subject, and agreed to a LEY ON THAMES AND LONDON VIA- report. On that ground he was prepared DUCT) BILL. to oppose the Bill; but any one who looked into the measure, and considered the plan which it proposed, would see that it was one that ought not to be carried out, except under the sanction of the Government. The statement of the company was, that they required 200,000,000 gallons, and that they intended to take 100,000,000 gallons of water from the river Thames and the other 100,000,000 gallons, at certain periods of the year, would be taken. from other sources. This was a much larger quantity than the company could require for the purposes of the metropolis. It was well known that a large proportion of the water brought into London was entirely wasted, and it was not mere quantity that was to be regarded, but quality and distribution. At present the distribution was most defective, and the quality bad; but the plan proposed by the promoters of this Bill did nothing to improve the quality of the water. proposed to obtain water from the river above Henley; but that water had been tested by most experienced analysts, and they found that it was no better than the water below Battersea-bridge taken at the ebb tide. The promoters of this Bill contemplated the investment of an enormous amount of capital in the scheme, and the provisions of the measure were very defective. If the House wished to benefit the poorer classes of the metropolis they must do what this Bill did not do-compel the owners of houses to provide a supply of water for their tenants. The commissioners to be appointed under this Bill, however, would have no jurisdiction whatever over the house service. He believed that a board constituted by that House could regulate the supply of water at one-third the expense proposed by this Bill with regard to salaries; and that as to capital, instead of requiring 2,000,000l., such a board would not find it necessary to raise more than 300,000l. in order to supply the metropolis with wholesome water. He should therefore support the Amendment. MR. ROBERT PALMER said, this measure had been discussed at great length last year, for the only difference between this Bill and a Bill introduced last Session was, that they proposed to convey water by different means from the same locality. This Bill was opposed by all the landowners and millowners along the line by which it was proposed to convey the supply of water to the metropolis. The promoters of the Bill proposed to take 60,000,000 gallons of water daily from the Thames at Henley, and the consequence would be that the mills in the neighbourbourhood would be deprived of their supply of water during the summer season, and the navigation of the river would be impeded at the same period of the year. SIR DE L. EVANS considered that, as this Bill would not interfere with the propositions of the Board of Health, and as there would be ample time to consider the report of that board before this measure could go through Committee, it would be unfair towards the promoters of this scheme, who had expended a large sum of money in order to carry out their plans, to prevent the progress of the Bill. LORD ASHLEY said, that the Board of Health had already recorded their opinion, in resolutions which had been laid before the House, of the inexpediency of sanctioning the expenditure of capital upon schemes of this kind until the board had MR. HUME was surprised at the opposition offered to this Bill by the noble Lord. It was clear, however, that his object was to deprive the ratepayers of the appointment of the commissioners, and to leave the regulation of the water supply in the hands of the board of which he (Lord Ashley) was chairman. It had been said that the rights of millowners would be prejudiced by this measure; but | property, he contended that that considerit had been clearly proved that the pro- ation ought not to weigh one iota against posed supply of water might be obtained this Bill, because such loss might be comfrom the river without either impeding the pensated by a grant of money. He had no navigation or depriving the mills of water. interest in this question except as an inhaHe hoped, therefore, that the House would bitant of the metropolis; but when underallow the Bill to go into Committee, when takings were commenced, bearing on their the objections to it might be considered, face evidence of practicability and usefuland could no doubt be removed. Clauses ness, he contended that the House was might be inserted in Committee to secure bound to consider such schemes in Coman efficient control and a proper distribu-mittee. tion. MR. MUNTZ did not think that any of the arguments that had been urged against the Bill ought to induce the House to prevent it from going into Committee. The question for the House to consider was, whether the metropolis was well supplied with water; and, if it was not, what objection could there be to obtaining a sufficient supply? How was the metropolis to be supplied with water? Some time since a plan was proposed for sinking Artesian wells; but that project was strongly opposed. Now, it was proposed to obtain a supply of water from the Thames at Henley; but that plan, it was said, would stop the mills and destroy the navigation. It was clear they must get a supply of water from somewhere; and in order that the subject might be fairly sifted and considered in Committee, he would vote for the second reading of the Bill. COLONEL KNOX said, the scheme in question would rob the river, and affect the navigation, as well as stop the mills. The Bill was but a rechauffé of that of last Session, and was now sought to be forced through the House to override the shareholders. MR. MOWATT thought it would be admitted that every inhabitant of London, whether rich or poor, suffered great inconvenience from the present inadequate and impure supply of water. The Sanitary Commission had not submitted to Parliament any measure on this subject. If they had done so, the House might have compared the merits of the plan proposed by this Bill, with that proposed by the board. It had been said, that the promoters of this Bill asked for 2,000,000l. They did not ask for a farthing of money; all they asked was, that the inhabitants of the metropolis might be allowed, at their own expense, to supply themselves with water from the Thames; and by whom was this request opposed? By some eleven or twelve millowners on the river Thames! Why, supposing these persons lost all their The noble Lord the Member for Bath seemed to forget that his commission had been for years considering this question before they had been able to decide upon their report. ["Oh, oh!"] He could only say that he wished hon. Gentlemen who did not seem desirous to consider this subject, had seen one of the cisterns in his house. He hoped that, with a view to prevent the inhabitants of the metropolis from being exposed to disease and contagion in consequence of the imperfect supply of water, the House would sanction the second reading of the Bill. LORD R. GROSVENOR said, as an inhabitant of this metropolis, no one could be more desirous than himself that all its inhabitants should have an ample supply of pure and wholesome water; but he thought it desirable that that supply of water should not be left to trading companies. That system had been tried, and he thought it had universally failed. He considered that the supply of water should in future be regulated by some other authority, which might determine the mode of supply, and the cheapest and best method of its distribution. He cautioned the House not to sanction the further investment of capital in schemes of this nature. If they allowed this Bill to be read a second time, they would entail great expense upon the opponents and promoters of the measure, and probably without any ultimate benefit to the inhabitants of the metropolis. hon. Member for Penryn had said, that the Board of Health had long been engaged in the consideration of this subject without adopting any report; but he begged to inform the hon. Gentleman that that commission had only recently had their attention directed to this important part of the question. He hoped the Bill would be postponed until the House had an opportunity of seeing what other measures were proposed for affording an efficient supply of water to London. The MR. B. OSBORNE could assure the House that no subject could come under their discussion in which the inhabitants |