HC Deb 18 July 1860 vol 159 cc2117-25

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [11th July], That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee.

—instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. STANILAND

said, that the character of the measure might be collected from the last clause, which confirmed acts previously done by local authorities. In that respect the Bill was retrospective, and opposed to the general course of legislation. The real object of the Bill was to enable vestries who had incurred expenses in supporting a Bill in reference to the supply of gas to the Metropolis to pay those expenses out of the rates. In that Bill there was a provision to the same effect; but if the Bill should not pass, there would be no means of paying these expenses, which amounted to several thousand pounds. The Bill also provided that it should be competent for any vestry in the Metropolis to appear by council before a Committee of the House, and to take part in supporting or opposing any Bill, and pay the expenses out of the rates. That was an unprecedented power to give to the vestries, and he thought clerks of vestries would be apt to use it to the great advantage of themselves and the detriment of the ratepayers. He trusted, therefore, that the House would agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Colchester, that the House would go into Committee on the Bill that day three months.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

said, he trusted the House would go into Committee on the Bill. He did not know why the hon. Member (Mr. Staniland) who did not represent any of the places that would be affected by the Bill, should oppose it, except it was that the other evening he came forward as the great champion of the gas companies whose monopoly was threatened by a Bill which had been brought in for this purpose. The provisions of the Bill seemed to be founded on the most fair and equitable principle. The gas companies had great funds at their command, and might inflict great injury upon a Metropolitan parish, and at present the parish had no means whatever of entering into a contest with the companies, inasmuch as they had no funds applicable to such a purpose. The Bill would enable them to raise the funds, and it was a power which he thought they ought to have.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he should support the proposal in the Bill providing for the payment of the expenses incurred by local authorities in protecting the public interests of their districts.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, municipal corporations might resist Bills which interfered with their local authority, if the Court of Chancery said that that was a right application of their funds. But that was not the power which it was proposed to give to every little vestry in the Metropolis, but a power of promoting such Bills as they might fancy were for the benefit of their parish. If the Bill passed, they ought to entitle it, "a Bill for the benefit of vestry clerks."

MR. JOHN LOCKE

said, that the vestries had been put to great expense in supporting the Gas Bill before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and it was now proposed to empower the local authorities to levy rates to pay such expense. If the inhabitants of the Metropolis desired to pay money for this purpose, what business had the Member for Boston and the Member for Reading to endeavour to prevent them? The Bill applied to the Metropolis, and not to the whole of the empire. The Corporation of London had the right to appear before Select Committees of that House, and if the Corporation was extended so as to include the whole Metropolis, the hon. Member for Westminster needed not to have introduced this Bill.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the necessity for the Bill arose from the peculiar position of the Metropolis in reference to municipal institutions. He had been reproached many times in the course of the Session with not bringing on the London Corporation Reform Bill. It had been very much against his inclination that that Bill had been so long deferred. A proposition had been made with regard to the creation of a municipality embracing the whole of the Metropolis. Now, when the Bill to amend the Corporation of London was first brought forward, there was no question of that nature debated, and all the House had in view was to accept the present boundaries of the City of London as something definitive, and to improve the constitution of the corporation. The question had since been raised whether it was not possible to abolish the Corporation of the City of London, and to distribute its revenues over the whole Metropolis. That question was one for the consideration of the House, but he confessed he retained the opinion which was expressed in the Report of the London Corporation Commissioners, that London being, as it was sometimes called, a province covered with houses, was not fitted to be constituted into a single municipality, and that it was impossible to constitute it into a single municipality, as Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other large towns respectively were. His belief was, that the interests of the people living in the east, the west, the north, and the south of London were so discordant, that it would be impossible for them to be represented in a town council, and that the magnitude of the Metropolis was so great as to render the ordinary functions of a municipal government inapplicable as regarded the Metropolis. The Commissioners, although they came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to have a municipality for the whole of London, nevertheless recommended the creation of a Board of Works, with certain limited powers. A measure was introduced by Sir Benjamin Hall on that recommendation, and the Metropolitan Board of Works had been constituted with defined powers extending over the whole of the Metropolis. That was the nearest approach to a municipality for the whole of London which it was possible to make. But then it was true that these great parishes of the Metropolis, many of them of much more importance than large towns in the country, had very important interests, and it was certainly difficult to regard them in the light of ordinary rural parishes. It seemed impossible to divide the Metropolis into municipal districts other than into parishes, and on the other hand it was difficult to deal with parishes as if they were municipal bodies. Municipal boroughs had, he apprehended, a certain power of promoting private Bills, and they all knew that that power had been exercised very extensively by the Corporation of the City of London. The City Remembrancer, indeed, was an officer specially appointed to manage Parliamentary business. Other municipal bodies, such as those of Manchester and Liverpool, had also power to promote or oppose Bills, and he apprehended that if the interests of the town were attacked by a private company they would have the power of appearing before the committee, and the expenses of the contest would be paid out of the borough fund. [Cries of "No."] Well, that might be a doubtful point, but his impression was that, under certain conditions, it was legal to pay such expenses out of the borough fund. The question then arose what should be done with respect to a parish such as Marylebone or Southwark (much more important than a great number of municipal boroughs in the country), when they believed their interests were about to be attacked by s private body. At present they had no legal right to appear before a Parliamentary Committee; and this Bill sought to give them that power. The Bill appeared to give it, certainly, in a very extensive way, and said that the expense might be paid out of any rate whatever raised under the present Bill or under the Metropolitan Local Management Act. He thought that in its present form it was likely to lead to a great increase in the business of promoting and opposing Bills, and it behoved the House not to pass an unguarded measure on this subject. On the other hand, he could not but feel that there was a real defect in the present state of things. Persons often had a substantial interest, which they ought to be permitted to support at the common expense, and if power for that purpose could be given in a sufficient and proper manner he should have no objection to the Bill; but in its present form he regarded it with considerable suspicion. He had no objection, however, to consider the clauses of the Bill in Committee, and he thought at all events that there ought to be some control on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was the only body extending over the whole of the Metropolis, before expense was incurred by any parish in Introducing or opposing a Bill. That would check any tendency to parish jobbing.

MR. AYRTON

said, that the proposition he made at the beginning of the Session, had not been correctly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. What he proposed was, that in the Metropolis there should be local Corporations, each confined to an appropriate district, for the purpose of managing all matters of detail of a local character; and that there should be another aggregate body composed of representatives from the local bodies, for the purpose of managing those affairs which were of an aggregate character, and applied to the whole Metropolis. With regard to the question before the House, he could not but express his surprise that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Staniland), who on a former occasion appeared as the acknowledged agent of a number of private companies, should now come forward to obstruct a Bill enabling vestries to protect the interest of the inhabitants of the parishes of London, whenever it was necessary for them to apply to the Houses of Parliament.

MR. SPOONER

said, he must deprecate the language used by some hon. Members, when they said that the hon. Members for Colchester and Boston had no business to thrust themselves into a matter of this kind, as they had nothing to do with the Metropolis. That appeared to him to be the enunciation of a new principle, which he did not think ought to be tolerated in Parliament. He always thought that it was one of their greatest privileges not to be the mere representatives of any particular interest, but the interests of the whole kingdom. He, for one, objected to the principle on public grounds. It formed a dangerous precedent, which might soon be applied to other parts of the kingdom. Municipal boroughs could not make a charge upon the inhabitants without the consent of the ratepayers, and there could be no objection to the Bill if such a condition were included in it; but he objected to vestries having the power to tax the inhabitants without their own consent.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, the Metropolis had for years past suffered from one of the most severe and crushing monopolies possible. The inhabitants now wanted power to defend themselves against such a monopoly; but hon. Members seemed inclined neither to let the inhabitants help themselves from the Imperial purse, nor to let them tax themselves for Metropolitan purposes. This was rather hard; but it furnished another instance which went to show that London should be formed into a complete and perfect municipality. He hoped the House would consent to go into Committee on the Bill; the promoters of which would be willing to adopt any reasonable safeguards against the abuse of the power now sought for.

MR. CHILDERS

suggested that the power of opposing Bills in Parliament, which these bodies wished for, should be given, on condition that they satisfied the Committee before whom they appeared, that they had good and legitimate grounds of opposition.

MR. F. W. RUSSELL

said, that as a ratepayer, he must protest against this most anomalous Bill. If the precedent were once established, there was not a parish in the country which would not have a right to the same privileges.

MR. BRADY

said, it was absolutely necessary to protect the public of the Metropolis against the monopolies of companies, and he should support the proposition of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Westminster.

SIR WILLIAM MILES

requested the hon. Baronet (Sir John Shelley) to state whether he would adopt the suggestion of the Home Secretary.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he had not the slightest objection to adopt the suggestion of the Home Secretary, and to provide that in every case before any opposition was instituted to a Bill before Parliament, the consent of the Metropolitan Board should be obtained.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

observed, that it would have been only candid of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Limerick (Mr. Russell), to have told the House that he was chairman of the Committee of General Gas Companies.

Question put,

The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 68: Majority 10.

House in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.

Clause 3 (Powers of "Local Authority.")

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that it had been ruled in Committees of that House that no corporation could appear as petitioners against any Bill, other than a canal or railway Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought the words of this clause too wide, as they might be taken to refer any work whatever.

MR. TAVERNER MILLER

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking the wording of the clause too wide, and thought his hon. Friend (Sir John Shelley) ought to propose its postponement, with a view of having it amended.

MR. SPOONER

said, he would suggest the words "with the consent of the ratepayers in public meeting assembled." Those words would remove the objection to the clause.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he thought such a restriction objectionable, as introducing too cumbrous a machinery. A provision, such as that agreed to by his hon. Friend, namely, one making the consent of the Board of Works necessary, would he a sufficient guarantee. Another guarantee might be introduced if the Committee thought it desirable, namely, that the expenses of a Bill should be chargeable on the ratepayers only in the event of the Committee before whom the Bill came being of opinion that they were proper expenses.

MR. JOHN LOCKE

objected to making the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works a condition, as there might be an antagonism between that Board and the local authority; and the former might, in their own interest, refuse the assent to opposition.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, that the clause as it stood was nearly similar to one in the Metropolis Local Management Act. He should introduce words to carry out the promise which he had made to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

MR. AYRTON

moved words to provide that the consent of the Metropolitan Board of Works should be necessary in order to enable vestries to appear in Parliament either to promote or oppose a Bill.

Clause, as amended agreed to; as was also Clause 4.

Clause 5 (For Payment of Expenses incurred by Local Authority).

MR. CLAY

proposed an Amendment to the effect that all costs should be paid out of a special rate to be levied for the purpose, as he thought it would be improper to allow the sewers rate or other rate to be applied in payment of the costs of litigation.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, to leave out from the word "rates," to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words "to be raised under the authority of this Act."

MR. AYRTON

said, the effect of the proviso would be, that for an expense, it might be of £50, a special rate would have to be raised in such a parish as Marylebone. It was obvious that this was utterly unwarrantable, as the expense of collection would be far beyond the sum to be raised.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

also opposed the Amendment as impracticable.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, he did not understand that it was intended by the Amendment that a special rate should be made for each item of legal expenditure, but that the whole of the expenditure for the year should be paid out of a special rate.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 81: Majority 5.

MR. CHILDERS

moved a proviso at the end of the Clause to the effect that the expenses of a local authority in supporting or opposing a Bill in either House of Parliament should not be paid unless the Select Committee were of opinion that such local authority had reasonable cause for appearing before them.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he thought on further consideration there was no necessity for the proviso. The Select Committee, before they heard a local authority upon a Bill, would have to decide whether they had a locus standi, and a decision in the affirmative would be equivalent to a decision that the expenses of appearing had been properly incurred. The proviso therefore would be mere surplusage.

MR. JOHN LOCKE

said, the opposition to the Bill was very inflated—he would not say with gas, although it did so happen that nearly every hon. Member who opposed the Bill was connected with a gas company.

MR. HARDY

said, he believed that there might be many cases where parties had a technical locus standi, but had no reasonable ground for opposition. He admitted that the Committee would only interfere in some case of gross abuse; but these were exactly the cases where protection to the rate-payers was required.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he adhered to his opinion that the words were unnecessary, but he would not oppose their insertion.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

said, that it was very necessary that there should be some check or control on the part of the ratepayers upon the legal costs and charges which might be incurred. He thought that as a proper check on the vestry clerk, who incurred expenses on the ratepayers, there should be a power of taxation, and he, therefore, proposed to insert at the end of the clause the following words:— Provided always that before the payment of the costs and charges by the parochial authority such costs and charges shall be taxed by the taxing officer of either House of Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also the other Clauses of the Bill, with the exception of Clause 7, which, on the Motion of Sir John Shelley was struck out.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.