Company Subscriptions to Election Funds.

HC Deb 18 April 1907 vol 172 cc1148-53

MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R., Elland)

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the dock companies assisted in financing the London Municipal Society; whether he will make an inquiry into the extent and circumstances of the subscription; and whether he will take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent the recurrence of subscriptions by companies created by Act of Parliament to associations which take an active part in contested elections.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,) Carnarvon Boroughs

I have been in conmunication with the London and India Docks Company, the Surrey Commercial Dock Company, and the Millwall Dock Company on the subject of my hon. friend's Question. I have received replies from these companies to the effect that they have subscribed, the London and India Docks Company, £100, the Surrey Commercial Dock Company, £100, and the Millwall Dock Company, £21, to the funds of the London Municipal Society. These replies, which are too lengthy for me to read hero, but which will be printed with the Votes, state in all three cases, that the Directors were not influenced by any political motive.

The letters were as follows:— London and India Docks Company, "Dock House, 109, Leadenhall Street, "London, 18th April, 1907. H. 4547. Sir, "The Directors have had before them your letter of the 12th instant. They have no objection to stating that they subscribed £100 to the funds of the London Municipal Society in December last, and they are advised that under the judgment given by the Court of Appeal on the 19th November, 1906, the contribution was a perfectly legal one. Their reason for giving the subscription was to aid the endeavours of the London Municipal Society to return members at the recent municipal and guardian elections pledged to economy in local administration. The Company, like all proprietors of industrial undertakings in and near London, have suffered grievously from the excessive local rates levied upon them. Rates have been increasing for many years past, and there has been no remedy open to the Company in the municipality itself, for although they pay a large proportion of the rates in every locality in which their docks are situated, they have absolutely no voice in the election of the persons who spend their money. The only course open to the Company, therefore, is to support reputable organisations which are found to educate voters as to the peril to them of the increase of municipal burdens, and to expose the mismanagement of particular local institutions. Acting on this principle, my directors have subscribed to the West Ham Borough Alliance and the Poplar Borough Alliance. Both of these alliances have been remarkably successful in the work, and it may be within the knowledge of the Board of Trade that they have been active agents in bringing to light the notorious scandals which have been the subject of recent official inquiry in these two boroughs: indeed in the case of the inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law at Poplar, the alliance was officially recognised by the Local Government Board's representative as the body chiefly responsible for proving the charges made against the guardians. In Poplar alone, as a result of the action taken by the alliance, there will Do savings in expenditure at the rate of £70,000 a year, which will be shared by the whole of the ratepayers of the borough. It was because of the success acchieved at Poplar and West Ham that the Directors welcomed the efforts of the London Municipal Society to apply to those matters in which London as a whole is concerned, the same reforming energy which has been applied locally at Poplar and West Ham. The Directors observe that it has been charged against the London Municipal Society that it is a political organisation. No ground for such a charge is to be found either in the rules or the statement of objects of the society. No political test for membership is imposed, and as a fact, there are persons belonging to both the Unionist and Liberal Parties amongst its members, and on the council is Sir F. Schuster, who was the Liberal candidate for the City of London at the last general election. The Directors, amongt whom are adherents of both sides of politics, would certainly not continue their support to the society if they had any reason to believe that its aims were political, but no evidence has come before them to show that there has been any conduct on the part of its managers which indicates a departures from the spirit of its constitution. I am, etc, (Signed) J. G. BROODBANK, Secretary. The Assistant Secretary, Harbour Department, Board of Trade. Surrey Commercial Dock Company, Secretary's Office, 106, Fenchurch Street, London, E. C., 18th April, 1907. Sir, I have submitted to my directors your letter of the 12th instant, and, in reply to your enquiry as to whether or not my company have made any subscription to the London Municipal Society, I am instructed to state that in November last my company subscribed the sum of £100 to the funds of the Society. In making this contribution my directors were not influenced by any political considerations. They were solely concerned, in the interests of their shareholders, to ensure the election of persons pledged to the economical administration of local affairs, with a view to obtaining some alleviation of the burden of excessive and increasing rates from which my company, in common with other industrial undertakings, has suffered severely. Whilst this company contribute a very large proportion of the rates in the district in which their property is situated, they have no part in the election of the members of the bodies who make the rates, and have absolutely no control over the expenditure. In these circumstances my directors, believing the London Municipal Society to be a non-political organisation, as evidenced by its constitution rules and membership, thought it right to support the society, whose objects appeared to them legitimate and desirable I am, etc., (Signed) "P. H. CULLIS, Secretary. The Assistant Secretary, Harbour Department, Board of Trade. Millwall Dock Company, Dock House, 1, Railway Place, Fenchurch Street, E. C., London, 17th April, 1907. Sir, In reply to your letter of the 12th instant, I am instructed to say that a donation of twenty guineas has been given to the funds of the London Municipal Society by this company. In response to your invitation to offer observations on the subject, I am further instructed by my directors (who represent both shades of political opinion) to say that they were induced to make this donation by the success which attended their efforts to expose the wasteful and extravagant policy of the Guardians in Poplar, through the medium of the Popular Borough Municipal Alliance, to whose funds an amount of £125 has been contributed from time to time by my Board. "My directors had noted with apprehension the steady growth in the Poplar general rates, as shown in the following table:—

1897	7s.	8d.	in the £
1898	7s.	10d.	in the £
1899	8s.	7½d.	in the £
1900	9s.	1½d.	in the £
1901	9s.	4d.	in the £
1902	9s.	7d.	in the £
1903	9s.	8d.	in the £
1904	9s.	10d.	in the £
1905	11s.	8d.	in the £
190G	11s.	9d.	in the £
1907 at the rate of	10s.	7d.	in the £

after the Poplar Inquiry.

"My directors were unable to secure any redress from the burden, as they had no voice whatever in the disposition of the funds to which they were large contributors, until the Poplar Borough Municipal Alliance secured the assistance of the Local Government Board, who held an inquiry into the expenditure and operations of the Guardians at Poplar with the result shown above in 1907.

"My directors are fully satisfied that in helping to promote this public inquiry they were acting in the interests of their proprietors and of the general body of ratepayers in the borough of Poplar.

"Encouraged by the distinct benefits which resulted from the efforts of the Poplar alliance my directors had no hesitation in contributing to the funds of the London Municipal Society, and did so in the hope and belief that the society would direct its efforts to putting a stop to the heavy expenditure of municipal bodies who, in the opinion of my directors, do not sufficiently take into consideration the burden that is being placed upon public and other companies through their extravagance.

"I am further desired to say that my directors take strong exception to the suggestions which have been publicly advanced that such monies have been contributed for political purposes; their one and only object has been to effectually counteract the alarming tendency in recent years to increase the local rates.

"I am, etc.,

(Signed) "W. S. T. Biggs,

"Secretary.

"The Assistant Secretary,"

"Board of Trade,

"Harbour Department,

"7, Whitehall Gardens, S. W."

AN HON. MEMBER

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should inquire into the action of the Glasgow Corporation in spending the ratepayers' money in promoting the Land Taxation Bill.