CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 01 August 1872 vol 213 cc252-79

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

MR. KNIGHT

rose to move that the Bill be considered upon that day month. He remarked that there had been no debate on the Bill going into Committee because it had been withdrawn with a view to its alteration. It was considerably shortened, many great powers were taken out of it, and in the form in which it had come back to the House it was not quite so objectionable as when it was first introduced. This Bill formed part of a general scheme to subject the whole of the local government of England to a Central Board in London. The scheme was begun last year, when the Board by which everything was to be governed was established—namely, the Poor Law Board, with a new name. Of the clauses of the Bill, 18 might be classed under the head of "tyranny," and 23 under the head of "taxation." Every one of these might well be made the subject of a speech; but on the present occasion he intended to refer only to two or three of them. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill was simply a slight transfer of powers. [Mr. STANSFELD emphatically denied that he had ever made such a statement.] At all events, he (Mr. Knight) had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so. Clause 9 transferred all public property belonging to districts or parishes to the sanitary authority which was to be subject to the Board in London. At first sight this appeared to be a very simple affair; but it would be found that by Clause 18 all local property in England would be transferred from the bodies who held it as trustees for the general benefit of the ratepayers to a body who had the power of making away with the whole of it, because they had the power of borrowing money upon it to any amount. Another objectionable clause of the Bill was that which would enable the Local Government Board to dissolve existing districts, and, by reconstituting them, place heavier taxes upon the land lying adjacent to towns than that description of property bore at present. Next came the most monstrous clause of all, which would give power to the Local Government Board to repeal local Acts, all of which had been well considered and agreed upon by Parliament, and most of which had worked satisfactorily for very many years. This was a clause which would bear most harshly upon many localities, and would create a feeling of general indignation throughout the country. Clause 40, also, was of a most tyrannical character, for it provided that the limit of rating under local Acts should not apply to sanitary expenses, and left the Local Government Board absolute power to decide what should be considered sanitary purposes. [Mr. STANSFELD said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. There was no such proposal in the Bill.] He (Mr. Knight) had not the Bill as last amended; but he distinctly remembered a proposal that the determination of the Local Government Board should be conclusive as to what sanitary purposes were. The amount of taxation which would be involved in carrying out the provisions of this little Bill would be enormous. One of its most objectionable features was that a direct bribe in the shape of increased salaries was offered to existing local officials, who were to become the servants of the new sanitary authorities. The opposition of these gentlemen to the present Bill was thus neatly and effectually got rid of. The net result of the measure, as put by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board, with all the authority of Gwydyr House, would be the imposition of a very great amount of additional taxation upon the rural districts. One of the chief objections urged against the Bill in the short discussions upon this Bill was the appointment of Boards of Guardians. For his own part, if let alone or controlled by some county authority, he did not believe that the Guardians would be an improper body to intrust with these powers. They were possessed of ample local knowledge, and would do their work very well but for the powerful central authority which it was proposed to set over them. He himself had twice had a seat on the Board, and he could testify to the fact that no set of men could be more incapable of undertaking those duties than the Poor Law Board. That Board was composed of estimable gentlemen, who had spent many years in the public service, and who, as far as ordinary life in London was concerned, and as far as related to the petty precedents of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, were perfect, but who were as ignorant as it was possible for any set of men in the world to be of everything connected with the management of the rural districts and small towns of England. Upon the something like 20 different subjects which would be placed under their control they would have daily appeals from all parts of the country, and would have to give daily decisions, and if there were any men more incompetent to deal with these questions or more ignorant of all that related to them, he should be glad to learn where they were to be found. If they were to take a dozen magistrates from different parts of the country and add to them persons chosen by the ratepayers—selected probably from that useful but much abused class called "busy bodies," men who devoted themselves to the public service—they would probably secure just decisions in the cases brought under the attention of such a body, but such a result was impossible under the proposed system. As for the Parliamentary position of the Board, that stood for nothing. As long as they fell in with the prejudices of a certain clique they were regarded as very good fellows; but directly they placed themselves in opposition to that clique, even Presidents of the Board found themselves stopped and thwarted in every way. One of the chief gentlemen connected with the permanent staff said to him some time since—"For many years we have had nothing to do. We are a very large and powerful Board, and we are a very expensive Board. We have the power of managing, no doubt, the whole of the local government in England. The object of the Board must be to get that into our hands by degrees." He smiled when he heard that statement; but when he smiled he did not think there could ever be a Minister base enough to propose it, or a Parliament base enough to accept it. They could see the effects of centralization in France, where, whether the Government was an Empire, a Monarchy, a Conservative Republic, or a Democratic Republic, the rural communities were merely slaves and were loudly crying out for decentralization. It was, therefore, wonderful to find the most Democratic Parliament since the Long Parliament willing to throw away our liberties, and to put the people of this country, step by step, little Bill by little Bill, under the control of a set of men as ignorant upon those matters as it was possible to conceive. He was not fond of addressing the House. He never did so if he could avoid it, and he never did so unless there was something which he felt ought to be said and there was no one willing to say it. He believed that when the Commission first sat there was a difference of opinion, but the centralizers got the day. He thought he could distinguish the interposition of Mr. E. Chadwick in the appearance of this measure. In 1835 letters were sent to all the counties inquiring into the state of the rural population, and the result was to show that they were "better housed, better clothed, and better fed" than in any other part of Europe, except Norway. Since that time the whole of the country had considerably ameliorated. Seven hundred towns had voluntarily undertaken the work of draining themselves, and whereas in 1835 no one ever heard of a nuisance because no one ever devoted any attention to the subject, now no nuisance was ever detected without an outcry against it being raised at once. He hoped Parliament would concur with him in letting the Bill stand till next Session. He did not see any great necessity for it, as he believed that this country was the best drained and best cleansed of any. What still remained to be done would be done without the great social revolution which the Bill intended to bring about. Sanitary reform was at the present time in a tentative condition, and he counselled Parliament not to force upon the nation untried systems. Some engineer would come forward somewhere with plans, which would be taken up in other places, and ultimately tried all over the country at monstrous expense. They would remember when the telescopic back drainage was tried how all the mains broke up, and there was produced such a fever in Croydon as had never been heard of in England, and all that was the doing of an old Board of Health. The old Board had compelled the towns to empty their cesspools into the rivers; but residents on the banks of those rivers complained of the nuisance, and applied to the Court of Chancery. The Court, refusing the plea that the Department required it, ordered the practice to be discontinued. Birmingham had turned its sewage into a river which ran through the property of the President of the Royal Commission which considered the subject (Sir Charles Adderley), and the right hon. Gentleman sued the town authorities in Chancery in consequence. It would be much better if Parliament let the right hon. Gentleman fight the matter out in Chancery rather than precipitate a decision. He held that this Parliament had no right to pass this Bill after voting for the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes). The people of England had consented to pay large charges which in other countries were paid by the Government, on condition of their being allowed to manage the expenditure themselves. If Parliament took the management from them and put it in the hands of a general Board, they were bound, out of the general resources of the country, to find these charges, and not inflict them on that small portion of the community which was already too much overburdened. They all remembered the failure of the old Board of Health, which was broken up amidst a howl of disapprobation. That Board was followed by an exceedingly good Bill—the Local Government Bill—the object of which was to help and not to force towns to drain themselves. Under the operation of that Bill a great many towns came every year. If the present measure were passed, it would be received with a general cry of disapprobation throughout the whole country. An engineer had stated that £70,000,000 would be wanted during the first 10 years, and as that was to be borrowed or raised by taxation, he could not conceive what the ratepayers would say to it. He opposed the Bill because he refused to hear the brunt of being called one of a Parliament which had allowed it to pass without a word being said against it, or without a division being taken upon it. He therefore moved that it be taken into considera-this day month.

MR. GREGORY

expressed his regret that the Government pressed forward the Bill. The House had before it a Licensing Bill—a measure of great importance, and one which was received with more general acceptance. Yet that measure was set aside, and precedence was given to the present Bill, which referred to Acts of Parliament containing, he believed, not fewer than 500 clauses; and the local bodies which were to be constituted under that Bill were to take cognizance of all these 500 clauses. The result of this would be a mass of confused interpretation. All the local bodies could do would be to refer to the central authority for advice, and if they did that the law which was to be administered would not be the law of Parliament, but that of the Central Board. The Bill began at the wrong end, as it was the duty of Government, before constituting these Boards, to give them a code of laws which they could properly administer. The Bill, if passed, would be utterly unworkable. He begged to second the Motion.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Mr. Knight.)

MR. CORRANCE

, in supporting the Motion, said, he had not hitherto shown himself as an opponent of the Bill, but he regretted to be obliged now to appear in that character. He had looked forward to this Bill with the most sanguine expectations when it was introduced in March last. It had, however, been stripped of 42 or 43 clauses. In its first shape, though the Bill was certainly stiff, formal, and pedantic, its dry bones would have been clothed with life; but nothing could be made of it as it now stood. As far as the ratepayers were concerned it would involve almost un-paralelled sacrifices. The Education Act with a tax of 1s. in the pound was a bagatelle to it. Under proper conditions, however, he would be the last man to refuse to make these sacrifices. One of the conditions was that the burden should be made a national burden. The power of borrowing money conferred by the Bill raised very grave questions, for if the borrowing area was too small its credit would be small also, and the rate of interest would be high; but in addition to that, the borrowing of money from Government would make the small area utterly subservient. Another condition on which he insisted was entire independence of administration. Small areas were incapable of independence, and it would just come to this—that the money would be raised by the small areas and spent by Her Majesty's Government. The great reason for advocating the erection of a central administration was the patronage it would have to bestow. Was this the policy of the Liberal party? He had been trained as a Member of the Liberal party, and could say that it was not the policy that once prevailed in it. Such central administration it had utterly and always repudiated. The Liberal party seemed to be like Saturn, and were in the act now-adays of devouring their own children. He had made propositions to them which they would find in their own bureau, but these had been rejected, and were all down their own throats. He could not help observing that the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this Bill described it as provisional; and it seemed to him (Mr. Corrance) that it was very objectionable to have any provisional arrangement, because one part of the Bill clearly was not provisional, and that was that which gave power to the central administration. The appointment of officers was to be provisional—that was, for not more than five years; but would any efficient officer accept such a provisional appointment? The areas were also to be provisional, and next year they were promised an amalgamation which would make the areas larger. What the Government now wanted to hurry through Parliament at the blundering end of the Session was a provisional measure, whilst the power given to the central authority would not be provisional. He, however, would scarcely recommend his hon. Friend to divide the House, because he could not hope for a large amount of support at this period of the Session, and the numbers upon the division might be misconstrued out-of-doors.

MR. HURST

said, he would support the Amendment because the Bill would take from the guardians almost entirely the power of managing their own affairs, and would stir up perpetual disaffection between the governed and the governing.

MR. NEWDEGATE

Sir, I remember the time when the Radical party, whose successors sit below the Ministerial gangway, considered the protection and defence of local self-government as a sacred part of their functions. But their successors of the present day seem to have totally abandoned that function. And it is remarkable, so intent has this House of Commons been upon carrying revolutionary measures affecting its own constitution, that it has not spared itself time to consider measures of the kind now before us, which, going beyond political revolution, bids fair to become the commencement of a social revolution in this country. These are wide considerations, which hon. Members seem to think should devolve upon Her Majesty's Government and certain right hon. Members of the House, but with which they themselves have no concern. On both sides of the House hon. Members seem content to come down when they are sent for, and to vote as they are told. I never knew a House in which there was less evidence of intellectual individuality. We are asked to pass this Bill, proposed as it is by Her Majesty's Government, and supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Without this aid I do not believe that this Bill could pass. This House finds itself compromised by an official coalition for the purpose of breaking up the whole local administration of the country as established for sanitary purposes. I, nevertheless, will not consent to let this Bill pass without opposition. Now, what has been the history of those matters? I remember, and can attest the truth of all that has been stated by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) with respect to the action of the late Board of Health. I may mention that which need now be no secret, that the late Lord Derby asked me to accept the Presidency of that Board, and I refused, because I was convinced that that Department could not be continued without entailing the necessity for the centralizing action which is manifest in this Bill, I have, therefore, some right to speak upon this subject. Let the House consider what is the character of this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley) introduced an elaborate measure on this subject, and it had this merit—that it attempted to establish local government by law, but it was so complicated that, under the circumstances of this Session, there was no chance of its passing. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board then took up the question; and what does his Bill contain? It contains provisions for breaking up all local administration, and settles nothing to replace the existing system, but the establishment of an indefinite power in the hands of the Local Government Board. Literally, it settles nothing else. Upon that Board, however, this Bill would confer power to break up every local sanitary administration in the country, and to change the limits of jurisdiction, and to alter the personal administration. It gives an unlimited power of borrowing to the authorities it would create within the areas which the central authority may establish, and corresponding with that unlimited power of borrowing for the multifarious purposes recited in the last clause of the Bill, it gives an unlimited power of taxation. In truth, the principle of this measure is to convert taxation by rating—that is, local taxation into public taxation—ignoring this difference—that whereas local rating is levied by an authority responsible to the inhabitants of the locality for the amount it levies, this rating under this Bill will practically be assessed by a central authority, which is in no way responsible to the inhabitants of the locality upon which this taxation will hereafter be imposed. I say, therefore, that this Bill, in this respect, is unconstitutional in principle. Then, Sir, look at the other provisions of this Bill. This House is asked to delegate an unknown amount of legislative power to a Central Board. In one clause of the Bill—the clause which repeals—there is power to repeal all local Acts, and inasmuch as there is no provision in the Bill for compelling the central authority to appeal again to Parliament for authority in repealing those Acts, this Bill is thoroughly unconstitutional. I would further observe with regard to the matter of expense, there is power in this Bill to provide for the displacement of any number of the officers who are employed under the present local authorities. There is power, also—and that an unlimited power—to grant compensation to the officers so displaced. Sir, I must say that after considering the provisions of this Bill, it appears to me one of the most surprising measures that I ever knew submitted to the House of Commons; and yet, Sir, so over-borne by the length of its labours is this House of Commons, that the Bill is likely to pass without discussion. Her Majesty's Government are prudent in remaining silent on this subject. No explanation they could be expected willingly to give would, if it were to convey a true description of this Bill, commend it to the country. But the Government know that they are supported by the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to be the Leader of a great number of county Members. Thus they are confident, although it has been avowed that the chief weight of this additional taxation is to fall upon the rural districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), being aware of that, is prudently silent. Reference has been made to the Resolution which the House adopted at the instance of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes). Sir, I voted for that Resolution, though I did so with some misgivings. I should not have voted if it had not been specified that by virtue of that Resolution only certain local charges were to be relieved by funds provided out of the general taxation of the country; because I knew that relief would certainly be followed by measures transferring the jurisdiction over all these local objects of administration to which public revenue is applied to the central government. Had I known the consequence of passing that Resolution—had I understood the kind of revenge which was to be taken in retaliation for the passing of that Resolution would be the passing of such a measure as this—I would have voted against that Resolution. The result of that Resolution, as embodied in this Bill, shows that supporting that Resolution was a most imprudent step on the part of the county Members in this House; for the consequence which it has entailed upon them is that the Government, aided by the Leader of the Opposition, brings in a measure which will break up all the local administration connected with the various purposes which may be termed "sanitary." These form so large a part of local administration that it may be said without exaggeration that this Bill will break up the system of local government, and substitute for it a system of centralization, of which we may hereafter have great difficulty in getting rid. But get rid, sooner or later, I trust we shall. Inasmuch, however, as I see nothing to ensue from this Bill but future contentions—such as were entailed by the operations of the late Board of Health—I shall vote against the Bill as a measure unworthy of the House of Commons. No doubt there are inducements which have operated upon the Government, in the prospect of increased patronage and relief from the labour of framing a more complete measure. The Government complain that they are overtaxed by business. I must confess that I am ashamed that Members of this House are perpetually urging the Government to take up measure after measure, which they might themselves introduce and ought to be able to carry. I cannot help feeling that hon. Members who do this are virtually abandoning their own functions. As I have said, I hear the complaint that the Government are overtaxed with work. I do not doubt that they are overtaxed; but the permanent officials are not overtaxed with work, and it is a mistake to suppose that the labour entailed by the system of centralized administration, which this Bill would establish, will fall upon the responsible Ministers of the Crown. The real framers, the real administrators of this centralized system, will be the permanent officials—men who are totally irresponsible to this House; and if it be said that these officials are represented in this House by some Minister, like the President of the Local Government Board, as it is called, it must be remembered that the functions of the right hon. Gentleman are so multifarious that, if complaint is made against him in some particular, or even in a number of particulars, he immediately pleads his services in a thousand different capacities, and his responsibility virtually goes for nothing. The view, therefore, that I take of this measure is, that it is objectionable, because I can see no reason for breaking up the whole system of local sanitary administration in one Session on the faith of a vague promise. Some other form of that administration will be established in the next Session. It seems to me that legislation is not worthy of the name if, when it does break up institutions—supposing there is a necessity for revolutionizing the institutions of the country—it does not at least substitute some definite form of government by law, instead of transferring, as this Bill does wholesale, powers of administration, powers of taxation, powers of interference with the domestic habits, and with the freedom of the people of this country to a central authority. I, for one, will not vote for the transfer of such powers wholesale to a central authority which has not proved its capacity or its worthiness for the charge, by even indicating in detail the measures of constructive legislation which it is prepared to propose.

MR. STANSFELD

wished to make a very few remarks in reply to the objections which had been raised to this Bill. He cordially agreed in one remark made by the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) that he hoped the result of this discussion would be that the Bill would be better understood. The hon. Member who opened the debate (Mr. Knight) signalized himself by not making a single correct reference to the clauses of the Bill, and by stating as inaccurately as it was possible for the ingenuity of man the object of those clauses. The infection seemed to have been caught by those who succeeded him. The hon. and learned Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) said that the law was in such a state of confusion that it was very difficult for the existing sanitary authorities to understand it, but that it would be perfectly impossible to understand the present measure; but he ought to have known that under the existing law the Board of Guardians were already the nuisance authorities, and all the Bill did, so far as the rural sanitary authorities were concerned, was to take from the parishes which were not organized bodies capable of understanding or directing administration the administration of sewage utilization, and adding that to the functions already exercised by Boards of Guardians. But the greatest misrepresentation—entirely unconscious misrepresentation, he was sure—was that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). He could not conceive it possible that the hon. Member could have taken the trouble to look at the Bill. He said the Bill completely destroyed local self-government in the country. Now, this was a matter of fact to be ascertained by looking at the clauses themselves. The Bill parcelled out among certain local sanitary authorities the powers and duties under certain existing Acts. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Which might be repealed.] He (Mr. Stansfeld) was dealing with the statement that the Bill would destroy local government, and he was answering it. What were those local authorities? The Bill created urban sanitary authorities. The first urban sanitary authority was the town council in boroughs. Was that breaking up local self-government? The second urban authority was Improvement Commissioners. The Bill recognized and confirmed them all. Was that undermining the principle of local self-government? And as to the rural authorities, the Bill only took the functions from the parishes which they were unable to fulfil and conferred them on the Board of Guardians, who were already a local sanitary authority. The hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) talked of the enormous centralizing powers taken by the Bill, and the new charges which would be created by it. The hon. Member had no right to mislead the House. No new centralizing power was taken by the Bill. The only new power taken was a power to require local sanitary authorities to appoint local medical officers of health. That was the only new power, save that to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had referred—the power of enlarging and uniting districts for certain sanitary purposes. There was no division of opinion, no doubt, in the mind of anyone as to the necessity of a provision of that kind. And the hon. Member entirely forgot or ignored the fact that that power was to be exercised by provisional orders, which meant legislation under conditions and provisions conceived and calculated to secure the most careful consideration of the local interests which might be affected by it. The hon. Member had talked of an indefinite increase of borrowing power conferred by this Bill, but no such borrowing power was conferred, it was given under already existing legislation; but there was in this Bill a power to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend to the sanitary authorities money at an immensely reduced rate of interest. With regard to increased charges to be thrown on the country, he repeated the opinion he had formerly given—he utterly disbelieved that this Bill in its operation would throw any considerable increase of rate or charge on the country. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) repeatedly acknowledged that the heaviest local charges were for waterworks and sewerage. He hoped the powers of supervision under this Bill would lead to expenditure of a moderate character, and that by improving the sanitary administration of the country would add to the prosperity and wealth of the community.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 168; Noes 16: Majority 152.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. STANSFELD

moved after Clause 45, to insert the following clause:—(Securities under certain Provisional Orders to be valid). After Clause 50, insert the following clause:—(Penalty on breach of rules made under s. 52 of 29 and 30 Vict. c. 90.) Clauses agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

moved after Clause 40, to insert the following clause:— (Repayment of borrowed moneys.) Where a sanitary authority has either under the borrowing powers of the Sanitary Act or any Local Act already borrowed moneys for the purpose of paying for the land, works, or other property mentioned in the foregoing section on the credit of its rates repayable by annual instalments, such authority may, with and out of the moneys to be borrowed under said section thirty-eight, pay off so much of the amount already borrowed as is equal to three-quarters of the purchase money paid, and thereupon any mortgage of the rates already executed shall be re-adjusted so as to make the remainder of the moneys due thereon, if any, and the yearly interest thereof, payable during the residue of the term for which the whole was originally borrowed. The hon. Member observed that money under this clause could be borrowed at 3½ per cent; and if sanitary authorities were allowed to pay off their existing debts by the money so borrowed, they would effect a saving in many cases of hundreds a-year.

Clause brought up, and read a first and second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

MR. STANSFELD

said, his hon. Friend would learn with satisfaction that his only objection to the clause was that it was unnecessary, as the object in view would be carried out by an Amendment which he should propose to Clause 41.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 (Description of urban sanitary districts and urban sanitary authorities).

MR. DIMSDALE

moved, in page 2, line 15, before "Provided," insert— And any parish which is not included in any borough, election improvement Act district, or local government district at the passing of this Act, or so much of any parish as is not so included, shall, if it contains according to the last census a population exceeding three thousand, be a local government district under a local board. The hon. Gentleman remarked that his Amendment was based on a recommendation of the Sanitary Commission.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY

pointed out that the recommendation of the Commissioners was qualified in the following manner:—They recommended that where a parish had a certain population of which a considerable portion was evidently urban, every facility should be given to such a parish to become a local government district. His hon. Friend's Amendment, however, contained no such qualification, and he objected to it because there were many rural districts which had a sparse population of 3,000, and which ought not to have urban responsibilities thrust upon them.

MR. HIBBERT

said, there would be the greatest difficulty in carrying the hon. Member's proposition into effect, because parishes of 3,000 inhabitants varied so much in extent. To meet the difficulty complained of, the powers in the Bill for forming local districts were as wide as possible. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

MR. DIMSDALE

said, that under the circumstances he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

moved an Amendment to Clause 4, the effect of which would be to remove the University and the colleges out of the exception to the clause, and to vest the sanitary authority in the Town Council, instead of in the Improvement Commissioners. There were many reasons why it was desirable to adopt the course he proposed, the principal of which was that under the Bill as it stood the University would have to bear an excessive and undue amount of taxation as compared with the property in the borough. Another reason was that the borough had had added to it the rural district of Chesterton, over which the Improvement Commissioners had no jurisdiction, but which certainly ought to be included in any sanitary scheme affecting the borough.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out the word "Cambridge."—(Mr. Spencer Walpole.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Cambridge' stand part of the Bill."

An Amendment made.

SIR ROBERT TORRENS

said, that the object the right hon. Gentleman opposite had in view was in reality to reduce the contribution paid by the University and colleges to the rates to very nearly half of what it was at present. The colleges and the town of Cambridge were so mixed up together that it was absolutely impossible to drain or light the one without draining or lighting the other, and they were, therefore, obliged to place these matters under the supervision of a Board elected by and representing both interests. Negotiations had been pending between the town and the University, but the offers made by the former, which were eminently fair, had for the present been rejected under the pretence that no decision could be satisfactorily arrived at before it was known what this Bill would provide. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill had stated that it was one of the leading principles of the Government, in passing this Bill, to disturb as little as they could help the existing local arrangements of the country. The existing arrangements at Cambridge were equitable and serviceable, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the Bill in its present shape, and not accede to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he could not go into the details of all the objections which had been urged, but he thought that he should be able to throw out some suggestions which would meet the difficulty with respect to Cambridge. He thought the best way of meeting the difficulty would be not to omit that town from the exception, because that would make the Town Council the sanitary authority, which would not be desirable, but to add these words at the end of the clause— The Cambridge Commissioners, described in section 31 of the Public Health Act of 1848, shall not exercise any fresh powers of rating or borrowing conferred upon them by this act until the expiration of one year after the passing thereof, unless the assent of the University be first specified in writing, under the hand of the Vice Chancellor. The effect of that would be to give a year for the negotiations which were now going on between the local authorities and the town to bear fruit.

SIR ROBERT TORRENS

wished that the permission of the Town Council of Cambridge should be necessary also.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession, and accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for the borough.

Amendment (Mr. Spencer Walpole), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Stansfeld) agreed to.

MR. WILLIAMS WYNN

moved the insertion of Welshpool among the list of excepted boroughs. The union of Welshpool was an enormous one, while the area of the town was very small, and he protested against such an enormous union being rated for the sanitary works required for so small an area. On that ground he wished to see the name of Welshpool included in the list of exemptions.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 43, after the words "Much Wenlock," to insert the word "Welshpool"—(Mr. Williams Wynn.)

MR. HANBURY-TRACY

opposed the Amendment. The union of Welshpool contained 70 square miles, while the local district of the town contained only 1,800 acres, and it was argued that the whole of the union would he liable to be rated for any sewage works which might be required for the local district. But the case of Welshpool was met by the provisions of a subsequent clause in the Bill, which empowered the local authority to rate a part instead of the whole of the district.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he thought that the difficulty would be better met by the way in which the district was treated by the Government, who had introduced words into the 16th clause which would meet the justice of the case. He therefore could not assent to the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'Welshpool' be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 63: Majority 43.

MR. PELL

moved the insertion after the word "Wight" of these words, "and in all boroughs with a population not exceeding 3,000." Great expense would be occasioned to these small boroughs by appointing a medical officer and an inspector, which would be quite unnecessary if they were thrown into the surrounding districts.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 43, after the word "Wight," to insert the words "and all boroughs with a population not exceeding 3,000."—(Mr. Pell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. F. S. POWELL

hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment, which, if adopted, would cause disturbance and inconvenience.

MR. STANSFELD

observed that there were only four boroughs not being under Local Boards or Improvement Commissioners which would come within the scope of the Amendment. It was scarcely worth while to exempt them from the operation of the clause.

MR. CORRANCE

asked why the boroughs were not scheduled?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

moved the insertion of the word "rural," as otherwise the clause would be looked on as a somewhat vexatious interference with the regulations of Town Councils and Improvement Commissioners.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 37, before the word "sanitary," to insert the word "rural."—(Mr. Henry Samuelson.)

MR. STANSFELD

thought the Amendment would be unnecessary.

Question, "That the word 'rural' be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Clause 9 (Transfer of property to sanitary authority and effects of transfer of property and powers).

MR. HIBBERT

moved to insert the words "by the authority whose powers, rights, duties, liabilities, capacities, and obligations, are so transferred."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 (Repeal of Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1868, sect. 4).

MR. F. S. POWELL

moved in page 6, line 5, to add at the end the following words:— And all powers and duties conferred and imposed on officers of health under the said Act shall be exercised and performed by the medical officers of health from time to time appointed under the Sanitary Acts or this Act or any Local Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 (Appointment of committees by rural sanitary authority).

MR. CORRANCE

moved an Amendment in line 32. The clause proposed that any rural sanitary authority might delegate its powers to a committee, one-third of which must be ex-officio guardians; but if the third could not be made up from ex-officio guardians, it was to be made up from "elected guardians." The Amendment proposed that it should be made up from "owners of property."

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 32, to leave out the words "elected guardians," and insert the words "owners of rateable property subject to provisions and qualifications of 'Public Health Act, 1848,' sections twelve, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen."—(Mr. Corrance.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'elected guardians' stand part of the Bill."

MR. STANSFELD

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it raised a larger question than they could possibly discuss that night. He was in favour of the representation of owners of property on local boards, and he looked forward with great hope and interest to arrangements being made which might have the effect of inducing them to take a greater part than they had hitherto taken in local government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 (Expenses of urban sanitary authority).

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

moved in page 8, line 4, after "shall," to insert the following words—"be in every respect defrayed in the same manner as." He said that in the case of a borough in which he was interested, the occupiers of some 2,000 acres of land expressed extreme dissatisfaction at having to pay the whole rate, while another parish would have to pay only one-fourth of the rate. It might be asked why not put the Local Government Act in force in the borough, and then they would have to pay only one-fourth of the rate? The answer was that the landowners being in a minority were not able to do it. Petitions had been presented to the House, and he had formed one of a deputation to the Local Government Board on the subject, but without effect. It might be said that in large towns it would not do to make an exemption of land. In small boroughs, however, where land was held entirely for agricultural purposes, it would be only reasonable that there should be an exemption such as he sought for. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the case of these boroughs would be considered. If such an assurance were not given, he proposed to divide the House on his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 4, after the word "shall," to insert the words "be in every respect defrayed in the same manner as."—(Colonel Brise.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. STANSFELD

regretted to say he could not agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. The principle on which this Bill had been drawn was that with respect to rating it should do nothing that would alter the present incidence of rating. Wherever the Local Government Acts were in force in a district the rating would be under those Acts; where they were not in force the charges devolved upon the Town Council of the borough, as sanitary authority, and were payable out of the borough fund or rate; wherever there were Improvement Commissioners the expenses would be paid out of the Commissioners' rate, and wherever any other sanitary authority had power to levy any rate for sanitary purposes that power would be continued. This Bill was not a rating Bill, nor was it meant to provide for special grievances which a minority of inhabitants in a district felt, which was the object of the Amendment.

MR. PELL

understood the object of the Amendment to be to allow certain districts or classes of property to receive the benefit of certain exemptions from taxation which had been granted them under existing Acts, and which, if the Bill passed, they would no longer have. [Mr. STANSFELD: No, no.] Notwithstanding that cry of "No, no," he understood that the clause would deprive the landowners of certain exemptions they at present enjoyed under the existing Acts.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the Amendment would give an exemption to all boroughs, whether they adopted the Local Government Act or not.

MR. F. S. POWELL

asked, if in future districts exemptions would be in accordance with the Local Government Act?

MR. STANSFELD

Yes.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 63: Majority 40.

Clause 18 (Mode of raising contributions in rural sanitary districts).

MR. STANSFELD

moved in page 10, line 36, after parish, insert— And such increase of rate shall be raised in such contributory place or part of a contributory place by an addition to the poor rate, or by a separate rate to be assessed, made, allowed, published, collected, and levied, in the same manner as a poor rate. The officers ordinarily employed in the collection of the poor rate shall, if required by the overseers, collect any separate rate made under this section, and receive such remuneration for the additional duty as the overseers with the consent of the vestry may determine.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 (Governing body of united district).

MR. STANSFELD

moved in page 16, line 10, after "it" to insert— Provided that nothing in this section shall exempt any member of a joint board from liability to be surcharged with the amount of any payment which may be disallowed by the auditor in the accounts of such joint board, and which such member authorised or joined in authorising.

Amendment agreed to.

Repeal of Acts.

Clause 33 (Repeal of Local Acts).

MR. STANSFELD

moved in page 18, line 13, after "Acts," to insert "other than Acts for the conservancy of rivers."

MR. DIMSDALE

objected to the Amendment. The Bill as originally framed would have qualified the stringency of the Lea Conservancy Acts—first, by fixing a standard of purity; and, secondly, by enabling the Local Government Board to alter or set aside those Acts. The former proposal, however, had been withdrawn, in deference, he presumed, to threatened opposition from residents in northern towns, and the Amendment would deprive the Lea district of the advantage they had anticipated from the latter. He preferred the Bill as it stood to the Amendment.

MR. COWPER

also regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to propose this Amendment.

MR. STANSFELD

explained that the Amendment was introduced in order to remedy an inconvenience that would result from the clause as it stood at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35 (Transfer of powers and duties under Alkali Act, 1863, and Metropolis Water Acts, to Local Government Board).

MR. STANSFELD

said, that the clause transferred from the Board of Trade to the Local Government Board the powers created by the Alkali Acts and by the Metropolis Water Acts of 1852 and 1871; but it would tend to the mutual convenience of the Boards that the transfer should not at once take place. He therefore proposed to amend the clause by saying that the transfer of these powers might be effected by Order in Council at any time prior to the 1st January, 1873; and in the event of there being no such transfer that the transfer of the powers should take place on that date.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

did not agree in the propriety of effecting the transfer by an Order in Council.

MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE

thought that this would be the most convenient way of doing it; and it was desirable that some delay should take place, because the Board of Trade was now engaged in a very important inquiry in reference to obtaining for London a constant water supply. He quite approved of the transfer of the powers in question to the Local Government Board, and he might add that a process was going on by which the powers of the various Boards should be placed upon a more logical foundation than that which they had heretofore occupied. He warned his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld), however, that a great deal more would be expected of him than he would have power to effect under the existing powers in reference to the water supply. He hoped that one day the supply of water would cease to be solely in the hands of the trading companies, whose principal object was to make a profit for their shareholders, and that it would be placed under some local authority.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his concluding remarks, and said that the Local Government Board would soon find that it was quite necessary that within a short time the existing Acts in reference to the supply of water to London should be replaced by new legislation, because the powers conferred by them were quite insufficient. He feared, however, lest the Amendment now proposed should practically tie up the hands of the Government, and prevent them from introducing any adequate measure during the whole of next Session. The Bill of 1871 was a Hybrid Bill, and notices had to be given in October, 1870. This course would have to be repeated for any future Bill dealing with the Water Companies' property. He hoped that the transfer of the powers from the Board of Trade to the Local Government Board would take place before October next.

MR. F. S. POWELL

regretted that the powers conferred by the Alkali Acts were not to be transferred at once.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he hoped the attention of the Government would be directed at the earliest possible moment next Session to the subject of the water supply of London. He had been under the impression that the Act of last year was an operative one, and that he might obtain a constant supply; but after he had gone to considerable expense with this view, his agent was laughed at by the water company when asking for a constant supply. He was glad that the powers conferred on the Board of Trade were to be transferred to the Local Government Board.

MR. CAWLEY

approved of the suggested Amendment, but he believed that great alterations would be required before the powers in question were brought into operation. No single individual could obtain a constant supply till such supply was generally asked for; and Gentlemen must be contented to submit to some difficulty till they could bring their fellows to express a desire in that direction. A constant supply and the present fittings were incompatible. There was no reason for fixing the date of the operation of the Act at the 1st of October.

MR. LOCKE

said, it had been remarked that if an inhabitant could not obtain a constant supply it was his own fault, and that he could not obtain it without the general consent of his neighbours. It had been suggested that the transfer of the powers of the Board of Trade to other Departments would not be sufficient without some further legislation on the subject.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36 (Transfer of the powers and duties of Secretary of State under Highway and Turnpike Acts to Local Government Board).

MR. KNIGHT

said, the present management of the roads was very good, and he doubted whether any benefit would arise from a change from King Log to King Stork, but this would be the result of the clause. He supposed that there would be 30 or 40 Inspectors appointed. In fact it was usual, when a Government was going out of office, to appoint a number of Commissioners. There would be Inspectors and auditors sent about the country, and this would be offensive. But all this had nothing whatever to do with the public health. He moved that this clause be omitted.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 36.—(Mr. Knight.)

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought it rather a gratuitous interference to transfer the Highways and Turnpike Trusts to the Local Government Board.

MR. HIBBERT

said, it had been decided that highways and turnpikes should be transferred to the Local Government Board in all Local Board districts. Great difficulties existed with regard to the highways and turnpikes.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 42 (Repeal of s. 151 of Public Health Act, 1848).

MR. STANSFELD

stated that by inadvertence the Resolution as to expenses on which this clause was founded had been expressed in terms insufficient to cover the object. It would, therefore, be necessary to omit the clause, and immediately after the Report to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of re-inserting the clause founded on a Resolution which had been agreed to by the whole House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 42.—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he must divide the House against the clause unless a proviso were added that Oxford and other places having the exemption which the clause was intended to repeal should continue to enjoy it as heretofore.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the clause had been carried on a division by a considerable majority, and it was not just to accuse him of adopting an unfair course with respect to it.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

asked Mr. Speaker, whether it would be in order to move the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose of inserting a clause which the House had struck out?

MR. SPEAKER

It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to move the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose which he has stated. When the Bill has been re-committed the hon. and learned Gentleman will have the opportunity of moving his Amendments.

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

Clause 44 (Public Works Loan Commissioners may lend to sanitary authority on security of rates).

MR. RATHBONE

moved an Amendment, with a view to enabling local authorities acting under local Acts to obtain loans in the same manner as if they acted under sanitary Acts.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 8, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "or by any local Acts which confer borrowing powers for the same purposes for which the said powers are conferred by the Sanitary Acts, provided that the works in respect of which the said powers are conferred shall not have been undertaken at the time of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Rathbone.)

MR. STANSFELD

explained that under Clause 33 the Local Government Board would have power by provisional order to give local authorities the advantage desired.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

MR. GOLDSMID

moved, in page 22, line 10, to leave out "not less than." He thought the Public Works Loan Commissioners should be at liberty to make advances at less than 3½ per cent if they were in a position to do so. On a former occasion, he cited the Scotch Education. Bill, which fixed the rate of loans for the erection of schools at 3½ per cent, in support of this view, but the First Lord of the Treasury told him the precedent of the English Education Act was against him. On referring, however, to that Act he found that it agreed with the Scotch Bill. He had ascertained, moreover, that in many cases the Commissioners had made loans at 3¼ per cent.

MR. GLADSTONE

wished to set himself right with the House in this matter. His hon. Friend was quite correct in stating that the Scotch Education Bill agreed with the English Education Act, and in questioning this on a former occasion he acted on misinformation, proceeding from a source from which he had reason to expect accuracy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, was not prepared to assume the responsibility for clauses in existing Acts with regard to interest for loans, and he himself had been astonished at finding that they contained such provisions. It might sometimes happen that money clauses got inserted in Bills without the knowledge of the Treasury. It was a matter of regret to him that clauses involving the lending of money at the rate of 3½ per cent should ever be allowed to get into a Bill, subject, however, to one important reservation—namely, that in cases where the loans were to be made at a particular time then it was not unreasonable that there should be such a provision, because they could judge of the condition of the money market at a particular time. That was no doubt the case in regard to the Education Acts, where the expenditure was to be incurred within a very short time. But what was now proposed was, when they were passing an enactment without any limit of time to authorize the borrowing of money, that they should insert one fixed rate of interest which could not possibly be applicable except in a given state of the money market.

Words struck out.

Clause 48 (Audit of accounts).

MR. PELL

proposed, after "any" to insert "and shall be audited in such manner." The effect of his Amendment was to provide that the accounts of urban sanitary authorities should undergo a sufficient and proper audit as well as the accounts of rural sanitary authorities.

Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 29, after the word "year," to insert the words "and shall be audited in such manner."—(Mr. Pell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. STANSFELD

opposed the Amendment, but hoped that the time might come when a more uniform and satisfactory plan might be adopted.

SIR MASSEY LOPES

pressed upon the Government the necessity of securing uniformity in this respect.

MR. RYLANDS

hoped the Government would maintain the position which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had taken.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 112: Majority 58.

MR. HIBBERT

moved that the Bill be re-committed, with the view of inserting a clause to repeal the exemption clause with reference to stamps on deeds and conveyances, which was omitted in the previous Act.

MR VERNON HARCOURT

expressed his opposition to such a course. They were told that this proceeding was to be taken on the ground of the sacred principle of non-exemption. This was one of those cheese-paring, irritating things which saved very little money and gave very grievous offence. It was one of the flies in the pot of ointment which caused it to stink. Though the Government were economical in small affairs, when they had a matter before them involving the expenditure of £3,500,000 they were not so particular for a clause of exemption from stamps were to be inserted. Now that they had got rid of Clause 42, he appealed to his right hon. Friend to let the Bill remain as it was, and not ask the House to recommit the Bill.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he hoped the House would not be deceived by the lawyer-like arguments of his hon. and learned Friend who had urged that because the Army Localization Bill contained an exemption, a similar clause ought also to be introduced into the present measure. It required, however, no knowledge of the law, but only common sense to detect the fallacy of such an argument, because the exemption in the latter case was merely an enactment that the Imperial Government should not pay stamp duty to itself. With regard to the present Bill, the Government proposed not to continue an exemption which was partial and unjust. Under the law which it was now proposed to modify, Town Councils were not exempted from the payment of stamp duties, but only local Boards, and this was in itself an injustice to those urban districts whose interests his hon. and learned Friend seemed so anxious to promote. If his hon. and learned Friend's proposal were adopted, every local Board in the country would be exempted from the payment of stamp duties on documents, and all individuals who were also parties to the deeds would enjoy the same exemptions, whereas Boards of Guardians would have to pay for a stamp on every document.

Bill re-committed in respect of a Clause (Repeal of section 151 of Public Health Act 1848); considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.