METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL. (Hansard, 20 July 1855)

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, that the motives and conduct of those who had endeavoured to introduce Amendments into the Bill had been much misconstrued, and he wished to say a few words on the subject. It had been represented that they were opposed to the principle of local self- 1209 government, which was not true. Neither was it true that they had endeavoured to obstruct the Bill. It was true that they endeavoured to amend it, and he was happy to say that they succeeded in that to a very material extent. But, not with standing these improvements, he should be holding out false hopes if he said that the Bill afforded a wise, efficient, and economical system of local administration.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, that he agreed in the principle of the Bill, but he doubted whether thirty six different Boards, consisting of 100 or 150 members each, would be the best kind of machinery for working it. He thought it would be found that the owners of property were not sufficiently represented. If the principle of local management was good for the metropolis, it was good for the towns also, and he would contend for its application to them next Session. He thought that whilst the Metropolitan Board possessed such extensive powers of taxation, to give them the power of exempting certain districts of the metropolis from taxation was a dangerous principle. The right hon. Gentleman did, in the case of the Metropolitan Board, limit it to drainage, but he could not find that he had carried out the same principle as to the district Boards. There was another point. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the principle of compensation, and in Committee it was admitted that there should be an appeal; but he now found that the Metropolitan Board, to whom the appeal lay, had the power to refuse compensation altogether. That was not properly an appeal, for the Bill enacted in another clause that there should be some compensation. He thought it proper that the right hon. Gentleman should be prewarned, that he might take steps to insert some words that would carry the intention of having a proper appeal into effect. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take care that district Boards should not have the power of arbitrarily taxing property; and also that the 600 people who would be employed, might have a fair chance of getting the compensation which was intended by one clause, but which by another clause the Metropolitan Board would have the power of refusing.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, it had been promised that there should be a clause fixing a time, after which no sewer would be allowed to discharge itself into the Thames; and he wished to know if such a clause 1210 had been introduced, and what was the time fixed?

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
would answer the question of the hon. Baronet first. The Metropolitan Board of Works had the power of levying rates, which were to be general; but in the case of sewerage, the rates were to be levied on the districts over which the drainage extended. As to compensation, what he understood was this, that there should be an appeal, and the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) suggested that the appeal should be to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that any party might go before them and have his case heard. That had been provided for in the clause. What he had objected to was any reference being made to the Treasury, and, therefore, it was left, first, for the district Board to determine, and the party might state his case again to the Metropolitan Board of Works. As to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) he would say that he had fixed a time after which no drainage water could go into the Thames, the time being five years from next December. It was impossible to carry out the great works contemplated in a shorter period.

§ MR. H. BARING
proposed the following clause— No person appointed by virtue of this Act to the Office of Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works shall, during the continuance of such appointment, be capable of being elected or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons. He thought the Chairman of such a Board would have quite enough to do without attending to Parliamentary duties.

§ LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR
said, he regarded the Motion as one of a very objectionable description, and hoped it would not be pressed. He objected to the exclusion from this House of Gentlemen who, when appealed to, were capable of throwing great light upon questions which came before Parliament.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
thought a great many points would arise in the House respecting this Board which would require explanation, and who was so fit to give that explanation as the chairman of that Board? This was not a Government appointment, and he could not conceive the existence of any ground for excluding the 1211 chairman of this Board from the House of Commons, if he could get any constituency to elect him.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, he should support the clause, being of opinion that there would be great evil in such an officer being appointed on Committees of the House for instance, or being detained in the House late at night. It was said that he could be removed at once if any evil arose; but his removal could only be effected by the votes of two-thirds of those whom he sat with, and was not likely to take place.

MR. PERCY
said, that one of the principal arguments for giving a large salary to this officer was that he had great and onerous duties to perform, which would occupy so much of his time; and it was, therefore, clear that he could not do his duty in the House of Commons and at the Board at the same time.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Marlborough (Mr. Baring) amounted to this—here was an officer appointed to an important duty with a large salary, and the House of Commons was to step in and say to the constituencies, "You shall not choose any Member of this House, and if you elect any other person he shall not be allowed to sit in this House." They might as well say that the Lord Mayor of London should not have a seat in the House of Commons because he was paid a large sum of money and had onerous duties to perform. He thought it most unfair to make such an exception as that proposed.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he did not see why a Member of Parliament should be excluded if elected; but at the same time he thought that such an officer would be very fortunate if he had not a seat in the House, for he would have quite enough to do to manage the forty-five gentlemen whom he presided over, without being subject to be questioned by 600 Members in that House.

§ MR. H. BARING
said, as he thought the feeling of the House was against the clause, he would withdraw it.