METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT.

HC Deb 04 April 1856 vol 141 cc470-3

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he intended to proceed with the Bill to amend the Metropolis Local Management Act; and, if not, to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) what means he intended to adopt to remove the difficulty caused by conflicting opinions among eminent lawyers respecting the provisions in the said Act as regarded the election of parish officers? The clear understanding was to leave the election of the churchwardens, overseers, and guardians in the hands of the ratepayers, and not to delegate that power to the new vestries; but the way in which the clauses had been drawn had led to a difference of opinion, the result of which had been in several parishes double elections.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, he would, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, answer both questions. His hon. and learned Friend had, upon the representations of certain Members of that House, introduced a Bill to amend the Metropolis Local Management Act, but great objection was taken to it, and it was not, therefore, his intention to proceed with it. His hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) then asked him to take steps to remove the difficulties which had arisen in consequence of the conflicting opinions as to the intention of the Act with reference to the election of parochial officers. Now, his hon. Friend said that it was not intended to supersede the old vestries; but when the Metropolis Local Management Bill was before the House, he (Sir B. Hall) brought up a clause, copied from the Act of Parliament known as "Hob-house's Act," for the purpose of superseding the old vestries, which was supported by his hon. Friend. When he was asked if he had done anything to destroy the local authorities, he replied that he hoped not, as he had taken the clause from an Act which had existed for many years. Lawyers, however, differed on the point whether the functions of the old vestries had been handed over to the new ones or not. In his opinion they were, and he thought that no Bill was required to settle the point. He thought the best course to be pursued was, that a good case should be made out by a parish, which could be taken, by means of an amicable suit, before the courts of law, so as to obtain the opinion of the Judges on the question; and if it was decided that the object intended was not carried, he would bring in a Bill declaratory of the law.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, that the object of the Bill, which, in the first instance, had been hurried forward with the utmost precipitation, but which they were now told the Attorney General intended to abandon, was avowedly to prevent litigation, but the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) now appeared as the advocate of litigation, and recommended parishes to appeal to the Queen's Bench in order to ascertain how the law was to be construed. There were in the metropolis some eight or ten parishes possessing ancient privileges which they highly valued, and which they were not prepared to sacrifice without resistance, and among those parishes were three in the borough he represented—namely, St. James's, Clerkenwell, St. Luke's, and Stoke Newington. He had, therefore, given notice that, on the Motion for going into Committee on the Bill, he would move that it be referred to a Select Committee, in order that inquiry might be made into the ancient and valued rights of certain parishes relating to the affairs of the Church and the management of the poor, with the view of ascertaining whether those rights were interfered with or not by the Metropolis Local Management Act. He must say he thought that Act had been passed under false pretences, for the House had been assured by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) that the select vestries would be appointed merely for sanitary purposes. In the parish of St. Luke, the annual parochial expenditure was above £40,000; and in the parish of St. James there were 6,000 ratepayers, who not only elected their own officers, and managed the affairs of the poor, but who also appointed the rector of the parish. Were those powers, then, to be taken out of the hands of the ratepayers, and vested in some thirty or forty gentlemen? He remembered the right hon. Baronet said, when the measure was under discussion, that it was not intended to interfere with questions relating to the Church or to the poor, and that the object of the measure was to carry out certain sanitary schemes; but now the right hon. Baronet turned round and said to the parishes, "You may go to law if you like." If he (Mr. Duncombe) had been aware of the real nature of the measure, which was most deservedly unpopular, he would have given it all the opposition in his power. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not mean to abandon his Bill for amending the Metropolis Local Management Act, but it would of course be for the House to determine whether the Order for that Bill should be discharged or not; and if a Motion should be made for discharging the Order, he (Mr. Duncombe) would propose the Amendment to which he had referred. Although the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall)—who, before he took office, professed to be a supporter of the principle of local self-government, and who dared not express before the electors of Marylebone the opinions which he expressed in that House—had told them that the Bill would be withdrawn, he trusted the Attorney General would agree to refer it to a Select Committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he must say that it was very difficult to please the hon. Member for Finsbury. When he (the Attorney General) introduced the Bill for amending the Metropolis Local Management Act, and sought to pass it as speedily as possible with the view of preventing litigation, the hon. Gentleman was loud in his denunciations of the measure, on the ground that it interfered with the ancient rights of parishes. His (the Attorney General's) only object had been to prevent the great expense and anxiety of that litigation in which he saw the metropolitan parishes were likely to be involved, and to give a legislative interpretation to the ambiguous provisions of the Act. He inquired of the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) what had been the intentions of the framers of the Act, and what, so far as it could be ascertained, had been the intention of Parliament in passing the particular clause with respect to which doubts had arisen, and he was informed the intention had been to hand over the management of affairs relating to the poor and to the Church to the new vestries; and with that object, accordingly, he framed the Bill. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) denounced the Bill as an interference with popular rights, and he was backed by a large portion of the public. He (the Attorney General) did not wish to force the Bill or his own interpretation of the doubtful clause of the Act of Parliament upon the parishes if they were not disposed to accept it; and, therefore, having ascertained what was the general feeling of the parishioners on the subject, he was not inclined to proceed with the Bill. On the contrary, he was disposed to stand neuter; and if the hon. Gentleman should bring in a Bill to solve the doubt the other way the House might deal with it as it chose.

MR. WILKINSON

said, that it was hardly fair to say to the parishes, that because Parliament had passed an ambiguous Bill they must go into the courts of law to construe its provisions, and he thought that the Government should provide some remedy for the doubt which now existed.