SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 August 1872)

THE EARL OF MORLEY
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that properly speaking it was not a Government measure. The Bill had been introduced by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman), had passed through a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and having been thoroughly approved by the Government, he had taken charge of it. The object of the Bill was to allow the Governing Bodies of municipal towns, Town Councillors, Local Boards of Health, and Local Commissioners to promote or oppose Bills affecting their towns and to charge the expenses on the rates. A statement had been lately issued in opposition to the Bill, in which it was alleged that the safeguards against the abuse of power were absolutely useless; and it should be remembered that at present no municipal body could oppose or promote a Bill in Parliament and charge the rates with the expenses, for by the existing legislation individual members of the corporation must undertake the responsibility of promoting or opposing, and incur expenses which should properly be borne by the rates. The evil of that state of things had been brought to a 308 head in the case of the Sheffield Waterworks Company against the Sheffield Town Council. That case had come before the Queen's Bench, and the result was that the expenses were thrown on individual members of the Corporation who had opposed the Bill promoted by the Waterworks Company, though it was in behalf of the ratepayers they acted, and the ratepayers were almost unanimously in favour of what they had done. There were several safeguards provided by the Bill. In the first place, there must be an absolute majority of the whole of the members of the Governing Body, after notices much more explicit and frequent than were usually given. In the second place, the resolution arrived at by the Governing Body must be published twice in some newspapers. In the third place, the approval either of the Local Government Board or of the Secretary of State for the Home Department must be given, according as the matter came under the jurisdiction of either. That approval was necessary in case of any expense at all being incurred, and it must be given seven days after the second publication by the Governing Body. In addition to all that, a local inquiry might be instituted. Further, the consent of the owners and ratepayers was to be expressed, without which the necessary expenses could not be incurred. Large owners of property also would have a greater number of votes than the smaller owners. He could not conceive any safeguards that could be stronger, instead of being illusory, as they were stated to be in the document to which he had referred. This Bill was of very great importance to the large towns, which at present had no power whatever, however injurious a Bill might be, to come to Parliament and oppose it; neither had they any power to assist in passing a measure which might be of the greatest benefit to the inhabitants. It might be said that the Bill came before their Lordships at a very late period; but that was entirely owing to the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock rule in the House of Commons and to the manner in which the Bill had been opposed. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he did not dispute that there was some necessity for conferring such powers; but unless carefully guarded, they might be turned to great disadvantage, and used for purposes of oppression. This production showed the slovenly manner in which the Bills of private Members were drawn, for if its phraseology were examined, it would be seen that the grammatical effect was that the real object of the Bill might be pursued without any difficulty, while the power of advertising could not be carried out without the consent of the ratepayers.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
thought the noble Marquess was hypercritical in his observations, because no proceeding was to be taken without the consent of the Secretary of State and the owners and ratepayers. But it was not necessary to argue this point, as it could be easily cleared up by an Amendment in Committee. The Bill, however, was a most important measure. It had been decided in the Court of Chancery that, inasmuch as a borough fund had a trust imposed upon it, no part of the fund could be employed for any other purpose than what was stated in the Municipal Corporations Act; so that if the corporation opposed a Bill which was dangerous or mischievous to the inhabitants, as that was not one of the purposes contemplated in the Municipal Corporations Act, it had to be done in a spirit of patriotism and citizenship, at the expense of private parties. That gave ample opportunities to water companies, gas companies, and railway companies who might be desirous of overriding the inhabitants of a town, to follow their own free will in doing so. He therefore trusted that their Lordships would see the necessity of making provision for enabling towns to defend themselves against aggressive Bills, without the parties being compelled to pay the expense out of their own pockets. If a corporation promoted a Bill and carried it, then they always obtained their expenses, because they were put in the Bill. But suppose they carried a Bill which, for some reason or other, was postponed, they were personally exposed to all the risk and expense. That was not a state of things which ought to be allowed to continue. Every safeguard was provided by the Bill against an abuse of borough funds, because any expenditure out of a borough 310 fund would require a resolution passed by an absolute majority of the municipal council, and also the consent of the Secretary of State and of the ratepayers and owners.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that the jest proof that the Bill was not wanted was that corporations and the country had all along done without it; and, moreover, if the people of Sheffield had not involved themselves in certain expenses of this sort, nobody would have beard of it. In his opinion, it was extremely desirable that if corporations brought forward bad measures, they should bear the responsibility of doing so; while if they brought in good ones, there could be no objection to the payment of the expenses. Anybody, however, who had had any experience in these matters must know the strong desire of members of municipal corporations to come to London to amuse themselves at the expense of their borough, on the ground that it was necessary to support or oppose a Bill in Parliament, for it was one of the pleasantest things in the world for them to come to London and have a little enjoyment at the cost of the corporation. The effect of the measure would be to give rise to all sorts of speculations for bringing in Bills to enable members of corporations to get a trip to London at the public cost.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he must admit that the 3rd clause was not well drawn; but the proceedings under it were that no expenses should be incurred except under certain conditions. In accordance with that, he contended that inasmuch as no expenses could be charged against a borough, unless the absolute majority of a municipal corporation passed a resolution in favour of such expenditure, and unless the owners and ratepayers consented to it, the owners and ratepayers had absolute control over the whole proceeding.