MR. LIDDELL said, that finding the feeling of the Committee was against him, he would give way; but he would renew his Motion on the Report.

Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.

MR. CHILDERS stated that, after the Division on the Motion of his gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), although the Admiralty were not prepared to admit the clause for retaining a Governor with the present power and position, they were prepared to introduce a clause which would give power to the Admiralty to appoint, after the death of the present Governor, an officer, not under the rank of Vice Admiral, as Visitor and Governor, to perform such duties as might be thought expedient, and he would receive a salary of £1,000 a year. The hon. Member moved to insert a clause to that effect.

MR. LIDDELL asked, was the office to be ornamental?

MR. CHILDERS replied, that it would be as nearly as possible honorary; and it would not interfere with the office of Captain Superintendent.

ADMIRAL WALCOTT expressed his gratification at this concession on the part of the Admiralty. It was most desirable that the Hospital should be presided over by a meritorious and distinguished officer. It gave éclat to the service both at home and abroad.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. CORRY asked, how the large range of buildings which would become vacant under the operation of this Bill were to be disposed of?

MR. CHILDERS replied, that up to the present time no decision had been arrived at on the point.

MR. HENLEY wished to offer his protest against the way in which this Bill had been smuggled through the House. He was in the House that morning up to a quarter past two o'clock, and he had certainly heard no intimation given that this VOL. CLXXX. [THIRD SERIES.]

MR. CHILDERS said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not been informed of the intentions of the Government with regard to this Bill. He was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman took any special interest in the Bill or he should certainly have felt it his duty to inform him. He had informed the gallant Gentleman the Member for Dublin County who was understood to be the usual channel of communication in such matters, and those who were known to take an interest in naval matters were, he believed, well aware that the measure would not be brought forward last night, but would be taken at that morning's sitting.

MR. HENLEY must say that, as a principle, it was not fair to fix a morning sitting without giving due public notice of the fact, particularly after so very late a sitting as that of last night.

SIR LAWRENCE PALK concurred in the observations of his right hon. Friend. The course taken by the Government in respect to this measure was extremely inconvenient, particularly to the constituencies in naval dockyards, and other such establishments, some of which he had the honour of representing. Had he known last night that this Bill would be taken at twelve o'clock to-day, he should certainly have felt it his duty to watch it more narnowly than he was able to do from the brief notice which he received. It appeared to him that this was a most unfair way to press a Bill through the House in so thin a House, and when even the Treasury Bench was almost deserted. His right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in sharply rebuking the Admiralty for their conduct in this matter.

MR. LIDDELL suggested that as hon. Members generally were taken by surprise. in this matter, it would be only fair of the Government to fix such a day for the bringing up of the Report as would afford them an ample opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the measure generally.

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS said, he was about making a similar request.

MR. CHILDERS said, he was most desirous of meeting the wishes of hon. Members, and would fix Thursday formally for the bringing up of the Report; but on that day he would name such a day for the further stage of the Bill as would, he hoped, meet the convenience of Members generally.

F

worse than the rest of the metropolis, but he must say that the state of the streets in Lambeth, both old and new, was very disgraceful. By Section 9 of the Act to which he had referred it was clearly the duty of the Local Boards to keep them in a better state. He would next refer to the Lighting of the streets of the Metropolis. They had heard enough about gas in that and the other House of Parliament, and he would ask any one if he considered London was properly lighted? All he could say was that, having visited various continental cities, he had seen no gas so bad as that which was supplied in London. The lamp posts appeared to be such as were used in the days of our grandfathers when oil was burnt, and he believed an attempt had been made to adapt them to their present purpose. Besides that, the metropolis was supplied with the worst sort of gas. What was everybody's business appeared to be nobody's business, and the gas consumed in the streets seemed to be the refuse of that which was supplied to the houses. There was another thing connected with the subject which it might be considered trivial to allude to in that House-with regard to the lampposts there appeared to be a suspension of the laws of gravitation so beautifully expounded by Newton. There were not five consecutive lamp posts in London that were not out of the perpendicular. They were leaning in every direction, possibly affected by the intoxication of gas. The lanterns were constructed as if it was never intended by the original projectors that they should give out light, one-half-one-third certainly

and Cleansing of the Metropolis. Now, with respect to Paving, what had been the result of their labours under the Act? He asked hon. Members who had an opportunity from their residence in London of observing the state of the streets of the Metropolis, as well as the humblest member of the community, whether they were at all in a satisfactory condition; and whether they were not in a worse state than the High Street and even the back streets of the Boroughs which they had the honour to represent. Certainly, he could say, having had some experience of boroughs, that he had never seen a street in one of them that was not superior to Pall Mall, St. James's Street, and Piccadilly, which were looked upon as the aristocratic streets of the Metropolis. He would take St. James's Street as the via sacra of the Metropolis, and he would ask any hon. Member who had walked through it if he considered it was a fit street for a great metropolis? On the right-hand side was one sort of paving and on the left-hand side another; and when an explanation was asked of this extraordinary anomaly they were informed that it arose in consequence of one-half of the street being in one parish and the other half in another. He asked if that was a satisfactory state of things? He had found in the streets of London five different sorts of paving, and some were one-half paved and the other half macadamised. There was a parish in which there were two great leading thoroughfares, which, in order not to be invidious, he would distinguish as A and B. He had found that the vestrymen who inhabited A street and its neighbourhood were opposed to the amelioration of B Street, because it would improve the traffic and increase the custom of B Street and diminish that of A Street. Surely that could not be a satisfactory state of things. Lambeth district afforded a good illustration of his argument. If any hon. Member would take a walk into Lambeth, within a quarter of a mile of that House, he would find streets that had been newly built, and where persons of wealth resided, in a wretched state; and he asked if it was possible to find in any back street, in any other city or borough in the kingdom, a street in such a horrible condition as the High Street of Lambeth-a street leading from the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the establishment of a Member of that House. He had no wish to speak in particular of Lambeth as being

of the light being absorbed by the sky, where it was not wanted, instead of being shed and diffused around on the streets and pavements. The next point was that of Cleansing the streets, and he asked hon. Members whether, during the last ten years, the streets had not been in that respect worse than anything that was to be found in the country. He could say that he had never seen a town so grossly neglected as was the Metropolis. Not only were the streets so constructed that it was almost impossible to cleanse them, but the gutters were so formed that the water would not run off except when there was an extraordinary fall of rain. When there was snow, as was the case last year, and as would probably recur every winter, the roadways and pavements were so completely covered with

sometimes the thoroughfares were covered with mud, and sometimes were filled with clouds of dust. In Paris the carts watered all day long, but so gently that the foot would hardly be dirtied in crossing the street. As soon as fresh materials were laid down there a cart immediately followed with sand and fine gravel, and behind this came water carts and heavy rollers, so that in two or three days the street was perfectly fit for use; whereas in London it might be three, four, or five months before the surface of the road was restored. When the Metropolitan Management Act was before the House, Lord Llanover pointed out that great inconvenience arose from one-half of some of the great thoroughfares being in one parish and half in another, and he suggested as a remedy for the evil that London should be divided into districts. He knew a case in which half of a street was four inches higher than the other half, and great danger to horses occurred. He begged to express his satisfaction at the prospect of something being done.

try, they would only pay the sum of £41,147; leaving therefore a revenue of £45,865 to be appropriated by the Imperial Exchequer. The rating of London, exclusive of the poor rate, was £1,263,363. At this period of the Session, when hon. Members had so much else to think of and attend to, it would not be reasonable to expect them, in an expiring Parliament, to attend in Committee to the investigation of details bearing upon the cleansing, lighting, and paving of London; but he thought a fair case had been shown for the appointment of a Royal Commission consisting of men of knowledge and experience. No one could have lived in London many years without feeling some affection for the great metropolis, and some regret at the neglect exhibited towards it. The boast of the head of the greatest people of ancient times, of the most able administrator of the Roman Emperors, was that he had beautified his Metropolis; we could not hope to do for London what Octavius did for Rome -we find it brick, we cannot leave it marble; but we may at least make it a city worthy to be the capital of the splendid dominion of the Queen. The hon. Member concluded by moving

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the operation of the Act 18 and 19 Vict. cap. 120, so far as the same relates to the Paving, Lighting, and Cleansing of the Metropolis."-(Sir William Fraser.)

MR. THOMSON HANKEY said, he could not undertake to say whether the plan proposed by the hon. Baronet was the best or not, but he had certainly brought before the House a subject well worthy of its consideration. He did not altogether coincide in the opinion that London was bad in all respects. He scarcely thought that London, although it was certainly be hind Paris in the matter of lighting, could with truth be said to be the worst lighted of all the capitals of Europe:-it was much ahead of Vienna, Rome, Berlin, and other cities. But its paving and the watering of its streets were certainly most disgraceful. The streets were repaired by throwing down broken granite stone, and, instead of using rollers, as in Paris, to smooth these down, the authorities in London allowed horses to do the work, at the risk of being lamed, and at great inconvenience to the drivers. The system of watering, also, was so abominably bad -a great deal of water being thrown down at one time and none at all at others, that

MR. TITE said, that the Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted for the purpose of main drainage, and for the improvement of the metropolis generally. For that purpose certain districts and parishes were empowered to send members to represent them at the Metropolitan Board. But the Board, he regretted to say, had nothing to do with lighting, cleansing, and paving the metropolis. These duties were left to be discharged by the vestries and parochial bodies, who desired to do the work as economically as possible, and by whom these duties were very imperfectly managed and discharged. Almost the only power possessed by the Metropolitan Board of Works was that a street could not be shut up for the purpose of paving, &c., without the consent of the Metropolitan Board. The solution of the question was in giving greater power to the Metropolitan Board, and he saw no use in issuing a Commission. If the Home Secretary would bring in a Bill to give proper powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works many of the evils now complained of would disappear.

LORD FERMOY would admit that there was room for improvement; but if the House decided that more money ought to be spent in cleansing, lighting, and paving the metropolis, the Imperial Exchequer ought to contribute a portion of the funds. When any improvement, however, was