§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Amendment of 50 & 51 Vict. c. 31. s. 9, sub-sections (a), (b), (e), 224 (g), (h), (i), (l), (m), s. 10, s. 11, sub-section (i)).
§ MR. FIRTH (Dundee)said, he did not like to go into the various items of this clause, but would put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) with reference to one or two of the sub-sections. He desired to know, as to the 1st sub-section, whether the Board had settled any scheme for the expenditure of this £35,000 for the Fire Brigade? As to Sub-section 3, he might say that he had thought the expenditure closed. Would the hon. Gentleman tell them what the remaining £11,000 was for? Already £135,000 had been spent in this direction. Then, as to Sub-section 8, it gave powers under the Various Powers Act for the expenditure of £81,000 more this year than was given under the Act of 1885. He wished to ask which of the various powers of the Act of 1885 were to be carried out under this expenditure. Lastly, as to Sub-section 9, it was proposed to take £131,000 for, he thought, main drainage and sewers. This, he believed, had nothing to do with the outfall, but was a separate matter. Why did they want to spend so large a sum, the system being practically complete?
§ MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)said, that as to Sub-section 1, he understood that the power here given in respect of the Fire Brigade was in lieu of the power given under the Metropolitan Expenses Bill of last Session which had not passed into law.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, the hon. Member had not been present last night when this matter was explained. So far as the Metropolitan Fire Brigade was concerned, it had nothing to do—no connection with the Bill introduced into the House. This was a capital expenditure on hydrants and matters of that kind, with a view of making better provision for fires occurring in different parts of the Metropolis. In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) as to Sub-section (i)——
§ MR. FIRTHsaid, he had asked if they had settled anything in this matter, as the expenditure was abnormal?
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, that, no doubt, it was an abnormal expenditure, because a further extension a the scheme had 225 been decided upon and an additional sum was being asked for. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asked, as to Sub-section 3, why this expenditure was not closed? The reason was because the work done in 1887 was less than had been expected, and the additional expenditure was consequently thrown on the present year. The hon. and learned Gentleman would understand that as the amount placed at the disposal of the Metropolitan Board of Works last year had not been expended it had been surrendered.
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, he understood that it was in consequence of less work having been done in 1887 than was expected, more work being thrown on the present year. This caused the sum taken in 1888 to be larger than the amount originally estimated. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked as to Sub-section 8, and desired to know if the money was to be expended on special works? Well, he (Mr. Jackson) understood that the Supplemental sum was due to the fact that in this case also the work that was expected to be done in 1887 was not done in that year, and threw more work upon this year. It was work in connection with the Woolwich Ferry. As to the expenditure under Sub-section 9, the engineer estimated that everything had been got into working order, and that the work would proceed more rapidly than when the Estimate was prepared.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Powers to expend money for the purposes of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act, 1888, Thames Tunnel (Blackwall) Act, 1888, Hampstead Heath Enlargement Acts, 1886 and 1888, Clissold Park Act, 1887, Vauxhall Park Act, 1888, Brixton Park Act, 1888, and the Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse), &c., Confirmation Act, 1888).
§ MR. FIRTH (Dundee)said, he desired to draw attention to certain words in this clause especially bearing on the lending authority—namely, the words "as the Board think fit." Would there be any objection to altering the words into "as the London County Council think fit?" The London County Council would have to consider the authorities to whom so much money 226 was to be lent. The discretion of the Metropolitan Board of Works was a vanishing quantity, both in public esteem and in fact.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, he thought the hon. and learned Member would see that, though it might be that the County Council when established might alter the manner of dealing with this matter of lending, in the meantime, so far as the Metropolitan Board of Works was concerned, the words "as they think fit" must stand. The work would have to be taken over by the new Governing Body, and the transfer of authority would be covered by the general legislation.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 6 (Power to expend money for sundry purposes during year 1889).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.—(Mr. Jackson.)
§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)said, he was afraid he should have to ask the House to bear with him for a few moments, whilst he gave reasons for opposing Sub-sections "h, i and j." It was proposed by this clause to authorize the Metropolitan Board of Works to spend a very considerable sum of money on artizans and labourers' dwellings improvements, and for purposes of street improvements. He had first of all to complain, in regard to the clause to which he referred, that the dwellings erected in the Metropolis were of a most unhealthy character. He asked any Member of the House to visit any of the blocks of buildings which had been erected, and to ask themselves whether they would care to reside within them? He did not know who was responsible for the blunders which had been committed—whether it was the architect or the Board of Works, or whether it was any particular Department of the Government; but there was not a single block of artizans' dwellings in the Metropolis—excepting those which had been erected under the Shaftesbury Park Estate Company, and over which the Metropolitan Board of Works had no control—which was fit for human habitation, and he said that advisedly. The windows of the dwellings were more like pigeon holes than 227 windows. They were set back from the brick work 14 inches, and in some cases as much as 18 inches, Every effort seemed to have been made by the architect or surveyor of the Board of Works to exclude light and air from these dwellings. In some of them there were from 1,400 to 2,000 windows; and, to say nothing as to the injurious effect upon the people who resided in them, a considerable saving might have been effected in the construction of these dwellings had the windows been as large as they should have been, as glass and wood was much cheaper than bricks—especially the brick walls that were employed in artizans' dwellings. He had first of all to complain of the shameful way in which the people were housed in the so-called improved dwellings of the working classes. He would ask hon. Members, between now and the next meeting of the House, to judge for themselves as to the accuracy of his statement by visiting the artizans' dwellings in the Metropolis. They need not go far. There was a block in Bedfordbury where a considerable amount of money had been spent, though how people managed to subsist in it was to him a perfect mystery. The windows, as he had said, were more like pigeon-holes than windows, and reflected the greatest amount of discredit upon those who were responsible. He assumed that the Metropolitan Board of Works, more than anybody else, were responsible for the construction of these dwellings, from which light and air were excluded. Then he objected to arming this Body with powers for what were called street improvements. He would ask the Committee to bear with him for a few moments whilst he referred to two thoroughfares which were now well known in the Metropolis. He referred to the new street from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road, and the Shaftesbury Avenue. Eleven years ago the Metropolitan Board of Works, or someone who was connected with that Board, thought it desirable to purchase a number of houses on the site of these improvements, and they paid, in many instances, considerable sums of money by way of compensation to the persons occupying the houses. Many of those houses were closed for six or seven years before they were pulled down. One would have thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works, if 228 they deemed it necessary to acquire these houses, would have let them until such time as they were prepared to pull them down, without burdening the Metropolis with the interest which had to be paid on the money wherewith the purchases had been made. Ten or 11 years ago there existed in Nassau Street a snug little hotel which might have been known to some Members of the House who were fond of dishes cooked in the French fashion. The Metropolitan Board of Works paid the proprietor of the hotel some thousands of pounds by way of compensation, and the house remained empty four years. He (Mr. Cremer) believed it was afterwards let for some trifling sum; but it was 10 years after the house was purchased, and after thousands of pounds had been expended in compensation to the proprietor, that the Metropolitan Board of Works pulled the place down. All this time the Board of Works was paying interest on the money given to the proprietor of the hotel. Again, the proprietor of another house at the corner of Hayes Court was paid for being dispossessed of his business. The Board let the house to another tenant; and would hon. Members credit it when he stated that the Board paid to the man who took it, after he had remained in it two or three years, compensation for depriving him of his business? A third man obtained possession of the house, and he also tried it on with the Board of Works, and very nearly succeeded in obtaining compensation. That was the way in which the money of the ratepayers had been squandered by the Board of Works; and the House was now asked to arm them with authority to continue this process of wasting the ratepayers' money. When the new street was constructed from Piccadilly to Broad Street, the Board constructed, and very properly constructed, a large subway. He admitted that this subway was admirably constructed. He had watched its progress, and had congratulated himself that a little common sense had been infused into the business of the Board, and that in the future, in that street, at any rate, they would not see the road torn up every two or three weeks for the purpose of operating on the gas and water pipes. The Board constructed that subway, and they knew that they were going to con- 229 struct another street from Tottenham Court Road to Charing Cross. Any schoolboy could have told them that it was desirable to construct what was known in the trade as a junction, so that when the new subway was made from Tottenham Court Road to Charing Cross it might have been easily connected with the subway then existing. Nothing of the kind took place, however, and what happened? Why, 12 months after the first subway was constructed the Metropolitan Board of Works had to pull up the road, break into the subway at Cambridge Circus, and spend a large sum of money in making the junction, which should have been constructed when the first subway was built. These were a few instances of the way in which the money of the London ratepayers had been wasted by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He had no hesitation in saying that the Board, in the instances he had referred to, had the opportunity of constructing magnificent thoroughfares of which the inhabitants of London might have been proud; but if anyone would walk through these thoroughfares and look about him, he (Mr. Cremer) would undertake to say that he would find the streets full of angles and bungles. He could go on multiplying instances, but he should be sorry to waste the time of the House by going into more details, as he assumed that there was no one who had not made up his mind as to the general character of the Board which they were now asked to arm with these additional powers. He, for one, would go into the Lobby against a Board which had so disgraced itself that its name was a bye-word and reproach not only in the Metropolis, but throughout the whole civilized world. Even if no one went with him, he should feel it his duty, on behalf of the ratepayers of London, to protest against arming the Metropolitan Board of Works with the new powers contained in this clause.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 31: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 273.)
§ Clause 7 (Special power to expend money for purposes of main drainage and main sewers).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Jackson.)
230§ MR. FIRTH (Dundee)said, he did not know whether it was worth while discussing the Bill, but he had one observation to make upon Clause 7. He supposed the £142,000 was for the experimental works that had been carried out at the outfall at Barking. Last year they voted £170,000 for the same purpose, and he understood that the total cost of the work was estimated at over £1,000,000. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could tell them what the total cost of the work was likely to be; and whether he himself approved of the system of purification of sewage which had been adopted?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, he was afraid he could not give the hon. and learned Member any information as to what the ultimate cost of the work would be. He had, personally, little experience in dealing with matters of this kind, and therefore he would not dare to make an estimate. But it must be obvious that, whether the system adopted was approved or not, some attempt must be made to deal with the sewage. He did not think that at this late hour of the Board's existence, so to speak, they could usefully hinder or suspend their operations. A very large amount of money had been spent upon the works, which were now in progress. He understood that very considerable progress had been made with the works at Barking, and that the Board were hopeful—he would not put it higher than that—that the plans they had adopted and were carrying out would be successful. Anyone who had any experience of dealing with the purification of sewage, or kindred matters, would speak with very great caution as to certainty of success, and even as to the expenditure which would be involved.
§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)asked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if it was not possible for the Government to use their influence with the Board of Works in order to prevent any further expenditure in this direction, pending an inquiry into the Report which had recently been published in regard to the remarkable success which had attended the utilization of the sewage in Berlin? Hon. Members of the House might probably have seen the Report, and those 231 Members who were acquainted with the City of Berlin 10 or 11 years ago would remember the terrible sanitary condition of that city before the system of canalization was introduced. If the Report was a reliable one, he certainly thought it would be worth while, on the part of the Government, to use any influence they possessed with the Board of Works to induce them to stay their hand, and not expend any more money on a scheme which, he believed, was condemned by every expert, until an inquiry had been instituted and a Report made as to the accuracy of the statement which was recently published with regard to the successful result of the system adopted in Berlin.
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, the hon. Member would see that to suspend the works at this moment and in their present condition would, to say the least of it, be a very large waste of money. It would, moreover, give rise to very difficult questions. It was quite certain the Metropolitan Board of Works had before them the information the hon. Member had represented to the Committee—their attention had been drawn to the Report. In view of the fact that these responsibilities of the Board were about to be taken over by a new Body, whose duty it would be to carry out these works, he thought it would be extremely unwise for the House of Commons to impose any new conditions, or stop works which were going on, and which had received Parliamentary sanction.
§ MR. FIRTHsaid, that, as a matter of fact, this money would be expended in constructing additional settling tanks. The opinion of many competent authorities was that the expenditure of this money would be absolutely waste—that in a few years the settling tanks would be absolutely useless.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 8 and 9 severally agreed to.
§ Clause 10 (Extension of amount of loans to the managers of Metropolitan Asylum District).
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Jackson.)
§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)said, that he called attention to the subject of this clause yesterday, but he did not receive much satisfaction. 232 The object of the clause was to increase by £50,000 the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to lend money to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. As he said last night, he thought this was a very unfortunate time for the Metropolitan Asylums Board to come to that House and ask them to increase its possibilities of borrowing money, for he was sure he did not exaggerate the case when he said that, possibly with one exception, the Metropolitan Asylums Board was the most unpopular Body in the Metropolis. It was certainly believed to be the most extravagant. The expenditure of that Board had grown with frightful rapidity. In 1872 the Board's expenditure was £197,000. In 10 years it had grown to £386,000. In the next year it was £420,000, and in 1885 it was £566,000. In 1886 there was a drop, but a very slight one, for the expenditure was £524,000. The Board had the administration of a more corner of the whole field of the Poor Law, and yet the sum he had mentioned was no less than 23 per cent of the whole cost of the Poor Law administration in London. Taking the case of his own constituency, he believed that the contribution of Bethnal Green was as large as 9d. in the £1 of the rateable value. But, large as this expenditure out of the rates was, they had also to take into consideration a very large expenditure out of loans. He did not want to weary the Committee, and therefore he would only give two figures. In 1885 the expenditure out of loans was £90,000, and in 1886 it was £101,000. And then there was, perhaps, the still more serious aspect of the expenditure of the Board which was presented to them by the fact that the amount of outstanding loans was constantly increasing. He found that on Lady Day, 1883, the amount of outstanding loans was £910,000; on Lady Day, 1886, it had risen to more than £1,000,000, and at Christmas, 1886, it had risen to more than £1,100,000. What it was now he could not say, because they had no information. He thought they had much reason to complain of the fact that although they had now arrived at the 9th of August, 1888, and were called upon to assent to the financial operations of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, they had not yet received a Report of that Board for the year 1887. The issue of 233 that Report ought to be expedited, so that it would be in their hands, at all events, when the Money Bill for the following year was presented for their consideration. He referred last night to the suspicion which rested on the Board, and he did not want to labour that aspect of the case; but the answer which, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would make would be that none of this money could be lent without the sanction of the Local Government Board for the expenditure. It was perfectly true that such sanction had to be obtained, but the argument was not conclusive. If they provided the money they took the first step, at all events, to enable the Metropolitan Asylums Board to get possession. He would like to impress on hon. Members the fact that there was no more persistent Body in the Metropolis, or perhaps in the world, than the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The Board was constantly going to the Local Government Board and pressing for consent to schemes. It frequently happened that, in the first place, consent was withheld; but, nothing daunted, the Board returned to the charge, and in many cases successfully. He was afraid that in the cases they had now in view the virtue of the Local Government Board might not be able resist these constant and persistent assaults. Let them protect the Local Government Board against the pressure which was constantly applied. If the Metropolitan Board of Works had not the money to lend, it was clear the Metropolitan Asylums Board could not get it from them; and, considering the character which the Metropolitan Asylums Board had at present, it was the plain duty of the Committee to take precautions against the Board unduly increasing its responsibilities. No reason had yet been alleged—at least, he was unable to elicit last night from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury any reason whatever for extending the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to lend to the Metropolitan Asylums Board. In the absence of satisfactory reasons he should certainly feel it his duty to divide the Committee against the clause.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, he was sorry his answer last night had not removed the hon. Member's objec- 234 tion. He certainly endeavoured to supply him with a reason why the clause should not be omitted. He took it that the object of the hon. Member was to prevent expenditure by the Metropolitan Asylums Board. Let him point out that even if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion were adopted his object would not be effected. Although they might strike out of the Bill the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to lend money to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, they would not thereby prevent the Metropolitan Asylums Board borrowing money in other quarters. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that the Asylums Board had been very persistent in its demands; but he could trust the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to be equally persistent in refusing to accede to any demands made by the Asylums Board until the Board convinced him that the demands were honest and ought to be met. The hon. Member would see that the Metropolitan Asylums Board having got the sanction of the Local Government Board to certain expenditure for the extension of their Asylums and having got the power to borrow money either from the Metropolitan Board of Works or in the open market, his object would not be attained even though he prevented the Metropolitan Board of Works lending the money. But there was an advantage, which the hon. Gentleman would admit, both to the Metropolitan Board of Works and to the Asylums Board, that one should lend money upon ample security and at a reasonable rate of interest, and that the other should borrow money without paying too high a price for it. The striking out of this clause might cause the Asylums Board to borrow money at a higher rate of interest than was necessary.
§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)said, he was sorry he was not able to be satisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. From time to time greater facilities had been given to the Asylums Board to borrow money. It was all very well to say that the Local Government Board would use their discretion, but the Local Government Board had many duties to perform, and in the case of a persistent Body like the Asylums Board it was very 235 likely that sometimes they might be caught napping. As long as they had these Boards in London which were not directly elected by the people, which consisted of nominee members, it was his and his hon. Friend's bounden duty to prevent them having facilities to borrow money in the large manner they would be able to borrow if this clause were passed. It was absurd for the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to say that if this clause was not passed the Board could go into the open market and borrow money, possibly at a higher rate of interest. What would be the effect of the omission of this clause? For the first time the expenditure of the Asylums Board would be brought under the notice of the public; and, therefore, they would have to be much more careful how they expended money than they had hitherto been.
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said, he shared, to some extent, the distrust hon. Gentlemen had expressed of the Asylums Board; but the course they now proposed to take would not carry out the object they desired to secure. The Bill conferred no power upon the Metropolitan Asylums Board. It was a re-grant of an old existing power on the Metropolitan Board of Works—to do what? To lend such sums of money as the Metropolitan Asylums Board were authorized to borrow with the consent of the Local Government Board. He did not see that they could have a better control than that of the Local Government Board. He should be compelled to vote against the omission of the clause, though, at the same time, he would not like his vote to be taken as an expression of confidence in the Asylums Board. He hoped to see the time when London would be as other great Municipalities were, independent of Parliamentary control in its financial matters. They could trust Birmingham and Manchester to spend their own money, and he hoped London would be trusted to the same degree and extent. But this clause simply said that if the President of the Local Government Board, in the exercise of the power already vested in him, sanctioned the borrowing by the Asylums Board of certain sums of money, the Board should be able to go into the cheapest market to get the money.
§ MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)said, they desired to press their protest to a Division. The Metropolitan Asylums Board should have no further powers of borrowing. That Board was a corrupt Body, and they desired to see it swept away. The sooner it was made the subject of inquiry similar to that held by the Commission into the doings of the Board of Works, and the sooner the Board was deprived of the power of spending the ratepayers' money, the better.
§ MR. FIRTH (Dundee)said, he did not understand what the money was for. He was given to understand it was for the extension of hospital accommodation; but, as had been pointed out, the hospitals provided by the Board cost a very much larger sum than others. Hon. Members who were responsible to the ratepayers of London ought to have some control over this expenditure. His hon. Friend had used some very strong language in respect to the Board; but if anybody would refer to The Spectator, which, he thought, was a Conservative journal, more or less—at all events, a journal of very high respectability—it would be found that in reference to the Homerton inquiry the language of his hon. Friend was mild as new milk compared to that used by this respectable, sober, high-class journal. The Committee should know what this money was for. It might not, it was said, be borrowed at all; but if it should be, the ratepayers would have to find the interest, and the Representatives of the ratepayers were entitled to know something about it.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)said, the hon. and learned Member asked what the money was required for, and though he could not give information as to all the items lie could assure the hon. and learned Member that it was after a great deal of negotiation with the Board that the Local Government Board satisfied themselves as to the propriety of the demand. The item for the erection of huts for convalescent small-pox patients had in the course of the inquiry been reduced to one-half the sum first mentioned. The accommodation was absolutely essential in the interest of London in view of the possibility of the outbreak of a small-pox epidemic; but the Local Govern- 237 ment Board thought that in their first proposal the Metropolitan Asylums Board were proceeding in much too costly and large a manner. The Local Government Board urged that, so far as possible, existing buildings should be availed of, and that these should only be supplemented where they would be likely to be required in a case of a small-pox epidemic. Ultimately the Asylums Board adopted that view, and, in consequence, the original sum asked for was reduced by about a-half. The Local Government Board sanctioned the borrowing of money for the erection of sheds, and though it was to be hoped that these would not be required, yet it was essential that provision should be made. To say that no further borrowing powers should be given to the Asylums Board was a proposition that could not be entertained for a moment. The Asylums Board might not be constituted in a satisfactory manner, and he was willing to admit that the time must come when the entire management of matters of this kind should be transferred to the County Council; but in the discussion of the clauses of the Local Government Bill he gave reasons why he thought these powers should not now be transferred. The time, however, must come for the transfer. He must guard himself against being supposed to agree with the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch's attack on the Board. The Board had done great service to the people of London, and very often when it was by no means a pleasant duty. Whether the Board was constituted in a satisfactory manner or not, and whether or not its functions should be transferred to the new authority about to be created, the people of London owed to the Board a debt of gratitude for services rendered. This was no very large item of expenditure; it had the sanction of the Local Government Board, and he hoped the Committee would assent to the Metropolitan Board of Works lending the sum.
§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)said, before the Division was taken it should be made quite clear that it was because the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board disregarded the advice tendered by Metropolitan Members, when the Local Government Bill was under consideration, that those Members now felt 238 it their duty to divide the Committee on this question. He merely referred to this because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) seemed to have fallen into the error of supposing that the County Council would have control over the Metropolitan Asylums Board; but it was because the County Council would have no such control over the Board that hon. Members felt it their duty to make this protest. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton was probably under a misapprehension. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: No.] Well, then he was misunderstood by the Committee, for there were several ejaculations of dissent when the right hon. Gentleman made the statement. Had the County Council possessed the control the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was urged to confer upon it, there would have been no need for the protest about to be recorded.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 28: Majority 72:—(Div. List, No. 274.)
§ Clause 11 (Power to lend to School Board for London).
§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)said, he desired some explanation in reference to the borrowing powers of the School Board for London. The School Board borrowed under powers vested in them by Act of Parliament. If the Bill referred to previous Acts, then, by reference to the Schedule, it would be seen that the unexhausted borrowing powers of the London School Board at the end of last year was £250,000. He asked whether this authority now asked for to lend and borrow £300,000 was in addition to that borrowing power of £250,000? If not, then it would seem that the amount in the clause ought to be reduced to £250,000. As the House did not seem to have any means of estimating how this money was to be spent, and as there was not in this case, as in the case of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the check of the Local Government Board, the Committee ought to be put in possession of a short summary or estimate of what the money was wanted for. He had heard it stated that part of the money had already been expended; 239 and, if that were so, it made the want of control rather more dangerous and somewhat a farce to ask the House for these powers without limitation or supervision by anybody.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, he thought it would be clear to the hon. Member and to the Committee that in Table 2, to which the hon. Member referred, the £250,000 was merely a statement of the borrowing powers that expired on December 31, 1887.
§ MR. KIMBERsaid, no; powers that expired at the end of this year—Table 3 was the one he referred to.
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, that this had nothing to do with the powers of the School Board. Of course, they were governed by another Act. This simply gave to the Metropolitan Board of Works power to lend to the School Board to an amount not exceeding £300,000.
§ MR. KIMBERasked, was it in addition to the £250,000?
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, it had nothing whatever to do with it.
§ MR. KIMBERsaid, but the Board would have the power to raise the money.
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, of course, the Metropolitan Board of Works could not lend to the School Board any sums, large or small, that the School Board had not Parliamentary powers to borrow. So far as the Metropolitan Board of Works Bill was concerned, all the Committee had to deal with was this lending power. The Board asked Parliament to give them power to lend out of their moneys £300,000 to the School Board. The School Board, of course, must have authority to borrow, else the Metropolitan Board of Works would not have the power to lend; and, assuming the security to be sufficient, he did not see any objection. There was the precaution that none of the money could be borrowed by the School Board or lent by the Metropolitan Board of Works unless with the sanction of the Education Department and of the Treasury; therefore, there were as many safeguards as could possibly be needed.
§ MR. KIMBERsaid, the hon. Gentleman did not see his point. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not often trouble the House, and was sorry to do so now. This clause said the Board might lend and the School 240 Board might borrow a sum not exceeding £300,000; so that these were new borrowing powers. ["No, no!"] If they were not, if it was only power to lend the School Board that which the latter had already—the power to borrow—then the maximum sum should be £250,000; why the power in the clause to lend £300,000?
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said, the hon. Member was confusing the borrowing powers of the School Board with the lending powers of the Metropolitan Board. The Schedule dealt with the lending power of the Metropolitan Board of Works on December 31, 1888, and the powers of the Board in that respect would expire on that day. They had the power to lend the School Board to the extent of the School Board's unexhausted borrowing power. To strike out the clause would be to place the School Board at a disadvantage, for they would have to raise the money they might require in the open market, instead of going to the Metropolitan Board of Works on more favourable terms. With the policy of School Board expenditure the clause had nothing to do—it was simply the question of giving the Board of Works power to lend to this among other Public Bodies; there was nothing in it giving the slightest borrowing power to the School Board.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 12 (Power to lend to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police).
§ MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)said, the Committee would be very captious if it objected to Metropolitan Members criticizing these clauses one by one, seeing that they dealt exclusively with the Metropolis and the liability of Metropolitan ratepayers. After all, it was not often they troubled the House with questions peculiarly concerning themselves, while the claims of other sections of the House were frequently allowed. The Representatives of 5,000,000 of population were entitled to ask that these vast sums of money should not be expended so long as Parliamentary control was assumed without adequate examination. When the Local Government Bill was under discussion—[Cries of "Question!"]—this affected the question—the right hon. Gentleman the 241 President of the Local Government Board said it was necessary Parliament should have control over Metropolitan expenditure on account of the fatness of the Metropolis; and on that ground he desired to know why there was this power of lending to the Receiver of Metropolitan Police? Although former loans might have been justified, this required a special defence. Former loans were justified, because it was said it was desirable to give unity and coherence to the debt of the Metropolis; but he could not look upon the Metropolitan Police as a local force in view of the fact that ratepayers had no control over it, and the police area was not co-extensive with that under the jurisdiction of the Board of Works. Why, then, should the Metropolitan Board of Works be under any liability in respect to the Metropolitan Police district? It was said, though he did not agree with it, that the Metropolitan Police must be an Imperial, not a local, force; but, if that was so, why should the Metropolis be put under any liability for the sake of the Metropolitan Police? Some defence was surely required for this clause.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)said, he was extremely sorry that the hon. Member had not paid a little more attention to the clause about which he had spoken. The hon. Member was under the impression that it imposed some charge upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis.
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, it was exhausting the amount of borrowing power.
§ MR. JACKSONsaid, it conferred no power on the Receiver of Police that he did not otherwise possess. The whole action of the clause was limited simply to this—it gave the Metropolitan Board of Works power to lend to the Receiver of Police certain sums of money the Board had in hand. The Receiver of Police had authority to borrow certain sums of money; and whether he borrowed from the Board of Works, or in the open market, or from whatever source, it was entirely a question of the rate of interest at which he could get what he required. The clause did not really impose a penny of obligation upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. It did, however, afford the Metropolitan Board 242 of Works the opportunity of lending on good and adequate security money that would otherwise have to be obtained elsewhere. If hon. Members wished to discuss the expenditure on the Metropolitan Police this was not the opportunity of doing it—this was merely the question of lending to the Receiver of London Police a sum of money which the Board must lend or invest in some way, and he supposed hon. Members would not deny that the security was adequate. It really afforded the Metropolitan Board of Works the opportunity of safely investing the money.
§ MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)said, the point of objection was the power to lend the ratepayers' money to Bodies over whose expenditure the ratepayers had no control, and the interest upon which borrowed money the ratepayers had to pay.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 13 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.