HC Deb 02 July 1862 vol 167 cc1314-20

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Consideration of Clause proposed by Mr. Ayrton on 30th April resumed.

MR. LOCKE

said, the object of the clause proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was to give the ratepayers at large the right of electing members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, instead of the vestry being intrusted with that power. He (Mr. Locke) should support the proposal. The Metropolitan Board of Works had the power of taxing the whole metropolis; and he thought, as taxation and representation should go together, that the election of the members of that board should be in the hands of the whole body of ratepayers, and ought not to be confined to vestries and district boards, who, practically, always sent to the Metropolitan Board of Works members of their own bodies. The Select Committee who considered the subject came to the conclusion that direct election by the ratepayers would strengthen the position of the members of the board, and many witnesses gave it as their opinion that under a system of direct election the members elected would be of a higher class and better calculated to discharge the duties of the situation than the men now on the board. Why, then, should there be a deviation with respect to these elections from the general rule prevailing throughout the country? It was not denied that there was upon the board a number of highly intelligent men; but, unfortunately, they did not, on account of the mode of election, possess the confidence of the inhabitants of the metropolis, That confidence could only be secured by direct election. No doubt that under the system of election which he advocated many of the present members would be re-appointed to office; but, no matter what might be the result, the change was necessary.

MR. TITE

explained that the present system, according to which the Metropolitan Board of Works was constituted, arose out of the deliberations of the Royal Commission of 1853; and, notwithstanding all that had been said, the board was not unpopular, and performed their duties zealously and faithfully. Every district board and vestry had petitioned against an alteration in the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The appointment of members to that board was not the result of any close system of nomination, but the members were chosen simply because they enjoyed the respect of the inhabitants of their different localities, and were considered the proper men to represent them. The board was now engaged in the construction of the largest works ever committed to the management of any body of men, and he trusted that it would not be interrupted in its proceedings at such a moment by a change in the mode of electing the members on a mere suggestion. If, however, the change were necessary, it ought to be effected by a special measure, not by such a clause as that which it was proposed to insert in the Bill before the Committee.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he agreed that the principle of electing members of the Metropolitan Board of Works by the great mass of the ratepayers was a just principle; but he felt its operation would be attended with a vast deal more difficulty than seemed to have been anticipated. It would be especially unwise to make the alteration at the very time when the Metropolitan Board of Works was engaged in a vast and important undertaking.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he would admit that the board had well and faithfully performed their duties; but it could not be denied that great complaints had been made against them, and that they had been characterized as the "Board of Words," instead of a Board of Works. He deprecated any attack on the board, and he believed that the more their proceedings were inquired into, the more satisfactory would they prove. But he at the same time thought that direct election by the ratepayers at large would ensure for them greater confidence, and he should therefore support the proposition to that effect.

SIR GEORGE GREY

observed, that the clause under discussion was one of a series which proposed to make a great change in the constitution of the board. He believed that it would be unwise to make such a change at the present moment; but if it were necessary, it ought to be accomplished by a special measure brought forward in a future Session, and not by the addition of clauses to a Bill which had already passed through Committee.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he did not think, that if the proposed alteration wore made, it would be likely to place more efficient men upon the board than at present. It would be a most unfortunate thing if a great change were made in the constitution of the Board of Works by a clause at the fag-end of the Bill, especially in so thin a House. He therefore concurred in the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped it would be accepted by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets.

LORD FERMOY

said, that ever since he had had the honour of a seat for the borough which he represented, he had heard the Board of Works found fault with by Members in that House, but he had no evidence either public or private that his constituents or the inhabitants of the metropolis were discontented with that board the absence of petitions was at least a proof that the Board of Works were not the unpopular body described. If they talked too much already, he did not see how the evil would be abated by the addition of forty more metropolitan members to it. The members of the board had proved themselves to be good men of business, and had carried out the important works intrusted to them in a manner creditable to themselves and advantageous to the public. The proposition of his hon. and learned Friend was, he believed, right in the abstract, but he could not vote for it till he had better evidence that the people of the metropolis were discontented with the Board of Works.

MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

said, he should support the clause, as he thought that the members of the Metropolitan. Board should be elected directly by the ratepayers. Some of the proceedings of the board, as constituted, had created great dissatisfaction in the metropolitan districts, and there was an almost unanimous feeling in favour of an alteration in the mode of election.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he rose to express his concurrence in the views expressed by his noble Colleague. Neither in public nor in private had he received any communication from his constituents expressing a desire to have the constitution of the board changed. He believed that the object of the clause was to defeat by a side-wind an important and useful Bill. He did not believe that, even if carried into effect, it would make any material alteration in the constitution of the Metropolitan Board. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets would exercise a wise discretion in bringing it forward as a separate measure.

MR. AYRTON

said that Marylebone stood in a different position from the rest of the metropolis, for it had its own particular council, which assumed to itself most extraordinary powers. Still he was surprised that the inhabitants of a constituency which identified itself with the progress of the country should assert, through the mouths of their representatives, that nomination was preferable to election. He did not think that opinion was shared by any of the metropolitan community. Everywhere else the conviction, was entertained that the ratepayers should have a direct voice in the election of Members to the Metropolitan Board. Surely there was nothing very extravagant in the proposition that the Metropolitan Board should be elected under the same conditions as the House of Commons. It had been said that the board was entitled to public confidence, but the Thames Embankment Bill was neither more nor less than a declaration that the board was only fit to do the work of bricklayers and masons. His object was to elevate the members of the board, but it was far from his intention to cast pearls before swine; and, since his clause was opposed by the representatives of the board, he was disposed to act upon the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, reserving to himself the right to bring forward his proposition on a future occasion as a substantive measure.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. LOCKE

said, he proposed after Clause 109 to insert a clause providing, that in compensation cases, where the parties felt themselves aggrieved by the ruling of the assessor or by the finding of the jury, it should be lawful to apply to one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts in Westminster Hall for a new trial or rehearing of the case, or for the reduction or increase of damages. He only wanted that the same rule should apply to compensation cases as applied to all other cases. It frequently happened that very nice points of law arose upon these compensation cases, which it was desirable should be determined by a superior court of law.

MR. TITE

said, that a proposition which made so extensive an alteration in the law of the land should not be introduced in a Bill of the kind under consideration. He could not believe that the Committee would listen to it for a moment. It might or it might not be right to give such an appeal, but so important a question ought to be discussed on its own merits and as a general principle.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press the Amendment on that occasion. He could at a future time turn his attention to the question of compensation.

MR. LOCKE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, as the feeling of the Committee seemed to he against it, though nothing had been said against the justice of his proposal.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he wished to move a clause to follow Clause 10, to the effect that vestries might have the power of including in the sewers rate precepts of the Metropolitan Board.

Clause agreed to.

MR. COX

said, he had to move a clans repealing Section 6 of the 18 & 19Vict., c. 120, and enacting in lieu thereof that the vestry elected under the Bill in any parish should consist of persons rated or assessed to the relief of the poor in respect of the occupation of any house, lands, tenements, or hereditaments in such parish.

Clause (Repealing Section 6 of 18 & 19 Vict., c. 120) brought up, and read 1o.

MR. TITE

said, that judging from his experience, he thought it would he undesirable to alter the qualification for vestrymen. He must oppose the clause.

MR. AYRTON

said, he could not but express his surprise at the opposition of the hon. Member for Bath. He would do better to carry out the wishes of the parent of the Bill, Mr. Bristow, and support the clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 47: Majority 23.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

said, that on behalf of his hon. Friend Sir J. Paxton, he had to move a clause for re-apportioning the sum of £28,111, charged on the late Fulham and Hammersmith districts, among the parishes in that district.

MR. TITE

said, that he saw no reason why a measure should be passed in favour of two districts only, which had been rejected on behalf of the metropolitan districts generally.

Clause withdrawn.

MR. LOCKE

said, he wished to move a clause rendering persons in receipt of fees or poundage, or other emolument by way of salary, out of the rates and taxes, ineligible to be elected as vestrymen.

Clause (Persons in receipt of Fees or Poundage not to be eligible to be elected as Vestryman, &c.) brought up, and read 1o.

MR. LAYARD

said, he was sorry to oppose his hon. and learned Colleague, but he had received very strong representations from many of his constituents against the clause. Its effect would be to exclude many most competent persons from the board.

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped that the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) would not be pressed as it: stood, although it might be valuable in a modified shape.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he did not think sufficient grounds had been stated for making a change in the law on the subject.

MR. LOCKE

said, he should take the sense of the Committee on the clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 29 Noes 48: Majority 19.

MR. AYRTON

said, he wished to propose a clause repealing Clauses 30 and 41 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, which provided that the chairman of the board should be elected only for the day, unless in the case where a clergyman or churchwarden, otherwise qualified, was present; and enabling a vestry or district board to elect its chairman, who should continue in office for one year.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he knew very little about the practice of the vestries and district boards, but he thought it would be undesirable to change the existing practice, without cause shown.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, that the practical working of the clause would relieve the rectors of parishes, who felt themselves bound to preside over vestry meetings, from a very unpleasant duty.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, he saw no ground for the innovation, and he should oppose the clause.

MR. TITE

said, he must oppose the clause.

Clause negatived.

LORD FERMOY

said, he wished to move the addition of a clause giving power to vestry and district boards to contract for the removal of manure from stables and cowhouses.

MR. TITE

said, as the clause was entirely permissive, he would not oppose it.

Clause added to the Bill.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 181].