SECOND READING. (Hansard, 31 July 1891)

§ *EARL FORTESCUE

I feel that I owe an apology to your Lordships for having oven for one moment yesterday intruded any observations on the House with regard the London County Council, but I ventured to do so on a Private Bill brought forward by a body which represents a population larger than that of some of the smaller Kingdoms of Europe and of many States in other parts of the world. The proceedings of that body, as I said yesterday, have confirmed the impression felt by many, and expressed by myself during the discussion of the Bill which established the London County Council. I mean the impression that the inclusion at all of the Metropolis, which had been carefully 907 excluded from the operation of the General Public Health Act some 15 years before, within the scope of the general Local Government Act, still more its inclusion with hardly any provision specially bearing upon the very special circumstances of Loudon was very imprudent. We all know how this happened. The disclosure of a little jobbery, and the suspicion of more, on the part of a few members of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which had latterly lost any public confidence it ever may have enjoyed, caused a general demand for the immediate supercession of that body by some other authority. The Government hastened to comply with that popular demand, and, a general Local Government Act having been already announced, the Government, as it seemed to me, very inconsiderately proposed, and Parliament as inconsiderately adopted, the inclusion in it of the Metropolis with over 4,000,000 of population, concentrated round the Palace of the Sovereign and the Houses of Parliament, around the offices of the Ministry and the supreme tribunals of the vast British Empire. The inclusion of such a city with hardly any provision in the Act different from those which applied to all the Municipalities of the Kingdom, from such places as Manchester and Liverpool down to South Molton and Torrington, two ancient Corporations within 20 miles of my house in North Devon, comprising less than 4,000 inhabitants each, less than l–100th part of the population of the Metropolis—I say the inclusion of the capital of the British Empire within the provisions of that Bill showed that the Government and Parliament ignored the lessons of experience in different ages, and about different capitals in the world. They forgot that Rome and Constantinople, each successively the capital of a great Empire, though smaller than ours, had special arrangements for their Government as capitals, differing from those concerning the other towns of the Empire. They forgot, also, the way in which more modern capitals have been dealt with quite recently in comparison—they forgot, for instance, what had been done at Paris and Washington. Warned by the experience of the overwhelming influence exercised by Paris over the rest of 908 France during the great French Revolution of the last century, and, later, during the Three Days which drove the elder dynasty of the Bourbons from the Throne; Louis Philippe and his Ministers, very shortly after his accession, elaborated and carried out a most carefully-balanced plan for the government and local management of Paris. As to the chief feature of that plan I will not say more than that it consisted in spreading or dividing the management of works and the government of persons; placing the one under the Préfet de la Seine and his Council and the other under the Préfet de Police with his Council, so that neither could for a moment claim to be, or could be considered, Chief Magistrate of Paris. Notwithstanding that, Louis Philippe lost his Throne and fled in disguise to England; but the system survived his fall, which was more attributable to his own obstinacy in the first instance, and vacillation afterwards, I believe, than to any defects in the system. But the case of Washington is still more remarkable—the capital of the Great Republic of the United States. The wise and far-seeing authors of the Constitution of the united States, while part of what is now the City of Washington and the district surrounding it which were specially dealt with were still almost wild, the site having once been selected, arranged and carried that that city and the district around it should be under the special control of the Congress and of the Central Government of the United States, instead of being governed, as the other States are, to a great extent independently of the Central Government. Her Majesty's Government and Parliament ignored all the lessons to be derived from that past experience, ancient as well as modern; and they established, as I have said, a system differing very little, indeed, from that established in most of the market towns in England. I agree with that able and thoughtful statesman, Mr. Balfour—I forget his exact words—in saying that it was "just as well the inhabitants of London did not co-operate too energetically or act too vigorously in the use of their municipal rights and duties." But we cannot say how soon this state of coma may be succeeded by a sort of municipal or even political phrensy. The first Chairmen of the London County 909 Council, Lord Rosebery (whose absence from this House, and still more the sad cause of it, we all regret), and Sir John Lubbock, a distinguished Member of the other House, have presided over the London County Council with dignity and efficiency. But we do not know how soon some popularity-seeking demagogue may succeed to that office, or what pressure he and the County Council, as I say, representing a population already greater than that of various Kingdoms, may put upon the Imperial Legislature and Administration, carrying on their deliberations and their official work in the very midst of them. Up to this time we have seen a good deal of apathy on the part of the inhabitants of London in respect of their local government; but that apathy has not been shared by the London County Council. On the contrary, as I predicted, though fulfilling very inadequately their duties, which were quite enough to occupy all their time, they have indulged in discussion on matters utterly beyond the scope of the duties entrusted to them by the Legislature. And they have already done this, although so recently constituted. More than that, as I predicted in the same speech, when they found that some of the improvements they contemplated would cost a great deal of money, they have brought forward confiscatory proposals. Happily, they were not allowed to carry them through this House. But we do not know how goon further confiscatory proposals may be brought forward by this body, in my opinion so imprudently established for the Local Government of the whole of the vast population of this Metropolis. I can only repeat the earnest hope which I expressed yesterday, that at the next election of County Councillors, and at all succeeding ones, we may find the inhabitants of London electing a body—there are a number of admirable men at present County Councillors—but a body composed of better, wiser, and juster Councillors, and a body more economical; for the very envelope in which this Bill is presented to us shows how fearfully under their management the rates have increased, though the rateable value of London has during the last 20 years pretty nearly doubled. And, besides this, I earnestly hope they will elect Councillors with more tact and of a 910 more conciliatory disposition, so that instead of driving to resignation men employed under them, who are of European reputation and of undeniable efficiency, we may find them electing" Councillors, who will elicit hearty cooperation and zealous work in the management of the business of this great Municipality.