COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 April 1862)

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he felt an objection to the power given by the clause to the Metropolitan Board of Works to affix names to private residences. He hoped the Committee would not confer such a power on the Board, and that some thing like discretion would be used in giving new names to streets.

§ MR. TITE
explained, that great confusion was occasioned by the multiplication of the same names in different parts of the metropolis, and that it was desirable the Board should have the power in question.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, he should support the clause, on the ground, amongst others, that it would greatly facilitate the postal service.

§ MR. SLANEY
suggested, that the Board should take a hint from the American cities, where the streets, when not numbered, were called after the names of certain trees.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he proposed to add to the end of the clause a proviso, to the effect that it should not apply to 1096 the City of London or the liberties thereof. The authority of the City of London had the power, under the Sewers Act, of altering the names of the streets in the City, and he objected to extending the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the City for the same purpose.

§ MR. BRISTOW
remarked, that it had been decided by the Court of Common Pleas that the Board of Works already had the power by law of changing the names of streets within the City.

§ MR. COX
said, he hoped that if power were granted to the Board, they would use it with discretion, and preserve the old names and landmarks in the City with which they were associated.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he supposed that the changes would be made in the modern parts of the metropolis, and thought that, the discretion might well be left to the Board.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS
said, he should support the clause, as he was not inclined to except the City from its operation. He hoped, however, that it would be carefully exercised, and that old landmarks would be preserved.

MR. HEADLAM
remarked, that the Metropolitan Board already possessed the power of altering the names of streets in the City of London, and the clause merely provided for the continuation of the existing power. If no practical inconvenience had arisen from the exercise of that power, why should they introduce an exemption that was not in the former Act?

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, he thought it was unadvisable that there should be two conflicting authorities, and he would therefore suggest, that before the Metropolitan Board of Works changed the names of streets within the City, they should consult with the corporation.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, it would be impossible for the justices of the peace to carry out the various duties imposed on them by the clause.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, the justices must, of course, depend on the reports of the district boards and vestries. The duties of the justices, therefore, would be for the most part ministerial.

§ MR. AYRTON
remarked, that the Go- 1097 vernment must at some time or other, appoint special justices of the peace for the metropolis.

§ MR. AYRTON
observed, that the definition given of the words "new street" would operate injuriously on the owners of property who had complied with the existing law, by compelling them to put down the solid pavement required, not by the owners, but by the growing wants of the whole neighbourhood. They might make the law with regard to subsequent acts as stringent as might be thought necessary; but he objected to a retrospective operation of the clause.

§ MR. TITE
said, the clause had been carefully prepared to meet the great evils which had arisen from the circumstance of the district Boards being called on to put down expensive drainage to a few houses built at a distance from existing roads. The operation of the Bill would only extend back to the period when the jurisdiction of the Board originated.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he desired to confine the definition "new street" to streets made after the passing of this Act. With a view, therefore, of leaving out all the words giving the clause a retrospective operation, he would move the omission of the words, "or which may have been formed or laid out since the 1st of January, 1856."

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, he thought there was a considerable amount of equity in the suggested alteration, and he therefore assented to it.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause continuing the powers of the Finsbury Park Act until the 17th August, 1865.

§ MR. COX
said, that the inhabitants of Finsbury had a right to complain of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who, having taken the matter out of the hands of the promoters of the original Bill for the making of the park, had failed to carry out the Act which they obtained for that purpose.

§ MR. AYRTON
suggested, that instead of giving the powers objected to to the Board until the year 1865, the powers should be merely conferred for one year, and that 1863 should be substituted for 1865.

§ MR. COX
said, the clause might as well be struck out if the powers were only given to the Board for twelve months.

§ MR. W. EWART
said, he would not object to the alteration.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, he wished to move a new clause constituting Plumstead and Lewisham into separate districts, with power to send representatives to the Metropolitan Board of Works.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, he must oppose the clause. The Bill was an amending Bill only; and did not propose to deal with the constitution of the Metropolitan Board.

§ MR. ANGERSTEIN
said, he wished to move a clause to the effect that the several parishes of the Plumstead District Board of Works, including Plumstead, Eltham, Lee, Slidbrooke, and Charlton, should, on the 1st of January, 1863, cease to be united and form one district; and that the parish of Plumstead should form one district, and that there should be a Board of Works for such district. The Secretary for War had no objection to the clause.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, he must object to the clause as altering the constitution of the District Board, as well as altering the constitution of the Metropolitan Board. Other parishes had made similar requests, but the Committee had not thought proper to grant them.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he rose to move the insertion after Clause 83 of the following clause:— The ninety-ninth section of the firstly-recited Act is hereby repealed; and in lieu thereof, Be it Enacted, that whenever the freeholder of any court, passage, or public place, not being a thoroughfare, is vested in the same person or persons as the freehold of any adjoining house or houses, the owner or owners of such adjoining house or houses shall be deemed, for the purpose of the recited Acts and this Act, to be the owner or owners of such court, passage, or public place, and the paving thereof shall be done by such owner or owners, if so directed by the vestry or district board.

§ MR. TITE
said, he should oppose the clause as unnecessary.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, he wished to draw attention to the state of certain houses in Stamford Street, and various other parts of the metropolis, which had remained in a dilapidated condition for many years. He thought some power 1099 ought to be given by the Bill to prevent the destruction of property in that way.

§ MR. BRADY
said there were thirty or forty such houses, and they were not only a disgrace to London, but an injury to society, and he thought it would be a good remedy to make the owners of such property pay the rates and taxes, just as though the houses were occupied.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the authorities had a remedy when the houses became in a dangerous state. If the houses were not dangerous, the only remedy at present was for the owners of the adjoining property to purchase them.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, he would then bring up a clause to be inserted after Clause 95, giving vestries and district boards power to contract for the removal of manure from stables and cowhouses. His object was to deal with manure in the same manner as dust was dealt with, and to compel the owners of stables to remove their manure before it became a nuisance to the neighbourhood. During the winter months the manure was removed, because the farmers having then nothing else to do, it paid them to come into town to take it away; but in the summer months, when their avocations were numerous, the manure was allowed to accumulate in the metropolis. All the officers of health approved of the clause and testified to its necessity.

§ MR. TITE
said, he thought the clause went altogether too far.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
considered the proposal monstrous.

§ MR. AYRTON
suggested, that on the bringing up of the report a more moderate proposal should be made.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, he had to move the insertion after Clause 108, of a clause empowering the Metropolitan Board of Works with the sanction of the Secretary of State, to subdivide districts in schedule B, in case of increase of population.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he objected to the clause as it empowered the Board with the consent of the Home Secretary, to alter entirely the whole constitution of the Board. If the circumstances were so grave as to render a change necessary in the constitu- 1100 tion of the Board and form new districts, the change should take place under the authority of Parliament.

§ MR. TITE
said, the clause applied only to the outlying parishes.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, the clause appeared to him to be necessary to carry out the objects of the Bill. He would suggest, however, as a proviso, that the number of the Metropolitan Board should not be increased or diminished by any such alterations.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, that the outlying districts, which when the original Act was passed were only green fields, were now portions of the metropolis, and therefore it was necessary to create such a power as that which was contained in the clause. He thought, however, that no division of any parish should take place unless the new district contained not less than 50,000 inhabitants.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, he thought the limit of increase should be fixed, and it ought to be clearly defined under what circumstances the subdivision should take place.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
observed, that he did not regard the mere assent of the Secretary of State as a sufficient safeguard for the proper application of the powers of the clause.

§ MR. LOCKE
contended, that the assent of the several subdivisions of a district should be had before a separation was permitted.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, that the effect of the clause would be to induce outlying parishes to see how they might alter and carve matters to suit their own interests. It would be far better that any change should be made with more deliberation and better safeguards.

§ MR. COX
suggested, that the clause should be applicable only to districts possessing 2,000 rateable houses.

MR. HEADLAM
said, he thought it would be much better not to place any limitation upon the discretion of the Secretary of State.

§ MR. CRAWFORD
said, he had to propose that the following Clause should follow Clause 108:— Nothing in this Act contained shall make the City of London or the Liberties thereof liable to contribute towards any of the expenses incurred or to be incurred by the Board under the provisions contained in' The Metropolis Gas Act,' 1860, or the Act to amend the Metropolis Gas Act, of 1101 the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth years of Victoria, chapter seventy-nine, or to any expenses already incurred by the Board in the execution of the firstly and secondly recited Acts which the City of London or the Liberties thereof would not have been liable to pay if this Act had not been passed. The City was exempted from, the liability referred to by the existing Act.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, it was only by the neglect of the House of Commons that the City was exempt from that liability. The City shared in the benefit of these Acts, and he did not see why the City should not bear its share of the expense.

§ MR. COX
said, the City was exempted by the Acts from the expenses, and he did not see why they should be incidentally charged with them.

§ MR. AYRTON
considered, there was no necessity for legislation on the subject.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, the clause merely left things as it found them.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, then surely there was no necessity for the clause. The City had no right to come to the House and say that they were not liable to the expenses of those Gas Acts, one object of the Acts being to test the purity of the gas. The City had the benefit of the Act, and it was monstrous that the City should receive the benefit and seek to throw the expense on the rest of the metropolis.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he considered the proposition most unjust.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, he thought that all the parishes that were benefited by the Gas Act ought to contribute to the expense of it.

§ MR. BRISTOW
said, he had to move the addition of a clause saving the rights of the Crown and of the Duchy of Lancaster.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he then rose to propose a number of clauses abolishing the existing mode of electing members of the Metropolitan Board of Works by the vestries, and providing that they should in future be elected annually at the same time as the members of the vestry, and by the persons entitled to vote in the election of vestrymen. The existing 1102 mode of election was, in his opinion, most unsatisfactory; and the change which he proposed had been recommended by a Committee which had inquired into the subject. He was also anxious that the number of the Metropolitan Board should be increased, but for that change he admitted that he had not the authority of that Committee. The various proposals which had been made for reforming the Corporation of the City of London, and the large council which it had always been proposed to establish for that municipality, was however a good authority for his desire to increase the number of the Board which had to regulate the affairs of the whole metropolis. The Common Council of the City of London consisted of 232 members, and a Conservative Lord Mayor in his Bill to amend the corporation, proposed that the number should be 170, while the Government in their Bill proposed that the number should be 150. He thought, therefore, that he should be justified in fixing the number of the Metropolitan Board at 150. At the same time, he did not wish to embarrass the discussion of the mode in which the members of that Board should be elected by connecting with it a debate as to what should be the number of that Board; and therefore he should not at that moment make any proposal upon the latter subject. An attempt had been made to create a prejudice against his proposal of a new mode of electing the members of the Board by a circular which had been addressed by the Lord Mayor to Members of that House. That circular ran as follows:— I wish to direct your serious attention to the Amendments proposed by Mr. Ayrton in the Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment Act. They constitute, in fact, an insidious attempt to construct a democratic corporation for the whole metropolis, under cover of amending the law as relates to the management of a local Board. It is doubtful, I think, whether the introduction of such a scheme is admissible by the rules of Parliament as an amendment upon such a Bill, involving as it does a virtual repeal of Lord Llanover's Local Management Act. A body is proposed to be created which will consist of no less than 172 persons—an alarming fact—who will be intrusted with a vast power of rating, representing virtually population merely, without any counterbalance by which property will receive its fair share of influence. To construct an exclusive democratic chamber of this kind, speaking in the names and dealing with the destinies of three millions of people, appears to me a dangerous experiment, and one which I think Parliament is little prepared to deal with, unless it were by a Bill introduced upon the responsi- 1103 bility of Her Majesty's Government. You will excuse the liberty I take in submitting these remarks to your consideration. (Signed) "WILLIAM CUBITI. Mansion House. Now he (Mr. Ayrton) thought that the Lord Mayor, before he penned that circular, ought to have ascertained the truth, and then to have stated it. It was not likely that he (Mr. Ayrton) would propose a democratic constitution without regard to property; he did not profess democratic principles, and never had done so. How untrue the assertions of the Lord Mayor were, was shown at once by the fact that he (Mr. Ayrton) proposed to place the power of election in the hands of those who now elected vestrymen, and who, as they must be persons occupying houses rated at £20 per annum, could not be persons without property. It might be more fairly objected that he had not proposed to make the election sufficiently popular; but in the present state of things he had thought it better to adhere to the existing franchise than to propose that the members of the Board should be elected by persons having a smaller qualification than was at present enjoyed by the electors of vestrymen. There was another reason why he wished to impress the matter on the Committee. Almost every district of the metropolis was now represented by a local journal, conducted with as much ability as a leading newspaper was some twenty years ago. These papers kept the district well informed upon their rights and political situation. That was an additional reason why the members of the Board should be elected by the districts themselves. The objections to his proposal all resolved themselves into this—that the vestries did not wish to lose the power they possessed. If a higher body were introduced to interfere with all the petty jobs of a parish, the parochial mind was outraged, and they considered that a revolution was at hand. He wondered how the two hon. Members for Kidderminster and Bath, sitting behind the Government bench could oppose his views, notwithstanding the political paralysis under which the House was suffering with respect to all liberal feelings. He appealed to his hon. Friends against the vestrydom of the metropolis. He (Mr. Ayrton) would be sorry to be the lackey of the metropolitan vestries. He would prefer not to have a seat in that House; and he believed he held his seat direct from the electors. Vestries were very ex- 1104 cellent people; but if the constitution of those bodies were altered, their members would at once rise in the social scale. Why was it that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board was to take no part in the Exhibition which was to take place on the following day. There was painful proof that the Board of Works did not now possess the confidence or represent the feeling of the metropolis, and it was only by some such mode as he proposed that it could be brought into harmony with the inhabitants of London. The hon. Member concluded by moving the first of the clauses.

§ VISCOUNT ENFIELD
said, he should oppose the Motion on the simple ground that so great a change, even if it were desirable, ought to be submitted to Parliament in the shape of a separate Bill.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he might refer to the Report of the Committee over which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had presided with such signal ability and patience, for the purpose of showing how slight was the foundation on which the hon. Member had built up his argument. He did not deny that greater weight might attach to the deliberations of the Metropolitan Board if the Members were directly elected; but he felt bound to express his sense of the extreme importance of maintaining in his present position the gentleman who now filled the office of Chairman of the Board of Works, and at the same time his marked admiration of the manner in which that gentleman had devoted his great talents and the whole of his time and attention to the extremely difficult and complicated duties connected with that office. He thought the present time singularly inappropriate for a sweeping change, when the Board was engaged in carrying out one of the largest constructive works ever undertaken.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he always found that whenever a proposition for change was brought forward, somebody was sure to find out that it was not the proper time. He had always been a supporter of the Metropolitan Board, and he entertained the very highest opinion of the gentleman who presided over the Board; but there could be no doubt that their influence would be increased by the adoption of the principle of direct election. Surely, if that body had been elected by the public, he thought that the chairman would have met with as much 1105 consideration on an occasion like the ceremony of the following day, as the chairman of the Corporation of the City of London. It was due to the Metropolitan Board of Works to say that the point for which they had passed a vote of thanks to the the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was not for introducing his Bill to make a road across Kensington Gardens, but for sending them the heads of that Bill. Sweeping changes were always objected to as inappropriate, but the present time was as appropriate as any other, because the Metropolitan Board of Works would always have important works to discharge; moreover, the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend would only have the effect of introducing the principle of direct election gradually. It did not go to the removal of the whole of the Board at once. One-third would go out in May next year, and all his hon. and learned Friend proposed was that that third should be replaced by men elected by the ratepayers. Thus two-thirds of the present body would be undisturbed, and he believed that a large proportion of the remainder would be re-elected. What ob-objection was there to the Board being elected by the same persons who returned Members to that House? It was also to be remembered that there were many useful persons who had a great objection to serving on vestries. He thought the plan of his hon. and learned Friend had been misunderstood, and he wished that the election of this body could be placed in the hands of the ratepayers.

§ MR. AYRTON
explained, that he would leave the present constitution of the Board unchanged until the month of May, 1863, and that he would then have a third of the members elected, while another third should be elected in 1864 and another in 1865.