Lords Sitting of 4 March 1892

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Privy Seal a question of which I have given him private notice. It has reference to a document, which I hold in my hand, which has been signed by the noble Earl among other people, and which contains a statement to which my attention has been called for the first time, as to which the noble Earl is responsible. Now this document is an electioneering document intended to influence the election of the London County Council in Chelsea to-morrow; and it contains the following statement—
"The County Council rate has already been increased from 10d. to 13d. in the £1";
2
and the question I wish to ask the noble Earl is how he propose to substantiate this statement—the noble Earl having signed the document. My Lords, one does not expect rigid accuracy perhaps in an electioneering document; but the noble Earl holds an exceedingly high position, and any statement endorsed by him would naturally have great weight with the inhabitants of Chelsea; and I, my Lords, as an inhabitant of Chelsea myself, and as taking a deep interest in that election, would like to know what authority the noble Earl can produce for that statement. I am, of course, perfectly certain that the noble Earl would not deliberately make any statement which he did not consider accurate. I am perfectly certain that he would wish to fight this battle, as he would wish to fight any other, with absolute fairness; but this statement as to the 3d. increase in the rates has been, I need hardly remind your Lordships, abundantly proved to be entirely without any foundation at all in

3
fact. My Lords, this statement is based on a speech made by Sir Henry James in St. James's Hall, in which no doubt he said that the London County Council had increased the rates by 3d. in the £1; but Sir Henry James made a speech last night in Chelsea Town Hall in which he practically withdrew that statement, and admitted that it was inaccurate. Sir Henry James's words, as reported, were "If I am mistaken, I am sorry." Well, the plain English of that is that Sir Henry James is perfectly aware that he was mistaken—("Oh, oh!")—and, of course, if he was mistaken, he was sorry. I see noble Lords opposite laughing; but I suppose they will acknowledge the authority of Sir John Lubbock on that subject, who wrote a letter to the Times (I do not know whether it has escaped the notice of the noble Earl opposite), in which he goes into detail with regard to the figures, and shows that the increase, so far from being 3d. in the £1, is under 1d., and that statement has been adopted by responsible politicians like Mr. John Morley, and has been adopted by the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council; and, at the end of the first year of our proceedings, Lord Lingen himself said that in 1889–90 there was practically no increase in the rates at all; and since that time the increase has been under a ½d. in the £1. I do not mean to say that a ½d. in the £1 is the whole increase; because there are various items to be added—some on one side, and some on the other; but the long and short of it is that we have Sir John Lubbock's authority, and the authority of the present Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council—besides the authority of other persons—to the effect that the increase in the rates, for which the London County Council is responsible, is not 3d., but is about nine-tenths of a penny. I do not think I need go into the detailed statements which show my accuracy in this matter; but, if the noble Earl wishes to know the ins and outs of it, I have the documents before me; I am ready to give him any information in my power; and I now beg to ask the noble Earl the question of which I have given him notice.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I am extremely obliged to my noble Friend for the kind manner in which he has alluded to myself, and I can assure him that, neither with regard to this election nor any other, should I wish to take any step, or become responsible for any statement, which was not absolutely fair, and, in my opinion, accurate and just. But I was somewhat disappointed that the noble Lord did not, while he was speaking, proceed in any way to justify the extremely unusual course which he has taken. The noble Lord was kind enough to write me a letter which I received at 2 o'clock to-day, informing me that he proposed to ask me this question—that is to say, that he wished to ask me upon what authority I had joined in making the statement to which he refers; or, to use his own words, what foundation there was for this statement. Now, my Lords, I imagine that no one in this House, or elsewhere, can have very much doubt as to the real object of the noble Lord in the course which he has taken; but I would remind him that it is possible to spread the net too much in the sight of a bird; and it is quite impossible that I can be expected, at two hours' notice, to enter before your Lordships into an examination of the financial course of the County Council during the past three years. There are two preliminary objections which I should wish to take. In the first place, as I said before—and I will not enlarge upon it—I consider that such notice as the noble Lord has given of this question is wholly inadequate; in the second place, I wish to say that I cannot recognise the right of the noble Lord to ask me a question of this character in my place in Parliament. I did not sign the paper in question in my capacity as a Minister of the Crown; I signed it purely in my private capacity; and I do not believe it is usually the practice, either here or in the other House of Parliament, that one Member of the House should rise, and, after having given private notice, question any other Member of the House upon any opinions—pious or otherwise—to which he may have given expression. My

5
Lords, as I said before, it is obviously impossible that I should enter into the controversy which has been raging for some time past upon the subject of the finance of the County Council. I would point to the fact that this controversy is not only between those of the public who differ with the policy of the County Council and the County Council as a whole; it is a controversy in which the members of the County Council have themselves been engaged, and in which, so far as I have been able to see, very opposite opinions have been held within that County Council. The noble Lord informs me that certain statements which were made by Sir Henry James in his speech in St. James's Hall on the 24th ultimo, were recalled by him in a speech that he made last night. I am sorry to say that I have not had time to read Sir Henry James's speech of last night; but I do not think myself it is very likely that on further examination we shall find that Sir Henry James has done anything of the kind. I studied very carefully that portion of his speech in St. James's Hall which referred to the financial policy of the County Council; and I have, so far as I am able, studied also the various statements which have been made on authority, and from which alone we, the outside public, are able to judge of that financial policy; and, so far as I am concerned, I am bound to say that not only do I consider that Sir Henry James's statement was as concise, and as accurate, and as telling as it was possible for any statement to be, but that I still am ready to maintain that the accuracy of the facts, as stated by Sir Henry James in St. James's Hall, is absolutely complete; and I for one—as the noble Lord has given me the opportunity of doing so at this Table—am quite prepared to say that I will abide entirely by the statement made in the circular to which he has alluded. My Lords, I do not know that I have anything further to say to the noble Lord. I believe he has really stated my case by referring your Lordships to the speech of Sir Henry James. Upon that speech, as the resumé of our case, I am prepared to rest; and I can only trust that the opinions which I have ventured to express in Chelsea will be endorsed to-morrow by
6
the majority of the electors in that district.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I observe that my noble Friend opposite has taken the opportunity of making a little election speech at the conclusion of his observations; but I am not going to follow his example. As one of the outside public, with all my respect for Sir Henry James (and it is very great) I think that the authority of the late Chairman of the London County Council, Sir John Lubbock, who unfortunately does not take the same political view as I do of affairs generally, is a higher one than that of any outsider; and I am rather surprised to find my noble Friend preferring the assertions of Sir Henry James, which I may remind him rest on Mr. Fardell's statement. And to be quite just, I will repeat what I understand his speech of last night to be. He said, "My statement was based upon Mr. Fardell's statement, and, if Mr. Fardell has made a mistake, then I am very sorry I have fallen into the mistake." But I think, whether Mr. Fardell said one thing or another, (and I really do not know what he did say) Sir John Lubbock's authority is so extremely high in this matter, having been until now Chairman of the County Council, that those who may share the views of my noble Friend behind me (Lord Monkswell) are quite justified in viewing with a great deal of scepticism this statement put forward it appears to the electors of Chelsea, even though it is backed by my noble Friend opposite; and I think that, on examination, the noble Earl will find that probably Sir John Lubbock's calculation is more to be trusted than those of any other person.
EARL CADOGAN: Might I ask my learned Friend opposite what Sir Henry James stated last night? Did he say that all his statements were founded on Mr. Fardell's?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I merely wish to be perfectly fair to Sir Henry James in alluding to him. I read the speech, feeling an interest of course in what he said; and what he said—as reported, mind—was this:
"My statements rested upon Mr. Fardell's statements, and, if he has been mistaken in his statement, I am very sorry that I have followed them, and I should of course withdraw them."

7
Sir Henry James, apparently, did not take it upon himself to say that, upon his own examination, he had come to those conclusions, but that they were based on Mr. Fardell's statement. But I must guard myself by saying again that I am merely referring to the newspaper report—I am not asserting its accuracy. I merely wished to be perfectly fair to Sir Henry James.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, does not this rather tend to prove that your Lordships' House is hardly the place in which to go into a discussion on the County Council election on a private notice, of which we know nothing, suddenly, and on a question of finance of which we know perhaps less? I do hope this will not occur again.

ELECTRIC AND CABLE RAILWAY BILLS.
Commons Message considered (according to order):
Moved, "That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons; viz., 'That a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the best method of dealing with the Electric and Cable Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the Metropolis by Bills introduced, or to be introduced, in the present Session, and to report their opinion as to whether underground railways worked by electricity or cable traction are calculated to afford sufficient accommodation for the present and probable future traffic; as to whether any, and which, of the schemes propose satisfactory lines of route; as to the terms and conditions under which the subsoil should be appropriated; whether any, and, if any, what schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session.'"—(The Lord Balfour.)
Motion agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 5.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRESENTATION TO BENEFICES BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 24.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.