COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 03 August 1894 vol 28 cc34-112

Order for Committee read.

MR. ARCHIBALD GROVE (West Ham, N.)

said, he wished to propose that it be an Instruction to the Committee that the provisions of the Bill be extended to West Ham. He moved this in the interests of a district where there was a large hardworking population who were heavily burdened in regard to rates. He must admit that there was no logic in the proposition which he put before the House. But then there was no logic—not an ounce of logic—in the Equalisation of Rates Bill itself. The distinguishing merit of the Bill was that there was in it a great deal of humanity, and that, in his opinion, far out-weighed logic. It was on grounds of humanity that he appealed to his right hon. Friend to admit this Instruction. His right hon. Friend in bringing in the Bill said that the richer districts out of their abundance should contribute to the needs of the poorer districts. He thought that he could conclusively prove that West Ham was one of the poorest districts——

MR. H. L. W. LAWSON

I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the House can consider an Instruction relating to a district outsider the purview of the Bill?

MR. SPEAKER

I think that the Instruction is in Order. Although West Ham is not in the Metropolitan area, it is in the police area, and it is quite in Order to move an Instruction to bring it within the scope of the Bill.

MR. ARCHIBALD GROVE,

resuming, said, that when his hon. Friend interrupted him he was about to show that West Ham stood in as great need of relief as any district in Loudon. Its rateable value was £900,000, and its population was nearly 240,000. The rates amounted to close on 8s. in the £1. There was not a parish in the area of the County of Loudon whose rates were as high as that. His right hon. Friend in introducing the Bill pointed out that some of the parishes in Loudon had increased in their rates by 1s. 2d. in the last few years. But in West Ham the rates had increased by 1s. 6d. This was a great and growing burden. Since 1871 the population of West Ham had risen from 62,000 to 238,000—an abnormal rise. Hon. Gentlemen who had studied this Bill would see how closely such a rise in population affected the necessity for some form of relief. The demand he made was a just one, for West Ham contributed largely to the wealth of London. Every morning it poured in a stream of wealth-producers to the City and other parts of Loudon. They laboured through the day to produce the wealth of London, and returned at night to the Borough of West Ham, which was thus responsible for their sanitary well-being. Apart from logic, he maintained that this was a strong common-sense argument why West Ham should be included in the benefits of the Bill. Nobody would deny that, to all intents and purposes, West Ham and London were inextricably joined. If his hon. Friend the Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucestershire would take a walk with him, not down Fleet Street, but along the thoroughfare which led from London to West Ham, he would bet him half-a-crown—well, if that were not in Order, he would stake his opinion against that of the hon. Member—that the hon. Member when he passed the boundaries of Bow and Bromley and got into West Ham would not know where the one district began and the other ended, except that West Ham was the more charming locality. Why, then, should West Ham not be included in the benefits of this Bill? His right hon. Friend had said that London was unlike any other town in the country in having a large number of separate districts with separate management and separate rating powers. This statement entirely knocked the bottom out of the argument that they could not include West Ham in the Bill because it had a Mayor and Corporation of its own. And so far as having a Mayor and Corporation went, the City of London was in the same position. His right hon. Friend did not hesitate to go to the City when he wanted money, but when he was asked to give relief to a poor district like West Ham he said that he could not do so, because it was not in the area. On this point he might further call attention to the fact that the distribution of the fund provided under the Bill was to be by population. But no Government, however grandmotherly, could regulate the distribution of population. That regulated itself. They must further remember that this fund was not to be distributed according to expenditure, and that therefore the necessity of any district being under the control of a central body which administered the fund was absolutely done away with. Many hon. Members opposite had the interests of the poorer classes at heart. He was convinced that he would have their support. Around him were Radicals who professed—and he knew that their professions were true—that they had the interests of the poorer districts at heart in a paramount degree. He counted also on having their support. The Government, on its part, could not consistently refuse this plea of a poor locality for relief. But if the Government did refuse to accept this Instruction he was sure that the sense of the House would largely be with him.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to West Ham."—(Mr. Archibald Grove.)

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,) Bradford, Central

I am quite willing to admit many of the premises on which the claim of the hon. Member is founded. It is undoubtedly the fact that West Ham is a district where there is a vast population of labouring people, many of whom are closely connected with London and contribute to its wealth. It is also a fact that the rates of West Ham are very heavy; and if I acted from purely humanitarian motives, instead of according to Parliamentary logic, I should be inclined to accede to the view of the hon. Member. But if I were to act from motives of that kind, I might be subjected to appeals to include other districts where the population is poor and the rates are heavy, and which may in some sense be considered as part of London. I might be asked to include the districts of Croydon, Richmond, and Kingston, though I do not think that Richmond is a poor district. All these districts are beyond the Metropolitan area, and to include them in a Bill of this kind would be departing altogether from the object of the Bill. The proper course for my hon. Friend to pursue would be to advocate that West Ham should be brought within the Metropolitan District.

MR. ARCHIBALD GROVE

That question is at present under discussion, but while the grass is growing the steed is starving.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

I am glad to be informed that there is a movement in West Ham in the direction of in-eluding it within the district of the London County Council. I believe the County Council are not unwilling to extend the boundaries, and if West Ham were within the Metropolitan area of the London County Council it would undoubtedly share the benefits of the Bill in common with the rest of London. But to share those benefits it should also contribute to the expenses of the County Council, the School Board, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and various other institutions in London. I hope it will not be considered necessary to further press this Instruction. Whilst sympathising with the object my hon. Friend has in view, I think he has gone the wrong way to work to accomplish it.

LORD G. HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)

I only rise to say that while the question raised by this Amendment is one of considerable importance, yet I agree with the President of the Local Government Board it is one which we cannot discuss at length to-day. No doubt in equity a strong case has been made for the inclusion of West Ham, but if it was so included there are many other districts in Middlesex on whose behalf an equally strong claim might be put forward. Tottenham, Edmonton, and Hornsey are districts very largely inhabited by poor persons, and the rates of the two former districts are higher than the rates of any part of the Metropolis which is under the control of the County Council. It is certain, however, that the Middlesex districts would not surrender their local independence for the slight pecuniary benefits they would obtain under this Bill if they came in under the London County Council. This is a question which must sooner or later come under the consideration of this House. If anyone will watch the shifting of London populations he will be surprised to see what changes are taking place. The older parts of London are becoming greatly depopulated, and while with the Metropolitan area of one and a-half to four miles from the Mansion House a considerable increase has taken place, a far greater relative increase has taken place in the area of from four to ten miles, and in no part more so than in the constituencies which I and some of my friends represent. Yet those who live in those districts are subjected practically to the same taxation as other parts of the Metropolis, and do not receive the relief which the richer parishes afford to the poorer parishes within the area. My belief is that the area of the County Council is already too large for its proper administration, and past history shows that such wide areas of administration have not worked satisfactorily. The remedy for the inequalities to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention will not be found in an extension of the area of the London County Council, hut rather in its diminution. A strong central body might be established for certain purposes whilst the other parts of the Metropolitan area retain their local independence.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, that Richmond, Kingston, and the neighbouring districts of Surrey would never claim to be included in the Metropolitan area, notwithstanding any pecuniary benefits they might receive. He quite agreed, however, with what had fallen from his noble Friend, that this question could not be confined to one portion of the Loudon boundary. Once raised it would have to be dealt with all round; and unless the House was prepared to greatly enlarge the scope of the Bill, they ought not to support this Instruction.

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said, if this Amendment were accepted it would very much widen the scope of the Bill. Again, if they were to include other districts in the Metropolitan area, they must, in equity, take in those which were rated at a low figure as well as those which were rated heavily. It would be a bad argument for the City of Loudon to say that highly-rated districts must be brought in and low-rated ones excluded. In fairness they must have both classes.

MR. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square

I will only add one word to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend. I cannot agree with the President of the Local Government Board in his statement that it rests with the people of West Ham whether they will join in the Metropolitan area or not.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

The application must be made by them.

MR. GOSCHEN

But even if it were made it does not follow that it would be granted. We are now upon a question of the very greatest magnitude; and tint is, What is the policy to be adopted with regard to that large population in the various extra-Metropolitan areas, which, nevertheless, in some sense, form part of London? although there is very little doubt the County Council would undertake to govern another 1,000,000 of population with the greatest lightness of heart. I think they have already got as much on their hands as they can manage, and I agree with my right hon. Friend beside me that it is impossible to look forward with any degree of confidence to increasing the area of the County Council. The policy must be a policy of decentralisation, so far as the outlying districts of London are concerned, with free Municipal Councils and other Local Bodies. With the constant expansion of London it is impossible to admit that the simple solution of every difficulty is to extend the area of government of the County Council, I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London that there ought to be no option in this matter. If we are to extend the circle, we must include both the highly-rated and the lowly-rated districts. It would never do to say that a poor district has merely to make application to the Local Government Board or to the House, and that then the other parts of Loudon shall contribute towards its rates. I entirely share the view of the Government that the Instruction cannot possibly be entertained.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. SPEAKER

The next Instruction, that standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester, is not in Order. It proposes such sweeping changes that it practically constitutes a new Bill. The terms are vague; there is no limitation, and no indication is given to the Committee how the Instruction, if it were allowed, could be carried out. In these circumstances, I rule that the Instruction is out of Order.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

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

said, he had to move the omission from the first sub-section of the words "for aiding the equalisation of rates," and the substitution for them of the words "in order to further a uniform system of expenditure for sanitary purposes." He moved this in no factious spirit; but he was bound to express his wonder that a question of such deep importance to the Metropolis as was embodied in the Bill had been brought forward at the fag-end of a Session. He was strongly in favour of what was called a just and equal distribution of the rates, and he agreed that the rates actually paid by various parts of London should as far as possible be made equal; but he ventured to assert that this Bill, which professed to bring about the equalisation, did not touch the most important point—namely, the question of valuation. They ought to have a uniform principle of valuation throughout the Metropolis. At the present time, however, the Overseers in some parishes adopted a very low assessment, while those in other parishes took a very high one, and in passing be would like to express his regret that the Bill introduced by the London County Council to deal with these inequalities did not become law this Session. Surely the measure they were now discussing ought to have contained some provision dealing with these divergent valuations. It was a well-known fact that a house which bore a rental of £40 in one parish would fetch £60 in another parish. No doubt in some districts the rates were nominally lower than those charged in other and poorer districts, but the difference was more than made up in the higher rents charged in the lower-rated parishes. Much had been said about the well-managed parish of Islington, and he believed that no parish in the Metropolitan area was better managed—except that of St. Pancras. But why should Islington, if this Bill passed, only have to pay a 5s. rate, while Bermondsey paid 7s., Fulham 6s. 6d., and Rotherhithe 6s. 8d.? Again, the Bill did not really embody any system of equalising rates. If the Government had taken up this question thoroughly—and there were many among its members who had a strong grasp on commercial matters—if they had attempted to deal with the whole question of the Metropolitan finance, they would have——

THE CHAIRMAN

I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is not confining himself to the Amendment.

MR. R. Gr. WEBSTER

submitted with all respect that he was doing so, as he was attempting to show that the Bill did not carry out the principle of equalisation, and he was therefore moving the omission of that word.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the whole Bill on this Amendment.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

said, he was endeavouring to confine himself to the Amendment, the object of which was to advocate a uniform expenditure for sanitary purposes. The fact was, the Bill did not carry out equalisation in a true spirit. The basis of the population had been adopted, but it seemed to be forgotten that the day population of, for instance, the City of London, paid rates for their warehouses and places of business as well as for the houses in which they resided, and yet the City was not to receive any portion of this fund simply because these people lived in other districts at night.

MR. BARROW (Southwark, Bermondsey)

I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member speaking to the Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have told the hon. Member that he is not keeping closely to his Amendment.

MR. R, G. WEBSTER

replied, that he was keeping as closely to it as he could, and if the hon. Member for Bermondsey thought that because a sub-committee of the London County Council had drafted a Bill they were not to discuss, he could only say that he could not agree with him, and certainly should discuss it until stopped by the Committee of the House. If they were going to have a system of rate equalisation, let them carry it out properly. The promoters of this Bill seemed to have lost sight, of what was known as the compounding system—a system which gave landlords a rebate of 20 or 30 per cent, in some districts. What did that mean? It meant that although the rate was nominally 7s. in a district, yet inasmuch as they were compounded in the case of three-fourths and even five-sixths of the houses, the actual rate paid was one-third less; and equalisation should be made to cover that. If they passed this scheme as it was, purely as a population basis, they gave to a vast number of rich landlords the sum of 3d. in the £1 in decreasing their rates with no decrease in rental. Out of 548,315 inhabited houses in Loudon no fewer than 192,049 were let off 20 to 30 per cent, by the compounding system. In Bethnal Green, out of 16,000 houses there were 13,850 where the rates were compounded for, and the landlords received an abatement of 25 per cent.; that in Poplar, out of 7,500, 6,509 received an abatement of 15 per cent.; and that in Bow, out of 5,600 houses, 3,750 were compounded, the allowance to the landlords being 30 per cent. That was the great cause of leakage in the rates of Loudon, and the system, in his opinion, had been greatly abused.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that a discussion of the compounding system on this Amendment was out of Order.

MR. GOSCHEN,

on the point of Order, submitted that the equalisation of rates never could be carried out equitably under the system of allowances for compounding, the rates of allowance render- ing it impossible to carry out an equal rate in the £1. It would be difficult to discuss the question unless they were clear upon the point how far equalisation was affected by compounding.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said, he did not mean to suggest that a discussion on compounding would not be in Order on an Amendment properly raising the question, but it was not in Order on the present Amendment.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

said, he would confine his remarks to the question of a uniform system of expenditure, and contended that it would be a simple matter to carry out such a system. It would be very simple to take the superficial area of the roads in Loudon and to take into consideration the proper expenditure for keeping the roads in order. If there were some authority to receive the funds for certain purposes, that authority to pay out of the common fund for road-making, lighting, paving, draining, and all sanitary work, and a proper sum allowed, such a system would work well and equitably. The present Bill was without logic and was inequitable in its incidence, but the Bill might be so drafted as really to carry out the intentions of the Government and fairly equalise rates all over London. But that could not be done merely by counting heads or by saying that because the County Council had built a lot of doss-houses in a certain district that district should receive a large proportion of the rates. Another great evil which would be caused by taking population as a basis was to give a premium to overcrowding. That would be very greatly against sanitary reform.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, the hon. Member, in a somewhat discursive speech, had touched a great number of topics which seemed altogether beyond the scope of discussion. He went into the question of valuation and compounding. A great deal might be said at the proper time upon both subjects, but he did not think it necessary to enter into them for the purposes of this Amendment. The hon. Member said the Bill did not carry out the principle of equalisation, and he proposed to remedy that by striking out the word "equalisation" and inserting other words which would entirely alter the object and principle of the Bill. The object was not to carry out a uniform system of sanitary administration; its object was to afford relief to the poorer parishes at the expense of the richer ones, and the Government hoped that in the main it would lead towards the equalisation of rates. It would be impossible completely to carry out equalisation of rates unless by a scheme setting up a central management for London. This was not the first time in its history that an attempt had been made to equalise the rates of London. It was done by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) in 1870, but his scheme left great anomalies behind, although he did not complain of that. The object of this Bill, as he said, was to give relief to the poorer classes, and the Bill would effect that object in a great number of cases. With regard to the rates of Islington, although the rates in other parts of the Metropolis during the current year had averaged 5s. 5d. in the £1, the rates of Islington had been 5s. 8d., or 3d. above the average. No parish would be called upon to contribute whose rates were now below the average in the possible single exception of Islington. The Bill would equalise the rating at least to the same extent as the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Goschon's) scheme of 1870; and if there were anomalies in the present proposal, there were at least as great anomalies arising from the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. As for the Amendment, he repeated that the object of the Bill was to tend towards equalisation, and not the purpose of sanitary administration.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he hoped the Committee would see that this was one of the most important of the whole of the Amendments. He objected to the word "equalisation," because he thought it did not correctly describe the Bill. He wished to read a passage in the Report of the Chairman of the Local Government and Taxation Committee of the County Council: — The object of this Bill is not to equalise existing rates. That was the view of the Chairman of the County Council, who forced this Bill upon the Committee. In the first place, no rateable value of the poorer parishes and a consequent abnormal increase in the rate necessary for any increase of expenditure may have the effect of deterring parishes from the efficient performance of sanitation. The argument of the County Council was that it was not so much in order to equalise rates as to improve sanitation. He thought it would be seen that the omission of these words was perfectly logical, and was consistent in the views of those who really originated the Bill and recommended it to the Government.

MR. KIMBER

asked whether, by the use of the words "equalisation of rates," it was intended that where one parish was rated at 5s. and another at 7s. they were to be made wider apart or nearer together? The effect of the operation of the Bill would in many cases be to make the 7s. rate higher and the 5s. rate a great deal lower. How could the Bill be an equalising Bill if the equalisation fund was contributed to by those who paid the highest rates in the Metropolis? There would never be any perfect system of equalisation. What they might attain to was some system of equitable approximation, but this Bill would not accomplish that. In the case of Islington, where in 1892 the rate was 5s. 2½d., that was to be put down 2d. But St. Olave's, Southwark, in a rate of 5s. 10d., was to be put up 5d. Therefore, instead of an approximation there was a still further divergence of 8d. in the £1 between these two. In Wandsworth in 1892 the rate was 5s. 10d. Wandsworth was to have relief to the extent of 2d. Islington, already lower than Wandsworth, was to have relief to the extent of 3d. There were 15 parishes where the rates in 1892 were either less or not higher than those of St. Olave's, and received grants, while St. Olave's itself would pay 5¼d. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Webster) had done great service to the Government in moving to strike out of the Bill words which were false in fact when compared with the operative parts of the measure. The operative part of the Bill did not equalise, but diverged the rates of London. It might be said that the instance he had given was exceptional. Was it possible, however, that the principle of distribution according to population or any other principle of distribution which had the effect of diverting the rates instead of approximating them could be said to be in any sense whatever a principle of equalisation? It was preposterous and absurd to suppose so. The right hon. Gentle- man had said that the effect of the distribution by population was that no parish which was rated more highly than the average would be levied upon for the proposed contribution. He (Mr. Kimber) pinned the right hon. Gentleman to that declaration, and he should by-and-bye ask him to insert in the Bill words to that effect. He knew, however, that it would clash very seriously with the principle of distribution by population, inasmuch as many parishes already above the average would either contribute, as in the case of St. Olave's, or would receive less, as in the case of Wandsworth, than parishes which were below the average. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that no parish which was below the average would, by the operation of the Bill, receive relief, and thereby have its rates brought down lower. He (Mr. Kimber) thought that there were cases of parishes below the average which would actually receive relief and thereby have their rates brought down. He should, therefore, later on ask for the insertion of an Amendment almost in the right hon. Gentleman's own words on that point. He thought that the words "for aiding the equalisation of the rates" ought to be omitted, but, at the same time, he thought it was necessary to insert the words which his hon. Friend (Mr. Webster) proposed to substitute for them.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, he understood the real object of the Bill to be to equalise the sanitary rates. Sub-section 4 of the first clause provided that amount of the poor rate was to be apportioned amongst the sanitary districts—that was to say, for sanitary purposes. Under these circumstances, it was not fair, by putting the words "for aiding the equalisation of the rates" in the forefront of the Bill, to make it appear that the measure would effect a general equalisation of the rates. If any words were to be substituted for these words they ought to be "for aiding the equalisation of the sanitary rate." These words would give a fair explanation of the object of the Bill. As a matter of fact, however, it was not necessary to put anything in the place of the words proposed to be omitted. It would be simpler to leave the case without any such words, because the enacting part of the clause was that the London County Council should form a certain fund which was to be raised in a certain way. He should prefer to have the words omitted without having any words substituted for them, but he should have no objection to the insertion of words "for the purposes specified in this Act." As far as he could see, the words now in the clause would mislead a very large number of people. He had heard some very strong expressions used by his constituents with reference to what the clause really did and what it did not do, and he certainly thought it would be better to strike out an expression which was obviously misleading.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, that the words proposed to be omitted were absolutely misleading. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said the object of the measure was not to equalise the rates, but to make the richer parishes in Loudon contribute towards the rates of the poorer parishes.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

What I said was that the object was not to effect complete equalisation.

MR. WHITMORE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that the object of the Bill was to oblige rich parishes in Loudon to contribute towards the rates of the poorer parishes. He (Mr. Whitmore) was not prepared to dispute the wisdom of that policy, but he contended that it was a distinctly different policy from that of equalising the rates. He thought it would be better, with the object of preventing hopes being raised that would not be realised, to omit the words "for aiding the equalisation of the rates" without putting anything in their place.

MR. GOSCHEN), (St. George's, Hanover Square

rising to Order, asked whether the Amendment would be put in such a way as to exclude an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Alban Gibbs), to insert the word "sanitary"?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must put the Amendment according to the Rule. I must put the Amendment to leave out the words "for aiding the equalisation of the rates," and the Question will be that those words stand part of the clause.

MR. GOSCHEN

If this Amendment were withdrawn, it would be possible to insert the words "sanitary"?

THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly.

* COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

said, there was no doubt that the statement in the first clause that the object of the Bill was to equalise the rates of London was a little too wide. It would not be right to equalise the rates of London if it could be done. There were many parishes which had during many years paid off a vast number of loans, and had thereby put themselves in a better position than newer parishes who still had all their paving and sewering to do. If the rates were equalised, those parishes which had paid up the loans incurred for sewering and paving would have to pay over again for doing similar work for other parishes. The reason why the rates of Islington were so low was that the people of Islington had paid off nearly all their loans. At the present moment the Islington rate for loans was just above 2d. in the £1, whilst in St. Luke's the rate amounted to Is. 4d. He thought it would make everything a great deal clearer if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would make the words read "for aiding the equalisation of rates in London for sanitary purposes." It would not do to use the words "sanitary rate," for there was no rate in London that was so named. If the words "for sanitary purposes" were inserted, it would narrow the discussion and prevent a repetition of that misunderstanding which had been occasioned by the supposition that the Bill would equalise all the rates of London. He himself, and he had no doubt most Metropolitan Members, especially those who represented poor districts, sincerely desired that some Bill for equalising sanitary expenditure should be passed, because the health of London was a matter in which everybody in London, whether he was rich or poor, was interested. There must be some controlling authority to see that the money received was carefully and judiciously expended. A largely increased expenditure for sanitary purposes had been caused by the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. A vast number of Sanitary Inspectors and Medical Officers had been appointed under that Act, and this had been the chief cause of the increased expenditure for sanitary purposes. Under that Act the London County Council was the controlling authority. The County Council had made bye-laws, and had the right of interfering where any negligence on the part of the Local Authority was made clear to them, whilst the Local Government Board had the right to hold inquiries into the conduct of the Local Authorities. That being so, London already possessed an efficient controlling authority, and all that was needed now was money to make the sanitary work satisfactory. The objection to having a common fund from which everyone could draw was that it might result in greater expenditure beyond necessary requirements.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That question does not arise now.

COLONEL HUGHES

went on to say that he did not think the sanitary expenditure in any parish had ever been less than 6d. in the £1, so that the new rate would, after all, be a contribution of less than the minimum expenditure in every parish in London. He could well understand that the method of distribution by population was a bone of contention. It had been described as a rough-and-ready system. No doubt it was very rough, and at the same time it was very ready, because it would be necessary to refer to the last Census in order to ascertain the proportion which each parish must receive of the fund. There was one point as to distribution by population which he did not think had been sufficiently looked at.

THE CHAIRMAN

That question does not arise on this Amendment.

COLONEL HUGHES

said, that a system of expenditure, though called uniform, would probably be anything but uniform when every parish had the right to go to the common fund. Ho saw that on this particular Amendment he was not able to say all he could have wished to say.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, that some of the J misapprehension existed as to the scope and object of the Rill it was probably due to the short title of the measure. A more correct description of the object of the Bill was found in the long title, which ran—"A Bill to make better provision for the equalisation of rates as between the different parts of London." That, he thought, was accurately descriptive of the object of the Bill. There might be differences of opinion as to whether that object was effected or not, but at any rate that description was better than the other. There was an important word in the first sub-section which had been overlooked—namely, the word "aiding." The Bill did not say that the rates would be equalised, but the measure, to quote the words in the first clause, was one "for aiding the equalisation of the rates in London." All that either the Bill or the Amendment seemed to him to contemplate was a tendency in the direction of greater equalisation. He would not discuss whether that object was effected or not, but it seemed to him that the long title correctly described the Bill. The criticism offered upon the first words of the Bill was well founded. It was not a Bill for the equalising of rates, but a Bill for the greater equalisation of the incidence of the sanitary rate. He was in favour of the Bill, and the parish he represented had petitioned in favour of it, but he thought it would be right to make the short title of the Bill accord more closely with its object. As Islington had been referred to, he would give some authoritative figures as to the rates in that parish. He did not wish to put it forward as a case he was advocating, but it had been made a typical ground of argument; therefore, it was desirable that the figures as they existed should be accurately and authoritatively put before the Committee. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the average rate in Loudon, so far as it could be ascertained, with some difficulty, was 5s. 5d. The average rate in Islington for the past three wears was 5s. 4½d., which was a close approximation to the average rate of London, but the rate was now 5s. 8½d., the increase being due to justifiable and even meritorious causes, Islington having been one of the first parishes to effectually discharge the duties imposed by the Act of 1891. No parish had done that work more efficiently and thoroughly. The hon. Member for Woolwich had said very properly that it would be inequitable to absolutely equalise the rates, and he had given Islington as an illustration. He (Sir A. Rollit) would like to put before the Committee an illustration of how inequitable it would be. The figures of the loans in connection with local purposes were these. The percentage of loans to rateable value throughout London was £16.57, but in consequence of the good administration and economy of Islington the percentage there was only £11.42. To equalise the rates rigidly would be unjust to parishes that were exceptionally well administered; therefore, all they could ask for or hope for was that which was contemplated by the Bill—namely, a distinct tendency in the direction of equality. Islington had been well administered, and desired to carry out the London Health Act to the full. The petition of the Vestry stated that the help and encouragement of Parliament to this Act would be materially advantageous, not only to the district he represented—which in many parts was a poor district—but also to contiguous portions of Loudon which could not fail to be benefited by just action in matters of common concern.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down naturally spoke favourably of Islington. No doubt if the present rates in Islington were compared with those of years ago, it would be found that they had risen, but the same thing might be said of every parish of the Metropolis. The hon. Member had admitted that the title of the Bill was misleading. He (Sir J. Lubbock) believed that a great deal of the popularity of the Bill was, no doubt, owing to the misleading character of its title. The right hon. Gentleman bad told them on the Second Reading that under the Bill no lightly-rated parish would have to receive and no heavily-rated parish would have to pay. But neither to-night nor on the Second Reading had the right hon. Gentleman attempted to deal with the case of the compound householder. He would not weary the Committee by going again over the figures stated by the hon. Member for East St. Pancras, but let him take the case of Bethnal Green. There were there 13,800 compounders out of 16,800 householders. The rates there were 6s. 10d., and it was a farce to say that that amount was like similar rates in other districts where there were no compounders at all. If allowance were made for compounding, it would be found that the rates in Bethnal Green would not be more than 5s. 7d., or only 2d. more than the average. He did not say there was no answer to the argument that had been brought forward, but he said they had not received an answer from the Government as to their intentions, and it seemed to him that it was practically unanswerable. Let them take two districts, one in which there was no compounding and the other in which the great majority of the houses were compound houses with an allowance of 25 per cent., and contrast them with the real rates paid. They were told it was the desire of the Government in this Bill to relieve poor districts, but what did they mean by a poor district? Of course they must mean to relieve the poor parishes, but the real people who would gain under this Bill would not be the tenants but the landlords, and he thought his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill would not dispute that, because not so long ago in this House the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) established the fact that the rates were ultimately paid by the occupier of the land. In these cases of leasehold tenancies, and more especially in the case of compound householders it was the landlords and not the tenants who would gain, and that fact was proved before the Committee who inquired into the question last year. The landlords in what were called the rich districts were no more rich than the landlords in the poor districts. They knew that in many of the poor districts there were large blocks of land held by one single owner, and they were no poorer than the owners in what were called the richer parts of the Metropolis, and he believed that in the City of London probably the property was, more divided than in any other district, because a large amount of the property was held by Insurance Offices and by Land Companies consisting of small owners, many of them women and trustees for children, who had put their money into them because they were considered to be safe and sound investments. His right hon. Friend, therefore, would see that he had not yet dealt with the argument that by this Bill they would to a great extent not give a boon to the tenant but to the landlord, and not to the small landlord, but in a great member of cases would give an enormous advantage to the wealthy landlord.

MR. ALBAN GIBBS (London)

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to omit these words that were under discussion, but if the Amendment of his hon. Friend to insert the word "sanitary" were accepted he should be glad to leave the words in, as they would then have some meaning. It appeared to him that the equalisation of rates would be aided very little, and in many cases the proposal of the Bill would make it more unequal than before. He alluded to the case of the City, which was always assumed as being a place that was extremely low rated. Yesterday he asked a question with regard to St. Martin Outwich in which he stated that the rates were now 6s. 9d. He was sorry that he was betrayed into a slight error, as ho included a rate of 2d. which he ought not to have included. The rates were made up partly of a poor rate of 2s. 8d., the Police, Consolidated, School Board and other rates, 2s. 9d., making 5s. 5d., and in addition to that there was a rate which was levied in lieu of tithes, which was Is. 2d., bringing the rates up to 6s. 7d. His right hon. Friend who brought in this Bill objected to his bringing this tithe rate at all; but he could not understand why he objected, as it was a rate that was collected by the Local Authorities, and fell very heavily upon those who had to pay it. If it was requisite to show that any parish paid more than another they could neglect to take into the account any additional rate that was paid, and in that way they could easily get the payments of a particular parish down, but he thought he was entitled to say the rates were 6s. 7d. But even if they excluded the tithe rate the other rates came to 5s. 5d., or within a fraction of that sum—it might be just a little less—and that, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, was the average rate of Metropolitan parishes. The figures he had before him put the average at 5s. 3d., but what he had to pay rates for was the parish of St. Martin Outwich, and he had taken that parish because it happened to be the parish in which he himself had spent the best part of the last 25 years of his life.

MR. SHAW-LEFEYRE

Does he include the tithe rate in the 5s. 5d.?

MR. ALBAN GIBBS

said, he had explained that he did not, and if they included the tithe rate the rates were 6s. 7d. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this parish in rather a sneering way in answering the question yesterday, and said it contained 25 houses and had a population of 102, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the valuation was considerably above the average valuation of city parishes. Though, as he had said, he had spent the best part of his life for the last 25 years in this parish, by this Bill he was not allowed to be considered as one of the population. If he went into other city parishes he should find they had similarly high returns; in fact, since he came to the House to-day, a paper had been put into his hands giving the rates for St. Mary Woolmer, Lombard Street, and this paper put the rates at 5s. 4d., without counting the rate in lien of tithe. He thought it was hard upon them to increase their rates, which were already up to the average, by 5½d., and then tell them it was done in the name of equalisation. There were certain things in this Bill which commended themselves to everybody, and one of them was the attempt to increase the efficiency of the expenditure for sanitary purposes. He freely admitted that was a thing they ought all to desire, and would not object to pay for if it could be shown the incidence of the payment was fair, and he could not, therefore, see why the Government had not at once accepted the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He trusted they would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend, to add, after "rates," the words "for sanitary purposes," and, if so, he would not press his Amendment.

COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

said, this was obviously an unjust and misleading Bill, the title of it being absolutely misleading. The Bill sought to impose additional taxation of £31,258, divided between the parishes of Islington, which did not want it, and which was to have £21,320, and Shoreditch, which was represented by the hon. Gentleman behind the President of the Local Government Board, which was to have the balance. He did not wonder the hon. Member for Islington was in favour of the Bill, because it proposed to impose an extra tax of nearly 4d. in the £1 upon St. George's, Hanover Square, and give it to Islington and Shoreditch. He trusted it would be made clear that the Bill was not a Bill for the equalisation of rates, and that the title was most misleading and unfair.

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

thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for the London University (Sir J. Lubbock) had very little experience or knowledge of local administration in the East End of London, and the right hon. Gentleman had certainly shown a complete ignorance of the practice of compounding; the commission paid to the owner was a charge for collection; it was a payment for services rendered in a poorer district.

SIR J. GOLDSMID

Twenty-five per cent.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, the hon. Baronet, Member for one of the Divisions of St. Pancras, said it was 25 per cent. Yes, but when they spoke of that, they must remember that it was a guarantee to the Local Authority against empties. Those owners who got an allowance of 25 per cent, agreed with the Local Authority to pay the rate upon the houses, whether empty or not.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, he might perhaps be permitted to explain that some authorities might allow 25 per cent., whereas in many others only 10 or 15 per cent, was allowed, so that there was a difference in the system of allowances for compounding.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, the parish that he represented gave 15 per cent, for compounding, with an additional 10 per cent, where the guarantee was given, and he was not prepared to say that was excessive. The point he rose to emphasise was this: that in a poor district the difficulty of collection was one of the disadvantages as compared with rich districts, just as its pauperism was one of its disadvantages, and, like the burden of pauperism, it had to be paid for. He would like to say a word upon the Amendment they were discussing. It had been suggested that the words "for sanitary purposes" should be added after the word "rates," and it was regarded as if that would not make any substantial alteration in the Bill, but only make it clear.

THE CHAIRMAN

That has not yet been done. The Amendment before the Committee is to leave out the words "for aiding the equalisation of the rates."

MR. PICKERSGILL

In that case I will reserve what I have to say.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, it appeared to him that the objection to the whole sub-section lay in the words "equalisation of the rates." A reference had been made concerning Islington, and he agreed that one of the great objections to what was called equalisation of the rates was due to the fact that Islington had been so well managed for so many years. He thought it was obviously unfair that because the rates were low in consequence of good administration, a penalty should attach to that parish because it managed its affairs well. What went against the idea of an equalisation of rates Bill was efficiency. He would press the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what was the object of the whole discussion concerning Islington. There had been a sort of aim all through to make out that the rates of Islington were higher than they really were. The County Council placed them at 5s., they had been at 5s. 2d., and they were now 5s. 8d., and did not that suggest that the whole tendency of this Bill would be to make those parishes were the rates were low spend more money in order not to come within the taxing powers of this Bill, and he candidly said he feared there was great danger in that? The fact that this Bill was called an Equalisation of Rates Bill might tend to equalise the rates by levelling them all up, to the detriment of the ratepayers. Where the administration of parishes was good and the expenditure low, it would be looked upon as a crime. Therefore, they were doing one of the worst things possible; they were inducing a tendency that would tend to increase the expenditure, and making that increased expenditure a reason for getting larger grants. This, to his mind, was a serious danger, and he thought they ought to put in some such words as had been suggested, to show this money was to be used not only for equalisation, but for some special purpose like sanitation. Unless they did that they would not safeguard the danger that was looming in the near distance; therefore, he strongly supported the idea, and wondered the Government had not accepted it. He thought they should put in some words to show this was for the equalisation of sanitation, and not for general equalisation, and he considered there was very great force in the argument that they should equalise the sanitation rate; for it did not merely affect the locality, it affected the pro-property and health of the whole town. If an epidemic broke out in one district every other district was affected by it, and therefore it was fair and proper that no parish, however poor, should be allowed to escape from contributing to the sanitary rate.

* MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said, that as Islington had been so much referred to be might be allowed to make a few remarks, and all the more so because he could assure the Committee that he had not the least intention of pleading the cause of Islington, which had been so admirably pleaded by his two hon. Friends and colleagues, to whose remarks he could add nothing. All had admitted that Islington was a parish that had nothing to apologise for either as regarded the economy or the efficiency of its management, but he had risen simply to ask the Government if they could see their way to accept the Amendment, either that which had been proposed by his hoc. Friend the Member for East Pancras (Mr. Webster) or the modification of it proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had explained this was not a Bill for the equalisation of rates, though it was a Bill tending towards it, but surely it was very essential to consider what were the purposes towards which the equalisation pointed, and to which the rate could be properly applied. Although, as his hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) had said just now, the sanitary expenditure was the one item of local administration which he approved and which the House would not desire to see too rigid au economy in, still he believed that in sanitation a great deal of economy was possible without affecting efficiency and a great deal of extravagance without promoting it. He would not go into the figures at any length in support of that view, but he might give one instance from his own parish of Islington. They spent in 1892–3 in Islington, with an area of 3,107 acres, the sum of £6,313 on sewage works, whilst in St. Pancras, with au area of only 2,670 acres, they spent no less a sum than £14,350. And it was material at this point to add that the population of Islington was 319,000, representing a density of 102.65 to the acre, whilst the population of St. Pancras was 234,000, or a density of 88.71 to the acre. He mentioned these figures, not for the purpose of reflecting upon St. Pancras, but to show that even in sanitation there was room for economy and great possibilities for extravagance. But when they came to lighting and street expenditure, and this was germane to the Amendment, the question was quite different. In Islington—and he took his own constituency, as that was admitted to be a model constituency—he found that with an acreage of 3,107, they had spent £14,026 in 1891–92 in lighting, whilst in Shore ditch, with only 643 acres—about one-fifth that of Islington—they spent £5,713, or not far short of half the expenditure of Islington. His hon. Friend the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir J. Goldsmid) pointed out that many parishes were about to engage in the luxury of electric lighting, and that the hon. Member's own parish was about to do so; he also knew from his experience on the London County Council that many parishes were about to enjoy this luxury, and he did not see why they should not, provided they paid for it; but what possible advantage could it be to Hammersmith whether Bethnal Green was lighted with the electric light or not, and they would probably never learn anything about it until their rates reminded them of it? Surely if there was any one particular purpose of expenditure which was more local than another, and less general, which had a less right to be equalised, it was that of general lighting and illuminating. And the same considerations applied to paving and scavenging improvements. He found again that in Islington they spent £54,681, in 1891–2, in scavenging, whilst St. Pancras, with a population of 234,000, two-thirds only of the population of Islington, they spent, £53,704, or 98 per cent, of the expenditure of Islington. Camberwell, with a larger area, 4,450 acres, and a larger population, spent £39,400, or only three-fifths. He had ventured to put these figures before the Committee, not, as he had said, to reflect upon the expenditure of the various parishes upon matters within their own control, but for the purpose of impressing upon the Committee that if they were going to equalise the rates of London, or make a contribution towards them—and he was in no way opposed to it—it should be in respect of purposes which were general—which the whole of London was interested in, and in regard to which economy could be practised and extravagance forbidden. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend below him would be accepted. In conclusion, he wished to thank the House for the extreme kindness they showed to him when, on the Second Reading, he was indisposed, and for the very sympathetic inquiries that had been made regarding his health.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he was not without hope the Government would see their way to leave these words in, but to accept the Amendment which he understood would be moved by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes) to insert the words "for sanitary purposes." He was sure it would be satisfactory to many persons in the House if they could arrive at a unanimous conclusion on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman would see this was not approached with any contentious or Party spirit, but they were really anxious to give this Bill the character which it deserved, and which he believed to a great extent the Government wished it to have. What they had to be clear upon was this: Was this a Bill simply to help the poorer parishes, or was it a Bill which was specially intended to assist those parishes where the expenditure for sanitary purposes could not be fairly carried out because of the poverty of those parishes? He would frankly say that when he looked at the expenditure for sanitary purposes he found the differences were so great, the variety of burden was so conspicuous, that, representing a rich parish, as he did, it would be perfectly fair, as regarded those sanitary purposes, that further contribution should be made. He expressed that view the other day on the Second Reading, and the whole House was unanimous in this: that they wished to assess the poorer parishes with the view to their carrying out efficiently those burdens placed upon them by the Public Health Act of 1891. If it were the fact that the expenditure for sanitary purposes was not to be higher than 6d. the right hon. Gentleman might say that in limiting the grant to sanitatation there was an attempt to escape the burden. But there was no promise of that in the Bill. What was done in the case of the richer might be extended to the poorer parishes. It had been pointed out that the whole of the contribution could be easily spent on the purposes of the Public Health Act alone. Why not, therefore, give the Bill its proper character, and state on the forefront of the measure that it was not merely to aid rates, but to assist in efficient sanitation? The House ought to take care to avoid the possibility of the whole sum being spent in reduction of rates, and not a penny on better sanitation. From the speech of the President of the Local Government Board alone it was clear that the duties under the Public Health Act were not equally well carried out in all districts. He would not detain the House upon the subject of equalisation further than to place before it a few figures in a different direction to those hitherto dealt with. The hon. Member for Woolwich had referred to the question of control in regard to carrying out the provisions of the Public Health Act throughout the Metropolis. The great differences in this respect had been overlooked on account of the poverty of certain districts; but if more money were placed at the disposal of those districts, further measures should be taken to remedy the inequalities. Looking at the matter only from the point of view of differences of value and the amount received by various parishes, there was no tendency at all to equalisation in the Bill. Bethnal Green received 8.46d. and Mile End Old Town 7.62d.; while another poor district like Bermondsey only received 3.38d., and Shoreditch only 2.67d. Was there any possible justification for differences of that kind? There was no information to show that there was the slightest difference in the poverty of these parishes. Being without precise statistics for those districts, they were, of course, in the dark, and really they had very little information upon the details of the Bill. What they had certainly showed was that they were making very little progress in the direction of equalisation. His hon. Friend had proved conclusively that that was a misleading title; but it would be satisfactory not to have to take the sense of the House on the words "for sanitary purposes," and if the Government would meet that suggestion he would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that it was generally admitted that the words "for aiding the equalisation of the rates" should remain in. They adequately described the object of the Bill, and without implying that equalisation was completed by it. The purpose, according to the Act of 1870, and according to the title of this Bill, was to provide for equal distribution of the charge over the Metropolis. It was very uncertain what would be meant by the words "for sanitary purposes." The question was whether expenditure upon streets and roads should be included. He was informed that the average expenditure over London under the Public Health Act was not more than 3d. in the £1 for sanitary purposes; and therefore, if the description were limited to sanitary purposes only, the object of the Bill would be to a great extent defeated. He thought it better to leave the words as they stood, with the direction contained in the sub-section, which showed that in the application of this money the Local Authorities were to meet the requirements of the Public Health Act. Therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.

LORD G. HAMILTON

said, that the right hon. Gentleman's speech showed that the money, which would go from the richer to the poorer parishes, was not to be devoted to those certain definite purposes to which everyone thought it was to be devoted. A considerable portion of money apparently would not go for those purposes. It was perfectly clear that the Bill was providing for the payment of money without stipulating what the purposes were to which it was to be applied.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, the discussion having brought out many important facts with reference to the rating of London.

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND (Colchester)

objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment, as that would mean that the words proposed to be left out would stand part of the Bill, and their inclusion would exclude subsequent Amendments of his own. In the first place, they would not be consistent with various other Amendments, and in the next, he could not see his way to allowing the Bill to go forth under false pretences. If they were allowed to stand, subsequent parts of the Bill would also have to be adopted. He agreed, of course, that to equalise every rate in Loudon was impossible. Everybody knew that. If certain parts of London were to be allowed to indulge in particular expenditure, they must bear that expenditure themselves. It was absolutely impossible to carry out a scheme of equalisation of rates, so far as a rate common to the whole of the Metropolis was concerned, until a Bill was brought in dealing with the question of assessment and rateable value. They would have to deal with the rates of the London County Council and Metropolitan Asylums Board and the Metropolitan sanitary rate. He had been spending three or four days with a draftsman, for the purpose of framing Amendments to the Bill, and had been told that the words "for aiding" in this place meant nothing of the kind, if it was intended to facilitate the rating of Loudon. The one thing which this Bill did not do was to equalise the Metropolitan rates. He would not go into the merits of equalisation. The House knew all about the "common or garden" arguments on that question already. If it was open to the President of the Local Government Board to oppose the Amendment on the ground of the merits of the Bill, it was equally open to him to oppose the Bill on its demerits. Three previous efforts had been made to deal with the question—first in 1867, again in 1870, and also in 1888. The present measure was the fourth attempt to deal with the question, and he could not congratulate the Government on their scheme. He thought that it was one of the most ridiculous attempts which had been made by a responsible Government to deal with an important question.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, in reference to his hon. Friend's objection to the Amendment being withdrawn, that ho was in favour of the words "in order to aid in the equalisation of rates" being left in. The object was for a further equalisation for sanitary purposes, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not take a course which would practically entail a Division.

Question put, and agreed to.

COLOXEL HUGHES

asked, whether this would prevent the words "for sanitary purposes" being inserted?

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that, although by implication the whole of the hon. Member's Amendment had been made, it would be in Order for an hon. Member to move the insertion of the words "for sanitary purposes" after "London."

COLONEL HUGHES

then moved an Amendment, in page 1, line 5, providing that an equalisation fund should be formed for aiding the equalisation of the rtes in London for sanitary purposes.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, after the word "London," to insert the words "for sanitary purposes."— (Colonel Hughes.)

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

The Committee divided: —Ayes 66; Noes 135.—(Division List, No. 208.)

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

had the following Amendment on the Paper: — Page 1, line 5, leave out all after "London," to end of line 15, page 2, and insert—

1. "(1) There shall be a fund called the Metropolitan Common Municipal Fund, raised according to the provisions of this Act by contributions from the several parishes and places in the Metropolis (in this Act referred to as the Common Municipal Fund).
2. (2) There shall be a receiver of the Common Municipal Fund (in this Act referred to as the Receiver), who shall be from time to time appointed by and shall be removable by the Local Government Board, and shall receive such salary, and give such security (if any) as the Council direct.
3. (3) The Receiver shall open an account with the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, intituled 'The account of the Receiver of the Metropolitan Common Municipal Fund for the time being.'
4. (4) The Local Government Board shall from time to time assess on the several parishes, districts, and places in the Metropolis the amounts of their respective contributions to the Common Municipal Fund in proportion to the annual rateable value of the property therein comprised to be determined according to the valuation lists, or where there are none, according to the latest poor rate for the time being for the parish, district, or place, or on such other basis as the Local Government Board from time to time direct.
5. (5) The Local Government Board shall from time to time issue to the Sanitary Authority of each parish, district, or place a precept under the Seal of the Local Government Board re- 64 quiring them to pay the amount of their contribution therein specified in the manner and within the time therein prescribed, and the Sanitary Authority shall accordingly raise the amount of their contribution out of the sewers and general rates of the parish, district, or place, and shall pay the same into the Bank of England to the credit of the account of the Receiver; and no such precept shall be liable to be removed into any court of law by certiorarior otherwise, nor shall any order of the Sanitary Authority, or any rate made after the passing of this Act, be liable to question in any such Court on the ground of its having been made wholly or partly in furtherance of any such precept. Provided always that the Sanitary Authority shall be entitled to have credit in part payment of their contribution for the amount which may be repayable to them out of the Common Municipal Fund, under the precept of the Local Government Board as hereinafter mentioned, in respect of expenditure during the preceding year.
6. (6) In order to obtain payment of the amount of the contribution to the Common Municipal Fund, payable in respect of any place where there is no poor rate, the Local Government Board shall from time to time issue to the masters of the bench, treasurer, governors, or other body or persons having the chief control or authority there, a precept requiring them or him to pay the amount of contribution therein specified, in the manner and within the time therein prescribed, and they or he shall pay the same accordingly.
7. (7) In every such place the masters of the bench, treasurer, governors, or other body or persons may levy on the several persons occupying rateable property therein the amount of contribution so paid by them or him by means of rates in the nature of a sewers and a general rate, and for that purpose may employ and remunerate collectors and shall have the like powers as are for the time being vested in overseers for the purposes of the making, assessing, levying, and collecting of poor rate.
8. (8) If any contribution to the Common Municipal Fund required by the Local Government Board to be paid by any Sanitary Authority, masters of the bench, treasurer, governors, or other body or persons is not duly paid, the receiver shall, in addition to any other remedy which any person has for the time being against Sanitary Authorities, have the like remedy for recovery from them or him, in the receiver's own name, of the contribution, or of so much thereof as is not paid, as Sanitary Authorities have for the time being for recovery from overseers of contributions of parishes: And for that purpose the precept of the Local Government Board requiring the contribution shall be conclusive evidence of the amount thereof and of the liability thereto of the party sued.
9. (9) After each yearly audit the auditors shall, within such time and in such manner as the Local Government Board from time to time direct, certify to the Council the amount actually expended by each parish, district, or place in respect of expenses which are to be repaid out of the Common Municipal Fund; and the Council shall, by precept under their seal, direct their receiver to repay out of that fund to the Sanitary Authority of the parish, 65 district, or place the several sums so expended, or such part or parts thereof as the Council shall think proper, and the amount repaid shall be applied by the Sanitary Authority in aid of the funds chargeable with the expenses in respect of which such repayment shall be made.
10. (10) The salaries of the receiver and his assistants, and all expenses incurred by him in the execution of this Act, shall be paid out of the Common Municipal Fund.
11. (11) The account of the receiver at the Bank of England shall be drawn on in such manner and according to such regulations as the London County Council from time to time by order direct."

The hon. Member said that, with the permission of the Chairman, he should only at present move the first four lines of the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must point out where he proposes to insert these lines.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

I propose to leave out all after "London" to end of line 15, and insert— (1)"There shall be a fund called the Metropolitan Common Municipal Fund, raised according to the provisions of this Act by contributions from the several parishes and places in the Metropolis (in this Act referred to as the Common Municipal Fund).

THE CHAIRMAN

I must inform the hon. Member of an objection to this Amendment which I have already pointed out, and which is this: He proposes an Amendment which is, in effect, to negative the whole clause. Wherever it is proposed to do that, the rule is for an hon. Member to vote against the clause, and bring up a new clause. He proposes to leave out all the words after the word "Loudon" to the end of line 15. Such an Amendment is out of Order.

MR. BARTLEY (for Mr. BANBURY) moved, in page 1, line 6, leave out "London County Council," and insert "Local Government Board." He thought that many hon. Members would agree that the management and assessment of this special rate should be in the hands of the Local Government Board. There was no doubt that the Loudon County Council was a body which entered very keenly into matters political which it was not desirable to mix up with this special form of taxation. There was a general feeling amongst all parties that the Local Government Board would be a more impartial authority to administer the rate. He acknowledged that the Local Government Board might say they had enough to do already in connection with their respective duties. But they must remember that this was a very large question. It was the beginning, probably, of a larger extension of assimilation and equalisation of rates, and it was highly desirable that the responsible body which regulated it should be one in which everybody had confidence. He did not wish to say a word against the London County Council, but they must acknowledge, whatever their views, that the London County Council did take somewhat extreme views concerning political matters, and many hon. Members representing London constituencies felt that the handing over of this matter to the County Council was open to very grave objections. He did not for a moment say that the London County Council would not administer the fund fairly, but still the feeling would be that there was a suspicion of political bias. He ventured to say that inasmuch as this was a new departure it would be wiser to avoid such a suspicion, and he, therefore, hoped the Government would accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "London County Council," and insert the words "Local Government Board." — (Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'London County Council' stand part of the Clause."

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, he did not think that the proposal of the hon. Member was quite consistent with the speech that he made on an Amendment he introduced on the Second Reading of the Bill, in which he invited the House to increase rather than diminish the powers of the County Council. As he had often said in this House, he was neither a supporter nor an opponent of the London County Council, but this was really an administrative act of very great simplicity, and he could not see why the London County Council could not perform it just as well or even better than the Local Government Board. He remembered when the Local Government Act as a Bill was being discussed in the House, the then President of the Local Government Board asked the Com- mittee not to put too much duty upon that body, because they were already overwhelmed with all kinds of administrative work. Therefore, he thought that a matter of this kind, which was very simple, and which would have to be carried through on lines fairly fixed, might be entrusted to the London County Council, and need not be added to the multifarious duties of the Local Government Board. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

remarked that, after the observations of the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, it was unnecessary for him to make any lengthened remarks on this point. The Local Government Board was not a Rating Board, and had no rating powers at all. The question was, Which was the best authority to levy the rate? It was merely an administrative question, and, in their opinion, that duty should be performed by the London County Council, which was the Rating Authority, and which had the power of levying rates, whereas, on the other hand, the Local Government Board had not that power. They would be entrusting them with new powers for administrative purposes, and as no principle was involved he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that surely the right hon. Gentleman forgot the duties of the Local Government Board in connection with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, they did not levy the rate.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, it was not necessary that the County Council should levy the rate. The contributions could he got in exactly the same way as in the case of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, so that he did not think it was perfectly candid of the right hon. Gentleman to put that forward as a crushing argument against this Amendment. It appeared to him that this duty was more analogous to that performed by the Local Government Board than any of the duties performed by the County Council. When they came to the Bill itself, the machinery for carrying out the proposal of the Government was not at all clear. The Bill appeared to be drawn on the principle of putting as little in it as possible. That might be good for Parliamentary purposes, but, at the same time, it did not clear up many of the administrative difficulties. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the Local Government Board had no power of levying a rate was not in any way conclusive against the proposal of his hon. Friend, for it appeared to him the same duty might be put upon the officers of the Local Government Board, which they had in connection with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. He was sorry that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. R. G. Webster) had been ruled out of Order, because upon that they might have argued whether the whole machinery of the Common Poor Fund was not a better machinery than that which was in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had made it very difficult for them to move Amendments through the whole of this being put in the one clause. The machinery was in this clause, the purposes and the contributions were in this clause, although they were perfectly different matters. He hoped that consideration, at all events, would enable them to have such reasonable latitude in discussing their Amendments as would make it possible for them really to discuss this Bill properly. He did not know that upon this particular Amendment it was proper to do so; but he would venture to suggest that the whole machinery of the Common Poor Fund had stood the test of time—they had their Receiver and their fund established, their audit, and all that was necessary. They would have to provide new machinery for the County Council in this matter, and as the Amendment proposed that it should be brought under the existing machinery of the Local Government Board it appeared to him the proposal of his hon. Friend was deserving of far more consideration than the President of the Local Government Board seemed prepared to give it.

MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, that by the proposal of the Government no function was given to the London County Council other than what was purely administrative. There was nothing here that could not be done simply by the work of a clerk. It was very simple and easy administrative work. Surely no one would say that if there had existed a Municipal Body in London at the time of the establishment of the Common Poor Fund that that Common Poor Fund would have been administered by the Local Government Board at all. So far was that the case that Members on the other side of the House as well as on this had recognised this. In proof of it he pointed to the fact that under the Act of 1888, passed by a Conservative Government, large duties were placed upon the County Council of a similar description in equalising the rate over Loudon. They had to raise a rate over London amounting to about 4d. in the £1, and it was done entirely by the administrative work of the County Council, with which, he ventured to say, there had never been a single fault found. How could there be? They were merely carrying out an Act of Parliament exactly as the Common Poor Fund authority carried it out. There was no judgment to be exercised in either case. The fact was, there was less judgment and discrimination required to be exercised in the case of the London County Council here than in the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, because in the latter case there were certain matters to be inquired into, such as whether the expenditure was rightly under this or that head; but under the Bill the London County Council would not have to exercise any judgment whatsoever in the matter. He really thought, therefore, it was wholly unnecessary to raise any discussion about the politics of the London County Council, and it did not come particularly well from a Member who had previously proposed an Amendment placing the most extreme discriminating powers in the hands of the London County Council under the Bill. MR. COHEN observed that no one would ever accuse him of being unduly partial to the London County Council, of which he had the honour of being-a member, and he regretted that they were not at all to be acquitted of some of the charges of political bias which his hon. Friend had reproached them for. But here the power it was proposed to entrust them with had been described as a mere administrative act. He should rather call it a clerical act, a mere matter of clerkship, and he did not think the most redoubtable opponent of the London County Council had ever thought they would be guilty of any malversation of funds. He hoped, therefore, an unmerited reflection would not be passed upon the County Council, as there would be if this Amendment were pressed.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

thought that hon. Members could not have read the Bill when they said that the duties of the County Council would be merely administrative. The sub-section stated that the London County Council should half-yearly determine the contributions from each parish to one-half the Equalisation Fund and the grants due from one-half the fund to each parish. It was clear, therefore, that the duty was more than a purely administrative one. He thought when the question of rating had to be considered Londoners would have greater confidence in an apportionment by the Local Government Board, as in the case of the Common Poor Fund.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the point which had been made by the hon. Member for Shoreditch was that this was simply the duty of a clerk, and that they ought to reject the Amendment because this was simply a matter of calculation, that view also being taken by his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cohen). That might be so, but there was one point ho wished to put before the Committee. If they were to place this particular duty on the County Council and reject the interference of the Local Government Board on the ground that it could be performed by the clerk of the County Council they would not be prohibited by-aud-bye—when they came to the question of control, raising more important points as to whether it should be exercised by the County Council or the Local Government Board—from moving Amendments. If it were understood that such was the case, he would advise that this Amendment should be withdrawn.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, it would, of course, be open to hon. Members to raise more important questions at a later stage.

MR. BARTLEY

As that is so, I will ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "in every year," and insert the words "as hereinafter I provided."—(Mr. Alban Gibbs.)

Question proposed, "That the words; 'in every year' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that the retention of these words would not preclude the hon. Member from raising important questions as to control here-after. He did not think they were important one way or the other, but he could not accept the Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, it was important to know whether it was to be every year that the 6d. was to be raised? It was an absolute decision that 6d. was to be raised, but he hoped they should not be precluded from moving Amendments which would enable a certain sum to be carried over to another year. A fund was to be formed which should be equal to 6d. in the £1 every year. He desired to be informed how the fund was to be formed, and, also, whether the meaning was simply that a ledger account was to be opened? It seemed to him a strange piece of drafting to say that a fund was to be formed every year. He presumed the meaning was that the fund would be carried on.

MR. KIMBER

wished to give another reason for accepting the clause. Clearly enough, Sub-section I of the clause spoke of every year forming a fund. The second sub-section of the same clause went on to provide that the County Council should determine in each half-year not only the contributions to, but the distribution of, the fund. If the executive part of the operation was to be performed every half-year—that was to say, if they were to form the fund by contributions, and in the same half-year distribute that fund, why should they say that in every year that fund should be formed? Would it not be more simple to strike out the words "in every year," and leave it, as it was put in the second clause, as an operation each half-year? The clause would then, at all events, be consistent with itself, whilst at present it was most obscure.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that it was necessary to have a fund out of which sums would be paid to parishes entitled to receive them. The full sum of 6d. would not be paid yearly to every parish, but would be used for redressing the balance between the contributions and receipts of the different parishes.

MR. KIMBER

asked who was to determine how the 6d. was to be provided?

MR. BARTLEY

said, he could not see how the clause could be right. It said, "shall every year form a fund equal to a rate of 6d. in the £1." He took it that it would be absolutely necessary that the London County Council would have the collection of the fund, because otherwise it could not be provided. The London County Council would receive the fund obviously once a year and pay it out half-yearly.

MR. GOSCHEN

pointed out that the later sub-sections of the Bill were not in accordance with the sub-section they were now discussing. The language of the clause was extremely confused, and it was difficult to arrive at the meaning of the Government. The clause said that the London County Council "shall every year form a fund." But it would seem that they were not to form a fund at all; they were only to receive contributions from the richer parishes every year and pay them out to the poorer parishes every year. Ho saw an Amendment on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for East St. Pancras suggesting that there should be a fund called "The Common Municipal Fund." That was the way the Bill ought to be drawn. Let there be a fund formed, and let there be a rate of contribution of 6d. in the £1 on the rateable value. But how a fund was to be formed "equal to a rate of 6d. in the £1," under the condition of the Bill, he could not understand. It was a question of drafting to some extent, but it was so extremely confused that it was difficult to arrive at the meaning of "fund" as used in the sub-section. He would, however, advise his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment any further.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said that, according to the framing of the clause, a fund was to be formed every year. What really was intended was that a fund should be formed at once to which contributions should be made every year on certain principles. He would suggest that the words "every year" should be placed after the word "rate," so that the sub-section should read — the County Council should form a fund and raise a sum "equal to a rate every year of 6d. in the £1." That would make the meaning of the section clearer than it was at present. It would provide for the making of a rate every year, and not for the forming of a fund every year.

MR. J. STUART

held that such a change was unnecessary, the meaning of the sub-section being quite clear. It distinctly provided that there was to no balance carried from one year another; but that the fund was to be wound up every year.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

suggested that instead of using the words "form a fund," it should be stated that an account should be opened to be called "the equalisation of rates account." That would be the commercial and legal way of dealing with the matter.

MR. W. LONG

said, the hon. Member for Hoxton must have failed to read the latter portion of the Bill. The Bill provided for the distribution of the money. There fore, there was no necessity for ear-marking the clause to prevent money being carried over every year——

MR. J. STUART

That is what I say.

MR. W. LONG

expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Paneras, which, he contended, would make the intention of the Government clear.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

promised to give the matter his consideration. The Amendment now under discussion was a mere drafting Amendment, and did not need this long Debate.

MR. BARTLEY

said, he did not agree with the suggestion that there would be no money carried over from one year to another. In his opinion there must be a lot of money carried over. The Bill provided that a rate equal to 6d. in the £1 should be struck yearly and distributed half-yearly; and it was quite clear, therefore, that there would always be a half-year's rate in hand.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the difficulty of his hon. Friend the Member for North Islington, who had given such consideration to the Bill, to understand the Bill, showed how extremely obscure was the drafting. The intention was to form a fund equal to 6d. in the f 1. But there would in reality be no rate of 6d. in the£1 at all. The idea was that there should be a rate of this amount which would be used to redress the balances in different parishes. But there was no rate of 6d. to be levied at all. It was a mere theoretical statement or abstraction. Before they finished the clause he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state the times when he intended those rates were to be levied. He called attention to the fact that in Bills of this kind it was usual to give some details as to when the rate was to be levied, and that there was no provision in regard to that point in the Bill.

SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, the object in view was to make the richer parishes contribute 6d. in the £1 on the rateable value for the relief of the poorer parishes. Therefore, the first thing to do was to open an account which should be called "The Equalisation Account," to which, from time to time, money would be paid, and then to distribute the money according to the clause. Three things were required to be done: First, to open the account; second, to raise the money; and third, to distribute the money. They could not do all that in every year. Therefore, they should not say "form a fund every year," to quote the words in the clause, but they should say "raise an account into which every year shall be paid 6d. in the £1." If the words in the clause were allowed to stand the fund, or the account, would be closed every year.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said that, according to the clause, there was to be a fund formed every year; hut the first year was only to be half a year—from September to March. The clause was very badly drawn, and needed a thorough revision.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, he had already promised to consider the phraseology of the clause before the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "form a fund," and insert the words "open an account." —(Sir J. Goldsmid.)

Question proposed, "That the words form a fund, stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, he should say that "form a fund" and "open an account" was practically the same thing; but he would consider the question before Report.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that "fund" and "account" were not at all alike. A person might have a fund to his credit; but an account might mean that he had no money at all.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, as the right hon. Gentleman had promised that he would carefully consider this point, he accepted the assurance, and would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WEBSTER moved, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "Equalisation," in order to insert "Common Municipal." He thought it would be better to call the fund "The Common Municipal Fund," instead of "The Equalisation Fund," in order to clearly define its object. When the Common Poor Fund was formed, it was so called in the Act, and everyone knew its definite and distinct purpose.

MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N. E.)

rose to Order. The hon. Gentleman had a somewhat similar Amendment down to line o, which was discussed and withdrawn, and he wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in raising the question again?

MR. WEBSTER

said, the Amendment referred to was not discussed; it was withdrawn, as it was not in proper form. He ventured to suggest that it would be better to describe the fund as "The Common Municipal Fund," because when Mr. Gathorne Hardy introduced his Bill to enable a common fund to be raised in London for the relief of the poor, the right hon. Gentleman called the fund "The Common Poor Fund," a name which definitely showed what the fund was intended for, and that was au example which they might very well follow in the present Bill. He thought a strong Committee of the House, or a strong expert Committee might be formed to allocate the proposed fund——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The only question raised by the Amendment is the name of the fund.

MR. WEBSTER

said, his reason for calling the fund "The Common Municipal Fund" was because it was intended for such purposes as lighting and sanitation. The one great danger he saw in calling the fund "The Equalisation Fund" was that as there was no supervision to secure that the fund should be spent for certain definite purposes——

THE CHAIRMAN

I have pointed out that the hon. Member cannot go into that question. The only question is the name of the fund.

MR. WEBSTER

said, he would therefore move, for various reasons which he could not explain, that "The Common Municipal Fund" was a desirable name for the fund proposed in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the word "Equalisation," and insert the words "Common Municipal."—(Mr. Webster.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Equalisation' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

thought "The Equalisation Fund" a good name, because it indicated the object for which the fund was intended. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

MR. W. LONG

was sorry the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment, because it really raised a rather important point. At present they had got a common fund in London the application of which everyone could understand from its name—namely, the Common Poor Fund for the relief of the poor's rate of London. It was likely that other common funds would be established in London in the future, and it was really important that they should have distinct and definite names. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman adhered to the name "Equalisation Fund" in this case because it would be more popular. But it was admitted that equalisation of the rates would not be obtained in London by the Bill—he thought it would be almost impossible to obtain complete equalisation—and therefore the proposed name would be misleading. "The Common Municipal Fund" would be a proper description of the fund; and he was sorry the Minister in charge of the Bill could not accept that title.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, the Bill was intended to raise a fund from the rich parishes in order to reduce the amount paid by the poor parishes for sanitary and other purposes. He thought the name "Common Sanitary Fund" would best explain the object of the contribution; but as the word "sanitary" could not be used, they ought really to call the fund "The Common Municipal Fund." He said, as had been said many times, that the words "Equalisation Fund" might mislead many people. There were many things they could not equalise in the rating of the Metropolis. There were burdens in some parishes which might have been removed in others by longer existence or greater economy. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider before the Report whether it would not be well to adopt some such title as that proposed.

MR. ALBAN GIBBS

said, the Common Poor Fund was also an Equalisation Fund, and therefore this should be described as Equalisation Fund No. 2.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he had intended to urge that point. He claimed that the Act of 1870 did much more towards equalisation than the present Bill. He therefore thought the right hon. Gentleman might soften his heart and alter a name which, if adopted, would throw into the shade former steps towards equalisation. It was rather important that the Metropolis should see that they had established a Metropolitan Fund for municipal purposes, as there had been established a fund for Poor Law purposes. It marked a new departure and would be more specific in its character than equalisation of rates.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, the main fund would be the old one, which would be 3s. 3d. in the £1. That was really an equalisation fund. The rate under the present Bill would only be 6d. in the £1. Surely it was hardly right when they had two funds, both of which served for equalisation (though one was much larger than the other) to give the smaller one and not the larger the name Equalisation."

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, he could not agree that the fund which would be established under the Bill would be the smaller one. It would be about equal to the Common Boor Law Fund established by the Acts of 1867 and 1870. There was a further equalisation in 1888, which was a distinct operation in the nature of a contribution from the Exchequer. He was ready to admit that the Common Poor Fund, established by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his predecessors, was an Equalisation Fund; and he thought it was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman had not adopted the name.

MR. WHITMORE

suggested that the designation "Municipal Equalisation Fund" should be adopted.

* MR. COHEN

thought the language of I the Bill should not imply anything that was incorrect.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. WEBSTER

proposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "of" and insert "not exceeding" before "six pence." It might be said that the Amendment was not necessary, as the word "sixpence" was a definite statement of the exact amount which the ratepayers of the Metropolis would have to pay under the Bill. But he thought that the experience of the other Acts of a similar character showed that it was essential to insert "not exceeding" in order to secure that not more than 6d. was levied. When the late I Mr. Forster brought in his Bill with regard to the School Boards of London, and when an Amendment was moved limiting the rate to a definite sum, the right hon. Gentleman said there was no necessity for it, and he assured the House that in all probability the rate would never be higher than 6d. in the £1. The danger was that as there was no controlling authority to investigate the expenditure, and as it was a general fund, people in all districts in London might ask for electric lighting and other luxuries; but if the words "not exceeding" were inserted in the clause, they would show that it was the intention of Parliament that the fund should not go beyond 6d. in the £1. They knew how Londoners resented the grave and great increase of rates in recent years. The rates in many parts of London were very excessive. In Chelsea they were 5s. 4d. in the £1, in Mile End New Town 6s, 6d., in Clerkenwell 5s. 10s., in Bermondsey 7s. 4d. He therefore moved the Amendment, not only on behalf of his constituents, but on behalf of London generally.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the word "of,"' in order to insert the words "not exceeding."—(Mr. Webster.)

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

MR. SHAW-LEFEVEE

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. It was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the Bill that a fixed amount should be paid into the fund, and that that fixed amount should be 6d.

COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

said, it would be more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee evidence that 6d. in the £1 was the right amount at which to fix the contribution to the fund. There bad been no inquiry by a Select Committee, or even by a Committee of the County Council into the merits of the case at all. What evidence was there that 6d. would be required? He could not see why the Amendment should not be accepted, and why the London County Council should be allowed to impose any amount they thought proper.

* MR. LOUGH

said, the clause as it stood did not leave the amount to the discretion of the London County Council, but the Amendment, if adopted, would.

SIB R. TEMPLE

said, that though not really a Metropolitan Member, he had done more work of this kind than most Metropolitan Members, because be had the honour of raising £1,500,000 annually in school rates in London. The effect of the Amendment would simply be that the County Council would have the power to levy a rate of something below 6d. if they thought fit. Ho could not see the necessity for a fixed amount being stated in the Bill. Let the County Council, in their discretion, fix the amount every year, provision being made that the amount should not exceed 6d. The burden of the rates in London was now intolerable, and the formation of this fund would, in his belief, lead to an increase in that burden. It was, therefore, he thought, open to them to endeavour to prevent the burden being increased.

* MR. LOUGH

I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Bill does not raise the rates all over the Metro- polis in the slightest. It is a provision for equalising the rates that exist; and no additional rate is imposed at all.

SIR R. TEMPLE

I understand the Bill to say that a rate shall be levied equal to 6d. in the £1 throughout London.

MR. LOUGH

No, Sir; there is no such rate.

SIR R. TEMPLE

What is meant, then, by this rate of 6d. in the £1?

* MR. LOUGH

The rate is not to be levied. It is only a collection made over the Metropolitan area equal to a rate of 6d. in the £1, so that there may be a distribution of the money amongst all the parishes on the basis of population.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, the words of the clause were—"equal to a rate of 6d. in the£1 on the rate able value of London." They might try to charm those words away by a series of subtle considerations which he did not admit; but, in his opinion the Bill would, sooner or later, lead to an increase of the already heavy bur-don on the ratepayers of London. It might be said that the London County Council had been very economical in respect to the rates. He did not say anything against the Council in that respect. He thought they had not been so bad as other bodies for rating purposes which he could mention. But when there was a question of humanity concerned, whether in respect to the education or amusement, or the physical well-being of the people, all considerations of economy and just regard for the interests of the ratepayers seemed to disappear from the deliberations of the London County Council. Of course, if the money were well spent for those purposes, no one would grudge it; but he thought there wore good reasons why the County Council should be limited to 6d. in the £1 in this matter.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

said, he could not understand why the Amendment should not be accepted. He contended all that was wanted was the power to levy a rate up to find in the £1, and that there was no reason for absolutely insisting that 6d. in the £1 should be raised. The acceptance of the Amendment would not deprive the County Council of any power which was given to them under the Bill. But it would make it possible for them, if circumstances permitted such a course, and it was consistent with the fulfilment of the sanitary requirements of London, to lessen the burden which would otherwise fall very heavily upon some of the parishes of Loudon. Already the rates in London formed an exceedingly heavy burden, and he thought the Bill should not make it compulsory that this sum of exactly 6d. in the £1 should be levied. Under the Bill as it stood no reduction would be admissible. This was a measure that affected the interests of London only, and he thought that the Government should most certainly agree to the Amendment in order to meet the strongly-expressed wishes of the London Members.

* COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

said, he thought the whole discussion had got into a tangle, and that there was a confusion of ideas in the minds of the previous speakers. The proposed rate of 6d. was to be levied on the whole of the Metropolis in order to form a fund from which to assist the poorer parishes, which was to be distributed according to population. In his own parish (Plum-stead) they would have to pay this 6d. in the £1 to the general fund, but then they would receive Is. 1d. in the £1 under the grant, so that in fact they would be the gainers of 7d. in the £1. The rate should certainly be fixed once and for all, and not be left to the discretion of whatever Party happened to be in power at the time. He should, therefore, certainly support the Bill.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, he thought it would be undesirable that the Amendment should be accepted, as it would give to the London County Council the power to fix the amount of the rate, and that might make the question resolve itself later on into a Party one.

MR. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square

said, that if it had been intended that the Loudon County Council should have the power of deciding what rate was to be levied, he should have I voted in the same way as his lion, and gallant Friend; but no discretion would really be left to the London County Council by the Amendment. His hon. Friend had said that as the number of constituencies that were to re- ceive under the Bill were in the majority, they would vote down those who had to pay. However true that might be, he represented a constituency that was in the minority. But then it was a rich parish. What did it matter? they said. Yes, it was a rich parish, but for all that there were a great number of very poor people who lived in houses for which they had already to pay a far higher sum in the year by way of rates and taxes than their neighbours in Woolwich, for instance. The reason for this was that a man who required three small rooms in St. George's had to pay considerably more rent for them than his neighbour would in one of the poorer districts. It came to this—that under the Bill the poorer occupiers in wealthy parishes would be penalised. Under the new scheme the ratepayers would have to find an additional 4½d. in the £1, and therefore the contribution made by the poorer occupiers of St. George's and other rich parishes would be the highest in the Metropolis. If the fund was to have been paid away in accordance with the requirements of the parishes, and not in accordance with their population, then he would not have raised any protest to the full 6d. being annually levied; but as that was not the case he felt bound to support the Amendment, believing, as he did, that circumstances might arise that would make a smaller sum in certain years sufficient.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that in 1870 the late Mr. W. H. Smith used exactly the same argument when opposing a similar scheme then before the House, and that then the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in reply, seemed to have considered it as an argument of very small weight, because he not only did not mention it at all, but concluded his speech by saying that he had answered every argument of importance that Mr. W. H. Smith had brought against the scheme. He thought, therefore, that he could not on the present occasion do better than follow that example. One reason that the Government could not accept the Amendment was because it would give rise to so many other Amendments being proposed at a future stage of the Bill.

MR. KIMBER

said, there certainly appeared to be a confusion of mind prevailing among some hon. Members on this point, and pointed out that the rate of 6d. might he found to be too large. The principal argument in support of the Amendment was that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not give the Committee with any certainty figures dealing with the point in question.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he concurred in the view that great confusion appeared to prevail in the minds of some hon. Members that the rate of 6d. was to be levied all over London. He would draw attention to the similarity of the present scheme with that brought forward by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, in 1870, the amounts which the richer parishes would have to pay to the poorer parishes, and how precisely the burden fell on the same parishes. The charge of injustice, therefore, brought against the present scheme must also apply to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. The actual balance of the amount that would be paid under the Government scheme to the poorer parishes was £224,578, ending Lady Day, 1893; the amount paid by the richer parishes under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was £269,431. Under that scheme, as in this, the richer parishes which had to pay were the City, St. George's, Hanover Square, the Strand, Kensington, Westminster, Paddington, and Hampstead; and those parishes which were now paying £229,000 out of the £269,000 would pay £201,000 out of £224,000. Whether the inequality were unjust or not, it was precisely the inequality of burden created in 1870 and put on the same shoulders as proposed by this Bill.

MR. GOSCHEN

protested that he and his hon. Friends had not fought the battle of the rich parishes that evening.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Committee had listened to the complaints of the Representatives of richer parishes as to the burden put upon them by the Bill. Hampstead in its general rates would have an increased rating under this Bill of 1.47d. in the £1, Kensington 2.10d., Paddington 1.75d., St. George's, Hanover Square, 3.99d., St. James's, Westminster, 4.41 d., St. Martin's-in-the-Fields 4.68d., and Marylebone 1.52d. The Government could not accept this Amendment, because its acceptance would be fatal to the Bill. When he was engaged in drawing the Bill he hesitated greatly in fixing the figure at 6d., and he thought that it ought to have been put at a higher figure. He deprecated the Debate falling into a squabble between the wealth and the poverty of one district or the other. [A cry of "It never has!"] He ventured to say that the Debate had been largely conducted on those lines. He found no Representatives of the rich parishes advocating this Bill. London, in his opinion, was an entity, where those artificial distinctions between parishes and parishes were unfair, unjust, illogical, and an anachronism. The wealth and the poverty of London were bound together, and why, therefore, should there be a different rule in London from that which prevailed in Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, or Manchester, where there was a common rate levied over the whole community for this set of purposes? In every great Municipality expenditure was raised over the whole community, and wealth was made to contribute to the needs of poverty. Wealth created poverty, and poverty created wealth; the one was bound up with the other, and in dealing with sanitary matters especially they could not isolate the rich and throw on the other portion of the community a heavy burden. He admitted that this was an imperfect scheme, in which it was possible for a keen logician like the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer to pick holes, as was the case when the late Mr. W. H. Smith picked the right hon. Gentleman's scheme of 1870 to pieces. But he maintained that, defects notwithstanding, it was a scheme which ought to be supported by Metropolitan Members. The Committee ought not to continue haggling about parishes here and there; let London be dealt with as a whole; let each district be thrown into a common fund, and let each obtain the advantages it could from that fund. While admitting that there were poor districts in St. George's, Hanover Square, he pointed out that the wealth of London was created in the City. Land there was of enormous value, and yet the City of London wanted to escape its fair contribution to the poverty of London, a policy which he described as a most unjust and I unfair attempt at partial taxation. The Amendments put down on behalf of the City of London showed a desire to evade the burden.

MR. BARTLEY

I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Mellor. Is this a question of "not exceeding"? It is a Second Reading speech.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman has finished his speech.

MR. GOSCHEN

I should like to protest in the strongest possible manner against the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that there has been up to this time any "haggling," or effort on the part of the wealthier portions of the Metropolis to defeat or maim this Bill. It is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. His heart is in the question. I quite admit that he is most anxious to do his best for the whole of London, but his statement that there has been any disposition on the part of the wealthier portions of I he Metropolis to escape from their fair share of the rates is a most unjust, unfair, and uncandid aspersion upon the speeches that have been made on this side of the House. What has been our main contention? I hope that London will, remember this point. Our main contention is that this Bill will be made the vehicle of better sanitation for Loudon, and that the extra burdens that are to be imposed on the wealthier part of the Metropolis should not be frittered away, but that we should try and attain the object which I thought was the object of Her Majesty's Government, and which certainly is the object of the County Council —namely, that the money should be spent in improving the general health of the Metropolis. We have acknowledged this in every speech we have made. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to include me amongst those who he says have been fighting on behalf of the wealthier parishes. Except a little speech I made just now on behalf not of the wealthy, but of the poor, I have not said a word which by any possibility could be so construed. I would also call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that Members whose constituencies wore interested one way have boldly taken the other line, and have been endeavouring to make this the best Bill it can be made. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have imported into the Debate this attempt to make political capital out of the discussion. We have been endeavouring—and I challenge any impartial man to deny it—to look at this Bill from the point of view of how best the money can be spent. This is the first Amendment that has touched the question of the contribution at all, and the whole tone of our speeches has been in the direction of ascertaining what are the proper claims of the poorer portions of the Metropolis. We have shown that the money is improperly distributed under the Bill, but we have not done so from the point of view of richer parishes. The right hon. Gentleman must take the consequences if the speech he has delivered lengthens both my observations and the observations of any other speaker. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when I pointed out that some poor parishes would, under this Bill, receive perhaps 8d., whilst others would obtain perhaps only 4d. We say, as regards the poorer portions of the Metropolis, that there is no fair, or logical, or just distribution of the benefits that are given. This is a totally different matter from "haggling" on behalf of the richer parishes. The right hon. Gentleman has made an attack on the City. I leave it to those who represent the City to defend it, but I would ask whether the right how. Gentleman thinks it is not right for the City to put forward the point that the City rates are practically almost the average rates of the Metropolis? My how. Friend behind me says they are fully up to the average in certain parishes.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

4s. 10d. against 5s. 3d.

MR. GOSCHEN

The 4s. 10d. is not admitted, and the right hon. Gentleman confessed that he has not got the precise figures. No one can tell the amount better than those who pay the rates. There are some who have actually paid in cash rates which are considerably higher than the 4s. 10d. of the right hon. Gentleman. To get his average he must show that there are a considerable number of parishes who have paid less than 4s. 10d., because we know that there are parishes which have paid much more. The City has argued that it will be treated unjustly if the population test is applied to it. The right hon. Gentleman asked why not have one rate all over London as you have all over Birmingham? Well, I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman or his friends are there different parts of Birmingham that can spend the money of the other parts without having any control exercised over them by such other parts? Is Birmingham so divided up in its government that paving, lighting, scavenging, and other expenses are distributed over different parts of the City, and that one part has to pay for another part without having any control over the expenditure of that other part?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Birmingham is one Municipality, and that the whole of the expenditure is controlled by the Municipality.

MR. GOSCHEN

Exactly; that is our point. We wish to have that control which the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues refuse to give us. The right hon. Gentleman being on the lookout apparently for political capital—though I may say I considered him worthy of better things—has missed our point, that if we can get the general control of the expenditure we are perfectly prepared to contribute to that expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman says, "See what Birmingham does. Why should not London do the same?" And what does he ask us to do? Something entirely different. He says that one sanitary district in London is to hand over money to another sanitary district without having any control over the expenditure. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that there is any analogy to be found in any part of the Kingdom for such a proposal as that which is made by the present Bill. That is why we are examining it with so much care. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that as regards the sanitary rates of the Metropolis it is the duty of the richer portions of London to contribute towards the cost of the sanitation of the poorer portions. But I want to have some analogy to those municipal arrangements which he justly admired. If we are going to hand over a sum of money from one district to another we should be sure that it will be spent properly, and on the same principle as money is spent in other sanitary districts. It would be perfectly possible under the Bill for one sanitary district to undertake to pay wages to its employés at the rate of 26s. or 27s. a week, whilst the contributing parish paid only 20s. I believe there is a great deal of that kind of thing going on now, and that in some of the more highly rated districts higher wages were paid than in the more lowly rated districts. If we are to talk of London as a whole the voice of London as a whole ought to have some authority over the expenditure contributed by London as a whole. We shall endeavour to do our best to impress on the Government, regardless of any of the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman, that it is necessary where contributions are made to sc e that the control exists which he himself has almost boasted exists in other municipal parishes.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said, he wished to refer to a remark that had been made earlier in the Debate by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Goschen) respecting the relative positions of the poor man in St. George's, Hanover Square, and the poor man at Plumstead. There were 7,000 odd houses in Plumstead, and the average rateable value was £17 per house. In St. George's, Hanover Square, there were 12,000 householders, and the average rateable value was £141 per house. There might be a few poor men amongst the 12,000, and some of them might have to live in heavily rated houses, but the same state of things must have prevailed when the Common Poor Fund was formed. The poor man in St. George's, Hanover Square, should be treated now in the same way as he was treated when the Common Poor Fund was established, and should be made to bear the burden of the rate according to his rateability.

MR. MOULTON (Hackney, S.)

said, he would not imitate the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, in the warmth of his speech, as he thought it would be much more profitable to deal with the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman had made especially his in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman had advanced three arguments. In the first place, he had said that the rents even to the poor were high in St. George's, Hanover Square, and, therefore, although the rates might not he much in the £1, poor ratepayers had to pay a considerable sum. Then the right hon. Gentleman said the Bill would penalise the poor man in St. George's, Hanover Square, because his rates would be increased by it whilst the rates of the poor man in Bethnal Green would be diminished. Thirdly, the right how. Gentleman had claimed that the Government should not go on with the Bill, because it was impossible to put the management of the whole of the fund into one hand as was done in Municipalities.

MR. GOSCHEN

I beg pardon; I did not say that we should not go on with the scheme. I said we ought to amend it.

* MR. MOULTOX

said, he would examine the right hon. Gentleman's arguments one by one. He quite agreed with the right how. Gentleman that rents for the same accommodation might be higher in St. George's than they were in Bethnal Green, but no rent paid in Loudon was measured simply by the cost of the house. The value of the position of the laud to the person occupying the house was au element in the rent of every house in London. If a tradesman took a house in St. George's, Hanover Square, it was because the value of the place for trade purposes justified him in doing so. If a workman took a house in that parish it was because he wanted to be near his work. A tradesman or a workman would not pay more in St. George's, Hanover Square, than he would in Bethnal Green except in the hope of making the difference between the two rents out of the advantages of the position. A man would not pay more for a house in St. George's, Hanover Square, than it was worth to him any more than a man would in Bethnal Green, although the amount of the rent was no doubt in both cases very large. But the really important argument used by the right how. Gentleman was the argument that the poor man in St. George's was going to be penalised because money was to be taken from St. George's and given to other parishes, and this would raise the rates to the poor in St. George's. No doubt it would, but it must be remembered that the poor in St. George's had their rates pulled down by the fact that the large houses in the parish paid an enormous amount in rates. The poor men had had their rates lowered by the fact that they were in community with the rich men. Therefore, when their rates were raised they were not unfairly raised in comparison with the rates of Bethnal Green because Bethnal Green contained no wealthy houses by which the rates were pulled down. If a separate district were constituted out of the poor parts of St. George's alone the sanitation rates in that district would be very much higher than was the present sanitation rate in St. George's. It was because the poor districts were in the midst of a wealthy parish that the rates were as low as they were, and if Parliament raised the rates all it would do would be to place the poor ratepayers in the position they would probably be in if they were in Bethnal Green, and had their rates lowered by the contribution of other London parishes. As to the question of the management of the expenditure of the new common fund, the House had to make up its mind on one thing—namely, whether it was going to take away local administration in sanitation. If local administration was to be retained the sum demanded by the nature and constitution of the district must be contributed as proposed by this Bill. It was necessary for Parliament to fix the scale of contribution from the big parishes to the small ones, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was right in saying that an Amendment which left it doubtful what the scale of relief would be must be fatal to the Bill. The only way in which local administration could be retained, and the system of contribution to the poorer parishes could be carried out, was by handing over a sum of money dependent upon their constitution, and letting them make the best of it. If they once made up their minds about that—and if doubtful about it let them now divide and decide it—then all the questions of common funds, when they had no common administration, were foreign to the Bill. They would make it a hopeless confusion instead of being what it was—a simple and clear ["Oh, oh!"] attempt to make the wealthier parishes contribute to the additional expenses of the poorer parishes.

MR. FISHER (Fulham)

said, that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, having made a Second Reading speech as far from the Amendment as I any speech he had ever heard, was now desirous of taking a Division. The hon. and learned Gentleman had commenced his speech by complaining of the warmth of the right hon. Gentleman who was so ably leading the Opposition in the Committee stage of the Bill, but that heat had been engendered by the Secretary of State for India, which was only to be accounted for by the right hon. Gentleman's change from the Local Government Board to an Office connected with an Oriental climate. No one was more surprised than he (Mr. Fisher) was at the right hon. Gentleman's change from the pacific temperament he had displayed when President of the Local Government Board. The matter before the Committee had been represented as a quarrel between those who would have to pay and those who would have to receive. Representing a constituency which had largely to receive, but did not wish to be debauched, he was strongly in favour of certain Amendments in the Bill which would enable some kind of control to be exercised over the gift which was being made to Fulham by those sanitary areas which were more fortunate than they were in that district. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said they ought to accept any scheme, but as one who represented an area which was going to receive he was not in favour of accepting any scheme. He was strongly in favour of some central and common fund for sanitary purposes, but he had some little knowledge——

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member discussing the Amendment before the House?

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

You did not object when the last speaker was addressing the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was desirable that the Committee should keep to the specific Amendment under discussion.

MR. FISHER

said, he could not help thinking that he was really the only person who had spoken to the Amendment. I Although representing a constituency that was to receive he felt bound to ex press his view as to the process by which the gift should be bestowed. He did not want his constituency to be debauched; therefore, he thought there should be some control exercised over the expenditure. Now he came directly to the Amendment——

* MR. LOUGH

Hear, hear!

An hon. MEMBER

Why did not the hon. Member for Islington interrupt his own side?

MR. FISHER

said, the Amendment was to the effect that the County Council should not necessarily be always obliged to put the rate as high as 6d., but that the words should be "not exceeding 6d. in the £1." It might be that the County Council, after some experience in this matter, might come to the conclusion that less than 6d. in the £1 would be necessary. If so, the County Council should have power to raise less. Otherwise some Local Authorities, by needlessly raising the salaries of their officials, might spend more on sanitation than was desirable. If this were done in one district it would necessarily have a bad effect in other districts. Whenever these subjects came before Local Authorities it was a common thing for them to compare their expenditure with that of their neighbours, and the force of example might induce many of them to spend more than was necessary on those objects to promote which the Bill was introduced. He was in favour of a greater discretionary power being placed in the hands of the London County Council.

MR. BARTLEY

said, that his object throughout these Debates had been to try to improve the Bill and make it fairer, so that certain districts should not be relieved at the expense of others which were poorer. He would like to point out to his hon. and gallant Friend that, although Plumstead and Eltham, two contiguous parishes, now paid exactly the same rates in the £1, the former was to receive under the Bill 7½d., and the latter less than a farthing relief. That was a startling case, which showed the need of some discrimination. He himself had put down Amendments to extend the power of discrimination, and, although he strongly supported a fairer and more equitable system of taxation for the different districts of London—and had always advocated it—he contended that unless this measure were amended in some such way as was proposed, by giving a discriminating power, it would inflict even greater hardship than existed at present.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that this Bill was going to do very much what the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund did—that was to say, that the rich parishes would contribute about as much as they did under that Fund. That was a perfectly true statement, taking the number of parishes together; but if they took the parishes singly, they were taxed in a very different manner. He would like to say a few words respecting the City of London. The City would not oppose any equitable arrangement. It had always desired to act not only with fairness, but with liberality, towards the rest of London. When the Common Poor Fund was instituted it was actually proposed by a Member for the City, the right hon. Member for St. George's, and the City supported the arrangement. Did or did not the City pay its fair share? The total population of the Metropolis was 4,230,000; that of the City was stated to be 37,500. Taking the poor rate, in the first place, the total expenditure was £2,728,000, of which the City paid £244,000. So that, while 37,000 persons paid £244,000, 4,200,000 only paid £2,500,000. Or if they looked at it in another way, the average rate per head for the whole country was 6s. 3d.; in Loudon it was under 12s., while in the City it was over £6. In a population of 37,000 the number of lunatics would naturally be small, and the expense trifling, particularly in the case of such a population as that of the City; yet the City paid £71,000 towards the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the great bulk of which was in relief of the rates of the rest of the Metropolis. Taking the case of education, the total rate for the whole country was £3,300,000; that for London was £1,445,000, of which the City paid no less than £175,000. The average cost for a child, according to the Education Returns, was £2 8s. 4d., and the number of children of school age was one-sixth of the population.

MR. LOUGH

asked if it was relevant to go into these matters?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)

ruled that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly in Order.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, he would not detain the Committee more than a few minutes. He was dealing with the case of education. The City of London, with a population of 37,000 persons would contain 6,000 children, for whom the cost would be under £15,000. But the City contributed no less than £175,000, so that it paid far more than 10 times its proportionate cost. It must be admitted then, that as regarded the poor, the lunatics, and education, the City paid its full, and more than its full, share. The total amount raised in the Metropolis was £8,400,000, while that raised in the City alone was £1,000,000. In other words 4,200,000 persons contributed £7,400,000, while 37,000 persons contributed £1,000,000, or over £25 per head. And yet it was said that they did not contribute enough. Moreover, during the last five years the City had contributed no less than £900,000 for improvements in other parts of the Metropolis without receiving a farthing for improvements. Lastly, the City had constructed the Tower Bridge at a cost of £1,000,000 sterling without receiving any contribution from other parts of London. The population of the City as defined in the Bill might be taken at 300,000 during the day. For these sanitation, streets, and lighting had to be provided, and the streets must of course be lighted at night. Under these heads the City spent £170,000 a year, whereas for the rest of the Metropolis the cost was £1,500,000. Taking the respective valuations for the City and for the rest of the Metropolis, the proportion of expenditure under these heads was very much the same; and yet the City was now called upon to contribute a further £100,000 a year. His right hon. Friend, in charge of the Bill stated the average rate for the City at 4s. 10½d. which was, no doubt, the figure given in the London County Council statistics. It was not, however, complete, as it did not comprise the ward rate or Militia rate. He believed that 5s. 2d. more closely approximated to the actual figures. Indeed, 5s. 2d. was the amount agreed to a year or two ago as the average rate for the purpose of the rating of the Gas Light and Coke Company; and since then the rates had certainly risen by more than Id. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the average rate for the Metropolis was 5s. 5d., so that the City was really within 2d. of the average rate. There was also the question of the compound householder to be considered when making a comparison. One reason why the City appeared to be lightly rated was because in the City many amounts were paid by the Corporation out of City funds which elsewhere would come technically out of rates. For instance, the expense for bridges, which amounted to £39,000, and for the library and various other items, amounting to some £130,000 a year, were thus paid. If his right hon. Friend looked closely into the matter he would come to feel that the attack which had been made on the City was not justified by the circumstances. The City had no desire to evade some extra payment; but he submitted that no case had been made out why the City should be called on for a larger sum than £50,000 a year. They believed that the Bill would introduce additional complexity into the already intricate machinery existing in the Metropolis. He apologised to the Committee for having drawn attention to these matters, and he was obliged to them for the manner in which they had listened to him.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVEE

said, he hoped the Committee would now agree to come to a decision upon the Amendment, which they had been engaged in discussing for an hour and three-quarters. The Debate had certainly gone somewhat wide of the question before them. He would defer his reply to the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London until a later occasion.

SIR A. BOETHWICK (Kensington, S.)

said, he would like to say a word in reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India. He represented Kensington, which was a rich, well-conducted, and well-administered parish, and they wanted to know where the money was going to and who was to have control of it. It was far from their wish to evade any obligation whatever; on the contrary, he could say that Kensington had voluntarily done a great deal of good in the Metropolis. The mother church of that district had voluntarily annexed an East End parish. He was sure, also, that St. George's and the other great and rich Metropolitan parishes were quite willing to bear their proper burdens, their cry on this particular point being, where was the money going to and who was to administer it. Under the Common Poor Fund they knew where the money went and how it was administered. They were perfectly willing to pay a rate of 6d., or even more for the benefit of their poorer neighbours, but they protested against the notion of being taxed without having any control over the money. SIR E. TEMPLE said, he desired to say a word in explanation. His interpretation of the Bill had been questioned, and in reference to that he desired to quote a sentence from the report of the Vestry Clerk of the parish of Kensington, who wrote— This Bill seeks to empower the London County Council——

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That certainly is going beyond the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes 108; Noes 35.—(Division List, No. 209.)

MR. E. G. WEBSTEE moved, in page 1, line 7, after "rate of," insert "three pence."

THE DEPUTY CHAIEMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot move that. He must move to omit the word "sixpence," if be wants to insert another figure.

MR. E. G. WEBSTEE

said, he would bow to the Chairman's ruling, and would move the Amendment in the form he suggested. He had listened with very great surprise to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India. The Debate had been conducted with great calmness; but the right hon. Gentleman had risen and attacked hon. Members of the Opposition, and had said that their sole wish was to do their best to protect the wealthier classes of London. That was very far from their intention. He was moving this Amendment in the interest of a constituency, which he thought could not be described as a wealthy constituency, for it contained a vast number of poor people. He understood the President of the Local Government Board to say that the sanitary rate in London, or the amount that ought to be spent for purely sanitary purposes, ought not to be more than 3d. in the £1.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

I said under the Public Health Act.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

said, he accepted the correction, but at the same time he would point out that the Public Health Act had a very wide scope, and that outside of it there was very little sanitary work that could be done in the Metropolis. There had been special pleading by hon. Gentlemen opposite regarding the fact that those hon. Members who were trying to limit the expenditure under the Bill were simply acting and speaking in the interests of the wealthier population. The hon. Member for Hackney's speech was purely special pleading, but he would point out for the hon. Gentleman's information and for the information of other hon. Members that a poor parish like Wapping would have to contribute no less than 4¾d. in the £1 to this common fund, while St. Paul's, Covent Garden, also a parish containing a very poor district, would have to give 5d., St. Martin's-in-the-Fields 4d., and St. Clement's Danes also 4d. Hon. Members who had addressed, and who might address, the House, would no doubt ask why should not there be a common fund for London as in such places as Wolverhampton and Bradford. In Bradford the people had a common fund allocated for all purposes. This was not at all the same case. There was no compounding system. Bradford was rated in precisely the same way all through, and an assessment committee existed by which the assessments were carried out on identically the same lines.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment which the hon. Member is moving is to omit 6d. in order to insert 3d. He must address his argument to the point whether the Committee should accept the larger or the smaller sum.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

desired to point out that the Public Health Act had a very wide scope, and that 3d. would be adequate to meet the requirements of the case, that was to say expenditure for sanitary purposes, that sum being col- lected from all the parishes in London. He begged to move, therefore, that the sum fixed be 3d. in the £1.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, leave out "sixpence," and insert "threepence."—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)

Question proposed, "That' sixpence' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that in the discussion which had previously taken place this matter had been fully considered, and that the last Amendment virtually disposed of this question. He could only say on the part of the Government that they regarded 6d. as the minimum sum for the purposes in view. A rate of 3d. would hardly be worth having at all, and the Government would not have thought worth while to propose it. As regarded the reference to the Public Health Act, he would only say that the cost of carrying it out was 3d. A rate of Id. in the £1 for Hanover Square would mean an 8d. rate for Bethual Green, where the cost of carrying out the Public Health Act would be much more serious. A much smaller amount would be required for the parishes in the centre of Loudon. He could only repeat that 6d. was the minimum sum which could be considered at all adequate.

SIR R. TEMPLE

desired to say only one word in support of the Amendment. Quoting from a Report with reference to Kensington, he pointed out that after the creation of this fund a sum of £18,000, or in other words 2s. 3d. in the £1, would at once be added to the rates of the parish, with a further increase in future. As an illustration of what the result would be he thought that was a very good ground for supporting the Amendment.

MR. WHITMORE

said, that he could not support the Amendment, but he should like to take this opportunity of asking the President of the Local Government Board for specific information as to how far the 6d. rate ought to be expended on sanitary purposes. Surely it was only right that London Members should receive an answer to that question.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the question would arise under Section 4.

MR. WHITMORE

had only asked for the information upon the question whether 3d. should be substituted for 6d., and how far the latter sum, if retained, would be required for purely sanitary purposes.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that the average contribution would not be much more than 3d., and that would not go very far towards covering the sanitary expenses. Some parishes would increase their expenditure on sanitary work, while in others the sum might merely be applied to relieve the rates. No general rule could be laid down. Besides the expenditure under the Public Health Act there was a great deal of expenditure which was virtually though not technically for sanitation, as, for instance, cleansing cesspools and scavenging roads. The hon. Gentleman might rest assured that the very moderate contribution in the poorer parishes would be expended for purposes coming within the term sanitation.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as he should be sorry to see the rate reduced to 3d. But the President of the Local Government Board was utterly inconsistent. He now said that there was a great deal of actual sanitary expenditure which was not legally so called. Earlier in the discussion, when hon. Members were urging that this rate should be devoted exclusively to sanitation, the right hon. Gentleman said that if such a limitation were imposed it would be impossible to provide for the disposal of the money by some of the Local Authorities. The right hon. Gentleman's two statements were not consistent.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

I was speaking of sanitary expenditure as expenditure under the Public Health Act.

MR. W. LONG

said, that there had been no desire to make the limitation so narrow. The objection was to money being taken out of other people's pockets for road-making and lighting which were not subjects coming properly within the purposes of the fund. The right hon. Gentleman had said unless those two objects were included it would be impossible to distribute the money among the Local Authorities, whereas he now stated that a good deal of sanitary work was done which did not come under that legal and technical description. He agreed with his hon. Friend, however, that if they were going to pass a Bill dealing with the rates of London the Committee might just as well be "hung for a sheep as a lamb" and make the amount 6d. at once.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER,

after the observations which had been made, asked permission to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. BARTLEY

said, their only object was to see that the amount, whatever it was, should be properly expended. For his own part he thought 6d. was not enough, and provided the Bill secured more careful arrangement he would not object to a larger sum.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the objection on the part of Representatives of rich parishes was to the want of elasticity in the Bill. They would not, however, divide the House on the question of a diminution from 6d. to 3d.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KIMBER moved an Amendment exempting from contribution parishes where the rates were above the average. In Wandsworth the rates for the past 12 mouths were 6s. 6d., though it was true it was a receiving parish by the small amount of 2d. In the City again the rates were 6s. 4d., which probably excluded one or two exceptional items which would not ordinarily be called rates. He did not, however, wish it to be supposed that he was actuated by any such pitiable consideration as whether his own and his fellow-parishioners' rates would be reduced or raised 2d. or 3d. He was sure that nothing that had passed in the course of the Debate would justify the right hon. Gentleman in attributing to them any meaner motives than those for which they had always claimed credit. The President of the Local Government Board had stated that it was, at all events, the intention of the Government that no parish whose rates were among the highest—that was to say, above the average of 5s. 6d.—should be called upon to contribute.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, the statement he had made was that the Government believed the effect would be that parishes above the average would not be called upon.

MR. KIMBER

said, the proviso he wished to insert would secure that the Bill should have that effect. Its aim was to protect a parish which, for instance, was paying 7s. 4d., against being called upon to contribute. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would admit that that was fair. He knew that it had been suggested that one effect of this proposal would be that, when a parish found itself in a position which compelled it to eon-tribute to the fund, in order to escape so doing it would at once go in for making its own expenditure excessive. He did not believe that in practice that would be found to be so. The average rate of the whole of the Metropolis was 5s. 6d. in the £1, and he asked whether any parish would attempt to increase their expenditure so as to exceed that figure by Is. or Is. 6d. in order merely to escape from the payment of the additional 6d. required as a contribution to this fund?

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, at end, insert— Provided always that—(a) No parish whose total rate in the £1 for the previous year is above the average total rate in the £1 of all London shall contribute to the said fund; (b) no parish whose total rate in the £1 for the previous year is below the average total rate in the £1 for all London shall receive any grant from the said fund."— (Mr. Kimber.)

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

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that at first sight the Amendment no doubt seemed plausible enough, but on closer examination it would be found that, although there was a good deal that could be said in its favour, still it would lead to extravagance and unnecessary expenditure, and on that account the Government could not agree to it. He would point out that a parish, on the one hand, whose rates were below the average would feel itself bound to expend the money in its own area, which it would otherwise have to contribute to the fund, and, on the other hand, a parish might increase its expenditure in order to raise its expenses to such an amount as would enable it to claim a contribution. Take Kensington as an illustration of what would happen. The average rates in that parish for the last three years were 5s. Under this Bill it would be called upon to pay 3d. in the £1, in aid of the poorer parishes, which would bring them up to 5s. 3d. The contribution which the parish would pay would amount to £18,000 a year. If it increased its expenditure with in the parish by that sum, it would be free from contribution to the fund. Could any plan be proposed which would hold out greater inducement to extravagance in the parish? The same objection applied in the other direction to the second part of the Amendment. If the proposal was one, as had been urged, that should be accepted on the ground of common fairness, why was it not inserted in the Bill of 1870? He also objected to the Amendment because it would give rise to a feeling of uncertainty in all those cases where the amount of the rates fell a little below the limit fixed. That would open the door to all kinds of gerrymandering. From every point of view, therefore, he considered that it would be most unwise for the Government to accept the Amendment.

* COLONBL HUGHES

said, this Amendment was not necessitated by the present position of London in these matters. A parish might give an extra 5 per cent, for compounding on a great number of houses, and thus raise the rate. It would be rather hard to deprive poorer parishes of the benefits that they hoped to get, because the system of compounding had increased the rates in the contributing parishes.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him with regard to the Amendment, and had referred to the Act of 1870, in which he said there was nothing of this kind. Of course there was nothing of the kind in that Statute, because the whole arrangement was different. There they had some distinct test of wealth or pauperism, and there was none of that uncertainty which attached to this Bill. Everyone was able to calculate what the proportion would be according to the rate of pauperism. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Act of 1870 he (Mr. Goschen) could not help thinking how much better a measure it was than this, and how its provisions secured the Metropolis against the dangers they saw in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had argued in regard to one or two parishes which stood precisely on the border line, and in all cases where they drew a particular line it was certain that there would be cases either above or below that line where possibly operations might be taken which would defeat the intentions of Parliament. But they must be very near the line to make it worth their while. If they were a little below it would be a strong order to increase their rates so that they might come under this Bill. He admitted there were one or two parishes where that might be the case, and although he doubted whether that was a practical argument for the right hon. Gentleman to use against it, still he admitted there was some force in it, and he should be reluctant to encourage any provisions which would hold out any inducement to a parish to increase the rates. Still, while he saw difficulties in adopting the Amendment, he also perceived some advantages that would attend it. The proposal of his hon. Friend was right, just, and equitable in theory; but under all the circumstances he thought his hon. Friend would act wisely in withdrawing the Amendment. At the same time, he was bound to say he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought, in justice, to admit the proposition that no parish whose rate was above the average rate of all London ought to be called on to contribute to the fund.

MR. ALBAN GIBBS

desired to point out to the President of the Local Government Board that it would be a very dangerous thing for a parish to try to increase their rates in order to get above the average. The average might go up at the same time, and the parish would then find itself in a very awkward position. He was very sorry to hear the Amendment was to be withdrawn, as he should very much have liked to support it.

* MR. LOUGH,

desired to point out that the relief which had to be paid to any parish depended not upon whether the rate was higher but whether the poverty was greater. The test of whether a parish should pay was its richness, and the test of whether a parish should receive was its poverty. It might happen that a rich parish had got a high rate, and had got some advantages from its high rate, but because it was wealthy it would have to contribute something to a poor parish. If hon. Members would recollect that simple test all difficulties would disappear. The hon. Member for North Islington took two parishes, and he told them that Plumstead had to receive a large amount while Eltham had to pay.

MR. BARTLEY

It receives something less than ¼d.

* MR. LOUGH

said, the argument was that one parish received about 7d. whilst the other received only ¼d. He wanted the hon. Member to learn why this was so. The two parishes were not treated alike, although they Jay beside one another, but because Plumstead was very poor, and had an average valuation per head of the population of only £3 2s., it received 7d. in the £1, whilst Eltham, which was rich, and had an average valuation per head of £9 2s., it only received one farthing. If hon. Members opposite would recognise this principle they would find the Bill was not uncertain in its operation, but extremely certain, and worked with marvellous accuracy all through the Metropolitan area. The point at which the line was drawn was an average value of £7 18s. per head of the population. With a single exception all under that amount received and all above that amount paid. It did not matter what the rates were. A parish would have to pay because it was rich. It might be extravagant and have high rates, but it would have to pay; and there might, again, be a very poor parish which was very economical, and it should not be deprived of its fair share of benefit because it had managed its affairs economically. Take the case of St. Olave's, Southwark. It was said that 6s. 4d. was a high rate, and it was asked why St. Olave's should have to pay a little more. If hon. Gentlemen would look at the average valuation of St. Olave's they would find it was £50 per head of the population, so that it was quite just this parish should make a little contribution. Take a case like Islington, whose average rate might happen to be under the average of the rates in the Metropolis. They had had an illustration given of how that might be brought about. Islington had only 2d. to pay for a certain class of loans, whilst an adjoining parish had Is. 4d. to pay for the same kind of loans. If they adopted the principle of this Amendment they would not study economy, but would put a premium upon extravagance. He was quite certain if his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment would recognise the principle upon which the Bill was based—namely, the richness on the one hand, and the poverty on the other, both of which were arrived at the same way, he would see that his proposal was not one which it would be wise to press to a Division.

MR. KIMBER

desired to be allowed to answer the observations made from the opposite Benches. First of all, there was no argument as to extravagance which could be adduced against this clause which was not equally good against any principle of doles, however that principle might be applied. The fact that all the parishes of London would be in a state of expectancy, through their representative bodies, of getting a dole at the expense of a common fund would lead them pro tanto to a kind of— he would not say extravagance, because he should not like to charge the constituencies of Loudon with wilful extravagance, but it would tend to induce a spirit of self-liberality towards their districts that would certainly load to a larger expenditure by them than would otherwise be the case. Another answer to the plea of extravagance was the control that must be exorcised in any case where they had any expenditure over a large area. In the case of the Common Poor Fund they had the supervision of the Local Government Board, and some tribunal or machinery must be, in subsequent parts of this Bill, erected for the purpose of controlling the expenditure of this fund, however it might be distributed. The question of whether any parish had made its rates too high, so that it might become a recipient of this fund, should be made the subject of criticism by some body responsible for it, and there was no body so competent, having regard to its very efficient staff, as the Local Government Board. The expectation of the distribution out of a fund which was to be applied to all London was not sufficient to justify the supposition the right hon. Gentleman applied to places like Kingston, that they would wilfully, maliciously, and extravagantly incur an expenditure of an extra £18,000 in their own parish, beyond what was reasonably and properly necessary to be expended, simply for the sake of saving themselves from a possible contribution towards a common fund for the sanitary improvement of the Metropolis. He did not believe that of Kingston, nor of the right hon. Gentleman's own parish, where ever that was. He did not believe there was in London a Municipal Body so corrupt as to do such a dirty transaction. The next reason urged against the Amendment was the uncertainty. He could not quite understand where the uncertainty was. There was no uncertainty in ascertaining the amount, because the right hon. Gentleman had already ascertained what were the maximum and minimum rates of London for last year, and he could therefore strike an average. The hon. Member for Woolwich said that the rates in his parish were increased by the system of compounding. The fact that there was compounding did not affect the Amendment, and, again, he would point out that the test of this Bill was not the wealth or poverty of a parish, but its population. He would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but, as he should like to have this Amendment put on record, he would submit to its being negatived.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HARTLEY moved, in page 1, line 11, leave out "parish," and insert "sanitary district." He said, the section provided that the London County Council should half-yearly determine the contributions from each parish in London to one-half of the Equalisation Fund. It seemed to him that, looking at the whole scope of the Bill, this did not affect the larger districts; but he thought the adoption of his proposal would work in some smaller parishes, where the discrepancies were greater than anywhere else, with greater fairness. The sanitary district was the district which was recognised in a great many ways, and the adoption of the Amendment would enable the scheme to work in a better and more systematic manner.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "parish," and insert the words "sanitary district."— (Mr. Hartley.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'parish' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, he must decline to accept the Amendment, the word "parish" having been selected with the distinct object that poor parishes might obtain relief.

MR. GOSCHEN

remarked, that he did not want to deprive the poor parishes of the advantages they might obtain under the Bill, but there was a considerable anomaly in the idea of grants being made to the sanitary districts whilst the contributions were levied from the parishes. The onus probandi lay on the right hon. Gentleman to show that that was correct. Where there was a district which was composed of several parishes the poorer parishes relieved the wealthier parishes in the same sanitary district from any contribution towards the fund. Where there was a group of parishes in a sanitary district there were in that group certain parishes that would otherwise contribute, and which were now free, because of their connection with the poorer parishes, from any contributions such as were made by other wealthier parishes. That was the case in Plum-stead, Woolwich, and several other of these aggregated parishes. He thought they ought to enact that contributions should come from the sanitary district, and the grant be made to the sanitary district, and the rectification of any injustice as regarded the contribution or the grant should be made in the subsections relating to the aggregated districts.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVEE

said, he had no reason to complain of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman who had accurately described the intention of the Bill. This was a very complicated matter, and not at all easy to understand. The best way to understand it was to look at the Return which had been presented to the House showing how the distribution was made among the parishes which formed the sanitary districts. If hon. Members examined the Return they would then see that the object of distributing the money among the parishes that formed the sanitary districts was to carry out the principle of equalisation as far as possible within the sanitary districts, so that the poorer parishes should benefit in proportion to their population.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said, difficulty and unfairness would certainly arise if one system was adopted for collection and another for distribution—if the money were contributed by the parishes and distributed by the sanitary districts. The parishes grouped together in the sanitary district would not each get its fair amount of relief under the Bill if the mode of distributing the money by sanitary districts was adhered to. For instance, Plumstead if taken separately would have a rate in aid of over 7d., but if it had been grouped with the other parishes in the old sanitary district it would only have had 4d. Cases of that kind would be found all over London.

MR. J. STUART

contended on the question of distribution that as the fund was to be raised for purposes, the expenses of which fell on the sanitary district as a whole, it was extremely reasonable that the money in aid should be given to the sanitary district as a whole. With regard to the question of collection, the precept of the County Council for the collection of the money must be issued to the Guardians of the parishes. There was no precedent for issuing a precept to a Sanitary Authority, and that fact constituted a practical objection to the Amendment.

* MR. LOUGH

said, it would be found on examination that in the distribution of the money to the sanitary districts the Bill would work with justice towards each separate parish grouped in every sanitary district.

LORD G. HAMILTON

believed that on the contrary under the clause as it stood the principle that the poorer parishes should be assisted by the richer parishes in sanitary arrangements would not be carried out. The object of the Bill was to effect sanitary improvements throughout the Metropolis. But what would be the inevitable result of providing that when the valuation of a parish reached the point of £7 18s. per head of its population such a parish contributed to, and did not receive any assistance from, the fund? The result would be that the Local Authorities would try to keep their valuation down and send the population up. As parishes would have to contribute when their population went down and their valuation up, and as such a state of things occurred when vigilance was exercised by Sanitary Authorities, when, for instance, slums were removed, he was afraid that the Bill would encourage relaxation in sanitary matters. He thought that was a criticism worthy of the attention of the Government. He was bound to say, however, that he could not himself suggest a principle of distribution which was not open to objection. But he ventured to suggest that if the object of the Bill was—as he believed it was—that the poorer parishes should be assisted by the richer parishes for the purpose of improving their sanitary arrangements, the principle of distribution adopted in the Bill would make in an opposite direction.

MR. GOSCHEN

urged that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should look carefully into the words of the clause and see whether they could not be made clearer than they were. The hon. Member for Hoxton had pointed out that the County Council levied the rates on the parish and not on the sanitary district; and he therefore, very naturally and perfectly fairly, objected to anything which would involve the levying of the rate on the sanitary district. But there was no question in the sub-section of levying a rate at all. The question was simply to determine what area should contribute.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

It is a very complex question.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, it was a complex question; and therefore he thought he was justified in urging on the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider before Report whether this part of the Bill could not be put into a clearer shape. It could be provided, he thought, that the area would be the sanitary district, and, at the same time, that the contribution would be made by each separate parish in the sanitary district in the shape of a rate.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, the question had given rise to a great deal of difficulty to the Local Government Board, and the words were adopted by the Local Government Board after careful consideration. He would undertake, however, to again reconsider the matter before the next stage, owing to the very able discussion that had taken place; but he could not pledge himself that his decision would be favourable to the Amendment.

MR. BARTLEY

said, after that statement, with which he was satisfied, he should not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WHITMORE moved, on behalf of Mr. BOUSFIELD, to leave out from "fund," in line 12, to "by," in line 14. This Amendment was necessary to carry out the object of another Amendment which his hon. and learned Friend had lower down on the Paper, and which would substitute a new principle and a new machinery for the principle and machinery in the Bill. That further Amendment was as follows:— Clause 1, page 1, line 17, leave out from the beginning to "where," in line 22, and insert— The grant due from that one-half of the fund to each parish shall be determined by three arbitrators to be appointed by the Local Government Board, who shall apportion the amount of half the Equalisation Fund among the sanitary districts. In making such apportionment the arbitrators shall have regard to the following considerations: —

1. (a) the population of each district;
2. (b) the rate in the pound required in each district in order to provide the amount expended in each district for the purposes hereinafter mentioned;
3. (c) such other matters as are in the opinion of the arbitrators necessary to be considered in order to enable them to carry out the object of this Act.

Where a sanitary district comprises two or more parishes the arbitrators shall divide the grant due among those parishes, and in making such division shall have regard to the same considerations as are mentioned in the preceding sub-section with reference to apportionment. Provided nevertheless that.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word "fund," to the word "by," in line 14.—(Mr. Bousfield.)

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

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, it could hardly have been supposed that the Government would consent to such an Amendment. It was intended to provide that the apportionment of the fund should not be on the principle of population, but should be decided by three arbitrators, as they thought best. He did not think that in the whole course of legislation such a question had been left to the decision of arbitrators. Those arbitrators, who, of course, would have to be paid enormous salaries, would have to decide how this fund of £800,000, raised by a rate of 6d. in the £1 on the valuation of London, should be distributed. They might adopt any principle they thought fit in the distribution of the fund; they would not be responsible to Parliament or to public opinion in any way, and there would be no opportunity, by appeal, for revising their decisions. That was a proposition which the Government could not accept.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he was surprised to note that the right hon. Gentleman objected to three arbitrators being appointed to decide those very important matters. No doubt his learned Friend considered that he was paying a compliment to the initiative and example of the Government in suggesting three arbitrators; but as he was not enamoured of three arbitrators in the Bill, any more than in the other Bill of the Government, he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the Committee had not yet arrived at the very important part of the Bill—namely, the mode of the distribution of the fund—whether it was to be according to population, or by some other system. They were all agreed that an equalisation of the rates was wanted; but where the two sides of the House were in disagreement was as to the basis of distribution. The Amendment suggested that there should be some body appointed to settle the various points in connection with the question, but he thought the proposal of arbitrators was clumsy, and hoped it would not be pressed. He trusted, however, that when they came to consider the great question of population, the critics of the Bill would have more of the sympathy of the President of the Local Government Board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BARTLEY moved, in page 1, line 14, after "shall," insert "half-yearly." The object of the Amendment was to provide that the County Council should half-yearly determine the contributions from the parishes to the equalisation fund. He thought that was the intention of the President of the Local Government Board, but the matter would not be quite clear unless "half-yearly" were inserted where he suggested.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the word "shall," to insert the words "half-yearly."—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'half-yearly' be there inserted."

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, the principle was already established in the Bill that the contribution of the amount should be settled half-yearly.

MR. GOSCHEN

asked the President of the Local Government Board upon what dates the contributions would be levied and distributed? It would be convenient to the Local Authorities to have information on those points.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

replied that Sub-section 2 of Clause 3 of the Bill provided that the Act should come into operation on the 30th of September this year, and that the rate would be paid half-yearly from that date. It was presumed, therefore, that the calculation would be made within the six mouths.

MR. GOSCHEN

I know it is to be done in the six months, but is the County Council to fix particular times when the rate is to be levied?

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

I will answer that on Monday.

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.