HL Deb 11 March 1878 vol 238 cc1021-31

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to alter the mode of the election of the members of the Metropolitan Board of Works. At present, under the Metropolis Local Management Act of 1855, the Metropolitan Board of Works was elected by the vestries, which, in their turn, were elected by the ratepayers. The proposal now before their Lordships was to abolish the intermediate election of the Board by the vestries, and to substitute in its stead the direct election of the Board by the ratepayers. Last year he introduced very nearly the same measure; but in the Bill of last Session, there was a rather important proposal which in the present Bill was omitted. That was a proposal for the increase in the number of the Board to 100 members. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp), who, on the part of Her Majesty's Government opposed the Bill of last Session, while admitting that some alteration was necessary, took exception to the proposal for the increase in the number of the Board, and in that objection he was followed by other noble Lords who took part in the debate on the second reading of the Bill. The measure, therefore, now came before their Lordships as a simple proposal to substitute direct elections for the present system of vestry or intermediate secondary election. He did not make the proposition because he had any abstract predilection for one mode of election rather than another; but because he thought there were practical reasons in its favour, and for abandoning the system of intermediate election. At the present time, the ratepayers had in reality no control whatever over the members who represented them on the Metropolitan Board of Works. There was but a very small amount of interest taken in vestry elections, and the electors even who assisted in taking part in them scarcely appeared to realize the fact that they were taking part in the election of a fractional part of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Yet the functions of that Board were annually increasing, and for that reason it was desirable that the ratepayers should be brought as much as possible in contact with their representatives on the Board. The Metropolitan Board of Works in the present Session was promoting a Bill for the purchase of all the Metropolitan Water Companies. That Bill, which involved the borrowing of a sum of £30,000,000, had been referred to a Select Committee, and it was being argued before that Committee by a large array of gentlemen of the long robe. The expense of promoting the measure would, of course, fall in some shape or other on the ratepayers of the metropolis. He passed no opinion whatever on the measure itself; but he believed the Motion for its promotion was carried in the Metropolitan Board of Works by a close division, and during the last fortnight several meetings of ratepayers had been held to protest against it. In Liverpool, or any other of our large towns except the metropolis, such a Bill would have been submitted to the ratepayers before it was brought into Parliament. Was there any valid reason why a system of representation which was held to be good for our other large towns should not be applied in the metropolis? Members of Parliament, who control general taxation, are elected directly in London as well as in the other large towns. Why, then, should not the Board which controls local taxation in London be elected in the same manner? There was even a greater necessity for it in the case of the latter taxation than in that of the former. An Amendment for the rejection of the Bill had been placed on the Paper by a noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) whom he (the Earl of Camperdown) did not see in his place. He had hoped that the noble Earl would have been present to explain what system he would substitute; for, though the noble Earl did not agree with the proposal contained in the Bill, he (the Earl of Camperdown) had heard him on several occasions express his strong discontent with the system of local government in the metropolis. He anticipated that an objection usual on such occasions would be put forward—namely, that the Bill proposed a change so large and revolutionary that it ought not be proposed by a private Member, but should come before the House with nothing less than the authority of the Government. If that objection were thought to have any weight in this case, he would be only too glad if the Government undertook to deal with the question, or with any part of the system of local government in the metropolis. On the other hand, it might be said that the change was so small that it only touched the fringe of a great question, and would have the effect of unsettling matters. In answer to that, he would only point out that the change which he proposed was of the simplest possible character. It neither interfered with the number of members of the Metropolitan Board nor with the areas of election; it simply substituted direct election by the ratepayers for the present system. The Bill contained a provision that, instead of one-third of the Board retiring every year, the whole Board should be elected once in every three years. It also provided that, in future, the voting might be cumulative, and that the votes should be taken by ballot. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

VISCOUNT MIDLETON,

in the absence of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) who had given Notice of the Amendment, rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In doing so, he had to complain that the noble Earl the Mover of the Bill (the Earl of Camperdown) should have presented such a revolutionary measure without any previous explanation upon the first reading of the Bill. After so decided an expression of the opinion of the House against his Bill of last year, the noble Earl might at least have been warned, and have modified more than he had done the proposals it contained. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works extended over an area of 123 square miles, while the area of the old City of London was little more than one square mile. The population of the area of the Board's jurisdiction was estimated at a little more than 3,250,000, and the rateable value of property closely approached £23,500,000. The amount which the Board raised by taxation, which amounted to an average of 4d. and four-fifths of 1d. in the pound, was no less than £477,000 a-year; while it had funds provided by Parliament for a certain term of years, and raised by the wine and coal duties, amounting to £250,000 per annum. In other words, the actual revenue for the expenditure of which the Board was responsible was about £723,000 a-year. Besides the Thames Embankment and the Main Drainage system, the opening of various new streets and two Parks; besides numerous other works of great importance and utility, which everyone would allow were carried out very much to its credit, at the present time, it still had various other extensive works in progress. A Board possessing such resources, and exercising such functions, ought at all times to be open to criticism, and he was not aware that the Metropolitan Board had ever shrunk from it. On the contrary, it had always invited it. When the question of the election of its members was being considered, it should be remembered that it was simply a body entrusted with the exercise of important powers by the Legislature. As he had said, the Bill before the House was one of the most revolutionary measures ever brought forward, and the sting of it was to be found in the 2nd and 3rd clauses. By the 2nd clause of his Bill, the noble Earl proposed to abolish the whole of the existing Board on the 1st of December next, and by the 3rd clause he proposed to substitute an entirely new mode of election for that prescribed by Parliament. He (Viscount Midleton) took distinct issue with the noble Earl on both points. He denied that the noble Earl had made out a case for the necessity of legislation of this character, and also that the mode of election proposed was desirable or would conduce to the public benefit. He would ask whether a body of men who had done such good service ought to be turned to the right-about in order to suit the theory of representation entertained by the noble Earl? The next proposal in the Bill was that the whole of the Board should be changed at one time every three years. This was a still more astonishing proposal than either made in the previous clauses. He (Viscount Midleton) supposed that that part of the Bill had been borrowed from the recommendations of a Select Committee which had sat upon the subject; but the noble Earl had only taken such recommendations as suited his purpose, and had not embodied in his Bill others to the effect that a safeguard should be given by representation of property through the introduction of an ex-officio element, that, if the Crown were taxed, the Crown should have the power of nominating some representatives, and that other important bodies ought also to be represented. It was scarcely fair to take a portion of the recommendations of the Select Committee and ignore the remainder in a Bill on this subject. Let Parliament adopt the proposal for an election of the whole Board at one time, and, if the Board did anything unpopular under the Bill, there would be a clean sweep of the members of the Board, without a moment's warning, and a new Board constituted, with the absence of all the stability and experience which the present Board had acquired by 22 years of patient work, and inexperienced persons might be returned in their stead. The machinery of election provided by his noble Friend was almost identical with that of the school board; but that was a system of election which their Lordships were not likely to adopt, inasmuch as it was notorious that such elections involved enormous expense, and that they were made the occasion of political contests. It would be the same in the case of the election for members of the Metropolitan Board of Works under the triennial Parliament system of his noble Friend. The Bill only touched the fringe of a much larger question, and if his noble Friend said that the time was coming when the whole system of local government in the metropolis must be taken up by the Government, he should be disposed to agree with him, though he would not envy the Government which had to undertake that task. He thought the time was coming when Her Majesty's Government would have to consider what new form of government should be established for the whole of the metropolis; but, in view of the necessity of a measure so important as one by which such government would be established, it would be most unwise to sanction bit-by-bit legistation, because it would be a serious obstacle to such a measure. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Viscount Midleton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

supported the Amendment. He was glad to see that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camperdown) proposed to omit the objectionable clause he offered last year, to increase the number of the Board; but, at the same time, he confessed that it seemed to him that all the arguments in favour of the Bill which were proposed last year, and of which this was a re-production, were conspicuous by their absence. He would have been content to leave the Motion for the second reading of the Bill in the hands of their Lordships after the speech of the noble Viscount who had just sat down (Viscount Midleton), were it not that the noble Earl who proposed the Bill seemed to think that he (Earl Beau-champ), when last year opposing the Bill, had admitted the necessity of some alteration in the constitution of the Board. He did not think that anything which fell from him on that occasion justified the noble Earl in making that assertion. What he had said was, that although a Select Committee had recommended this change, securities for the due representation of property and intelligence formed an integral part of the series of representations. lie also observed on that occasion that other proposals contained in that Bill made the measure more open to objection than it would have been, if it were simply one to change the mode of election, in which case he should find it more difficult to construct an argument against it. But it was clear that it was more difficult to construct an argument against a Bill containing one objectionable proposal than against a Bill bristling all over with objectionable provisions. He was glad to bear from the noble Earl that he had no abstract predilection for one system of voting over another; because that statement amounted to an admission that he had no ground for the change which he proposed. He could understand the proposal coming from a person who had the abstract predilection which the noble Earl disavowed. The noble Earl had made out no case. He had advocated his Bill on the ground that direct representation ought to go with local taxation; but the fact was that when he talked of the position of the ratepayers in the matter, he overlooked the fact that the Metropolitan Board of Works had no power of taxation, and that it was purely an administrative body, which, when it desired to execute works involving taxation, had to apply to Parliament by Bill; and the powers given to the Board in that way had been given gradually, carefully, and with great jealousy. The question of the transfer of the Water Companies was one that would have to be settled by Parliament and not by the Metropolitan Board, and he did not know that if the ratepayers were appealed to personally on that subject, the opinion on it of the Board would differ materially from what it was at present. The business which the Board had to transact required much delicacy and great experience; and if the members wore elected by the ratepayers at large, disturbing elements, arising from the topics of the day rather than the business of the Board, would be sure to be brought into play to influence the result of the contests. He did not know that the noble Earl made any complaint against the Metropolitan Board of Works; but even if he had, he (Earl Beauchamp) could not see how any shortcomings on the part of the Board would be remedied by his proposals. It was to be borne in mind that the members of the Metropolitan Board were of the same class as the members of the vestries, as nearly everyone who had sat upon the Metropolitan Board had been elected to sit at the vestries. The total number of members who had sat upon the Board since its constitution was 132. The number of members of the Metropolitan Board was 45. Of the 132, 23 had died; 21 had retired from ill-health; 27 had had given up attendance in consequence of having other business to look after; three, who were Aldermen of London, had, when they became Lord Mayor, left the Board; 13 had not been re-elected to the Board by the vestries; and of the 45 present members only 24 were elected to the Board at the time of its original formation. That showed that it was a sufficiently changeable Board, one which he contended had done much good, and which deserved well at the hands of the ratepayers. Believing that the proposals in the Bill as regarded the triennial election would lead to confusion and impair the efficiency of the Board, the Government would support the Amendment.

LORD ABERDARE

said, that despite all the Reports of Committees on the subject, London stood alone of all cities in the Empire in its system of local government. London alone of all the great cities of the Empire had an un-reformed Corporation, upon which to lay hands would be considered a violation of the principle of local self-government; and, in addition to that, London had a second system of local administration in the shape of the Metropolitan Board of Works, under which enormous sums were spent by persons chosen, not by the ratepayers, but by the vestries. His noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) had been told that he made no complaint against the Metropolitan Board of Works. He (Lord Aberdare) was not there to make any complaint; but he would point out that two Select Committees of the other House had sat, and both had reported that the Board wanted strengthening, and great dissatisfaction was expressed by the inhabitants that the Board was unable to deal in a satisfactory manner with the gas and water supply of the metropolis from their not possessing the necessary powers; and, on the other hand, it was said it was useless to give them these great powers unless they were strengthened by altering their mode of election. No one could doubt that the supply of water was of the greatest importance to the health of the metropolis. London was the only city of the Kingdom in which one had to ask himself whether he would not be endangering his health by taking a drink of water. A few days ago he heard a noble Friend of his ask a medical authority whether one ran more risk in Lon- don by drinking a glass of water or a glass of beer, and the reply of the medical gentleman was that he thought it far safer to drink a glass of beer. That gentleman said he never drank beer or plain water, but soda water made with the purest spring water. One great object the Bill had in view was that a body should be elected who possessed the confidence of the ratepayers; and that, when constituted, power to deal with these matters might be safely entrusted to them. In the election of members by vestries, it was impossible to judge beforehand that they were selecting men with enlarged views, who were capable of putting them before their brother members and of enforcing them by argument. All the members had been selected by the vestries save in the one instance of their excellent Chairman. The noble Viscount who had moved the rejection of the Bill (Viscount Midleton) had urged that if all the members were turned out at the first election great inconvenience would and must result from the newly elected Board not being familiar with the business they would have to transact; but that was not the case with the Education Board, who were re-elected every three years. The same thing might happen in an election for Members of Parliament; and a new set of Members, Ministers, and all, might be elected to whom the Business might be entirely now. But he hoped their Lordships had too much practical good sense to be frightened by any such fears. In conclusion, he entreated the House by passing the Bill to sweep away the anomaly of an indirect mode of election for the members of a Board which had such important public duties to perform as the Metropolitan Board of Works.

EARL DE LA WARR

said, the noble Viscount who moved the rejection of the Bill (Viscount Midleton) had characterized it as a measure of the most revolutionary kind ever submitted to their Lordships' consideration. He (Earl De La Warr) was at a loss to discover it, for the principle on which it was founded was a sound Constitutional one—a principle which prevailed in the election of the humblest parish officer, and in that of the highest Assembly in this country—he might say in the world —namely, that those who paid taxes should have a voice in the election of those who imposed them. He saw no reason why that principle should not be applied to the Metropolitan Board of Works as well as to the House of Commons. There could be no doubt that the Metropolitan Board had done great things since its establishment, and would doubtless do more as time permitted. His (Earl De La Warr's) objection to the Bill was that it did not go far enough and touch the weak point of metropolitan local management—the division of authority, which so interfered with all unity of action from the number of parishes having distinct jurisdiction, and which prevented the Board from, doing what it otherwise would. He should have voted with more readiness for the second reading of the Bill if it had dealt also with the question of one central authority in the metropolis.

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?

Their Lordships divided: —Contents 36; Not-Contents 54: Majority 18.

CONTENTS.
Bedford, D. Carlingford, L.
Somerset, D. Crewe, L.
Westminster, D. Dorchester, L.
Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Ailesbury, M.
Ripon, M. Foley, L.
Gwydir, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.] Hatherton, L.
Keane, L.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.] Kinnaird, L.
Lyveden, L.
Ducie, E. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Granville, E.
Kimberley, E. Selborne, L.
Minto, E. Sherborne, L.
Stanley of Alderley, L.
Cardwell, V. Strafford, L. (V. En-field)
Halifax, V.
Stratheden and Camp-bell, D.
Abereromby, L.
Aberdare, L. Suffield, L.
Auckland, L. Thurlow, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Waveney, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cairns, L. (L.Chancellor.) Bathurst, E.
Beaconsfield, E.
Beanchamp, E.
Northumberland, D. Bradford, E.
Richmond, D. Cadogan, E.
Derby, E.
Exeter, M. Ellesmere, E.
Hertford, M. Graham, E. (D. Mont-rose.)
Salisbury, M.
Winchester, M. Harrowby, E.
Redesdale, E.
Amherst, E. Saint Germans, E.
Stanhope, E. Ellenborough, L.
Verulam, E. Elphinstone, L.
Waldegrave, E. Gerard, B.
Gordon of Drumearn, L.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.]
Templetown, V. Hampton, L.
Harlech, L.
Airey, L. Hylton, L.
Alington, L. Penrhyn, L.
Ashford, L. (V.Bury.) Rivers, B.
Bagot, L. Romilly, L.
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Sackville, L.
Chelmsford, L.
Silcheater, L. (E. Longford.)
Clinton, L. Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]
Colchester, L.
Cottesloe, L. Ventry, L.
Crofton, L. Walsingham, L.
Denman, L. Winmarleigh, L.
de Ros, L. Zouche of Haryng worth, L.
Dunmore, L. [E. Dun-more.)

Bill to be read 2a this day six months.