HC Deb 17 July 1861 vol 164 cc1040-6

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Power to levy rates).

MR. AYRTON

remarked that an Act was passed some few years ago consolidating the law relating to the assessment and collection of county rates, and he believed the law had been found effective, but the Metropolitan Board of Works desired to introduce a new system of assessing and collecting its own rates, instead of adopting the law on the statute book. It was a very inconvenient course of proceeding, and was adopted because the representative of the important parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, had assumed a disagreeable attitude. The better course for the Metropolitan Board of Works would be to introduce a short clause, giving them the same power to collect their rate as the justices had for the collection of the county rate. In that way the Board would be relieved from the inconvenience of exercising their patronage in appointing a great number of rate-collectors. There would then be one law for collecting both rates, and much inconvenience would be saved to the ratepayers.

MR. BRISTOW

said, the original Bill was faulty in this respect, that though it enabled the Board of Works to levy a precept if the parish refused to raise the money, they had no power to compel it. In the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Tite) he could not consent to striking out the clauses, but he would rather that the Chairman report Progress.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that the proposal of the hon. learned for the Tower Hamlets was a very reasonable and proper one. The rates which were levied by the Metropolitan Board were imposed upon the basis of the county rate, and that being so all that was required was that the Metropolitan Board were imposed upon the basis of the county rate, and that being so all that was required was that the Metropolitan Board of Works should have the same power of levying the rates as the county magistrates had. He should move, therefore, the omission of the clauses on the subject, or would consent that they should pass on the understanding that upon the Report a clause should be introduced which would carry out the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. BRISTOW

said, that he would undertake to bring up such a clause upon the Report.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 71, inclusive, were also agreed to.

Clause 72 (Removal of Encroachments on the Highway).

MR. LOCKE

said, that he was informed that the Metropolitan Board had no distinct principle as to the mode in which they exercised the power which this clause conferred; and, therefore, they sometimes allowed an encroachment, and sometimes refused a very necessary work. For instance, there had been what he might term a monstrous exercise of power on the part of the Board of Works with reference to a church in Penton Street. They alleged that the church encroached on the road, which it did not do to the extent of one inch. In the same street there was a ginshop which the Board of Works had taken under their protection which projected more than the church did. A suit was instituted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and Vice Chancellor Stuart had given judgment for them, and in the course of it made some strong observations on the conduct of the Board. On appeal that judgment was over ruled by Lord Chancellor Campbell on a dry point of law, yet the latter said that the Board had the right to give their assent to the projection, and that they ought to have given it. Since that decision had been given the Board had been written to for its assent, which had been refused. The consequence was that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been compelled to take down the chancel of the church.

MR. BRISTOW

said, that in respect to the case referred to, the Lord Chancellor decided that the Metropolitan Board of Works was right—["No, no!"]— that they had kept within the scope of the Act of Parliament. The clause under discussion was considered by the Committee upstairs to be a proper one. The old Act gave to the Metropolitan Board of Works the power to assent to or dissent from any projection beyond the line of frontage in any particular street, and the way that power was exercised was this:—When any person wanted to make a projection he made application to the Metropolitan Board for leave, and the Board sent their superintending architect to examine into the matter, and upon his report the Board generally acted. Some twenty or thirty cases of that kind came before the Board every week, and it was very creditable to the Board that, having been in existence for several years, there was only one case to which exception was taken. Now the object of the clause was to give the Board power to carry out their own orders, a power which they had not at present. The clause would give the Board power to summon a person who might have put up a projection of which the Board did not approve, and a justice might order the alteration or removal of the obstruction, and the expenses to be paid by the parties acting in contravention of the orders of the Board.

MR. LOCKE

observed that the Lord Chancellor expressly disapproved the judgment displayed by the Metropolitan Board of Works in the case he had alluded to.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he conceived that the explanation given of the expediency of the clause was quite satisfactory. The hon. Member for Southwark stated that in respect to a particular case the Metropolitan Board of Works had been guilty of misconduct; but, considering that twenty or thirty of these cases came before the Board every week, if their course of practice was a wrong one there would be numerous remonstrances against it, and that there were many was not alleged.

MR. BARROW

said, he was of opinion that the instance which had been adduced showed that the Metropolitan Board of Works had stretched their powers beyond a reasonable extent, and he objected to the present clause, because it would give the Board additional power to enforce their dissents. At present the power of enforcement was left to the local authority of the different vestries, which acted in this respect as a species of Courts of Appeal, and he for one was more inclined to trust the authority to them than to the Metropolitan Board.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he knew nothing of the particular case, but he knew as a member of the vestry that the present law worked inconveniently, inasmuch as the order was given by one body and had to be carried out by another, while sometimes the two bodies differed as to the propriety of the order. The clause would remove the difficulty, and he should, therefore, vote in favour of it.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that the Committee was about to inflict on individuals the necessity of defending themselves against the arbitrary discretion of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and he trusted, therefore, the intervention of the vestries would be retained. If, however, the Committee decided on abolishing such intervention they ought to give the parties the power of appealing directly to the Quarter Sessions. At any rate such an appeal would be better than one to the Court of Chancery.

Question put, "That Clause 72 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 36: Majority 8.

Clauses 73 to 94 agreed to.

Clause 95 (Power to alter the names of streets).

MR. COWPER

said, he objected to old streets having their names altered at the pleasure of the Metropolitan Board, and he would, therefore, propose an Amendment providing that the re-naming of streets should not be left to the mere will of that Board, who might call them after their own names, but should be subject to the approval of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works.

MR. LOCKE

said, he was surprised at the Amendment. The Government were quite ready to vote in support of the Board in reference to such matters as the pulling down of houses and the projection of buildings, and were content to oppose them when it came simply to a question of giving names to streets.

MR. BRISTOW

said, he believed the scheme adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works—namely, that it had been proposed that streets should be called after the members of the Metropolitan Board—had originated in Punch. He trusted the Amendment would be withdrawn.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works was hardly justified in endeavouring to throw ridicule on a body of men who, he felt bound to say, did not, as time would prove, deserve all the attacks which had been made upon them.

MR. COWPER

said, he had read the statement to which he had called the attention of the Committee in the newspapers, and if he were wrong in deeming it to be correct, he was glad to find he was mistaken. He had no wish to say anything against the Board of Works, for, as an hon. Member had stated, there was no lack of persons to do that.

MR. AYRTON

said, he thought the power conferred by the clause of allowing the Board to name, or alter the name of, any street at their pleasure ought to be confined to cases in which there were duplicate streets, or in which several parts of the same street were called by distinct names—as, for instance, in the case of several blocks of buildings in the New Road.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he could bear testimony from personal experience of the inconvenience and confusion caused by streets in London being called by the same name.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that it was not a matter of first-rate importance, but it was as well that any legislation which took place upon it should be proper. In accordance with the existing law the Board of Works might, "where more than one street in the Metropolis was called by the same name, alter the name of all such streets, except one, to any other which the Board might think fit, subject to the approval of the First Commissioner of Works". The effect of the clause under discussion would be so to enlarge the power thus enjoyed as to enable them to alter the name of any street, whether there was a duplicate or not, and to make that alteration without the sanction of the First Commissioner. Unless some good reason were urged for conferring these enlarged powers he did not see why they should be given.

MR. BRISTOW

said, he would undertake, if the clause were passed in its present shape, to bring up a clause on the Report which would confine the power of the Board to the alteration of the streets in those cases in which they found more than one street of the same name.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, he did not see why there should be any objection to the sanction of the First Commissioner being rendered necessary in these cases.

Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

MR. CAVE

moved the insertion of a clause continuing certain exemptions from paving rates. He stated that in the case of Dock Companies, though they used the pavement in the neighbourhood for which they ought to pay, yet that they ought not to be assessed at the full value of their property, as a great part of their profit was made out of goods re-exported in bond, which passed over no pavement. This had been decided in a Court of law.

MR. DENMAN

said, that the case referred to had been overruled; and that it was no longer held that the benefit derived ought to be taken into consideration.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS, Mr. TITE, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, and Mr. BRISTOW

opposed the clause, which was negatived.

MR. CAVE

then moved the insertion of a clause giving a right of appeal against the decisions of vestries and district Boards under sec. 159, 18 & 19 Vict.

MR. DENMAN

objected to the clause, because there was an appeal at present in respect of all matters with regard to which parties ought to have an appeal.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

opposed the clause.

MR. AYRTON

said, the clause would virtually transfer to the justices the duties which Parliament had intrusted to the vestries and district Boards.

MR. CAVE

said, he not would press the clause, though he doubted whether the right to appeal was sufficiently clear.

Clause negatived.

House resumed.

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