HC Deb 19 March 1872 vol 210 cc318-23

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. LEEMAN,

in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the present measure was substantially the same as the Bill introduced last Session, and then referred to a Select Committee. He understood there was a desire that the clauses of the present measures should undergo consideration in the same way, and he had not the slightest objection to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The object of the measure was to enable corporate bodies to promote or oppose Bills to Parliament affecting the locality, paying the expenses out of the corporate funds.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Leeman.)

MR. CAWLEY

said, he did not oppose the second reading; but he believed the mischief arising from the present system was of the minutest character indeed. He knew of no case in which any municipality had experienced any difficulty whatever. The Bill, however, involved some most important principles; and, if it was to be passed at all, it must be passed after full consideration in Committee—especially as to Clause 5, which was a retrospective one. Proper precautions ought to be taken against lavish expenditure, and the retrospective clause, empowering the Home Secretary to sanction the repayment of costs illegally incurred in years gone by, ought not to be agreed to except on the strongest evidence, and with a knowledge of the cases to which it would apply. Were it applied to Sheffield, it would be a reversal of the decision of a Committee on a private Bill introduced this Session and rejected.

VISCOUNT MAHON

said, he was glad that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Leeman) had accepted his proposal of referring this Bill to a Select Committee. The Bill involved such immense changes in the powers of municipal corporations, that he had felt it his duty to place the Motion on the Paper that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It was true that the Bill of last year was referred to a Select Committee; but it sat two days, and examined no witnesses. He thought that the interests of the ratepayers required to be protected against the interests of the corporation. In small boroughs the corporations were composed of persons who were sometimes not totally above a little jobbery, and who might be unwisely lavish in expending the ratepayers' money in promoting or opposing Bills. There was another point. He thought the ratepayers might reasonably feel aggrieved by the 2nd clause of the Bill, because by its provisions any measure might be promoted or retarded by an absolute majority of the governing body. That, he thought, was too small a number; he was not prepared to say that it should be a majority consisting of two-thirds; but, as the clause stood, it might happen that some day one or more of the members of the corporation might not be able to attend, and thus a bare majority might carry out schemes hateful to the chief body of the ratepayers. The Quarterly Review for October, in an article attributed to a leading member of the Board of Trade, had pointed out that private persons were the best promoters of undertakings like gas and waterworks. It remarked— Capital will find its own way and do what is wanted, and government, whether general or local, will not. This is principally due to the activity which individuals display in seeking their own profit, as compared with the sluggishness of public governing bodies. He could not say what would be the effect of the retrospective clause which had been adverted to; but he would point out that the case of the Sheffield Waterworks would come under it. It was said that the question had been fought by the corporation of Sheffield for the last eight years, and that they had spent about £18,000 in opposing the Waterworks Company. Of this sum £10,000 remained unpaid, and this was a debt incurred since 1870. Well, if the retrospective clause was retained, the Sheffield Corporation would be able to recover this remaining £10,000 from the unfortunate ratepayers.

MR. MACFIE

said, he was glad that the Bill was to be read a second time without opposition. He had formed one of a numerous deputation from various parts of England, who waited on the Home Secretary to request that the Government would give their support to the Bill. He had been requested to do so by two Scotch burghs, who sent up their Provosts to that deputation, they being of opinion that the Bill might be extended to Scotland with great advantage, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had given notice of a clause for that purpose. The Bill was really to restore the old state of things, which had been recently disturbed by an unexpected decision of the Court of Session in Edinburgh. According to that decision, even if a Corporation were unanimous in going to Parliament for a Bill or to oppose one, if a single person in the community opposed spending money for that purpose he had a right to prevent it. The best part of the Bill, he considered, was that which had a retrospective action.

MR. STANLEY

said, he would not make any remarks at length on the subject of the Bill, as it was to be referred to a Select Committee; but he desired to state that the Select Committee which considered the Bill of last year would have been willing to take evidence, but they had to act under great pressure, owing to the late period of the Session, when any delay would have rendered the loss of the Bill inevitable, and it had been found in the end necessary to withdraw it.

MR. BRUCE

said, that though the promoters of the Bill had been good enough to insert the Amendments which had been introduced on the part of the Home Office last year, yet he was very much relieved by the determination to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. In large boroughs, where there was a vigorous public opinion, and wherever the Press was active and vigilant, the powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill might be entrusted to the corporations with safety. But with regard to small boroughs some check was necessary, and it was of the greatest importance that proper checks should be devised. The general policy of late years had been to encourage procedure by Provisional Orders, rather than by Private Acts of Parliament. The difficult question which arose was, to decide in what matters the procedure should be by Provisional Order, or in what by Private Bill. Another point to which the attention of the Select Committee should be directed was to determine which body should have power to make or oppose application to Parliament when there was more than one local authority which might seem concerned in the matter. All these would require great consideration.

MR. MUNDELLA

supported the Bill. He hoped in the Select Committee to which it would be referred no attempt would be made to postpone its operation by taking voluminous evidence, but that the Government, knowing the position in which corporations were placed, would give the measure their active support.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he was glad that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee. The 5th clause, which had a retrospective effect, he considered to be an essential part of the Bill. In the case which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Macfie) a corporation had promoted a Bill, which, having passed that House, had been thrown out by the Lords. The opponents of the Bill sought to throw the expenses on the promoters, and they accordingly applied for an injunction. The case was recently heard, when three out of four Judges decided that it was not lawful to pay these expenses out of public money. As the expenses were £19,000, and there were 22 trustees, each of these parties would have to pay from £300 to £500 out of his own pocket. Now, unless something was done to alter that law—which never was law in Scotland till last week—very great hardship would be inflicted on corporations. It was quite enough that they gave their time to the public interest, without also running the risk of having to pay such expenses as these out of their own pockets. He gave his hearty support to the Bill.

MR. DELAHUNTY

said, he so much approved of the Bill, that he had given Notice to extend its operation to Ireland.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, he would not have it supposed that the hon. Members for Edinburgh and Leith represented all Scotland. No doubt the hon. Members were very faithful representatives of their own constituents and town councils, but other parts of Scotland might have different views. Now, so far as he knew, there was no demand in Scotland for this Bill. For his own part, he thought the measure was one of a most objectionable nature, and he was surprised that the Government, who had before the House their own Bill for regulating local administation, should have assented to this Bill being read a second time. He thought some of the provisions of the most extraordinary character. The promoters of the Bill came to the House and said that because certain parties chose to interpret the law in their own way, and to incur unauthorized expenses, and were prevented from paying them out of public money by the decision of a court of law, they were entitled to have inserted in a general Bill a clause which would enable them to recoup themselves by means of rates for the liabilities they had incurred by their own wilful act. He trusted this retrospective power would be struck out. He objected also to that part of the Bill which gave to corporations power to oppose measures in that House which might affect the ratepayers of their particular locality. There might be some reason in this; but they had done without the power for 40 years. But corporations ought not to be allowed to promote Bills competing with private enterprise at the cost of the ratepayers. The members of those bodies ought not to be relieved from their personal liability in case they did not pass their Bills; if they succeeded in passing them, they had in that very success the means of protecting themselves. Even at present a corporation who could show itself interested in opposing a Bill could obtain leave from Parliament to do so. He was therefore glad that his hon. Friend (Mr. Leeman) had consented that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee where it would undergo the most searching investigation before such legislation could be permitted.

MR. GREGORY

said, he hoped the Committee would pay special attention to the interests of the ratepayers. In general he approved the Bill and hoped it would pass.

Motion agreed to.

MR. CAWLEY

said, he thought that the retrospective clause, if it were passed, would apply to Sheffield equally with any other corporation; because there was nothing to prevent the promoters from bringing forward their Bill again. He thought there would be no necessity for this Bill if municipal bodies were placed under the same power of obtaining Provisional Orders as was now given to corporate bodies or individuals.

MR. LEEMAN

said, he could not allow the Bill to go before a Committee with the idea that the 5th clause was against the feeling of the House, and ought to be negatived. That clause was as just a clause as could possibly be agreed to under the circumstances of the case. He contended that Sheffield had as much right as any other place to claim to be brought under the provisions of the Bill; but there were many other places in the same position as Sheffield. The Corporation of Leeds, having been restrained by an injunction from putting the sewage into the Aire, were promoting a Bill this Session to extricate themselves from that position, and, as the law stood, its members would have to pay the expense of that measure. Birmingham and other places were in the same position.

MR. CRAUFURD

hoped the Committee would be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Bill committed to a Select Committee.