COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 9 April 1862)

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he would move the omission of the first part of the clause, in order to obtain some explanation from the promoters of the measure. The sixth and the following clause related to the powers to be granted to the Metropolitan Board of Works for assessing and levying rates. When the Bill was originally introduced, a Select Committee of five Members was appointed, on his Motion, to arbitrate, as it were, upon the contributions to be raised from the different parishes. The measure did not pass that Session. In the follow- 742 ing year it was re introduced; but its farmers set at naught the previous decision of the Select Committee relative to the contributions of the parishes, and inserted provisions wholly at variance with it. It transpired in Committee upstairs that a dispute had arisen between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, the latter refusing to have anything to do with these rates, and giving the former to understand, that if they wanted any money, they must collect it themselves. In consequence of that dispute the Metropolitan Board of Works attempted to establish a new and most arbitrary mode of levying their rates, arrogating to themselves the judicial powers of a Quarter Sessions, and sending forth over the whole metropolis an army of their own collectors. To check that, he drew up a clause divesting them of the judicial functions they had assumed, and requiring them to assess their rates on the basis of the county rate, but giving them the right to make a requisition on each parish, and to surcharge any parish, as the county magistrates were empowered to do, if it failed to pay its contribution. His declaratory clause was adopted, and, having submitted to that clause, be maintained that the promoters of the Bill were bound to frame the rest of its provisions in accordance with it. Instead of that, however, the measure, as it now reappeared before the House, contained contradictory and confused provisions, absolutely constituting the Board a Court of Quarter Sessions, and investing them with the must oppressive powers of summoning individual inhabitants. He wished, therefore, to know why the understanding entered into last Session on the matter was to be defeated, and all the evils incident to a conflict of authorities to be let loose upon the metropolis. He would suggest that the Bill should be referred ton. Select Committee.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, he believed that the acccusations brought by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets against the Metropolitan Board of Works had been entirely disposed of by the discussion upon the second reading of the Bill. As to the clause under consideration, it was one of those provisions which were most carefully examined by the Select Committee of five, and it met with their most unanimous approval. It did not extend the powers of the Board, but merely simplified a section of the existing Act, and enabled it to be practically carried out. There was nothing in- 743 definite in the clause, and it would not impose any trouble on the inhabitants of the metropolis. The county rate would be the basis of the Amendment, except as regarded the City, where the police rate would be the basis. It would be a waste of time to refer the measure to a Select Committee.

§ MR. LOCKE
observed, that in his opinion the Metropolitan Board of Works had not acted fairly in the matter, and its conduct had created great dissatisfaction among the ratepayers.

§ VISCOUNT ENFIELD
said, he wished to know why the 170th clause of the existing Act was to be repealed if there was to be no change in the basis of assessment.

§ MR. TITE
said, there was some obscurity about the existing clause, and the Select Committee had thought it better to adopt the words of the clause now submitted.

§ MR. BRADY
said, he did not think they would be justified in opposing the Bill any further, in the face of the fact that the parishes which had formerly opposed it had withdrawn their objection.

§ MR. COX
said, he wished to know what there was of obscurity in the 170th clause of the existing Act, that they should have a new clause substituted for it.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, the Committee of five did not examine the Bill of last year in a public point of view. He had pointed out that the principle upon which it was based was an incorrect principle, and the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary agreed with him in that view. The clauses of the present Bill, however, were framed upon the old and incorrect principle.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he thought the matter required further explanation.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS
said, the 170th clause of the existing act was clear enough, and therefore there was no necessity to repeal it, especially as it was intended to replace it by another about which there would be considerable doubt.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, the clause was intended to empower the Board to raise their rates over the whole Metropolis, instead of over the existing sewage district as at present. He thought, as applied to the main drainage rates, that was a good principle.

§ MR. BRISTOW
pointed out, that the 170th clause of the existing Act and the clause now under consideration were similar in intention, and the change was only meant to make the 170th clause more practical.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he wished to know why the City of London was omitted from the clause?

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, a reference to the interpretation clause would prove that the City of London Was included in the Bill.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the only substantial difference between the 170th clause and this clause was, that certain words had been omitted, with a view to make the assessment simply upon the rateable value of property. He did not understand that the words of the clause had anything to do with the collection of rates; and if the Metropolitan Board were to make the assessments he could not see how they were effectually to do that without they possessed the power which the clause would give them.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he thought that the clause was not explicit as to the particular rate which should be taken as the basis of valuation for the purpose of the Bill.

§ MR. BRISTOW
explained that the assessment was to be generally upon the county rate; but in the City of London there was no county rate, and there the police rate would be taken as the basis of assessment.

MR. WILLIAMS
said, the rating in the City of London was on the same basis as that of the county of Middlesex.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he thought there was some obscurity in the clause, and he would suggest the addition of words to make the intention of the clause more plain.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he would move an Amendment, the effect of which was that in the City of London the assessment should be on the basis of the sewers rate.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he would move the omission of the words imposing penalties, with a view to limit the powers of the Board in respect of rates. The clause substantially constituted the Metropolitan Board a Court of Quarter Sessions, and invested them with judicial functions. It was something new in the history of the law to enable such a body, without a commission from the Crown, to act judicially and summon and examine witnesses.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, the omission of the words would be the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out. It would deprive the Board of the power to enforce their own assessment.