TOWN IMPROVEMENTS (BETTERMENT).

HC Deb 11 December 1893 vol 19 cc1051-95

^*SIR J. LUBBOCK, Member for the University of London, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the refusal of the Government to concur with the House of Lords in the appointment of a Committee to settle, if possible, the question of Betterment, so that the improvements urgently needed in London may be undertaken without unnecessary delay; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, this question was one of urgent and primary importance to London; but, inasmuch as it affected the problem of the unemployed, it was also of interest to the country generally. He had introduced on behalf of the London County Council a Bill involving improvements estimated to cost £1,000,000. The Bill passed both Houses, except the consideration of the Lords' Amendments. The only difference now was as to the Betterment Clause, under which the officials of the Council thought they might get back something between £5,000 and £10,000. But, while rejecting the scheme of betterment proposed in the Bill, the House of Lords asked this House to concur in the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole question. Under these circumstances, considering that the improvements were so urgent, and that the amount expected from betterment was so small, he had urged the Council to proceed with the present Bill, fully accepting the implied promise of the House of Lords that they would fairly consider the question. This opinion was not merely his own. It was also the opinion of their Parliamentary agent, their counsel, Lord Farrer, and other high authorities. The majority of his colleagues were of a different opinion. The House might take it, therefore, as the fixed determination of the London County Council that they would make no improvements in London unless the principles of betterment were conceded. The next Council might be of a different opinion; but unless Parliament intervened, nothing could be done for the present. The Council had finally determined not to accept the Bill now before the House, but to bring in another next Session. That resolution was passed last Tuesday, and he, therefore, took the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before the House. He did not claim to speak for the County Council. He had taken this step on his own responsibility as a London Member, in the interests of London, and he hoped and believed that he would receive the support of a large majority of the London Members. He was anxious to impress on the House the very great importance and urgency to London of these improvements which were sanctioned by the House. He would only deal with two of them. These were two of the principal improvements. The first was the restoration of Vauxhall Bridge. The Bridges Committee of the Council reported that the foundations of three of the central piers of the bridge were being gradually undermined. The Report said— This action was for some time arrested by means of bags filled with cement laid along the outer edge of the cradle, and by the further deposition of 500 tons of slag around the piers, but a recent inspection has shown that the action of the tide is removing the protective works. The cutwaters of the piers are in a dilapidated condition. The ebb tide at times runs through some of the arches with a surface velocity of 7½ miles an hour, and is dangerous for navigation. Barges are occasionally carried on to the piers by the tide and both are injured. In several instances lives have been lost. With respect to the strength of the cast-iron arches, a concentrated live load of about ten tons upon the centre of one rib of the arch is as much as is admissible, as this load produces a tensional strain on the bottom flange of about two tons per square inch. They would see, therefore, that the bridge was in a seriously dangerous condition, and the Council had been obliged to limit the load allowed on the bridge, which was very inconvenient, while as to the lives of those who used the bridge they were, of course, responsible. The condition of Lambeth Bridge was nearly, if not quite, as serious, although it was not included in the present Bill. He now came to the most important matter, as many thought it to be—the case of the Tower Bridge. This great work was not far from completion, and would be opened for traffic next year. The southern end of the bridge would open into Tooley Street, but, according to the Report of the Improvement Committee— From Tooley Street to the south there is no practicable communication except through very narrow and winding lanes, and the main usefulness of the new bridge across the Thames will be lost unless the traffic be provided with a direct and adequate street from Tooley Street into the Old and the New Kent Roads. When the bridge is opened and the street is made there will be a direct thoroughfare across the river from the districts living north and east of the Tower into Bermondsey, Walworth, and New Cross. Accordingly we came to a unanimous conclusion that the formation of a new street from Tooley Street (at the southern end of the approach to the new bridge) to the junction of the Old and the New Kent Roads at the Bricklayers' Arms could not be any longer postponed without serious inconvenience to the public. The City had spent out of its own funds £1,000,000 on the bridge, which, as the Improvement Committee urged, would be almost useless for want of any proper approach on the south side. When the grand bridge at Madrid was built, the King of Spain asked the French Ambassador whether he did not think it a magnificent work. "Yes, your Majesty," he replied, "but, if I may express my opinion, I would either sell the bridge or buy a new river." In that case both alternatives were equally impossible, but here, although the absurdity was equally great, the remedy was in their own hands. The County Council themselves felt the necessity for the approach. Although they were dropping the present Bill they were going to bring in another precisely similar next year. But it was obviously very important that the approach should be ready at the same time as the bridge, for otherwise Tooley Street would be blocked by reason of the construction of the new thoroughfare. Those interested in the trade of the Port of London felt very strongly on the subject. The London Chamber of Commerce had last Monday called a meeting, which was largely attended, to consider the matter, and the following resolution was unanimously carried:— That this meeting of merchants, wharfingers' and manufacturers of South London urge the County Council to proceed as rapidly as possible with the necessary approaches to the Tower Bridge from the south, in order that the bridge, when completed, may be available for traffic. The Secretary of the Chamber had forwarded this resolution to him (Sir J. Lubbock) begging him to do what he could, and, considering the determination of the Council, the only way he could assist the reasonable request of the London Chamber was by urging the Government to agree to a Joint Committee with the Lords. The London Improvements Bill was not dead. It was still before the House; and if they could settle the question of betterment the Council would, no doubt, proceed at once with the improvements. He had shown how urgent these were; but from another point of view also, considering the present depressed state of trade, and the consequent diminution in the amount of work, this was a matter of much importance. According to the latest figures, the number of paupers was 10 per cent. higher than it was last year. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had thought the matter so serious that he had issued a special Circular on the subject. The Circular said— I am directed by the Local Government Board to state that, having regard to the scarcity of employment which now exists, and the great probability of this becoming more general and being intensified during the winter months, the Board strongly urge the authority to mature any scheme for works required for their district as early as possible … and they trust that there will be no delay on the part of the authority in determining as to any works to be executed by them. Among the most suitable works, the Circular specially mentioned the laying out and paving new streets. If the President of the Local Government Board —whom he was sorry he did not see present at the moment—voted against the proposal, his Circular was a mere sham, and he was not acting on it himself. He might perhaps be told that it would not now be feasible to commence any improvements in time to relieve the distress this season, even if the Bill were passed this year. He was not sure of that, but, at any rate, the House would have done what it could in the matter, and they could then leave it to others to say whether they would carry that scheme into effect. He would point out to the House that if nothing were done now the probability was that this time next year they would be in a similar position. The House of Lords, after the way in which they had been treated with regard to a Committee on this question, would approach the question of betterment with the feeling that their reasonable suggestion had been rudely and uncourteously rejected. Who would suffer from these improvements being delayed? Not the House of Lords, but the people of London; therefore he would ask the Government to consider that in this matter they were punishing not the House of Lords but the people of London. He would very much prefer to have a Joint Committee of the two Houses than a Committee of the Lords alone, because the House of Commons would appoint gentlemen who had a disposition in favour of betterment, and who were well acquainted with the bearings of the question. Such a Committee would be more likely to arrive at a wise conclusion. Lastly, he would allude to the question of betterment itself. The total amount of betterment which the Council hoped to receive under the Bill was estimated by their own officials as under £10,000 on an expenditure of £1,000,000, and this small amount would not come in for years, if at all. But the Bill itself, mainly in consequence of this clause, had cost the Council £5,000. This Bill it was proposed to abandon in order to bring in another Bill next year, which would cost the Council another £5,000. To spend £10,000 belonging to the ratepayers in hopes of getting back something less a few years hence seemed a bad piece of business. In the interests of the people of London he was anxious to avoid such an absurd waste of public money. But his colleagues in the London County Council defended it on the ground that they were fighting for a principle. Was it in the interest of betterment to throw up the present Bill, and refuse to cooperate with the Lords in the appointment of a Committee? For his part, he could conceive no course more likely to prejudice betterment than to refuse the offer made and thrust upon the Lords the identical clause they had already rejected. Many hon. Members had said that they did not oppose betterment as a principle, but that they saw great difficulties in the working of it. He had never denied that there were difficulties. But he appealed to hon. Members who had doubts about betterment to support this Motion, which was, in effect, a Motion for a Joint Committee, so that the difficult points might be fairly considered. If their fears were justified the inquiry of the Committee would prove it, and by voting for the Committee they would not be committed to the principle of betterment. On the other hand, those who were in favour of betterment could surely have no doubt about supporting the Motion. If they were right in their belief they would be able to show that the fears of their opponents were visionary. No one who voted against the Motion could ever pretend that he was in favour of betterment, unless, indeed, his love of betterment was swallowed up by his hatred of the House of Lords. At any rate, the House would see who were the real friends of betterment and who really wished to provide work for the unemployed. He could well understand that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the immense number of other matters demanding their attention, might not have fully considered this question. He brought forward this Motion in no spirit of hostility to the Government, but in what he believed to be the interests of London. If the Government found, and he believed they would, that the voice of London, as expressed by the Representatives of London, was in favour of the course which he advocated, then there could be no reason why the Government should refuse the request. If nothing was done, the responsibility, so far as Parliament was concerned, must rest on the Government. He would not, however, anticipate a refusal, and, at any rate, he urged it on them and on the House in the interests of betterment, on account of the urgency of these improvements, in the interests of the people of London, and in the name of the unemployed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)

SIR W. HARCOURT

I desire to discuss this question in the calmest and most temperate way, and without introducing, farther than necessary, any elements of provocation. I regret very much that my right hon. Friend should have thought it necessary to taunt those who differ from himself to say that the resistance to the Motion was provoked not by love of betterment, but by hostility to the House of Lords. [Cheers.] I know why that elicits cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am surprised at that kind of statement coming from my right hon. Friend, because if he desires to avoid the importation of Party spirit into this question, he should not make appeals to Party feelings by taunts of that kind. What we have to consider is this—What is the best course to pursue in order to secure the establishment of the principle of betterment? The right hon. Gentleman says that unless this principle of betterment is admitted the County Council will not proceed with this or other Bills, and that that is a fixed resolution which will not be departed from. My right hon. Friend must have observed that the cheers which he received throughout his speech came from those who are opposed to bet- terment. [Cries of "No!"] Well, we shall see. Certainly, the Party opposite divided against betterment on every occasion. [Renewed cries of "No!"] Well, they divided against the Bill which my right hon. Friend desires to have restored. To that extent I correct my statement. Now, I wish to ask the attention of the House to the course which has been pursued in this matter by the two Houses of Parliament, and what is the probability of the present proposal being likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement. The House of Commons had this Bill before them. They referred it to a Hybrid Committee, from which it came back to this House and was affirmed by a majority of nearly two to one —216 to 118. With the authority of that great majority the Bill was sent up to the House of Lords; and how was it treated there? You would have supposed that the House of Lords would have at least considered the question and referred it to a Committee to be examined with care and attention.

Several hon. MEMBERS: They did refer it to a Committee.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I am going to state the facts correctly. They did refer the Bill to a Committee, but with an Instruction which prohibited the Committee from considering the question of betterment. That is the point of the whole thing. The House of Lords had this great principle of betterment sent up to them embodied in a clause, and refused practically to consider the question at all. When the Bill was brought to a Second Beading in the House of Lords this Resolution was moved by the Earl of Onslow— That this House, before assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, desires to express. its opinion that proposals for the assessment of capital value instead of annual value and the creation of new and arbitrarily-defined areas of taxation such as are contained in Clause 41 of the Bill ought not to be embodied in a Private Bill, but, if found just and equitable, should be based on general principles laid down by Parliament. Now, without commenting on the doctrine of that Resolution, what I am stating is that it prohibited the Committee from considering Clause 41 at all; and the Chairman of the Committee stated that after that Resolution the Committee did not and could not consider the clause. Though somewhat evasive in its terms, it had exactly the same effect as refusing a Second Reading to Clause 41. On what ground was that course taken by the House of Lords? They said that it could not be the subject of a Private Bill. If that is so, then it could not be the subject of any Bill brought before Parliament by the County Council— neither this Bill nor any future Bill. No further Improvement Bill, if this Resolution is maintained, can contain a clause dealing with betterment. That principle so laid down was condemned in the House of Lords itself by perhaps the highest authority there—the Chairman of Committees. Lord Morley said— He was inclined to agree that it would be extremely difficult by a Public Act to lay down principles which would apply to every variety of case which might occur not only in London, but elsewhere. He was not at all sure that it would be desirable or safe to lay down general principles which would be at once adopted, without any experience having been obtained. On these grounds, and on the ground that the application of the principle in this case depended entirely on local circumstances, he thought it was a subject which might legitimately and rightly be left to private legislation. They would then have the advantage of the application of the principle in particular cases, and by the growth of experience they would gradually get such an amount of knowledge as to be able to lay down principles for universal application. That is an absolute condemnation of the Resolution which prohibited the House of Lords Committee from considering this Betterment Clause. Lord Morley indicated that it might, in future be desirable to consider generally the principles on which this clause should be founded. But he said that the best manner of proceeding was tentatively, by Private Bill, applying particular instances, and so arriving at a general principle. That was the view laid down. In spite of that advice the House of Lords passed this Resolution, and the consequence was that Clause 41 was struck out unceremoniously in Committee without any consideration at all either of the principle of betterment or of its application in this particular case. That was what happened on the 25th of July. The Bill was sent back to this House, with Clause 41 having been struck out in what I may venture to call a most unceremonious manner, without examination of the question of betterment or its application to a particular case. It came down to this House, which on August 10 affirmed the principle of Clause 41 by a still larger majority than on the first occasion, the numbers in the Division being 221 against 88. It went back again to the House of Lords for them to consider whether they would or would not insist upon the course they had taken in summarily rejecting the clause. Now the method by which the House of Lords dealt with the question is among the most singular I ever knew. One of the reasons given by Lord Salisbury for the rejection of the clause was that the opinion of the House of Commons upon this matter was not deserving of consideration. His Lordship said— A thing called a Hybrid Committee was appointed to consider the measure. That is the manner in which the Leader of the majority in the House of Lords treated the majority of the House of Commons—"a thing called a Hybrid Committee." Surely we are the judges of the methods by which 'we proceed, and of the manner in which we examine these matters. The noble Lord went on to say— Where the men were not selected on account of their impartiality. I wonder whether that mode of selection was ever practised in connection with Committees in the House of Lords, and I should like to know whether what we are now asked to assent to is "a thing called a Hybrid Committee" or not? I should have thought that a Joint Committee is the most hybrid of all Committees. Lord Salisbury also stated— This Bill has been, not for the sake of money to be obtained by it, but for the sake of clandestinely and insidiously setting up a precedent, driven through the crooked backways of a Hybrid Committee, instead of being committed to a Public or Private Bill Committee in the public light of day, where all Bills that come before them are fully discussed. That is the way in which a proceeding of a majority of more than two to one in the House of Commons is to be treated when sent up to the House of Lords. Are we never under this Instruction to have a Hybrid Committee? Is it to be called a "crooked backway," and to be so treated by the House of Lords? I cannot conceive why the provisions of Bills of this importance should be so treated. The question arose whether or not it was possible in the House of Lords to replace Clause 41, even sup- posing that we had come to a settlement —could the Bill be resuscitated, and that clause be put in? The authority I quoted before—the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords—said "No." And there appears to be great force in that observation, because the House of Lords having refused to discuss this matter in Select Committee, where the opponents could have been heard, it would hardly have been right for them to pass the Bill "holus bolus" without examination in Committee. What is the use of denouncing the House of Commons for the crooked backways of Hybrid Committees when the House of Lords will not have a Committee at all, and when they pass a Resolution to prevent the question being considered in a Committee? On November 24th a Motion was made in the House of Lords, and the terms of that Motion were— That it is desirable that a Committee should be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report whether, in the case of improvements sanctioned by Parliament and effected by the expenditure of public funds, persons the value of whose property is clearly increased can be equitably required to contribute towards the cost of the improvement. Well, Sir, we have already made up our minds on the point by a majority of two to one, and have declared more than once, and are prepared to declare again, that it is equitable. If the House of Lords is prepared to declare against that opinion let them say so. We have resolved that it is equitable, and we do not want to discuss that point with the House of Lords. We have made up our minds upon it. [Cries of "No!"] I am speaking of the majority of this House. I know perfectly well that there are gentlemen opposite who are against the principle. [Cries of "No!"] Very well, then, they do not want the principle called in question. At any rate, we do not. The right hon. Member for the University of London thinks that if this House sent to the Committee of the House of Lords we should be able to persuade their Lordships. Great is his faith. I have great faith in my right hon. Friend; but if we were to send him on the mission of attempting to persuade, say, the Duke of Argyll of anything which would limit the rights of property, I think we should be wasting his valuable time. I say we have made up our minds. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what would they think of a proposal to have a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider whether it was advantageous to have an Established Church? Would not the answer be— " We have made up our minds on that; we are not going into a Joint Committee to discuss that question." Or supposing it were proposed that we should have a Joint Committee to consider whether a system of Protection should be restored our answer would be—" We have made up our minds on that matter, and we are not going to take part in a Joint Committee to discuss it." If the House of Lords had desired, either by a Committee of their own upon the general question, or by going into Committee on the Bill to discuss whether the principle of betterment is good in itself or in its application, more light might have been thrown upon the matter, and it would have been seen what chances there are for dealing with the question. The last part of the Motion in the House of Lords was— In what cases and under what conditions Parliament should sanction the levying of such contribution on Local Acts or Provisional Orders. I do not say that they are not matters that it would be very proper to consider, and I do not raise the same condition precedent to their discussion that I raise in connection with the first part of the Motion. Let us understand whether the principle of betterment is to be admitted as a sound principle or not. Let us settle that first, and then discuss its application. The whole of our system of private legislation is founded upon a series of Private Bills applied in particular cases, and we never attempted to codify that law until, upon the examination of particular cases, we found the principle that it was proper to apply. Therefore, as to the second part of the Resolution, if it is intended to lay down rigorous principles in a general Act which is to restrain the application by the County Council, or by any one else, of this principle of betterment in Local Acts, I should be glad to consider it. The view of the Government was stated by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords. Speaking on the Motion for a Joint Committee, and replying to the Marquess of Salisbury, he said, referring to the noble Marquess— He has just intimated to your Lordships that, in his opinion, no more senseless proposal was ever put before Parliament than that contained in the Bill before your Lordships. The Marquess of Salisbury: May I correct the noble and learned Lord? What I described as senseless was the principle that proximity to an improvement necessarily involved improvement. The Lord Chancellor: I do not know that that proposal can be said to be of the essence of the Bill which came before this House. That Bill, at any rate, received the assent of the Commons and of the Commons' Committee, and after the rejection of the principle by your Lordships the other House insisted by large majorities in maintaining their position, that Clause 14 should be retained in the Bill; and now we are to ask the other House, whose proceedings it is alleged have resulted in a senseless proposal, to join with us in appointing a Committee to consider that senseless proposal. Not even the principle, which the Commons have affirmed again and again, is to be admitted, because the question is, not whether the scheme shall be carried out, but whether the principle is right at all. That seems to be a strong argument against the Joint Committee. That is our position. We are asked to go to a Joint Committee to discuss a question upon which I venture to say not only the County Council but the majority of the House of Commons have made up their minds. We are not going to change them. In my opinion, to go to a Joint Committee in the circumstances would not be a sensible course on our part. I decline to allow the responsibility in this matter to rest with the House of Commons. It rests with the House of Lords, which declined even to discuss in Committee the Bill involving the principle of betterment. We, by the method which has been so contemptuously described "as the thing called a Hybrid Committee," did our best to examine the question; we discussed it over and over again, and eventually sent the Bill to the House of Lords with the approval of a great majority. We therefore have done our best in every way to settle this question. The invitation to us now is to consider— Whether, where the value of property is clearly increased by an improvement, the owners can be equitably required to contribute to the costs of the improvement?

An hon. MEMBER: Read on.

SIR W. HARCOURT

That is the main and material part of the Resolution. This is not a question we are prepared further to deal with. It is not an open question. It is put forward by those who deny that the principle is equitable. We think that by accepting the Reference proposed by the Lords we should not improve the position of the principle of betterment. The Government, in, fact, believe that by assenting to a Joint Committee they would be assisting the House of Lords to destroy the principle of betterment altogether, and therefore they cannot assent to the course proposed.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

Although I am not a London Member, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments whilst I say something upon this question, in regard to which I think I have two claims upon the attention of the House. In the first place, I believe that I was the first Member of Parliament who advocated this principle of betterment, and I am, like the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, most anxious to see it properly settled. In the second place, although I have not a great and direct interest in the matter as it applies to London, I cannot but feel that the acceptance of this principle in the case of London will have most important results in the Provinces, and there are many of our Municipalities which are looking forward with considerable interest to the results of this discussion. I have, perhaps, another claim to be heard in that I have never said one word in criticism of, or opposition to, the London County Council, my feeling being that the County Council having been established as part of our system of representative government by the late Government, it did not become the House of Commons to be perpetually carping at that Body or interfering with its action. It seems to me that, like all Bodies to be trusted with responsibility, it was natural that it should make mistakes, possibly great mistakes; but I thought that it would be better to leave those mistakes to the judgment of the Council's constituency than to have constant Parliamentary interference. Having said that, I now say I find myself in the extraordinary position of agreeing with a good deal that fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I regret very much the position in which this matter has been placed. I regret the action of the House of Lords, and I am anxious to find out what is the best course to take in order to secure the establishment of the principle of better-meat. What is the course proposed by the Government? They propose to treat with contempt the invitation of the Lords to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the subject. I think it will be found that that is a most unusual course. I believe that it has never been taken before, and the very fact that it is unusual will give emphasis to the refusal of the House of Commons. It is, in fact, I will not say an insult, but the very strongest form of contempt that we could exhibit in this matter, to which we are asked to assent on the present occasion.

SIR W. HARCOURT

interposed with an observation which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I was not referring to my right hon. Friend, but to the facts. I think it is a contemptuous method of meeting a proposal by the House of Lords. Of course, the rejection or amendment of a Bill is fully within the constitutional powers of either House, and has not hitherto been regarded by the one as a mark of contempt by the other. But here is a proposal made by the House of Lords distinctly with the object of securing an ultimate and amicable settlement. It is an invitation to discuss, and our refusal is a refusal to discuss. I do not say that we should agree with the Lords. It would not be an insult to the House of Lords of course if, after the Committee had reported, we refused to agree with the Report, or if our Representatives disagreed entirely with the Representatives of the Lords. I will not say that the attitude proposed by the Government is an insult, but I say it is very strong action on their part to refuse even to meet the House of Lords in the discussion to which they invite us. I do not agree with the action of the House of Lords, and much regret it. I go further, and say I think it extremely unwise. I think it will certainly lead to the misapprehension to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded. It was of course perfectly competent for them to consider in Committee the proposals of the Bill, and if they had considered them, it is probable that they would have made considerable changes which we might or might not have accepted. Unhappily, what they did, acting as I think under a misapprehension, was to preclude the con- sideration of this matter in Committee by passing a Resolution moved by Lord Onslow and carried before the Second Reading of the Bill. That Resolution referred to proposals for taxing capital value in arbitrarily defined areas. Well, it is not proposed to tax the capital value nor is it proposed to act in arbitrarily defined areas. I think it would be possible to show the House of Lords that they were mistaken as to the meaning and intention of the Bill. In view of that mistake, and of their premature action, I very much regret the course they have taken. It is not the object of my right hon. Friend, and certainly it is not my object, to prove that the House of Lords were wrong, and above all, it is not our object to punish the House of Lords for doing wrong even if it were in our power to do so, but it is our object to re-establish this question of betterment, and to put it in such a position that the principle can be applied. It is a matter of urgent necessity that it should be applied. If the course suggested by the Government is followed, we shall have met the olive branch of the Lords with contemptuous indifference. Is it probable that under these circumstances we shall find that House in a better frame of mind for dealing with this subject when it comes up again? Is it not certain that by taking the action we are now taking we are postponing the settlement of the question for 12 months or it may be for two years, or for many years —at any rate, until the House of Lords changes its opinion or can be aroused into giving up that opinion. Whichever of these objects is in view, considerable delay must take place before we arrive at it, and in the meantime not only the improvement which, as my right hon. Friend has told us, involves an expenditure of £1,000,000 is concerned, but four separate improvements, only one of which is identified with the question of betterment—for the London County Council themselves do not ask for betterment in regard to the other three—are to be indefinitely postponed. And this is not all, because, as I have already said, improvements in the Provinces are also being held back in order to see what is the final decision. My right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) has given the House a description of what occurred in the Lords. I must say I think that, through being very brief, he has given us a not altogether correct impression of what took place in that House. No doubt in that House, as in this House, there are men who are consistently opposed to the principle of betterment. The Duke of Argyll, I have no doubt whatever, is opposed to the principle altogether, but this is distinctly not the case with regard to the majority either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons. That this is not the case in regard to the House of Commons is proved by what fell from my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) himself, because the moment after he had accused gentlemen opposite of being opponents of the principle of betterment he told us it was carried in this House by a majority of three to one. How could it have been carried by such a majority without the assistance of Members opposite?

SIR W. HARCOURT

It had the assistance of very few of them.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

It would require a great many more than a very few to make a majority of three to one.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Many Members found it convenient to stay away.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I am giving my right hon. Friend the advantage of all who stayed away, who, after all, cannot be considered very bitter opponents of the principle, and, having given him that advantage, I still say that a considerable number of men on the other side of the House voted in favour of the principle. What is more important, however, is as to the other House. Lord Kimberley, addressing the House, said— The principle of betterment is conceded. The real difficulty is how to apply it. Surely Lord Kimberley is likely to have a better knowledge of the opinion entertained by the House of Lords than my right hon. Friend.

SIR W. HARCOURT

He was referring to the Government.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

He was speaking of the majority. His argument was this: "You have conceded the principle; the only question is how to apply it. There is an honest effort in this Bill to apply it, and you ought to pass the Bill. Let me, on the other hand, call attention to the fact that the promoters of the Bill admitted that there was a difficulty in applying it. Their view, which was expressed very fairly by Lord Hobhouse, who represented the London County Council, was that some alternative should be found. Lord Hobhouse said— Surely, then, the time had come when the County Council were entitled to know from their opponents what it was they wanted. Their opponents said themselves that the principle was just, and that there probably was some good method of applying it. Well, what was it? Were they to go on contriving methods until one appeared to which no objection was to be made? If they were to do that they would have to wait until the river passed away, and would never get their reforms at all. I think that shows that even in the Lords the principle was conceded, and the only question was as to the best method of applying it. I agree entirely with the claim put forward by Lord Hobhouse. I think the County Council had a right to ask the House of Lords, and to ask us, if the method they proposed was not considered just and equitable, to devise some other method. But that is precisely what a Joint Committee might give us, and that is precisely the object of my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock) in proposing this Motion to-day. Why should not those who think the Lords made a mistake, as I do, and those who think the Lords were wrong, as the Government do, give them the chance of retrieving their error? There is, you cannot deny, an olive branch held out to us by the Lords. [Ministerial laughter.] Well, you do not like that expression, and I will withdraw it. You cannot object to this? Lord Kimberley himself said that this proposal of a Joint Committee was a confession of error. You do not object to the Lords confessing their error, do you? Well, the right hon. Gentleman complains of the terms of the Resolution. I do not say the Resolution is one I should myself have drawn if I had been asked to frame it, but it is still enough to afford a bridge whereby a settlement of the matter may be immediately reached. What are the terms of the Resolution? In the first place, we are asked to settle the principle I admit, and we have settled that. Our representatives on the Committee would be instructed under no circumstances to discuss the principle, as we are pledged to the principle by a majority of nearly three to one. The principle being granted, the Lords ask under what condi- tions and circumstances should Local Acts embody that principle. That is a matter on which my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) omitted to inform the House. The Lords contended in the Resolution that this ought to be a matter for general legislation, and ought not to be dealt with in Local Acts. Well, they have handsomely given way. They now propose the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the conditions upon which the principles shall be embodied in Local Acts. My right hon. Friend says each Act should be treated separately by itself. That may be quite right as far as opposed Bills are concerned, but what about Unopposed Bills? What Rules are to be laid down for the guidance of the Chairman of Committees in either House on the subject? You must have some kind of general conditions laid down, although I quite admit that they neither ought to be nor can be very precise. That being so, the Resolution of the Lords is not open to the objection taken by my right hon. Friend. I think it would be very strange if, in face of the great interests at stake, the Government should still make it a Government matter to refuse the offer of the Lords when they have nothing to substitute for it, and to leave the Commons and the Lords to continue for perhaps an indefinite period at loggerheads on this question. If there were no practical issue, I should say we might very well maintain our possession of proud isolation, and refuse to meet the House of Lords even to consider the subject; but, having regard to the enormous interests at stake, I do think it is really a matter of common sense and of common justice to the interests concerned that the Government should not take up so extremely antagonistic a position to the proposal of my right hon. Friend.

MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had cut the ground from beneath his own feet. Whilst he proposed that the Commons should appoint Representatives to serve on a Joint Committee he said that such Representatives would go into the Committee pledged in a certain direction.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg pardon. It may be that the hon. Gentleman and I differ as to what we consider the main part of the Resolution. In my view the first part is not really the main part of the Resolution, but I regard that as settled. It is on the second part of the Resolution—the determination of the conditions—on which I think we should go into the Committee unpledged.

MR. J. STUART

said, he had been about to point out that what the right hon. Gentleman regarded as the main point of the Resolution could not be so accepted on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had himself said that the Representatives of the Commons would enter into the Committee pledged practically to the non-consideration of the question dealt with in the first part of the Resolution of the Lords. As to the second part of the Lords' Resolution, the opinion pressed by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords (the Earl of Morley) was that the advantage of considering the application of the principle of betterment to individual cases, and thereby providing for the growth of experience, would be to develop an amount of knowledge which would enable them to lay down principles of universal application in the future. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock) seemed to have embarked on a crusade to whitewash the House of Lords in the eyes of the people. No man could for a moment say that it was not the House of Lords who were at this moment hindering the Bill. He was pained to be in disagreement with his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock), with whom he had stood shoulder to shoulder on every Bill which had hitherto been brought forward by the London County Council. His right hon. Friend, however, did not at that moment represent the views of the London County Council.

^*SIR J. LUBBOCK, interposing, said, the London County Council had expressed no view on the question now before the House.

MR. J. STUART

went on to say that the two right hon. Gentlemen had stated that the Lords had been badly treated, and the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had spoken as if some contumely were being thrown on the House of Lords. The House of Lords from the beginning had shown that they did not care to understand the subject. They showed their anxiety in regard to this Clause 41 by discussing a number of things that were not in it, and then proceeded to turn it out in consequence. In this very month Lord Salisbury, speaking of the 41st clause, used the following words which he had taken from The Times:— The principle of the 41st clause of the Bill which your Lordships declined to accept was that proximity is the one test of improvement, and that if you are near a public improvement it says that your property must have improved by that public improvement, and you must pay accordingly. A more senseless suggestion was never put—and that is saying a good deal—into a Bill presented to Parliament. He ventured to say that there was no one who had an iota of knowledge on the betterment question who imagined it was represented by that proposition, and no one who read the clause in the Bill of the London County Council would imagine that anything like that was for an instant to be found in the clause. He said the House of Lords were not treating them fairly when they did not take the trouble to inform themselves on the subject, and he thought it was time that the House of Lords informed itself of what the meaning of the proposal was, and how it should be dealt with. Let the House of Lords inquire whether the principle might reasonably and justly be applied, and, when they had done that, then they should see how it should be applied. Then his right hon. Friend said they would hang up the principle of betterment for a year, for two, or even three years. That, he supposed, meant if the London County Council came with the Tower Bridge Bill, as it intended to do, at the end of next year, the House of Lords would say—"We are not going to fight the House of Commons and the London County Council out with the clause again." Their view was that the House of Commons had completely decided on the question, and the wisest position for the House of Commons was to adhere to what it had decided, and let the House of Lords deal with the subject. That was the case with respect to the London County Council, but there was another course frequently recommended by some hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, who would bring the matter before the House of Lords at the beginning of the next Session in the Bill of the Corporation of Manchester. That Corporation had already given notice of a Bill for considerable street improvements, and in that Bill they introduced a Betterment Clause which would be found in The Gazette of November 21st. He need not go through the notification, which was practically identical with that of the London County Council. When the great Corporations of this country were coming before the House of Lords and the House of Commons with betterment schemes, there was plenty of opportunity for the House of Lords to inform itself and to decide for itself the points which the House of Commons had decided for themselves, and which the Lords now desired to throw into the melting pot. He had now noticed some of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) and, following him, probably the Member for West Birmingham, had brought it forward. He had passed over the statement that the Resolution of the House of Lords was an invitation to consider the question of betterment as a whole. It was not an invitation to do that, but whether it was possible to do what the House of Commons had resolved it was right to do. But his right hon. Friend discussed the Bill, taking the two great improvements, and threw out that it was necessary to go on with this Bill even though the Betterment Clause was not there, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out the question about the betterment did not affect the improvements now. But he spoke of the Vauxhall Bridge as in a seriously dangerous condition, and quoted a Report in which it had been stated that as the result of an examination of the foundation of the piers made by a diver, the bottom of the timber canals were found to be scoured out by the tide. Now, would the House believe it, that he omitted to point out that that examination was made in November, 1887, and since that time the ground had been filled by dropping heavy slag and other matter which had resisted the action of the tide, and which again in 1891 were examined and repaired, and the question now was whether they should proceed to repair them on that line? But as to the bridge being in a seriously dangerous condition, the right hon. Gentleman would mislead the House unwittingly he admitted, but he thought that impression should not be left upon the mind of the House. He inquired of the engineer of the London County Council to-day, and he understood him to say that the bridge was in no more dangerous condition than it had been in for a long time. Examined and reported on in 1887 and 1891, there was no danger of an accident; the only question was one of temporary expense, and when he asked the engineer if the load was limited, he replied there was scarcely a bridge over the river or in the country in which the load was not limited. Then he came to the matter of the Tower Bridge, which was a more important matter. There had not been a good commencement, but to talk of that being hung up in the air and left there unutilised and unusable was a perfect farce. The City spent £1,000,000 on that bridge. Where did they get it? Out of the Coal and Wine Dues which they had paid; and let him point out that the City opposed the Betterment Clause by which they desired to carry out the improvement, and so the City themselves were preventing the carrying into effect of this very Bill. There was one question raised with which he was bound to deal, and that was the question of the unemployed. He noticed the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) did not refer to it, and he took it the right hon. Gentleman was too well informed to refer to it; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) did refer to it. He (Mr. Stuart) had inquired about the Tower Bridge Bill to-day from the Chairman of the London County Council, in conjunction with the engineer and the valuer, and they put it at two years as the time absolutely required to complete all the arrangements before putting spade into the ground, so to speak, and they referred him to the evidence before the Tower Bridge Committee. Before that Committee evidence was given to the effect that before the bridge could be completed they would take about two years for the purchase of the property and acquiring it: it would take 12 months to provide the necessary accommodation for the working people who would be disturbed, and about another year for completion—in all, about four years to carry out the work. What had that to do with the present unemployed question? It was utter nonsense to say that the commencement of the Tower Bridge Bill would affect the question of the unemployed in the present winter, which was the question before them, and it would not affect the question in the next winter; therefore, they could not say this was a case coming under the Circular of the President of the Local Government Board. Let them take the Vauxhall Bridge: supposing the Bill to effect the Vauxhall Bridge improvement were passed to-day, the work could not be begun under the most favourable circumstances until some time in February, and then it would be chiefly skilled work, and could not be expected to absorb more than 100 or 150 of that class of the unemployed, and that would be a miserable few; and, therefore, he asked, was it right to import into their discussion the question of the unemployed? What they were doing was defending the betterment principle as generally affecting the ratepayers of London, and it was no use to say they should undertake these improvements without having secured this betterment principle. They, therefore, considered it better to stand by their principle, and send the Bills back to the House of Lords. Certainly the question of the unemployed depended on the capability of the ratepayers to spend their money, and there was no time when there had been greater distress than now, or when more notices were issued for the nonpayment of rates, and if they could not help these ratepayers they would not be able to undertake expenditure on behalf of the unemployed. By safeguarding the ratepayers out of those sources of income that justly ought to come to them they would be able to deal better with the employed than in hurrying on works of this kind that did not affect them in the least. One word more and he had done, and that was as to the smallness of the amount of betterment on this Tower Bridge Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had too much knowledge to bring up this as an argument against their position. The question was one of principle, and though they were to spend £5,000 or £10,000 in obtaining the adoption by both Houses of Parliament of the betterment principle in this Bill, small though the amount of money, in his opinion and that of the majority of the County Council and Members for London it would be well spent. Lord Morley, on the 25th July, spoke of the question being an important one, which would extend largely not merely in London, but elsewhere. There they had the real crux of the question; it was because they were here defending a great principle, capable of extension, that they were now asked to throw this document into the melting pot and then go to the House of Lords and bring them once more to say whether this was a right thing on which they had already made up their minds. They threw back on the House of Lords any accusation made upon them on this account and left the circumstances of the case to speak for themselves, confident the people of London would see perfectly clearly that it was the House of Lords who were cutting down the reform they desired.

MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)

said, that after the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart),who was a Leader of the Progressists, perhaps they would allow him, as a Member of the Moderate Party of the London County Council to say a few words. He desired, in the first instance, to state to the House that the attitude of the Moderate Party of the London County Council all through this question of betterment, which had extended since the establishment of the London County Council, had not been one of uncompromising hostility to the principle of betterment. They believed and had stated in the County Council that some form of taxation for an improvement which was carried out at the public expense was just and equitable, and he believed he was right in saying that expressed the view of his hon. Friends on that side of the House, but the minority of the County Council had objected that it was not right to apply a principle of this kind to the particular Bill that was under discussion, because they believed what was acquired by betterment was absolutely infinitesimal. His hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) had said this was not an argument against it. He (Mr. Boulnois) maintained that it was, because he could tell the House, though his right hon. Friend the Member for the London University (Sir J. Lubbock) spoke of £10,000 the London County Council would get out of this, it was only half that sum, and when that was capitalised the amount it would produce was some £150 a year, and some considerable portion of that increment might not come into operation for some 40 years; therefore they considered this was not a case in which betterment should be made a great principle. Those of them who contended the principle of betterment should first be settled were not surprised that the House of Lords took that view, and declined to take this particular case of the Tower Bridge. His right hon. Friend the Member for the London University had been a most consistent advocate and supporter of betterment all through, and those Radicals, as he might call them, Lord Farrer and Lord Hob-house, were both consistent supporters of betterment. Both Lord Farrer and Lord Hobhouse, who spoke in favour of betterment in the House of Lords, voted in favour of Lord Morley's Motion. Lord Farrer, in a speech delivered at the last meeting of the County Council, said that the conduct of the House of Lords in rejecting the clause was ignorant as well as unwise, nevertheless he agreed to accept the Bill without the Betterment Clause. He could not help thinking that Party politics had interfered in this matter. Lord Farrer, as a Party politician, said he rejoiced when the House of Lords rejected the Bill, as he thought no better bit of electioneering had ever been done for the Liberal Party, but when it came to a question of how to obtain their point, he thought it better to vote as a Londoner and a member of the London County Council than as a Liberal politician. The Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council evidently considered the proposition that there should be a Joint Committee a practical one, because they instructed their Parliamentary agent to advise them whether the Bill which was still before the House of Lords could be kept alive until the Joint Committee had reported, and the County Council, on a Motion made by the hon. Member for Walworth, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, resolved to ask the Government to introduce a Public Bill dealing with the matter. Therefore, they might safely say the London County Council considered that the matter could be dealt with apart from any particular improvement scheme. But that was not all with regard to the County Council. Even the Progressive Party in the Council were not agreed on the principle of betterment, because a few meetings ago a resolution was carried in the Council referring the point to the Parliamentary Committee of the Council, whether there should be an area of betterment at all. There was an area of betterment in the Bill of 1893, which was erroneously called the limits of deviation, but which were drawn in a very arbitrary manner under the Bill. If a man had two properties, one of which was bettered and the other worsened he could not set off the worsement against the betterment. The Bill, as originally introduced by the London County Council, contained a clause to the effect that if the County Council had to pay compensation for the property they had to take, they might set off betterment against worsement upon other property belonging to the same man in the same district. That appeared to him to be a very one-sided arrangement, but eventually the clause was withdrawn. The question of how far the set-off should be allowed required consideration, and could profitably go before the Joint Committee such as was suggested. After all, was not this a Party question? The London County Council did not desire betterment so much as they desired to have a dig, if he might use that expression, against the House of Lords. Mr. Arthur Arnold, in a speech he made on this subject, said they wanted to put the onus and opprobrium of the rejection on the House of Lords; and another fiery spirit in the London County Council said they wanted a good fighting question to vote against the House of Lords. He maintained that the question of betterment was not fully understood in this House, and it was not at all understood by people out-of-doors. There was a vague idea that the rates would be relieved by betterment. An expression had been used like "bosh." He believed that might be a Parliamentary word, though he thought it would better come as a London County Council word; but, at all events, it was rather ridiculous to say that London would be greatly relieved by betterment. A Joint Committee, by calm and temperate discussion, would be able to determine the whole question, and it would do much to enlighten Londoners and facilitate a settlement of the question. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) had alluded to the fact of the Corporation of Manchester coming with a Bill in which the Betterment Clause was introduced, and stated that other Corporations would do the same. That was all the more reason why there should be a Joint Committee to consider the whole question of betterment. But the matter really rested with the Government. Lord Kimberley, in the House of Lords, used these words— I do not think that the House of Commons will concur in a Joint Committee, and therefore the Government are not prepared to support it. Would not the Government put an end to this deadlock that was existing; would they not come forward and act as mediators between the House of Lords and the London County Council, because if they did it was quite certain the House of Commons would at once concur in the appointment of this Joint Committee? He sincerely hoped they would do so, because they would then see that the much-needed improvements on which they were all agreed would ultimately be carried out to the benefit of the ratepayers, the unemployed, and all London.

SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, that from a public and business point of view it was impossible to over-estimate the importance of the subject of this Motion. In the City and elsewhere the very strongest feelings prevailed on the question. At a recent meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce a resolution was adopted urging the London County Council to proceed as rapidly as possible with the necessary approaches to the Tower Bridge, in order that when completed the bridge might be available for traffic. If there was one feature more noticeable than another at present in the streets of London it was the great congestion of traffic, and it was most noticeable on the bridges, where it was a source of the greatest danger and of delays. It was therefore most essential that the approaches to the Tower Bridge should be proceeded with by the County Council, in order that the public might obtain the benefit of the bridge with as little delay as possible. He deprecated the introduction of any political feeling in the matter, because it tended to produce friction which would undoubtedly put off the solution of the present difficulty and thereby delay the commencement of those public works which were so essential in the interest of London. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had imputed to all hon. Members on the Opposition aide of the House an indiscriminate opposition to the principle of betterment; and if he was not mistaken, the hon. Member for Hackney had also charged them with being actuated by a motive to delay the Bill. Nothing could be more unfounded than those statements. For his own part he had voted consistently for the principle of betterment, and he had done so because his experience of municipal life was that whenever it was a choice between the interest of the vendor and the interest of the community, the vendor had always benefited, and the community had had to bear the burden. He thought that a most improper state of affairs, and if there were no equitable solution of the difficulty he would be disposed to give the preference to the interest of the community rather than to the interest of the individual. But what they desired to find was a solution which was fair and just and equitable to both parties, and they felt that in this principle of betterment, properly and carefully applied, they had such a solution. Manchester had been referred to in the course of the discussion. He was aware that many improvements in cities and boroughs had been delayed, and some had never been undertaken at all, because of the absence of this principle, which underlay all these matters, and the constant experience of many of them was that Corporations were called upon to buy large and unnecessary quantities of land in order to preserve their pecuniary interests in the future. There were several objections to that system. One was that it might involve a considerable loss to the Corporation; and even if it ended in profit, it was more or less a matter of speculation, and it was most undesirable that Public Bodies should be associated with anything like land jobbery. What was desired was that some guiding principle of action, fair to the individual, just to the private owner, and not inequitable to the community, which had to bear so many burdens in rates, should be arrived at. He had heard it argued that the London County Council should be prohibited from proceeding by means of a Private Bill To do that would be to prevent a great deal of useful action on the part of the County Council in carrying out public improvements. Their desire should be to make not the worst but the best of their Municipalities, and to forward reforms in that direction. He would remind those who took exception to Private Bill legislation on the part of the County Council that it was one of the provisions of the Bill introduced by the Conservative Government in 1888, and that it was under and in accordance with those provisions that the present steps were being taken to give increased powers to the London County Council. On the other hand, though he thought the action taken in another place in the matter was not completely justified, there was a great deal to be said in favour of the consideration of the subject by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The principle of betterment was accepted, but undoubtedly there were grave difficulties in the application of the principle in frequent cases, and these ought to be carefully considered. The hon. Member for Hackney had said that this particular public improvement in London would not be expedited by the appointment of a Committee. But he would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that as it was still, happily, a part of the Constitution that both Houses of the Legislature should agree, it would be far better to appoint a Joint Committee to discuss the difficulties of the application of betterment, and so facilitate the carrying out of the various public improvements contemplated in London. He thought, on the whole, it was wise that they should avail themselves of the experiences of the past in these matters, and that, benefitting by such experience, they should lay down beforehand, if possible, some general rules for the guidance not only of the County Council of London, but of other Municipal Bodies. The hon. Member for Hackney had said, again, that this was not a question of the unemployed. Some Members of the House had had the opportunity of meeting a deputation of the unemployed a short time previously, and the men urged, and he thought urged with reason, that this question had an effect on the employment of labour. There were numbers of people in London seek- ing, not charity, but work, and though the provision of work, merely because there was a want of employment, was to be condemned, still, when the opportunity arose, when work for the advantage of the community might be placed within the reach of the unemployed classes, it was their duty to avail themselves of such opportunities by every means in their power. There were many important works of improvement in London delayed, or which might be delayed, owing to this difficulty over the question of betterment, and he believed that if the difficulty was not removed it would result in the greatest social trouble and inconvenience. It was not a question of want of employment this winter only, but, he feared, for many winters, and every obstacle to employment ought to be removed beforehand so far as practicable. It was, therefore, their duty to come to some agreement on the principle of betterment, and thereby remove a serious obstacle from the path of public progress. It was for these reasons—because he approved of the principle of betterment, and was desirous to see it applied on a really just and equitable basis; and because he was anxious that its general application in the interest of the community should not be impeded by any reactionary feeling, but expedited in the interest of the unemployed classes who wanted work, which might well be supplied them for the good of the community, that he supported the Motion to forthwith refer the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses, which he felt, under all the existing circumstances, to be the best and most expeditious course—the course of prudent progress.

MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

said, that as a London Member he had heard with regret the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it seemed to him that these remarks were actuated more by a wish to increase the difficulty with the House of Lords that by a statesmanlike desire to reconcile the two bodies of the Legislature on this most difficult subject. The question of betterment was a very difficult one. The London County Council had had experience of the difficulties arising out of this principle of betterment. In 1890 they had brought forward a measure which proposed betterment within a certain area. That was the well-known Strand Improvement Scheme. It was rejected by a Committee of that House, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and which, more or less, intimated that in their opinion the principle of betterment should only be applied to those owners who had frontages to new streets. A similar fate had befallen the Bill of 1892 which related to the Cromwell Road Bridge, where a certain radius was taken as the betterment clause. In this year the London County Council had brought forward the present measure, confining the application of the betterment principle to the more limited area of the limits of deviation; and before the Committee of that House they had admitted the practical difficulty of this application of the principle. The learned counsel for the London County Council admitted that it was possible that they had not hit upon the exact mode of dealing with this important question. That showed that the County Council itself was uncertain as to the application of this novel principle, and was perhaps the strongest argument for the appointment of a Committee of both Houses to consider not only the principle, but the application of the principle. He agreed with those who thought that the language of the Resolution of the House of Lords might be improved, but that was no reason why they should refuse to consider the request of the other House, or create a difficulty instead of trying to come to terms with them on this question. The mere language of the Resolution could hardly justify the House in adopting a position of hostility. It could not be said that he (the hon. Member) was hostile to betterment. He had spoken in favour of the principle of betterment, but he did not believe that betterment would prove of that enormous advantage to the people of London which some of the County Council seemed to think. He was in favour of the principle of betterment, but he saw great and practical difficulties in the way of a judicious application of the principle, and he was afraid it would result in great disappointment to the people of London. The County Council themselves had used very extraordinary arguments in the matter. He held in his hand a paper which bore on the back the names of the Parliamentary agents of the London County Council, in which they said that hitherto the County Council had relied upon recoupment, which had given them the whole value of the improvement, while betterment would only give them half. That was a very inconsistent argument on the part of the County Council. He was himself not at all sure that, as a general rule, recoupment was not the better principle to apply to improvements. In many cases it had repaid three-fourths of the cost and in one case the whole. Betterment was a new principle; it was difficult to apply, and therefore it ought to be fully and carefully considered by one of the strongest Committees which could possibly be formed. Two Committees of the House of Commons had rejected it, although one had accepted it. He believed the other House had not adopted a very politic course in dealing with the Bill, but it was not irrevocable. The very fact that the other House had declared their willingness to discuss the matter in a Joint Committee showed that they were desirous to come to some common agreement; and he did not think that the objection of the London County Council to the terms of the Resolution recently passed was any reason why the Commons should refuse to meet the other House on the question. He could understand that the Government were anxious just now to have an additional quarrel with the House of Lords. But, speaking as one of the Members for London, he should protest against this mere Party political interest being thought of more importance than the carrying out of improvements which were really necessary in the interest of London. The expenditure of a large sum of money would benefit the unemployed, and if the County Council took years to begin works like these it was not that expeditious body which some of its admirers represented it to be. The approaches to the Tower Bridge and the works at Vauxhall ought to be taken in hand at once. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham said that Vauxhall Bridge works were urgently necessary. The Member for Shoreditch denied this, saying that the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council reported that the works were not urgent. But in April of this year the Parliamentary Committee said— The rebuilding of Vauxhall Bridge is a matter which must be regarded as of immediate importance. At present the difficulty in the whole situation was not caused by the House of Lords. It was really caused by the action of the Government in refusing to consent to a Committee to consider the difference with the House of Lords. It was all very well for the Government for Party reasons to endeavour to throw the responsibility on the House of Lords; but he believed the people of London would see through it. At all events, some of the members of the County Council were not satisfied with the action of the Government. Mr. Costello, a very active member of the County Council, and a Radical candidate at the last General Election, at a recent public meeting, said— He could not allege that any Member of the Cabinet was hostile to the London Progressive programme; but they had obtained no useful reforms, nor was there any prospect of any hope of advance in the future. Mr. Costello also said that he was feeling that the London Progressive party ought to make it "hot for the present holders of power at the next General Election." If the Government stood in the way of London improvements a good many people would make it hot for them at the next General Election. The Government were making a mistake in endeavouring to keep up this quarrel with the House of Lords. The House of Lords had expressed their willingness to discuss the matter in a Joint Committee and he thought that proposal ought to be accepted by the Government.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

said, he could assure the hon. Member for North St. Pancras that the people of London were very much more anxious to obtain betterment than join issue with the House of Lords on this question. The real question which the majority of the House, who had passed two Resolutions in favour of betterment during the present Session, had to consider was, how the principle of betterment could be applied with the greatest possible expedition. It seemed to him that the various hon. Members who had addressed the House, and in particular the hon. Member for South Islington, had ignored the real issue. The fallacy running through the whole of that hon. Member's speech was that he assumed that the appointment of the Joint Committee would be the most rapid way of bringing the principle into operation. But both that hon. Gentleman and others had found it expedient to utterly ignore the terms of reference by which that Committee would be bound. It was very well to say that the principle of betterment was accepted. The principle was accepted; but if that was so, how absurd it was to appoint a Committee, part of the reference of which was to consider whether or not the principle was equitable! The Committee might never consider the question of the practical application of the principle at all, because they might decide on the first point — namely, that the principle was inequitable. The hon. Member for South Islington, who spoke with weight upon this question, objected to proceeding in this matter according to the method which had always been adopted in regard to similar legislation—namely, that, first, the question should be worked out by means of Private Bills. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham asked how would it be in regard to Unopposed Bills. All experience, however, led to the belief that for a long time to come no Bills which involved the principle of betterment would be Unopposed. The right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham had represented the situation by a figure of speech—that the House of Lords was holding out the olive branch. He could not imagine a figure of speech which was more singularly inappropriate, and he would rather say that the House of Lords was setting a trap into which the House of Commons was invited to enter.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

said, he considered the last phrase of the hon. Member a most infelicitous one. The whole object of this Motion was that Londoners should be able to get on with their public improvements. The House of Lords had set no trap at all. As one of those who voted against the last Bill before the House of Commons in the earlier part of this Session, he might say he never had any feeling of hostility to the principle of betterment. Like many other hon. Members, he only thought it would be well there should be some more general inquiry into the principle than could be afforded by a Private Bill. He was anxious that a large and general inquiry should be made into the application of the principle, and now they had the opportunity of doing that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked what would be thought of a proposal to appoint a Joint Committee to consider the question of the Disestablishment of the Church, but that question was absolutely irrelevant. An obvious answer was that there were no such vital differences of opinion about betterment as, of course, existed with regard to Disestablishment. The London "Progressives" had promised enthusiastically to make of London a new heaven and a new earth, but where now was the enthusiasm of the "Progressives" for London improvements? London improvements were to be hung up in order that the Progressive Party of the London County Council might play a small part in a paltry political game. He was sorry the Government had opposed the proposal made by the House of Lords.

MR. W. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

said, he had heard with great astonishment the reasons that had been given for not assenting to the Motion. The real reason was obvious. The object was, in the coming conflict, which could not be long delayed, to get up an agitation against the House of Lords and to connect that Chamber with the delay in London improvements and the want of employment in the Metropolis. He appealed to the Government whether an attempt of that kind was worthy of them. The fact that there were in London so many unemployed was a strong reason why the Government should accept the olive branch held out by the House of Lords. The principles of all our Private Bill legislation had been settled by general Bills, and it was surely better in dealing with betterment to follow the established precedent than to leave principles to be laid down by Private Bill Committees. Many who said they were for betterment did not realise what was meant by it and how the principle was to be applied. In the case of the Strand Improvement Scheme, it was proposed by the London County Council to levy con- tributions upon the Temple Station of the Metropolitan Railway and upon property on the Thames Embankment; but when the witnesses came to be cross-examined the claim to rate property on the Embankment was made to appear so ridiculous that it had to be abandoned. In the cases of Vauxhall Bridge and the Tower Bridge there were allegations of betterment which were denied by the owners of the property. There might be cases in which private property was "bettered" by public improvements. He did not deny that he had generally been opposed to the particular schemes of betterment which had been previously before the House. He did not say that he was opposed to the principle of betterment, but he wanted to see a case in which it could be properly and fairly applied, without injury; in other words, they had yet to have the principle defined. The words of the Resolution certainly did not define it, for they left everything open. He hoped the Government would see their way to meeting the House of Lords upon this question.

MR. BARROW (Southwark, Bermondsey)

said, he represented the constituency on the south of the Thames which was most interested in the southern approach to the Tower Bridge. The road from the bridge almost immediately entered Bermondsey, and went through it until it reached the Old Kent Road and the New Kent Road. The bridge had been in contemplation and in course of erection for some years. A considerable majority had been elected to the Vestry of Bermondsey for the purpose of insisting on the principle of betterment; and the representatives of Bermondsey formed a part of that majority at the London County Council which supported the application of the betterment principle. There was no chance of moving that majority in Bermondsey, which, anxious as it was to have the approaches to the bridge improved, was not willing that the work should proceed until the principle of betterment had been accepted. This feeling prevailed in spite of the high local rates reaching 7s. 6d. in the £1, and the great inconvenience to which Bermondsey would be exposed. That was the answer of Bermondsey to those who wanted to know what London would say to the action of the House of Lords.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In the course of this Debate some London Members have gone into details of the improvements dealt with in the Bill which was the origin of this controversy. I am not fitted by my knowledge, nor by my position, not being a London Member, to follow them into these details; but I think it must be admitted by those who have listened to the Debate that issues of a wider character and of more important bearing have been raised by many of the speakers. Some gentlemen who largely agree with my views on this question appear to think we are inflicting a slight upon the House of Lords by the course we are pursuing. I do not think the House of Lords will suffer much by the slight; and it certainly is not in the interests of the House of Lords I have to speak to-night. Neither is it in the interest of the dignity of the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was highly indignant with the House of Lords in general, and with Lord Salisbury in particular, because Lord Salisbury, in speaking for a majority of the House of Lords, described the Hybrid Committee which sat upon the question in this House as "a thing"— "a thing called a Hybrid Committee." [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] Well, this was the phrase on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt and re-dwelt; that was the poisoned arrow that inflamed his blood; what he felt to be so intolerable was that it should be called "a thing."

SIR W. HARCOURT

"A crooked backway."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Whether it deserved to be called "a thing" or "a crooked backway" I will not determine, but it is not the machinery by which we do our best work on controversial questions that have to be determined by impartial consideration. What is a Hydrid Committee? How does it differ from an ordinary Committee? It differs, in fact, in this: that it makes not even a pretence to impartiality. An ordinary Committee of this House, upon which Parties are represented in proportion to their numerical strength in this House, has some slight pretension to be a really impartial tribunal for dealing with the question submitted to it. the hon. Member for South Islington, But a Hybrid Committee never has that character. Why? Because everybody you put upon it, either personally or through his constituents, has a direct interest in the decision to be come to. Whereas you fence round the constitution of the ordinary Committee dealing with a Private Bill by the most elaborate provisions so as to prevent any private interest coming in to disturb the impartial verdict of the tribunal, we throw that principle to the winds when we are dealing with a Hybrid Committee and deliberately make it a partial tribunal. Whether it is proper to describe such a tribunal as a "thing" or a "crooked backway" I do not care to inquire, but it is not an impartial Committee of the House of Commons; and those who look for an impartial representation of the House of Commons have a right to pass by the verdict of a Hybrid Committee in a manner which perhaps would be wanting in any great respect if it dealt with the more ordinary and more important decisions and reports arrived at by Select Committees. I pass, therefore, from the question of the dignity of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, both of which, I think, are features we may leave on one side, to what is after all of more importance. What defence have the Government made for their conduct in refusing what has never been refused before—namely, to join the House of Lords in a Committee? It consists of persistent, certainly not deliberate, but equally persistent misrepresentation of the House of Lords on this point. I listened attentively to the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and I venture to say that they have given an absolutely misleading account of the attitude of the House of Lords in general and of their specific action in this particular ease. I will give three cases. The Chancellor of the Exchequer based the main part of his case upon the statement made by Lord Morley that the proper way of dealing with this question was to admit the principle of betterment to a long series of Private Bills, and out of the experience which the working of them would supply gradually to evolve some genera] system of Private Bill legislation on this subject. That is the version of Lord Morley's attitude given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I said he recommended it for consideration.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think I have accurately stated the version given by the right hon. Gentleman. But I find that Lord Morley stated, and on more than one occasion, that in his opinion it was necessary, in order to have this particular Private Bill legislation, that certain general principles of legislation should be laid down; and he deliberately stated, and recommended to the House of Lords, that the proper machinery for obtaining those general principles of legislation, which were the necessary and proper preliminary of Private Bill legislation, was this very Joint Committee against which the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to quote Lord Morley himself. That is the first point on which the attitude of the House of Lords has been very grossly exaggerated.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I never represented that Lord Morley was against the Joint Committee. On the contrary, I said he recommended it, but that the House of Lords refused to take his advice when they passed a Resolution saying that the subject ought not to be dealt with by Private Bills at all. I did not say he was against it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

All the principles underlying Lord Morley's speeches were to the effect that, though Private Bill legislation might be the proper way of dealing with these questions of betterment, that legislation should be preceded by laying down certain broad principles on which the Committees of the two Houses ought to act. I pass from Lord Morley to the general attitude of the House of Lords in regard to betterment. On this point, as far as I can understand from what took place there, the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the Lords as he has misrepresented those who sit on this side of the House. Throughout the whole of his speech he reiterated over and over again that those who wished this Joint Committee and those who had voted against the Second or the Third Reading of this Private Bill were opposed to the principle of betterment. Nothing can be further from the fact. I believe that the majority of gentlemen on this side of the House have only one difficulty in regard to betterment, which is, how to carry it out. And if they could see any machinery by which that end could be attained they would be as anxious to see the principle introduced into our Private Bill legislation as anyone on the other side of the House. I speak merely judging from the utterances of my hon. Friends behind me, and I have only the same means of judging the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman has stated his view that the House of Lords are opposed to the principle of betterment. I can find no statement made by any of their Lordships which bears out that view. The only Peer besides Lord Salisbury and Lord Morley who was mentioned as being an opponent of betterment has specifically stated in a speech in the House of Lords that he was in favour of the principle of betterment. I mean the Duke of Argyll. He said that— No one would acknowledge the principle of betterment more readily than he did. It is not fair, therefore, in the total absence of any evidence on the subject at all, to allege that the Lords as a body, collectively or individually, are opposed to the principle of betterment. That is the second misrepresentation of the right hon. Gentleman; and what is the third? It has reference to the actual terms of the message from the Lords. A great deal has been made of that message. It was the staple of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and it was a very important element of the speech of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. Supposing that that view of that message was the correct view—and I think it was not—it still does not absolve the Government from, at all events, attempting to come to some arrangement with the House of Lords on the subject, by objecting to the first half of the proposal and assenting to the second half. It is perfectly competent and in accordance with the practice and procedure of this House to express partial concurrence with the message of the House of Lords. If the Government have a partial concurrence, why do they not express it, and see whether the Lords take up that impracticable attitude of which they are so freely accused? No, the reason why the Government do not express partial concurrence is that they do not want to have any concurrence at all. They wish to pick a quarrel, and it would be most in- convenient to them and their supporters to take any steps by which the appearance of a quarrel might be avoided. I am inclined to think that the message of the House of Lords is not open to the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman puts upon it. I read the first half of that message as meaning that the House of Lords desire to inquire whether there is any equitable machinery by which the person, the value of whose property is increased by an improvement, can be made to contribute to the cost of the improvement. I believe that that is their meaning; and if that is their meaning, the whole argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer falls to the ground. We are not asked to give up our principles about betterment.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Where is there any mention of machinery in the message?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have given my explanation of the message. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that you must give it in other words, or it would not be an explanation. That is my view of what the words mean; and the words are certainly capable of that construction. Any lover of peace like the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, I should have thought, have grasped at what he thought to be even a strained interpretation of the words rather than plunge Parliament into a gratuitous controversy about a matter of urgent public importance. So much for the misrepresentations with which the Government have chosen to defend their action in this matter. Now, I passed to the alleged ground of policy urged by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, who represents the London County Council. He tells us that the action of the London County Council is animated purely and solely in this case by a desire to defend what they call the betterment principle. I never heard yet that the way to defend a principle was absolutely to decline to discuss the methods by which the principle was to be carried out. If I may so without disrespect to my Irish friends, that is the most Irish way of proceeding. [An Irish MEMBER: They are not friends of yours.] The friendship may be one-sided, but it is none the less firm. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman will feel that the oddest method ever suggested of defending a principle is to say, "We will not discuss it at all, or help to further its application. We will keep it as a principle in a museum in a glass case, incapable of application, and never to be applied at all." So does the hon. Member for Shoreditch defend the cherished principle of betterment. Of course, even the most naive of us see through this device. This is not a question of betterment; this is not a question of London improvements—not a question of unemployed. It is a political question from beginning to end. The majority of the London County Council and the Government are acting in harmony not for the good of London, but for the good of the Gladstonian Party. And though the right hon. Gentleman has not been so indiscreet as to say so, that has been practically admitted, I am informed, by members of the London County Council themselves. I am a strong opponent of the Government, but I am a sympathetic opponent. I feel for their difficulties. I know that if they are deprived of the pleasure of quarrelling with the House of Lords they will be in a most embarrassing and difficult position. I recognise that this is their last card. I fully and frankly admit that this is one of those reckless speculations by which impending bankrupts retrieve their position. I think the Government are in this case asking us to sacrifice too much. It is not fair that the London ratepayers, that the London business man, and all who are interested in the commercial prosperity of London and in the free traffic of the streets—that all those classes, and in addition those who might possibly obtain employment, of which they will now be deprived—should all be sacrificed to the mere tactics of Party. That is going too far, and I cannot help thinking that when the inhabitants of the Metropolis discover, what is tolerably plain to us, that their interests are being entirely thrust aside in order that some larger scheme of public policy may be carried out, they will show their resentment in a practical form, and that it is possible on this subject at some future time the Government may be more malleable than they are at present. Whether the Government have made a good or a bad Party calculation in thus seeking a quarrel with the House of Lords my right hon. Friend was justified in bringing this matter before us, and enabling us, in the interests of London in the first place, and in the interests also of those great Municipalities of the country which wish to have some principle on which to apply betterment, to secure an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the unprecedented and the ill-judged course which the Government have thought fit to pursue.

MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

expressed the hope that the Members of the Government would stand by the London County Council to a man. They had been told by the right hon. Member for the London University that the olive branch was held out to them by the House of Lords. They were really asked to go on bended knees to the House of Lords. He objected to doing anything of the kind, and what the right hon. Baronet had described as the holding out of the olive branch seemed to him very much like an invitation into the spider's web. He denied that there were any Party politics in this question. What the people of London desired was a revision of taxation, so that owners of land should contribute their share towards any improvements which might be made. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent on the County Council there were 12 houses which were let on lease at a ground rent of £5. On the termination of the lease the ground rents were raised to £80 a year for each house, and the tenants had to pull down the old houses and build new houses at a cost of £6,000 apiece, the ground rent being raised from £60 to £960 a year, whilst £72,000 had been expended on the houses, the whole of which the landlord would secure on the termination of the lease. The people of London were dissatisfied with this system of legalised landlord robbery. The people of London, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had made up their minds, and would settle this matter at the next Election. The proper policy for the London County Council to adopt was to send this matter up next Session, and every Session; and if the House of Lords refused to accept the principle of betterment, so much the worse for the House of Lords.

MR. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)

said, the Bermondsey Vestry had voted in favour of the scheme of the London County Council, but the people of Rotherhithe had voted in exactly the opposite way. He disapproved of the action of the London County Council in keeping six millions of money from the starving unemployed of London, whom he should take every opportunity of informing of this policy of the County Council.

MR. E. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said, those who had heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go away with the idea that this House had affirmed the principle of the Bill brought before the House. But they had never had an opportunity of deciding the main question. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the House of Lords had not grasped or fully understood the question of betterment. But did the House of Commons, or did the County Council? They had had several Bills before the House. In one it was contended that by proximity to a place that was going to be improved and altered another place was bettered. That was not the principle of betterment. The principle of betterment should be that if they found that property was not bettered, but "worsened," that should also be taken into account. The London County Council had not given one single public improvement to London, although in the past they had had various public improvements which gave work to the la-Souring classes. By this dog-in-the-manger policy of the County Council they were not allowing this working classes of London to find employment. It was very easy to say that this bridge improvement was a small matter, but it was a principle which ought to be affirmed by the House of Commons. It was very necessary that the County Council should wake up to their duties in London, and give the London people improvements and the working classes that labour which they were entitled to receive from the County Council.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 177.—(Division List, No. 377.)