§ [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [THIRD NIGHT.]
§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [3rd July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§
And which Amendment was,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while ready to consider the question of a reform in the Government of London, this House declines to assent to a proposal by which the control over the levying and expenditure of rates would be vested in one central body to the practical extinction of the local self-government of the various cities and boroughs of the Metropolis,"—(Mr. Ritchie,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, that he had listened with interest and attention to the remarkable speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary on the introduction of this measure, and in moving the second reading; but he could not help feeling that he had left a great many details unexplained. There had been one very pathetic appeal in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, where he had alluded to the unfortunate fact that cholera prevailed in the South of France, and was advancing towards our shores, and brought it forward as a reason for passing this Bill. The inference which he himself drew from these facts was precisely the contrary. President Lincoln had advised "never to swap horses crossing a stream;" and if they were so near the danger to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, he thought that the idea of President Lincoln would apply. What would be the effect of the passing of the Bill? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman had hoped to have been three months earlier; but they were now at the 8th of July, 515 and were only engaged upon its second reading. Even assuming it was passed in August, it would put an end to large Bodies which administered the affairs of the Metropolis, while the new ones could not have come into existence. They would have a number of moribund Bodies living from hand to mouth and carrying on the affairs of the Metropolis as best they could. The Metropolis would then be in the position of having no one to take care of the interests of its health. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that a large Body like the proposed Court of Common Council could conduct the affairs of a great Metropolis, yet was it possible for such a Body, even if it proved as able and hard-working as the right hon. and learned Gentleman hoped it would be, to put the Metropolis in a thoroughly satisfactory state in three months after the 1st of May, 1885? Then, as to some legislation to stop the spread of cholera. By August Parliament was usually thinking of retiring into the country; consequently, any Bills the Common Council might wish to bring in would have to be deferred until 1886. The inference he drew from the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not that they ought to pass this Bill in order to deal with the cholera, but that by passing this Bill they would deprive London of the power of making any improvement for the next two or, perhaps, three years. Therefore, he would suggest that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), instead of directing his energies to this Bill, should direct his energies to stop the spread of cholera. Believing the right hon. Baronet to be a most able administrator of the affairs of his Department, he would urge him rather to bring in any measures he thought necessary to secure that end. If, on his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, he asked the House to give him powers he did not now possess, there could be no doubt that Parliament would meet him in the spirit in which such an appeal would deserve to be met. This Bill was one which proposed to make great changes. It provided for the appointment of a Lord Mayor and a Deputy Mayor; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, did not tell them what were the duties of those re- 516 spective offices. As far as he could gather, the Lord Mayor was to continue very much as he now was, with one important change, while the Deputy Mayor was to take the place of the hon. and gallant Gentleman by his side (Sir James M'Garel Hogg). But he thought the result would be, to a great extent, the constitution of two Kings of Brentford. The Lord Mayor would be a mere bird of passage, with no more important public function to discharge than to preside over the Court of Common Council. Now, in the present day, the Lord Mayor's position was that of Chief Magistrate of the City of London, and this function of his office was recognized in his own person by the Committee of Selection, who kindly excused him from attendance on Committees in view of his having to sit daily on the Bench at the Mansion House. That function of the Lord Mayor was to be taken away, and he was to cease to administer justice, the Courts at the Mansion House and Guildhall being taken by stipendiary magistrates. The duties assigned to the Lord Mayor under the Bill were not, it seemed to him, such as would secure for him the position which it was the wish of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Mayor should have. As he read the Bill, there was no provision for anyone temporarily to take the place of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Mayor in case of the illness of those gentlemen.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, provision was made in the Schedule for the appointment of an assistant-deputy in such a case.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR), turning to the consideration of the functions of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Mayor, said, it seemed to him that the two offices were likely to clash, if it was intended that the latter should be the head of the Corporation in the sense in which the Chairman of a great Railway Company presided—if, in fact, he was to be the active officer, the Prime Minister of the Corporation. The Lord Mayor would lose his raison d'être. Referring, then, to the functions performed by the Lord Mayor in dispensing that hospitality which the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished to be continued, and of late years in the inauguration of charitable funds for the relief of sufferers by exceptional calamities, he ex- 517 pressed the conviction that the new Lord Mayor would be very careful how he created precedents and committed himself to engagements which were no part of his official duty. Another difficulty which had occurred to him was this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had, he presumed, no desire to abolish the celebration which took place on the 9th of November. It had grown up by old custom ever since the days of Pitt, and had been recognized by the present Prime Minister on more than one occasion. The occasion used to be looked upon as the commencement of the political season; and though platform oratory had increased much of late, and it could no longer be regarded in quite the same way, still it was an important event in the political year. Under this Bill, what would be the position of the Lord Mayor? The Council was to be elected on the 1st of November, and the Council would elect the Lord Mayor on the 5th. How could the necessary arrangements be made between the 5th and the 9th? Again, suppose the Council of 240 elected, what guarantee had the House that they would be gentlemen of the class the right hon. and learned Gentleman hoped to attract—Members of that House, magistrates of different counties, and men of position in the country? The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had referred to the proceedings of the Vestries, and had condemned them. But was it not very probable that these Vestrymen would obtain seats on the Council? The right hon. Baronet declaimed against Vestrymen; but he was, nevertheless, going to hand over to them the government of the Metropolis. It was very easy to state that the Council would form a superior class of men; it was just as easy to say, and far more probable, that the Vestrymen whom the right hon. Baronet distrusted would obtain seats upon it. Take the case of the School Board, to which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had referred. The original members of the School Board were, undoubtedly, eminent men; there were a great many Members of Parliament—men like Lord Lawrence, the Chairman, Sir Charles Reed, and Mr. W. H. Smith. Gradually, however, they fell off. It was possible that a few Members of Parliament might be induced to enter the 518 Council, and there would be a certain number of gentlemen desirous of entering that House who would always seek a seat, from the opportunity it afforded of bringing them before the notice of the public; but, probably, even that interest would be only temporary; the majority of the Members of the Council would be supplied from the present Vestrymen. With regard to the question of police, he was not surprised that the Home Secretary did not propose to hand them over to the newly-constituted authority. No Home Secretary would be likely to take that course. He, however, had never joined in the cry against the Vestries. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) might, if he thought proper, defend his constituents; but he had received a letter from the Vestry Clerk pointing out that large sums had been spent in sanitary arrangements, and that the death-rate had been steadily decreasing, till it had reached 18 to 19 per 1,000.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEUncorrected. The Return is uncorrected for workhouse, infirmary, and hospital.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he thought it was right that these contradictions should be known, in order that the truth might, if possible, be ascertained. He certainly had thought that the Bill would have been received with more popular favour and support than had been shown towards it. The Bill had received very little independent support in London; while its greatest opponent in the City had been Mr. Bedford, a most consistent Liberal, and who, from his ability, would be probably one of the first to obtain election to the new Council if the Bill were passed. No doubt many meetings were held in the Metropolis in support of the measure; but they were invariably attended by the same speakers. Reference had been made to the views of one of the Members for Lambeth, who was an Alderman; but they had yet to hear the opinions of his hon. Friend. Of course, there had been meetings in favour of the Bill. They knew that there were people who would support anything proposed by the present powerful Government, supported as it was by a great Party organization. He should like particularly to hear an explanation from the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. S. Morley) as to the reasons 519 which influenced him in changing his opinion and attending the meeting in St. James's Hall in support of the Bill. Not much was to be said as to the attendance generally; but he might say that at all these meetings in support of the Bill "the voice of the Chelsea nightingale never was mute." He could vouch for it that many men who had been consistent Liberals all their lives heartily disliked this Bill; and, therefore, looking at all that had taken place, he was justified in saying that the Bill had received very little popular support. They were told that Petitions did not go for much. Up to this time 210 Petitions, signed by 20,879 persons, had been presented against the Home Secretary's proposal. Of course, that was not a large number compared with the Petitions on Sunday Closing Bills and the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill; but the fact that few Petitions had been presented on one side and none, or next to none, on the other told its own tale. He was struck with the fact that the first Petition presented was by the right hon. Member (Mr. Mundella), from the Sheffield Liberal Association. The Bill apparently had the support of the Provinces; but not of the Metropolis. At all the meetings there was the same set company. There was the junior Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), Mr. Beal, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Phillips, and last, but not least, a very good-humoured, amusing gentleman—of whom they knew something in the City—namely, Sir John Bennett. He always thought that Sir John Bennett was to be the first Lord Mayor under the new scheme. As to the allegation that the meetings in favour of the Bill were not by ticket, he met that by producing one, which he read to the House, stamped by the London Municipal Reform League.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)Yes; and the so-called "front part" was two-thirds of the space of the meeting. That was what was called a free meeting. He believed the Government was forcing on a Bill which nobody wanted, and which had evoked no strong feeling in the Metropolis, and which must take a long time in its discussion. The Prime Minister once said, with regard to the Death Duties, that they 520 wanted elbow room to undertake such a subject, and that might well be said of this Bill. It would be perfectly impossible to pass such a Bill as this in any Session in which the House was not prepared to devote a month or six weeks to the careful consideration of its details in Committee. He had to thank the House for the kindness with which they had on this occasion listened to him—an unworthy Representative of the City of London—whose duty it was, by every means in his power, to oppose this attempt to take away the ancient rights of his constituents without cause shown. If the Members of the Corporation of London believed that this Bill would really establish a better state of things in the Metropolis than already existed, he fully admitted that they ought not to permit personal privilege and comfort to lead them to vote against it; but it was because they believed that the Bill, at the best, would do no good, and would probably do a great deal of harm, that they felt bound to give it their most strenuous opposition. In these circumstances, he appealed to the House and to the great Constitutional Party, of which he was a humble Member, not to abandon an ancient and a venerable institution in the hour of her danger and her need.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWremarked that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had inferentially admitted the necessity for reading this Bill a second time, inasmuch as he had said that it contained provisions which deserved ample consideration in Committee. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had dwelt more upon the details of the measure than upon its principle. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to the appointment of a Deputy Mayor; but the right hon. Gentleman himself must admit that the duties of the present Lord Mayor were difficult enough to discharge, and that they would become still more difficult when the new Lord Mayor was the Head of the whole Metropolis, and that, therefore, there was a necessity for giving him some assistance in the discharge of those duties. The right hon. Gentleman had asked who were to be the 240 members of the new Corporation? Who could answer that inquiry but the electors themselves? The right hon. Gentleman said that he supposed that 521 they would be the existing Vestrymen. He saw no reason why the most intelligent of the present Vestrymen should not be elected to serve on the new Central Council. While prepared to give his vote in favour of the second reading of this Bill he had strong objections to make to several of its provisions. In the first place, he objected to the limited authority that was to be conferred upon the District Boards. Under the provisions of the Bill as it stood the District Boards could do nothing until they had received the directions of the Central Council. He suggested, however, that they should turn the problem round, and should let the District Boards initiate all proposals for improvements which they should submit to the Central Council. He also objected to the abolition of the ancient title and office of Alderman. He suggested that the office and title should be retained; that one Alderman should be elected for each of the 39 districts, who should be ex officio Chairman of his District Board, and should be one of the representatives of that Board on the Central Council. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, (Mr. Ritchie) had pointed out that the Royal Commission of 1854 had decided against the establishment of a Central Body to control the whole of the Metropolis. That, no doubt, was true, but times had changed since then; and he believed that the majority of the Commissioners, if they were living now, would be inclined to support the present Bill. They had had many years' experience of the advantage of a Central Body. In fact, the Metropolitan Board of Works had shown that a Central Body alone could manage in a satisfactory way matters affecting the social life of the inhabitants of all the boroughs in the Metropolis. It was because he appreciated so highly the constitution of the old Corporation of London that he desired to see all the large boroughs in the vicinity having the advantage of it. The Lord Mayor and others alleged that the present Bill would abolish the Corporation of London. That was not a fair, a just, or a correct appreciation of the Bill, which expressly provided that the Corporation should continue to be incorporated by its present name. Instead of being abolished, it was to be raised to a pinnacle on which it had never stood 522 before. In fact, it was to be raised to the position which all foreigners on coming to England believed it to occupy. In his judgment, the Bill would develop the freedom and independence of the ratepayers of London, and lift them up to a faith and confidence in municipal life. An attempt had been made to raise the indignation of the ratepayers on the ground that the new Body would be far more expensive than the existing Corporation; but none of his hon. Friends who made those assertions had endeavoured to fortify them by any illustrations taken either from the past or from the present. The Bill was economical in principle, inasmuch as it would obviate the costly quarrels that annually took place between the Corporation and the Metropolitan Board of Works. It proposed to do for the Corporation of London what they did for themselves many years ago. At one time nobody belonged to the Corporation except those who lived within the walls. Afterwards industrious tradesmen settled outside the walls, and the citizens then extended the City to Farringdon Without, Aldersgate Without, Cripplegate Without, and Bridge Without. The City still rejoiced in having an Alderman for Bridge Without, and he hoped the invitation would soon go forth from the City to those who were without its limit to come in and enjoy the rights and privileges and benefits of the newly-created Municipality of London.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir. Sydney Waterlow) had made a proposal which was really fatal to the principle of the Bill, which was to concentrate all powers in one Central Body, which Body, as shown by the statements of the Home Secretary, the President of the Local Government Board, and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), was to exercise the dominant control over the Local Authorities. The Home Secretary had said there was no direct Amendment to the Bill either in his (Lord George Hamilton's) own Amendment or in that of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). But those Amendments, by affirming the power of Local Bodies to assess rates, were directly contrary to the principle of the Bill. The experiment tried by that Bill was such as had never been made before in any other country. The population of the 20 523 largest towns, including London, was 7,600,000, and of that population London constituted more than one-half. Thus the case of Liverpool or Manchester, or any other large town, was not in point. He had heard it stated, on good authority, that no population of more than 500,000 could be successfully administered from one centre. The curious thing also to observe was that the increase of population was greatest in the area which would be outside the Bill. During the last three years the central population decreased 7 per cent. the inner circle increased 63 per cent. and the outer circle 126 per cent. During those years the population of the whole of London increased 430,000, of which only 200,000 would be inside the Bill and 230,000 outside the Bill. The feeling of the Metropolis was almost unanimously against the Bill, and almost all the Local Bodies were opposed to it. It was also noticeable that the great majority of Metropolitan Members were opponents of the Bill. There were 22 Metropolitan Members, of whom three were Members of the Government. Of the remaining 19, 14 were opposed to the Bill, and five were in favour of it. The agitation in its favour had been grossly exaggerated, and that mendacious paper, The Municipal Reform Gazette, made the smallest gathering of a dozen or two supporters of the Bill into an important representative meeting. The framers of the Bill appeared to him not to be aware of the boundaries of the Metropolis, since they excluded such places as Stratford, Tottenham, and Kilburn—places having large populations—from the new Municipality which they proposed to create under this Bill. What was the condition of affairs at present? There was a very active Central Body—the Metropolitan Board of Works—and a very efficient Corporation—that of the City of London. Then there were the Vestries and Local Boards, many of whom discharged their duties very well, and some, he believed, rather badly. The natural remedy would be to strengthen and consolidate the Local Bodies; but, instead of doing that, the Government were going on exactly the opposite principle, and were taking away all control from the localities themselves. If they wished to make the inhabitants of London interested in these matters, they should give increased power to the 524 localities. Let them consolidate the powers of the Local Bodies, and then they would get men of ability to serve on the Local Boards. At present the Government were doing exactly the reverse. The President of the Local Government Board had alluded to the fact of men who had been on Vestries making improper use of public funds; but how could they tell that such men would not form an even greater part of the new Bodies? This was one of the most exclusive and oligarchical Bills ever brought in. The members of the Central Council, if they worked from Monday morning till Saturday night, would hardly get through the necessary work, and thus every man who could not give up the whole of his time to it would be excluded. The only three classes who would be represented on it would be those who lived in the immediate vicinity of the Council, or persons of independent means; or, lastly, that class of jobbers who would try to get on to it because they could make a livelihood by it. Professional men would be absolutely excluded. In the summary of the Bill there was a definition of what the Local Authorities were to be. It said that each District Council should have such duties, powers, and officials as the Common Council should, from time to time, appoint. The District Councils in that way would not have one particle of statutory authority. In his opinion, this Bill perpetuated all that was bad in the existing system. They had heard complaints of the eating and drinking that went on in the City; but the Bill gave power to tax the whole of London for these entertainments. Then a vast number of offices would have to be erected, which would cause great expense. He could not understand, considering that this Bill took away every single atom of statutory power from the Local Bodies, how it could be described as a decentralizing measure, and one which protected the rights of localities. But the greatest objection to the Bill was, in his opinion, its financial arrangements. The proposed system would be found to be unworkable. Arguing that the financial condition of London would be one of chronic deficit, he declared that there was no check upon the expenditure of the Central Body, and that there was an unlimited opening for the worst form of jobbery. Pointing to the state of muni- 525 cipal government in New York and in Paris (where in proportion to population taxation was three times as great as in London), he said the financial proposals of the Government in this Bill were such as he did not think the House could assent to. If there was no living authority in favour of such a scheme, neither was there authority of any statesman of the past to be quoted in its support. To refer to the Report of the Commission of 1833 was to argue from a state of things when municipal life was in its infancy; while in 1853, when they were in the maturity of municipal life, a second Report was drawn up, which was as valuable as the former was valueless. Urging that the reasons adduced by Sir George Grey against the creation of one Municipality for the whole of London were even more worthy of attention now than when they were put forward, he contended that only under such conditions as would enable the single amalgamated body to attend to details could a saving in expenditure be effected. Experience of the working of the London School Board proved that if duties were imposed upon a Central Authority which ought to be localized, there was as a consequence increased expenditure. It seemed to him that by far the best suggestion made was that there should be separate civic centres, or different localities. Among the many obvious advantages which would be gained by the creation of such civic centres would be that places like Kilburn would be enabled to take steps to secure Parks and open spaces, to provide for the enlargement of streets, &c., and that they would be capable of including the populous districts now growing up around them. They ought, he maintained, to localize government as much as possible, in order to develop public spirit. The great majority of the Liberal Party had absolutely lost touch with their constituents and the country, and their proposals did not accord with the feelings of those whom they represented.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, though not representing a London constituency, was able, as a London ratepayer, to say that Londoners desired to obtain the same form of local self-government as was in the possession of the inhabitants of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and other large towns. Great objection had been taken to the centralizing tendency 526 of the Bill, and proposals for converting the 10 Parliamentary boroughs into separate Municipalities had been put forward. But the Parliamentary boroughs never had any municipal existence; they were a fluctuating body, their number having been comparatively recently increased, while the Redistribution Bill might raise it next year to 20. A Central Body would be able to deal with the existing inequalities of rating, which pressed hardest on those parishes which were least able to bear them. For certain purposes—such as gas, water, sanitary, and drainage—a Central Council was clearly necessary; and in the presence of the Metropolitan Board of Works it was too late to argue that such a Body could not be constituted. He did not think the work would prove so large when it came to be sifted down and sent to the various Committees. They must not forget the local workers; and if the Bill ever got into Committee, Amendments ought to be introduced enlarging their powers of electing their officers, and so on. The noble Lord spoke of extravagance; but the general idea was that jobbery was mostly found in connection, not with freely elected, but with hole-and-corner Bodies. He believed the Bill was drawn on right lines, and that it was supported by the general feeling of the ratepayers at large.
§ MR. BOORDsaid, although a Metropolitan Member, he had not intended taking part in the debate; but, after the challenge of the Home Secretary as to the views of the constituency of Greenwich, he had no option but to rise. He contended that the condition of public feeling among his constituency in Greenwich was decidedly against the Bill. As to the references which had been made to Paris, he might remind the House that there was not one but many Municipalities, and the reason was that the Government dared not centre municipal authority in one person. He contended that the scheme of a single Municipality was utterly inadmissible. There had also been a recommendation that several Municipalities should be established, and as many as 10 had been mentioned, with as few as three. He would desire to see six such Municipalities; and he thought the good proposed to be effected by this Bill might be secured by a Central Metropolitan 527 Council of 50 Members, to whom should be entrusted the main drainage and other matters now dealt with by the Metropolitan Board. As to the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow), he thought that hon. Gentleman occupied a very ungracious position, inasmuch as, after having gained all the Civic honours, he now flew in the face of his former colleagues. He was ready to admit that jobbery was possible under the present system of Metropolitan government; but he did not think that this Bill was calculated to put an end to it. The scheme was a huge piece of centralization, and would not afford to localities due facilities for managing their own affairs. He was not completely satisfied with the Metropolitan Board of Works, who allowed a serious nuisance to exist in the state of the River at Greenwich; and he hoped the hon. and gallant Chairman of that Body would take note of that observation. If the Vestries defied the authority of the Local Government Board let the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) bring in a Bill for further powers, and he would support it. Something might be done by raising the standard quality of Vestrymen; for it was found that where a better class of men took office—in St. Martin-in-the-Fields, for instance—a great improvement and economy of administration were effected. More good might be done in that way than by adopting the scheme now before the House, which would be very unsatisfactory and very expensive. [The hon. Member referred in detail to the vexed question of public and "ticket" meetings for or against the Bill, and called attention to the substantial movement at Greenwich in favour of a separate Charter for that district; Petitions in its favour having been signed by no less than 15,000 persons.] The agitation in favour of this Bill was only supported by four or five out of 22 Metropolitan Members; and they were Gentlemen of such extremely Radical proclivities that their support alone was enough to make him mistrust the scheme. There were many reasons, however, why he should give his strenuous opposition to the creation of such a Body as the Bill proposed, and which he believed would become simply a vast political machine at the mercy of official wire- 528 pullers.The small attendance in the House showed the languid interest that was taken in that measure; and he hoped the rumour was correct which he heard in the Lobby—namely, that the Prime Minister intended to announce its withdrawal.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had been characterized by great fairness, and deserved attention. He maintained that the boundaries of districts might easily be either extended or taken in. A Boundary Commission could easily dispose of these questions. The point upon which he would lay particular stress was, that where there was one continuous town and one homogeneous area that was a suitable place in which to have one administrative Body. While there were some outlying districts of London—such as Greenwich and Woolwich—which for certain reasons might be left out of the operation of the Bill, there were other parts which, like Kilburn, ought to be included in London. Anyone walking along the Edgware Road would not suppose that the houses on the right were in London, and that those on the left were not in London. When the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex put forward matters of detail as arguments against the second reading of the Bill, it might be taken that there were not any strong arguments to be brought against the principle. Still more paltry, if he might use the word, was the argument the Lord Mayor put forward, when he contended that if only elected on the 5th of November, the new Lord Mayor would have no time to arrange for the banquet on the 9th.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. LYULPH STANLEY, resuming, said, he should next direct attention to the remedy proposed for the existing chaos by noticing the proposal to have 10 or 12 separate Municipalities for London. Those who advocated such an arrangement did not appear to mean that they would create 10 perfectly independent Municipalities. They all re- 529 cognized the necessity for some purposes of a Central Body, and that the units of local self-government in London were too small—in that they were agreed; the question was, should the Central Authority be strengthened, not should the Local Authorities be extinguished? Touching upon the reason which made it advisable to form such a Central Authority by the extension of the City of London, rather than by giving new and enlarged powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works, he observed that the latter reflected too strongly the spirit of the Vestries and District Boards from which it was constituted; and while admitting that in some respects the Board had done its work on the whole well, he charged it with want of proper consideration for the poor of London. [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: No, no!] Not one single person of all the poor displaced in the carrying out of the Gray's Inn Road improvement, powers for which were acquired in 1877, had been re-housed by the Board. So long as they allowed the City to exist, they would have a Body pledged to resist all reform. He was surprised to find the Lord Mayor did not even attempt to deny that £20,000 of the City cash had been expended in attempts to thwart the Bill, and that the City had even descended to the employment of an agent of the Conservative Party who had been guilty of and scheduled for bribery. But the noble Lord complained that the new administration would be expensive. Perhaps it would; but it was impossible to get a good thing cheap anywhere; and, as a ratepayer, he should not regret if the rates increased, provided the money was spent in a proper manner. The essential principle of the Bill, he believed, was, that there should be one Central Authority with all the rights and dignity of the City, and that that Central Body should be directly elected.
§ SIR WHITTAKER ELLISsaid, he felt that it was only right, in reference to this Bill, that he should express his sentiments upon it. There were two questions to be considered—first, whether there was a demand in London for the Bill; and next, whether the measure was in itself equal to the occasion for which it was introduced? He did not think anyone would deny that the motive power of this Bill had been the junior Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), and 530 another friend outside the House (Mr. James Beal). But they would very much like to know who really was its author; whether the Home Secretary or the junior Member for Chelsea? The reasons brought forward in support of it by the junior Member for Chelsea were extraordinary. The hon. Member seemed to have cast aside the good maxim which advised a man to believe nothing that he heard, and very little that he saw, for there was no petty story of City extravagance or Vestry incompetence too absurd for his credence. He must confess that when the hon. Member rose to address the House the other night, he felt that he had mounted his Pegasus, and that a victory not less glorious than that of St. George over the dragon was to be anticipated. The hon. Member appeared to glory in the proceeds of the spoil, rather than in the other benefits that were to flow from this Bill. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. The grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to rest his case in favour of this Bill were that the Clerkenwell Vestry had neglected to enforce sanitation in their district, while its beadle had made £12,000 out of a fortunate speculation. Whether those charges were true or not was a subject for investigation; and, perhaps, the Vestry particularly attacked would be found to have a complete answer to the allegations made. It seemed to him that the reasons given for the introduction of the Bill were utterly and entirely inadequate, and that no sufficient case had been made out for upsetting the whole government of London, and for destroying at a blow all that had worked so well in the past. The next consideration was, how far the Bill would meet the object of its promoters. He should regret exceedingly if the grand old Court of Aldermen were destroyed. Why should a Second Chamber be put an end to in the City of London? It was impossible to draw to the great Municipal Councils men of sufficient weight and character unless they were given a certain social status. Those who carried on the Government of London devoted their whole time, sometimes to the destruction of their own fortunes, to their municipal duties. If there were one thing which it was necessary to add 531 to the London Municipality, it was the Conservancy of the River Thames; and yet that was not included in the present scheme, which also left out the School Board and the Metropolitan Asylums Board. Then there was a most fantastic arrangement with regard to the police. No doubt it was right that a certain body of police should always be under the control of the Government; but the Government were well aware that if they proposed to take the whole of the London police into their hands, a prejudice would be created against the Bill. Consequently, they proposed that the City police should remain in the hands of the Corporation, and that the rest of the police should be under Government control. He believed, however, that in the course of a few years the smaller body would be absorbed by the greater body, and that the Corporation would have no police of its own at all. The Bill, while destroying all the "powers that be," would leave to the District Councils and the Common Council the task of reconstructing the Metropolitan Government. His idea was that a Legislative Assembly ought itself to pass a complete scheme for the government of the Metropolis. That part of the Bill which dealt with the incorporation of certain members of the Common Council and of the members of the Metropolitan Board was one of the most extraordinary proposals for a system of indirect representation which he had ever heard of. Another objection which he had to the Bill was its proposed abolition of the Irish Society branch of the London Corporation, which possessed extensive estates in the Province of Ulster. Then there was the question of the markets. The Corporation was only to a limited extent a market authority. There were many private markets, and some belonging to the Railway Companies. Yet it would appear that by the Bill the whole of the City markets were to be confiscated without compensation. But what was to be done in respect of Covent Garden Market, about which there had been so many justly-founded complaints; was it intended to deal with all the complicated interests which had grown round that market, and to compensate the Duke of Bedford for the enormous property which was vested in him in the site of that market? The Bill, he contended, had 532 no sufficient reason for its existence. The Corporation of London was now the most perfect Municipal Government which existed in the world; and the Bill which sought to abolish that Corporation was so full of absurdities and inconsistencies, in the name of unity was creating so much disunity, so stultified itself in its details, that he should be wanting in his duty to the Corporation of which he had so long been a member if he did not raise his voice in protest against it.
MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member had introduced an amount of poetry and imagination which was quite refreshing. The hon. Member had charged the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) with piercing the dragon of the City. He (Mr. Russell) thought it might be rather said that they were engaged in destroying the griffin—a beast, with the genesis of which the hon. Member was more familiar.
§ SIR WHITTAKER ELLISsaid, he knew nothing of the genesis of the griffin.
MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he was glad that he had not to find fault with the Corporation in matters of Art. The hon. Member was not accurate in saying that the Asylums Board would be superseded. It would only lose those functions which did not properly belong to it. Nor was he accurate in respect of the medical officers. The 70 medical officers were those of the 39 Vestries and the 30 Boards of Guardians and of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. He (Mr. Russell) believed that there would be great unanimity with regard to retaining the Aldermen in something like their present position. The Lord Mayor had spoken in a remarkably conciliatory spirit. He bore "a generous heart in an intrepid bosom;" but his intrepidity was tempered with discretion, for his right hon. Friend had declined to meet the challenge of the President of the Local Government Board with respect to the Clerkenwell Vestry and his right hon. Friend's challenge about the hired disturbances of public meetings. With respect to the Kensington meeting, his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had admitted that the hall was one-third filled with opponents of the Bill. Then the Vestry determined to hold a meeting composed solely of ratepayers. But his hon. and gallant Friend behind him dissuaded them from 533 doing so, as it was found that the meeting would not be unanimously against the Bill.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONI will state to the House what did occur. I think it will amuse them.
MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he knew what happened. The ratepayers' meeting was held, and a Resolution passed in favour of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman then read a letter, which was published in The Greenwich Observer, signed by W. Smith, giving details of the expenses which had been incurred in the promotion of the movement for Charters for several of the Metropolitan boroughs, and which Mr. Stoneham told him was paid out of the City cash. These expenses amounted to about £80, including the payment for advertisements and the hiring of men to attend the meeting, applaud the speakers, eject dissenters, and also to defray the cost of cigars, wines, and cabs, and other expenses incidental to a Charter.
§ SIR WHITTAKER ELLISWhat proof is there of it?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEWill the hon. Gentleman state whether he knows Mr. William Smith?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he had the honour of knowing several gentlemen of that name, but not the particular Mr. Smith. The letter, however, had been published, and remained uncontradicted. In connection with the housing of the poor many of the Local Authorities were doing their best, according to their lights; but there were exceptions of a heinous kind, which made it the duty of the Government to prevent the possibility of their continuance. Seven authorities had said that they would consider the matter when their attention had been called to the sanitary state of the houses of their district, and seven others had declined even to carry out the existing regulations. When he had been in the East of London the medical officer had informed him of a case where a man suffering from typhoid fever had applied for lodgings at a baker's. The baker had taken him to the bakehouse, and there he had lain on a bed composed of sacks full of flour, which was afterwards used for bread. He had been informed, also, that in that district there had not been a single conviction for adulteration of food. The next point he wished to touch upon 534 was that of Vestry jobbery, especially in the matter of wood pavements.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGI think the hon. Gentleman ought to give names.
MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he was informed by his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that the facts in reference to wood pavement had recently come out in a public trial. It seemed that in many cases there was a rule by which the parish surveyor counted 11 inches as a foot of work, this arrangement being probably known to the contractors, although not to the public. Another point was the holding of insanitary property by members of Vestries. In one instance five houses, Nos. 1 to 5, Melina Place, which were held by Mr. Alfred Eldridge, a present member of the Vestry of St. Pancras, had been condemned as unfit for habitation by the surveyor and the medical officer, who had said that no amount of repair would make them fit for habitation. In the parish of Clerkenwell, in each of the five Committees, a large majority were house-farmers, or closely connected with them. In the Finance Committee 10 out of 15; in the Works Committee 15 out of 20; in the Assessment Committee 15 out of 20; in the Parliamentary Committee six out of 15; and in the Sanitary Committee nine out of 20 were house-farmers. The rest of the Committees were publicans and money-lenders, who acted harmoniously in connection with the house-farmers. His right hon. Friend had founded his accusations partly upon his own experience and partly from strong evidence laid before the Commission. Lord William Compton and his father's agent, Mr. Boodle, had given very decided evidence, and the Commission had also had the evidence of a Chairman and an ex-Chairman of Sanitary Committees. The right hon. Gentleman was willing to state, with the fullest knowledge of the circumstances, that he had not overstated the sanitary condition of Clerkenwell. It had been urged that the death-rate in Clerkenwell was low; but they must remember that Clerkenwell lay in an exceptionally favoured situation; in fact, "every prospect pleases, and only man is vile." It must also be borne in mind that the figures had not been corrected by the addition of those who belonged to the parish, and had died in hospitals, sick-houses, and asylums. He 535 would like to say one word about the considerations which had encouraged them at first to make this attempt, and now to persevere in it. The Metropolitan Board of Works already exercised its rule over the Metropolis for some 25 main purposes of municipal life as a great Central Controlling Body, and the health of the Metropolis had been wonderfully improved. But they were not satisfied to rest there. The death-rate in some improved dwellings was as low as 12; and they hoped to attain this, or something like it, if for all purposes, not merely of main drainage, but of sanitary control, one Central Body exercised supervision, through close relation with Local Bodies, over the 2,000 miles of London streets. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) had said that this measure was too centralizing and too localizing. It was too centralizing to allow of local anarchy, and too localizing to admit of central tyranny.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, no one could rise to speak upon this subject without feeling the greatest responsibility, seeing that for weal or for woe the health and happiness of nearly 4,000,000 of people were involved. He had listened very carefully to the speech of the Home Secretary, to find out why this Bill had been brought in; but he had heard little but praise both of the Corporation of the City of London and of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Of the latter Body the right hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed surprise that 46 members could have done so much work, and that fresh duties should have been imposed upon them year after year. Was not such impositions a proof that their work had been well done? But, in moving the second reading of the Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman found out four points in the administration of the Board with which he could find fault. During the last 30 years there had been a certain number of Gentlemen inside and outside the House who had boon saying that there was chaos in the municipal government of London; but they had failed to prove it, and several Bills which had been brought in to reform the administration of the Metropolis had fallen dead. Now, through the representations of the junior Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) and one or two others, the 536 Home Secretary had been induced to bring in this Bill without sufficient reason or justification. The Home Secretary said the Metropolitan Board had not been able to deal with the water supply. As Chairman of that Board, he had, in 1878, brought in two Bills, one for the purchase of the Water Companies' works, and the other for the purpose of procuring an independent constant supply, especially to meet the requirements of the Fire Brigade. One passed the second reading; but he had no support from the Government of the day, who happened to be his own political friends, and he did not think much of the wisdom of their proceedings. If he had received such support, by this time they would have had a good Central Authority over the water supply, and the Companies would have been bought up much cheaper than it would now be possible to do. He had a Bill on the subject now all ready; and if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would help him to pass it, he would undertake next year to take measures towards a better supply, or for the purchase of the Water Companies. The next point was as regards the housing of the poor. From the moment the Artizans' Dwellings Act passed the Metropolitan Board of Works set themselves to the task of carrying it out, and could now boast that they had provided accommodation for comfortably housing 22,000 of the poorer classes. The Metropolitan Board had no power to rebuild, but they had power to clear sites; and there was now in their possession a large quantity of land for which they could not find any purchasers. There did not appear to be in the Bill any power to house the poor. Again, the Asylums Board was a Body doing good sound sanitary work, especially with reference to small-pox and cholera, though he did not contend that it should entirely take the place of the District Boards. Lastly, there was the question of snow—a most refreshing one just at present. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary did not seem to appreciate the difficulties of dealing with it. The task of the Metropolitan Board of Works was comparatively simple. Whenever a fall occurred, they procured every available cart, and threw the snow into the Thames. Many parishes and District 537 Boards had no place to cart it to. He greatly doubted the wisdom of substituting District Councils for the experienced men who were now engaged in the municipal work of London. They now possessed good and tried representatives who knew the nature of the work they had to do, and did the work thoroughly and well. He had had much experience of them, and was bound to say a good word for them. The Vestries had of late been so much abused that he should like to say what they had done since 1853. They had paved miles of streets, covered in cesspools, and wonderfully improved the sanitary condition of the Metropolis; and he was astonished that nobody in the House of Commons had the courage to stand up and say what these much-maligned men had done. He would give the House a short list of their operations. Since their institution, they had made nearly 1,000 miles of sewers, every one of which had received the full approval of the Engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and every one of which was connected, on a proper level, with the general sewerage of the Metropolis; they had finished 11,745,875 square yards of roads and footpaths, and had put up 26,444 extra lamps. Thus the Metropolis, through their exertions, had had better sewerage, better lighting, better streets, and every improvement it was possible to obtain. He did not propose to go into all the various works of the Metropolitan Board, because he claimed that they were patent to the world, and because no one had spoken unkindly of the action of the Board. He had dealt with the water question, and he now desired to say a word about the gas. An hon. Gentleman opposite, the other evening, told the House that the gas legislation which had taken place had been very much to the benefit of the Metropolis. It was quite true that that legislation had taken place, but how was it brought about? It was entirely through the action of the Metropolitan Board, who had brought in Bills, and ventilated the subject until, although their Bills did not actually pass, it was found absolutely necessary that something should be done. In regard to the financial question, the Metropolitan Board had a Bill now before Parliament for borrowing upwards of £2,000,000. The amount in the Bill had, in the first 538 instance, exceeded £4,000,000; but, owing to the rejection of the Thames Crossings Bill, it was reduced to its present figure. Out of this they had to borrow for the School Board £700,000, the Asylum Board £235,000, and other Boards £561,000; so that the borrowing powers of the Board in reference to their own improvements only amounted to about £900,000. He might point out to the House that it was of benefit to everybody that there should be one Body entrusted with borrowing powers; because they were, by that means, able to raise money at a cheaper rate, and surely it was advantageous to the ratepayers to obtain money at 3¼ per cent. instead of being obliged to pay 4 per cent for it. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared to think that because he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had put down a Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee he, therefore, approved of it. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Petition of the Metropolitan Board he would see that that was not really the case. One of the clauses of their Petition pointed out that the provisions of the Bill in reference to the readjustment of the districts into which the Metropolis was divided for the purposes of local government was most defective, especially in providing that they should be settled by the Local Government Board, or by two Members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. By Clause 71 of the Bill, any two Members of the Privy Council could join together in settling new local boundaries in the Metropolis. He fully admitted that the boundaries of the Metropolis, in some way or other, ought to be altered. It was absolutely necessary that the alteration should be made, and the Metropolitan Board had been for some time considering the propriety of dealing with it themselves, and it was only under the pressure of the present Bill that they had stayed their hands. They were by no means obstructive, nor did they wish to do anything inconsistent with their functions or inconvenient to the Government in view of the present Bill, and accordingly they had stayed their hands. They fully admitted that the work of altering the boundaries ought to be done, but certainly not in the way proposed by the present Bill. Parliament ought to deal with the question itself, or there ought 539 to be a Royal Commission to inquire into it. If the right hon. Gentleman had gone into the matter as he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had done, he would find it no light work, but a work of great labour and responsibility to do it in a proper and efficient manner. A good deal had been said, in the course of the debate, about Petitions. He emphatically denied that the Petitions presented to the House had been in any shape or form in favour of the Bill. He had made a curious note of the favourable Petitions which had been presented; and he thought those hon. Members who had asserted that the Bill was approved by the people generally would be astonished when he read it to the House. Since the second reading of the Bill, there had been 196 Petitions presented against it, and only 10 in its favour, and out of the 10 one came from Leeds—he did not know what on earth Leeds had to do with the Metropolis, and thought that the people of that town had better mind their own affairs—another from Congleton—a place with about 11,000 inhabitants, which he was glad to find took an intelligent interest in the Metropolis—and others from Rochdale and the Port of Glasgow, wherever that might happen to be. He had tried to find out; but had not succeeded. As a matter of fact, out of the 10 Petitions, there were only three from London in favour of the Bill; and all the rest, a long list of which he held in his hand, were against the Bill, from people who resided in the Metropolis, who knew what they were about, and strongly objected to have this measure foisted upon them. If there was anything dependent upon Petitions, he thought the Government would do well not to press the Bill further. There was another thing he was anxious to say. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) and others had presided over various meetings in the Metropolis. He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had also presided over a meeting which might fairly be termed a representative body. The Metropolitan Board of Works had sent out a Circular to every Vestry and District Board in the Metropolis, asking them to send the Vestry Clerks and a certain number of delegates to the meeting who were best acquainted with the subject. He admitted that admission to the meeting 540 was by ticket; but the reason of that was that they did not wish to have the proceedings interrupted, the object being to get an expression of the opinion of the Vestries and District Boards, and of nobody else. He thought they acted very wisely in taking that precaution. He had presided as chairman of the meeting, which was attended by 300 delegates, and after a discussion which lasted nearly five hours, every Vestry being represented except one, a proposition in favour of the Bill was submitted to the meeting, when only 30 hands were held up in support of it, so that he might say that the Vestries and District Boards, by their delegates, were entirely and totally opposed to the course proposed by Her Majesty's Government. They were all representatives at the meeting, who took an intelligent view of the question, and went through the whole question. He sincerely wished that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department could have been present, for he would have been delighted at the intelligent manner in which the subject was handled. He was sorry for having taken up so much of the time of the House; but there was a great deal more he could say if time would permit. He would only add that he hoped that better counsels would govern the course of Her Majesty's Government, and that, at any rate, they would postpone the Bill. He made no complaint, and he had no wish to be discourteous; but it did seem to him somewhat hard that the views of the Metropolitan Board, and those who were best acquainted with the government of London, should be altogether disregarded. He thought that a measure of such magnitude and importance would require more time for its consideration than the Government were prepared to devote to it; and he trusted that so great a question would not be dealt with by Party and ill-matured legislation. He was much obliged to his right hon. Friend for the kind and courteous manner in which he had spoken of the Metropolitan Board and himself in introducing the Bill. They all found it a pleasure to be in the hands of so gentle an executioner.
MR. GLADSTONEI quite agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) in thinking that this Bill has received scant 541 justice from those who denied its vast importance. It is a mistake which some have fallen into to treat a Bill for the government of London as if it were merely a local Bill. The local government of London is, or, if it is not, it certainly ought to be, the crown of all our local and municipal institutions; and those municipal institutions themselves, spread as they are all over the Provinces, could never attain their own proper and legitimate degree of dignity, unless the Municipality of London, which is their natural head, is brought to the best condition in which it can be brought by the labours of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen who represent Provincial towns, and even hon. Gentlemen who represent counties, will not grudge the pains, either now or hereafter, which a Bill, such as this, must necessarily have devoted to it. I do not know whether it will be the desire of the House to divide on this measure to-night. [Cries of "No!"] I know there are a Member or two whose desire it is never to divide; but to prolong every debate on a Government measure ad infinitum. My appeal is not made to such impenitent Gentlemen as those; but I can conceive that it might be the desire of the House to bring to a close tonight the debate, at any rate, on this stage of the Bill. At all events, this is the fact, and I think the House ought to take notice of it; because it is significant in regard to the manner in which we now commonly proceed in dealing with the constantly increasing mass of Business we have to discuss—that in the year 1835, when the subject of municipal reform was new, and every Corporation in the country was a close Corporation, the Government of the day introduced a Bill for the purpose of giving to such Corporations an absolutely new character—a character resting entirely upon popular election. The Government of that day was faced by an Opposition far more powerful than the Opposition which I have now the honour to see over against me. But when they were introducing that Bill, so novel in principle, and so important in the changes which it proposed, one night was sufficient to dispose of the second reading; whereas the Government have already appropriated three nights for the purpose of disposing of the second reading of this Bill. It is 542 quite true that on two of them there were preliminary debates. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Yes; but there are men of such uncharitable minds that they have the belief that these preliminary debates were either, in part, created, or prolonged for the purpose of affecting the debate on this Bill. I know not how that may have been; but, be it as it may, I hope it may tend to quicken the reflection of Gentlemen on the great question, how is this House, not at the present moment only, or on the present subject, but permanently, to discharge the Business of the country in the effective manner in which it has been discharged in former Parliaments? But the special object with which I have risen is this—not to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, but to recall the House from the discursive speeches which we have heard from the opponents of this Bill to the real question before us. Now, does the hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Whittaker Ellis) really think that the remarks out of which his speech was woven are appropriate to the second reading of the Bill? I did conceive that that speech might have been divided into a collection of speeches on points and clauses and sub-clauses, and verbal matters connected with the Bill; but with regard to the principle of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman, I think, did not glance at it from beginning to end. I may even go higher, because the ex-Lord Mayor, great as he is in dignity, cannot possibly, compare with a present Lord Mayor. We heard my right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor deliver his sentiments with that frank geniality which is so agreeable to all of us, whether we agree with him or not; and I appeal to the Lord Mayor himself, whether almost every point he raised was not a point which should have been raised upon another stage of the Bill, and left over for the consideration of the Committee? I do not think the Lord Mayor was in entire consistency and in perfect keeping with himself on several of these points. I heard him lament that the Lord Mayor was about to be deprived of the most important portion of his judicial duties, and immediately after, commiserating the condition of the new Lord Mayor in there being so little for him to do, he made a pathetic appeal to my right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt) to supply 543 a deputy Lord Mayor, and an assistant-deputy Lord Mayor.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What I said was, that I understood the right hon. Gentleman thought there were only two gentlemen qualified to sit in the Chair, and that it was desirable that a larger number of deputies should be supplied for the new Corporation than is at present proposed, in case both of them were ill.
MR. GLADSTONEThe Lord Mayor already has been informed that there are three. I understand, then, that the purpose of the Lord Mayor, in asking for assistance, is not to provide persons to perform the ordinary duties of the Lord Mayor, but for the rare contingency of a casualty arising from illness. Then, Sir, I think that I have the Lord Mayor in a corner. Was there ever a point more unfit for the second reading of a Bill, and more fit to be disposed of in Committee, than a question whether the exigency of a sick Lord Mayor and of a sick deputy Lord Mayor should be provided for? The Lord Mayor also said—and it was a pathetic and impressive part of his speech—"What guarantee are we to have for the composition of this new Corporate Body?" The Lord Mayor appeared to be in a state of painful misgiving and alarm in respect of this guarantee. But I should like to know what guarantee have we for the composition of the next House of Commons? I suppose it is the character of the people who elect it; and the guarantee for the composition of the new Corporate Body is the intelligence and competency of the citizens of London. After lamenting the want of this guarantee, the Lord Mayor went on to predict, in a spirit, I think, of entire good sense, that the people of London would look to experience in civic business, and in local business, as one of the best qualifications and recommendations to their favour, and he told us plainly that the present vestrymen would enter very largely into the composition of the new Common Council. That is the answer to the difficulty raised by the Lord Mayor. There was, however, another point raised by the Lord Mayor, and it appeared to me to be his principal point—namely, the enormous difficulty in which the new Lord Mayor would be placed if, his elec- 544 tion sbeing begun on the 1st of November and only completed on the 5th, he only had four days in which to prepare for the Lord Mayor's Banquet. I do not know whether I am right, but such was the impressiveness of the Lord Mayor, and such his earnestness and intenseness on this part of the question, that I hope it is not altogether too late to hope for the support of the Lord Mayor to the Bill, if we can only satisfy his mind that further time would be given for preparation. The Lord Mayor observed that four days only would be given to the new Lord Mayor to prepare for the Banquet. Why, four days is generally about the time which an incoming Prime Minister has for making up his Government, although, according to the Lord Mayor, it may not be enough to prepare for a dinner. I may say, on the authority of my right hon. Friend near me, that that is a question on which we are perfectly open to conviction; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor is prepared to give us his support upon the Bill at large, we will make any sacrifice we can. I assure him that when we get into Committee, upon the question of the proper time for preparation for the Lord Mayor's Banquet, we shall meet him in a spirit which will leave him nothing to desire or complain of. I will not pursue that line of criticism further; but I will now endeavour to remind the House how comparatively simple in its terms—I do not mean by simple, unimportant, but how simple in its terms is the main question, and the only question, we are called upon to debate to-night. We are not debating any of the points to which I have just referred, nor are we debating to-night other points of great importance—such as what are to be the precise limits of the functions of the new Corporation, or what are to be the local limits of the Metropolis, upon which my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works has just made most weighty remarks, or what are to be the relations between the principal or central body, and the local bodies, or what are to be the exact financial arrangements—a point which has been severely criticized by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). The noble Lord, in speaking of those financial arrangements, made a special appeal to me, which I will only dwell upon 545 so far as to say that I cannot, in any degree, admit the parallel he drew between the financial arrangements of India in reference to the late Famine, and the arrangements contemplated by this Bill, and for this reason—that he compared things which were absolutely at variance with each other, seeing that, in the case of India, the territories governed by Local Governments drew their supplies from a central fund, whereas the District Councils, under this Bill as it now stands, would have to charge on the several districts the whole of the expenditure they would be authorized to incur. But, Sir, none of these are the questions now before us. Every one of them are simply questions for the consideration of the Committee. The question now before us, and it is a sufficiently important one, is, whether the time has come when Parliament ought to endeavour to establish one controlling Municipality for the whole of this great Metropolis, and to develop that Municipality, armed with full municipal powers, out of its ancient and historic Corporation? My hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works would not be sorry, and I think it does him credit, to go on absorbing power after power, until the Body over which he so worthily presides reached the dimensions of a complete Municipality. Well, Sir, that Body has earned much credit for the practical manner in which it has been conducted; and as to the principle on which it rests, it has met wants which had become absolutely intolerable. But for the Metropolitan Board of Works this Bill could not possibly have been delayed until the present day. The successive developments of the Metropolitan Board, adding to it power after power, but never putting it on a proper footing as the Municipality of London—whether that is a satisfactory mode of dealing with this great question is a totally different matter. What we contend is, that the real question is whether we ought to endeavour to establish one Municipality for the whole of London—setting aside for the moment the question of exact limits—whether we ought to establish one Municipality for the whole of London? And that question, we say, ought to be answered in the affirmative. We say that we ought not to leave, in its present state of isolation, 546 the historic Corporation of London. We do not admit that that historic Corporation, with all its traditions—and very great traditions many of them are—is the property of the small handful of persons contained within the limits of the City. We affirm that the Corporation belongs to the Metropolis, and that the Metropolis should have power to do honour to the Corporation. This is not spoliating, but enriching it. The riches, dignity, power, authority, and the desirableness of belonging to that Corporation will be infinitely greater when it has undergone its just extension, and become the representative of the whole Metropolis, than ever it can be so long as it remains within its present narrow limits. Why do we wish to have this question answered in the affirmative? Undoubtedly, there are cases—and no one more ingenuously admitted them than the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex—cases even in the higher departments of local administration—I do not mean in either of the great Bodies which I have mentioned—where the local administration is what we may call, at present, cramped. Cases of that kind are, happily, the exception, and it is not necessary that I should rest upon them. The nature of the case in itself affords ample ground for our proposals. Justice to the people of London demands that a measure of this kind should be passed, quite apart from allegations of abuse, or of our finding anyone guilty of this or that dereliction of duty. What we contend is, that these municipal institutions, on a true representative basis, are a great element of power, and of healthy power, in this country. We maintain that much of the greatness of the central power in this country is due to the efficacy of those local powers which have been traditionally exercised. We contend that the education which makes men fit to come into Parliament is an education acquired within a narrower sphere; and we think it a monstrous wrong to the people of London that they alone, amidst the towns of this country, being by far the greatest of them all, should be shut out from those noble and ennobling opportunities afforded by municipal institutions, from no fault of their own, from no natural incapacity under which they labour, but because it has not suited the convenience of Parliament to deal with the compli- 547 cations of this great question. If we have faith in self-government, then I contend that the creation of a real Municipality for London is an essential part of the duty of Parliament; and I may also remind the House that there are great changes in contemplation with regard to the incidence of taxation in this country, and important measures of relief to the ratepayers, which never can be carried into full and satisfactory effect until the 4,000,000 of people, forming an important section of the population, who inhabit London have over them a Local Authority with which the State can safely deal. So much for the general question of justice to the people of London, as the main foundation of this Bill. Be it remembered that the principle of unity has already been established, under the pressure of necessity, as a matter which could not be resisted. It has been established in the Metropolitan Board of Works, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, although he looks askance at this Bill, yet, I think, he also looks askance at the other plans of reform which have been sometimes put before the House. There is a plan for the creation of 10 cities. Those 10 cities were eight a few years ago, and they may be 20, or more than 20, in a year or two hence. What is the meaning of the creation of those 10 cities?—because that is one of the rival plans to the plan of my right hon. Friend. The meaning of the creation of those 10 cities is that the great work of unity, and a great and important work it is, which has been achieved through the Metropolitan Board of Works, is to be taken to pieces again, and that, under the name of Reform you are to adopt a retrogressive measure which will again break London to pieces, after having for some purposes and to some effect, already attained to some degree of unity. There can be no doubt that we have established a principle of unity, and that we have found it satisfactory. What has been the course of Parliament during the last 30 years? It is said that the Commission which sat in 1854 declined to recommend one Municipality for London. That is perfectly true; but what was the upshot before the Report of that Commission was one year old? It was thrown over by Parliament; and Parliament, although not giving a complete Muni- 548 cipality for London, did confront and encounter outright the allegations of the Commissioners, because all the difficulties that were foreseen by the Commissioners in a Municipality were encountered in the creation of a Metropolitan Board, and have been, by the action of that Board, successfully overcome.
§ MR. RITCHIEThe reason why a Municipality was not given to London at that time was because London did not want it, and not because there was any difficulty in the matter.
§ MR. RITCHIENo.
§ MR. RITCHIEYes.
MR. GLADSTONEI should like to know what evidence there is that a Municipality was wanted in 1835? I know of no such evidence; and when we come to consider the kind of opposition which is offered to the Bill, it is necessary to inquire, in order to establish a parallelism in the case, what the view was which was entertained in 1835. Why, Sir, as to the opposition of the Vestries, I must say that the only subject for suprise—and for gratified surprise—is, that everywhere among the Vestries there should be a large and intelligent minority, keenly desirous of reform, and comprising within its number many of the best and most efficient men; and, further, I must say, it is an honour to this Bill, that if there be in London a Vestry bad beyond all others, that Vestry stands foremost in the ranks of the opponents of this measure. I will not name the Vestry to which I refer. [Cries of "Name!"] Well, it has been named, I think, before, and the name of Clerkenwell may be repeated without any great impropriety. This is a point on which I put it that the people of London are in a position to require justice at our hands. In consequence of the want of pure municipal institutions, artificial creations, unknown to a genuine system of local government, have been obliged to be called into existence, in order to make up for the deficiency; and, not only so, but in one most gross instance—I mean the Coal and Wine Duties—the intervention of Parliament is used to lay indirect taxation upon the entire Metropolis, upon persons beyond the limits of the entire Metropolis, and 549 to hand over the proceeds not only to the Metropolitan Board, which, at any rate, in some sense represents the whole Metropolis, but a large portion of them—I think £120,000 a-year—to the Corporation of London, confined within the limits of, perhaps, 1–50th part of the Municipality. Really, can it be for a moment disguised or denied that such an exercise of power by Parliament is totally alien to the spirit of our local government? I am afraid that, while we talk of progress, we are, in some things—perhaps unawares—going backward. I will tell the House a fact drawn from my earliest experience as a Cabinet Minister. That experience was in the Government of Sir Robert Peel—not a Liberal, but a Conservative Government. During the time of that Government, the noble scheme, which has since been executed, of the River Embankment, was projected and devised. It was brought before the Government, and the Government earnestly desired its execution. But inasmuch as they saw no means of providing funds, except by prolonging the Coal and Wine Duties, they would not take up the scheme—not because they did not value it or desire it, but because, in the judgment of that Conservative Government, 40 years ago, the imposition of the Coal and Wine Duties in the districts in which they operated was a thing intolerable, and not to be heard of. Am I to be told that there is no cause for intervention, or for inviting the attention of Parliament, when you are obliged to obtain the means for carrying out the best municipal purposes by resorting to the intervention of the Central Authority in matters entirely and properly local; that you have to call upon Members representing the Three Kingdoms to determine how the people of London are to be taxed, and to ask them to impose a tax of a description which, on our principle of Imperial taxation, is deemed inadmissible? And you are called upon to do all this, because you do not choose to provide municipal machinery for the benefit of the inhabitants. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was absolutely pathetic when he told us how he has laboured, with great public spirit, to meet a portion of the case—namely, to get the supply of water placed in the hands of a Public Body. He admits that he has failed. I am sure he has failed 550 from no want of energy, sincerity, or ability; but he has failed from the difficulties of the case; and the supply of water, and the supply of gas, two of the most elementary among the purposes of Municipal Government, have been handed over to private Corporations for the purpose of private profit, because you have not chosen to create a complete Municipality for the Metropolis. And that is not all. The defects of the present system are admitted, and the sense of them is so strong, that they cannot be denied, even by some of the opponents of the Bill. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) is a Member of great experience in Parliament, and he has had great experience also in connection with local matters. He has laboured long, laudably, and honourably in an important question to further the interests of the labouring classes, and he is sensible of the defects of the present state of the law. Surely, if there are these great and intolerable defects, they ought to be remedied by the action of some genuine popular Local Authority. But we have got no genuine popular Local Authority; and therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) was obliged, in introducing a deputation to a Member of the Cabinet the other day, to recommend that a Crown Commission should be formed, with Executive powers, to supply what is deficient in the present state of the question concerning labourers' dwellings. Why is this extraordinary proposition made—that the Crown, forsooth, is to issue a Commission? Hon. Gentlemen opposite hail and welcome the proposition that the Crown should take into its hands the government of the London houses. If London be really smitten with hopeless and permanent incompetence; if it has neither eyes, ears, nor understanding, like other people, then by all means let the Crown take this matter into its own hands. But if, on the contrary, the people of London are, in many respects, a select population; if London has the advantage of drawing to it, from all parts of the country, the most intelligent of the people of the country; if you find, among the people of London, persons representing the working men who are selected by societies, because they excel their fellow-men, why, in the name of 551 common sense, is London to be denied the exercise of the privilege which is enjoyed by everybody else? The present Lord Mayor, under whose authority I am at all times glad to shelter myself, with his usual ingenuousness of mind, has admitted that there is a case for reform; but what is his method of reform? His method is an energetic appeal to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He said that if my right hon. Friend would only frame a Bill, and put into that Bill all the powers we want, and then come down and ask the House to pass it for him, they would not examine it too minutely, because they knew the case was a strong one, and they would make over the powers asked for to the Government. But is that really the way in which the cause of Local Government is to be maintained; or is that the way in which the people of London are to be selected for exceptional treatment and exceptional degradation? I wish to point out to the House the conclusion which is deeply impressed on my mind—namely, that this measure of Municipal Reform, or, if you will, a measure which seeks to unite the highest efficiency, and the broad application of popular principles, with the maintenance of all the old historic traditions which belong to this great Metropolis, is the only method of Reform that has ever been practically proposed. I know that in words another method is talked of. The plan of incorporating the Parliamentary boroughs has been set up; and that is the only rival scheme to this we can discern—the only rival that has attained to even as much as verbal existence. Now, Sir, is there any common sense in such a proposition? We are told, forsooth, that there is a want of unity in the Metropolis. We are told that Kensington is not closely united in interest with Poplar. If you go to Liverpool, a city with which I am tolerably well acquainted, and take a district like that of Everton, and ask what unity of interest exists in that district with Toxteth, or other townships in Liverpool, you will undoubtedly find that there are palpable discrepancies. But if you wish to estimate the relation of Kensington with Poplar, you must begin by considering what Kensington is to Chelsea and to Fulham; you must 552 take the Metropolis in its continuity, and not jump from one district to another widely separate from it. I want to know on what principle you are to select these Parliamentary boroughs? You must be aware that if there be one thing more certain than another in regard to the redistribution of seats, when that redistribution arrives, it is that the number of Parliamentary boroughs in London must be increased. How, then, is it possible to make the Parliamentary boroughs the basis of municipal institutions; and what reason have you for making them the basis of municipal institutions? What individuality do they present, and in what respect have they oven the feeblest features of union? If you allow some shadowy institution in Westminster, and some ancient recollection in Southwark, which has passed away, to bear some sort of testimony, at least, in the matter of separate existence, what separate existence has Lambeth, what separate existence has Chelsea, and what separate existence has Finsbury? They form no basis for separate Municipalities; they have no community of existence at all. They are all factitious units; whereas London, large as it is, is a natural unit—united by common features, united by common approximation, by common neighbourhood, by common dangers—depending upon common supplies, having common wants, and common conveniencies. It has material interests closely linked together, moral interests, and feelings connected with Royalty, connected with Parliament, connected with the ancient City and its Corporation, and to its history; and the whole of these things and traditions you, who claim the name of Conservatives, ought to desire the whole people of London to take a joint interest in. You have no right to deprive any one of them of these recollections and traditions, which are in themselves treasures, and which treasures are the property of the whole population of the Metropolis. But there are no such treasures in a Parliamentary borough. Parliamentary boroughs are, in fact, conventional terms. They divide London numerically, but upon no principle whatever. If we were to set up 10 or 20 Municipalities in different districts in London, we should be breaking up the only unity which exists on such questions as drainage and public works, 553 and we should be substituting the divided action of a multitude of independent bodies united by no principle, and no community of interest; and the result of such action would be little better than practical anarchy. There is only one other point on which I wish to detain the House for a moment; but it is one of practical importance, and it has already been introduced to the notice of the House, and dwelt upon in the course of the debate. I propose to give an illustration, and a tolerably simple one, to show the effect of the want of a central controlling authority in London, and I seek to obtain an admission as to the precise nature of the Body to which the functions of this Central Authority are to be delegated, or who are to be relieved of it by Parliament in certain cases, as the House may best judge. What I refer to is the effect of the absence of this Central Authority in regard to those matters of sanitation in which the House takes so deep an interest. It is idle to draw comparisons between London as a whole and the Provincial towns and cities as a whole. The reason I give for that is, that London possesses far greater advantages than Provincial towns and cities. The number of persons who swell the population of London, who belong to the classes having the best conditions of health, and the best means of obtaining it, lightens the ratio of mortality in large districts of London in a manner in which you cannot obtain in the same degree in the Provincial towns. But, Sir, a great fallacy lies in taking London as a whole. In order to understand the case it is absolutely necessary to make a division of London, and to notice the enormous differences in the different districts of London. Let me take a pair of districts. I have here a list of 40 Registrars' sub-districts, wherein the death rate varies from 9½ per cent in Mayfair to 27 in the district which is at the bottom of the list.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS? Is that the corrected death rate?
§ MR. RITCHIEI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I think he will find that it is not the corrected death rate.
MR. GLADSTONEYes; it is the corrected death rate. It gives the corrected death rate at 9.6 for Mayfair, 554 and 27 for the district which is at the bottom of the list. Of course, the observation to be made upon it is that it may include a difference in the density of population. But it is not by any means uniformly or generally due to a difference in the density of population; and what we have to show to the House, in a manner that will perfectly demonstrate our argument, is that there are different things affecting the lives of our fellow - creatures which cannot be referred to natural circumstances, and which, to all appearances, are entirely the result of our arrangements. Now, I will take two pairs of the Registrars' sub-districts; and I will give the figures as clearly as I can to the House. The districts are of considerable size, and contain generally about 14,000 or 15,000 people. The first pair of districts is St. John's, belonging to St. George's-in-the-East; and St. John's. Paddington. The density of population is almost exactly the same. In St. John's, in St. George's-in-the-East, there are 87 persons per acre; and in St. John's, Paddington, 84. That is not a very great difference. The corrected death rate in the parish where there are 87 persons per acre is 25.4; whereas the corrected death rate in the district of St. John's, Paddington, where there are 84 persons per acre, is 12.9, or one-half, with nearly the same density of population.
§ MR. RITCHIEBut they are a totally different class of people.
MR. GLADSTONEI think the class of people is tested by the density of population; and, as I have said, the density of population in these two cases is, as nearly as possible, the same. I cannot suppose that a difference of 3 or 4 per cent in the density of population means a difference of 100 per cent in the death rate, although that seems to be the opinion of the hon. Gentleman. There is another, however, and a better test than the death rate, which is supplied by the table of zymotic disease. Now, how does the table of zymotic disease stand in these two districts? In the first parish, it is 4.14 per 1,000; whereas, in St. John's, Paddington, it is 1.63 per 1,000. There is also a considerable difference in the deaths under one year of age. In the first parish, it is 156; while in the last it is only 118. I will now take another pair of districts—that of St. Saviour's, South- 555 wark, and the district of Cavendish Square. Do not let the House be misled by the name of Cavendish Square, because the population is between 14,000 and 15,000; and it comprises a large area, Cavendish Square being the principal point only. The density of population in St. Saviour's, Southwark, is 118 per acre; but in the district of Cavendish Square it is considerably greater, being 135 per acre; and yet the corrected death rate in the district where the density of population is 118 persons per acre, is 25.4; whereas, in the district in which it is 135 persons per aero, it is only 15.2. In that case, you see there is an enormous difference in the death rate even when the population is less dense. With regard to zymotic disease in St. Saviour's Southwark, it was 3.3, against 1.41 in the district of Cavendish Square; and the deaths under one year of age were 156 in St. Saviour's, Southwark, against 125 in the district of Cavendish Square. Now, what does this prove? It proves the want of a controling authority. It proves that you have a number of your worst districts that you want to bring up to the level of your better districts. How is that to be done, except by the establishment of Central Municipal Institutions? The Lord Mayor recommends my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to ask for powers. But he must know perfectly well, with his good sense, that it would be impossible for a Department of the Executive Government to bring to bear any pressure by which, alone, it would be possible to enforce the intelligent care required in order to bring up the state of the worst governed part of the Metropolis to the high condition which has been obtained by the best. These, I must say, are strong reasons for passing this Bill; and they are strong reasons for fastening our eyes upon the principle of the Bill; for our contention is, that unity of Government in the Metropolis is the only method on which we can proceed for producing municipal reform, if it is admitted that municipal reform is wanted. The other method—of calling on the Crown to intervene, and ask for large powers to take over the business of Local Government in London, I do not admit to be worthy of the consideration of this House. Well, Sir, we are next told of the position of the Vestries. I 556 want to know what local improvements would ever be made if we took only the opinion of the instruments and agents of the existing Authorities? The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex said that all the public opinions which had been tested was adverse to the Bill, and he proceeded to enumerate a variety of forms; but he was met with cries of contradiction on every side, until he come to one kind of public opinion—namely, that of the Local Authorities. I do not deny that the opinion of the Local Authorities may be unfavourable to the Bill. But I should like to know what would have become of the Poor Law Amendment Act, which is, perhaps, the greatest reform passed by the House of Commons in this century, if its fate had been intrusted to the Local Authorities of that day? And what would have become of the Municipal Reform Act itself if its fate had been entrusted to the old Corporations? This kind of opposition is not to be treated—indeed, it would be ludicrous to treat it—as entitled to just consideration, or as binding upon us. There was an old mode of arguing the question—which, I am glad to say, has disappeared—which found favour with many of those who are interestsd in a Bill of this kind. It was a common thing to say that a Municipality for London would be a most formidable political engine, and, probably, that the House of Commons itself would be endangered if a Municipality were created. I am thankful to record that, as far as I have been able to attend to this debate, I have not heard that objection raised, and I trust that it has vanished from the mind of the House. ["No, no!"] Very well, then; there are those who cherish it in the secret recesses of their consciences. Are they willing to air it in debate? Let them test it by argument. What possible political evil can arise from the creation of a great Municipality? In a minor Municipality there may be the means of making it political, and connecting it with local elections; but that cannot be done with the largo Municipality. For example, the Metropolitan Board of Works, although its mode of election is very important, and although its acts for the whole of London has never, I believe, been tainted in the slightest degree, or, at any rate, in any sensible degree, by the infusion of what I may fairly call, 557 in such a case, the poison of politics. The whole of its vast machinery would be totally unavailable for the purpose of Parliamentary elections. It would have no local coincidence with the areas in which the elections take place; and they could not possibly bring the one machinery to fit in with the other. I remember, in 1835, there were many men—good and sensible men in general—who were greatly apprehensive that the Municipalities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and other large towns, would become formidable political agents, disturbing the action and the Constitutional Government of the country. Need I say how absolutely free our history has been of the manifestation of anything of the kind? The more you elevate London by the magnitude and importance of its municipal action, the less you will render it possible for it to become a political agency. I know that the Forms of this House do, in themselves, give an enormous power to minorities that oppose and resist—no doubt, conscientiously resist—aye, and to stop anything in the nature of a complicated and a comprehensive measure of Reform. I am afraid it is not in the power of my right hon. Friend to do what the Government sought to do in the case of a recent important measure—namely, to simplify the proposal so as to render the passage of the Bill practicable. I know that our present habit of discussion, and the persistent efforts of an Opposition, make the passage of a complicated Bill exceedingly difficult, and almost impossible; but this I will say—that that evil will bring about its own cure. The good sense of the people will find a remedy. When the good sense and the energy and intelligence of the country have been appealed to, Parliament will be prepared to remedy the defects of which we complain, and which are generally admitted, and will do the citizens of London that justice which their case so loudly calls for. And I believe that, after the matter has been settled, and after some years have elapsed, hon. Gentlemen opposite will look back upon this measure as we look back now upon the repeal of the Corn Laws, and the passing of the first Reform Act; and that those who now oppose and obstruct this Bill will entirely forget that they ever entertained a dislike to a measure from which they will see such happy re- 558 sults; and at last they will end by saying that in principle they were always its best friends, and it was only the stupid manner in which it was presented to them that prevented them from saying so at the time.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHThe right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has administered a severe rebuke to the hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir John Ellis) for discussing, on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, what he considered ought to be discussed in Committee; but it was only at the commencement of his speech that the right hon. Gentleman condescended to trivialities of that sort; and, I admit that, at the end, he raised the discussion to a level worthy of a great measure like this. But the speeches of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Local Government Board were, I consider, totally unworthy of this important question. Those right hon. Gentlemen wasted the time of the House by dwelling on the jobbery in this case, and the shortcomings in that case—the extravagance of a certain beadle—and, in short, a number of details beneath the dignity of the subject that had brought them together. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) has rightly stated that the great object of the Bill is the unification of London under one Municipal Government, and he asserts that it is by that great change alone that the evils which exist can be cured. The right hon. Gentleman said that London was the greatest town of all the towns of the Kingdom; but I deny that he has shown, or that anyone has shown, that there is any analogy between the Municipal Government of the other towns of the Kingdom and the Municipal Government of London. He enlarged on the plan of 10 Municipalities for London, and he said that the effect of such a plan would be to break down the wholesome administration of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but I should have thought that the tendency of those Municipalities would have been rather to absorb in themselves the functions of those Vestries which had been so much abused. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that London is to be pitied, because it stands apart as a community which has no Government worthy of the name, and, consequently, no means of making its influence felt, or its wishes known to the 559 public. But, Sir, this House is the Central Government of London; and when the right hon. Gentleman sneers in giving his illustration of the Coal and Wine Dues provided by the Crown for certain municipal purposes, what is that but showing that the well-being of the City of London has been regarded by the Crown and Parliament as something necessary to be provided for by legislation? The right hon. Gentleman says that the supply of gas and water are the elementary purposes of Municipal Government. But I ask, since when has that been the case? Why, Sir, gas and water have been provided for the town populations of the Kingdom by the free action of private Companies trading for their own purposes, in the same way that the free action of Companies has provided us with railways. It is not long ago that some important towns, having regard to the great profits of these Companies to whom they owed so much, thought it incumbent upon them to take the profits which those Companies enjoyed into their own hands; and it is, no doubt, a very important question whether London ought not to be put in the same position. There was an opportunity, in days now past and gone, when that might have been done, and I may have an opportunity of referring to that subject hereafter; but I say that it is not the case that the supply of water and gas has ever been considered to come within the duties of Municipal Government in this country, at all events. I shall pass by altogether that portion of the debate of this evening which related to the question as to whether or not certain meetings, packed or otherwise, were disturbed by emmissaries or not, because I think that altogether outside of the amenities of debate and the importance of the discussion we are engaged in. I hope I shall not, in any remarks which I may make, unduly repeat what has been said with regard to the Bill in this House and "elsewhere;" but I must ask the House to consider one or two illustrations which have been given. Suppose anyone proposed to the House of Commons to place Manchester and Salford, two Parliamentary boroughs, under one Municipal Government. There is scarcely any distinction between the two towns perceptible to those who pass through them 560 from point to point, although the distinction is perfectly well known; but what would have been the result of the proposal to place them under one Municipal Government? Why, the indignation in Manchester and Salford would have known no bounds. The same result would have followed a similar proposal with regard to Liverpool and Birkenhead. The Mersey is a great deal wider than the Thames, and the Thames is a great deal wider than the Irwell, which divides Manchester and Salford. The greatest indignation would have been provoked in the places I have named by the proposal to place them under one Municipal Government. Why, then, should Greenwich be merged, rather than have its legitimate aspiration granted of being elevated into a separate Municipality? Then there is Southwark, one of the oldest boroughs in England; I believe it existed at the time of the Conquest; and I entirely fail to see why the Municipality of Southwark should be merged into the Municipality of London. If we cross the Channel we find that the French have been provided with the opportunity for remodelling their local government. Happily, the same cause has not operated with us. It was the Revolution which made a tabula rasa of the whole of their municipal and local landmarks, and it was easy to reconstruct them on another plan. But our municipal institutions have grown with the requirements of the people, and I consider that the people should retain the means of developing and expanding them with the growth of time. Now, Sir, the Bill proposes to effect what I admit to be both plausible and attractive, and I must compliment the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the extreme cleverness with which he laid his plan before the House when he introduced the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor has expressed surprise that so little support had followed the Bill out-of-doors; but the men who watched the Bill are men of great experience in the City of London, of which I fear the Secretary of State for the Home Department knows, by experience, very little; and they saw through the network of Conservative ideas which the right hon. Gentleman weaved about his first speech; and they found that it was really a root-and-branch measure 561 of extirpation of all that we are accustomed to regard as the municipal rights of London. I agree that the Bill proposes, as I have said, to effect something plausible and attractive—namely, a unified Municipality for the whole of the Metropolis; but I contend, in the first place, that the idea rests upon a false analogy; that there is no precedent or ground for establishing a Municipality for all purposes; and if the Bill could be carried out, as it is drawn and proposed by the Government, the effect would not be to establish unity as is supposed, but would leave a number of concurrent systems of local government in London, each working on different planes, and with different objects; and the proposed Municipality to be set up would scarcely take the place of one of them. I do not propose to set up the bugbear of political danger arising from this proposed Municipal Government for London; but I say that, when you consider the great size of the Metropolis, its enormous area with a population greater than that of Scotland, there can be no doubt that, if it were politically inclined, it could have taken that leading and overpowering weight in the conduct of public and political business in this country which has been taken in France by the Municipality and population of Paris. But that has been far from the case, and I own that I do not desire to stimulate the idea that anything like political unity should be given to the Metropolis as a whole. I do not, therefore, say divide et impera; but I would apply the old proverb in this case to the executive functions of the Municipal Government—Divide ut imperes; separate the different forms and subject-matters of local government, and place them in the hands of different authorities, and you will get the work done far better in such a great community as London, than if you attempted to get it done by means of one authority. A great body of 200 or 250 members cannot descend to do the work—the humble work of scavenging, lighting, paving, removal of smells, removal of dust, and the many other kindred acts which the comfort of the population of a great city like this require to be done with regularity and decision. These are functions which, I say, can be discharged best in the manner I have indicated, and I greatly deprecate the mode in which they are pro- 562 posed to be done in this Bill; indeed, I am convinced that in this respect, apart from others, the measure is radically wrong. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has referred to the case of certain Vestries as a justification of the proposal; but one would think that if there were a few Vestries who did not do their duty, it would be easy enough to provide means by which they could be compelled to do it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, laughed to scorn the idea of making them do their duty, unless the Bill became law. But when, not long ago, the public conscience was shocked by the disclosures made with regard to our Poor Law system, did Parliament proceed to repeal the Poor Law, and say that the Municipal Bodies should control it? Not at all. It passed one of the most useful Acts that was ever proposed—the Metropolitan Poor Law Act, which was the work of my noble Friend Lord Cranbrook. That Act left to the Local Authorities the onus and responsibility for executing the requirements of Parliament; but it left it to the Central Authority to see that the law was fulfilled. It is easy to talk about centralization and decentralization. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always speaking of legislation in this matter; but legislation is sometimes extremely unpalatable, and that was the case with the Poor Law; and you cannot expect such legislation to be uniformerly acquiesced in and adopted throughout the Kingdom unless you have some means of forcing the Local Authorities to act up to their duties. The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to think that the proposed Municipal Authority will be able to do this, and at the same time to give satisfaction to the Vestries and similar bodies. I entirely doubt that. I know how unpopular the Departments are with the Local Authorities; and I entirely deny that the Municipal Government of the future can be clothed with these powers effectively; that it can ever get up the necessary knowledge, experience, or skill to enable them to master the various Acts of Parliament, or that the smaller bodies will submit to them. My hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) is both able and willing to exercise a great deal more control over the Vestries than the Board does, or is per- 563 mitted to do, now; but rather than he should be permitted, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to destroy the whole of the existing system, and build it up from the wrong end. If the Government had been content to take the Act of 1855, and, proceeding on the same lines, to have carried further the provisions of that Act, they would have provided a real form of Municipal Government for London. The Act of Sir Benjamin Hall greatly improved the Government of London; it constituted the Metropolitan Board of Works, having sway over the whole Metropolis, for certain general purposes; it consolidated the functions and action of Vestries and parochial authorities; and I believe that it reduced those bodies to, at all events, reasonable proportions. If they are now too numerous, why did not the Government bring in a measure enabling compulsion to be exercised towards them? But, no; that would be much too humdrum a mode of proceeding. The Government will not bend to the necessarily disagreeable task of endeavouring to travel upon the old lines with regard to existing institutions; they must sweep them all away, and set up in their place an entirely new Body, in the hope that they may put off to the future the responsibity which ought to rest upon themselves. Again, I say that if the new Government of London should be satisfactorily established, you will not really have a unified Municipality for the Metropolis. You leave the administration of the Poor Law untouched. It is a very complicated administration, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is constantly amusing himself by saying that he wants to get rid of that responsibility. Why, then, does he not propose to place the administration of the Poor Law in the hands of the Municipal Government? Many people would like to see that done. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Sydney Buxton) said, in his speech, that he wished the Bill had gone further, and handed over the Poor Law system to the Municipal Government of London. But the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, if that were done, one of the most satisfactory branches of the Government of London would have been imperilled. I say the right hon. Gentleman knows that, in the hands of such a Body as that which the Bill pro- 564 poses to create, the Poor Law administration in London would simply cease to exist. Then, with regard to the Police. As long as I have been in Parliament, now a good many years, it has been complained of successive Governments that they continued to leave the control of the City Police in the hands of the City Authorities, whilst retaining absolute control over the Metropolitan Police, which is, of course, a much more important body, as having to do with the greater part of the Metropolitan district. Not only has that anomaly, which might have been rectified, been left untouched to the scandal of everyone—I do not say that the City Police is not well administered—but they have not done for London what they have done for every other Municipality in the Kingdom—namely, placed the Police in the hands of the Municipal Authorities. One of the chief objections to the Bill is, that it gives the Municipality so great a claim on the control of the Metropolitan Police. I hope the day will never come when the Municipality will have control over them, and that Parliament will never consent to anything of the sort. Then I will say a few words only with regard to the School Board, as affording a good illustration of what Municipal Government might become—not what it will necessarily become. Elected for three years, they are comparatively indifferent as to what may happen after their time; and the wealth of the Metropolis is so enormous, that the levying of a very small rate is sufficient to place enormous funds at their control. That, I say, is an experiment which ought not to be repeated, if it were possible to avoid it. Again, there is a body subsidiary to the Poor Law system, called the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which is doing immense work in London, and is doing that work by a rate levied on the whole of the Metropolis in the easiest possible manner. No doubt, it is in the anomalous position of having been hitherto the sole sanitary authority for the whole of the Metropolis, although, no doubt, it will be said that sanitary matters are no part of their duty. From the time of Sir Benjamin Hall's Act until about 1870, London was well supplied with sanitary machinery, and the Vestries inherited their powers from, the various Acts passed up to that time. But from that time onwards, sanitary 565 legislation made rapid progress, and it fell to my lot, in 1874, to pass through Parliament the Consolidated Public Health Act, one of the most important Statutes of this century. But that Act did not extend to London, for the reason that the Vestries were already in the enjoyment of powers conferred on them under the provisions of the old Sanitary Acts. Now, I should say that if the sanitary condition of London is such as the right hon. Gentleman has described, and if the danger from Clerkenwell is such as the Secretary of State for the Home Department has suggested—if the Vestry of Clerkenwell has abandoned its duty with regard to the public health—I say that the right hon. Gentleman should take the necessary steps in the matter, and not leave it to the future, but do it himself at once, because it is a thing affecting not London only, but the whole of the Kingdom. I say it is his duty to pass a Public Health Act which will be satisfactory to the people of London. He might make use of the Metropolitan Asylums Board or other means; but something is necessary to be done, and I doubt very much whether, in the action that he has taken, he has gone the right way to work. He has told us of the shortcomings of the Vestries and the jobbery of beadles, and yet he does not import into the Bill what is most required—namely, a provision for a thorough system of audit; he goes out of his way to say that the Vestries need not be afraid that anything like an effectual system of audit will be imposed upon them. Some of the provisions of the Bill seem to be very extraordinary. One of its great defects is, that it leaves to the Central Council established under it to assign, at their pleasure or caprice, duties to the subordinate authorities. They may give to the one, or withhold from the other, the same duty or obligation. I cannot conceive anything likely to be more disastrous in its working than that some Vestries should hold one power of self-government that is withheld from the others. ["No, no!"] But that is implied by the Bill, and I say that the powers of the subordinate authorities should be distinctly defined by the Statute. In Clause 48, where he has two separate provisions—the right hon. Gentleman's meaning in placing which in that position I cannot understand—he makes it compulsory in the 566 48th clause for the Central Council to come to Parliament for powers to provide for a gas and water supply for London. That is a duty which the right hon. Gentleman might very well have discharged four years ago; but he shrank from it, and it remains for the Municipal Council, when constituted, to attend to these matters. Now, with regard to that, I say that he has imposed a duty upon them which they cannot discharge, because the provision in question implies an interference on the part of the Municipal Authority with the districts around London which cannot take place under the existing law. Everyone knows that the functions of the Gas and Water Companies supplying the Metropolis extend by Act of Parliament over the neighbouring counties of Surrey Kent, and Hertford; and, therefore, the Municipal Authority cannot go beyond its own area in order to interfere with the counties. Then, they are not to go direct to Parliament for a Bill, but to the Local Government Board, which, I say, is a lazy way of doing business; and I think it should have been sot forth clearly what is intended, so that the public may understand what is really required. The Metropolis is to be a county in itself; those parts of London which now lie in Surrey and Middlesex are to be taken away from those counties, and London is to become a county. But what is the meaning of a county? First, that it shall have separate political representation, which, of course, will not be given; and, secondly, that it shall manage its own justice and police, which are functions distinctly taken away from the county of London by this Bill. No doubt, there are a good many inconveniences attaching to the way in which the counties of Surrey and Middlesex run into London; but they will not be obviated by this Bill. The great lunatic asylums at Hanwell and Colney Hatch cost, I suppose, £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 sterling. When London has become a county these institutions will remain outside. They cannot be handed over to the counties in which they are situated; London has provided the inmates, and London must continue to do so. The more you think of the matter the more you see how impossible it is to confine this great Metropolis within its present enormous limits. See the anomalies 567 which are set up by the Bill. I think the Government are wrong in supposing that Parliamentary representation does not form a great feature in this matter. The City will send four Members to Parliament and 30 Councillors to the Municipality. If the representation of the people is to be founded upon an estimate of population and rateable value, so will be their right to send Councillors to the Municipality, and how, therefore, can you arrive at such a condition of things as this—that the City will have 4 Members of Parliament and 30 councillors, against Greenwich, with 2 Members of Parliament and 8 Councillors? That is an instance of the anomalies which will be set up by the Bill. I am certainly far from being one of those who consider that the Government of London requires no amendment; but I think that considering the experience of the last 30 years, considering the advantages which have followed the establishment of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the advantages which, as I think—and I have had some opportunity of watching them—have followed from the concurrent exercise of general rating powers by a variety of authorities who are not too powerful, but who have a reasonable and natural jealousy of each other, and whose respective actions are quite separate, I say that, considering the experience we have, I think the Government have gone out of their way to depart from the useful lead which lay before them in order to adopt a policy in which I venture to say they will not succeed.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the Motion for Adjournment would not be pressed. It was now 1 o'clock in the morning—[Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] Yes, it was now 1 o'clock in the morning, and they had reached the month of July. [Mr. WARTON: Order, order!]. He could not see that what he was saying was out of Order; if it was, the Speaker would draw his attention to the fact. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who blocked almost everything, would not block his speech. 568 [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!]. He really must appeal to the Speaker, whether he might be allowed to proceed with his remarks without interruption from the hon. and learned Member? Now, what the Government really had to do was, after three nights' debates, to show the people of London that they were in earnest in this measure. He was quite certain that if the Government were to consent to the adjournment of the debate now, the people of London would think, and very properly think, that they were playing with the measure, and not treating it as seriously as it ought to be treated. The Prime Minister had already shown that this discussion had extended to three times the length of the debate in the House of Commons upon the second reading of the Municipal Corporation Bill of 1835, a Bill which extended to all the Corporations of the Kingdom, and which, of course, involved a much more novel principle than the Bill now under consideration. If there was another and strong reason against the adjournment, he should say it was the character of the speeches of the three Members who peculiarly represented the Metropolis, and all of whom had spoken that night—the Lord Mayor (Mr. R. N. Fowler), the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), and the hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir John Ellis). The Prime Minister had very properly remarked that the speeches of those hon. Gentlemen were speeches upon Committee points only. That being a fact which he (Sir William Harcourt thought no one would deny, it was not an unreasonable proposition that they should now go to a Division. There had been no serious attempt to-night to question the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had delivered a very able speech; but he certainly did not attack the principle of the Bill. Under such circumstances the Government considered it their duty to oppose the adjournment of the debate.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) that the Prime Minister specially excepted his (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg's) speech from the remark that the speeches delivered that night had been upon Committee points only. The right hon. 569 Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) was not present when he (Sir James M'Garel Hogg) was speaking, otherwise he would have known that he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) dealt with the points of the Bill one after another, and did not go into any points which had nothing to do with the Bill. He must protest against the statement that they had had three nights' debate. On the first night of the debate the Secretary of State for the Home Department and two other Members occupied the whole of the time the Bill was under consideration; and on the second occasion the Bill was only discussed four hours. There had been nothing like three nights' discussion; but, supposing there had been, was it to be considered sufficient, because some 50 years ago something happened of a very different character? He really thought that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be sorry for what he had said.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, surely, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) was not serious in resisting the adjournment of the debate on a Bill of this enormous importance. Practically, they had had little more than one night's debate, although it suited the right hon. Gentleman to talk of three nights' debate. As his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had just said, the Bill had been debated previously during the mere fragments of two Sittings. The Prime Minister had stated that night that that was brought about mainly on account of Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House rising and continuing a discussion for purposes of their own; but it must be remembered that the discussion upon the captivity of the crew of the Nisero was raised by an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Storey) on the Ministerial side of the House. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Where were the 40?] The importance of the question, no doubt, perfectly justified the discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board imagined that there was any blame attaching to the 40 Members who rose when the hon. Member for Sunderland asked leave to move the adjournment of the House, he (Mr. Ritchie) ventured to say that the course they adopted was amply justified by the facts which the hon. Gentleman placed before them. But there were other reasons why the 570 debate should be adjourned. The Prime Minister had that night made a statement which, in his (Mr. Ritchie's) opinion, called imperatively for the opportunity of reply. The right hon. Gentleman had produced statistics to that House which were entirely and absolutely fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman gave two illustrations of the condition of things in the Metropolis. He cited the parishes of St. George's-in-the-East, and St. John's, of Paddington, and he showed that, in one case, the number of deaths was larger than in the other; and he said that in the East End of London three-fourths of the deaths which took place—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question before the House is the Question of the adjournment of the debate. I hope the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to that Question.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was endeavouring to point out that the Prime Minister had made statements that night which, if uncontradicted, would leave a false impression on the House; and he was arguing that it was essential that the debate should be adjourned in order that hon. Members should be afforded an opportunity of showing that the statements of facts of the right hon. Gentleman were not statements of facts at all, but entirely fallacious. Surely, it could not be gainsaid that upon a measure of this enormous importance—a measure affecting a population larger than that of all Scotland—a measure of Reform of the most complex character, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) himself had admitted—surely, it could not be gainsaid that it was right the House should have every opportunity of debating the principle of the Bill? The principle of the Bill was one of enormous importance. ["Order, order!"] If one could not advance, as a reason for the adjournment of the debate, the importance of the principle of the Bill, he did not know what would be relevant in discussing a question of adjournment. It was because this question was one of enormous importance, and because those who were interested in the matter, and who represented the Metropolis, had not had an adequate opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill, that he maintained the Government would be following a most extraordinary course if they did not 571 assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen shire (Sir Alexander Gordon). The Secretary of State for the Home Department knew perfectly well that, if he desired to proceed with the Bill, the best course he could adopt was to give hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the second reading. He (Mr. Ritchie) could not conceive any course more likely to prevent the Bill being passed than that of endeavouring to stifle discussion on the second reading. He was quite sure that if the Prime Minister were present, he would see the necessity of acceding to the evident desire of the House. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be led to see the reasonableness of the request that was being made.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he rather gathered, from the few words he heard of the Prime Minister's speech, that he would not object to the adjournment of the debate; and though, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that the debate should close, he (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not understand him to say that he would resist any reasonable desire to prolong it. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), who said the debate had taken a very great length of time—much longer than the debate on the Municipal Corporation Bill many years ago—that the right hon. Gentleman's own opening statement was of very great length. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) did not find fault for one moment with the right hon. Gentleman for the length of time he occupied in moving the second reading; but he was reminded of a story which used to be told relating to a trial for treason or seditious language. The Attorney General of the time occupied two days in explaining the indictment; and the plea which was sot up on the other side was, that if it took the Attorney General two whole days to explain what the offence was, it was hardly to be conceived that the prisoner could be guilty. It certainly did appear to many Members of the House that the right hon. Gentleman opened the case very fully indeed, and went a great deal into detail upon what might be called matter for discussion in Committee, and made reference specially to various Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman 572 the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) were specially referred to; and neither of them had as yet had an opportunity of speaking, though they, very naturally, from their position and the attention they had paid to the subject, had a right to be heard. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) could hardly say they were asking for anything unreasonable in that. They had had, not three nights' debate, but one night, one broken night, and one broken Morning Sitting; and, considering the largeness of the subject, he thought they were now making a very moderate demand.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had thrown some doubt on the wish of the Prime Minister as to the adjournment of the debate. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister's opinion on this subject was the same as that of his Colleagues—namely, that if the debate were again adjourned the chances of the Bill proceeding would be seriously imperilled. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister expressed that opinion in the concluding words of his speech. A Motion for the adjournment of the debate at that period of the Session was very likely to damage the chances of any Bill to which it was applied, and, therefore, it was not the opinion of the Government that it was possible to agree to the adjournment of the debate on this occasion. With regard to what occurred on the first night that the Bill was down for discussion, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had said that the Motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss the question of the captivity of the Nisero crew was amply justified by the statements made. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might point out that this Motion might have been made on an evening which was wasted. [Mr. Ritchie: It was not our fault.] He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time now, because if hon. Gentlemen wished to make any further remarks upon the Bill they would have ample opportunities during the future stages.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSsaid, he could not quite understand the argument 573 of his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The right hon. Baronet said that, if the debate were adjourned, the probabilities were that it would not be resumed; and then, in the next breath, he said that hon. Members would have ample opportunities of delivering their speeches on the future stages of the Bill. It was rather difficult to reconcile the two statements. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) said—but he (Baron Henry de Worms) did not agree with him—that the speeches of three hon. Members that night were speeches that would have been better made in Committee on the Bill. But admitting, for argument's sake, that that was the case, the natural conclusion would be that there might be other Members who were anxious to address the House, and would not, perhaps, treat the Bill in the same manner, but in a way appropriate to the discussion of the second reading. He thought that the debate on a Bill of that importance ought to be brought to a close at 1 o'clock in the morning. Charges had been made by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell) materially affecting the borough he (Baron Henry De Worms) represented, and he had the intention of refuting them. It was not right, however, that the Representative of one of the largest Metropolitan constituencies should be called upon to address the House after 1 o'clock in the morning. He should certainly do his utmost to prevent the Bill proceeding further that night.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he hoped the Government would not put them to the trouble of spending a warm night in July in discussing the second reading of a Bill intended to perish. He admired very much the calmness of hon. Members—["Divide, divide!"] If hon. Members would insist in filling up the pauses in his oratory, it would not be his fault if his sentences were somewhat protracted. This Bill dealt with a very large subject, and he considered that it had been very inadequately discussed. Perhaps, indeed, it might be the case that the Bill had been very inadequately considered previous to its introduction; but, in any case, it required more careful and more thorough examination than it had received as yet. The very important position which the large Irish 574 population in London occupied had not, up to the present, been brought under notice. He believed that even the majority of the Irish Members of Parliament had not had an opportunity of considering the bearing of this vast centralizing measure upon the welfare, in many respects, of their countrymen who lived in the Metropolis. He did not venture, at the present moment, to say on which side the interests of the Irish population lay; it was enough to say there had been no opportunity given them of considering their position. He thought it would be seen that the Irish population in the Metropolis was deserving of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt). He (Mr. O'Donnell) confessed that, at that hour of the morning, it was not becoming of the House of Commons to deal with a measure of this sort. Such a Bill as that required to be discussed at a time when the arguments pro and con could be reported in the newspapers, and could be read by the community, who were vitally interested in the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government could offer no excuse whatever for the indecent haste with which they wished to proceed with regard to this Bill. The Franchise Bill had left this House, and the Government had got no work of the slightest consequence to do. All their other Bills were hopeless wrecks; they had been cleared out of the way. Some of them had been dropped by their own authors, and others, he believed, were not likely to fare very well "elsewhere." Whatever the case might be, if the Government really hoped to make any progress with this Bill they had plenty of time to devote to it, for all the remaining time of the Session could be devoted to it if they chose. In any case, he trusted a rigorous opposition would be shown to the attempt to take a vote upon the principle of the Bill to-night. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to say that the vote could be taken now, and there would be plenty of time for discussion afterwards. But what would happen? It would be trumpeted from one end of the country to the other that the House of Commons had affirmed the 575 principle of the Bill; though he (Mr. O'Donnell) really believed the House was hardly aware that there was a principle in the Bill. And when there was an attempt to discuss the matter thoroughly at a later stage, they would be charged with deliberate Obstruction. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would consent to divide upon the second reading of the Bill upon some other evening.
§ SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated that an adjournment of the debate at that time of the Session would very seriously imperil the chances of any Bill to which it was applied passing. It ought to be remembered, however, that the Bill was brought in by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) exactly three months ago. No discussion took place on the 8th of April; and from that day up to a few days ago the Bill had never been brought forward. He thought, moreover, it could be shown that the Bill was contrary to all the precedents and principles laid down for Municipal Reform.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the substance of the Prime Minister's speech was that no Member on the Opposition side of the House had debated the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) then rose, and spoke to the principle of the Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did not remain in the House to hear the speech. It was the hope and intention of other Members to speak on the principle of the Bill, and that was a phase of the debate which ought not to be deferred to the Committee stage.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 188: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 154.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he would move that the House do now adjourn. Looking at the numbers which had just been told at the Table; looking to the size of the minority which was opposed to the second reading of the Bill being voted upon now, it was quite unreasonable for the Government to wish to take the 576 second reading. He had waited all the evening for an opportunity of addressing the House; but he had failed in catching the Speaker's eye. Although he represented a constituency which was not included within the purview of the Bill, there were many questions raised by the Bill on which his constituents desired to be heard. He thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department was rather greedy. The right hon. Gentleman occupied an enormous amount of time in introducing the measure, and again in moving the second reading, and then he expected the hon. Members representing the vast interests of the Metropolis to debate the principle of the Bill in one evening and the fragments of two other Sittings. This was a Bill which ought not to be dealt with in a summary manner. There was another reason, and it was a physical one, why the discussion should not proceed further to-night. They had arrived at a late hour, and something had gone wrong with the drainage of the House. The complaints as to the foulness of the atmosphere in the House were so general that it was a positive cruelty to keep hon. Members sitting in the House longer.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel Makins.)
§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he would support the Motion for Adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that the principle of the Bill had not been debated; but he had sat there for seven hours, and been unable to say one word on the Bill at all. It must be remembered that the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his speech did not lead the House to suppose there would be any concessions made; and if that was to be the case, there was a good deal to be said before this Bill could be proceeded with. The opponents of the Bill had a right to be fully heard upon the essential and vital provisions of the Bill, and, therefore, he hoped the House would not now give its sanction to the second reading. Moreover, they were told that those provisions were to be presently extended to counties.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Makins), who moved the adjournment, had pointed 577 to the size of the minority as a reason why the debate should be adjourned. The hon. and gallant Gentleman evidently thought that the wishes of the minority ought to prevail; he (Mr. Gladstone) did not admit that. It had also been said that the atmosphere of the House was such that hon. Members ought not to be kept there longer. The best way to remedy that would be to read the Bill a second time. ["Oh, oh!"] That would be a perfectly effectual way of meeting the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument. The fact was that the minority did not intend to allow the wishes of the majority to prevail. He was not at all dissatisfied with the manifestation of the feeling of the House as given by the last Division; and therefore, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, in order to allow other Business to be done, he (Mr. Gladstone) would not offer any further opposition to the adjournment of the debate.
§ COLONEL MAKINSasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Debate adjourned till Thursday.