HC Deb 27 June 1882 vol 271 cc665-73

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Courtney.)

MR. MONK

said, he presumed, from the contemptuous silence of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that he intended to oppose the Motion which he had placed on the Paper that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He was somewhat surprised at the course pursued, because, on moving the second reading of the Bill, his hon. Friend said that between that date and the day on which he would put down the Bill for Committee he would consider what course he would take, and whether it was advisable that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee or not. It was true that in the Lobby his hon. Friend had stated that he did not think it advisable that the Bill should be so referred; but it appeared to be only fair that he should state the grounds on which his conclusion was founded. He desired to call attention to Standing Order No. 194, which said that— All Bills promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works containing power to raise money shall be introduced as Public Bills, and after being read a second time by this House, shall be referred to a Select Committee, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection in like manner as Private Bills. Now, he had submitted to the judgment of Mr. Speaker last year whether a Bill which was brought in by the Government on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works ought not to have been so sent up to a Select Committee; but, unfortunately, he did not become acquainted with the Standing Order in question until that Bill had passed through the Committee of the House, and, therefore, it was too late for Mr. Speaker's decision to be given when the occasion arose. But Mr. Speaker had said he should have hesitated to give an opinion, and that he thought it better to leave the matter to the decision of the House. He thought that not even the Secretary to the Treasury would contend that this was not a Money Bill, or that it was not promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works and placed in the hands of the Treasury to introduce in that House. This was a Bill to enable the Metropolitan Board of Works to tax the taxpayers of the Metropolis to the extent, this year, of something like £3,200,000. Passing from the Standing Order, which appeared to him to be imperative, he distinctly charged the Government, in the person of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, with a breach of faith if they did not agree to the Bill being sent up to a Select Committee. Last year, when he (Mr. Monk) made this proposal, the late Secretary to the Treasury expressed himself very favourable to such a course being adopted. [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: No, no.] Did an hon. Member say "No, no?" [Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Yes; I said "No, no."] His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) said "No, no." If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had Hansard within his reach, and would be good enough to refer to Vol. 263, page 1882, he would find the following words of the late Secretary to the Treasury (the late Lord Frederick Cavendish):— There was a general understanding that it would have been well, under ordinary circumstances, to have had the measure referred to a Select Committee; but that, owing to the period of the Session (July 25) and the Business before the House, it would not be wise so to refer it."—[3 Hansard, cclxiii. 1882.] And the late noble Lord, at an earlier stage of the Bill, had said— He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk) would not press his Amendment to a division, although he was very much inclined to agree with the object of it. It seemed to him very desirable that this Bill should be considered by a Select Committee. … and he hoped the Bill would be introduced next year at such a period that it might bereferred to a Select Committee."—[Ibid. 1726.] He (Mr. Monk) asked the House if anything could be clearer; and he appealed to the Members of the Government, of whom he saw a great number on the Treasury Bench, whether that was not a distinct pledge that the Bill should be introduced at an early period this year in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee? The Bill was introduced at a much early period this year than ever before. It was introduced on the 23rd of May, and he would give the House the dates on which it had been introduced during the last seven years. Seven years ago, when the late Govern- ment was in power, the Secretary to the Treasury introduced this Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works on the 5th of July. In 1876 it was introduced on the 13th of July; in 1877, on the 16th of July; in 1878, on the 19th of July; in 1879, on the 29th July; in 1880, on the 26th July; and last year it was introduced on the 1st of July; and this year, in consequence of the pledge which was given to the House, the Bill was introduced two months earlier—namely, on the 23rd of May. Now, he asked on what ground did the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury refuse to refer this Bill to a Select Committee? He (Mr. Monk) would certainly take the sense of the House with regard to referring this Bill to a Select Committee. In order to meet the convenience of those hon. Members who wished to take the division and then go home, he would now confine his remarks to the pledge which was given, reserving to himself the right of discussing the Bill, which he would have to do at some length, if the House decided the measure should not go to a Select Committee. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill he referred to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Monk,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. COURTNEY

regretted very much that his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) should have thought he (Mr. Courtney) was guilty of any discourtesy in moving without a speech the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair. At that time of the night, and with the remembrance before them that they had to meet again at 12 o'clock, he thought some respect was due to the House in general and that no words should be wasted that could by any possibility be saved. He need not tell the House that when the Bill was read a second time he gave his reasons for thinking it would be impolitic that they should refer it, this Session, to a Select Committee. He gave those reasons at some length, and he consented to postpone the Motion to consider the Bill in Committee for a considerable time, in order that he might confer with those who were interested, to learn their opinions, and come to some conclusion upon the matter. He had in in the meanwhile availed himself of that opportunity in order to ascertain from the Members who were specially interested what they thought upon the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He conferred, amongst others, with his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. He learned what his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester had to say, and he gave the hon. Gentleman his reasons for thinking that the judgment of the House might go against him. If they could economize their time at all, they must do something of this kind and not repeat before the House what was well known to its Members. He believed that the practice of exchanging sentiments in the Lobby was most beneficial and likely to economize time, and he had conferred with hon. Gentlemen with that object. He would repeat shortly why he thought this Bill could not with convenience be referred to a Select Committee. The consideration of the Bill by a Select Committee would require a whole Session. [Mr. MONK: No, no!] The consideration of this Bill, as conceived by his hon. Friend and some of those who supported him, was neither more nor less than a Reference to the Select Committee of the whole conduct of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not at all dispute that that was a subject which might very well be considered by a Select Committee some day; but it would be impossible to consider—as it should be considered—the conduct and management of the Metropolitan Board of Works, without beginning the business at the commencement of the Session, and even then, he thought the labours of the Committee would not only extend throughout the Session, but throughout the next Session also. A Select Committee had been considering one branch of the Metropolitan Board of Works a greater part of last Session and this Session—namely, the action of the Metropolitan Board of Works with regard to artizans and labourers' dwellings. To consider the conduct of the Board of Works with respect to drainage, with respect to new streets, their action with regard to the Embankment, their system for the pre- vention of floods, the improvements of parks and open spaces, and in addition to consider their financial management, could not, even in the opinion of the most sanguine person, be done fully and adequately in one Session. It would be useless to suppose that they could at that period of the Session enter on such work. Well, then, his hon. Friend had dwelt, not for the first time, upon the speech made by his noble Predecessor (the late Lord Frederick Cavendish). He (Mr. Monk) very frankly read them a quotation from the speech of the late noble Lord; but the words of the late noble Lord showed no more than this—a benevolent attitude of mind towards the suggestion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. There was nothing in the nature of a pledge quoted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk). The words were before the House and could be judged by anybody; he submitted that they did not constitute a pledge at all. Reference was made to the Standing Order of the House, which was supposed to compel the Bill being referred to a Select Committee; but surely that position could not possibly be maintained. As he said at the outset, he did think at that time of the morning he ought not to make a long speech. He thought it impossible that the Bill could be referred to a Select Committee, and he hoped the House would support the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair.

MR. WARTON

said, he had a distinct recollection of the effect produced in the House by the words of the late lamented noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), and he thought it was rather too bad for the late noble Lord's Successor to talk about those words being prompted by mere benevolence. The late noble Lord was too honourable a man not to keep a pledge when he had given one, and the reason why the Bill was brought in so early this Session was that the Government meant to keep the pledge they had given. If they did not intend to keep it, there was no need to bring the Bill in earlier than usual. What was now done certainly amounted to a breach of faith. In plain words, the Government were not keeping their promise, a thing they did on many other matters besides this. He supposed the Government intended to hold out now a sort of promise for next year. [Mr. COURTNEY; I make no pledge.] Better not, and then the pledge could not possibly be broken. The want of time was an excuse which was thoroughly inefficient. If the 23rd of May would not do, the Government ought to have brought the Bill in on the first day of the Session, and in that way not break faith, which had certainly been done with regard to the distinct undertaking of last year. There was another point in this case which ought to be considered, and that was the barefaced way in which the Metropolitan Board of Works went on, year after year, adding to its functions. The 13th section of this Bill dealt with matters which ought not to belong to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that was an additional argument why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It seemed really wrong—he did not wish to use a harsher word—that the Government should year after year put the House off in this way. What was the undertaking, or promise, or pledge, or benevolent intention of the present Secretary to the Treasury? The hon. Gentleman was certainly not so benevolent as his Predecessor. They heard about next year, and almost in the same breath as the endeavour was made to put them off with a plea of next year, they were told it would take the whole of the Session. If it could not be done now, it never would be done, and that was the effect of the Government taking upon themselves the responsibility of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Last year the Speaker decided that the Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works, because the names of two Members of the Treasury Bench were upon it, was promoted by the Government. He was not there to dispute the Speaker's ruling; but he certainly thought that, within the spirit of the Standing Order, it was perfectly clear that the Bill ought to have been referred to a Select Committee. It seemed a farce, that, according to the Standing Orders, this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and that it was not referred to a Select Committee. Millions of pounds a-year were involved in this Bill, and it seemed unreasonable that millions of pounds should be raised from taxpayers, and that the taxpayers should have no control over the expenditure, because the Government had thrown its shield over a Board which arrogated fresh functions every year. He should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk).

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he was in a very difficult position at that time of the morning, because, if he had time, he could answer every one of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down; and also those made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had had 20 years' experience of the work of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and for 12 years had been Chairman of that Board. He could only say that if this Bill were to be sent to a Select Committee, it would be impossible, under any circumstances, to carry on the work of the Board. He could go through section after section of the Bill and show that the Metropolitan Board of Works were not trying to arrogate to themselves any fresh functions at all. These Bills were brought in and passed by both Houses, and then they received the Royal Assent. This Session there had been a very great improvement made in Tooley Street; and surely it was not befitting that what the Houses of Commons and Lords had agreed to should be sent up for judgment by a Select Committee. He could give the House many other instances, but he did not think it would be right, at that time of the morning, to do so. It was certainly his opinion that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had not properly looked into the matter. The hon. Member could not understand the affairs of the Metropolis, otherwise he would not have introduced this Motion into the House.

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, that if there was one speech more than another which would entitle the Government to support it was the speech delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The House was perfectly willing to accept the assurance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but, apart from those assurances, there was a much larger and important consideration, and that was the view taken on this subject by the ratepayers of the Metropolis. There was a great public feeling, not only in that House but outside, upon this subject. It seemed perfectly monstrous to many that such a large sum as £3,000,000 should be annually extracted from the taxpayers of the Metropolis, and with regard to this large expenditure the public should remain in complete and total darkness. He would have much pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend. In conclusion, he would ask the Speaker whether, in pursuance of Standing Order 194, this Money Bill ought not to be referred, in the ordinary course, to a Select Committee?

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, the Speaker had decided the question of Order now raised last year. He (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) might say that this Bill was not promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works at all. It was promoted by Her Majesty's Government against the wish and will of the Metropolitan Board of Works, because they did not wish that, year after year, what was passed by the Houses of Parliament should be brought up over and over again, as this had been. The Metropolitan Board of Works had nothing whatever to do with the Bill beyond acceding to what Her Majesty's Ministers did in regard to it.

MR. MONK

pointed out, that when the question with regard to the Standing Order was raised last year the Speaker hesitated to decide the question, and said he would leave it to the decision of the House. He (Mr. Monk) would like to point out that, though the Bill was brought in by the Government, it was clearly promoted by, and for the benefit of, the Metropolitan Board of Works.

MR. SPEAKER

I find that at the back of this Bill there are the names of the two Secretaries to the Treasury, and I apprehend that there can be no doubt the Bill is brought in on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 19: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 186.)

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)

MR. COURTNEY

said, he should be glad to report Progress if hon. Members would allow him to take the uncontro- versial part of the Bill—namely, up to Clause 7.

MR. WARTON

said, he would have no objection, if that pledge of the Government would only be kept.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.