the St. James's Vestry, to join in a Memorial to | The paper went on to remark that, the Government, urging the necessity for in- while pauperism and crime in the quiry into the condition and management of the property and charities of the several Metro- Metropolis were rapidly on the decline, there was politan parishes and City Guilds." no corresponding diminution in the burden of the rates; and that the inquiries made by independent residents of Paddington had revealed wasteful expenditure under various heads. It then added The resolution above referred to ran thus: "That the several parishes in the Metropolis, the Corporation of the City of London, the Livery Companies of London, and other public bodies, now possess large funds available for educational purposes, for the relief of the poor, and for other public objects; and that, in view of the constantly-increasing burdens imposed on the ratepayers of the Metropolis by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the vestries, and the London School Board, in the carrying out of their varied and increasing powers, it is desirable for a full inquiry to be made, under the authority of a Royal Commission, into the character and circumstances of any such funds, in order to ascertain how far they may be rightfully directed to the relief of such ratepayers, and to all or any of the objects served by the several governing bodies and rating authorities of the Metropolis." Now, the property of the City Guilds had been bequeathed for particular purposes; and although its value had, no doubt, greatly increased, it was doubtful whether that fact alone would justify an interference with the destination of that property. However that might be, the case of the vestries was very different. There the money spent was taken directly from the ratepayers; its amount was constantly increasing; and there could be no question of the right of the public to know and inquire into the manner in which it was disbursed. He now came to the charges which were made against the vestries. He would quote to the House some extracts taken from a printed paper issued by the Paddington Ratepayers' Association. If the statements there contained were incorrect, he was not responsible for them. This document said "There is a growing suspicion that the manner in which assessments are made, and rates expended, in some quarters calls for special investigation, and we believe that nothing short of such a step will give satisfaction to the public." It continued "People will want to get at the particulars lying behind the gross amounts which are tabulated, and act, occasionally at least, as their own auditors; and if Parliamentary assistance be not afforded them for that purpose, it may be incumbent on them in their several parishes to appoint a local commission from their number to scrutinize vouchers, so that what is going on behind the scenes may be proclaimed on the housetops," tion is that which comes under the general rate "The most entertaining and instructive por account, and relates to refreshments.' The bills of the same description:-September 25. following particulars belong to one of many -Finance and Assessment Committees:-18 luncheons, £3 38.; 17 dinners, £7 13s.; ale and stout, 7s.; sherry, £1 48.; port, 18s.; hock, £4 108.; cigars, 12s.; and dessert, 258.' These were among the items of one dinner for the gentlemen who were spending the money of the ratepayers; and other refreshment bills were much of the same character. He asked whether those things were creditable to the local government of a great capital. Mr. Frith, in his admirable work on Municipal London, said that the government of the Metropolis was utterly without system, regularity, or order; that the ratings all differed, that there was no uniformity, and that in all things there was confusion and complication. Certain facts were very significant. In the last 19 years the vestries and district boards had not expended 18d.. a-head in sanitary measures. The City had eight inspectors of nuisances, and St. Pancras had only one. The inspector for Chelsea reported that one-third of the houses infringed the sanitary regulations, and yet nothing was done to remedy the abuse. The cost of making roads in Mile End was £364 a-mile, while in Marylebone it was £1,200 a-mile. Again, the cost of watering streets was in Greenwich £50 a-mile; in Limehouse, £50; in Hackney, £15; in Mile End, £15; and in Whitechapel, £11. The cartage of dust and mud cost in St. Martin's, £70 a-mile; in Paddington, £67; in Greenwich, £65; in Limehouse, £23; and in Mile End, £19. On several previous occasions Bills relating to the government of the Metropolis had been introduced in that House; but they had not been passed. One measure was introduced by his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who had done so much to bring this matter under the notice of the public; but he did not see how it was pos sible for any private Member to carry a | Bill for the better management of the Metropolis. The City of London was, n many respects, most admirably managed, and his noble Friend proposed to extend the area of the City. That, of course, was a plan open to many objections. Then there was the idea of making the Parliamentary boroughs separate Municipalities with a supreme Council. Earl Grey, who always took great interest in this question, proposed, not a Royal or Parliamentary Commismission, but a Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, partly of Ministers of the Crown, partly of the late Ministers. A Report by such a Committee would be invaluable. It would be brought under the attention of Parliament much more clearly, and would be more likely to command attention. This, his Lordship stated, was the course followed with the Bill in 1850 for extending representative government to the Australian Colonies. To-day he only asked the Home Secretary to appoint a Board of Auditors for the investigation of the accounts of all these vestries. If it should be shown by the inequality of charges in the accounts that the Metropolis was not well governed, then it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for the better government of London. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the powers of the Vestries of the Metropolis, and their administration of the funds at their disposal,"-(Mr. Baillie Cochrane,) -instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. THOMSON HANKEY had understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight to say that all he asked the Home Secretary to do was to appoint a certain number of Auditors to examine the accounts of these vestries. This, however, was not the object aimed at by the hon. Gentleman's Motion. The hon. Gentleman condemned the general management of the Metropolis, yet he seemed content to Mr. Baillie Cochrane accept only a modified means of remedy. He went further than the language of his hon. Friend, being of opinion that the general management of the Metropolis was simply abominable. It was a disgrace to such a large town as this that there should be so little uniformity and so little good management in the general arrangements. Still, he believed the vestries did their duty extremely well. for certain purposes. What was required was a Central Body to be placed over them all. The Board of Works had not supplied the requirement, although he admitted that that body fulfilled its functions admirably in many respects. The town of Paris was managed quite differently from London. There were eight or 10 different departments; but they were all centralized in one department, called the Department of the Seine. As to the subject of fires, they were strictly part of police duties. What were the duties of the police, if they were not for the protection of life and property? The police could render essential service in a fire long before the brigade arrived. It was a discreditable thing in the management of London that the fire brigade should be under the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not say the Board did not do its best, but it had not the power. There was divided authority, and this was the case also with regard to the cleansing of the streets. LORD ELCHO said, he thought his hon. Friend had done good service in calling attention to this important question-the proper government, or, rather, the mis-government, of the Metropolis. The mis-government was so patent that it was not necessary to dwell on the subject. They had got the vestries, but there was no control over them. His hon. Friend had pointed to the City of London. They had controlling power there, and things were better managed. On one occasion, when he complained to the Metropolitan Board of Works about a part of London where a terrible stench prevailed, owing to the streets not being watered, as was believed, he was told that the Board had no power. This seemed to point to one of three things-that his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Board (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) ought to have more power given him; that he ought to be merged in some other power; or that he ought to be abolished altogether. Clearly he ought not to be left in his present state of impotence. He (Lord Elcho) did not think the Committee proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) would be very useful; but the hon. Gentleman had made a very good practical suggestion-namely, that the Government should appoint Auditors to look after the accounts of the vestries. He would suggest that the Motion should be withdrawn, and that the Government should consent to the appointment of Auditors. They heard of the bottles of hock, champagne, and other wines consumed by the vestrymen. That alone required an audit, and the practical solution would be for the Government to appoint an audit of the different district accounts. It might be that the stories one heard were not true; it might be that there was no jobbery; and, in that case, it would be better for the vestries that Auditors should be appointed. If it turned out, however, that there had been waste, they would have good ground for legislation. While the provisions of those Acts were adequate or not. It would be monstrous to enter into the question of the water supply in connection with the present Motion. The question raised by the present Motion was one of very great importance; but he should regard the extension of the City jurisdiction or the establishment of a new Centralized Body for control of the affairs of the Metropolis with some suspicion, and to establish such a body might prove to be a step in the wrong direction. He had taken some trouble to ascertain what had been the increased cost of the Metropolitan taxation, and he found it had not been so considerable as some persons supposed. He would, with the permission of the House, state what the increase of that taxation had been during the last 10 years. In 1869 the vestries spent £1,789,281, including payments to the Metropolitan Board of Works. In 1878, or 10 years later, the vestries spent £3,162,771; thus showing an increase in 10 years of about £1,400,000. But while the rateable value of the Metropolis in 1869 was MR. SCLATER-BOOTHI said, the £16,258,000, in 1878 it was £23,470,000, subject raised by his hon. Friend was or an increase of £7,212,000. a very important one, and one in which the net increase of the vestry expenthey were all interested; but he hardly diture in those 10 years was £1,000,000, thought the House would be prepared the following were the principal items to appoint a Select Committee, such as of which that increase was composed: was asked for, neither did he think-Upon streets and highways the the suggestion for the appointment of Auditors would command general assent. It was admitted that the Metropolis Management Act had effected a change for the better. A great deal had been said about the shortcomings of the vestries; but what were the district boards but a combination of parish vestries? Under the Act to which he referred, no less than 46 parishes were combined in 12 district boards, and a substantial change for the better was, no doubt, the result. He was not prepared to defend the vestries from all the charges made against them. Their powers were, to a certain extent, limited. In some respects they exercised their power very well, and in other respects the shortcomings of the vestries were considerable. As to gas and water, those were matters of so serious a nature that they had not been left to the vestries, but had been taken in hand by Parliament. Measures had been passed providing for the water supply and lighting of the Metropolis. A great deal might be said as to whether increase was more than £500,000, upon lighting it was £37,000, on payment to the Metropolitan Board of Works £131,000-the vestries now paid £500,000 out of their rates to the Metropolitan Board-and they now paid £500,000 to the School Board rates. The salaries to officers were £46,000 higher than in 1869; when they amounted to £71,000; while, in 1878, they amounted to £117,000. Loans and interest in 1869 amounted to £174,700, and in 1878 to £263,000, or a difference of £88,000. He did not think that the Government could do of their own accord what his hon. Friend asked, and he did not know that the House would support the Secretary of State if he made such a proposition. SIR ANDREW LUSK asked the House to look at this matter in a fair and broad light. Charges had been made against the vestries; but it should be remembered that vestries were elected under an Act of Parliament, and by the same class of persons as elected Members of MR. C. BECKETT-DENISON said, that two years ago he gave Notice of a Motion for a Committee to inquire into vestry management, and especially into the paving, lighting, watering, and scavengering of the streets and houses of London. He had been unable to bring forward that Motion; but if he found encouragement from other Members of the House, he should be inclined to urge upon the House the desirability of appointing such a Committee. He did not think that a single word of blame or censure had been cast on the Metropolitan Board of Works, and very little, indeed, had been said against the ves Parliament, and if they did not do their | sified, that he was not surprised that all work well, the members who composed Ministries were particularly chary in them might be put out, and others attempting to interfere with it. He had elected in their place..People, no doubt, felt it only fair to say a word in favour complained very much about vestries; of the vestries, which had a great deal but so they did about the Members of of hard work to do, and, upon the whole, that House. The thing to do was to they did it in an admirable manner. As change them, and put in better men. a rule, they had nothing to do with the He challenged hon. Gentlemen who expense incurred for luncheons and dinspoke about the health of the Metropolis ners and wines. The blame, if any, on to compare it with that of any other that score attached to the Guardians; city in the world. London was the but Boards of Guardians were not largest city in the world, and among peculiar to London, and why blame cities in point of health it stood per- vestries? There was no mystery or fectly unique. What was the use of secret about their proceedings, for their coming down upon these poor vestrymen meetings were more open than the House and talking about gas and water. The of Commons. He quite admitted that vestries had no more power over the gas the rates were increasing and becoming and water of the Metropolis than hon.Gen- more onerous, and they could not be tlemen themselves had. When his hon. too cautious in imposing new burdens. and gallant Friend (Sir James M'GarelHogg) attempted to take up the water supply he was most violently opposed by the Water Companies, and it would be the same with the gas. It was all the Companies, and if you touched them they would say you were attacking private property. No doubt, the rates were heavy; the School Board rate, for example; but the vestries could not help that. Parliament made the law, and the vestries had to carry it out and to find the money. So it was with the main drainage, the fire brigade, the police rate-which was now very heavy --and so on. It was most ungenerous, unhandsome, and undignified to say-tries. It was not at all necessary to Oh, these are sinall men, tradesmen." speak offensively or in a hostile manner If they were small men and tradesmen, against the vestries. As the hon. Baronet it was all the more to their credit that who had just sat down said, those genthey gave a great deal of time to the tlemen took upon themselves a vast public good. Hon. Gentlemen talked amount of work for no remuneration, of the City of London, and spoke of it and they got a good deal of abuse, as a model. He knew something about especially from people outside, who did the City of London, and, no doubt, it not know how difficult their duties were. was very well managed; but it was very | But he should despair of obtaining any expensively managed. In the City of improvement if they acted on the views London there was more to pay than in of the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk), the Metropolis generally. A good deal whose maxim seemed to be, quieta non had been said about the state of the movere, and who appeared to think that streets; but Oxford Street was as nicely the government of London, as it was, kept and as clean a street as any in the was the best possible government that world, and they had only to go to Mary- could be, and that it could not be imlebone to see streets as well watered, proved without additional expense and lighted, and cleaned as any in Birming- taxation. He (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison) ham, Glasgow, or any other city. It was not of that opinion; but thought was easy to find fault with the govern- that in one or two respects there was a ment of the City of London; but it was loud call for improvement and investigaof such enormous extent, and the inte- tion. He referred especially to the rests involved were so vast and so diver-watering and scavengering of the streets. Sir Andrew Lusk As compared with Paris or other Euro- | Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had intropean capitals, the watering of the streets duced the subject in a very broad way, of London was not what it ought to be. alluding to water supply, gas supply, A friend of his, who took a great inte- sanitary arrangements, and so forth; rest in the St. George's Vestry, had told but ended with a Motion which was him that the watering and scavengering limited to an inquiry into the question of the streets of London was practically of the vestries and their duties. The in the hands of a close monopoly. There great evil in regard to London was that were five or six men who tendered in the local government was very defective. turns to the various parishes. Osten- Great works were distributed into the sibly the competition was open; but the hands of a large number of different contractors had entered into a secret ar- bodies, and there was no unity. He was, rangement among themselves by which therefore, prepared to vote against the the contract was always relegated to the Motion, because it would take away same hands. On Sundays the streets their power to deal with the question in were not watered as on other days of the a more satisfactory way, especially when week; and when they considered that they remembered the Home Secretary's the masses of the population took their statement that the subject was so large holiday on that day and visited the parks that it would be the duty of the Governin immense numbers, they would at once ment to take it up and consider it in all see that on a hot Sunday afternoon, with its aspects. the wind blowing, the state of the streets of London was a reproach to them. What was the remedy for this? He feared there was none, for the contractors would not allow their carts to go out unless in charge of their own men, and they would not send out their men; and as they would not do the work, no one could do the work which they refused to do. The watering of the streets of London was simply discreditable, and the same thing might be said of the scavengering. It was notorious that there was a regular system of blackmailing in connection with scavengering, and that no one could get his ashpit cleansed without submitting to it. The result of this was absolute discomfort, uncleanliness, and unhealthiness, which they were powerless to remove. It was all very well for powerful people, who could make their voices heard, to say that things were as good as they could be; but it was the poor and the small householders who were really affected. Without bringing any charge of corruption or abuse of authority against the vestries, there was certainly ground for inquiry whether it was not possible to bring about a better state of things. Without any hostility either to the Board of Works or to the vestries, he should, as he had stated, be inclined, if he found any encouragement, to renew his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry with respect to the two special points of watering and scavengering the streets. MR. LYON PLAYFAIR observed, that the hon. Member for the Isle of VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.] But the Motion would throw the inquiry on the vestries, and would remove the responsibility from Parliament. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) in the satisfaction he had expressed with the existing state of things. With regard to the water supply, for instance, in some places it was good; but he (Mr. Lyon Playfair) lived in a district which was supplied with water into which 750,000 people poured their excrements before he could drink it. They had been told that there would be another Session of the present Parliament. It would be a capital thing if the Government would deal with this question next Session. He would, therefore, suggest that as they were now getting into a state of things which so operated in the House as to produce the passing of but one Act a Session, the question of improvement in Metropolitan administration should be undertaken next year by the Government, which might thus signalize the last year of their reign by passing at least one comprehensive measure for the promotion of the health of the people. Should the hon. Gentleman withdraw his Motion, the House would be left free to consider a large scheme for Metropolitan local government. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, that they all grumbled at the cost of Metropolitan rates; but it was but fair to give the devil his due, and look at the results which they got for the rates. The Metropolitan rates also, he might say, had not been much raised for the 3 N |