§ COMMITTEE. [Progress, 6th August.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, after the word "district," to insert the words—
Provided always that, unless the sanitary rates in a sanitary district shall on the average of the last three years have exceeded or fallen short of the average sanitary rate (hereinafter defined) by at least sixpence in the pound, such district and the parishes therein shall not be liable to contribute, or entitled to receive, any sum to or from the Equalisation Fund for the year."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
371§ * MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)said that, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, he had been asked to take up this Amendment, which he the more readily did because it was an improvement on the one he himself moved on Monday. He showed on Monday, by figures which were not contested by the Minister in charge of the Bill, that instead of creating equalities it created inequalities. It was objected by the Minister that his proposal would tend to create extravagance among the different parishes—that the parish which knew that it was going to receive would, for the purpose of entitling it to receive under the proviso, take care that its expenditure reached the full average of the expenditure of the Metropolis, and something above it. He had answered that, and need not go into it again, except to say that they proposed to meet it by control. They had put down a subsequent Amendment to meet that case, and he would be interested to know what answer the Minister would be able to give to the Amendment with the additional safeguard introduced. The proposal was that before a parish was entitled to receive anything it should show that it was already rated not only to the average, but 6d. above it, and that before a parish could be made to contribute it should be shown not that it was ¼d. below, but 6d. below. The effect of this would not be in any way to destroy the principle of the Bill. He pointed out on Monday that among the parishes which were nearest to the average—assuming the average rate for the Metropolis to be 5s. 3d., and taking the rates between 5s. and 5s. 7d.—there were 28 parishes between those rates, some of which paid and some received, though at present equal, and would thus be diverged. The whole of those 28 new anomalies would be removed by this Amendment, because the whole of the rates between 5s. and 5s. 7d. were within the 6d. above and the 6d. below limit. By this Amendment they created a neutral ground of 1s.—6d. above the average and 6d. below it. In addition to preventing 28 divergences there would be a further advantage from substituting an average of 5s. 3d. Take the figures above 5s. 9d. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove a great many 372 of the difficulties which the Bill created above those rates. Although it was quite true that the parishes above 5s. 8d. would receive, they received in the most extraordinary, incongruous, and most unequal rates. He had taken the trouble to ascertain the rates of 37 parishes which were above 5s. 7d., and all of which as the Bill stood would receive a portion of the distribution from the Equalisation Fund. What did he find? That every one of these parishes that was now equal with others had a disparity created between it and every other one with which it was at present equal. So much was this so that if the Minister had endeavoured to find a plan by which to create the largest number of divergences among the parishes which were now equal be could not have hit upon a better one than this. He would quote but a few instances. Wandsworth, being rated at 5s. 10d., would receive ¾d., whilst another parish which paid 6s. 2d., or 4d. more, would receive 9d. back. Therefore, instead of the scheme approximating, the divergences and anomalies would be increased, and instead of Wandsworth being below the other parish, Bethnal Green, it would be 4d. or 5d. above it. That, at all events, could not be said to be equalisation. Take another case, that of Camberwell, which was at present one of four parishes that paid 6s. Of these four parishes that were now equal, one of them paid 1.12d., two others about ¾d., and the fourth received 4¾d. The latter was Camberwell, and although it now paid the same amount as the other parishes it got five times as much. But when he came to contrast that with Tooting Graveney, which at present paid a great deal more than 6s., what did he find? Tooting Graveney now paid 6s.6d. and received 1d.; Camberwell, which paid 6s., received 5d., which would reduce it to 5s. 7d., so that the divergency between these two parishes was largely increased. There were many other anomalies. The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent these inequalities arising, and it would certainly reach much nearer equalisation than the Bill could pretend to do.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central)said, the 373 hon. Member commenced by saying that this Amendment was almost identical with one moved a few days ago, and which was then negatived after a long discussion.
§ MR. KIMBERIt was not negatived, but withdrawn. I withdrew it for the purpose of supporting this one.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, then he apologised. He thought it was negatived, and it ought to have been. The hon. Member made a long speech on that occasion, which he had repeated today, and the least he could have done was to have spared them a repetition of that speech. The hon. Gentleman had scarcely observed the real effect of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Loudon had an Amendment down on the Paper fixing the average of the rates for the next two years at 5s. 3d. That was to be taken in connection with this Amendment, and the result of the two together would be that there would be only two parishes which would contribute at all—namely, St. George's, Hanover Square, and St. James's, Westminster. These two parishes alone would be in the position in which they would have to contribute in the event of the Amendments being carried. It was so ingeniously framed that the City of London would contribute absolutely nothing, the average by the Amendment being 5s. 3d. and the average rate for the City of London 4s. 10d. He did not think that was a form of Bill which, after all the discussions that had taken place, the Committee would be at all prepared to accept. Again, the acceptance of the Amendment would be to give direct encouragement to extravagance. His main objection, however, was that the Amendment would render the Bill futile, as the result would be that only two parishes would contribute, and the City of London would contribute nothing.
§ MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, that when the right hon. Gentleman stated that this would be the result of the Amendment now before the Committee, taken in conjunction with one which was to be moved by-and-by, it showed that the right hon. Gentleman had not carefully read the present Amendment. The answer of 374 the President of the Local Government Board had no reference whatever to the Amendment now under discussion. That Amendment provided
that unless the sanitary rates in a sanitary district shall on the average of the last three years have exceeded or fallen short of the average sanitary rate (hereinafter defined) by at least 6d. in the £1, such district and the parishes therein shall not be liable to contribute, or entitled to receive, any sum to or from the Equalisation Fund for the year.The right hon. Gentleman said that that must be taken in connection with an Amendment which did not speak of the sanitary rate at all, but of the general rate. The general rate of London was 5s. 3d., and the right hon. Gentleman argued upon a general rate of 5s. 3d., whereas they had not got that before them at all. The question under discussion had reference to the sanitary rate; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would see that his vivacious conclusion that, only two parishes would contribute did not follow from the argument he had given them as to the general rate. This Amendment dealt with the sanitary rate only; and if the right hon. Gentleman bad got any figures to show what the sanitary rate was, they were perfectly entitled to ask for them. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman would see that he (Mr. Goschen) was correct in refusing to accept the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and which dealt with the rates as a whole, whereas the Amendment dealt exclusively with the sanitary rate.
THE CHAIRMANIf that is so, and I think it is so in looking at the further Amendment, I would point out that there is no definition to satisfy the words "hereinafter defined" in this particular Amendment.
§ MR. GOSCHENThen we may omit the words "hereinafter defined." These words are not necessary at all, because it would be perfectly easy to discover what is the sanitary rate. At all events, it is open to argument.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)What is the sanitary rate?
§ MR. GOSCHENIt is the sanitary rate in the sanitary district. The question will arise how far you can amend the Amendment. It would be perfectly possible for us to define the sanitary rate, 375 and then the average of the last three years is an expression which is perfectly conclusive.
THE CHAIRMANI understand the right hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out the words "hereinafter denned."
§ MR. GOSCHENI do.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "hereinafter defined."—(Mr. Goschen.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's is perfectly wrong, and does not appear to have read the Amendment when he says it relates only to the sanitary rates. It does not apply to the sanitary rates. The Amendment says "unless the rates in a sanitary district——"
§ MR. GOSCHENLook at the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman has the wrong Amendment.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREOh, yes; I have taken the Amendment from what it was originally. That, perhaps, may explain the matter. It may be that the Amendment has been altered since our last meeting.
THE CHAIRMANIt is exactly in the form in which it was moved by the right hon. Member for the University of London.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, put, and negatived.
§ MR. GOSCHENformally moved, in page 1, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (5), in order to elicit the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon a point of some importance, and that was why this rate was to be raised as part of the county rate. It appeared to him it would be far better and far more important if the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether this could not be raised as a rate which would figure among the expenditure of the Vestries in the sanitary districts. This being a 376 county rate would not figure in the Local Taxation Returns at all, and they would not be able to individualise it. He did not see why it should be raised as a county rate. He begged to move the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (5.)—(Mr. Goschen.)
§ Question proposed, "That Sub-section (5) stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)said, that so far as separation and particularisation and bringing it before the ratepayers were concerned, there would be no rate which would be more clearly brought before them. With respect to the raising of the rates, the County Council had the duty of determining the amount that was to be raised. The County Council raised all its rates through a precept upon the parishes, and if they were going to have this rate raised by the Vestry they would have an extremely difficult series of precepts. There was no precept issued by the County Council to the Sanitary Authority. There was no such thing as a sanitary rate. There was a rate for certain purposes under the Public Health Act of London. He would point out again that there was particular care taken in the Bill that this rate should be individualised. It was to be raised as a separate item of the county rate, and in Clause 2 the Local Government Board was to prescribe such regulations as would particularise the equalisation rate as a separate rate.
§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVREdid not think he need add much to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Shoreditch. The object of the proposal was to avoid a second rate by the County Council. This rate would be included in the ordinary precepts which would be directed to the parishes, and this would lie far more convenient than if the County Council had to adopt a second form of rate.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, his point was that as this expenditure would be under the county rate it would not be included in the Local Taxation Returns, and the individual ratepayer would not therefore be able to trace it. As the County 377 Council was to determine the manner and state the amount that was to be raised, he did not see why the Local Authorities should not raise the particular rate themselves with their town rates. He thought it was a pity the county rate should be increased for municipal purposes. If, however, the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman, who must know better than he (Mr. Goschen) on a subject of this kind, considered there was a difficulty in carrying out what he had suggested, he considered he had done his duty in calling attention to the matter, and he should not press it further.
§ * MR. COHEN (Islington, E.), in supporting the Amendment, said there was one consideration which ought to carry some weight—namely, that the London County Council at the present moment issued its precept for funds of which it was itself charged with the administration. The London County Council did not levy from the various parishes in London one single farthing more than that which they themselves administered. If they were now to include in the London County Council rate a sum of money for the administration of which the County Council would not be responsible they should be departing from the practice which prevailed under the Local Government Act.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) moved in page 2, line 7, after "1891," insert—
Until every provision of that Act is carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board.
He said that one of the aims that Members on his side of the House had had was to make this Bill specially promote the sanitation of Loudon. He was quite sure that the Government and the London County Council were anxious that the Act of 1891 should be as completely carried out as possible. So far as this Bill tended to alter that condition of things it had his complete sympathy. But the danger was that a great deal of the money would be devoted to the relief of the rates in certain parishes, or that in a few years such relief would simply lead to greater extravagance in other ways, and there would be no security that the provisions of the Public Health
378
Act would be carried out. If his words were introduced into the Bill—though they did not go far enough, for he would prevent any allocation of the money except for sanitation—they would secure that the money was applied in the first place to sanitation, and then, if the Local Government Board were satisfied, to other purposes. He noticed on the Paper an Amendment by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green which tended in the same direction as his. Perhaps that Amendment was "inspired" by the Government, for it only appeared on the Paper that morning; but in any case it showed that the Opposition had at least convinced some of the supporters of the Government of the justice of some of the complaints they made with regard to the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, after "1891," to insert the words
Until every provision of that Act is carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Bartley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the motive of the hon. Gentleman in moving the Amendment, to endeavour to put on the Local Authorities the responsibility of carrying out more fully the provisions of the Public Health Act, had his entire sympathy. But the Amendment would throw on the Local Government Board duties which it would be impossible for the Board to carry out. The Public Health Act consisted of 144 sections relating to a vast number of topics; and if the Amendment were carried, it would be the duty of the Local Government Board to make inquiries in every parish to see whether the provisions of that Act were carried out. The proposal in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, requiring that a statement should be made by the Local Authorities as to how they had spent the money, was more practical than the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, and something could be said for it; and he thought that the discussion on the question would be best adjourned until that Amendment came on.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Opposition felt that they had not laboured in vain 379 in making suggestions for the improvement of the Bill, now that at length they had brought home to the minds of the supporters of the Government, and he hoped the Government themselves, the necessity of availing themselves of this opportunity in order to obtain some more control over the sanitation of London. The Opposition had argued that point from the beginning, and they were very glad that even now, on the third day, the Government had shown a disposition to accept some such suggestion. The Government had got in the Bill the words dealing with the expenditure of the fund by the parishes, "so far as not required for that purpose." What was the meaning of those words? Who was to determine whether the money was not required for that purpose or not?
§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the words of the Bill were in legal phraseology, and meant "so far as the money goes," leaving it entirely to the discretion of the Local Authorities to determine the point.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, that then the legal interpretation of an Act of Parliament was different from a common sense interpretation of an Act of Parliament. Anyone reading the words would hold that they meant that the Public Health Act of 1891 ought to be carried out in the first instance before the money was spent for any other purpose. He attached infinitely more importance to the carrying out of the Public Health Act of 1891 than to any of the other purposes contemplated by the Bill; and he trusted that before the matter ended—considering that in most parishes the Public Health Act would absorb the whole of the money—the Government would make it clear that the first charge on the money was for purposes of sanitation. He could understand that the duties proposed to be cast on the Local Government Board by the Amendment of his hon. Friend would be too large for the Board; but he thought the Opposition had been justified in their discussions of the Bill by the promise of the Government to adopt some Amendment carrying out to some extent the object they had in view.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said, 380 the Government were anxious to meet the views of the Opposition in every possible way, in order that they might be considered as non-contentious. The Government unfortunately were unable to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the question of population; but with regard to sanitation, there had really from the beginning been no difference of opinion between them. The Government had always stated that while they could not say that the whole of this equalisation rate was to be specifically applied to sanitary purposes, one of the primary objects of the Bill was to see to the improved sanitation of those parts of London where such additional expenditure was required. But it was not the intention of the Bill to absolutely earmark this sum of money, and have it specifically applied to sanitation, because he was glad to think that in many parts of London money was not required for such a purpose.
§ MR. GOSCHENEven in the poorer districts?
§ MR. S. BUXTONsaid, yes, even in the poorer districts. But in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to show that the object of the Bill was to improve the sanitary condition of London, the Government were prepared to accept some words, such as those standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, which would, to a certain extent, make that purpose clearer than was shown in the Bill as it stood. But there was a distinction between the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and the Amendment now before the Committee. The latter Amendment was rather too specific with regard to the expenditure of the money solely for sanitation; and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's had admitted, it would throw too great a responsibility on the Local Government Board. Under the Public Health Act of 1891, the Local Government Board could come down on any district that was lax in attending to the provisions of that Act, and insist on it spending more money for the improvement of its sanitary condition. He hoped that, under the circumstances, the Opposition would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green as 381 meeting their views as well as the views of the Government.
§ * SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for North Islington would be satisfied with the intimation given on behalf of the Government, that words would be inserted in the Bill making it clear that it was the primary duty of the Local Authorities to spend this money in carrying out the onerous responsibilities cast on them with regard to sanitation by the London Public Health Act of 1891. His only criticism to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green was that it had a tendency towards centralisation. But perhaps in so important a matter as sanitation it was desirable that some Central Authority should see that the Local Authorities carried out the objects in view, and for which the contributions were to be made from the Equalisation Fund.
MR.PICKEKSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)said, his Amendment did not propose to give to the Local Government Board any power it did not already possess; but it gave the Board a more effectual remedy. He should like to say that it was not true that his Amendment was in any way the result of the discussions in Committee. When he made some observations to the Committee, a few days ago, he indicated this very Amendment, and he put it on the Paper simply to carry out the intention he then expressed. The only reason why the Amendment did not appear sooner was because it was a matter that required careful consideration, and he had not fixed on the actual words.
§ MR. ALBAN GIBBS (London)said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green did not go far enough. He hoped the Government would do something more to make the Local Government Board see that this money was devoted to sanitary purposes, and that the sanitary work of the parishes was properly carried out.
§ MR. BARTLEYsaid, he was satisfied with the discussion that had taken place on his Amendment, and would withdraw it. He would like to point out that the Government hoped to finish this Bill two days ago, and that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green did not appear on the Paper until actually after 382 the time when it was hoped that the Bill would be through Committee.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from "1891," to end of Clause, and insert—
The Local Government Board shall within six months from the passing of this Act, and subsequently at such intervals as they may think fit, ascertain by means of returns to be made to them by the Sanitary Authorities the average expenses properly incurred by a Sanitary Authority under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and may exercise all powers and do all acts necessary or proper for obtaining such returns."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
§ Question proposed, "That from '1891' down to the word 'purpose' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green would meet the case raised by this Amendment; and he therefore hoped it would be withdrawn.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
§ MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea) moved, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from "1891," to "provided," in line 10. His Amendment gave the first opportunity of discussing the advisability of including under the functions of the equalisation fund expenses incurred by parishes for the lighting of its streets. It seemed to him that, even if the principle of population might plausibly be applied in deciding the amount of contribution of the different parishes for sanitary expenditure, no one could really say that population afforded a reasonable test of the parish expenditure in respect to the lighting of the streets. Take the parishes of Westminster and the City, for example. They could scarcely contend that the population of the City or of Westminster afforded any kind of indication of the amount spent by those parishes to meet the requirements of the lighting of their streets. Obviously those requirements were controlled partly by the local conditions of the parish and partly by the lighting of London as a whole. Both sides of the House were now in absolute agreement that London should be treated as one whole for sanitary purposes. But when they came to expenditure for lighting the streets he denied absolutely that they ought to treat Loudon as a whole. He denied that it was the maternal concern 383 of Camberwell that Islington should have the electric light. This matter should be left entirely to local interests, local requirements, and local wishes; and the local administration should be strictly responsible for its expenditure in that respect to its own particular constituents. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India talked the other day about the oneness of London, and said it should be governed like the great municipal towns of the provinces. But he denied that they could apply to the municipal life of London the analogy of Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to ignore the historic past of London? They could not deny that Westminster and the City were historically distinct and separate from the other parts of London, and instead of wishing to crush out the local patriotism and pride in their ancient life and history that happily still remained in those parts of London, by depriving them of their independent responsibility in municipal matters, they should do everything to encourage that feeling in those ancient self-governing districts. He said, first, that the whole rate would be absorbed in sanitary expenditure; secondly, he did not think that population was a good test of the requirements of the separate parishes in respect of the lighting of the streets; thirdly, he denied that they could treat London as a whole in respect to those matters; fourthly, that by the provisions of the Bill in question they ran the danger of destroying altogether the spirit of local life and local patriotism that ought to be sustained and encouraged in the different parts of London; and for all those reasons he begged to move the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from "1891," to the word "provided," in line 10.—(Mr. Whitmore.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he could not admit that the whole of the contribution would be absorbed in expenditure on sanitation. From the commencement he had stated that the object of the Bill was to relieve the poorer parishes in respect to rates, and inciden- 384 tally to better the sanitary condition of London. It was true that in many cases the whole of the contribution would be absorbed in sanitary work, but in other cases it would not be so absorbed. It was extremely difficult to say what was the amount of the expenditure over the whole of Loudon under the Public Health Act. He had said he did not think it was more than 3d. in the £1, but that there were other matters, such as scavenging the streets and removing dust, which, though sanitary work, did not come under the Public Health Act. He admitted he was incorrect in treating the removal of dust and the scavenging of the streets as not under the Public Health Act. The expenditure under the Public Health Act averaged probably about 6d. in the £1, in which case the contribution which would be secured under the Bill would., as a rule, be absorbed. He had no hesitation in saying that the lighting of the streets was most burdensome, and at the same time it was a most important matter. In the eastern districts it was not inefficiently done. Next to sanitation came the lighting of the streets, and after that the maintenance of the streets. He certainly could not agree to the Amendment.
§ * MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)said, he thought the difficulty in which the Committee was now placed arose entirely from the absence of information under which they laboured. He had examined all the Returns that he could get at, and he said it was absolutely impossible to arrive at what was the amount spent yearly by the various Local Bodies in connection with the Public Health Act of 1891. He had carefully examined all the Returns of the Loudon County Council, and also Parliamentary Paper No. 78, with which hon. Members were familiar. The Parliamentary Paper was a most valuable Return, but it, of course, threw no light on, indeed made no reference to, the amount spent by the various parishes on sanitation, lighting, and paving and what were called street improvements. The London County Council Returns did give this, but not in a form which he thought was convenient to the House. They showed how much in the £1 was spent by the various authorities on the various services, but this was no guide to the total amount spent or to whether economy was prac- 385 tised or extravagance indulged in, because, as hon. Members knew, 1d. in the £1 produced very different sums according as it was levied, say in Bethnal Green or Marylebone. The latest Returns he had been able to get in the form that he wanted to present to the House, so that it should be able to compare the one district with the other, were those for 1890–91. These necessarily did not include the expenses for the Act of 1891, which he regretted. He wished they knew what the expenditure of the various authorities for this Act amounted to, as they all felt, at any rate on that side of the House, that it was for sanitation they should desire to see this equalisation fund applied, and such services as lighting and paving, which were essentially local and in no sense general, which could be administered economically and efficiently, or luxuriously and extravagantly, should be excluded from the equalisation fund. They had no desire to make one part of London pay for the other in respect of the services he had named. For this reason he thought they might have expected that before going into Committee on this Bill the Government would have placed some figures and Returns before them, which would have enabled them to judge what were the needs, and therefore what were the claims, of the various districts to share in the equalisation fund, instead of taking a random test of population, which, as had been shown, would work grievous injustice in many cases—which would infallibly tend to make the rates lowest in the most crowded districts, which would become more and more instead of less and less congested. He did not think it was very creditable to a great Government Department that a Bill should be introduced placing large sums of money at the disposal of various Local Authorities for services which were carefully prescribed, when the Department itself acknowledged it did not know what were the amounts required or spent on these services. The right hon. Gentleman said the Local Government Board had given the House all the information it possessed itself. He (Mr. Cohen) said they do not know—they had no means of knowing to this moment—what was the cost of the duties 386 imposed on the Local Authorities by the Act of 1891, nor what was spent on this service by these authorities. And that was not all. The Returns, the only ones that he had been able to get at, did not separate what he should call sanitary service, as the House understood the term. Paving, scavenging, and improvements were all grouped together. He regarded paving and improvement as essentially local services, while he thought they should all admit scavenging could fairly and should properly be included under sanitary service. But still his figures did bring out some very interesting discrepancies, which he thought went far to establish the absolute necessity for an account to be rendered. He had taken two parishes almost contiguous to each other, and as closely resembling each other in many respects, which he would mention to the Committee as any two he could name. He meant Camberwell and Lambeth. Lambeth had an area of 3,942 acres, and a population of 275,203, or 52.89 to the acre; and Camberwell had 4,450 acres, with a population of 235,344, or 69.81 to the acre. A difference of 17 persons to an acre was not much in London. Well, Camberwell with 4,450 acres spent on lighting in 1890–91, £11,817; and Lambeth, with 3,942 acres, £13,477. But when they caine to scavenging, the difference was still larger. Camberwell, with 4,450 acres, spent £39,431; while Lambeth, with only 3,942 acres, spent £58,545. Again, in sewerage Camberwell spent only £2,899, and Lambeth £4,638. Let him take two more parishes, smaller but again very similar. Mile End, Old Town, with 679 acres, and Newington with 631 acres. Mile End, with 679 acres, spent £14,345 in paving, scavenging, and improvements, or 9.33d.; and Newington, with 631 acres, spent £20,339, or 10.86d. In lighting, the figures were £3,696 for the larger parish, and £3,938 for the smaller. In sewerage the differences was still more startling—£2,212 for the larger parish of Mile End, or 1.44d., and £5,140 for the smaller parish of Newington, or 2.75d. There were many other discrepancies which could be cited in other parishes which were equally striking, and which were of little consequence, perhaps, so long as the inhabitants of each district 387 had to find the money which their own authorities laid out for them. But anyone would see the case was altogether different when they had an equalisation fund, and when instead of a stimulant to economy they had an inducement to extravagance, and he therefore thought it important to cite these instances to the Committee, so that the Committee might see how some parishes were lavish and others economical.
§ MR. J. STUARTsaid, the conjectural criticism by which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had endeavoured to throw some light on the sanitary and paving expenditure of the parishes would, he thought, hardly be accepted generally as a just method of inquiry, because it was not possible to say that the amount of streets to be paved and the expense of that paving could depend on the area of the parishes. But he was not now concerned in replying to the criticisms of the hon. Member. He admitted it would be a good thing if, as the result of the discussion, the Local Government Board would take steps to secure more uniformity in the accounts of Metropolitan expenditure, so that it might be possible to discriminate the items of expenditure under different heads of different parishes. They were not so much in the dark as the hon. Member had supposed. There was a Local Government Board Return, and a great deal of illumination might be thrown on the matter if the hon. Member would do what he was sure he would be glad to do when he suggested it to him—that was to say, take the accounts of his own parish as published, and compare them with the appearance they presented when introduced into the Return from the Vestries and District Boards published by the London County Council. He (Mr. J. Stuart) had taken care to look into this in a good many parishes, both before the Bill was introduced and since. Take his own parish of Shoreditch. In the London County Council Returns one item was for maintaining and making streets and roads and for the cleansing and scavenging of them. The two went together in the Return. Dust removal was placed in another portion of the Return. These items, it so happened, in Shoreditch were kept separate, and from the returns of 388 that parish he found that practically two-thirds of the expenditure was for sanitary purposes. In St. Pancras he found it was nearer a half, and if they went through the parishes of London in that way they would not get absolute exactitude. Of the £1,000,000 spent under that account, no doubt the result came out very nearly as the right hon. Gentleman had said—namely, that the sanitary expenditure under the Public Health Act of 1891 came to about a 6d. rate. He made these remarks to show that it would be desirable—not as included in the Bill, but as the result of this discussion—for the Local Government Board to take such steps as were necessary to bring about uniformity in the accounts. No doubt the practice of putting together certain items had arisen because of the fact that the salaries paid were paid in many respects for joint purposes. Then, there were purposes of joint working between which it would be difficult to discriminate. The joint purposes should be set out, and more light should be thrown on the matter. They could not admit the propriety of excluding lighting—which was what had been most referred to—from the operation of the Bill, because the Bill was not one solely for sanitary purposes. It was a Bill for more equalising the rates of London, and for requiring the richer parts of London to contribute towards the rates of the poorer parts for purposes which might be considered common interest. Lighting was certainly a purpose of great common interest if it were for nothing else than the identification and prevention of crime. At the time of the Whitechapel outrages the fact was uniformly brought out in the police inquiries how these crimes were facilitated and their detection hindered by the miserable public street lighting. The rating for lighting alone, moreover, was a source of much inequality. The lighting of St. George's, Hanover Square, was magnificently done at a cost of less than 1d. in the £1, whereas that of Bethnal Green was poorly done with a 2d. rate.
§ COLONEL HUGHESthought that to leave out the words proposed would be an admission that lighting, scavenging, watering, and paving the streets were 389 not a sanitary purpose. He thought they were a very important public purpose, though not under the Public Health Act of 1891. He did not think that the words ought to be left out.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, that with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Shoreditch, be should be glad if the result of the discussion were to call special attention to the variations in the statistics and to secure from the Government some method which would enable hon. Members to know where they were. Great trouble was taken by the statisticians of the London County Council to prepare accurate accounts, but they did not necessarily come before Parliament unless one especially asked for a copy of them. A portion of this literature, he confessed, he had never seen until the present occasion. There were no means by which he could know that it existed unless especially informed of it. Therefore, he trusted the Local Government Board would accept the advice given on both sides, and, in communication with the County Council, arrange that further information might be laid before Parliament with regard to the expenditure of Vestries and District Boards and some uniformity observed in the framing of the accounts. Speaking with some experience as a statistician, there was nothing more disheartening to the inquirer or that more precluded the discovery of the truth than to find two sets of figures bearing on the same question, both elaborate, both apparently correct, but which it was impossible for anyone to make agree. Objection was taken to excluding public lighting for the reason that it would exclude a good deal of expenditure which was really sanitary expenditure. He (Mr. Goschen) was not sure to what extent that was the case. The hon. Member, be thought, had carried his point rather farther than he was justified by Act of Parliament, because some of the items he had referred to had come under the Public Health Act, 1891. He agreed that Bethnal Green and Whitechapel were badly lighted, and that it would be desirable that a certain portion of this money should go towards the improvement of lighting in such parishes, but they bad no information to guide 390 them in their action in the matter. What he was afraid might be the result was that in the poor parishes the whole of the money might be expended on sanitary purposes, while in the wealthier parishes—which nevertheless, like Islington, would receive—the money would go towards the lighting expenses, because those parishes had already done their duty as regarded sanitary purposes. It was clear from the Return No. 489 that the disparities in lighting were something phenomenal, not only as between the wealthy and poor districts, but even among the wealthy districts themselves. Kensington spent £12,500 on lighting, as compared with £6,800 spent in Paddington. St. Pancras spout £19,000, while Islington spent £13,000. Islington had a population of 319,000, and St. Pancras of 234,000, and yet the lighting of Islington cost so much less than that of St. Pancras. This was an extraordinary difference. The question involved was whether one parish should contribute to another parish so that it might have electric lighting instead of gas. [Mr. J. STUART dissented.] No doubt the hon. Member had some information, but the House was not in possession of the information by which they might be able to test how far the money which they were giving would be used for the purposes they desired. The Committee were fairly unanimous as to the purposes to which the money should be applied; but, in the absence of information, they did not feel confident that the object they bad in view would be carried out by the Bill. He believed that, while in the case of the poorer parishes nearly the whole of the money would be absorbed for sanitary purposes, in the case of the wealthier parishes it would be used to provide extravagant lighting. His own view was that a standard in regard to lighting, &c., should be established, and that in the case of parishes above that standard no allowance should be made. In that way there would be security that parishes in which the sanitary work and the lighting were adequately carried out would not receive the money simply in reduction of the rates.
§ MR. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)said, that Rotherhithe would only get a miserable pittance of 2¾d. in the £1 under the Bill. To call that an 391 equalisation of rates was a gross misnomer.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had observed that while under this Bill they might be confident that in the poorer distrists the money would be properly applied, he was afraid that in the richer parishes the money might be applied to costly lighting. The mistake made was to suppose that the rich parishes got anything.
§ MR. GOSCHENI did not say the rich parishes, but the more wealthy parishes. I meant the parishes which are fairly well off, such as Islington.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid, that Islington was not fairly well off. It was an extremely poor parish. Hon. Gentlemen going that way drove along one good street, and thought that all the streets were the same. He did not believe that the evil predicted by the right hon. Gentleman would arise. However, he should not have interfered except that he wanted to say he did not like to see the tendency on the part of the Government to accept some Amendment in this direction. It seemed to him just as important that some contribution should be made for the streets and for lighting.
§ * SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he wanted to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Chelsea, who did not think that paving ought to be included in the Bill. He (Sir A. Rollit) thought that good paving was a very important thing, and one way of obtaining continuity in the streets of London. It had been said that they should take no account of what was done in the provinces. His view, however, was that Loudon had a great deal to learn from the Provincial Municipalities. Probably the differences of opinion manifested from time to time on his own side of the House with regard to local government arose from the fact that some of them had had an opportunity of seeing, by personal experience, what had been done in the Municipalities, and were anxious that the local government of London should be more assimilated, both in principle and practice, with that of the large provincial towns. In the 392 Provinces, for instance, there was a uniformity of rating, notwithstanding the powers in the Public Health Act of 1875, to levy a special rate upon particular districts (a power which was often overlooked), and the sanitation of a borough—its lighting, and so on—were matters of common concern to which all districts contributed in the same wav and degree.
§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)said, he thought that paving ought to be included in the Bill, and was glad to hear the expression of opinion that every portion of London was interested in the keeping up of the main roads. When the Bill had been carried through, he thought the London County Council might very well think of those parishes which were entirely main arteries like that of St. Luke's, and put their powers with regard to main roads into operation.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§
*SIR A. ROLLIT moved, in page 2, line 10, after "streets," insert—
and such Sanitary Authority shall annually make a Return in the prescribed form to the Local Government Board showing how all sums received by it under this Act have been expended, and shall in such Return distinguish payments made under The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and payments made in respect of lighting and streets respectively.
He said the Amendment was not a hostile one, but consistent with the spirit and the letter of the Bill, and it was all the more necessary and desirable in view of the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. It secured for the Local Government Board just that information which was necessary in order that the object of the hon. Member's Amendment might be carried out. His desire was to guard against the alleged danger of extravagance, and against the diversion of the equalisation contributions from the purposes for which they were primarily intended. He did not distrust the Local Authorities, but he thought it right that they should make Returns to the Local Government Board for the purpose of enabling that Department to check their expenditure periodically, and to furnish it with the necessary information.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, after the word "streets," to insert the words—
and such Sanitary Authority shall annually make a Return in the prescribed form to the
393
Local Government Board showing how all sums received by it under this Act have been expended, and shall in such Return distinguish payments made under The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and payments made in respect of lighting and streets respectively."—(Sir A. Bollit.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he had already intimated that he thought some Amendment of his kind ought to be adopted; but the wording of the hon. Member's Amendment might, in his opinion, be altered with advantage, and he had himself prepared an Amendment which would, he believed, effect the hon. Member's purpose in a better way. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would consent to withdraw his proposal, and would allow the Amendment which he had drafted to be substituted in its place.
§ * SIR A. ROLLITsaid, the principle of his Amendment being thus conceded, he thought the suggestion was a very proper one, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE moved the following new sub-section:—
Every Sanitary Authority to whom a sum is paid under this Act in any year shall, within the prescribed time after the following thirty-first day of March, render to the Local Government Board a true account in the prescribed form, showing for the twelve months preceding the said day, the total amount of the sum so paid, and the total amount of the expenses incurred by the authority under each of the following heads:—
and showing the amount expended in respect of each head out of the sums paid to such authority under this Act.
§ COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he would like to suggest a different wording of the sub-section.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, they must adhere to the words of the Bill.
§ MR. GOSCHENasked whether the right, hon. Gentleman had considered whether it was possible to show how much of the expenditure was distinct from the amount paid out of the rates. Were the authorities to keep a separate account of this money? It would be of little value if mixed up with the general 394 account, although it was difficult to see how the items could be earmarked. Before the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman might consider how this difficulty could be met. They wanted to know not what had been paid out of these funds, but what had been paid before.
§ MR. J. STUARTsaid, was it not a question of expenditure over receipts? Supposing an authority expended £5,000 upon one of these objects and raised a rate to meet it which amounted to £4,200, then the balance would be thrown upon a portion of this vote.
§ Sub-section agreed to.
§
MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.) moved, in page 2, line 15, at end, insert—
(7) If any Sanitary Authority is found by the Local Government Board to have made default within the meaning of Section 101 of The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the London County Council shall, if so directed by the Local Government Board, withhold the whole or any part of the grant (if any) next accruing due from the Equalisation Fund to such Sanitary Authority.
Any sums which may during any financial year be withheld in accordance with the foregoing enactment shall be carried forward to the credit of the Equalisation Fund in the following year.
He said the object of the Amendment was to couple the Bill with the Public Health (London) Act of 1891. It had been sometimes forgotten or not adequately appreciated that by the Public Health Act of 1891 the duty of supervision over the Sanitary Authority was conferred on the Central Authority, and by the same Act a considerable amount of control was given to the Loudon County Council. It was true that every 6d. of expenditure was not earmarked, and that every 6d. could not be directly traced, but in the Act of 1891 there was machinery by which the County Council and the Local Government Board could keep up the Sanitary Authorities to a fair standard of efficient administration. He should like to add on this point that the use which was at the present time made by those two authorities of their powers was no criterion of the use that might be made of them, because the County Council had felt their hands to be tied by the consideration that in precisely those localities where stimulus was necessary, such as in the East End,
395
and perhaps in the South, the authorities were already crushed down under a burden of rates to which no addition could be made. Now that the Committee were making a special grant for sanitary purposes he thought the occasion opportune, and therefore any Sanitary Authority which did not do its duty would be left absolutely without excuse. He had followed in this respect the precedent of the Act of 1870. The Amendment did not confer cither upon the County Council or upon the Local Government Board any power which those Bodies did not at present possess; it simply provided a readier remedy, or an important power in reserve.
§
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, at end, insert—
(7) If any Sanitary Authority is found by the Local Government Board to have made default within the meaning of Section 101 of The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the London County Council shall, if so directed by the Local Government Board, withhold the whole or any part of the grant (if any) next accruing due from the Equalisation Fund to such Sanitary Authority.
Any sums which may during any financial year be withheld in accordance with the foregoing enactment shall be carried forward to the credit of the Equalisation Fund in the following year."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BARTLEYsaid, he was glad the Government had accepted some such principle as was contained in the Amendment, but he must call attention to the point that objection had been taken to his Amendment, because it threw the onus on the Local Government Board. Under this Amendment the onus was thrown on the Local Government Board in just the same way. It must find out that a Local Authority was not doing its duty before it could act, for the Amendment did not provide that the County Council should report to them.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman was not familar with the section which his Amendment incorporated.
§ MR. BARTLEYYes I am.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, the Act recited
that where complaint was made by the London County Council.
§ MR. BARTLEYsaid, that might be so, but this Amendment could only be put into force by the Local Government Board. The clause of the Public Health Act which the hon. Gentleman quoted was no doubt referred to; but the Amendment ran on different Hues, and the commencement of proceedings must be with the Local Government Board.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the clause must be construed in connection with Clause 101 of the Public Health Act. He should have been glad to insert a provision of this kind in the Bill at first, but it was better to let, it come with the general assent of the House. He must submit the Amendment to the draftsman, but substantially he would accept it.
§ MR. LOUGHsaid, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would confine himself to the principle of the Amendment and cut out the precise terms. The object of the Amendment was opposed to the object of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to relieve the poor parishes of London, while the object of the Amendment was to secure further expenditure. Although they all agreed that the Public Health Act of 1891 should be put into operation, he thought it would be better to allow it to be put into operation as a result of the public opinion of a locality instead of under the iron system that the Amendment suggested. He thought the Amendment unnecessary and likely to lead to extravagance, as the Common Poor Fund had in some localities. The cost of the outdoor poor had increased very largely, and while he knew that much of the increase was owing to the better treatment of the poor, the results were by no means altogether satisfactory. To put this pressure from the Central Authority on the Local Authorities would be a very expensive proceeding. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickersgill) had said that the County Council had not put its powers into operation, because it was aware of the heavy burdens already existing, but when this Bill was passed they would be expected to take such action. If the President of the Local Government Board accepted the Amendment, he hoped he would cut out the latter clause, which forfeited the grant, or otherwise modify it.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he cordially agreed with the Amendment, which he thought was a very valuable one, and gave effect to the contention they had always held that the Local Government Board ought to have some control in this matter. He did not fall in with the view that there was any undue restriction. It only amounted to saying that if the Local Authorities did not do their duty the money should not be paid to them. That was a very desirable suggestion to put before the House. There appeared to be a hidden hand behind the President of the Local Government Board—that, he presumed, either of the Member for Hackney or of the Member for Shoreditch, who were the wirepullers of the Bill. However, he was very glad to see that something in the shape of the Amendment had been accepted.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had informed them in a diplomatic fashion that it was his intention from the beginning that there should be this kind of control, but that the proposal had better be subject to the general consent of the House. Well, they had played into his hands, but the right hon. Gentleman was so diplomatic that he concealed his intention from them. He had always understood that there were two Parties in the House with respect to this Bill. In the one were the immense majority of the Committee on both sides, who thought the Bill was one for improving sanitary work; in the other were the hon. Member for West Islington and the President of the Local Government Board, who thought the Bill was one for equalising rates. The opinion of the County Council, as declared by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, agreed with that of the majority of the Committee. It was contained in the statement that "the object of the Bill is not to equalise rates." Now, at last the hon. Member for West Islington had been defeated, and a sanitary character was to be given to the Bill. He was glad that the Amendment had been accepted; and the Opposition were ready to take their share of the responsibility.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the insertion of the Amendment would 398 not detract from the effect of the Bill in making the richer parishes contribute to the poorer. Incidentally, it enabled the poorer parishes to perform their sanitary duties better. He was only doing what the right hon. Member for St. George's did in 1870, when he established a Common Poor Fund and described his Bill as one for the equalisation of rates.
§ COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he did not quite understand this proposal. Did it mean that the whole grant would be forfeited even after a parish had contributed the 6d.? His parish contributed £4,000, and was entitled to receive £10,000. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not mean that the whole grant should be forfeited, bat only the difference between the sum contributed to and the sum received from the Common Fund. If they made the Amendment only applicable to those parishes which received the grant it was evident that they would only be dealing with a portion of the parishes in London. They would be taking the control over the parishes which received only. His impression was that the control of the Central Body was already obnoxious, and led to delay and expense, and irregularity. It would be better to leave the power of the Local Government Board as it was now.
§ MR. J. STUARTsaid, he took it that the meaning of the clause was that the sum to be forfeited was the difference between the amount of the contribution and the grant. He would ask the right, hon. Gentleman to consider what would be the effect of the clause.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, this clause had been carefully considered by the draftsman, but the point raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich would have attention. He did not think the words as they stood were quite adequate. He would have it considered between this stage and Report. What he was anxious for was that the principle of the thing should be adopted by the House.
§ MR. BARTLEYsaid, this was a more important matter than appeared. They were calling upon the whole of London to prevent the localities from being in an insanitary condition, and that it was not sufficient for them to say that they did not want to do this work. In his view, where the conditions were not 399 fulfilled, the whole amount should be withdrawn. If they withdrew the difference merely they would be simply penalising the poorer parishes.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, it would not be fair to apply the clause to the parishes which contributed nothing whatever.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
SIR R. G. WEBSTERasked whether he would be in Order in making some observations upon the question of compounding?
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought the question of equalisation must include the question of compounding. He would forego any claim he might have to speak, but he thought it was clear that the words of the clause covered almost everything.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3.
§ MR. FISHER (Fulham)said, that in the general discussion that took place on the meaning of the word "population," he pointed out that a manifest injustice would be done to outlying parts of London if "population" were taken to mean, as defined in the clause—
Population according to the last published Census for the time being.The population of his own constituency at the last Census was 91,639, and that population would now be increased by something like 20,000. He, therefore, moved an Amendment which would make the definition read—The expression 'population' means population according to the last published estimate of population made by the Registrar General.He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make some further effort to meet the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "Census for the time being," and insert the words "estimate of population made by the Registrar General."—(Mr. Fisher.)
400§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he admitted that the Bill as it stood worked somewhat hardly on parishes like Fulham. The difficulty he had found was that the Registrar General would not undertake the reponsibility of making an estimate year by year unless there were provisions in the Bill for a Quinquennial Census. He found it would be possible to have a Quinquennial Census without all the elaborate details of the ordinary Census, which would enable the Registrar General to make his estimate for the intervening years. The total cost to the Metropolis was estimated at about £6,400, and the London County Council were quite willing that it should be borne by the equalisation fund. He would undertake to bring up a clause on Report giving effect to the principle of the Amendment, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would now be withdrawn.
§ * SIR J. GOLDSMIDinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the cost of the Census should be borne upon the rates of one year or spread over several years? The people of Loudon were complaining bitterly of the constantly-increasing rates, and if the expenditure for this Census were to be paid by them its cost should at least be spread over the five years. In his constituency the other day the ratepayers refused to agree to the Public Libraries rate, and there was a strong feeling in many parts of London respecting the increase of the rates. If the Government were going to incur an expenditure of £6,500 in order to carry out this Census every five years the cost ought to be spread over more than six months or a year. He thought the cost ought to be spread over five years.
§ MR. GOSCHENDo I understand that the money is to be raised as an extra sum?
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREPractically, the cost will fall upon those parishes which benefit under the Bill. They will have less to receive in consequence of the cost of the Census; and inasmuch as it is really to be taken for their benefit, I think that they should pay for it.
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVRENo; not so fully.
§ * MR. COHENsaid, he thought that Londoners ought to be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his proposal, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's estimate would be much exceeded, inasmuch as it was only proposed to take a Census of the population without obtaining any of the other particulars asked for by the ordinary Census.
§ MR. ALBAN GIBBSasked the right hon. Gentleman to let the House have the wording of his proposal before the Report stage.
§ MR. THORNTON (Clapham)said, that, as a Member for a borough the population of which was increasing by leaps and bounds, he considered the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman one of great importance, and he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for it.
§ MR. GOSCHENI would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, partly I admit in the interest of my own constituents, that the Census should be taken at a fair time, and not at a time when large numbers of persons are absent from certain districts of Loudon. St. George's, Hanover Square, is under the impression that it lost 1–10th of its population, because the last Census was taken on a Sunday. I think that the next Census will show that our population is considerably larger than it now appears to be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow any desire to penalise certain districts in the Metropolis to influence his choice of the date when the Census will be taken.
§ MR. FISHERAfter the handsome manner in which I have been met by the right hon. Gentleman, I desire to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMANThe other Amendments to the clause are no longer in Order. The first of the new clauses is not in Order, and I think the same is to be said of all the others except the last.
§ MR. KIMBERsaid, in that case he desired to move the last new clause 402 standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir J. Lubbock) and entitled "Procedure in case of excessive expenditure."
THE CHAIRMANI have considerable doubts about this clause, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to point out the difference between this clause and the provision which appears in the Bill.
§ * MR. KIMBERsaid, the proposed new clause read as follows:—
§
(Procedure in case of excessive expenditure.)
Where any portion of the expenditure incurred by a Sanitary Authority under The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, shall appear to the Local Government Board to be excessive, they shall notify the amount of such excess to the Sanitary Authority, and, after hearing the Sanitary Authority, may for all purposes relating to the grant disallow the whole or any part of such excess.
He pointed out that the proposal would give an executive authority to the Local Government Board which they did not possess under the Bill. The clause was permissive, and it did not follow that there would be a single case in which any parish would come under any punishment under it.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he was informed that no case had ever occurred in which it had appeared to the Local Government Board that the expenditure incurred by a Sanitary Authority under the Act referred to was excessive. That being so, he did not think the new clause was necessary.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was clear that the clause was entirely different from that which appeared in the Bill, because whilst the one dealt with expending too much the other dealt with spending too little. He thought the new clause might cover a case of extravagance. There might be cases in which a waste of money had occurred, and if the provision were adopted it might act as a precaution against extravagant expenditure in connection with electric lighting or otherwise.
§ Question put, and negatived.
403§ * SIR J. GOLDSMIDasked when the Report stage would be taken, as some Members were thinking of taking a holiday?
§ * MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he did not think it would be taken earlier than Monday, but he could not say precisely when it would be taken.
§ Bill reported; as amended to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 351.]