HC Deb 16 April 1855 vol 137 cc1469-76

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. MACKINNON

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) proposed to make any alteration with respect to Clause 103. He did not concur in the principle of vesting the whole power in vestries. There were also certain other clauses in the Bill which had reference to the power of raising money which required careful consideration.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought there could be no question that great credit was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Marylebone, for the labour he had bestowed upon the Bill, or that some measure of a similar character, though not precisely like that before the House, was desired by the whole of the inhabitants of the metropolis. For his own part, he considered that what was wanted was a Bill by which the existing Parliamentary boroughs, including Green- wick and the new borough, proposed in Lord John Russell's late Reform Bill, to be formed out of Kensington and Chelsea—in all, nine boroughs, should be incorporated. He thought that there ought also to be one central body, which he would make a very important one, and at the head of which he would place the Lord Mayor. The Bill of the right hon. Baronet did contain a provision similar to this, and he regarded it as a very valuable proposal. If the metropolis were divided into nine municipal corporations instead of thirty-six districts, all those public works which were to be executed by the local Government would be carried on with much greater harmony, economy, and effect, than would be the case under the present Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, as it stood, was one calculated to confer great benefit upon the metropolis. Before, however, they were called upon to support the second reading, he thought that they ought to have more clearly defined the exact powers which it was proposed to give the central body under schedule D. He considered that the whole sewerage of the metropolis ought to be placed in that schedule in the same manner as it had been placed in the hands of the Metropolitan Commissioners since 1848. If that were done, then the central body ought to have sufficient borrowing powers to enable them to carry out a complete system of drainage, and the money so raised ought to be repaid in, say, fifty yearly instalments, for he did not think that the cost of the very expensive works that would be necessary ought to be thrown entirely upon the present owners of property. He did not think the powers given by the Bill to vestries were sufficiently defined. He objected also to the clause by which a 40l. qualification was required of members of the local boards. In some parts of the metropolis a 25l. house was quite equal to one of 40l. in other district, and he was afraid the effect of the 40l clause would be greatly to limit the inhabitants in their choice of men to fill the office. He knew that houses in several parts of the metropolis were depreciated greatly in value—to the extent of twenty-five or thirty per cent—in consequence of the defective state of the drainage. He would not offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and was ready to admit that the great body of the inhabitants of the metropolis were thankful to the right hon. Baronet for the elaborate pains he had bestowed on this measure.

MR. APSLEY PELLATT

said, he must appeal to the right hon. Baronet not to proceed with the second reading of the Bill in so thin a House, or, at all events, to refer the Bill, if read a second time, to a Select Committee. The inhabitants of Southwark, in a recent meeting, had expressed their opinion that the borough ought rather to be restored to its ancient influential position in the metropolis than cut up into a number of small districts. They thought that there ought to be two central bodies to manage the sewerage of London—one for the north and the other for the south of the river. At present the inhabitants of Southwark had some semblance of municipal institutions, and they had certainly no desire to part with their high bailiff. It was true the Bill would put an end to a number of self-elected coteries; but if Hobhouse's Act were adopted it would destroy all the open vestries, which were the safeguard of the country, so far as public discussion was concerned.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he thought the thinness of the House was easily accounted for. It was not every day that the Emperor and Empress of the French did us the honour to pay us a visit, and he only wished that the metropolis, both as regarded its buildings, its paving, and its drainage, was in a fitter state to receive those distinguished personages. At the same time he thought that if they had had an Act like this Bill in operation, they would have been able to do much. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had expressed an opinion that it would be well to amalgamate the City of London with the rest of the metropolis; and, perhaps, it might be right to ask when they were to have the promised Corporation Reform Bill? Other corporations had been reformed long ago, and he wondered whether they would be able to get through Temple Bar this year? With respect to the Bill now before them, it appeared to contain provisions of a very despotic and arbitrary kind. The only thing that would make them tolerable was, that the powers proposed to be given would be administered upon the representative principle. In some of the parishes—St. Giles's and St. George's, Hanover Square, for instance—they would not give a farthing for the Bill, unless it adopted Hobhouse's Act. On the other hand, if they went a little further east, they would find other parishes—such as Clerkenwell, St. Lukes, and Islington, which rather objected to that Act. Nor was it hard to give a reason for this difference of opinion. Under Hobhouse's Act the qualification was 40l., whereas in Islington it was 25l., and in St. Luke's and Clerkenwell only 20l. Something should be done to meet this objection; in other respects he believed the Bill would give universal satisfaction.

MR. BUTLER

said, that the Bill had been attentively considered by his constituents, and it was found that some of its clauses would not work well for the Tower Hamlets. He thought, however, that when some alterations were made in the Bill, which might be done in Committee, it might be passed, and he was willing to allow the second reading to be taken.

MR. BRADY

said, he believed that the measure which had been introduced to the House would act beneficially in a sanitary point of view for the metropolis. He hoped the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Pellatt) would not press his objection, for he trusted that the Bill would not be delayed. Nothing could be worse than the state of the south portion of the metropolis.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Bill, which he thought, with some few alterations, would be a most useful measure.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he should be very sorry if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee. The practical result of such a course would be, that the House would hear no more of it that Session, and they would be without any legislation for the improvement of the metropolis. It was not likely that this Session would be productive of many measures of improvement and amelioration; but he trusted they should have to boast that they had passed such a Bill as the present very judicious measure for the metropolis; and if they did so, they would effect a public object of no ordinary magnitude and value. It had been asked by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any measure for the reform of the City Corporation during the present Session. He thought it most desirable, if such a Bill were to be proposed, that it should be introduced, and be before the House during the discussion of the Bill for the local Government of the metro- polis at large, as there were many points which would of necessity be common to both the measures. He did not believe that they should be putting the Government of the metropolis on a satisfactory footing, if they did not at the same time deal with the City of London, properly so called. He could not blame the Government for having given precedence to the larger measure, but be hoped that no time would be lost in bringing forward the measure referring to the City of London. He entirely agreed with the principle of the Bill now before the House, though some of the details might require further consideration in Committee. He was not sure whether it would not be necessary to place some check on the power of these municipal bodies to tax the ratepayers, and also on their power of mortgaging the rates. But these were matters of detail, which would be best considered in Committee.

SIR GEORGE GREY

It is, Sir, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a Bill to Parliament during the present Session, for the reform of the corporation of the City of London. The public and the Government are, I am sure, deeply indebted to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) and his colleagues, for the care and attention which they bestowed last year upon this matter, as Members of the Commission of inquiry. A Bill founded on their recommendation has been prepared; but it has been thought better that the Bill of my right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) should take precedence of it. If the House agrees to this Bill, we hope at an early period to have an opportunity of introducing the Bill for the reform of the corporation of the City of London.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, that when he introduced this Bill, a mouth ago, he had stated that he was quite aware of the magnitude of the subject, and of the difficulties by which it was surrounded. But he was happy to find, from the present discussion, that the objections raised to the measure referred only to its details, and that its general principle had been approved by his Colleagues in the representation of the metropolis. Some hon. Members had been good enough to express their great approval of the manner in which he had framed and conducted the Bill. He had certainly taken much pains with the measure, which was aided materially by the very able report made by the Com- missioners of Inquiry into the Corporation of London. He thought it much better to take their suggestions as the basis of his Bill. The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon) had objected to the vestry being the body in whom was vested the power of administering to the local affairs of the parish. Some gentlemen had a certain horror of the word "vestry," and therefore he called them "the local boards." They were in reality local boards, having the whole management of local affairs; and the business of the vestry would be a very small part of the business which they would have to transact. But if they were to have a local board separate from the vestry, that board would have to be elected by precisely the same mode of election as the vestry was elected; therefore it was much better to have only one body to administer the local affairs in each large parish. In smaller parishes, which were already formed into unions, the vestries would be elected under the same provisions as in the larger parishes, and from those vestries would be elected members to sit at the local board of the district, which would have the management of the local affairs of that union, in the same manner as single parishes not in union. It was not his intention to deviate at all from that proposition; the local board would be elected as proposed; and that board would have the management of the lighting, cleansing, and sewerage of the district. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had said that his constituents, and he believed all the metropolis with the exception of Marylebone, were in favour of municipal corporations. He differed entirely from his hon. Friend. In 1851 a deputation from the metropolitan boroughs waited upon the Secretary of State, who stated that if he could be satisfied that there was a general desire on the part of the inhabitants of those boroughs in favour of corporations, he would be glad to pay every attention to any memorials which might exhibit that feeling; and from that time to this there had been no expression of opinion on the subject. Generally speaking, he believed the ratepayers did not desire to have all the paraphernalia and the expense connected with corporations. One of the principles of this Bill was, that there should be a representative body to manage the sewerage. That had been hitherto done by a central body, created by the Crown; all these bodies had failed in their management, and had only suc- ceeded in adding to the debt. They could manage the great arterial drains well enough; but the local drainage ought to be placed under local authorities, as in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and other large towns. The Bill fully provided for the borrowing and repayment of money for the improvement of the metropolis. It was said that the landlord should pay the sewer rate. He did so at present, unless it was expressly provided otherwise by agreement. The Bill proposed that the landlord should continue liable; it left him in precisely the same position as he was in at present. The objection which was entertained against Hobhouse's Act in some parishes would be remedied by a short Bill to be brought in to amend that Act. In Marylebone, for instance, only one polling-place was provided for 20,000 parochial electors. This was a point in which alteration was required; and there were other matters which would be included in the amending Bill if Members desired it. He objected to the proposal of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt), to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It was a measure which required to be considered in Committee of the whole House. It was said that the borough of Southwark had its own officers, who managed their own affairs, and that they did not desire the machinery of this Bill. He (Sir B. Hall) must say, from his experience at the Board of Health, that no part of the metropolis was in so bad a state as some portions of the borough of Southwark. In the four weeks ending the 9th of September, 1854, no less than 1,010 persons died from cholera, in consequence, to a great extent, of the manner in which that part of the metropolis was kept, and in consequence of those offensive trades and those nuisances of which the hon. Member was the champion in that House. He hoped to mitigate those evils before the Session closed. It was further objected, that the Bill conferred arbitrary powers. These were only the same powers which were possessed by the City Commissioners of Sewers; the provision had been copied from that Act. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Butler) objected that 40l. was too high a qualification for a member of the local board; but in some parts of the Tower Hamlets the qualification of those who voted for vestrymen was almost as high as that. He hoped that the House would pass this Bill, and that in doing so they would be laying the foundation for a great and permanent improvement of the metropolis.

Bill read 2o.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

I propose to take the Committee on this day fortnight.

Back to