THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES KM. I Pi ■ 1 18 9 8. E. NOTES FOR SPEAKERS. PUBLISHED BY The Metropolitan Division of the Rational Union of Conservative and ConstituUcnal Association', St. Stephen's Chambers, Westminster, S.W. 3 3 g ;gfER£NC Printed by Vacher & Sons, 20 & 22 Millbank Street, Westminster, S.W. c7N(f LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION, 1898. CONSERVATIVE MUNICIPAL PROGRAMME. E C Following the precedent established at the last County 3 Council Election, the Executive Committee of the Metro- politan Division of the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations have given careful consideration to the preparation of a Memorandum on Conservative Municipal Policy giving a short and concise statement on the various questions of interest that will occupy the attention •of the electors during the coming contest. The following is .an outline of the main points in Conservative Municipal Policy : — ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. We are of opinion that the Municipal Policy of the " Conservative Party is to deal honestly and justly with the law _, as it exists, and while promoting full efficiency to see that proper 3 economy is studied in every department. i£ That such economy and efficient administration are required is made evident by the unduly large growth of expenditure since the Council came into existence on matters such as the unnecessary promotion of, aud objection to, Bills before Parlia- ment, the lavish expenditure on works (in many cases the cost of which has exceeded the original estimate by over 36 per cent.), and a large and unjustifiable expenditure on account of wages, salaries and printing ; as it is also by loss wilfully incurred by indiscriminately allowing valuable licenses to lapse, on the purchase of which the Council had paid large sums of the ratepayers' money, and in other ways. HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASS. We are strongly in favour of giving full effect to the powers 3 possessed by the Council under the Sanitary Laws, as also those ■*• relating to the Housing of the Working Class, and we would .'S8.*J7i)l 11. PROGRAMME. cordially co-operate in getting an extension of those powers, so as to enable the working class to purchase the freehold of their dwellings. WATER SUPPLY. We are in favour of the County Council acting in concert with Her Majesty's Government to secure an arrangement by which a sufficient Water Supply shall be made available for the public, subject to efficient central control, and not at undue cost to the consumer. TRAMWAYS. We would strongly support an extension of the principle of Tramways construction and purchase on just and fair terms, but we are opposed to the working of the undertakings by the Council itself. MUNICIPAL TRADING. We are very strongly opposed to making the Council a trading and manufacturing Corporation, which forms no part of its functions, and its exercise of which would give it an undue and unfair competition with the ordinary traders. As an idea of the extent to which the Progressives are prepared to go in this direction, we would point out that they have proposed to embark in the business of steamboat owners, tramway proprietors, gas and water undertakers, pawnbroking, tailoring, shoemaking, ttc. The Council are already acting as their own builders and contractors. WORKS DEPARTMENT. We are of opinion that the Works Department has been extravagant, unbusinesslike, and contrary to the interests of the ratepayers, and ought not to continue to exist. We are convinced that the Council undertook a large amount of work which could not be economically executed under amateur supervision, and it is well-known that on such work a heavy loss to the ratepayers has been incurred. We are in favour of the direct employment of labour in certain classes of simple work, but in undertaking extensive and elaborate operations we believe that it would be more economical that they should be carried out by efficient workmen under the experienced supervision of individuals unfettered by harassing conditions. In jobbing works we would promote as far as possible the employment of persons residing in the district in which the job is situated. PH0G15AMME. lii. FAIR WAGES. We consider it but just that the employees of the Council should he paid wages at a rate based on the most liberal scale generally current in the Metropolis, and in all cases of contract we would enforce the principle adopted by the House of Commons in regard to subletting, sweating, Arc. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. We consider that the County Council should at once proceed to carry out some of the great Public Impi-ovements for which London has so long waited, and which have been so long delayed by the Progressive policy of placing political considerations in antagonism to Municipal requirements. In cases where, by such improvements, working people are displaced, we would advocate an arrangement by which accommo- dation for their use could be provided in the suburbs, with cheap trains at convenient hours on the various railways, to render such accommodation available. Amongst other works which, in our opinion, shoidd be taken in hand is the construction of main sewers, to relieve the houses in those parts of London where they suffer in times of heavy rainfall from serious flooding. FOREIGN PAUPERS. In the interests of the ratepayers we are in favour of Government restricting the immigration of Alien Paupers, who contribute to the increase of the rates, and to the damage of the English labour market. PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. We would do all in our power to ensure the preservation of Open Spaces, and would add to their number until the supply is deemed sufficient ; but we are strongly of opinion that the strictest supervision should be exercised by the Council in the administration of this department. We are of opinion that, in the interests of the great masses of the people, it would be wise to keep such places as largely as possible as playing fields, in preference to making them purely ornamental gardens with multitudinous restrictions as to their use. RATING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. We acknowledge gratefully the assistance which the present Government has given to local atithorities by increasing the grant IV. PROGRAMME. given in lieu of rates on Government property, but we are in favour of transferring the rating of such property from the Treasury to the ordinary Assessment Committees, with a view to lightening the burden of taxation in the Metropolis. TAXATION OF GROUND RENTS AND OTHER PROPERTY, Owing to the manner in which Exchequer grants are allotted, official estimate shows that London is unfairly treated to the extent of £420,000. This balance would be redressed if the In- habited House Duty, a truly local tax, were handed over for local purposes ; but this matter is being investigated by a Royal Commission, and we would, therefore, defer all action on it until the Commission has made its report. THE METROPOLITAN POLICE. In a city having such vast Imperial concerns as London, the Police, we consider, should be retained as an Imperial force. LICENSING. As the question of Licensing, including places of amusement and public houses, involves judicial functions, we are strongly of opinion that matters of this nature would be best dealt with by a special judicial tribunal. FIRE BRIGADE. We are of opinion that the thorough efficiency of the Fire Brigade should be maintained, and consider that the most improved appliances for coping with outbreaks of fire should be procured. MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. In continuation of the policy originated by the Unionists in 1888, we advocate the establishment of separate Municipalities in the Metropolis as being absolutely essential to the future good government of London. By this means no duties would be thrown upon the central body that could be equally well per- formed by the local authorities. The inhabitants of well-defined areas would obtain control of their local affairs, and an increased interest would be taken in those matters which affect the welfare and homes of the people. NOTES FOR SPEAKERS. 18 9 8. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION. ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. We are of opinion that the Municipal Policy of the Conservative Party is to deal honestly and justly with the law as it exists, and while promoting' full efficiency to see that proper economy is studied in every department. That such economy and efficient administration are required is made evident by the unduly large growth of expenditure since the Council came into existence on mat- ters such as the unnecessary promotion of, and objection to, Bills before Parliament, the lavish expenditure on works (in many cases the cost of which has exceeded the original estimate by over 36 per cent.), and a large and unjustifiable expenditure on account of wages, salaries and printing ; as it is also by loss wilfully incurred by indiscriminately allowing valuable licences to lapse, on the purchase of which the Council had paid large sums of the ratepayers' money, and in other ways. In order properly to appi'eciate the growth of the expenditure in the Metropolis in recent years, it is necessary to compare the present financial position with that of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The following tables show the annual rateable value, and the rate in the £ levied by the Metropolitan Board of Works, a2 ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY, and by the London County Council during each of the last 41 years, the year 1856 being the first year of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the year 1SS9-90 being the first of the London County Council. The table (B) shows that the rate of the Council may be resolved into three elements, namely, (1) charges formerly defrayed by its predecessors, the Metropolitan Board and the County Justices under heads (a), (b) and (c) ; (2) charges newly imposed by or since the Local Government Act, 1888, under the head (d) ; and (3) payments in relief of local rates under heads (e), (/), (g) and (h). The first and second of these elements constitute the real charge on the parishes for County Council purposes. The third element is virtually, in its effect on London rates, an extension of the system of the Common Poor Fund tending towards an equalisation of rates. It does not add anything to the rating of London as a whole, but it shifts the burden from some parishes and places it on others ; in fact, whatever action the Council may take in relation to its own finances, this charge and its incidence remains the same ; it is fixed by certificate of the Local Govern- ment Board, or by Act of Parliament, and is thus completely out- side the sphere of the Council's influence. In order to compare the rates levied by the Metropolitan Board of Works with the rates levied by the County Council, column G of Table A must be taken. The nature of the expen- diture for which the rate in that column provides is practically the same throughout, both under the County Council and under the Metropolitan Board of Works. It will be observed that the last rate made by the Board of Works was only for the first quarter of 1889, the rate for the remainder of that year having been made by the County Council. It will also be observed that the rate for the quarter in question (10T0t7. in the £) is considerably higher than that for 1888, the last complete year of the old Board's existence. The increase is due to the fact that in the year 1888 the Board received coal and wine duties to the amount of £284,014, but the last rate levied by the Board was exclusive of those dues (1891, Report, p. 4). and the revenue from that source ceased on 5th July, 1889. Inorease -^ comparison of the figures given in these two tables shows in expen- that there has been a large and progressive increase in expenditure diture. by the County Council, not only in respect of its administration regarded as a whole, but in each branch of it, i.e. : — (1) In the services which it renders as the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, C5 o OS © BQ CO co Ni o © © C5 t^- eo t^. o ID o t-~ !>■ - eo © o t^ © © b~ eo CO © C) © • O * -i 1-1 - CO fr. © CO © cj *o CO © o «5 fe . i s s p- i- § i n 6 j| |p is Is! 1 1|» i jjijj * | ! ! > 1 8 S 5 1 | i 1 1 1 I ijifj | S S | ! ? | i ?i I P 1 1 I „• ;j 2J * 1 1 1 ' pips SI - i 1 ! 1 r - ,• | 1 1 s 1 s P I Si - i i ;- 1 1 1 1 | l Irp ,1111 1=1? 5 I - i 1 1 ^ 2 1 fill * 5 ! * ! 1=65 || 1 > i | B si if -ia , | 1 5 g |=S* s ? 1 | 1 1 1 1 * 1 - .• f 1. 1 i 111? s i 2 i 3 J 3 1 a 1 1 U Ml l's-1 fe-l s -as s » J "E -1 = = i " S ~ -' ■ J I1 III ?H 1 1 i 5 \\ ft! 111 |-;J }1i i p S = .H £-|s, Ssii If !* ii if! ;: :? ; T "II ! 1-1= Ifli IH-I i i fii * ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 5 (2) In the services which it renders as the successors of the County Justices. (3) In the services which have been rendered by the Council under the Act of 1888, which created it, or under other Acts of Parliament passed since 1888. Tt is impossible to construct, from the accounts and figures published by the Council, an accurate statement, showing what amounts would be raised by each of the rates for each of the sub-heads indicated in Table B, because some of the rates are raised on the rateable value of the whole administrative county, including the City of London (General County Account), and some are raised only on the rateable value of that part of the administrative county outside the City of London (Special County Account). The following table shows how the rateable values and the annual rates are respectively divided : — YEAH. Total rate levied for Council's services. Portion of rate in column 2 chargeable to General County- Account. Rateable value for purposes of General County Account. Rateable value for purposes of Special County Account. Portion of rate in column 2 chargeable to Special County Account. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. d. d. £ £ d. 1889-90 12-53 10-63 31,586,687 27,708,324 1-90 1890-91 1325 11125 31,780,301 27,881,163 2125 1891—92 1175 9-5 33,081,764 28,992,817 2-25 1892—93 1250 101 33,368,204 29,247,832 2-4 1893-94 1300 107 33,625,861 29,402,205 23 1894—95 1400 11-65 33,913,707 29,723,195 2-35 1895—96 1500 12 6 34,221,830 30,003,944 2-4 1896-97 1500 12-7 35,833,468 31,351,608 23 The old services corresponding to the work of the Metro- politan Board of Works, the services rendered as successors of the County Justices, and the new services, which have been created by or since the Local Government Act, 1888, are charge- able partly on the General and partly on the Special County Account. BATE FOB 1897-98. The County Bate for the year 1897-9S amounts to 14r/. in the £. being \tl. in the £ less than in the years 1895-6 and 189G-7, and the same amount iv.i in 1894 5, the last year of the preceding Council's existence. 6 THE COUNTY RATE. Hall in Trafalgar Square. It must not be supjiosed, however, that the total amount of expenditure is to remain the same as in 1894-5. Although the rate is the same the rateable value of the county has considerably increased. Thus the rateable value on 6th April, 1894, was £33,913,707. On the 6th April, 1897, it was £36,096,028, or .£2,182,321 greater than on the former date. A rate of 14c?. in the £, levied on the whole of the rateable value of the administrative county, would bring in £127,302 more in 1897-8 than in 1894-95. The fact that the rate for 1897-8 remains at 14c!. in the £ is due to the direct action of the Moderate Party in the Council. The rate which it was proposed to levy for the half-year ending 31st March, 1898, was 7§ in the £, but when the proposal came before the Council on the 5th October, 1897, it was resolved on the motion of the Earl of Dunraven, seconded by Mr. Boulnois, M.P., that the rate should be reduced to 6^ in the £. The reduction was formally assented to on the 1 2th October, 1897. — {Minutes, p. 1007.) The result of this apparently small reduction in the rate is a saving of ^37,600 to the ratepayers. It will be seen, from Table B, that some check has been placed by the existing Council on the expenditure for establish- ment and general administrative expenses, as the average in 1896-7 was actually less than that of either of the two pre- ceding years. In considering the record of the present Council, however, it must not be forgotten that it contains a much larger proportion of members of the Moderate party than either of its predecessors. Although the Moderate party have been in a minority, and have, therefore, been unable to control, they have, nevertheless, exercised a beneficial influence on the expenditure of the Council. COUNTY HALL ANH OFFICES. A matter which should not be forgotten in arriving at a judgment as to the character of the existing Council in matters financial, is the proposal of a majority of the Council to build a new County Hall. That majority promoted a Bill in the House of Commons for acquiring a site on the south side of Trafalgar Square for the erection of a County Hall and Offices. The site was to cost £850,000, and the new buildings to be erected ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. were to cost £500,000 more. It was proposed that the ground floor of the new buildings should be tised as bank offices, insurance offices, and business premises, and it was estimated that the rent of these would represent a capital sum of £300,000. Thus, the net cost of site and buildings was put at £1,050,000. One million and fifty thousand pounds for offices for the County Council ! ! In all probability such offices as were proposed would, however, have cost a million and a half before the whole of the bill was paid (see the statements in the debate in the House of Commons. — Times, 19th February, 1897). Fortunately for the London ratepayers, the Bill was rejected by the House. It is unnecessary at the present time to consider the question of erecting new offices for the Council. It will be time enough to consider that matter when the question of London Govern- ment is settled. Meanwhile it may be doubted whether some of the work on which the enormous staff is employed might not equally well remain undone. And if fresh accommodation is wanted, it is not necessary that it should be sought in Trafalgar Square, one of the most expensive sites in the whole of the Metropolis. Moreover, when the time comes it is to be hoped that the municipal authority of London will not find it necessary to let its ground floor as offices, in order to eke out its expenses. Fancy the ground floor of the Guildhall or the Mansion House being let as shops ! For a gigantic scheme of extravagance on the one hand, and parsimonious folly on the other, the County Hall (Trafalgar Square) scheme, would be difficult to beat. The following are the amounts actually expended by the £^£ en ^" Council out of rate account in each of the years referred to :- tare. Increase or 1888(M.B.W.) £1,310,809 (M. B. W. decrease over Report, p. 183). amount for previous year. 1889-90 £ 1 1890-91 . 2,339,883 (Report, p. 92) . — 1891-92 . 2,209,807 (Report, p. 92) . -130,076 1892-93 . 2,365,718 (Report, p. 116) . + 155,911 1893-94 . 2,516,397 (Report, p. 158) . + 150,679 1894-95 . 2,586,216 (Report, p 140) . + 69,819 1895-96 . 2,669,289 (Report,^. 154) . + 83,073 1896-97 . 2,676,663 (Report, p. 164) . + 7,374 8 THE COUNCIL'S DEBT. Thus the existing Council, in 189G-97, spent £90,447 on rate accounts (exclusive of sums paid out of capital account) move than was spent on the same account in 1894-95, the last year of office of the preceding Council. THE COUNCIL'S DEBT. In addition to the growth of the Council's expenditure on rate account, the Council's debt is growing too. The latest figures showing the amount of this debt are given in the Report of the Finance Committee on page 10 of the Annual Report of the Council for 189G-7. From that report it appears that the Council's net debt shows an increase of £1,542,680 as compared Avith the net debt taken over on the 21st March, 1889, from the Metropolitan Board of Works and the former Counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent, which amounted to £17,563,202. The net debt of the Council on 31st March, 1897, was £19,105,941 13*. 3d. or £420,332 6*. lid. more than on the 31st March, 1894. On the same day the rateable value was £35,824,100. The following is the total net debt of London, exclusive of the debt of the City Corporation : — £ London County Council . . . . . 19,105,942 School Board for London 9,271,131 Metropolitan Asylums Board .... 1,918,225 Metropolitan Police (proportion) . . . . 298,337 £30,593,635 Vestries, Commissioners of Sewers, and District Boards of Works 4,469,479 Guardians, Boards of 2,699,597 Other local bodies 921,518 Total .... £38,684,229 =£2,8G0,129 over one year's rateable value on 31st March, 1897. On the 31st March, 1894, the total net debt. of London, exclusive of the debt of the City Corporation, was £35,610,435, showing an increase of £3,073,794 during the last three years. It is claimed for the Council that the increase in the rate per £ is in respect of " such essential services as main drainage, " fire brigade, parks and open spaces, bridges and ferry, debt, "establishment, and the new services imposed upon the Council." —{Return, No. 192, p. 3.) ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 9 The following figures show the increase in expenditure on some of these services : — Fire Brigade- £ Expenditure in 1888 115,425 >> in 1891-2 128,783 5> in 1893-4 142,997 ?) in 1894-5 158,811 5) in 1895-6 144,307 >> in 1896-7 154,808 Staff, 31st March, 1888 = 677 » „ 1893 = 811 ?! „ 1897 = 938 Parks and Open Spaces — £ Expenditure in 1888 , 42,396 in 1891-2 . 66,803 „ in 1893-4 (incl Liding bands) 87,496 in 1894-5 ( 5) )) / 101,825 in 1895-6 ( „ ) 107,025 in 1896-7 ( , ) 103,566 Bridges and Ferry — £ Expenditure in 1888 12,395 in 1891-2 . 24,521 „ in 1893-4 . 35,201 in 1894-5 . 35,430 in 1895-6 . 27,234 „ in 1896-7 . 27,019 Establishment — Staff : Salaries and wages not chargeable £ to particular heads of services . 1888 55,492 Ditto . 1891-2 61,969 Ditto . 1893-4 75,641 Ditto . 1894-5 82,002 Ditto . 1895-6 88,218 Ditto . 1896-7 91,359 January, 1889, total number of staff =164 March," 1894, „ „ =339 March, 1897, „ „ =377 and 100 temporary assistants, besides 35 messengers, > 1891 10 38 12,501 55 J> J' (I- ondon St itistics, vol. 4, p. 771.) (Exclusive of salary of Parliamentary Agent, £1,100.) 1892 % ? 11,896 5) 5> " 1893 % 1 13,676 55 55 >> 1894 1 1 18,329 55 55 55 1895 1 1 22,774 55 55 55 1896 1 1 11,147 55 55 55 {Return, 19/A May, 1897. Parliamentary expenses, 1892-96.) Printing, Postage, Stationery, &c. 1888 1891-2 (including "Travelling, &c") 1893-4 1894-5 1895-6 1896-7 £ 5,894 11,069 13,511 12,378 10,835 13,170 Works Department. The expenditure on account of the " Works Department " is dealt with later on. * As an example of the wasteful extravagance of the Council, the promotion of the London Water Companies (Transfer) Bills may be mentioned. Particulars as to this will be found under the head of Water Supply. ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 11 NEW SERVICES, &c. TECHNICAL EDUCATION. It appears from the County Rate Return, 1896-7 (p. 5), that the increase of expenditure on " New Services " arises mainly from the action taken by the Council in promoting Technical Education. The rates for these services are as follows : — New Services, including Technical Education. Technical Education . The amount paid out of Rate Account, in respect of Technical Education is as follows : — 1891-2 1892-3 1893-4 1894-5 1895-6 1896-7 •000 •000 •002 ■003 •044 •033 •336 •295 •574 •534 •816 •804 1S9 4-5 1895-6 1896-7 £41,998— (Report, p. 140). 57,000— ( „ p. 154). 120,000— ( „ p. 164). LAPSED PUBLIC HOUSE LICENSES. An appreciable loss to the ratepayers is caused by the practice of the Council in declining to preserve the licences of various public houses which come into their hands in consequence of street widening and other improvements. A complete return of the number of cases in which such licences have been thrown away is published in the Council's Annual Report for 1896-7 (p. 25). It shows that during the Council's term of office thirty licences have been allowed to lapse, and that the value of the licences abandoned amounts to £30,900. This, however, does not represent the real value of all the licences abandoned. In several cases the licences are returned as costing nothing to abandon. In these cases the Committee dealing with the matter stated that the houses were to be removed, and the site formed into part of the roadway ; that, therefore, the licences could not be preserved, and that there would be no loss to the ratepayers. They overlook the fact that the licences might probably have been transferred to a new house in the neighbourhood, and might thus have been made productive. It is also clear that the Council cannot show that the cause of temperance has derived any advantage from their conduct in this respect. Sir John Hutton, in his Annual Address, in 1894 (Report, p. 5), considered that the "policy of abandoning the beer and " spirit licences attaching to premises, when those premises 12 LAPSED PUBLIC HOUSE LICENSES. " are taken for street improvements," is a wise policy ; and Dr. Collins, in his Annual Address, delivered on 20th July, 1897 (Report, p. 2), said : "Since March, 1889, the Council has, " in the course of various improvements and works, come into " the possession of thirty public houses and beer houses whose " licences it has allowed to lapse in accord with the view, which " scarcely permits of dispute, that such licensed premises are ,£ superabundant." The following are instances of licences thus lost, and of the consequent cost to the ratepayers (1897, Report, 25):— " Beaufort Arms " " Swan/' " White Hart " . " Deacon's Music Hall and Sir Hugh Myddleton's Head " " Coopers' Arms " " Ordnance Arms " " Robin Hood " . " Lord Nelson " . " Three Compasses " " White Horse " " Five Ink Horns " . " Victory " ... " Ship "..... " Admiral Vernon " Value of licence. Battersea Bridge . . £4,000 51 " 2,000 5) ' 1,000 Rosebeiy Avenue , 3,000 Black wall Tunnel 3,000 .■) ■ 2,500 5) • 1,000 1,250 Deptford . 2,000 Sandy's Row 1,000 Boundary Street 1,000 55 * 2,500 5> 2,500 55 1,000 FINANCIAL CONTROL. Prior to 1895 no really effective system of control was exercised over the Council's finance. There was a Finance Committee, but the practice was for it to give its views on financial proposals after, instead of before, the Council had voted upon them. As the Finance Committee itself stated (189G, Report, p. 9) : "The effect of the system of submitting estimates " was practically to deprive the Council of any financial advice "from its Finance Committee upon the various proposals for " expenditure brought before it from time to time by committees, "because the statutory estimate was always submitted by the " Finance Committee after the Council hid approved of the proposed "expenditure; and, moreover, as regards expenditure on rate or "maintenance account, it was not possible, under the system of " submitting estimates piecemeal, for small items of expenditure, not " exceeding £50, for the Council or the Finance Committee to " exercise effective control over expenditure." ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. 13 In March, 1895, the Council directed the Finance Committee Financial to consider and report what arrangement could be made by control, which, without unduly limiting the freedom of action of committees which recommend expenditure, the control of the Finance Committee over all the expenditure of the Council could be more completely secured. — (1895, Minutes, p. 287.) It was not until 3rd March, 1896, that the Finance Com- mittee submitted to the Council its report on the foregoing reference ; when it did so, it recommended sweeping changes- (1896, Minutes, p. 217). Briefly, the effect of its recommenda- tions was that all expenditure on rate or maintenance account should be regulated and controlled by means of the annual estimates submitted at the beginning of the financial year, on the principle that when the annual estimate of a committee had been carefully prepared by the committee, scrutinised generally by the Finance Committee, and considered by them and by the Council in its relation to past and current requirements, and to the estimates of other committees, and in its effect upon the county rate for the year, the committee might be left to incur expenditure up to the limit of their estimate, for the purposes mentioned therein, subject to the condition that no liability exceeding £50 should be incurred by a committee without the express sanction of the Council. It was also recommended that the estimates of each com- mittee should be voted separately, under appropriate heads of service, instead of, as formerly, being approved altogether in one resolution. As regards expenditure on capital account, it was proposed that the statutory estimate, together with the Finance Committee's observations upon its financial bearings, should be considered simultaneously with the report of the executive committee recom- mending the proposed expenditure. Suggestions were also made with the view of securing a larger measure of financial regularity, among these being one that an abstract of the finances of the Council should be published annually, on the lines of the statistical abstract of the United Kingdom. It might have been thought that these proposals would have been reasonable enough to satisfy even the most spendthrift Progressive, for they did nothing to limit the power of spending committees beyond providing that the spending committee's pro- posals should be subjected to a careful examination from a financial point of view. It must be concluded, howevei*, that the majority of the Progressive party did not favour a careful financial scrutiny of their expenditure, for when the Finance Committee's report came before the Council, Mr. Charles Harrison (Progressive) moved, 14 FINANCIAL CONTROL. and Mr. Torrance (Progressive) seconded an amendment to the effect that no material change was required in the present procedure, but that the statutory estimate should be before the Council when considering any proposal by any committee to incur any item of expenditure exceeding .£50 ; and that the utmost possible care should be taken in the preparation of the annual estimates, by all committees and by the Council itself, when these estimates were before them each year at the beginning of April. —(1896, Min,, p. 218.) This amendment was opposed by the whole strength of the Moderate party (with two exceptions), and supported by the Progressive party (with some ten exceptions), but it was lost by 47 to 62. Thus the proposals, which, afford a really useful financial control over the Council's expenditure, were only adopted through the support given to sound finance by the Moderate party. 15 SANITARY LAWS : HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASS, We are strongly in favour of giving full effect to the powers possessed by the Council under the Sanitary Laws, as also those relating to the Housing of the Working Class, and we would cordially co-operate in getting an extension of those powers, so as to enable the working class to purchase the freehold of their dwellings, Proof of this is to be found in the following : — " I believe Not a new (t the health of the people to be the most important subject which P oli cy, (t can engage the attention of statesmen." — Disraeli, 3rd April, 1872, Free Trade Hall, Manchester. " The Conservative Party has always leaned, perhaps some* ° what unduly leaned, to the use of the State, so far as it could " properly be used, for improving the physical, moral and intel* " lectual condition of our people, and I hope that that mission the " Conservative Party will never renounce." — Lord Salisbury, 15th July, 1891. The sanitary law under which London is governed at the The sani. present time was, for the most part, passed under Conservative fn?i?5 8 of and Unionist administrations. Prior to 1889 London was behind the rest of the country in this respect. In that year Lord Salis- bury's Government passed the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act, by the provisions of which the prompt notification of any case of the more serious infectious diseases was made compulsory in London, thus enabling the sanitary authorities to do what is, necessary to stop the spreading of infection. In the further carrying out of the traditional policy of the Conservative Party, Lord Salisbury's Government, in 1891, passed through Parliament a most important Act (Public Health (London) Act), to consolidate the Statutes, over thirty in number, which contain the Law of Public Health in London, and to amend the law, so as to give greater power to the 16 HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASS. A Eoyal Commis- sion appointed. More beneficial legislation. Party leaders ready to add to this whenever necessary. authorities, to put clown nuisances and prevent dangers to the public health, to restrict offensive trades, to prevent the over- crowding of dwelling houses or factories, &c, &c, as well as to provide means for compelling any defaulting authorities to do their duty. To the Conservative and Unionist parties is due most of the law relating to the housing of the working classes. Formerly it was embodied in three sets of Acts, known respectively as Shaftesbury's Acts (enabling local authorities to provide lodging houses for letting to the labouring classes) ; Torrehs's Acts (em- powering local authorities to deal with individual houses that were unfit for human habitation) ; and Cross's Acts (giving the authorities power to carry out improvement schemes for streets and houses constituting unhealthy areas). Under Lord Shaftes- bury's Acts scarcely anything was ever done ; very little was accomplished under Mr. Tcrrens's measures ; but under the Acts passed when Mr. (now Lord) Cross was Home Secretary, in Lord Beaconsfield's ministry, many substantial improvements were instituted in London as well as in provincial towns. In 1884, mainly at the instance of Lord Salisbury, a Royal Commission sat to inquire into the working of and suggest improvements in these Acts. In 18t 5 (although in office but a few months) Lord Salis- bury's Government passed an Act amending and improving the then existing Acts. In 1890, Lord Salisbury's Government passed th3 Housing' of the Working Classes Act, which consolidated and largely amended the foregoing and other Acts, declared and explained the duty of local authorities, and strengthened their hands in enforcing sanitary laws. Strong proof of the Conservatives' readiness to promote any further necessary legislation is given in an extract from the speech of Mr. Henry Chaplin, M.P. (now president of the Local Government Board), delivered at Ely, on January 29th, 1392 : — " But, of course, if it can be shown to me either that the Act " (of 1S90) cannot be properly put into force, or that the local " authorities will not do their duty, clearly it will become the " duty of the (Unionist) Government themselves so to amend the " Act as properly to provide for the housing and the l'c-housir.g of ' ; the poorer people as well." And -rain, by the following statement of Sir Michael Hicks- Beach, M.x . (now Chancellor of the Exchequer), at Bristol, on HOUSING OP THE WORKING CLASS. 17 January 7th, 1892 : — " Improvements had been effected by legis- " lation in the condition of the dwellings of the poorer classes. " He was not rash enough to say that the last Act that was neces- " sary had been passed. That was a matter which should never " be absent from the attention of Parliament. It should always " be on the watch to see that if the local authority would not " exercise the powers entrusted to them by the Act, some other " authority should exercise those powers and be put in its " place." The Municipal Policy of the Conservative Party is to give full effect to the powers possessed by the London County Council under these Acts. Mr. Wrightson, the Conservative Member for Stockton, Acquisition introduced a Bill which, was backed by the following Conservative ^n of their M.P.'s, viz. : — Sir John Gorst, Sir Ashmead Bartlett, Rt. Hon. dwellings. James Lowther, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. H. R. Graham (West St. Pancras), Mr. H. Cast, and Sir Albert K. Rollit (South Isling- ton), to enable working men to become owners of their dwellings. This Bill passed the second i-eading in March, 1893. Amend- ments were then proposed by the Radical Government and were accepted by the promoters, on condition of getting the aid of the Government to pass the measure through Committee. The persistent blocking of the Bill by the extreme Radicals pre- vented its passing into law. The same blocking was carried on to the end of the Session of 1894, when the Bill had been brought in again by Mr. Wrightson with the Government amend- ments added. (On its re-introduction it was backed by another London Conservative M.P., viz., Mr. G. 0. T. Bartley (North Islington), and by Mr. J. Collings.) The principle of this Bill (which was backed by three London Conservative members) has received the steady support of the Conservative Party since 1892, and resolutions in its favour have been carried by the representatives attending the Annual Conferences of the National Union of Conservative and Consti- tutional Associations at Sheffield, 1892, Cardiff, 1893, and New- castle, 1894, at the last of which the following resolution was unanimously adopted : — " That this Conference of the National Union of Conservative " and Constitutional Associations hereby confirms the resolutions " passed by the Sheffield Conference, 1892, and by the Cardiff " Conference, 1893, 'That the time has arrived when Parliament " ' may well afford facilities for the acquirement by working men B 18 HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASS. " ' of their own homes, and it appeals to Her Majesty's Govern- " ' ment to give facilities for passing the Bill dealing with this " ' subject, which has already passed the second reading ' ; and " this Conference deplores that the present Government is so " engaged in passing fantastic and vote-catching measures that " the real interests of the working classes in Great Britain are " being sacrificed." On 19th January, 1895, Mr. Balfour, at Ardwick, spoke strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill. He said: — " I can " conceive no object which any statesman could aim at with a " clearer certainty that he was doing permanent good to the " whole fabric of society, that he was strengthening the frame- " work and making it lit to resist all the shocks, both of internal " revolution and of external assaults." — (Times, 21st Jan., 1895.) Lord George Hamilton speaking on 13th Feb., 1895, in reference to Mr. Wrightson's Bill, said : — " The measure was " blocked by a certain section of the Radical party — a section whose u object, it seemed to him, was to reduce to the smallest possible " number the holders of property in this country, in order that " their attack on property might be more effectual. For himself, " he, and those who thought with him, wished to operate in exactly " the reverse direction . . . ." Referring to the financial aspects of the Bill, Lord George pointed out that the maximun liability which would accrue in London was only £120,000 at the very outside, or less than the product of one penny in the £ on the rateable value of London, and less than London had been called \ipon to pay in each of the then last three years for the benefit of having the presence of a Progressive majority at the seat of power in • Spring Gardens, seeing that, in consequence of that majority, London had paid a penny increase of the rates each year. The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in 189G by Sir A. Hickman, the Conservative and Unionist member for Wolverhampton, West. In the second reading debate it was supported by the Unionist Government. Mr. Chaplin (President of the Local Government Board) said the Government would cordially support the second reading, and recommended that, in order to hasten the passage of a really workable measure on the subject, when the Bill had been read a second time, it should be referred to a Select Committee. The attitude of members of the Radical party (although Sir H. Fowler voted for the second reading) may be gathered from HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASS. 10 the fact that Sir C. Dilke objected to the principle embodied in Bill, and moved an amendment, cutting at the very root of the measure. Mr. Asquith, too, in January, 1895, had stated that he was strongly opposed to any scheme of the kind.- — (Daily News, 23rd Jan., 1895.) In 1897 the Bill was again introduced, backed by Sir Howard Vincent, Sir A. Hickman, and others. It was again blocked by the Radicals, and as the Government programme was already more than full, the promoters of this measure, thanks once moi'e to Radical opposition, were again doomed to dis- appointment. The foregoing 1 affords undeniable evidence of the earnest- ness of the Conservative Party in the advocacy of measures calculated to improve the status of British working men and to increase their material well-being. THE COUNCIL'S BUILDING OPERATIONS. The members of the Moderate party have supported the Moderate policy of the present Council in clearing slums with a view to P art y' s • i • ■ attitude the erection of better buildings for the working classes, but their voting power has not been sufficient to prevent the extravagant building operations in which the majority in the Council have indulged, or to successfully oppose the policy of the Radical members in giving so much of the building to the Works Department.— (1897, M., 894.) The accounts of the working class dwellings for the year Loss on ending 31st March, 1897, presented to the Council on '2 1st buildings. December, 1897, shew that up to that date the provision of such dwellings has not been financially successful. This appears to have been partly due to extravagance in original outlay on buildings, and partly to an unusually large expenditure in out- comes. The following is a summary of the figures : — [see over. 20 the council's building operations. r-^ iO> — < i — CD i — i os "-* :B VO 35 © CI Ol CD o 83 1 ^h ^H 1 1 I 1 trt I | 1 ^^ tH co t^ c CI OS CO I— H -r CO I— 1 b- l - co ""8 CS t- OS CO co to a I 31 1 C VO 1 C1 1 ^ 1* - 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 ^ p c~ lO CI co o x **l ec CI CM CM CO l-H "8 § p»a r— i C - en CO CO CO CO l- CI oo S^-^^ ^ i — i gFi ercs bal a cen . *-- - J r 10 00 o o CI -H os CS OS Cc ,__( — l-H — i r-H C\ o t^ CO CO -H i-H ~ ci o =4^ ~\ 1— 1 1 — 1 cj O >o ^o GO 00 o i — i >o cc b- CO CJ CO CO O l-H CC C cS 1—1 1—1 r " H ^ to ci CT tN (N o O CO CI l-H O CO r~* . -H to 00 O 00 oo lO CO ~4. ■X) t^ "6 cc — h l-H >— 1 i 1 bD -HJ lO 3C EC "M Ol OT t~- t^ ~ o ci ^ 3 00 35 i- 00 00 co cr> CO O CI -+■ ■— -r lO l> lO OS 1 — 1 1- o C] r— 1—1 CI rt 4^ 'O X o 43 O 43 <0 -rH /~.l^ ai o l/l CD ^ C OS C4H *3 01 -fe rt rO 1— 1 o "S3 2 cd 00 02 of if a o o 3 O ^ CD 3 c6 o> of cc be • CJD W C tp 'O S _ N TO 0? < 43 o s "T of CC CD a «c •73 43 i—l 43 'C o 43 =4H O >>E 43 5* o 43 > v. ^5 cd cj rz ° 2 o eS DC CO CD <_' 3 "a3 S3 43 CC o 43 43 O D CD <_J - *_ rt -3 o O CO o c« Ph ^s * * * s. d, 9 4 2 2 [1 6 HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASS. 21 » The following figures show that the deficiency on account of the Council's building policy is growing (Minutes, 21st December, 1897) :— £ Net deficiency to 3 1st March, 1896 . 769 Ditto for 1896-97 . . . 1,186 Ditto to 31st March, 1897 . 1,955 It can scarcely be believed, but it is nevertheless true, that progres- ' i the days when the Progressive spirit was altogether paramount sivereck- at Spring Gardens, the Council commenced the erection of lessness. d wellings without even taking the trouble to estimate the probable effect on the rates. In the return relating to these dwellings, issued in December, 1897 (No. 356), the following appears : — " When the Council decided to acquire the Costermongers' " Dwellings in Dufi'erin Street, no estimate on the " probable effect on the County Rate was submitted, " the transaction being prior to the Council's resolution " of 21st March, 1893. " In the case of the dwellings at Poplar, and the cottages " erected in connection with the Blackwall Tunnel at " East Greenwich, the Council decided, without an " estimate before them, to proceed with the buildings, " in view of the urgency of providing accommodation, " and the failure to dispose of the land by auction, subject *' to the re-housing obligation." [The nature of the " urgency " will be seen from the statement below, which shows that very few of the displaced people occupied the Council's new buildings.] In the case of Beachcrol't Buildings, calculations were sub- mitted to the Council, in which the sinking fund was to provide the difference between the total outlay and the estimated selling value at the end of the stock period. On the 21st March, 1893, the Council resolved "that the " rents to be charged for dwellings erected by the Council shall " not exceed those ruling in the neighbourhood, and shall be so 11 fixed as to provide a net return of not less than 3 per cent, (after " allowing for a sinking fund for rebuilding and all outgoings) upon " the value of the land (subject to the obligation to erect dwellings " upon it), plus the cost of building with ordinary foundations, and " that all such dwellings shall be so designed that the cost of '' erection may not exceed a sum which will enable the Council to " carry out the foreuoiiifj conditions." 22 THE COUNCIL'S BUILDING OPERATIONS. Improvi- dent out- lay. Defective kitchen ranges. On the 18th February, 189G, the following resolution was passed by the Council : — " That in all cases where the Council itself decides to erect " dwellings, in preference to selling or letting the land " for that purpose, the rents to be charged for the " dwellings erected, in connection with any specified " housing scheme or area, shall not exceed those ruling "in the neighbourhood, and shall.be so fixed that, after "providing for all outgoings, interest and sinking fund " charges, there shall be no charge on the county rate " in respect of the dwellings on such area or scheme ; " and that all such dwellings shall be so designed that " the cost of erection may not exceed a sum which " will enable the Council to carry out the foi'egoing " conditions. The interest and sinking fund charges " shall be calculated upon the cost of erection, plus the " value of the site, subject to the obligation to build " dwellings for the working classes upon it." This resolution may perhaps prevent, in future erections, such large deficiencies as are occurring in regard to houses already erected. But if it is to have that effect, care must be taken to see that the cost of erecting buildings does not exceed their estimates, as has been the case in buildings erected by the Woi-ks Depart- ment. — See the strong comments of the Finance Committee, on the excess in the Shelton Street case, which is noted later on, under the heading "Works Department" (p. 70). As an instance of the improvident nature of the original outlay, in some of these cases, may be noted the fact that in several of the blocks a comparatively large sum is included in the outgoings in order to provide new kitchen ranges. Many of the ranges originally provided turned out very unsatisfactory. It was found " uttei-ly impossible either to boil or bake" with them, " while, in addition, they were found to smoke, especially on the " upper floors." The Housing Committee naively remark, by way of explanation, " When the Council commenced building, enquiries " were made of the principal companies and individuals owning " dwellings in the metropolis, as to the type of range which was " found most suitable; and after consideration of all the informa- " tion obtained we adopted a range which then appeared to give " general satisfaction." This is an excellent instance of amateur muddling, and it has cost the ratepayers a good many pounds. The choice of a range is a certainty to an ordinary builder acquainted with his HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASS. 23 work ; but it naturally requires experience, and the amateur builders on the Council have bought their experience at the ratepayers' expense. It is needless to say that the original mischief in question was done when the Radicals had the vast preponderance in the Council and its Committees. The net result of the operations shows that the ratepayers, Net result for the next 53 years, will in effect be paying some £1,100 per £ io °g era " annum into a sinking fund, in order that the ratepayers of 53 years hence may come into an unencumbered income of £3,500 per annum.— (1897, M. 510-516.) This should not be. Present ratepayers are willing to take their fair share of burthens, but they demand proper and economical management. The original cost, and also the cost of upkeep, want more consideration than they have received from the Radicals, who hitherto have had the entire responsibility for these branches of the Council's expenditure. OCCUPATION OF THE COUNCIL'S DWELLINGS. The Council's building policy is -unsatisfactory, not only on the ground of cost to the ratepayers, but also on the ground that the buildings are not being occupied by the classes for whom the ratepayers might, in some circumstances, be called upon to help, but by classes altogether superior. Thus, of the 846 heads of families who occupied the Council's dwellings on the 31st March, 1897, there were : — Bakers . . 11 Brought forward 207 Blacksmiths . . 5 Furniture makers . 6 Bookbinders . . 6 Grocers . 8 Bootmakers . Bricklayers . Butchers . 11 . 10 . 17 Horsekeepers Lightermen . Metal workers 7 7 8 Cabinet makers . 21 Moulders 7 Carmen . . 28 Packers 14 Carpenters Clerks . . 19 . 13 Policemen Porters . 33 31 Compositors . Decorators . 5 7 Postmen Publicans 11 6 Dressmakers . . 7 Printers 16 Engineers . 26 Stevedores 8 Firemen 7 Tailors . 27 Foremen . 11 Warehousemen 9 Carried forward . 207 405 24 THE COUNCIL'S BUILDING OPERATIONS. These are only sample cases— there are plenty of others. Only 120 " labourers" are found among the 846. DISPLACED OCCUPIERS. The only instances where persons actually displaced by the Council's operations have availed themselves of the new accommo- dation provided by the Council, are those where the Council had new accommodation ready before the entire destruction of the old. Even these instances are very few. In connection with the Black wall Tunnel Works, 1,210 persons were displaced, and although accommodation for 1,104 persons has already been provided, only nine of the persons displaced have availed themselves of the new accommodation. On the Boundary Street area, 5,719 persons were residing at the date of the scheme in 1890 ; and although there was, on the 31st March, 1897, a population of over 1,500 persons on that part of the area which has been rebuilt, only 1 1 of these were living on the area when the Council commenced operations. — (Working Class Dwellings Return, 356 of 1897, p. 16.) Housing policy should be recon- sidered. From the foregoing facts it will be seen that the whole housing policy of the Council requires to be reconsidered with the view (1) of ascertaining whether the obligations devolving upon the Council in the case of displaced families cannot be better met ; and (2) of arranging that the ratepayers shall not, as regards future erections, be chargeable with large annual deficits. 25 WATER SUPPLY. We are in favour of the County Council acting in concert with Her Majesty's Government to secure an arrangement by which a sufficient Water Supply shall be made available for the public, subject to efficient central control, and not at undue cost to the consumer. Wanton opposition on the part of the Radicals prevented Radical London's water supply from being purchased for London by the \qqqJ *" Conservatives, nearly 18 years ago. The water supply of London is the property of eight companies. In August, 1879, there was a discussion on the subject in the Conserva- House of Commons, and in consequence, Lord Beaconsfield's w niing to Ministry undertook to deal with the matter. In March, 1880, obtain^ Mr. (now Lord) Cross introduced a Bill in Parliament by which it was proposed to purchase the undertakings of the eight companies upon terms already provisionally agreed upon. — (Times, 3rd March, 1880, p. 7.) If the agreements had been carried out, the total actual cost of the undertakings would have been £33,018,830, a portion of which was to be paid by immediate annuities, in consideration of the existing net income of the companies, and the remainder by deferred annuities in regard of the anticipated increase from year to year of their revenue. — (Select Committees Report, 1880, p. iv.) The Radicals violently opposed the scheme, and as a dissolu- Kaiicais tion of Parliament was imminent it was postponed until after the opposed, general election. On the 3rd June, 1880, SirWm. Harcourt, avIio had succeeded Appoint a Lord Cross as Home Secretary, moved the appointment of a Select jjjj mmit fcpa Committee to inquire into and report on the expediency of acquiring for London the undertakings of the existing water companies, and to consider whether the agreements entered into afforded a satisfactory basis for such an acquisition. The Conservatives warned the Government that the terms of the reference were calculated to hang up the settlement of the 20 WATER SUPPLY. Extra costs incurred. question for an indefinite period, and to greatly increase the ultimate cost to the ratepayers. But Sir Wni. Harcourt obstinately persisted in his proposal. The result was that the provisional agreements with the water companies were allowed to fall through. It was alleged at the time that the sum to be paid to the companies was excessive, but, with the light of subsequent experience, it is now admitted that the bargain was the best that could have been made, and that the cost of the undertakings to-day must be very much greater than it would have been 18 years ago. Among other things this Select Committee recommended that the supply should be placed under the control of some public body which should represent the interests and command the confi- dence of the water consumers ; that in the absence of any single municipal body to which the functions of water authority could be committed, an authority of a representative character should be constituted ; and that a Bill having that object should be introduced at an early date by Her Majesty's Government. The Select Committee also recommended that for certain purposes, at least, it would be desirable to acquire the undertakings of the existing companies, if the same could be obtained upon fair terms. No effort was made by Mr. Gladstone's Government to carry out these recommendations, and for some years nothing further was done. In 1890 the City Corporation undertook an inquiry on its own account, which was presided over by Sir W. Guyer Hunter. Meanwhile the Conservatives had passed the Local Govern- ment Act, 1888, and in 1889 the first London County Council was elected. That Council desired to make inquiries on the subject, and Lord Salisbury's Ministry gave them powers for the purpose in the Session of* 1890. Almost contemporaneously concerted action with the same object was taken by the Vestries and District Boards of London. On the 19th June, 1890, a conference of these bodies was held at the instance of the Vestry of St. James, Westminster, and the following resolution was unanimously passed by 32 out of 40 representatives of* tlie Vestries and District Boards : — " That in view of the fact that the quinquennial valuation of " the metropolis now in progress will augment the charge " to consumers for the same supply of water as is enjoyed by " them at the present time, and thereby increase by a very " large sum the value of the property of the water companies, the " Government be requested forthwith to introduce a Bill to enable WATER SUPPLY. 27 " the London County Council, or some other properly repre- " sentative body, to acquire the undertakings of the eight water " companies now supplying London, or some of them, by agree- " ment, or, failing agreement, to create a board of arbitrators to " settle the terms of transfer by compulsory powers, or to give " power to establish an independent supply." A Bill was promoted to carry this resolution into effect, m ^ t g§ ro " which, with the City Corporation and other Bills, was referred Not satis- to a Select Committee, of which Sir M. White Bidley was measures, Chairman. The Committee reported that neither of the Bills for the constitution of a new water authority appeared calculated to effect a satisfactory solution of the problem. The Committee at the same time recommended (amongst other things) : — That powers should be granted to the London County Council to expend such further sum as may be reasonably necessary, in order that they may examine thoroughly for themselves, as the responsible municipal authority of London, the whole position of the Metropolitan water supply, and come to a conclusion as to the policy which, for financial and other reasons, it is desirable to adopt : That, if they should so resolve, they should have power to promote a Bill or Bills in Parliament for the purpose of consti- tuting themselves the responsible water authority for London, acting through a statutory Committee, appointed either wholly by themselves or partly in conjunction with the Corporation of the City of London . . . such statutory Committee to com- prise a certain number of members possessing special knowledge and qualifications; not necessarily members of the body or bodies appointing : That the London County Council, if constituted the water authority, should be required to purchase, either alone or in con- junction with such of the authorities of the outside areas as may be arranged, the undertakings of the eight water companies (except possibly certain lands of the New River Company) by agreement, or, failing agreement, by arbitration, within a fixed period. Sir M. W. Ridley's Committee did not investigate the Royal Corn- quality and quantity of the London water supply. report 'on That, however, has since been done by a Boyal Commission quality appointed by Lord Salisbury's Ministry in 1892. That Com- tity of an ' mission published a long report in September, 1893 (C. 7,172 of supply. 1893), and from their conclusions (p. 71) the following is extracted : — 28 WATER SUPPLY. " We are strongly of opinion that the water, as supplied to " the consumer in London, is of a very high standard of excellence " and purity, and that it is suitable in quality for all household " purposes. " From the sources and by the methods we have mentioned, " a daily supply of 420,000,000 gallons can, in our opinion, be " obtained. This is a sufficient quantity to supply 35 gallons "ahead to a population of 12,000,000 persons, which is about " three-quarters of a million in excess of what the total population " of Greater London, together with the outlying parts of Water " London, will have become in 1931, even if the l-atio of increase " in the decennial period from 1881 to 1891 is fully main- " tained." luvvivTc 1 These statements disprove the assertions of the Radicals ' " made in 1880, and repeatedly since, that the water supplied by the companies is unfit for use; that it is insufficient for future London, and that, instead of purchasing the undertakings of the companies, an alternative supply should be procured by the London County Council. The following figures are important : — The population supplied by the London water companies, October, 1897 . 5,738,361 Average daily supply during the month of October, 1897 . . . . . . 203,834,045 gals. Houses supplied (same month) . . 850,998 Area of storage reservoirs for unliltered water ... ... G47 acres. holding 2,249,100,000 gals. Capacity of filtered water reservoirs . 226,150,000 gals. Amount of capital expended by the eight water companies : — (a) up to end of 1880 . . .£12,582,807 (b) „ „ 1896 . . £16,531,345 Amount expended out of capital in sixteen years, since the rejection of Mr. Cross's arrangement for the purchase of the undertakings before referred to £3,948,438 In other words, between 1880 and 1896 the eight companies have increased their capital expenditure by 31*3 per cent. Opposition Apart from the increased amount of capital which will be of 1880 has necessary to purchase the undertakings, the public have also lost, by the failure to purchase in 1880, a considerable sum which would have been saved through the reduction of expenses con- WATER SUPPLY. 29 sequent on the union of the undertakings under one management. Lord Cross estimated that in staff' and engineering operations alone ,£50,000 and upwards would have been saved in the tix'st year after taking over the works. The absolute necessity of having a Council in which the Is the public can place confidence to deal with this question is obvious. P iesen .t T» r - j il , 1 • -I ,™ ,1 rr,- ■ COUnCll -Referring to the proposed purchase m lbb>0, the Ttmes, in a majority leading article, remarked, " the scheme is equal in its dimensions com P eten ' 1 ' " to the settlement of the financial and political constitution of " many a European State." One of the last acts of the Council of 1892-5 in connection with the water supply question was to pass the following resolu- tions (1895, M., 1GG): — " (1) That the Council is of opinion that the scheme for a system Views of " of storage reservoirs, presented to the Royal Commis- H 16 ,.^ " sion on Water Supply by the water companies, coupled council " with the proposal to abstract large additional quantities " of water from the rivers, is not the proper method of " meeting the future wants of London. " (2) That any further capital expenditure on works in the " Thames and Lea valleys for the supply of London " should be regarded as of a temporary character, and " should be restricted to such improvements as may be " for the time indispensable. " (3) That the true solution of the problem is the obtaining " of the necessary additional supplies from a purer " source ; and that accordingly the Water Committee be " instructed to proceed with the preparation of a scheme " to be presented for the consideration of the Council as " soon as possible, with n view to an application to " Parliament for the necessary powers." The following amendment, supported by the Unionist party in the Council, was rejected : — " That in view of the facts disclosed by the report of the " W'ater Committee, which lead to the conclusion that " the acquisition by the Council of the water companies' " undertakings, together with the promotion of an " additional supply, may involve the Council in an " outlay of over fifty millions, it is essential, before " the Council is asked to commit itself farther, that the " financial aspect of the whole question should be con- '• sidered." It will be observed that the resolution passed by the Council was in direct antagonism to the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1893. 30 WATER SUPPLY. The exist- ing Coun- cil's action Welsh scheme. Their Transfer Bills, see 1896 Re- port, p. 75. Council's resolu- tions of 1895 (Radical majority), This was the state of things when the existing County Council came into office. Looking at the result of the polling, and considering that the policy of the Council of 1892-5 was definitely condemned by the electors in 1895, it might have been hoped that a different policy would have been pursued. Unfortunately the voice of the electors, as declared in 1895, was paralysed by the existence of a number of Radical aldermen who had been unfairly put into office by the old Councils, and who were sufficient to give to the Radical party the control of the Council's business. The result has been that the policy of the Council of 1892-5 has been persisted in, and the present Council have maintained throughout their career a perverse and wrong-headed attitude, which has made a settlement altogether hopeless as long as the Radical element continues in power at Spring Gardens. In a word the Council have endeavoured to thrust upon the metropolis a scheme of procuring a supply from the Welsh uplands, in the neighbourhood of the Usk, and having done this to compel the eight existing London Water Companies to sell their undertakings at an unfair pi'ice. In July, 1895, the Water Committee of the new Council obtained sanction to spend £2,500 in making further surveys and obtaining further information in connection with their Welsh scheme (M., 730 and 76G). Meanwhile the Council were proceeding with the eight Bills which the Council of 1892-5 had decided to bring before Parlia- ment to enable them to purchase the companies' undertakings. When the two test Bills came before the Select Committee (June, 1895) of the House of Commons, objection was taken to the arbitration clause as being unfair to the companies, and before the matter was finally settled, Parliament was dissolved and the Bills stood over. The Council then passed the following resolutions (1895, M., 1191), on 17th December, 1895 :— " (I) That Her Majesty's Government be asked whether " they will promote or assist legislation dealing with the " Metropolitan Water Supply on the following lines : " that the entire control of the water supply within the " area of the County of London shall be in the hands of " the London consumers, directly represented by the " County ' Council in conjunction with the City Cor- " poiation ; that the consumers in the metropolitan " water area outside the county shall not be denied, or " deprived of, similar rights in their respective areas ; " and that the purchase price of the existing water " undertakings shall not be assessed under the provi- WATER SUPPLY. 31 " sions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, but " shall be based upon the fair and reasonable value of " those undertakings, due regard being had to the " rights, special circumstances, and obligations of the " companies ; also that the Parliamentary Committee be " instructed to report as to the reply of Her Majesty's " Government immediately after the recess. " (2) That the Council do authorise negotiations to be " initiated by the Water Committee with the water "■ companies for the purchase of their undertakings. " (3) That with a view to the Council coming to a decision " on the pressing question of new sources of supply as " compared with a scheme of storage reservoirs, the " Water Committee be instructed to report their final " conclusions without delay." The first of these resolutions, however, is very different to Resolu- the resolution which the Parliamentary Committee of the Council t ions . of invited it to pass. The following is the resolution which was sent menta r y up to the Council by that Committee : — Committee " (1) That Her Majesty's Government be invited — (Unionist " (a) To constitute by Act of Parliament a public authority majority). " for the water area defined above. " (b) To vest in such authority when constituted the " powers now exercised by the metropolitan authorities " under the Metropolis Water Acts in reference to " the water companies, and certain of the powers now " possessed by the Local Government Board, with a " view to improved administration and efficient " control. " (c) To confer upon such authority power to negotiate " for the purchase of the i-espective undertakings of " the water companies, and to give effect to such " purchase in such manner as may be found expedient, " and if thought fit to seek Parliamentary powers " for the acquisition of the undertakings otherwise " than by agreement, and for dealing with the whole ' ; question, including that of future supply." The proposal was defeated by a majority of seven, 49 voting for it and 50 voting for the amendment, which appears as the first of the three resolutions quoted above — (1895, M., 1191.) In reference to this difference between the majority of the Objections Council and the majority of its Parliamentary Committee the to the following facts should be borne in mind : The county of London C °^p" al g for which the Council desires to be the water authority is one- 32 WATER SUPPLY. seventh only of the area, the water requirements of which, according to the report of the Royal Commission of 1893, have to be considered. The area of possible supply of the eight water companies is 620 square miles in extent, of which that of the county of London is 121 square miles only. The area of Greater London, i.e , the City and Metropolitan Police district, embraces 701 square miles. Outside this area again are certain outlying districts covering about 144 square miles, which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of 1893, should be included within the water area. The total area, the water requirements of which have to be considered, is therefore 845 square miles. 9 uter The districts outside the county, though only containing; at London re- . . . quires con- P resen ^ !l population of one million and a quarter, or one-fourth sideration. of that of the county of London, may by 1931 (in the event of the estimate of the Commissioners as to the total population of the water area by that date proving correct), possess a population exceeding that of London. It is largely the growing needs of outer London that will render the provision of new or improved sources of supply necessary. The water question is one of the greatest importance to outer London as well as to inner London, and as suburban villages are rapidly growing into populous towns the necessity for providing efficient means of preventing pollution of sources of supply is of increasing importance in the interests of all concerned. It is, therefore, essential for the complete settlement of the question that a body should be created which shall represent the interests and command the confidence of the water consumers throughout the water area. How the The system of water management and distribution, which was Radicals contemplated by the Council when it resolved on 3rd July, 1 894, that W °thO t tne Bills should be prepared, is shown by the proposals submitted London. D y the Council to the conference of representatives of the outside authorities held on 30th July, 1894. These proposals were as follows : — 1. That the Council should be placed under the obligation to supply water to the local authorities outside the county, but within the area at present supplied by the Metropolitan Water Companies, upon such terms as may be agreed or decided by arbitration. 2, That any local authority outside the county should have the option either — (a) Of purchasing on suitable terms so much of the works of distribution as is appropriated to the district of such local authority, with the right to a supply of water in bulk from the London County Council on terms to be arranged : or — WATER SUPPLY. 33 (b) Of having water supplied direct by the London County Council. It is clear from these proposals that the Council had then in view the system which has been generally adopted in provincial towns. The corporations of such towns in many cases supply the consumers of the outside districts direct; in other cases they supply the district authorities with water in bulk, for distribution amongst their own consumers. In almost every case, however, the control of the sources of supply remains in the hands of the corporation, so that, while thei-e may be several distributing authorities, there is but one supplying authority. There is, no doubt, much to be said for this system, but the fact must be faced that the authorities of the districts surrounding London were practically unanimous in declining to accept it when put forward by the Council. The Outer chairman of the Middlesex County Council stated that the London ' s proposals of the London Council were " entirely unacceptable, not ° ^ ec lons ' " only to Middlesex, but also to Surrey and Kent," and contended that " inasmuch as the sources of supply are beyond the county of " London and are within the counties of Hertford, Middlesex and " Surrey, those counties should have the right, if they think fit, of " purchasing, by such machinery as should be approved, the portions " of the undertakings which are appropriate to the county." In consequence of this contention on the part of the outside authorities, the Council consented to a departure from the system originally contemplated. The London Council agreed to give Council to the Surrey County Council the option of purchasing not changes only works of distribution but also a portion of the sources of front ' supply. That principle having been once conceded, the Council was committed to the policy of complete severance of the outside districts from London, and agreements having that object were accordingly entered into or were under consideration with various authorities. The question of apportioning sources of supply Serious presented considerable difficulties. Even assuming that the objection difficulties could have been ultimately overcome, the result would to ir have been to create several water authorities and to sacrifice all the pr0 p 0Sa i advantages in the direction of uniformity and economy which would be secured by unification of the supply. Regardingthe matter from the point of view of the agreements actually entered into, and supposing it conceivable that similar terms could have been arranged with the other authorities, those agreements would have been of doubtful advantage to the London ratepayers, seeing that they dealt only with the present sources of supply, and left the most important and pressing question of future supply untouched Having regard therefore to the circumstances of the What is case it is clear that what is wanted is a public authority for the wanted, whole water area. 34 THE COUNCIL'S WATER BILLS. Lord James's Water Board Bill. The foregoing remarks are taken from a report made to the Council by its Parliamentary Committee on 5th December, 1895. —(1895, JI., 1166.) In 1896 the Unionist Government introduced a Bill into the House of Lords dealing with the want which the Council's Par- liamentary Committee had indicated. The object of the Bill was to provide for the establishment of a Board to deal with the supply of water to so much of the Counties and County Boroughs of London, Middlesex, Essex, Hertford, Kent, Surrey, West Ham and Croydon, as is situated within the metropolitan water area. The Board was to consist of 27 members, of whom 16 were to be chosen by the London C. C, and their powers were to extend to the County of London and to every parish outside that county, to the whole cr any part of which any metropolitan water company is for the time being authorised to supply water. The Bill was introduced on the 16th March, 1896. The _ On the 24th March, 1896, Mr. Stuart moved the second Council's reading of the Council's eight deferred Bills, but being opposed by Mr. Chaplin, President of the Local Government Board, they failed to pass. Mr. Chaplin's conditions. Mr. Chaplin made it a condition precedent that compen- sation should be paid to the companies under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1847; in other words, that if the Council wished to buy the undertakings of the water com- panies they must do so on the principles that had for the last 50 years governed the compulsory purchase of land and property for piiblic undertakings. The Council, however, wished to have a Council's special law made to enable them to get private property on their act of " special arbitration " terms ; and as the Government refused to injustice, perpetrate this act of injustice, they opposed the Council's scheme, and it accordingly fell to the ground. The Council claim that the ratepayers of the metropolis would have obtained the water undertakings at a less cost under their clause than under the Lands Clauses Act. This may possibly be true, but the Unionist party will not sanction a gross injustice, even to benefit the ratepayers. U ter ^' ie difficulty experienced in passing the Government Water London Board Bill was the constitution of the new Boai'd. The Councils objects to of counties outside London objected to the control being practically t c County j n |] 1(> hands f ^] ie London Council, and they expressed the wish that the outside Councils should have control of their own supplies. Objections to this course could readily be made, but the question WATER SUPPLY. 35 whether the scheme could usefully be modified to meet them could not be answered until further information had been obtained as to the precise position of the outside Councils. The Bill of 1896 was therefore withdrawn. In 1897 the Council's Council again promoted in Parliament eight Bills for purchasing P ul * cn . ase the undertakings of the several companies. It is scarcely 2^97 necessary here to indicate the differences between these Bills and those which preceded them in 1896. The main objects of the 1897 Bills were as follows : — (1) Council to be empowered to purchase by agreement. (2) If no agreement within one year Council to purchase compulsorily on arbitration terms. (3) The arbitration clause enabled the arbitrators to fix a fair and reasonable value, having regard to all the circumstances ; to consider all contentions, and receive all evidence, but not to make allowance for compulsory sale, except to meet the cost of re-investment. (4) Council to take possession of the undertakings at the end of the Company's financial year next but one after passing of the Act, whether purchase money had been fixed or not. (5) The London County Council, acting with the City Corporation, to be the authority for supplying water within the County of London ; outside Councils to have power to purchase works of distribution in their respec- tive areas, and also to have power, by agreement, to take over and administer the entire water supply of such areas. Negotiations were entered into with the outside Councils, Outer and it was found that all the authorities interested were strongly London's of opinion that in the event of purchase the supply of water in y^JL their respective areas should be placed under their control. The representatives of the County of Middlesex were entirely opposed to the purchase of the companies' undertakings, but arrangements with several of the other counties were agreed upon. It is clear, however, that with the diverging views of the outside authorities, the Bills, even if they had passed, would have resulted in dire confusion. The attitude of those authorities is a new factor in the situation, the basis of which has never been inquired into by any of the Commissions which have investi- gated the subject of metropolitan water supply. The Government, therefore, determined to appoint a B,oyal Commission : — (1) To inquire and report whether, having regard to financial Royal Corn- considerations and to present and prospective require- mission to 36 A ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED. inquire^ merits, as regards water supply in the districts within scope of * ne nm ^ s °f su ppty or " the metropolitan water companies, inquiry. it is desirable in the interests of the ratepayers and water consumers in those districts that the undertakings of the water companies should be acquired and managed (a) by one authority, or (b) by several authorities, and, if so, what should be such authority or authorities ; to what extent physical severance of the works and other property and sources of supply of the several companies, and the division thereof between different local authori- ties within the limits of supply, are practicable and desirable, and what are the legal powers necessary to give effect to any such arrangements. (2) If the undertakings are not so acquired, whether addi- tional powers of control should be exercised by local or other authorities, and, if so, what those powers should be. (3) Whether it is practicable to connect any two or more of the different systems of supply, now administered by the eight metropolitan companies, and, if so, by whom and in what proportions should the cost of connecting them be borne, and what are the legal powers necessary to give effect to any such arrangement. — (Thnes, 31st March, 1897.) With this object in view Mr. Chaplin opposed the second reading of the Purchase Bills, and they were rejected in the House of Commons by 258 to 123. The Royal Commission was nominated soon afterwards. Pending the report of the Commission the Government, in 1897, passed an Act which gives to local authorities, as well as to individuals, the power to complain to a special court of law if they have reason to believe that any of the water companies has failed to perform any of its statutory duties ; and the court may, if satisfied, order the company within a limited time to fulfil its duty, and may impose a penalty for failure. Similarly, com- plaint may be made to the same court if the quantity or quality of the water, supplied for domestic use by any of the companies, is not satisfactory, and the court may, if satisfied, order the company, within a reasonable time, to remove the ground of com- plaint, and may award damages to the complainant. — {Metrop. Water Act, 1897.) REMARKS ON THE PURCHASE SCHEME. Financial rp] ie p lircuase f the undertakings of the London Water purchase Companies is advocated by many on the ground that it would enable a large profit to be placed to the relief of the rates. Would it? Mr. Chap- lin's Water Act of 1897 gives increased control. WATER SUPPLY. 37 The following calculations are Sir John Lubbock's : — Total value of Water Companies' Stock in Novem- ber, 1895, according to the Comptroller of the London County Council . . " . . . £35,400,000 Probable cost on compulsory purchase . . . £37,000,000 Net profits of the water companies . . . £ 1,170,000 = a shade over 3 per cent, on £37,000,000. Now, the profit on Metropolitan Stock is -^ ; add to this 5 per cent, for cost of management of that stock, and we find that the cost of the stock to the ratepayer is 2| per cent. Assuming that Metropolitan Stock were issued to the water companies' shareholders for the purchase of their property on a basis of 2| per cent., there would only be a margin of about ^ per cent, to indemnify the ratepayers for undertaking the gigantic responsibility, even if the expenditure were as economical under public as under private management. But the purchase of the undertakings would more than double the metropolitan debt. Sir J. Lubbock thinks it doubtful whether we could double, or more than double, that debt without raising the rate of interest. If there were a rise of even | per cent., then, instead of making a profit on the purchase, there would, on a debt of £70,000,000, be a loss of £175,000 a year. Further, the cost of the undertakings would have to be re- Rates deemed. The longest time allowed bv Parliament for the redemp- would tion of municipal loans is 60 years. To redeem £37,000,000 in 60 years would require £280,000 a year, and this would raise London rates If per cent. — (Times, 9th November, 1896.) If, however, as Sir John Lubbock fears, the interest on Probable metropolitan debt were raised by ^ per cent, in consequence of increased doubling its amount, the increase of metropolitan expenditure +Jr annually would be On account of increase of interest on debt . . £175,000 On account of redemption fund .... 280,000 increase. £455.000 Very nearly 1 a million annually. Now, as a rate of Id. in the £ on the present rateable value and rate, of London brings in about £150,411.* it would require an annual rate of over 3d. in the £ to meet this increased expenditure in consequence of the purchase of the existing water supply of London by the County Council. * Animal Report for 1N!)i3-7, p. L. 383701 38 THE COUNCIL'S PURCHASE SCHEMES. COST OF THE COUNCIL'S WELSH SCHEME. Cost of The ambition of the Council in regai'd to water supply does Welsh scheme tov.-n'j. not stop there. They have developed a scheme for the importa- tion of water from Wales, and the following is the estimate of cost presented to the Council by the Water Committee (1896, M. 192) :— Head works in Wales . . . .£8,135,000 Aqueduct from Wales to Elstree . , 7,160,000 Ditto „ „ to Banstead . . 8,070,000 Works at Elstree 4,850,000 Works at Banstead 5,500,000 33,715.000 Contingencies, 10 per cent. . . . 3,371,500 Professional and Parliamentary expenses. 1,685,750 £38,772,250 Say £38,800,000 for 415 million gallons a day. This is the total cost of the scheme as laid before the Council ; but it is fair to the committee to say that they do not propose to embark in the whole of this expenditure at once. They think it will be sufficient to start on the Elstree scheme in the first instance, from which they anticipate a supply of 182 million gallons a day, at a cost of £17,500,000. In calculating the cost of the whole venture, however, the total must be taken . . £38,800,000 Cost of purchasing the existing undertakings of the companies ...... £37,000,000 £75,800,000 Even if we deduct 7 millions from the purchase-money, and place the price at £30,000,000, Mr. W. H. Dickinson's figure, the cost amounts to £68,800,000. The ambitious schemes of the Radical majority of the existing Council will, therefore, involve the ratepayers in an expenditure of from 69 to 76 millions sterling. Experi- In connection with the transfer of water undertakings from ence of private to municipal management, it may be useful to inquire other j n ^ £} ie experience of other towns which have purchased the undertakings of water companies. The following statement gives the information available : — WATER SUPPLY. 39 1. Profit producing works — Former Companies' charges reduced: Barrow, Birkenhead, Birmingham, Leicester, Lincoln . 5 Cardiff' has reduced the water charge, but levies a public water rate in addition. Former Companies 1 charges increased : Hudders- field . . 1 Former Companies' charges retained : Brighton, Nottingham, Reading, Sheffield . . .4 2. Loss producing works — Former charge reduced . . . . . .0 Former charge retained: Bury, Derby, Newport 3 Former charge increased : Blackburn, Northamp- ton, Oldham, Rochdale . . . . .4 3. Cases in which there is no record of former Com- panies' charges . . . . . . .16 Thus, according to the London County Council return of Not re- the 33 cases in which the municipality has purchased works from ass 111111 ?- water companies, a comparison can be instituted between former and present charges in only 17. In five of these the charges have been reduced, and in five they have been increased ; whilst in seven the old charges have been retained. There is not much hereto make the ratepayers burn for purchase. — (London Count g Council Return, March, 1895.) THE WATER FAMINE IN EAST LONDON IN 1895 AND 1896. Due to the Action of the London County Council. The partial failure of the water supply in East London through drought, in 1895 and 1896, drew down a great deal of odium on the East London Water Company. But when the facts came to be inquired into it was clearly shown that the fault did not arise from the conduct of the Company. Although their storage capacity was larger than that of any other metropolitan company, they knew that the circumstances of the population supplied by them made it necessary that they should increase their storage accommodation. Accordingly they introduced bills into Parliament to enable them to make the increase. The result may be stated in the words of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Chaplin), in the House of Commons, on 11th March, 1897 (Times report). " It was right," said Mr. Chaplin, " that the House should ji r# chap- " be reminded of what it was that led to the water famine in 1890. lin's view. 40 THE FAMINE IN 1895 AND 1896. Company opposed by the Council in 1893 and 1894. Company have increased storage. Cost of Council's opposition, " There was no escape from the conclusion that the famines that " occurred in the East end of London were caused by the want of " sufficient storage for the water supply of the East London " Company, and that insufficiency of storage power was due " to the action of the London County Council in the year 1893. " The East London Company, who had foreseen the necessity " for making further application for storage, and were " prepared to do so, in that year introduced a Bill " for the purpose. But that Bill was opposed with " all the power they could bring against it by the London " County Council ; and although they were warned of the danger '•' of their course, and although it was pointed out to them by no " less an authority than the Chairman of Committees that they " would incur great responsibility, the County Council insisted on " throwing out the Bill. Again, in 1894, the East London " Company, in the fulfilment of its duty, came before Parliament " with another Bill on the subject, and again it was opposed by " the London County Council, and not only by the Council, but " by the President of the Local Government Board at the time — " Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. On that occasion, however, happily the " London County Council and the President of the Local Govern- " ment Board were defeated, though only by a majority of one. " If the Bill had been defeated on that occasion he (Mr. Chaplin) " trembled to think what might have been the consequences to " the inhabitants of the East of London last year. The happy " consequence of the defeat of the Council was that to-day the " position was altogether different, for the works contemplated " in that Bill had been rapidly proceeded with, and when " completed the storage power of the Company would be " absolutely doubled. Prior to March, 1896, the East London " Company possessed reservoirs to store 600,000.000 gallons. " At the commencement of this year they had, as a consequence " of the Bill which had been so bitterly opposed by the Council, " increased the storage to 1,000 million gallons, and within the " next few weeks the storage will he increased to 1,200 million " gallons." [It is worthy of remark that the L.C.C. spent £1,435 in opposing in Parliament the East London "Water Company's Bills of 1893 and 1894.] Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, now a Radical member of the London County Council, in a letter to the Times of 20th March, 1897, stated that in his belief the water famine was mainly due to the effects of the severe frost in the previous winter upon the pipes of the Company, which in many districts were laid at an insufficient depth below the surface. WATER SUPPLY. 41 This was the defence of the L.C.C. itself at the time, and it L.C.C. employed eminent counsel to press that view at the public inquiry defence held at Hackney by inspectors of the Local Government Board into the causes of the water famine, and it was supported by the evidence of Mr. Binnie, the Council's engineer. What was the result ? The inspectors, after a prolonged and not proved, exhaustive investigation, reported that this theory had not been proved at the inquiry, and that the scarcity was not to be accounted for by the shattered mains, as suggested by Mr. Binnie, the Council's engineer and chief witness. COMPARISON OF LONDON WATER SUPPLY WITH THAT OF CERTAIN LARGE PROVINCIAL TOWNS WHERE THE WORKS ARE MANAGED BY THE BOROUGH COUNCILS. 1. Average amount of water supplied daily durim eight months of 1896 per head of population: — Manchester Liverpool Birmingham Leeds London . 25*8 gallons. 28-3 „ 24-1 „ 34-9 „ 38-1 „ the first London supplied better than other towns, 2. During August, 1896, the psriod of the so-called famine, the amount of water supplied per head daily by the East London Company was equal to that of Manchester and superior to that of Birmingham. In each of the first eight months of 1896, except August, each of the London Companies supplied more water per head than the municipalities of Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham. 3. Cost of the water supply of towns to houses of the rate- and able value of— cheaper. £10 £20 £30 £50 £100 Manchester . Liverpool Birmingham . London . s. d. 11 13 6 10 9 9 £s. d. 1 1 1 5 11 1 10 19 7 £ s. d. 1 11 1 17 2 2 10 1 9 8 £ s. d. 2 10 3 9 3 5 3 4 £ s. d. 5 6 1 6 6 5 13 8 4. It is said by the London County Council that London's London water supply should come from a purer source. It is difficult to tv P n °id 42 TYPHOID STATISTICS. rate compare the purity of different supplies, but there is one test lower. which will be popularly understood. Deaths from typhoid fever are generally attributed, in a great measure, to impurity of water supply. Hence the death rate from typhoid fever affords some index to the purity of the water supply of a town. Compare the following : — Typhoid Death Bate per 100,000. 1895. Manchester and Salford .... 30 Liverpool ....... 37 Birmingham . . . . . . 17 Leeds ....... 21 London . . . . . . . 14 Quality of On the question of quality the following extract from the London Beport of the Boyal Commission of 1893 is important : — ^ a e , r " We are strongly of opinion that the water, as supplied to " the consumer in London, is of a very high standard of excel- " lence and of purity, and that it is suitable in quality for all " household purposes. We are well aware that a certain preju dice " exists against the use of drinking water derived from the " Thames and the Lea, because these rivers are liable to pollution, " however perfect the subsequent purification, either by natural " or artificial means may be ; but having regard to the experience " of London during the last 30 years, and to the evidence given " to us on the subject, we do not believe that any danger exists " of the spread of disease by the use of this water, provided that " there is adequate storage, and that the water is efficiently filtered " before delivery to the consumers." — (Report, para. 178, page 71.) Since the above report was made great progress has been made by the metropolitan companies both in providing additional filter beds and in enlarging their storage accommodation. 5. Much stress has been laid, by advocates of the Council's schemes, on the fact that frost and drought have interrupted the regularity of the supply of London companies, and it is suggested that this would have been avoided had the supply been under the control of the London County Council. As regards drought, it has already been stated that the daily average supply per head to London exceeds that of many of the principal towns where the supply is the property of the cor- poi'ation, and it did so during the worst periods of the so-called water famines in recent years. As regards frost, there can be no doubt that many of the mains burst because they were not laid sufficiently deep. The WATER SUPPLY. 43 depth, however, was for the most part sufficient for ordinary frosts, and it must be remembered that the frost of 1895 was altogether exceptional. During that frost, moreover, the bursting of mains was not confined to London. It happened everywhere, and was experienced in the towns where corporations owned the supply just as much as in London. The truth is that the mains were laid as deep as past experience had shown to be enough. Engineers have now modified their views on this subject, and most of the water mains through- out London, that suffered from the 1895 frost, have been relaid considerably deeper than before. COST OF PARLIAMENTARY ACTION OF THE COUNCIL IN RELATION TO WATER BILLS. Since the formation of the Council it has spent £32,512 in L.C.C. promoting its own water Bills and in opposing water Bills pro- wastes the moted by the City Corporation, the Metropolitan Water Com- jjjjjjj 76 ™' panies, and other bodies — Promoting Bills. . . £18,032 16 3 Opposing Bills . . . 14,479 10 3 £32,512 G 6 The promotion of the eight Bills by which the Council sought to get the undertakings of the eight companies transferred to themselves cost — In 1895 .... £1G,044 7 2 In 1896 .... 219 19 10 £16,264 7 For this expenditure of £16,264 the metropolis has gained L.C.C. nothing whatever. For the remainder of the sum of £32,512 claims (which does not include the cost of promoting the eight purchase ? redu ; ji liat Bills in 1897) the Council profess to have secured certain advantages, mainly consisting of the insertion of sinking fund clauses in the Bills promoted by the Companies for raising fresh capital. — (Return: Parliamentary expenses of Water Bills, April, 1897.) The Council's claim to be credited for these clauses is altogether fictitious. In the first place, the effort to get these clauses inserted originated with the Metropolitan Board of Works. The first 44 SINKING FUND CLAUSES. clauses were, however, inserted in 1886, at the instance of the City Corporation, who brought the matter before a Parliamentary Committee in that year, in connection with three Bills promoted by metropolitan water companies. Since that date the precedent has been followed in all such Bills ; the clause has been from time to time amended, and this has been due, not to the lavish expen- diture of the Council, but to the representations made to the Parliamentary Committees by the Government Department having charge of such matters. It is not necessary here to discuss the objects, merits and method of working of the sinking fund clause. No less eminent authority than Sir Frederick Bramwell has declared it to be a means of imposing a heavy fine on a water company for endeavouring to benefit the public, and that in the case of the West Middlesex Company it is distinctly disadvantageous to the water consumers whom that Company supplies. — (See his letter to the Times of 26th May, 1897.) 45 TRAMWAYS. We would strongly support an extension of the principle of Tramways construction and purchase on just and fair terms, but we are opposed to the working of the undertakings by the Council itself. By section 43 of the Tramways Act, 1870, power is given Council's to the London Comity Council to require a Tramway Company to acquis!- f ° r sell to them, with the approval of the Board of Trade, on specified tion. conditions, the undertaking of the Company within six calendar months after the expiration of a period of twenty-one years from the time when the Company were empowered to construct such tramway, and within six months after the expiration of every subsequent period of seven years, or in certain cases within three months after on order of the Board of Trade. The mode of valuation of the tramway undertaking on its Mode of being purchased by the London County Council was settled by valuauon - the House of Lords in the case of London Street Tramways Company v. London County Council. The House held that the valuation should be made on the principle of assessing what it would cost to lay down the tramways, with an allowance for depreciation, and that past profits or rental value must not be taken into consideration. A tramway for this purpose means the line of rails, and not the power of making rails or the Company's under- taking or business. — (Law Reports, 1894, Appeal Cases, p. 45G.) According to the general law the London County Council were Council not not themselves authorised to work a tramway when they had to^worlT 6 acquired it. Section 19 of the Tramways Act, 1870, provides that tramways . . . by general nothing contained in the Act shall authorise any local authority to law. place or own carriages upon such tramway, and to demand and take tolls and charges in respect of the use of such carriages ; and the London County Council have been advised that this provision applies in every case where the local authority has acquired possession of any tramway under the Act. The London County Council, however, were not content to Working • Powers abide by this provision of the general law. On the .'list July, applied 1894, they passed the following resolution : — for - " That application be made to Parliament for powers for the "' Council to work, should it be deemed necessary or " expedient, any tramway which it may purchase under " the provisions of the Tramways Act, 1870, or of any " other Act ; and that it be referred to the Parliamentary 46 POWERS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED. Tramways already acquired. Provisions for leasing, Powers granted to work tramways. il Committee to take all the necessary measures for the " purpose."— (Minutes, L.C.C., 1894 ; pp. 906, 908.) On the 15th November, 1894, the Highways Committee reported that the transfer to the Council of the undertaking authorised by the London Street Tramways Act, 1870, would probably be completed within a short period, and that measures were being taken to expedite the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the North Metropolitan Tramways Act, 1871. — (Minutes, L.C.C., 1894, page 1195.) As the Council could not work the tramways themselves, they leased the undertakings which they had purchased, but they resolved — " That in all agreements for leasing tramways on the north " side of the Thames, acquired or to be acquired by the " Council, provisions be inserted to ensure that the " undertakings shall revert to the Council on 30th " December, 1900 (but giving power to the Council, but " not to the lessee, to determine the agreement on, or " at any time after, 31st December, 1898, by three " months' previous notice), by which date nearly all " the principal tramway lines on that side of the Thames " will have come under the operation of the purchase " clauses of the Tramways Act, 1870; and that similar " provisions be inserted in all agreements for leasing " such tramways on the south side, the date of reversion " to the Council being, however, in those cases, 31st " December, 1903, instead of 1900."— (Minutes, L.C.C., 1894, pp. 1195 and 1246.) By the end of 1903 most of the tramways on the south side will have come under the purchase clause of the Act of 1870. In 1895 the Council procured the introduction into the House of Commons of the London County Tramways Bill, with the object of authorising the Council to work any tramway which they might acquire. The dissolution of Parliament in 1895 disposed of the Bill for that year, but it was again introduced and passed in 1896. The Act provides as follows : — " It shall be lawful for the Council to exercise the same powers of working the tramways, acquired by them under their statutory powers, as were possessed by the company or companies respec- tively owning such tramways. And the Council may provide, place and run carriages thereon, and provide such horses, cars, fixed and movable plant, harness and apparatus, as may be requisite or convenient for enabling the Council to exercise such powers. " The Council may also erect or construct and hold such stables and buildings as may be requisite or convenient in connection with the working of such tramways. TRAMWAYS. 47 " They may also enter into agreements with tramway companies for running over the lines of the latter." Whether the powers conferred by this Act are exercised or not depends on the electors. The policy of the Moderate party in the Council on this subject is definitely indicated at the head of this section. Meanwhile the contest between the Council and the Tram- way Companies north of the Thames has been concluded by an agreement under which the lines and depots of the two Companies at once became the property of the Council, who have leased the whole to the North Metropolitan Company. These agreements have been sanctioned by Parliament in the North Metropolitan Tramways Act, 1897, and are set out in schedules appended to the Act. The price to be paid by the Council for the undertakings is fixed by the agreement as follows : — £ For the lines of the North Metropolitan Company 34.0,000 For the lands, depots, stabling and granaries of that Company 233,831 For the lines of the London Street Tramways Company 82,750 For the lands, depots, stabling and granaries of that Company 34,000 Total • • • £690,581 The whole of these undertakings have been leased by an agree- ment, which is also appended to the Act, for the following sums : — 1. A yearly rent of £45,000 2. A yearly rent of £14,244 (To abate on the expiration of the leases). 3. A yearly rent of 12| per cent, on the amount by which the gross receipts for any year of existing tramways exceed the gross receipts from such lines and tramways for 1895 (agreed at £616,872). 4. Certain additional payments in the event of electrical or other mechanical power being employed for traction. Pursuant to the meddlesome policy which has governed the Inter- Progressive party in the Council in all matters where labour is witlfhours concerned, the members of that party (supported by a few oflabour, Moderates) sought to impose on the North Metropolitan 48 HOURS OF LABOUR. Company the condition that no employee of the Company should be permitted to work more than six days in a week, on an average, throughout the year. Men snub The result of this proposal was a protest signed by 1,669 Council. employees of the North Metropolitan Company and 424 of those of the London Street Company against the insertion in the lease of the proposed clause, and stating that they were perfectly satisfied with the existing arrangements. A deputation of the men, representing all grades, waited on the Highways Committee of the Council, and pointed out that under the existing arrange- ments they worked on an average only 5-L days a week, and that they feared that if provision were made for a compulsory rest day per week, this average, and consequently the amount received, might be reduced. The Committee were fully informed how this would happen, but, nevertheless, they persisted for a time in their desire to retain the clause, thus proposing wantonly to override the expressed desire of more than 2,000 working-men, whose business they pretended to know better than the men knew it themselves. The proposal was eventually abandoned. Companyto The duty of keeping in repair the roads in which the lines roadsf 1 * 16 are laid is imposed on the Tramway Companies by section 2S of the Tramways Act, 1S70. This duty has often not been satis- factorily carried out, and it is thought that as the undertakings have become the property of the London County Council the Council should themselves keep the roads in repair ; but this duty, by the North Metropolitan Company's Act, 1897 (sec. 11), still rests upon the Company. The Progressive party have made splendid prophecies respecting the relief to rates which might possibly accrue if the Council worked its own lines. Apart, however, from the objection to giving the municipality, in a place like London, the monopoly of a huge industry, there is good ground for doubting the rosy promises of the Radical members of the Council. The experience of the Works Department is not such as should induce the public to trust the Council with any further extension of its responsibility. Probable Judged by the trading experiments already made by the increase in existing Council, the cost of working the tramways would be cost ot enormouslv increased if undertaken by the Council. The Council working • could not devote as much attention to the business as a private Company, nor could the Council icork it as economically as people personally interested in the success of the lines. Meanwhile it is to be remembered that the purchase of the above lines will cost the Council £690,581, and many miles of other lines still remain to be purchased. 49 MUNICIPAL TRADING. We are very strongly opposed to making the Council a trading and manufacturing Corporation, which forms no part of its functions, and its exercise of which would give it an undue and unfair competition with the ordinary traders. As an idea of the extent to which the Progressives are prepared to go in this direction, we would point out that they have proposed to embark in the business of steamboat owners, tramway proprietors, gas and water undertakers, pawnbroking, tailoring, shoemaking, &c. The Council are already acting as their own builders and contractors. The ideas of the Radical section of the Council, in regard to Proposals municipal trading, have developed with alarming rapidity. of the It is evident that the work entrusted to them by Parliament ma J orlt y- is, in their opinion, unworthy of their transcendent abilities. They are anxious to take over the eight enormous under- takings of the London Water Companies, some idea of the magnitude of which is given under the head of Water Supply (p 38). They have taken steps not only to purchase the tramways, but have also obtained powers of working them themselves. — (See p. 46.) They have cast longing eyes on the businesses of the several Gas Companies. And this is by no means all. In his annual address in March, 1894 (Report, p. 10), Sir John llutton, then Chairman of the Council, said : — "The Stores Committee is now considering the question of " the establishment of municipal workshops in which to make " clothing and boots. Undoubtedly the creation of such work- " shops would be of great advantage to the Council in the " regularity with which it could depend upon the supply and D 50 RADICAL PROPOSALS. " quality of its goods. I think this advantage should be obtained " without prejudicially affecting the cost of production. This " principle, if found advantageous, is capable of great " extension, and there ought not to be any insurmountable " difficulty in the management of such an establishment in making " both ends meet." Is it the fact that the great shoemaking industry in North- ampton and elsewhere — an industry in which the workers are so often adherents of the Radical party in Parliament — is incapable of regularly supplying boots of good quality to the London County Council? Are the merchant clothiers of our time so ignorant of their business and of their welfare as not to be able to do the Spring Gardens' tailoring better than the Radical Councillors can do it themselves ? Probably the ratepayers will not share Sir John Hutton's opinions on this matter. Apart from the undue interference with the trade of those who by paying rates enable the Council to exist, it cannot be supposed that such men as our County Councillors can, without any previous knowledge or experience, suddenly develop into successful makers of gas, purveyors of water, carriers by rail and Avater, tailors, shoemakers and traders of other kinds, to which the principle may be extended. Thames The latest project that has occupied the Council's attention steam- j n conRe ction with municipal trading is the proposal to establish a steamboat service on the Thames, and to acquire and work the steamboat piers within the Council's jurisdiction. The matter was referred for consideration to the Rivers Committee, by resolutions of the Council passed on 4th December, 1894, 29th January, 1895, and 15th October, 1895. The Committee took a great deal of time to consider the matter, and they did not fully report to the Council until 9lh November, 1897.— (Mm., p. 1180.) In their report they state that much interest has been shown by the public in the matter. They received memorials and communications from the Vestries of Battersea, Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Camberwell, Fulham, Rotherhithe, Shoreditch, St. George-in-the-East, St. George, Southwark. and St. Luke's, Middlesex ; the District Boards of Lee, Limehouse, Poplar, St. Olave, Southwark, Strand and Wandsworth ; the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners of the Port of London; and the Fulham and District Trades and Labour Council, as well MUNICIPAL TRADING. 51 as from a public meeting held at Rotlierhithe. A deputation also waited upon the Rivers Committee from the Vestries of Battersea, Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Rotlierhithe, St. George-in-the-East, St. George, Southwark, St. Luke's and Shoreditch ; and the District Boards of Limehouse and St. Olave, in favour of the Council taking action to obtain powers for working the steamboat piers within its jurisdiction. The communications received by the Committee were to the effect that the river is largely used both for the carriage of goods and the conveyance of passengers ; that facilities for passenger traffic on the river are so inadequate that great inconvenience is caused to those who work on the river- side, and great detriment to many trades and businesses congregated on the river banks ; that unless the existing state of things is remedied, there is great probability of the carriage of passengers ceasing ; and that if the piers were under the control of the Council it would be the means of stimulating the traffic and creating a healthy competition, which would greatly enhance the comfort and convenience of the public who use the river. The Rivers Committee report that in their opinion " the first Thames step is to acquire and work the piers .... piers. " The question of improving and making approaches to the piers cannot be considered until the Council has had practical experience in the working of the piers, more especially in connec- tion with permanent cross or ferry services, that have been sug- gested in various parts of the river, with a view to facilitating and extending the means of communication between its banks. " It is not possible to give the capitalised value of maintenance and charge of the piers, as full data are not available at present, or until negotiations have taken place with the parties concerned. " Estimates of the cost of forming the approaches cannot be given until the Council has ascertained by experience the value of the piers in their present position, and each improvement will have to be considered by the Council separately, and included in its annual budget of capital expenditure. " The Thames Conservancy are, we have reason to believe, willing to arrange with the Council to facilitate the traffic on the Thames, by transferring to the Council the charge, regulation and maintenance of the existing piers belonging to them ; but this con- cession, to be of practical utility, would need to be accompanied by the right on the part of the Council to remove them, where necessary, from their present positions to such others as might be deemed more suitable for the river passenger traffic; and perhaps would require to be supplemented by the right to acquire such piers as are owned by others which may be found necessary for the Council's purposes. d 2 52 MUNICIPAL STEAMBOATS. Municipal " The possibility of a municipal steamboat service steam- has also been carefully considered by us under the Council's boats. reference on this subject. We have received full and valuable reports from the Council's officials in tin's matter. We have also received, in favour of the Council providing a municipal steamboat service for London, resolutions and petitions from the following :— a public meeting held at Rotherhithe, the London Reform Union, the London Trades Council, the Vestry of Fulham, and the Vestry of St. Margaret and St. John, West- minster. " The matter requires further consideration, and we intend to bring up at an early date a recommendation to the Council on this subject, but the question of instituting a municipal service is not, we think, one that is involved in any way with the acquisition and working of the piers. We have therefore considered the question of dealing with the piers first, as the best way of securing an adequate and efficient steamboat service, and of increasing communication on the river, and restoring the old service of the Thames as a highway, without recommending to the Council any particular system of steamboat service at present." The Council passed the following resolution upon the Com- mittee's report : — That it is desirable, in the interests of better communication, that steps should be taken to secure an adequate and convenient steam- boat service on the Thames, and that with this view the Rivers Committee be authorised to approach the Thames Conservancy Board, and others concerned, in order to ascertain on what terms and conditions the Council could acquire the piers. It will be seen that the question is a large and very important one. The establishment of new piers and the formation of new approaches will probably involve heavy expenditure, seeing that in many cases the purchase and removal of buildings on the banks will be necessary, c cT Speaking broadly, the duty of the Council in the matter is duty limited to providing facilities for traffic. To free the piers is as mucli within their duties as freeing the bridges; to make suitable and convenient approaches to piers, and to establish new piers when necessary, is analogous to the functions of the Council in making street improvements, and in creating new streets, where metropolitan traffic requires that this should be done. The question of establishing a service of steamboats at the risk of the ratepayers is another matter altogether. This should be undoubtedly left to private enterprise. There is no more reason why the County Council should establish a line of muni- MUNICIPAL TRADING. 53 cipal steamboats than there is for their setting up municipal cabs and omnibuses to ply in the streets. Tlie experience of the Council in acting as their own builders and contractors is given at length later on. It has conclusively shown that such work may involve the ratepayers in considerable loss, and that large enterprises, requiring great commercial skill in their management, should not be undertaken by a body con- stituted like the London County Council. 54 WORKS DEPARTMENT. We are of opinion that the Works Department has been extravagant, unbusinesslike, and contrary to the interests of the ratepayers, and ought not to continue to exist. We are convinced that the Council undertook a large amount of work which could not be economically executed under amateur supervision, and it is well known that on such work a heavy loss to the ratepayers has been incurred. We are in favour of the direct employment of labour in certain classes of simple work, but in under- taking extensive and elaborate operations we believe that it would be more economical that they should be carried out by efficient workmen under the experienced supervision of individuals unfettered by harassing conditions. In jobbing works we would promote, as far as possible, the employment of persons residing in the dis- trict in which the job is situated. Origin. Origin of the Works Department. — The Works Department was a distinct product of the labour policy of a Radical Council. In 1892, certain Radical members of the Council were in the habit of freely denouncing contractors. About the same time, and at the instance of the same members, conditions distasteful to contractors were inserted in the Council's forms of tender, with the result that most of the leading contractors either refused to tender for the Council's work, or tendered at high prices, in order to protect themselves from the consequences of the Council's conditions. Having alienated the leading contractors, the Radical party found a plausible excuse for starting their pet scheme — the for- mation of a huge municipal workshop, manned and controlled in WORKS DEPARTMENT. 55 the interests of the labour party and their friends. Regardless of the ratepayers' pockets, the labour party insisted that the munici- pality ought to set the example of paying high wages to its workmen, and that party in this respect secured practically the whole of the Radical majority in support of their scheme. Tbey thus made a distinct bid for the support of the working classes at the polls ; and by the help of those classes they hoped to maintain, and perhaps increase, the Radical majority on the Council. Two accidental facts contributed to the initial success of the Radical scheme— (1) The strikes in the building trade, which occurred in 1892; (2) The difficulty in getting a tender,* within the architect's estimate, for the erection of a school for the children of the workmen at the Council's sewage-pumping station at Crossness. In consequence of these difficulties it was decided to erect the school by the direct employment of labour. The result in the particular case was satisfactory, and showed a saving of more than one-fourth of the lowest tender received. A similar result followed the construction of the York Road sewer, the estimate for which, however, was made on the basis that there would probably be exceptional difficulties to encounter. These difficulties were not found, and accordingly the work was done at an apparently great saving. This was purely accidental. Generalising from the success of these jobs, the Radical party affected to believe that much profit was to be made by the carrying out by themselves of work hitherto entrusted to contractors. The causes which contributed to success in the particular instances were ignored. The Works Department was established on the 22nd November, 1892, and was to consist of three branches — engineering, building and stores. Provision was made for acquiring a central store-yard and a considerable staff. — (1892, Minutes, pp. 1078-82.) It was the duty of the Works Department to execute all works on plans prepared by the engineer or architect. — (1892, Minutes, p. 1079.) On the completion of works referred to them, the Works Committee were forthwith to report the completion to the Council, * There were reasons (apart from the Council's attitude) for the bigh tenders in this particular case. The school site was remote and incon- veniently situated. Workmen were difficult to get, in consequence of the strikes, and uncertainty existed as to their attitude in the near future. [ndeed, the architect, who at the time was favourable to the experiment, has Bince admitted that the job was one that no builder desired to undertake. 56 OUTLAY AND OPERATIONS. Central depot. with particulars of the estimated and actual cost thereof. — (1892, Minutes, p. 1081.) This they did not forthwith do. One of the first acts was the establishment of the central depot, in Belvedere Road, Lambeth. Including land and buildings, this depot has cost the rate- payers upwards of £100,000. It is admitted by the Radical chairman of the Works Committee, Mr. Ward (see Works Inquiry Report, 2836-7), that this project was started without any forecast being submitted to the Council as to the probable annual expenditure upon works. Large sums of money have been spent on the central depot since it became the property of the Council. The following statement shows the amount of expenditure on capital account (original outlay) at central works and Battersea depot. — (Special Committee's Report, p. 57.) Expenditure. Balances of estimates for works in hand. Particulars. To 31st March, 1896. 1st April tu 31st Oct. 1896. Total. Central Works — £ £ £ £ Land .... 39,239 — — 39,239 License to embank, &c. 2,045 — — 2,045 Workshops, stables, &c. -! 26,666 229 \ i — 26,895 River wall and reservoirs 6,905 — 95 7,000 Smiths' shop, &c. . 867 2,405 2,308 5,580 Mess room . 80 — 17 97 Paving entrances, &c. . 967 420 463 1,850 Offices .... 6,080 6,409 — 12,489 83,078 9,234 2,883 95, 1 95 Battersea Depot — Land .... 5,500 — 5,500 License to embank 1^0 — 130 River wall . 980 — — 980 6,610 — — 6,610 Grand total 89,688 9,234 2,883 101,805 WORKS DEPARTMENT. 57 Adding to this figure of £101,805 the value of the plant and Capital materials in stock, say £75,000, the total capital sunk in the s undertaking amounts to upwards of £175,000. On 31st March, 1897, the "grand total" expended on capital account had reached £103,896. — (1897, Ueport, p. 145.) The establishment expenses are charged at a percentage to the works executed, and therefore, as a rule, appear as part of the expenses of the Works Department. — (1892, Minutes, p. 540.) The manner in which these expenses have been allocated is shown on p. 55 of the Special Committee's Report. The value of the timber in stock on 31st March, 1S97, was £1G,590.— (1897, Report, p. 144.) The average weekly number of workmen employed in all the branches of the building and allied trades was, during the year ended 31st March, 1897, 1,825 ; and the amount paid in wages to workmen, during the year ended 31st March, 1897, averaged £2,813 per week.— (1897, Report, p. 142.) The value of the plant in hand at the central works and the various branch depots and works, on 31st March, 1897, was £37.980.— (1897, Report, p. 144.) The value of the work executed by the Works Committee, during the year ended 31st March, 1897, amounted to £264,000 (Ibid., p. 146.) These figures show, to some extent, the vast nature of the undertaking. The Works Committee was naturally anxious to show itself in the best light, and the reports made by it, from time to time, sought to explain any shortcomings brought to light, whilst it did not hesitate to praise the quality of the work performed under its direction. It is now found that to justify such an establishment theAmountof expenditure en works assigned to the Works Department must annual amount to very nearly a quarter of a million sterling every year n ecessarv (Ward, 2841-2). Unless the capital which has been rashly invested in order to equip the department is constantly employed, the department cannot possibly pay its way. The huge plant must be utilised, or it will deteriorate ; stocks of timber, &c., must be worked up, or it will diminish in value. Rent of yards, depots, storehouses and offices, and salaries of permanent officials, have to be paid, whether the department is busy or idle. The white elephant has been bought, and at all costs must be fed and kept alive, or the public will see at once the improvidence of the pur- chase. Hence it has been the custom of the party responsible for the creation of the Works Department to get assigned to it as much work as possible, whether or not the work was of a kind that the department was likely to execute satisfactorily. 58 WORK IMPROPERLY ASSIGNED. Work prema- turely and improperly assigned to the depart- ment. The principle of buying the best in the cheapest market cannot possibly be maintained in regard to the Council's works as long as the Council has a department that must inevitably eat its head off unless it is kept continually in full work. The Council has disregarded the obvious duty of giving to the department only such work as its experience and equipment would enable it to perform. Complicated building operations were thrust upon it before it could properly undertake them, and one of the familiar excuses for the loss incurred on some of the earlier jobs is that the premises in Belvedere Road were not sufficient for the work which the department had to do. The department was struggling with a large amount of business even before a proper system of account keeping had been constructed for its operations. Speaking with reference to the accounts of the Works Department, the comptroller, in his report to the Special Committee (p. 61), says : "Builders' cost accounts " necessarily involve questions of a highly technical and intricate " character. The difficulties inherent in any such system of " accounts were much increased during the first two years of the " existence of the Works Department, owing to inadequate staff, " want of organisation, and the condition of the premises at " Belvedere Road." Why did the Council assign to the department huge works, involving expenditure of many thousands of pounds ; and why did the department undertake such works when the staff was inadequate, the organisation incomplete, and the depot — the base of their operations — was not yet ready ? From the comptroller's accounts [Special Committee Report, p. 63) it appears that in the first two years of the Department's operations, when its condition of unreadiness was as stated above, the cost of the works executed was : — 1893-4 .... £149,111 7 1894-5 .... £215,678 16 9 £364,789 17 4 Moderate party sceptical. The extravagance of this scheme will appear presently, when we reckon up the cost of the department. That it was unbusinesslike is proved by the fact that it has entirely broken down ; that it was contrary to the interests of the ratepayers, is shown by the fact that the latter have already lost many thousands of pounds by this abortive scheme of municipal socialism. The Moderate party had long had doubts as to the value of the reports of progress which were from time to time presented by the Works Committee and its admirers. Every attempt on their part, however, to ascertain the true state of affairs was met with WORKS DEPARTMENT. 59 howls from the Progressives. Yet, as long ago as 1894, Lord Fairer, a distinguished Progressive, was a little troubled at the defences set up by the Works Committee. In a letter to the Daily Chronicle of August 16th, 1894, Lord Lord Farrer says : — " I cannot remember ever having expressed a jf ar ^ r , " decided opinion against a municipality undertaking its own work, tlle ■^• or ] £S " though I do remember saying a word in favour of the much- Com- " abused contractoi\ To me it has always seemed, and still seems, mittee's " to be a question of the circumstances and conditions of the par- re P°rts. " ticular case, whether a government, municipal or local, should do " its own work through its own servants, or do it through the " intermediate agency of a contractor. " My immediate object, however, is not to preach upon the " general question, but to make a practical suggestion. What we " want to know is, Which of the two ways of doing any particular " work is the cheaper and the better? Much experience of public " departments leads me to doubt their own reports upon their own " doings; not, of course, from any dishonesty on the part of the ' " officials, but from a natural tendency in every man to make the " best of what he does. It is for this reason, as well as from want " of sufficient experience, that I cannot feel absolute con- " fidence in the reports made to the London County " Council on the results of their own experiments." The sequel proves that Lord Farrer's doubts, and the openly expressed fears of the Moderate party, were fully justified. THE WORKS DEPARTMENT SCANDAL. Towards the end of 1896 rumours were circulated that matters connected with the Works Department were not altogether what they should be, and on the 17th November, 1896, the subject was ventilated by the Works Committee itself in a report to the Council. — (Minutes, 1896, p. 1255.) " We regret to have to report," says the Committee, Irregu- " that some grave irregularities have taken place in the book larities " keeping of the Works Department. The comptroller during his discovered. " audit of the accounts drew our attention to certain improper " transfers which had been made in connection with the tem- <; porary buildings at Colney Hatch Asylum. We thereupon " appointed a Special Sub-Committee ... to consider and " report upon the matter." The following extracts are taken from the report of this Sub-Committee : — " The Sub-Committee desire at the outset to say that they " see no reason whatever to think that any actual diversion for " personal profit of the money or property of the Council has 60 THE WORKS DEPARTMENT SCANDAL. Bogus transfers. Incorrect invoices. Deliberate alteration of costs. Instances. " taken place, but, short of that, they find that a system " seems to have been initiated and freely practised " since April, 1895, ""tier which frequent instances are " producible of — " 1st. Falsely signed and bogus transfers of materials from " one job to another, to which they never went. " 2nd. Transfers of materials valued at altogether unwar- " ranted prices. " 3rd. Incorrect appropriation of invoices to a job where the " goods were not used. " 4th. Materials sent from stock and not debited to the job. " 5th. The deliberate alteration, up or down, of the ascer- " tained cost of a job for purposes of so-called depait- " mental advantage. " The object of these fictitious entries has been to endeavour to equalise the apparent result of individual operations, and not to allow any one job to show either a large profit or a heavy loss as compared with the estimate on which it was undertaken. ' "When we found we were going to have a loss,' as one of the witnesses put it, ' we took the profit from one job and gave it to ' another; it was a system of levelling up and down.' In so doing, " I thought it was to the advantage of the department.' ' The system of publishing the prime cost is fatal to the depart- ' ment.' ' Another reason was not to show too high a profit,' from the fear, as was explained, that the estimates from the architect's and engineer's departments would be reduced in consequence. " The chief instance of such proceedings, and the one from which this inquiry has arisen, was the transfer of £1,892 15s. od. from Colney Hatch to the Heath Asylum, Bexley, and Lewisham sewer works, the largeness of which attracted at once the comptroller's attention. It appears that the job at Colney Hatch was going to result in a very heavy loss as compared with the estimate, and that this was within the manager's knowledge soon after Christmas, 1895. The job was not actually finished till May, 1896, but before the end of the financial year, 31st March, 1896, it was desired to get all possible transfers into the books for the closing of the year's accounts and the annual statement of stock. The manager, conscious of the impending loss, as against the original estimate of £17,500 on which the job was taken, and saying, as he puts it, that it should not cost more than £19,500, so informs the principal clerk, and instructs him to make what transfers he can. The principal clerk makes up an imaginary list of materials from the works at Colney Hatch, amounting, as valued by him, to £1,892 15*. 3r/., specially obtains the signatures of two foremen to the bogus WORKS DEPARTMENT. 61 '•' transfers, and passes the amount to the credit of Colney Hatch " and the debit of the Heath Asylum, Bexley, and Lewisham. " The materials represented by this transfer never went to 11 those jobs at all. " Certain materials which really did go arc represented by " sundry subsequent transfers, valued at £1,360 4.?. 8d., bond fide " transfers as regards the materials, but over valued to the extent " of about £270. It is also the case that certain materials were " sent from the stock at the docks, and not charged at all to " Colney Hatch. " The above is a short outline of what occurred in the case " of the work at Colney Hatch. " The Sub-Committee have investigated several other trans- Other cases " fers between other works, and have found, they regret to say, similar - " the same laxity of practice existing to a large extent." In consequence of this serious report the Council appointed a special Special Committee to thoroughly investigate the Works Depart- Committee ment and its ways, and two assessors of great experience and a PP°iated. reputation, one an architect (Mr. Griming, F.R.I.B.A.), the other a chartered accountant (Mr. Waterhouse), were appointed to assist the Committee. The Committee commenced its sittings in December, 1896, and its report is dated 29th March, 1897. The Committee con- sisted of nine members — five Progressives and four Moderates. There was a division of opinion, and of course the majority had Their re- their way. The report was presented, signed by the chairman, P^rts. Sir A. Arnold, but it turned out to be the report of the five, not of the nine It was a party report, and the mode of its presentation is characteristic of Progressive tactics. The majority report was published by itself. At the end of it there was a little paragraph — "We have received a statement from four members of the " Committee, which, under the special circumstances attending " the appointment of the Committee, we think should also be " presented as an appendix." But, notwithstanding this statement, tin; majority report was Circulation circulated by itself; and even when the minority report had?* the ma- appeared, the majority report was published, week alter week, iu J 011 ^ re ' the agenda paper of tin; Council, without any reference whatever to the very important '' statement" of the four Moderate members other than the sentence quoted above. Even the Radical newspaper, London, admitted (8th April, 1897) that "both reports should have been available for the press " at the same time," ..." and thereon the Moderates have a " grievance." 62 THE WORKS DEPARTMENT SCANDAL. The minority report. The whole of the Committee agreed that the bogus entries had no reference to any misappropriation of moneys, and did not conceal any action whereby any employe of the department was pecuniarily advantaged. But the report of the minority disclosed the existence of a serious state of things, that thoroughly justified their recommenda- tions that no works, whether estimated or jobbing, be undertaken which come within the definition of architectural works, and that the Works Committee be abolished. It would be impossible, within the limits to which these "notes" must be kept, to set out in detail all the facts developed in the reports, "statements" and evidence which were made and collected by the Special Committee. The large volume* containing all these is published by Messrs. Stanford, of Charing Cross, price 5s. The following statements are taken from the minority report : — Capital sunk unduly large. Staff excessive. CENTRAL WORKS. The capital outlay on land and buildings has been £101,805, of which about £50,000 has been expended in purchase of land. In addition, there are plant and materials in stock valued at, say, £75,000, so that the total capital sunk in the undertaking may be put at upwards of £175,000. The Central Works have now for some months been completed, but in the opinion of the chairman of the Works Committee are not yet fully sufficient for the work to be done, and it is intended to enlarge them. The present turnover of work on the year may be taken to be £240,003, and for this the capital outlay appears to be disproportionate. For such a turnover we understand that a capital of about £60,000 — apart from the expense of purchase of land — would suffice with a contractor. A contractor would not have spent £40,000 on workshops where no " high class " work is done, nor would he have spent £13,000 in accommodation for the clerical staff, expenditure which is put down by Mr. Taylor to "the routine " and red-tape of a municipal authority." The accounts to be kept, especially the jobbing accounts, are necessarily more numerous and complicated than those of a contractor ; but even so the staff seems disproportionate. They number about 70, as compared with 32 at Messrs. Cubitt's, 18 at Messrs. Holland and Barmen's, and 14 at Mr. H. Holloway's The establishment charges amount to a total of £20,000 a year, or about 8 per cent. * "Report of the Special Committee on the Works Department, "together with the .Minutes of Evidence and Appendices (18'Jb*-7), No. " 332 of 1897." WORKS DEPARTMENT. 63 of the turnover, whereas in the building trade it is a common practice for work to be undertaken for prime cost, plus 10 percent. for profit, plus 5 per cent, for staff (a general term including all establishment charges). The unusually large staff and the excess of establishment charges are matters noted by both the assessors. It appears that about £240,000 worth of work must be undertaken Work to be in order to keep down these charges. But all depends upon done t0 whether such undertaking of public works is profit- J ustif y able. If it is not profitable, it could not be contended y ' that because the Works Department exists, therefore it should be maintained at a loss to the ratepayers. For many months after the institution of the department in January, 1893, the Central Works were inconsiderable confusion, which caused corresponding difficulty and delay in the execution of business. Nevertheless the Council, by reason of its eagerness Work pre- to give effect to its own experiment, entrusted extensive operations P^^ly to the new department. Moreover, the Committee themselves invited work. On the 10th April, 1893, their chairman reported — " Wo arc now in a position to cany out any further works the Council " may entrust to us in addition to those already in hand ; and tho " Committees having works referred to us have been requested to " send in to the Works Department plans and quantities with the " least possible delay, in order that the works may be commenced " as soon as possible." PURCHASE OF TIMBER AND MATERIAL. The AVorks Committee purchase their timber at public auction. Mr. H. Holloway represents this practice as not followed by any responsible builder in London, and as perfectly Laughable laughable amongst builders. With respect to timber for joiners' purchases, work, Mr. Griming reports — " It seemed to me that the later work done by the Works Department, " except Colney Hatch, was better as to material than its earlier " work in this respect, but I cannot consider that on the wdiole Bad " the timber purchased has been well selected, or of the quality timber, "required. I understand that there is difficulty in obtaining " seasoned timber, and some appears to have been purchased at " low prices. Though probably not intended for joiners' work it " may have been used for such purpose." We would refer to AVestview Cottages, one of the early works of the department. Mr. Gruning gives the following account — "The joinery is very inferior, certainly the worst I have seen in all Inferior "the buildings of i!i" Council. Tho wood is inferior, had not joinery, "been properly seasoned, was patched in places, and very full of "shakes and hard knots. 1 understand that some of the defects 64 PUECHASE OF TIMBER AND MATEEIAL. " had been remedied prior to its being seen by Mr. Cubitt " Nichols, but I am not surprised at some of the remarks he " made on this subject. There can have been no proper snper- " vision or selection of material when issued to the joiners' " shops." And again as to Colney Hatch (temporary buildings recently erected for the purpose of an asylum) — Defective " The flooring, which I understand is of two thicknesses of J-in. match- " boarding, is of very good quality, but the match-boarding boarding. " throughout is the worst I ever saw. The boards are about 7 in. " wide (batten width), beaded on one end and with solid tongues. " The wood itself seems to be spruce, fit only for packing cases, " &c, and although I was told it had been two years in stock " before use, it had in many places shrunk to such an extent that " the tongues had come completely out of the grooves. The " workmanship was rough in the extreme, though parts had been " hand-planed on the job, and other parts had been smudged over " with opaque stain or paint before being varnished. How such " stuff came to be purchased for the Works Department I cannot " conceive. On the other hand some of the joinery, such as " partition work, which was panelled and moulded, was of very " good quality both as to material and workmanship." How other Other materials than timber are purchased by the committee materials ou consideration of quotations obtained by the manager from five were . bought or s ' x 'merchants, the lowest quotation being usually accepted. Mr. H. Holloway cannot approve of this system. Mr. White thus describes it — " We sit on Tuesday for a considerable time looking through estimates " that arc given to us. Now I have over and over again " expressed the opinion how absurd it is to do that. Several "persons are asked to tender for all sorts of things from 40s. " upwards, and invariably the committee accept the lowest price. " They have no knowledge of the goods whatever, they never see " them, they have no knowledge even of the value of the articles, " and they have very little knowledge of the firms who tender, " all of which things are most important factors in settling the " price. A manager like a builder would have to consider all '• these factors, and not be entirely guided by the lowest tender.'' [The accuracy of the above remarks in the report of the minority of the special committee is illustrated by the fact that Loss on several parcels of the Council's timber were put up for timber. sale by auction, on the 3rd and 10th June, 1897. These parcels cost the ratepayers £2,781. They were sold at a loss of £"647. Here is the extract from the report made by the Works Committee to the Council on the subject, on the 6th July. 1897: — WORKS DEPARTMENT. 65 RETURN OF TIMBER. The following is a return showing the amount of timher pur- Purchases chased each year since the formation of the Works Department' — °' timber. Year. Bought at public auction. Bought from other sources. Total. £ £ £ 1893-94 34,468 5,098 39,5GG 1894-95 8,944 3,254 J 2, 198 189.5-96 6,176 1,604 7,780 1896-97 2,693 2,026 4,719 1897 — 342 342 Totals 52,281 12,324 64,605 The original cost of the timber which has been sohl by public Loss on auction was £2,411 3s. 9d., to which amount £369 17s. 3c/. has s ^ e °* been added for rent, making a total of <£2,78l Is. The amount er ' realised by the sale of the timber was £2,258 6s. , less a discount of 2^ per cent. (£56 9s. Id.), and auctioneer's charges, amounting to £67 15s., leaving the net amount £2,134 Is. lie/. The general result, therefore, is that the Council has spent £64,605 upon timber, of which £49,211 worth has been used, and timber to the value of £12,G13 remains in stock, whilst a portion of timber which cost £2,781, including rent, has been disposed of at a loss of £647. The value of timber in stock on 24th June. follows — ■ „,. , . , , f Surrey Commercial Docks limber in docks - ,„ . v ,. TA , ( \\ est India Docks Timber at Central Works Timber at Battersea depot 1897, was as Stock. £1,800 39 7,074 700 Total . £12,613] MANAGEMENT OF LABOUR ON THE WORKS. (Special Committee's Report, p. xxxvii.) In the general conduct of the Works, the Committee expe- rienced at first great difficulty in keeping the labour bill within 66 MANAGEMENT OF LABOUE. proper dimensions. The workmen, and in particular the skilled workmen, showed a lack of energy over their work, apparently conceiving that less was to be expected of them towards a muni- cipality — a tendency which, in Mr. Binnie's opinion, can never be entirely overcome. Effect of labour clauses. Unionist and non- unionist workmen. Another form of the same trouble showed itself in the ten- dency of workmen to finish their work more highly than their orders or the necessity of the case required. . . . When a work- man who is paid by time insists, against orders, upon putting in better work than is necessary, the desire to give to his employer this better work is hardly to be distinguished from a desire to make work for himself. RELATION TO TRADE UNIONS. With regard to trade unions, the position taken up by the Council was this : that whilst trade unions were to be recognised as representative of their respective trades, employers— and the Council is an employer on lehalf of the ratepayers — were not to be ignored, and as between unionists and non-unionists, the Council was to hold the balance even. If this was the intention, we must say it has been but imperfectly realised. We have already referred to the labour clauses ; one result of these is, that whatever wages or hours may be gained by a strike in the trade must, as a matter of course, be given on the Council's works, whether under the Works Department or under contractors employed by the Council, so that the. men on such works have nothing to gain by themselves striking. The men know this, and the consequent tendency is that they remain in, and contribute to those who are out. Thus th'e effect of this rule is to throw the weight of the Council into the scale of the strikers, whether the object of the strike is one to be approved or not. Mr. Gruning has also pointed out the anomaly in the com- position of the Works Committee, that some members are directly and pecuniarily concerned in the interests of the workmen and their trade unions, whilst others may belong to the Master Builders' Association. . . . Nominally the works under the Works Department are open alike to unionists and non-unionists. But we understand that it is usual for one of the men employed to be appointed by the others to act as shop steward or ticket steward either on the works or at the gate of the works ; that is, to interrogate each man, and claim his subscription to the union, a practice which, though it exists on works which the employer submits to have recognised as exclu- sively unionist, would not be tolerated hy an employer who insists pn his works beinjr free alike to unionists and non-unionists. . . . WORKS DEPARTMENT. G7 The following notice is now posted at all places where work is being done by the Works Department — " Notice. — No man employed in the Council's seiwice shall be in any " way prejudiced by reason of his belonging or not belonging to " any trade or other organisation. No official or foreman 6 " make any inquiry, directly or indirectly, mider any pretence " whatever, whether any workman belongs or does not belong to " any trade organisation, and should he incidentally become " aware of the fact he shall make no difference by reason thereof. " Any interference, whether by officials, foremen or others on the " Council's works, with the freedom of any of the workmen in " this particular, will involve instant dismissal." To this regulation Mr. Steadman is opposed, but apparently in the belief that it prohibits a workman, under pain of dismissal, from asking a fellow workman to join a union if he thinks fit. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Burns thought the regulation unnecessary, and Mr. Burns remarked that it gratuitously protruded a desire to irritate the unionists, but that trade unionism and labour generally were strong enough to ignore the petulant ebullitions of excited partisans, and so he did not attach much importance to it. QUALITY OF WORK. Experts are all agreed to place the two systems (Works Department and contractors) in this respect much on a level. Mr. Gruning thus sums up his remarks — " On the whole, I had no doubt that all buildings, whether executed " by contractors or Works Department, are structurally sound, " and substantially and well built. The best finished specimens Brickwork. " of brickwork may perhaps be found in those of the Works " Department, though I should find no fault with those by " contractors. The joiners' work generally done by contractors Joinery. " was the best." Mr. Binnie states with respect to engineering" works as follows : — " Whether the work has been executed for large jobs or for the Equal to " smaller works under the head of the jobbing schedule, the contrac- " quality turned out by the Works Department is equal to tors: uo t " that executed by contractors. I do not say that it is any better " better, but on the other hand I can certainly say that it is no " worse. But I can conceive that should the Works Department " be continued in future, under what I consider to be proper lines, " the quality of the work executed might, without any additional " cost to the Council, be made to excel that executed by con- " tractors." Mr. Blashill states that the plant of the Works Department is rather better than that usually supplied. He is asked — Q. " You " are unable to draw any distinction between the work done by " the Works Department and contractors ? " And he answers — e 2 G8 QUALITY OF WORK. A. " As to quality, none." And again, " It is equal to that done " by the best contractors we have had upon the Council's works, " and I think they are very good ones." And Mr. Plumbe, the architect for several of the working men's dwellings, states, "The " work which has been executed for me by the Works Department is, " generally speaking, as good as that executed by ordinary " contractors." As against the judgment of these experts it is impossible to weigh the opinions of members of the Works Com- mittee, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Burns, and Mr. Steadman, that the work carried out by this department is better, or Mr. Ward's conjecture that a private person would give at least 10 per cent, more for it (the engineering work excepted) than for work turned out by the average contractor. COST OF ESTIMATED WORKS. Depart ment. The object The question of cost is not whether the Works Department of creating might have executed the works more economically than they have done, but whether it is cheaper to the Council to employ the Works Department than to have recourse to contractors. The theory of the Council executing its own work is that the Works Department, if it can work as cheaply as a contractor, will save to the Council the whole of the contractors' profit, whatever that may be ; and even if it cannot, still so long as the excess of cost is within the margin of that profit, the work is less expensive to the Council than it would be if done by a contractor. The only complete test of the cost of the two systems would have been if the Works Department had tendered in competition with con- tractors. That, however, has not been done, and we feel sure, for the reasons stated by Mr. Griming, that if the experiment were attempted it would prove abortive. In the absence of competition we have to fall back upon comparative statistics of the financial results of the two systems, as shown in what may be considered similar works. Super- vision of architect. In the execution of the work, whether by the contractor or the Works Department, the architect supervises the execution by a clerk of the works, and at its conclusion settles up the accounts in the usual way. There is, however, this practical difference, that if a question arises either as to the execution of the work, or as to items in the account, the contractor has to submit to the decision of the architect; but the manager, with the Works Committee behind him, is not equally submissive ; and to such an extent have the decisions of the architect been controverted that the Council has recently WORKS DEPARTMENT. 69 found it necessary to provide that all such disputes Arbitra- shall be referred to arbitration, although, whatever tion be- the result, the Council has to pay the sum in dispute i ween .,, and also the cost of the arbitration itself. When the officers, accounts oi' a work have been settled, the architect certifies to the total amount, and also that the work has been done to his satisfaction (p. xxxix.). There is no reason to suppose that in supervising the work the engineer or architect has been more severe to the Works Department than to contractors. From an abstract point of view the tendency must be in the opposite direction (p. xl.). The Works Department only undertakes work when satisfied Works by inquiry that the estimate is sufficient, i.e., that the work will De P^ rt ' j. * i i d . i i ■ i n ment may not cost more, but may cost less, otnctly speaking, therefore, re fuse there ought to be no cases of excess of cost over estimate, or, if work. they must occur, they ought not to be more frequent than are Actual cost losses to the contractor from excess of cost over his tender, which should not can only proceed from either miscalculation or mismanagement. exc . eed It is clear then that any such numerical comparison between the two systems does not do full justice to the contractor. We may now pass to the figures, . . . and taking the question to be whether the Council have gained or lost by employ- ing the Works Department in lieu of contractors, and confining ourselves for the present to completed works for which the accounts had been settled previous to the appointment of this Committee — we would say — i. That, as to engineering works, we accept Mr. Binnie's Engineer- view, who, whilst admitting that he has not the means ing work, of judging with exactitude, has formed the general impression that the Works Department have executed the work at a lower rate than contractors have done. According to the best calculations we have been able to make, there has been a saving of more than half the contractors' profit ; say more than £6,000 upon work costing £130,000. 2. That, as to architectural works, there has been a " loss," Archi- whicli we cannot put at a less sum than £10,000 upon a tectur.il total of £220,000. Mr. Blashill (807), like Mr. Binnie, work ' has named no figures, but he evidently is of opinion that the loss has been of a substantial amount. According to Mr. Waterhouse's report, in the case of architectural works, the accepted tenders of contractors show a saving ol I - 8o (the mean between 2*08 and DG3, over original estimates of £237,000, whilst the actual cost of works executed by the Works Department shows an excess of 70 COST OF ESTIMATED WORKS. 3-47 over revised estimates of £224,000. If so, the difference of cost to the Council from the two systems, so far as architectural works are concerned, may be represented by 5'32 per cent. (T85 + 3-47). Mr. Gruning's conclusion from the figures, as analysed by Requisite him, is that the Works Department has succeeded better in work success not ulK ] er the engineer than under the architect, but has not attained the requisite measure of success. Mr. Waterhouse, in turn, points out that if, as he thinks, the estimates, especially the architect's estimates, have as a rule been high, any small apparent saving on Estimates a comparison of total cost with total estimate may be illusory, and kigk' he observes — Works " Perhaps the most instructive table is that of the . . . declined. " 42 works which the Works Department declined to take at the " estimates put upon them, but which were then tendered for " at sums, in most cases and in the total, lower than the " estimates." The summary as to these works showed the following figures — No of works Original estimates refused Tenders subsequently accepted by Works Department. from contractor. 42 £123,803 £121,779 SUBSEQUENT STATISTICS. These results are more than confirmed by the subsequent statistics of the more recent operations of the Works Department. Shelton For Shelton Street dwellings,* an architectural work executed Street. * Shelton Street dwellings — The only explanation of the Works Depart- ment was that " there were considerable delays, after the work was •' started, in carrying it out, for which the Works Department was not " responsible, and which enhanced the cost." With this explanation before them, the Finance Committee, in a report signed by the Progressive chairman, Lord Welby, state as follows : — " With regard to the excess vote for the Shelton Street dwellings, we " would point out the exceptional inconvenience attending any " excess of cost over the estimate in respect of artizans' dwellings "erected by the Council. These are only agreed to by the " Council upon carefully prepared estimates, with calculations to " show the effed upon the county rate. In this case, the surplus " upon the original calculation was £27 17s. 8d. The excess " cost of £2,607 !5*. 7d., in the present case, means an addition "of £lo:! iii the annual charge for interest on and sinking " fund for capital outlay, which, unless the receipt from rents " is increased, will constitute an annual charge on the county " rate throughout the loan period (upwards of 50 years)." — (1897, Minutes, p. 302.) WORKS DEPARTMENT. 71 under Mr. Plumbe, for which the accounts have just (Feb. 22nd, 1897) been reported to the Council, the figures are — Original estimate. Final estimate. Cost. £13,357 £14,416 £17,023 The few works completed, but for which the accounts are not yet settled, include the Colney Hatch Asylum, under the super- Colney vision of Mr. lline, which it may safely be presumed will show an Hatch, excess of nearly £3,000 over the estimate ; and amongst the works far advanced towards completion there are seven or eight conspicuous failures, which collectively must involve " losses " of many thousand pounds. Mr. Waterhouse closes his report with these significant words — " A large excess of cost over estimate appears from the " evidence as likely to arise on the works completed since " 31st March, 189G, or now in hand." Thus experience has not borne out either the explanation Failures of which attributed to the initial difficulties of the department the theDepart- early failures of the New Cross fire station, Yabsley Street ment - buildings, and Westview cottages, or the hopes suggested by the subsequent successes of Cable Street dwellings, and Kingsland and Shoreditch fire stations. And the result is the more undoubted, because it is more or less the same, whoever may be the architect who has prepared the estimates and supervised the works, whether Mr. Blashill, Mr. Hine or Mr. Plumbe. — (Special Committed s Report, p. xlii.) [The figures which have been recently collected and tabulated Recent show that the foregoing estimate, made by the minority of experience. Moderates on the Special Committee, falls short of the real facts, Avhich are even less favourable to the Works Department than the figures available six months ago. On the motion of the Earl of Hardwicke, seconded by Mr. Returns of Whitmore, M.P. (Moderates), the Council, on the 9th November, works. 1897, ordered returns to be made of the estimated and actual cost of all works completed up to the 30th September, 1897, by the Works Department, and of all works refused by the Works Department for which tenders were afterwards received from contractors. They also ordered, at the instance of Mi - . Hoare and Mr. Burns (Progressives), a return of the architect's estimates and lowest tenders received for works suitable for, but not offered to, the Works Department during the same period. The three returns were presented in December, 1897. 72 COST OF ESTIMATED WORKS. The following is the result : — Work carried out bg the Works Department and reported to the Council during the period from the institution of the Department to 30t'h September, 1897. Supervising Officer. Original E>timate as passed by the Council. Final Estimate. Actual Cost. £ s. d. £ s. d. 239,269 s. d. Council's Engineer 251,084 8 1 240,816 18 7 16 9 Architect to Asylum's Com- mittee .... 46,033 7 9 45,676 1 11 54,005 Engineer to ditto . 17,500 19,114 18 6 22,942 3 10 Council's Valuer . 557 662 3 572 J3 1 Council's Architect 301,982 17 307,986 8 6 319,475 16 5 Mr. Plumbc (Architect) 15,239 14 9 16,565 12 5 19,041 18 10 632,397 7 7 630,822 o 655,307 8 11 Works refused by the Works Department, for which tenders were afterwards received from contractors, during the. period from the institution of the Works Department to 30/A September, 1897 — Estimate. Accepted tenders. £151,152 £150,340 17 9| Works suitable for, but not offered to, the Works Department, during the period from the institution of the department to 30lh September, 1897 — Total amount of Total amount of architect's estimates. lowest tenders. 48 works £18,562 17 £18,008 18 4 [There were four other works, in two of which no estimate was prepared, and two in which tenders were received, but were not accepted. The latter two, not having been carried out at all, have not been included in the above statement.] Summary of results. These statements disclose the following facts : — (1) The cost of the works executed by the Works Department has exceeded the final estimates for those works by £24,485 8 9 WORKS DEPARTMENT. 73 (2) The cost of the wm-ks offered to and executed by contractors, after they had been offered to the Works Depart- ment and refused, on the ground that the estimates were insufficient, was less than these estimates by . . £811 2 3 (3) The cost of the works carried out by contractors, which were not offered to the Works Department, was less than the estimate by ... £553 18 8 These figures conclusively show : — (1) That the works executed by the Works Department have resulted in the loss of a large sum of money to the ratepayers. (2) That the architect's estimates of the cost of the works must have been, on the whole, accurately prepared, seeing that when contractors were employed the total amount of the lowest tenders very closely corresponded with the total of the estimates. It must also be remarked that in many of the cases in which the Works Department executed works below the amount of the estimates the work was done in the early part of the department's career, and there is reason for supposing that at that time the estimates prepared by the Council's architect were in favour of the department.] Returning now to the report of the Minority Committee — JOBBING WORKS. (Special Committee's Report, p. xlii.). Jobbing works, by which are meant works for which speci- fications and drawings are not required, used formerly to be entrusted to contractors. For this purpose London was divided into a few districts, and the work was carried out under certain schedules of prices. On these schedules tenders were obtained for a fixed period, the contractors being asked to state in their tenders at what percentage above or helow the schedule prices they were prepared to undertake the work. In March, 1893, the Council resolved that jobbing works should be carried out by the Works Committee, but the Parks Committee were allowed to do painting up to £50. Early in 1895, schedules of prices were agreed upon between the Works Department and the architect and engineer, on which estimates, &c., were to be based. 74 JOBBING WORKS. In November, 1895, the "Works Committee suggested that jobbing works more than three miles from the Central Works, estimated at less than £3 in value, should not be entrusted to the Works Committee. The Bridges Committee and the Public Control Committee adopted the suggestion, but increased the amount to £5. In April, 1896, the Council resolved that jobbing works at fire brigade stations might be done by contractors or the Works Department, at the option of the Works Committee. This option has since been sometimes exercised in favour of contractors : (a) Under Engineer. The schedule of prices adopted was the old schedule, plus 10 per cent., since (November, 1896) raised to 12 per cent. Works executed between April, 1895, and 31st March, 1896 :— Estimated cost as per schedule prices, plus 10 per cent. Actual cost. 132 works . . £16,294 £14,626 Assuming that a contractor would require to be paid 10 per cent, above the schedule prices, this shows practically a saving of that 10 per cent. (b) Under Architect. Between 1893 and 1895 jobbing works were executed by the Works Department under the architect's supervision, and on estimates prepared by him on the same basis as those previously made for contractors' works. But in many cases the cost proved to be considerably in excess of those estimates, and there was Schedules great difficulty in settling the accounts of the cost. To prevent of prices, this, a schedule of prices was agreed upon That in use by the London School Board was adopted, with additions. For the Council's works the prices agreed upon were schedule prices, with an uniform addition of 12^- per cent., since (June, 1896) raised Disputes, to 14^- per cent. The introduction of the schedule did not prevent disputes. Many questions arose as to the application of the schedule (which contained some 10,000- items), and as to the treatment of particular items. At the date of the report sums amounting to £2,444, which had been disallowed by the architect, wen; claimed by the manager, and those disputes had been referred to arbitration. Works done since the schedule came into operation : — - Value according to schedule prices, plus L2J per cent. Actual cost. £13,278 £12,784 WORKS DEPARTMENT. 75 Assuming that a contractor would require to be paid 12^ per cent, over the schedule prices, this shows a saving of 4 per cent. There is, however, some question whether the schedule schedules prices, 12-^ (since 14^) per cent., were not too high. The expert- too high, ence of the London School Board, and of the Fire Brigade Com- mittee, go to show that they were. A scale which might be fair for all jobbing works, becomes a liberal one if applied only to the larger and nearer jobs. The Fire Brigade Committee tested the matter. They obtained from the architect estimates for jobbing works requiring to be done, based on the prices of the Works Department schedule, and from this list (without further reference to the architect) they selected certain works to be put out to tender. The result was as follows : — Architect's estimate, based on schedule Accepted prices. tender. Twenty-six works . . £3,859 £3,465 Seven later works . . 1,309 988 £5,168 £4,453 In other words, a saving of 13 per cent, by employing contractors. — (S. C. Report, p. xliii.) The result of'these figures, compared with those given above, shows that whereas jobbing works done by the Works Department show a saving of 4 per cent, on the scheduled prices, works done by contractors show a saving of 13 per cent, on the scheduled prices. In other words, the employment of the Works Depart- ment to do architectural jobbing works involves a loss to the ratepayers of 9 per cent, on the cost of such works. The view of certain members of the Works Committee that jobbing architectural works can be done better by the Works Department than by contractors, and at equal cost to the Council, is not shared by the minority of the Special Committee, or by the Council's architect, or by Mr. Gruning, or by such an experienced contractor as Mr. Burt. Time and money must be spent in Local sending men and materials to a distance, and jobbing work requires jobbing, special supervision of labour. The minority of the Special Committee also point out that it seems to them a partial and objectionable arrangement that all those employed on jobbing 76 JOBBING WORKS. works for the Council should be hired from a single centre, or | even three or four centres. JohnEurns The opinion of Mr. John Burns on this subject is not com- on local plimentary to local tradesmen. He says : " I suspect the local tradesmen, labourer and the local tradesmen's jobs. It generally ends in jobbery." — (S. C. Report, p. 5281.) [Local tradesmen will please note.] Architectural Works versus Engineering Works. The marked difference of result which has shown itself between architectural works and engineering works, whether estimated or jobbing, and alike as to cost and as to frequency of disputes, is easy to explain. Architectural works are far more intricate and difficult of execution. In the Blackwall Tunnel, for which the estimate was £800,000, the bill of quantities contained 935 items ; whilst for a weights and measures station, for which the contract was £6,665, the number of items was 2,175. This complexity, besides making the undertaking more hazardous, can- not fail to raise a crop of questions, both as to the exact meaning of the specifications for estimated works, or the terms of the schedule for jobbing works, and as to whether they have in fact been fulfilled. Such experience is not confined to the Works Department Architec- The question then is, if architectural works can only be tural carried on by the Works Department at a relative loss, is there works an y sufficient reason why they should be undertaken at all ? This should not ^ i . . o , • , i i i be under- a PP ears to us to De a matter tor which a case has to be made out. taken. As Mr. Gruning observes: — " I assume that tho objects of a corporation in carrying on works or " factories for producing buildings and goods required, in pre- " ference to contracting for or purchasing them, are twofold, viz., " (1) To obtain better results as to quality; (2) To economise " the funds with which a corporation is entrusted by the rate- " payers. If neither of these objects is attained, the only result " is the waste of time, thought and labour devoted gratuitously " to the service of a corporation bj r the elected representatives of " the constituency." To which we might add, as further results, the employment of the ratepayers' money to the displacement of legitimate trade, and the multiplication of employes in the service of an authority chiefly elected by popular suffrage. Now the plea of less cost, as we have seen, fails. Nothing is to be gained in respect of quality of work ; nothing in the improvement of conditions of labour, for the contractor pays the same wages and observes the same hours of employment. A check against "contractors' rings" may be too dearly purchased. In short, no reason was offered to us except WORKS DEPARTMENT. 77 that, according to Mr. "Ward (who disputed the above conclusions as to cost and quality), it is quite clear that the policy is " in f liannony with the general trend of present opinion." Amongst all the municipalities and railway and other large companies in the kingdom we are unable to name a single one which executes its own architectural works (except those works which, from having to be carried out on premises in use by the public, cannot safely be left by the company to other hands). None think it necessary to set up a works department in self-defence against contractors. All alike seem aware that the hope of saving the contractors' profit is a vain one ; all are deterred by the certainty of trouble and by the danger of heavy losses. For these reasons we think that the Council should cease to undertake the execution of architectural works. Engineering works stand on a different footing. It is agreed Engineer- on all hands, by builders and contractors no less than by others, that in S works, there are works of this kind that can profitably be undertaken by a municipality ; it is no doubt an advantage that the Council should not be wholly dependent on contractors, especially where it it a question of underground work. As a fact many municipalities execute for themselves the engineering works which they require, even when those works are on a very large scale. [The following explanation (not given by the minority) may be fairly made with regard to the fact that the AVorks Department has shown a profit upon engineering works, upon sewers, and the like : This is how Mr. Rowland Plumbe, F.R.I.B.A., puts it — " Contractors have necessarily, in sewer work, to put clown large " margins for risks." There may be good gravel or there nay be running sand. The contractor has, in his tender, to provide for the latter; but where the Works Department take the job, they only estimate for ordinary work, seeing that whatever is the actual cost the Council have to pay it. In such circumstances it is obvious that the contractors' prices must necessarily be higher than the estimate of the Works Department. The former must provide against contingencies. The latter estimates low, trusts to luck, and falls back upon the Council if luck i'aiis, and extraordinary risks occur. Another point should be borne in mind. The Works ch eap3r to Department executed the engineering works at a total sum which employ was lower than the total of the estimates. But in the lew works con- which were given to contractors the contractors did the same, tractors. Thus, among the engineering works rrfn.su/ by the Works Department on the. ground (hat the est! mates were insufficient, but which were afterwards executed by contractors, are the following: — 78 JOBBING WORKS. Chelsea Bridge, painting . Wandsworth Bridge, painting Brooke's Market, paving . Victoria Embankment, repairs Estimate. Accepted tender. £2,000 £1,457 770 427 1,670 1,698 2,800 2,850 £7,240 £6,432 The Works Depart- ment summed up. Dissen- sions. Lack of qualifica- tion. Amateurs. Upon these works, therefore, there was a saving of £808, or 1 1 per cent, on the estimated cost, and this, too, on estimates which the Works Department had rejected as insufficient. When the department can pick and choose its jobs, it is not surprising that it makes a " profit."] Returning to the minority report — " It remains, they say, to be considered what is the best administrative machinery for the Council to use. The Works Committee appears to us to be open to the following observations : — "(1) It is the only one of the committees which is not unanimously recognised as necessary for the adminis- tration of the affairs of the Council. It does not possess the confidence of more than a bare majority of the Council. By a very large minority it is looked upon as the experiment of a party policy to which they are opposed — the policy of municipalisation of labour under trade union auspices, and the setting up of the London County Council as a model employer, to the exclusion, as far as possible, of contractors, who are to be viewed with distrust. Accordingly every question relating to the Works Committee is inevitably treated by both sides as a party issue. From the works come dissensions in the Council, dissensions in the Works Committee, dissensions in the spending committees from which work for the Works Committee is supplied. " (2) The Works Committee personally carry on the business of builders, and for this they do not possess the necessary qualifications. A builder's business is intricate and difficult, and requires skill and everyday attention. The committee are a body of gentlemen with a limited amount of expert knowledge, and a limited command of time, and must be looked upon as amateurs. They have the services of a manager. But the execution of works by the committee through the manager as their subordinate, is a totally different thing from the execution by the architect or engineer for a spending committee, as, for instance, was done in the case of the Crossness Schools WORKS DEPARTMENT. 79 and the York Road sewer. In this respect also the Works Committee is different from the other committees, which leave the actual conduct of their business to a qualified and responsible officer. When the Works Incapacity. Committee personally select the materials to be purchased for works, it is much as if the Asylums Committee were to prescribe for the lunatic patients. " (3) The Works Department being treated as a conti'actor, False the engineer and architect and their departments on position the one hand, and the Works Committee and the staff of their department on the other, find themselves in a relation of mutual antagonism with respect to the estimates, with respect to the supervision of the works, and with respect to the settling up of accounts. All of all parties are thus placed in a false position. The engineer P arties - and architect, who would naturally be the expert advisers of the committee, are forced to net as censors of those whose salaried officers they are. In like manner the departments which should co-operate stand from each other at arm's length. So far as the engineer and architect are concerned these difficulties have been minimised by their good sense and fairness. But between the Architect's Department and the Works Department there have been constant dissensions, which Constant have been much aggravated by party comments in the dissen- open debates of the Council and in the public press. S10as - Again, the manager of the Works Committee does not submit to the rulings of the architect, as a contractor is obliged to do ; and so great have been the difficulties of settling accounts, that the Council has found it necessary to provide for these disputes — disputes on mere matters of Arbitra- opinion and between its own officers — to be referred to tl0n arbitration. Lastly, this faulty organization goes far to ^' explain what otherwise might appear inexplicable, the recent falsifications of the appropriation accounts, which in transferring items of cost from one job to another so False as to bring the cost of each nearer to equality with the accounts, estimate, had for their object to prevent unpleasant questions being raised between the departments. If the late manager and assistant manager were prompted by a desire to maintain their credit for keeping the cost within the estimate, it was anxiety to avoid friction and departmental jealousy which induced the clerical staff to be parties to malpractices from which they personally had nothing to gain. If existing arrangements are left unaltered, the staff of the Works Department will be in 80 INTERNAL DISSENSIONS. Experience of West Ham. Objections insur- mountable future subjected to the same strain as that which led to the commission of the recent falsifications. We have been informed that the Council of West Ham, which followed the example of the London County Council in establishing a Works Committee, have already found themselves obliged to discontinue it for the like reasons, viz.: — the departmental discords which it inevitably created, and allegations as to the unfairness of the estimates of the engineer of the corporation. " The objections which we have mentioned are, it is obvious, inherent to the existence of the Works Committee, and cannot be removed by any reduction in the number of that Committee or by any change in its composition. We are, therefore, of opinion that, in the public interest, the continuance of the Works Com- mittee is indefensible." Names of The minority report was signed by Mr. R. Melvill Beach- minority. cro ft, Mr. J. S. Fletcher, Dr. G. B. Longstaff" and Sir Godfrey Lushington. Another point remains to be mentioned. Contrsc- Tt has already been stated that contractors of the highest tors will reputation, as well as many others of good standing, refused to not tender, tender for the Council's work owing to the harassing conditions imposed by the Council. The following statement shows what the Council required in regard to FAIR WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT. On 16th December, 1892, the County Council settled standing orders indicating the conditions, as regards wages of workmen, which are to be inserted in contracts with workmen employed by contractors (and sub-contractors) of the County Council. These orders are set out in 1892 Minutes, pp. 1287-91. Chief points : — 1. List of wages and hours to be paid by the County Council where they do work without intervention of contractors, arc to be kept at the County Hall. These lists are to be settled on the basis of the wages and hours " recognised and in practice obtained by the various trade unions in London." 2. Contractors are to pay wages not less, for hours not greater, than those in the Couuty Council's list, for work to be executed within twenty miles of Charing Cross. Penalties to be enforced for breach. WOUKS DEPARTMENT. 81 3. For work beyond twenty miles of Charing Cross, wages and hours to be observed are to be those recognised and in practice obtained by the trade unions of the district where the work is to be done. Penalties for breach. 1. Contractors to display lists of hours and wages in work- shops, and to keep books with entries of payments and hours. Penalties for breach. 5. Contractors to make, if required, statutory declarations that the entries of payments and hours are correct. C>. If workman not paid the scheduled rate of wages, County Council may pay him the difference, and deduct amount from the amount payable to the contractor. 7. Where contractor employs sub-contractor, the latter must conform to similar conditions. The effect of the Council's conditions is so unsatisfactory that Unsatis- they were not supported even in the report of the majority of t lie f ^ ct °r^ Special Committee, signed by Sir A. Arnold. This is what they say : — " The relations of the Council with contractors are not at present " the most advantageous. . . . Consequent upon the con- " ditions of contract . . . there lias been difficulty in obtain- '' ing responsible tenders : and sometimes those obtained have " been at prices specially and largely enhanced by reason of the " Council's conditions. The President of the Master Builders' " Association states ' that it is only those conditions which are " ' keeping contractors out, and those conditions are not essentia! " ' to good work.' Xo objection appears to be made to the " schedule of wages and hours of labour, nor to the obligation to " pay the full current rate of wages. But very strong resent- " merit is displayed against the words ' in practice obtained by "'the various trades unions in London' in the standing "order." . . . " There is a strong practical demand for equal " recognition of the employers' unions."- (S. 0. Report, p. viii.) "... Another matter of complaint is the requirement that the " Clerk of the Council may direct the books of the contractor to " lie produced. The opinion was expressed that time books ami " wages sheets would be aU that is necessary to secure C.r.^ " observance of the conditions of contract as to labour and " wages- We concur in this view, and shall recommend " accordingly." Just before the issue of the Special Committee's report, the policy of harassing contractors was further illustrated in a report of the Stores Committee, presented to the Council on the 30th March, 1897 (Minutes, p. 358). This is what they reported. CONTRACT FOR CLOTHING— RATES OF WAGES. " We have had under consideration the conditions to be attached to the forthcoming contract tor clothing. The standing F 82 CONTRACT FOR CLOTHING— RATES OF WAGES. Council invited to fix wages of con- tractors' men. orders of the Council provide that in all clothing contracts a minimum scale of wages for workers and work of every descrip- tion shall be fixed by the Council, and that contractors shall be called upon to sign an agreement to pay according to the scale. These orders arose out of the inquiry instituted by the Council, in 1891 and 1892, into the conditions of the clothing trade, with the object of securing the payment of a fair rate of wages to the employes of contractors of the Council. It was anticipated at the time that representatives of the masters and men would confer with a view to arranging a minimum scale of wages for all classes of garments included in the Council's clothing contract, but it does not appear that any satisfactory arrangement could be come to, as the results of the conference, if held, have not been sub- mitted to the Council, and no scale of wages has in consequence been adopted. Hitherto firms tendering for the supply of clothing to the Council have, in addition to complying with certain special conditions laid down by the Council, been required to state in the form of tender the prices they proposed to pay their workpeople for making up the uhferent descriptions of clothing, but these prices we have found differ considerably in the case of each garment. We are of opinion that the fairest and most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter would be for the Council itself to fix the minimum prices to be paid by contractors to 'workpeople for making up the various garments, so that all firms could tender under the same conditions. We have accordingly had a schedule of prices applicable to the class of work prepared with a view to the same being inserted in the new clothing contract. The adoption of the scale suggested would, we believe, secure the payment of a better wage to the workers without an appreciable increase of cost to the Council. We recommend — That the Committee be authorised to settle the minimum prices to be paid by contractors to workpeople for making up the various descriptions of clothing required by the Council." Heavy penalty. PENALTY IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH OF THE COUNCIL'S CONDITIONS AS TO WAGES. " The contracts for clothing and boots do not at present provide for any penalty being recoverable from contractors in the event of a breach of the Council's conditions as regards wages and hours of labour. In the case of the clause prohibiting " home work" and stipulating that all work should be done in the contractor's own factories, the Council fixed a penalty of £100. We think that a penalty of the same amount should be recoverable WORKS DEPARTMENT. 83 by the Council for any breach of the conditions as to wages and hours of labour. We recommend — That a penalty of £100 be recoverable by the Council from con- tractors for any breach of the conditions as to wages and hours of labour contained in contracts for clothing or boots, and that fche solicitor do insert the necessary clauses in future contracts." Both of these recommendations were withdrawn after dis- cussion. They show, however, the trend of the Progressive mind. Consideration of the recommendations of the majority of the Special Committee on the Works Department. The following are the recommendations and the results of Special the consideration of them by the Council : — Com- •txr i mittee'a We recommend — -«„«™ recom- (a) That in the opinion of the Council some definite organiza- menda- tion for the direst employment of labour and the direct execution o/tions. public works by the Council, under the superintendence of its own officers, is desirable and beneficial. Not carried: 56 voted for and 56 against. The Chairman (Dr. Collins) did not vote. — (Minutes, p. 606.) (b) That a Works Board be substituted for Oie Works Com- mittee, such board to be elected forthwith, one member to be nominated by and from each of the following committees: Finance, Asylums, Biidges, Fire Brigade, Highways, Improvements, Main Drainage, Parks, and Housing oj the Working Classes; and that in future years the election of members of the board do take place at the meeting of these committees next to the 31*^ March. Amendment, moved and secunded by Moderates, and carried : — That all works ordered by the Council to be carried out Amend- without the intervention of a contractor shall in future ment by be carried out by the manager of the Works Depart- Moderates, ment, who shall be responsible to the Spending Committee in the same way as a contractor would be ; and that the Finance Committee shall have control of the finances of the Department. — [Minutes, p. 684.) (c) That any committee desiring to propose to the Council the carrying out of any works without the intervention of a contractor, shall, in the first instance, obtain an estimate from the proper officer and then refer such estimate to the Works Board for their consideration before reporting to the Council. Amended by substituting the words " Manager of the Works Department for his examination and report" for the words in italics, P 2 84 RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAJORITY. (d) That the Works manager shall, unless in any case other- wise ordered, carry into execution all works which the Council resolves to execute without the intervention of a contractor. (e) That when the Council wishes to execute any works without the. intervention of a contractor, the plans, specification and estimate shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Council, be thereupon referred to the works manager. Both adopted. (f) That the works manager shall be responsible to the Works Board, and the board shall report from time to time to the Council. Amended by substituting the words " Spending Committee and the committee" for the words in italics. — {Minutes, p 684.) (g) That this report be referred to the General Purposes Committee, and that it be an instruction to that Committee to amend the standing orders in accordance with the foregoing recommendations. (//) That it be referred to the General Purposes Committee to make further amendment of the standing orders hy the insertion of words coupling the unions of employers, where such exist, with the trades unions, in reference to the rates of wages and hours of labour. Both adopted. (*) That it be referred to the General Purposes Committee to make further amendment of the standing orders by omitting provisions giving powers to the clerk of the Council to direct examination of the books of any one contracting with the Council for the execution of works, other than the time-sheets or book', or wages-sheets or books, and the Committee shall be empowered to consider and report to the Council any other alterations, not affecting the rates of wages or conditions of labour, that they mag think desirable. Amended by adding the words in italics. — (Minutes, p. 680.) (j) That the statement of Mr. Edwin Waterhouse be referred to the comptroller for report upon each and all of his suggestions with reference to the accounts, and that the comptroller's report be referred to the General Purposes Committee, with a view to the adoption of Mr. Waterhouse's recommendations. Adopted without division. — (Minutes, p. 608.) The following amendment to paragraph (a) was moved bg the Earl of Onslow, and seconded bg &ir Godfrey Lushing ton : — Proposal of That the Council, being satisfied from the evidence submitted Moderates, and the further report of the Works Committee that work executed for it by the Works Department is not superior in quality to that executed by contractors, and that considerable loss WORKS DEPARTMENT. 85 has been sustained in consequence of the operations of the Works Department, resolves that no further work shall be entrusted to that department ; and that it be referred to the General Purposes Committee to consider and report as to the arrangements necessary for the due completion of the works in hand, and for dealing with the Central Works in Belvedere Road. The voting on the amendment being equal (62 for, 62 against), it was not carried. — (Minute*, 1st July, 1897, p. 606.) RECENT PROCEEDINGS. The efforts to artificially maintain the Works Department are being continued by the Progressive party, notwithstanding the suppression of the Works Committee. The most recent instance of this is found in the scheme to Works alter and enlarge the Hampstead fire station. The architect's me nt still estimate of the cost of the work was made on 20th May, 1897. bolstered On the 27th May, 1897, the Fire Brigade Committee decided to recommend the Council to refer the estimate to the Works Committee, with a proviso that in the event of that Committee not being satisfied as to the sufficiency of the estimate, tenders should be invited for the work by public advertisement. As a preliminary, the estimate had to be forwarded to the Finance Committee, and hence it was not practicable for the Fire Brigade Committee to submit their recommendation to the Council until the first ordinary meeting after the Whitsuntide recess, viz., on 29th June. It happened, however, that at a special meeting of the Council, on the 28th June, it had been decided that the Works Committee should come to an end. Consequently, on the 29th June, the recommendation to refer this matter to the Works Committee had to be withdrawn. On the 15th July the Council referred the estimate to the Works manager under the new system. The specification and quantities were forwarded to the manager on 19th July, but it was not until the 18th September (six months after the estimate was made by the architect) that the manager was able to intimate that he was not satisfied with the estimate. Tenders were thereupon invited by advertisement. Only four were received, and the lowest was £4.955 ; but the lowest tenderers stated on their tender that if the work were carried out under the general conditions for building contracts agreed upon by the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Builders' Society, and adopted by the Central Association of Master Builders of London, the firm's tender would be reduced by 5 per 86 RECENT PROCEEDINGS. cent. The firm also added that it would require the clause in the form of contract as to payment altered. On the 9th November, 1897, the Fire Brigade Committee reported this fact to the Council, and as some modification of the plans had been suggested, the Committee expressed their desire to further consider the whole matter before making a further recommendation to the Council. The Council, however, referred back the report to the Committee, with a request that they would state the causes which had resulted in the lowest tender exceeding the estimate by so large a sum, and the amount for which the manager of the Works Department was prepared to carry out the work. The following is an extract from a report made by the architect on the subject — The Committee will remember that in this case my estimate was £-4,170, while the lowest tender was £1,955, the excess of tender over estimate being £785. The chief cause ai-ises from the fact that my estimate was made at the beginning of May last, while the tenders were received on the 26th of October. Six months had therefore elapsed during which time the labourers' wages and the prices of certain materials had increased. For this reason and other reasons to be mentioned, it had gradually become more difficult to get tenders from responsible contractors. My estimate of May was in accordance with builders' prices at about that date ; in fact, it was in accord with the prices at which a responsible contractor actually took work under the Council, only eight weeks before the estimate was made, which work is now being carried out by him. Having looked over my estimate again, I consider that not less than £367 of the difference now in question is due to the rise in labourers' wages and materials after my estimate was made, to the fact that the work will now have to be done in the winter, and other ordinary contingencies. This still leaves a difference of £418 to be accounted for, which I have no doubt is largely due to the tmwillingness of responsible contractors to tender for the Council's work under the existing- conditions of contract. In fact the lowest tenderers state that, if the conditions are made similiar to those of the Royal Institute of British Architects they will reduce their tender by 5 per cent., or about £250. It is quite possible that other tenderers, and persons who were deterred from, tendering- by the Council's conditions, would reduce their estimates by an amount even greater than this. We ought to have had at least eight or ten tenders from firms who are usually eager to compete fcr the Council's work, ir stead of four, only one of whom is known to us. But there are other extraordinary causes of difference which may be only temporary. The cost of ironwork must have been raised by the engineers' strike. I am told that during this autumn bricks, unless previously contracted for, cannot be obtained, and bricklayers cannot now be obtained even through public advertisement. Therefore even my enhanced estimate may at present prove inadequate. WORKS DEPARTMENT. 87 The Works manager's estimate of the cost of the work according to the specification, quantities and drawings originally supplied by the architect was ascertained to be ,£4,800, and he put the additional work to be done at £100, making a total of £4,900. A further £100 was wanted to cover cost oi" preparing quantities and lithographing drawings. The Fire Brigade Committee thereupon recommended that this work, at a cost of £5,000, should be entrusted to the Works Department without the intervention of a contractor. The recommendation came before the Council on the 7th December, 1897, and being objected to by the Moderate party, was postponed. Looking at the facts which the architect had reported con- cerning the circumstances in which the previous tenders had been sent in, and looking also at the considerable time which had elapsed, it should have been apparent to any business-like body of men that fresh tenders ought to be invited under reasonable conditions, such as would induce the best class of contractors to tender. Nothing of the kind. The Progressives wanted to feed the Works Department, and to send to it every job which they could possibly procure for it. It mattered not that the chairman and other Moderate members of the Fire Brigade Committee desired otherwise. The recommendation was pressed. On the 14th December, 1897, the matter came again before the Council, and an amendment was then moved by the Earl of Hardwicke, seconded by Mr. Roberts, " That the recommendation " be referred back to the Committee, with instructions to invite " tenders for the work." The Council refused to allow the chairman of the Committee (a Moderate) to withdraw the recommendation, and on a strictly party division the Moderates succeeded in carrying their amendment by two votes (47 to 45). The procedure of the Progressives in this matter is significant, and shows that their idea is not to get work done at the best possible advantage for the ratepayers, but to maintain the Works Department at any cost. The future of the great question still remains to be deter- What shall mined, and it devolves upon the electors to determine it. What be done in is to be done with the Works Department ? If it is decided to future 1 carry it on on anything like the old lines, the ratepayers must be prepared to face further losses. Mr. B. L. Cohen, M.P., one of the greatest financial authorities in the Council, in a letter to the Times of 24th November, 1896, said — " We have had over Works " three years' experience of the Works Department. The Com- De P^ rt * " mittee have had the unlimited resources, and the financial credit summe j " of the Council at their command. Money has been advanced to up. 88 FUTURE OF WORKS DEPARTMENT. " them at half the rate at which a contractor could borrow it, " if, indeed, he could obtain it at all on such a scale, and the " result is the Works Committee have clone £380,000 worth of " work at a cost of over £20,000 in excess of that at which it could 'and would have been executed by a private contractor." Subsequent experience amply corroborates this view. How to O' 1 *' ie other hand, if it be decided to abandon the scheme, or ohpose of only to carry on the work in matters in which the direct employ - the depot, rnent of labour can certainly be made to pay, the costly depot in the Belvedere Road, Lambeth, will have to be dealt with. In regard to this, the minority of the Special Committee stated in their report that the possession of the Central Works need cause no difficulty. They will be less required if the Council limits itself to engineering works. The workshops could be let off, and the rest be placed either under the existing Stores Committee or under a separate committee to be formed for the purpose. — (Special Com- mittee 's Report, p. xliv.) FAIR WAGES. We consider it but just that the employees of the Council should be paid wages at a rate based on the most liberal s^ale generally current in the Metropolis, and in all cases of contract we would enforce the principle adopted by the House of Commons in regard to sub- letting", sweating, &c. It has been a cardinal principle of the County Council principle that the wages paid to the Council's workmen shall be those pyi^tin? recognised and in practice obtained by the various Trade Unions in London. It will be found that the " most libera' scale generally " current" in most cases coincides with that "recognised, and in " practice obtained by the various trade unions." Speaking at St. James's Hall, London, on June 15th, 1892, Conserva- Mr. A. J. Balfour, M.P., said :— " I think that every tive P° lic y- " public body, be it a town council or a county council, " or Parliament itself, should act towards the labour " which it employs in the spirit of the most liberal and " enlightened employer of labour, should do that and " should do no more, and I rejoice to think that it is " under the present Government, and through the " administration of the heads of the spending depart- " ments, that that principle has been extended to the " administration of those departments, and that at the " present time we are pledged — and our successors " through us — to deal with the labour they employ " upon the just, equitable and liberal principles which " I have just ventured to recommend for the acceptance " of every public authority." In 1801, Lord Salisbury's Administration carried the House of following resolution in the House of Commons: — " That in the Commons " opinion of this House it is the duty of the Government, in all reso u 10n- " Government contracts, to make provision against the evils u recently disclosed before the Sweating Committee, to insert such t: conditions as may prevent the abuse arising from sub-letting, •• and to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages " as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent " workmen." — (ffanwrd, vol. 350, p. 647.) 90 FAIR WAGES. Mr. Cremer, Gladstonian M.P. for Haggerston Division of Shoreditch, in the course of the debate on the foregoing resolution, said : — He thought that the thanks of the public were due to Lhe right hon. gentleman (Mr. Plunket) for the alteration in the workman's position that he had already made, and he himself thanked the right hon. gentleman for the generous spirit in which he had always received the suggestions that had been made to him on behalf Of the workmen.— ("Times" Report, February Uth, 1891.) Professor Stuart, Gladstonian M.P. for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch, said that the resolution marked a very distinct step in the anti-sweating direction. He was glad that the Government had given not only a pledge of their position but an example to other employers in this matter.— (" Times" Report, February \kth, 1891.) The Unionist Government, notwithstanding some unfounded assertions to the contrary, have been careful to carry out the resolution of the House of Commons. Mr. Hanbury, M.P., the Secretary of the Treasury, informed a deputation from the Trades Union Congress that " So far as " he was concerned he would carry out as far sis he could the " principle which he had always advocated — namely, that the " Government ought to be model employers of labour.'' — Times, 20th January, 1897. The Select Committee appointed to consider the working of the resolution of the House of Commons, reported in July, 1897, " That they had come to the conclusion that the departments, as "a whole, have loyally endeavoured to interpret and cany out " its provisions." — They said, however, that the resolution has been held to mean that a contractor must give to every man whom he employs the minimum current rate of wages payable to a fully competent workman in each particular trade, and that this has had an unfortunate effect in diminishing the prospect of employment for army reservists and old soldiers and sailors. They considered that Government contractors should not be called upon to refuse to engage such men at wages commensurate with their ability, even though those wages might be less than the ordinary current rate, provided that the wages of other workmen could not be shown to be adversely affected. They also considered that it should be assumed to have been incorporated by the House in the Fair Wages resolution that con- tractor's should give no preference as between " unionists " and "non-unionists." — (Parliamentary Reports, No. 334 of 1897.) For information as to the Council's rules in regard to wages, see p. 80. 91 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. We consider that the County Council should at once proceed to carry out some of the great Public Improve- ments for which London has so long waited, and which have been so long delayed by the Progressive policy of placing political considerations in antagonism to Muni- cipal requirements. In cases where, by such improvements, working people are displaced, we would advocate an arrangement by which accommodation for their use could be provided in the suburbs, with cheap trains at convenient hours on the various railways to render such accommodation available. Amongst other works which, in our opinion, should be taken in hand, is the construction of main sewers, to relieve the houses in those parts of London where they suffer in times of heavy rainfall from serious flooding. One of the most important duties devolving upon the London Powers of County Council is that of effecting public improvements. They council ai-e expressly empowered by section 144 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, to make, widen or improve any streets, roads or ways, for facilitating the rmssage and traffic between different parts of the Metropolis, and they are empowered to apply to Parliament, if necessary. This duty was very diligently performed by the Metropolitan The Board of Works, but until recently it has been obstinately go"^^^ neglected by the London County Council. In fulfilling that duty the Metropolitan Board of Works undertook improvements which cost £15,607,124 ; and, as the Beard were in existence 33 years, this made an average annual expenditure of £472,943. The old Board regarded the work of public improvements as Fads and among the most important which it had to carry out. The lasting* County Council, on the other hand, for several years relegated majority. 92 HADICAL NEGLIGENCE. Very little accom- plished. Tower Bridge approach. such work to a low place in its list of duties. Fads and fancies occupied much more of its time. How to despoil the City, how to get rid of the contractor, how to develop the Socialistic ideas of the Radical section, how to coerce Parliament into sanctioning various experiments at the public expense, how to acquire all sorts of new powers, how to meddle with everything with which it has no concern— all these things have proved far more attractive to the Council's majority than the dull administrative routine work which the Council was mainly constituted to perform. Almost the only great improvement of first-class importance which had been carried out up to the date when the present County Council came into existence was Rosebery Avenue, and that improvement owed its initiation entirely to the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Tower Bridge, one of the greatest masterpieces of modem engineering, and one of the finest and most useful exhibitions of municipal enterprise, was erected by tiie City Corporation. That bridge cost the City £1,195,000. It might reasonably have been expected that the County Council would have taken care that the approaches to the bridge should be ready for public use by the time the bridge itself was opened. Reporting in March, 1893, the Improvements Committee of the Council stated that "having regard to the fact that upon " the completion of the Tower Bridge there would be no practic- " able communication from Tooley Street to the Old and the " New Kent Roads, it became evident that the formation of " the new street could not be postpone! without serious incon- " venience to the public.'" — (1892-3, Report, p. 47. ) Schemes for the creation of approaches were for a long time before the Council. That for the southern approach was ready in 1891, "but the Council postponed it on the ground that the " incidence of burden was inequitable to the occupying rate- " payer."— (1895, Report, 53.) In 1892 the scheme was again placed before the Council, as it was then evident to the Improvements Committee " that the " formation of the new street could not be postponed without " serious inconvenience to the public." — [Ibid.) But notwithstanding the urgent representations that were made on the subject, the Progressive majority sulkily refused to proceed, and the sole ground of their refusal was that they could not put into practice their theories about " betterment." The matter was settled by Parliament in 1895, and the principles PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 93 enacted in the London County Council (Tower Bridge Southern Approach) Act, 1895, now represent the conclusion arrived at. For similar reasons the construction of the northern approach to the Tower Bridge has also been delayed, though not for so long a period as the southern. — (1896, Report, 48.) The bridge has been completed and open for traffic, but the approaches are still among the things for which London has to wait. BETTERMENT. On April 16th, 1894, in the House of Lords, a resolution to appoint a House of Seleet Committee of that House to consider and report upon the question Lords' of Betterment was agreed to, and the following Lords sat upon it : — Select Lord Tweedmouth, Duke of Norfolk. Marquess of Salisbury, Earl of Committee. Denbigh, Earl of Onslow, Lord Zouche, Lord Belper, Earl of Dunraven, Lord Halsbury, Lord Hobhonse, Lord Lingeti, Lord Farrer, Lord Thring, Earl Cowper, Lord Egerton. Lord Halsbury was appointed Chairman of the Committee. The following is a summary of the principal conclusions in the report Summary of this Committee : — ■ of Lords' 1. The principle of betterment, i.e., that persons whose property has Committee clearly been increased in market value by an improvement effected Report, by local authorities, should specially contribute to the cost of the improvement, is not in itself unjust. Such persons can equitably be required to do so. But the effect of a public work in raising the value of neighbouring lands is uncertain. Eminent valuers differ greatly on the question whether it is possible for a valuer to pronounce that such an effect has been produced by the com- pletion of any public work. 2. Owners of property should be entitled to not.'ce of a proposed change before the introduction of a Bill. 3. Owners should, within reasonable period after completion cf the work, receive notice of the amount of the proposed charge. 4. If the owner does not assent to the amount of the charge, it should be decided by an arbitrator or a jury with as little delay as possible. .">. Costs of arbitration should be paid by the local authority unless the charge fixed is the same or higher than that proposed, in which case each party should bear his own share of the costs. G. If the owner has property in the immediate neighbourhood which is found to be injured in its market v. ilia' by 1 1 1 i same work, the amount of the injury should be considered in determining the charge to lie imposed Upon him for improvements. 7. If the owner is of opinion that the charge exceeds the enhanceineni of market value due to the public work, he should bo entitled to claim that the local authority should purchase the property in question at the value which it bore, without regard to any improvement conferred or to be conferred upon it by such work : but under such circumstances, a local authority purchasing a freehold or long leasehold should not be compellable to dippossi 56 94 BETTERMENT. the occupying tenants, and should, if they prefer it, be empowered to purchase the reversion after the expiry of any immediate interests. Recoup- 10. As to " recoupment " (i.e., the power given to a local authority to ment. take land beyond what is necessary for the actual execution of the work, so that some part, at least, of the improved value may be secured by the improving public body in case of the burdens upon the ratepayers), the Committee were not satisfied that the plan has ever been tried under circumstances calculated to make it successful, inasmuch as no sufficient power has ever yet been given to local authorities to become possessed of the improved properties without buying out all the trade interests, a course which is inevitably attended with wasteful and extravagant expenditure. — (Report, pp. iii. and iv.) {The full report of the Lords Committee was published as a Parliamentary Paper, No. 159 of 1894, price Id.) The resolutions of the Lords' Committee formed the basis of the compromise agreed upon in 1895 in the Tower Bridge Act, above referred to. The abandonment of its extreme views by the Council was doubtless due to the accession to the strength of the Moderate party in the Council, which was the chief result of the 1895 County Council election. When the Council of 1892-95 came into office there were no street improvements of great importance for which the Council had obtained or was seeking Parliamentary powers, except the widen- ing of Sandy's Row to Bishopsgate. The total amount voted during the existence of the first County Council did not exceed £289,252, an average of £96,417 a year, or little more than one-fifth of the average sum annually spent in this most important work during 33 years under the old Board of Works.— (1892, Minutes, p. 671.) Schemes Yet improvements were never more needed in the whole postponed, course of London's history. This fact had again and again been pressed upon the Council by the Improvements Committee, but without effect. In July, 1891, a series of schemes for various street impi"ovements, at a total cost of £2,097,025, was submitted to the Council by that Committee. All these were postponed by votes of the Council, with the exception of the widening of Sandy's Row above referred to. Reasons The Council, by several resolutions, declined to undertake why. any great public improvements, " which could be postponed without grave inconvenience," until Parliament could be forced to give the Council the powers it sought in regard to the incidence of the burthen. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 95 In other words, the Radicals arrogated to the Council a right which belonged solely to the Legislature, and refused to allow the Council to perform its administrative duty because the Legislature did not agree with Radical theories. It is necessary to recall attention to these proceedings of the Radicals, because that party is again straining every nerve to recover the position of influence in the Council which was seriously impaired at the election in 1895. They are responsible for delaying improvements which ought long since to have been completed. The necessity for pushing on with " improvements " is indicated in the following extract taken from the report of the Improvements Committee for 1890-91 (1890-91, Report, p. 40):— " In a city of the magnitude of London it is inevitable that street Necessity " improvements should, not only now, but always, claim the earnest for " attention of the authorities, and the wisdom of making the question of improve- " cost subordinate to all other considerations is, we submit, doubtful. It ments. " is a paramount duty of municipal authorities to provide reasonable " facilities for the ever increasing traffic. . . . Neglect in widening " congested thoroughfares or in constructing more direct routes between " populous districts, entails a pecuniar)' loss to the community out of all " proportion to the cost involved in effecting the improvements, to say " nothing of the danger to life and limb. . . . We venture to submit " to the Council that permanent provision will certainly have to be made " for adequately providing for street improvements. There is no prospect '• of overtaking the wants of London in this respect during the present " generation. Large arterial thoroughfares should be devised and further " river embankments undertaken as soon as means are forthcoming, besides " the improvement of existing thoroughfares." But the admonitions of its own Committee have been lost on the Council. That illustrious body, by its Radical majority, stuck fast to its motto, " No betterment, no improvement." An instance of the way in which the Radical majority of the Welling- Councilof 1892-5 sacrificed the interests of the ratepayers to their ton Street " Betterment " fad is shown in the correspondence which passed ? . trand between the Council and the Duchy of Lancaster Office respecting the purchase of buildings for the much wanted Wellington Street improvement. Briefly, the facts are these : — The Duchy offered their property to the Council for £32,000 on certain conditions, one being that no application for betterment should be made in respect of certain property behind it. The Council's valuer seems to have stated that, if a betterment charge were claimed, the charge would not amount to more than £6,760. The Council thei'eupon sought to inveigle the Duchy into an admission of the principle of betterment. They agreed to the purchase on conditions, one of which was that the Duchy should admit that " the reduction of the price from £38,760 to the agreed 96 WELLINGTON STREET AND STRAND WIDENING. " sum of £32,000 is made in lieu of a contribution by the Duchy " in respect of betterment." The Duchy refused to make any such admission, and the Improvements Committee advised the Council to accept the property at £32,000, without the admission. In their report to the Council, the Improvements Committee backed their recommendations in the following strong terms : — " We cannot conceive that the Council would willingly lose " such a very favourable opportunity for effecting the much- " needed widening of Wellington Street, for we would again say, " what we endeavoured to make clear to the Council in our " previous report, that unless the present opportunity is seized, a " loss equal to five or six times the present cost of the improve- " ment will be sustained by the ratepayers in the near future " when, as must be the case, the improvement is carried out "under the ordinary conditions of compensation." — (1894, Minutes, p. 690.) The Radical and Progressive majority, however, stood firm by their fad, and rejected the bargain, merely because the Duchy would not in terms admit that it had asked a price which in fact it never did ask, and had reduced that imaginary price on condi- tion that betterment should not be claimed. The proceedings of the Council on the subject will be found in their Minutes for 1894 on pp. 390, 520, 689 and 700. The actual The following account of this piece of incredible folly facts. appeared in the Times of 19th July, 1894 : — THE PROPOSED STRAND IMPROVEMENT. A Parliamentary Paper (No. 161 of 1894, price 1(7.) has been published containing- the correspondence which has passed between the Duchy of Lancaster and the London County Council with reference to the purchase, from the Duchy, of the reversion to the freehold of property required for widening Wellington Street and the Strand; and as to the conditions imposed by the Duchy against any claim by the London County Council to levy a " betterment" charge on property between Wellington Street, the Strand, Savoy Street and Wellington Place. The first letter from the Duchy of Lancaster OHice, dated February 12th, 1S94, states thai the Chancellor of the Duchy is prepared to recommend the sale to the Council of the reversions expectant on the expiration of the several Duchy leases for which the same are now held, and one day beyond-, to certain pieces of land on the west side of Wellington Street and south side of the Strand, as are described, for the sum of £32,000, subject to certain conditions, among which is the following: "No claim or question of 'betterment' shall " hereafter be raised by the Council as to any part of the block bounded '• by Wellington Street, the Strand. Savoy Street and Lancaster Place, •■ which might be hold to be affected by the contemplated improvement." After some further correspondence a letter, dated Jane 7th, LS91, was written on behalf of the London Count v Council by the clerk, stating that the Council, at its meeting o:i June 5th, passed the following resolution : '• That, sat jpet to an esrimitc feint: submitted to Die Council by the I'i ■.•nice Committre '• as reou'reO by the Statute, (he Council t'.o accept the offer of the Duphy of Lancaster to sill PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 97 " to the Council for £32,000, and upon the conditions (a) to (e) inclusive sat out in the report " of the Improvements Committee, the reversion to the freehold of the property required for " widening Wellington Street and the Strand, with a view to carrying out the improvement on " the understanding that the reduction of the price from £38,7,100, about 75 per cent, were " foreigners."'— (P. ix.) Of the influence they exert on the wages of English workmen the Committee say : — " It appears clear from the evidence that some of the results "of foreign immigration are bad. Its effects are of course most " evident in those trades which they chiefly follow. The first and "most striking result has been a lotoerhig of wages in these " occupations. " It is also certain that in the East End of London pauperism " has increased owing to the crowding out of English labour by " foreign immigration. The Mile End Board of Guardians found "that it had a deteriorating effect upon the moral, financial and " social condition of the people. The Whitechapel Guardians " deplored the substitution of the foreign for the English popula- " tion. The result, they say, is the lowering of the general " condition of the people. They view with dismay the insanitary " habits of the aliens." The Committee recommended that measures should be adopted to secure more complete and accurate statistics of the arrival and departure of aliens, and they concluded as follows : — "That while your Committee see great difficulties in the way " of enforcing laws similar to those of the United States and " certain other countries against the importation of pauper and "destitute aliens, and while they are not prepared to recommend "such legislation at present, they contemplate the possibility of "such legislation becoming necessary in the future, in view of the " crowded condition of our great towns, the extreme pressure "for existence among the poorer part of the population, and the " tendency of destitute foreigners to reduce still lower the social "and materia] condition of our own poor." FOREIGN PAUPERS. 109 In 1889, from the large amount of information obtained by Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, which was appointed committee by Lord Salisbury's Government to consider the " Sweating ° n the . " System,'" it was shown that the influx of pauper aliens was one of System. the chief factors in that svstem. — (See Parliamentary Paper 169 of 1890.) From a series of reports collected in 1887 and since, it is The action known that Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain countries, and the United States, all possess the power to expel, or prevent the entry of, pauper aliens. — (See Parliamentary Paptrs C 5,168, C 5,109.) The steps taken by Lord Salisbury's Government consequent Action of on these reports were, in the first place, directed to the collection Salisbury's of information in as complete a manner as possible, so that the Govern- 111 6 lit extent of the evil might be accurately gauged. With this view they directed that lists should be prepared of all aliens arriving at the ports of the United Kingdom from all Continental ports. A fairly complete record has thus been obtained. The returns show that the number of foreign immigrants who remained in this country rose from 8,000 in 1890 to 23,599 in 1893, of whom about 8,000 are Russians and Poles. Tbe Salisbury Government also did their best to prevent the influx of aliens by distributing warnings, through our consuls abroad, as to the difficulty of obtaining employment in England. In L894 Lord Salisbury introduced in the House of Lords Lord a Bill to give powers to prohibit the landing of pauper aliens in AitensBiU this country. The Bill was opposed hj Lord Rosebery and the of 1894. Liberal Peers, and the Liberal Government would not give any facilities for its introduction into the House of Commons. In his speech in the second reading debate on July 17th, Other 1894, Lord Salisbury said :— Pegu?™ 58 " What I ventured to lay before you was that the justification lating. " of a policy of this kind, of giving to our Government the power " of excluding pauper aliens, depended upon the fact that other " countries were doing the same. It is because America in the " year 1893 made her legislation singulaily more sharp, because l: Canada maintained an almost equally severe exclusion, and " because, as I think the noble earl himself confessed, all nations " were doing the same, that it becomes a matter of policy. . . . " It is these people who diminish the chances of earning Jmmigra- " a livelihood which your own population feels so much. Tiieir |i2Sina~ " difficulty of finding employment is increasing more and more, to the " the number of those who are seeking public relief gets greater classes^ " and greater, and there is a very general belief among working " men — and I think that belief is founded upon fact — that the " introduction of these aliens, who are content with the very 110 THE ALIENS BILL, 1894. This Bill will stop it. Slackness of employ- ment here. Lord Rose- bery's views in 1893. " lowest conditions of existence, lias a tendency to drive our own " population out of employment, and to increase the hardness of " finding the means of living. It is a matter of no small con- " sideration that that is the belief they themselves entertain — " that the Government of this country does not sufficiently safe- " guard their interests by preventing a competition to which they " have a right to object. " My lords, the noble earl relied very much on the fact that " the American law had not been carried into operation in any " great number of cases ; but that is precisely an indication of the " mode in which legislation of this kind acts. It does not act so " much to drive people out as to deter them from coming in. . " I should be very sorry if there was a constant sending back " of people who have come over to this country ; but we know " that when once destitute persons abroad are aware that they " will not be allowed to settle in this country if they have no " means of existence they will never undertake the enterprise. "... It is to the deterrent and not to the operative " effect of these proposals that I look for efficacious action in " keeping pauper alieus out of the country. " I have not represented this as an urgent case, but I feel " that it is a case which is growing in urgency every year, and " that the discouragement of your own population is very serious "at a time when their misery is so great, and the difficulty of " obtaining employment is so serious, if they feel that they are " exposed to the competition of men with whom, on account of " the different conditions under which they live, it is very hard " for them to fight, and that the burdens under which they lie " are increased by a pauperism which is not their own. . " In view of the fact that the outlet for all the poverty of Europe " is now practically stopped in that direction, the matter calls for " the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and I think that " Parliament ought to make it a subject of legislation at the " earliest possible period." Though Lord Rosebery opposed the Bill, he, in 1893, at the Colonial Institution, London, on November 14th, recognised the necessity for legislation dealing with the question. The following is an extract from his speech : — " I take it if there is one certainty in the world it is this, " that with the growth of immigration, and with the continual " closing of the confines of States to the destitute immigrants of " other countries, there is no country in the world that will not " be compelled to consider its position, and possibly reconsider its " position, with regard to pauper immigration, unless it wishes " permanently to degrade the status and the condition of its own " working classes." FOREIGN PAUPERS. Ill In September, 1895, the Trades Union Congress passed the Trades following resolution : — Union " In view of the injury done to a lai'ge number of trades and v * ew - " ti'ades unions by the wholesale importation of foreign destitute " paupers, this Congress calls upon the Government to take the M necessary steps either by Bill, official inspection, or Order in " Council, to prohibit the landing of all pauper aliens who have " no visible means of subsistence." — {Daily Chronicle, Sep- tember, 1895.) The foregoing resolution was brought to the notice of the Government in November, 1895, on which occasion Mr. Eitchie (President of the Board of Trade) made the following state- ment : — " The question is a very large one when you find that these Mr. 11 aliens gravitate to a particular part of the country, and swamp Ritchie's " the labour in that particular part. I know something of the ex P erience - " East End of London, and I know that in canvassing down in " St. George's-in-the-East and Whitechapel it was almost iru- " possible for me to make any canvass at all without being able " to speak Yiddish. To go with mere English into many parts " both of St. George's-in the-East and Whitechapel was to secure 11 no result. It is a stai-tling fact that though the population " of St. George's-in-the-East and Whitechapel has for the last "13 years remained practically stationary, 20 per cent, of the " whole population of St. George's-in-the-East and Whitechapel " has been displaced by foreign labour. . . . With regard to u the matter of alien immigration the Government certainly are " determined to legislate if they can. They will, I hope and " believe very soon, present to Parliament a Bill in the direction " indicated by your resolution . . . and it will then be for " Parliament itself to take the responsibility of saying whether " they will or will not impose restrictions .such as those " indicated." — (Times, 15th November, 1895.) In 1897 Sir H. Vincent introduced a Bill on the subject 1897. similar to the first part of Lord Salisbury's Bill of 1894, and speaking in regard to it, Mr. Ritchie stated that " the Govern- " ment, as a whole, are pledged to some legislation on the subject " and do not desire to depart one iota from the pledges given." — (Times, 15th February, 1897.) The Government were not able to include the Bill in their measures for 1897, and, short of such help, it is practically impossible to get the measure through. On the 28th March, 1897, in the House of Commons, Sir H. Vincent asked the President of the Board of Trade " whether his " attention had been drawn to the fact that in the past 10 months " 101,056 foreigners, besides over 30,000 foreign seamen, had 112 PRESENT POSITION. " arrived at eastern ports in Great Britain from Europe, not en " route for other countries, and mainly as deck or third-class " passengers, and that upwards of 35,000 were Russians and " Poles, three-fourths of whom came to London, and that in 1896 " no fewer than 8,000 of this destitute alien class settled in this " country ; and, in such case, whether he would endeavour to deal " effectively with this foreign accession to the overcrowded labour " market early next .Session." Mr. Ritchie said : " My attention has been drawn to the " number of alien immigrants arriving in this country, and ' not " ( stated to be en rotite for other countries,' and I have no doubt " that the figures quoted are substantially accurate. The subject '•' will continue to receive my careful consideration, but I am not " in a position to make any promises for next Session." — (Time.?, 29th March, 1897.) The London County Council has itself no power to deal with this question, but its members can, and ought to, exercise their influence to prevent the further growth of an element in the East End of London fraught with so much detriment to the well-being of its citizens. 113 PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. We would do all in our power to ensure the preser- vation of Open Spaces, and would add to their number until the supply is deemed sufficient ; but we are strongly of opinion that the strictest supervision should be exercised by the Council in the administration of this department. We are of opinion that, in the interests of the great masses of the people, it would be wise to keep such places as largely as possible as playing* fields, in preference to making them purely ornamental gardens with multi- tudinous restrictions as to their use. The London County Council has delegated to the Parks and Powers of Open Spaces Committee the entire control and management of the Committee, parks and open spaces in its possession, and of the staff' employed thereon. The powers with which this committee deals are — A.— PARKS, GARDENS AND OPEN SPACES. (1) To apply to Parliament for power to provide parks, recreation grounds and open spaces in the whole metro- politan area ; (2) To maintain and subsidise binds, to provide music, and to provide and maintain stands, seats and chairs in the whole metropolitan area ; (3) To take charge of public gardens or ornamental grounds neglected by persons responsible for their keeping, or to vest the sam.3 in a committee of rated inhabitants, or in a vestry or district board, in the metropolitan area out- side the City ; ( I) To protect open spaces from encroachments (metropolis, otit.side the City) ; (5) To acquire and hold open spaces in the metropolis, out- side the City, and to accept conveyance of same from ii 114 POWERS OF COUNCIL. the persons in whom they are vested, also to provide for maintaining and protecting them ; (6) To accept, transfer, or take by agreement, and to lay out and improve disused burial grounds in metropolis out- side the City ; (7) To purchase or take on lease, lay out, &c, lands as public walks or pleasure grounds outside the City, or to contribute to such when provided by any person. [In the City the Corporation have these powers, but they contribute to any expenses incurred under the Open Spaces Acts by the London County Council.] B.— COMMONS. (8) To memorialise the Board of Agriculture for a scheme for the management, improvement, &c, of any common, any portion of which is in the metropolitan area ; (9) To contribute towards the expenses of the scheme out of the county rate ; (10) To purchase and hold (to prevent extinction of rights of common) any saleable rights in common, or any tene- ment of a commoner having annexed thereto rights of common. A list of the parks, commons and open spaces managed by the London County Council with their area, and the statutes under which they are governed, is given in Appendix II. of the Unification Commission Report, p. 301. Their total area was then 3,258 acres, but this has since been increased. There are, in addition, various churchyards used as places of recreation, and other small open spaces which the Committee at present maintain and manage, but the County Council wish the charge of these to be undertaken by the local authorities. A list of the open spaces under ten acres, showing the authority by which each is maintained, is given in the Council Minutes for 1894, page 1,091. These in area amounted to 354 acres. The Badical party have claimed that the County Council has added 1,000 acres to the parks and open spaces of the Metropolis since they came into office. I low they can support this claim is not clear. According to a return made to the Unification Commission, by the Deputy- Chairman of the Council (Report, Appendix II., p. 211), the area of the parks and open spaces transferred from the Metropolitan Board to the Council amounted to 2,964 acres. PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. 1 1 T> Of the area since acquired, whatever it may be, a very largo proportion was obtained mainly by the exertions of local bodies, and private donors and associations. The Council has, no doubt, contributed to the purchase of these, but they are not entitled to anything like the largest share of the credit. The following facts show how some of the principal open spaces have been added since 1889, and the Council's share in the transactions : — ALDERSGATE PUBLIC GARDEN (Postmen's Park). Cost of additional land (about) . £12,000 Her Majesty's Postmaster-General contributed £5,000 City Parochial Foundation contributed . . 1,000 City Corporation contributed . . . 500 City Commissioners of Sewers contributed . 2,500 Metropolitan Public Gardens Association con- tributed 500 Public subscriptions . . . (over) 1,800 London County Council contributed . . 500 —(1897 Report, p. ( J5.) BERMONDSEY: NELSON STREET RECREATION GROUND. Cost £4,000 London County Council contributed . . £2,300 BOSTALL HEATH (addition of 1G acres). Cost £3,200 London County Council contribution (about) £2 ; 032 —(1895 Report, p. G8.) BROCK WELL PARK. Towards the purchase of this park the Council gave £G 1,000 ; the Charity Commissioners, £25,000 ; the Lambeth Vestry, £20,000; the Camberwell Vestry, £6,000; the Newington Vestry, £5,000 ; Mr. J. J. B. Blackburn, £2,000 ; the Ecclesias- tical Commissioners, £500 ; the balance being made up by private donors. FORTUNE GREEN (Hampstead), 2^ acres. Cost £8,000. Hampstead Vestry contributed . . . £3,000 Public subscriptions .... 2,000 London County Council .... 3,000 —(1897 Rept, p. 94.) ii 2 116 council's contributions. FULHAM (Bishop's Park), 14^ acres. Cost £59,579. London County Council contributed . . £7,500. —(1895 Rept., p. 71.) HACKNEY MARSHES. London, of July 26th, 1894, says:— Hackney Marshes, 337 acres in extent, were dedicated to the public oil July 21st, 1894. . . . Tn September, 1890, the Board of Agriculture issued a draft scheme for the regulation of the marshes, and on October 31st, 1890, signified to the Associa- tion* its intention to hold an inquiry, the Association having meanwhile paid the £60 required by the Board antecedent to its doing so. The acquisition in connection with this scheme, however, was adjourned by the Commissioner in order to afford the Council an opportunity of buying the marsh .... (eventually) with the result that the lord, the commoners, and other owners of rights, combined for the purpose of selling the marsh, and agreed to take £75,000, which, finally, was the amount paid. Of this the Council contributed £50,000, the Hackney District Board £15,000, the lord of the manor £5,000, and private subscribers £5,000. HIGHCATE: WATER LOW PARK. This park was presented to the Council by Sir Sydney Waterlow, At the Council meeting on November 12th, 1889, a letter was read from Sir Sydney Waterlow, from which the following extract is taken : — " I desire to present to the Council, as a free gift, my entire " interest in the estate at llighgate, above referred to. ''■ On the day when the conveyance is executed (and " that may be as soon as your solicitors have prepared " the necessary legal documents), I will, in addition, " pay over to the Council the sum of six thousand " pounds in cash (the estimated value of the freehold " interest in the 2^ acres of leasehold), this sum of " money to be used in purchasing this interest, or in " defraying the cost of laying out the estate as a public " park in perpetuity, as the Council may deem most " desirable." — (See History of the first London County Council, hy William Saunders, L.C.C., M.P., pp. 187-8.) * The Metropolitan Public Gardens Association. PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. 117 HILLY FIELDS (45| acres). This open space was dedicated to the public on 16th May, 1896. The land cost £14,872, of which the London County Council contributed £23,572 ; Greenwich District Board of Works, £7,000 ; Lewisham District Board of Works, £2,800 ; London Parochial Charities Trustees, £1,500 ; Lewisham Parochial Charities Trustees, £1,000 ; private contributions, £9,000. — (L.C.C. Annual Report, 1897,' p. 92.) HOXTON: CHARLES SQUARE RECREATION GROUND. Cost, land and improvements . . <£950 London County Council contribution . £475 —(1897 Minutes, p. 259.) ISLINGTON: LAND AT CATTLE MARKET (ok acres). Cost £16,000 London County Council contribution . £8,000 —(1897 Report, p. 95.) MAR YON PARK (12 acres). We have now to report that during the past year twelve acres of land at Charlton were presented to the Council by Sir Spencer Maryon Wilson. — (See L.C.C. Annual Report, 1891, p. 55.) In July, 1895, Sir Spencer Maryon Wilson presented to the Council a piece of land, nearly one-thh-d of an acre in extent, for the purpose of a children's gymnasium in connection with Maryon Park.— (1897 Report, p. 91.) MY ATI'S FIELDS. On April 9th, 1889, at the meeting of the Council, it was reported that the donor of Myatt's Fields had expressed the wish that the place should be called " Myatt's Fields," and the Council acquiesced. A vote of thanks was then proposed and carried to the donor, for presenting this place to the inhabitants of the Metropolis. — (See History of the Jirst London County Council, ly William Saunders, L.C.C, M.P., p. 64.) NORTH WOOLWICH: ROYAL VICTORIA GARDENS. At the Council meeting on November 26th, 1889, the Parks and Open Spaces Committee reported that they had had a letter from the Duke of Westminster, submitting a memorial for acquir- ing as a public recreation ground North Woolwich Gardens. It 118 council's contributions. appeared that the Duke of Westminster's Committee had purchased those gardens for the sum of £19,000, and they were willing to hand the same over to the Council as its freehold property on the condition that the Council would pay a sum not exceeding £1,000, and undertake the future main- tenance of the gardens. The gardens were ten acres in extent, and possessed a frontage to the River Thames of 1,000 feet. — (See History of the first London County Council, by William Saunders, L.C.C., M.P., p. 196.) PECKHAM RYE PARK. At the opening ceremony on May 14th, 1894, on the motion of Mr. Matthew Wallace, Mr. Alderman Taylor, L.C.C., seconding, it was resolved : — " That the thanks of the inhabitants of South-East London " are due, and are hereby tendered, to all those " public bodies and private individuals by whose " efforts the new Peckham Rye Park has been " acquired, and particularly to the following, viz. : — "The Chai-ity Commissioners, £12,000; the London " County Council, £18,000 ; the Camberwell Yestry, " £20,000 j the Lambeth Vestry, £500 ; the Vestry of " St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark, £250 ; the New- " ington Vestry, £250 ; and the various private " donors who so generously contributed in the pre- " liminary stages to the initial expenses of the " movement." SOUTHWARK: PARAGON, NEW KENT ROAD. Cost £3,400 Lord Llangattock (the owner) contributed . £1,000 London County Council .... 1,700 —(1897 Miti., p. 629.) SYDENHAM (WELLS ROAD) RECREATION GROUND, (161 acres). Cost . . . . . . £7,000 London County Council contribution . . £3,500 — (18 f ) 7 Bejit., p. 93). HATCHAM: TELEGRAPH HILL The total purchase money was provided as follows : — Mr. G. Livesey, £2,000 ; the Vendors, £2,000 ; the Greenwich District Board, £2,000 ; and the Council the requisite balance of £2,000. — {See Annual Report L.C.C., 1892, L.C.C. Paper ]S 7 o. 44.) PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. 119 WALWORTH: EAST STREET RECREATION GROUND (£ aci-e). Cost £5,375 Vestry and others contributed . . . £2,875 —(1897 Kept., p. 93.) There is a considei'able and progressive increase in the cost of maintenance, which is much larger in proportion than the increase in area of the parks and open spaces under the County Council's control. Total acre- Annual cost age of of parks. maintenance.* (M.B.W. ) 1887-1888 . 2,603 . £42,397=£16 2s. per acre. Cost of (L.CC.) 1889-1890 . 2,656 . £52,751=£19 17s. >) Main- ( ., ) 1891-1892 . 3,256 . £66,803=£20 5*. )> tenance ( „ ) 1893-1894 . 3,665 £87,495=£23 8s. )> ( » ) 1891-1895 . 3,684 . £100,932=£27 7s. !> ( ii ) 1895-1896 . 3,686 . £105,365 = £28 11*. )) ( ii ) 1896-1897 . 3,685 £105,430=£28 12s. II In regard to the expenditure of the Parks Committee Sir A. Arnold, the late Radical Chairman, said on 21st July, 1896, in his address to the Council : — " While I defend our Parks Committee — whose labours are " most zealous and exemplary — 'against the charge of " extravagance by pointing to the greater outlay in the " Royal Parks, I am not without hope that as the " management of our parks becomes more settled, the " expenditure may be reduced." — (1896, p. 5, Report.') The provision and maintenance of open spaces is of The time paramount importance for the health of London, but the main ^pg^ e of efforts of the Council should be directed to acquiring these spaces, spaces, even when small, in the most densely populated parts of London, Whitechapel to wit, rather than in expending large sums in the ornamentation of established open spaces. It would be well if both these objects could be carried out, but there can be only a certain amount of money devoted to parks and open spaces. The value of small open spaces is to provide places where the children -who live in crowded dwellings can obtain exercise and fresh air without having to walk miles to reach an open space. * This does not include the expenditure on capital account in purchasing open spaces, &c. The latter in 1892-3 amounted to £110,5S7, in addition to tho £82,902 spent on maintenance. 120 LOST OPPORTUNITY. Open space A grand opportunity occurred in 1894 of obtaining an open delayf space in Flower and Dean Street, Whitechapel. The attention of the Parks Committee was called to the matter in July, 1894. The Whitechapel District Board of Works offered to contribute to the cost and the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association offered to lay out the ground. The Committee after a long delay decided to purchase, but meantime building had begun and this valuable opportunity was therefore lost. — (1894, Minutes, pp. 1152 and 1335.) Present Council. The present Council have been more alive than its prede- cessors to the necessity of providing playing grounds. Tn 1896 they instructed the Parks Committee to consider and report what vacant land for playing fields still existed, and whether it was not desirable for the health and recreation of future generations to secure certain of these fields for the express purpose of being used as playing fields. — (1896, R., 70). The report has not yet been presented. — (December, 1897.) N.B. — The present Parks Committee instead of being com- posed of a majority of Radicals, as under former Councils, has under the present Council consisted of 15 Moderates and 15 Progressives. BANDS. A considerable item in the expenditure of the Parks Committee is the amount paid for the performance of music in the Parks, &c. The amount voted for this purpose in 1891 was £4,000. It grew to £8,250 for 1895, but has somewhat dimin- ished under the present Council. The amount voted for 1897 was £7,800. Cost in 1892, £3,897. Arrange- ments unsatis- factory. In 1891 the Council voted £4,000 for bands during 1892 in parks and open spaces. This involved the provision of bandstands, and on 16th February, 1892, the Council sanctioned expenditure of £630 for two rustic bandstands. — (.1/., 1892, p. 122 ) The band season for 1892 was from 1st June to 4th September. During that period 639 performances were given at a cost of £3,897. The Council had decided that only existing hands should he engaged, but on the 26th July, 1892, the Parks Committee brought up a report expressing desire that the vote for 1893 should not be subject to that restriction. They stated that they had found the engagement of existing bands most unsatisfactory. PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. 121 The Committee added, " We have no present intention what- " ever of forming a municipal band to compete out of season with u bands formed by private enterprise, but we have under <: consideration a scheme whereby the Council shall itself engage " and pay musicians for three summer months, and no longer, each » year."— (1892, M., p. 739.) The bands employed in 1892 consisted of many of the best Bands known Volunteer bands, including those of the Hon. Artillery in 1892. Company, London Rifle Brigade, Inns of Court, London Scottish, Queen's Westminster, Central London Rangers, etc. Engage- ments were also given to bands of the Coldstream Guards, the Royal Horse Artillery, Duke of Cambridge's Hussars, the S, T and Y Divisions of Police, City Police, Corps of Commissionaires, the London Military Band, and many other private bands too numerous to be mentioned here, but whose names are well known and whose performances are highly esteemed. — (1892, M., 1092.) That the Committee should have deemed ths engagement of such bands as these to have been most unsatisfactory is a startling statement. Moreover, it contrasts strangely with the report of the Parks Conflicting Committee for the previous year, where they stated that the m e n tg, employment of bands by the Council was a complete success — (1892, Report, pp. 53, 54). The Chairman, too, in his annual address, stated that the performances of the bands had given general satisfaction.— (1 892, Report, p. 7.) In 1893 we find the number of bandstands increasing, and A musical " in view of the considerable amount of money to be expended employed. " during the year on bands, and of the necessity for the Committee " being properly advised on the merits of the musicians engaged," they employed a professional musical adviser for the season of 1893, at a cost of 100 guineas.— (1893, M., 153 ; 1893, J/., 305.) The cost of the 1893 season amounted to £4,188 for G 35 Cost in • i 1893 performances. Volunteer and other bands were again engaged, £4,188. but the band of the Council was employed at 375 of the perfor- mances. --(1893. M., 1007; 1893, Report, p. 75.) The Committee told us, in their report for 1892-3, that in the The first and second seasons the result of the performances by hired bands g° n ^ cil was "to some extent good, inasmuch as large numbers of persons started. " were able to enjoy the music which was provided. But the " rendering of the music " (so the Committee said) " was, in many " instances, very indifferent, and it was determined to try the '' experiment of engaging direct a number of professional instru- 122 BANDS. " mentalists, and placing them under the direction of properly " qualified conductors." That the Committee were highly satisfied with their own little venture in the abolition of the band contractor, and with him, the services of local musicians, needs scarcely be stated. So satisfied were they that they decided to continue and extend the employment of the Council's own bands. — (1894, Report, p. 75.) Grant in The Council's expenditure for the provision of music during £ 8 5 9 o'o0 ^ ie season °f 1S04 amounted to £5,564. They retained the services of the professional musical adviser at the fee of 100 guineas.— (1893, M., 1009.) In 1894, 504 perform mces were given : 288 by the Council's band, and the remainder by special bands. — (1895, Mia., 117.) Cost in In 1895 the band season extended from 16th May to 11th £8 250 September ; the salary of the musical adviser was raised to =£140, and the Council authorised an expenditure of £8,250 for the season, or considerably more than double the amount voted in 1892.— (1894, 31., p. 1230.) The Parks Committee have since admitted that the extension of time was a mistake. " It was found that to enable all the " perfonnances to be given during daylight it was necessary for " those at the end of the season to take place at so early an hour " that persons engaged in business or working at trades were " precluded from attending them."— (1896, R., 70.) 859 perform- ances : total cost, £8,606. — (1895, Min., 1033.) Cost in In 1896 the season was limited to the period 25th May 1896. to 23rd August inclusive. 798 performances were given by the Council's band and by special bands. Total cost £7,069. — (1896, Mm. t 1342.) In 1897. The amount authorised for 1897 was £7,800.— (1896, 31., 1435.) Season to be from 13th May to 12th August. Musical adviser to be paid £140. — (1897, 3fin., 139.) How the In 1896 the Parks Committee recommended that the Council ^-"v, should allow their bandsmen to play in uniform at the opening of ^„ 1/V[IO/ , the International Socialists', Workers' and Trades' Union Congress, and expressed their regret that they were unable to contribute more largely to the entertainment of the Congress. — (1896, Min., 797.) At the instance of Unionist members of the Council this recommendation of the Committee was defeated. employed. 123 RATING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. We acknowledge gratefully the assistance which the present Government has given to local authori- ties by increasing the grant given in lieu of rates on Government property, but we are in favour of transferring the rating of such property from the Treasury to the ordinary Assessment Committees, with a view to lightening the burden of taxation in the Metropolis. The Government value their property themselves, and do not Existing allow its rateable value to be fixed for the valuation lists like meUl0c1, ordinary property. They purport, however, to adopt the principle that property occupied for the public service should contribute to the local rates equally with the other property in the parishes in which it is situated, having due regard to its character in each case. The following Memorandum on the subject, drawn vp at the Treasury, was read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Committee of Supply, House of Commons, June 25th, 1874 (Hansard, vol. 220, p. 478) :• — " We have had under our consideration the subject of the rules which " ought to govern the distribution of the proposed increased " grant of Parliament for contributions in lieu of rates in respect " of property occupied for the public service. We adopt the " principle that property occupied for the public service should " contribute to the local rates equally with the other property in " the parishes in which it is situated, having due regard to its " character in each case. The contribution will be made to the " poor and all other local rates levied in the parish in which the " property is situate, and no parish will be excluded from such " contributions on the ground that the Government property is " less than a certain minimum. We feel it necessary, considering " how widely different are the various kinds of Government "property, and how impossible it is to apply to all of those the " rules of assessment applicable to private property, to retain in " our own hands the valuation of all Government property with 124 EXISTING METHOD. " the intention of adopting in each case as far as possible the " sanie principles as are applicable to the valuation of private " property. Thus, property occupied as ex officio residences or " quarters for officers of the Government will be assessed on the " estimated rateable value which would attach to snch premises " if they were in private occupation and liable to assessment to " the local rates. The same rule will, as far as practicable, be " applied in determining the rateable value of all Government " hereditaments occupied as post offices, coastguard stations, " county courts, probate registries, Inland Revenue buildings, " Custom House, &c. The rateable value of the whole of the "naval establishments, and of the principal military establish- " ments, was agreed upon between the Government and the " parishes in which they are situated in the year 1860. The " valuations then agreed upon will be revised with reference " to the improvements and additions which have taken place " at such establishments since that date. The valuations in these " cases will be taken as a guide in fixing the rateable value of the " barracks and other buildings at such of the military stations as " were not brought within the arrangement of 18G0. and also in " fixing the rateable value of the military, naval and convict " prisons. If in any particular case the principles of valuation li applicable to private property cannot reasonably be adopted, we " shall inquire into and decide upon each such case upon its merits ; " but in no case will we contribute less than was payable on the " assessment of the property at the time the Government " acquired it. Hereditaments under the control of the Commis- " sioners of Woods, &c, not being in the occupation of any other " occupier, will be the subject of contributions determined on " principles similar to those hereinbefore made applicable to " Government property. These regulations will apply to Govern- " ment property in Scotland and Ireland as well as to that in " England." Present I n 1894 the London County Council were informed by the net values. Treasury that the valuation was still carried out on the basis indicated in this memorandum (L.C.C. Return, *"^l- p. 12.) It was clear, however, that at that time local authorities did not receive in respect of Government buildings anything like the amount of rates which would have been payable if those buildings had been in the occupation of private persons. For the greater part of their property the Government pay a contribution in lieu of rates. The net values of Government property in the County of London upon which rates, or contributions in lieu of rates, are paid by the Government, were shown in the Ktturn of the Quinquennial Valuation, 1891, published by the London County Council on 16th October, 1891.— (L.C.C. Return, No. 16, p. 13). Conserva- Lord Salisbury's Government have very largely increased the tive action, valuation of Government property in most of the parishes, and have, therefore, increased the amount of contributions paid in lieu of rates. — (Return of Governme.it property (County of London), No. 42 of 1896)'. RATING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. 125 The following table shows the details of these net values, arranged under the headings of the several local governing districts (Vestries and District Boards of Works) existing in 1891 and at the present time in the Metropolis : — Net RateaMe Net Rateable Parish or District Board of Works. Value of Value of Govt. Property Govt. Propertv in 1)591. in 1896. £ £ Battersea, St. Mary Vestry . 157 462 Bethnnl Green Vestry . 460 795 Bermondsey, St. Mary Magdal ene Vestry .... 177* 1 Bloomsbury, St. Giles and st! George Vestry . 5,244 12,225 Camberwell Vestry 535 622 Chelsea Vestry 9,679 13,627 Clerkenwell, St. James and St. John Vestry 1,2S0 8,676 Fulham Vestry 1.074 327 Greenwich D. B. W.— Greenwich 9,430 9,120f Deptford, St. Nicholas 2,259 2,200f Deptford, St. Paul . 6,787 6,787f Hackney, St. John Vestry 326 990 Hammersmith Vestry . 2,574 3,515f Ilampstead Vestry 602 548 Ilolborn D. B. W.— St. Andrew-above-Bars and St. George-the-Martyr 1,384 4,089 St. Sepulchre . 234 234 Ilolborn Board of Guardians — Gray's Inn 126 126 Staple Inn 1,079 834 Islington Vestry . 4,638 10,431 Kensington Vestry 8,470 2 4,581 Lambeth Vestry . 4,025 4,455 Lcwisham Vestry . 508 279 * Not separately include 1 in the 1893 returns. t Valuations were under revision at date of tic return. 126 NET RATEABLE VALUES. Net Rateable Net Rateable Parish or District Board of Works. value of Govt. Property Value of Govt. Property in 1891. in 1896. £ f Liruehouse D. B. W. — Shadwell, St. Paul . 2 2 Eatcliff 5 5-10 Limehouse, St. Aune 5 5 Wapping, St. John . 538 170 London, City of (33 parishes) 36,098 60,328 Mile End Old Town Vestry . 365 289 Newington, St. Mary Vestry . 1,585 1,011 Paddington Vestry 1,392 2,529 Poplar D. B. W.— St. Mary, Stratford-le-Bow 98 98 Poplar, All Saints' . 167 55 Bromley, St. Leonard 339 239 Plumstead U. B. W.— Kidbrook ..... 2,000 l,900f Charlton ..... 1,651 l,688f Plumstead .... 21,760 23,644 Lee ...... 59 43 Eltham 257 1 Rotherhithe, St. Mary Vestry 340 240 St. George-in-the-East Vestry 25* St. George, Hanover Square Vestry 5,65 1 9,947 St. George-the-Martyr Vestry 6G3 553 St. Luke, City Road Vestry . 856 734 St. Martin-in-the-Fields' Vestry 25,689 42,900 St. Marylebone Vestry . 4,020 4,623 St. Olive D B. W.— Southvvark, St. Thomas 667 873 St. Olive 155 155 St. Pancras Vestry 3,650 3,674 St. Saviour Vestry 167 206 Shoreditch Vestry 329 279 Stoke Newington .... — 92 Strand D. B. W— St. Anne, Westminster 1,251 917 # Not separately included in the 189G returns. f Valuations were under revision at date of the return. RATING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. 127 Parish or District Board of Works. Net Rateable Value of Govt. Property in 1891. Net Rateable Value of Govt. Property in 1896. £ £ Strand D. B. W. — continued. St. Paul, Coven t Garden . 2,937 2,071 Savoy, Liberty of . 1,000 2,506 St. Mary-le- Strand . 6,035 20,012 St. Clement Danes . 10,884 15,709 Liberty of the Bolls . 6,505 13,168 Wandsworth D. B. W.— Clapham ..... 157 90 Tooting Graveney 55* Streatham .... 125* Wandsworth .... 2,052 5,455 Putney ..... 480 362 Westminster, St. James Vestry 13,229 21,511 Westminster, St. Margaret and St. John ..... 53,816 87,485 Whitechapel D. B. W.— Whitechapel .... 950 808 Norton Folgate, Liberty . 270 145 St. Botolph Without, Aldgate . 4,250 4,310 Christchurch .... 34 Tower, Liberty 4,000 4,000 Woolwich Local Board . 41,467 42,189 * Not separately included in the 1890 returns. The total value of such property was set down at £319,078 in 1891. In 1S96 it exceeded £481,000. The following extract is taken from a report by the Council's Inade- statistical officer, published in 1894 (L.C.C. Return, •-£-£?■ p. 12):— quacy of " Some property, as the Custom House in the City, the Law ^ on " Courts in the Strand, Herbert Hospital at Kidbrook, the Naval " College at Greenwich, the Mint, are regulated by Act of Pailia- " ment at a fixed valuation or a fixed payment per annum, and " therefore there has been no change from year to year in the Y valuation of this property. In all such cases, at all events, the r rules of the Treasury have not been applied ; and in other cases " no alteration has been made since the first return in 1881, 11 though property has gone up in value so considerably in London 128 OLD VALUATION. Improve- ment by present Govern- ment. " since that date. In order to test both the inequalities and " inadequacy of valuation of Government property in London, " the Local Government and Taxation Committee have instructed " the valuer to report thereon, and from his report it is obvious " that the inadequacy of the rates derived from Government " property is very considerable, apart from the inequality, and " that the county loses rates at 5s. to 5s. 2d. in the pound on " about £160,000, or say £40,000." It appeared, however, from a report published by the Finance Committee of the Vestry of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, that, up to the accession to office of Lord Salisbury's Government, the loss of London in rates was very much higher even than the estimate of the County Council's statistical officer. Thus, at the date of the former return, it was estimated by the F. nance Committee of the vestry that in Westminster Government property was rated at £43,632 ; it is now rated at £87,485. The rating of Government property is not a matter over which the County Council can exercise control. The question, however, has a direct bearing on the local taxation of London and the policy of the Unionist Government, in largely adding to their contributions to London rates, should commend itself to ratepayers who are called upon to choose between Unionist and Radical candidates at the County Council elections. From these figures it will readily be seen that the ratepayers are indebted to the present administration for substantial aid to local rates to which Government property had hitherto very sparingly contributed. 129 TAXATION OF GROUND RENTS AND OTHER PROPERTY. Owing" to the manner in which Exchequer grants are allotted, official estimate shows that London is unfairly treated to the extent of £420,000. This balance would be redressed if the Inhabited House Duty, a truly local tax, were handed over for local purposes; but this matter is being* investigated by a Royal Com- mission, and we would, therefore, defer all action on it until the Commission has made its report. Members of the Progressive party in the past and present Councils have pressed for a change in our system of local taxation with the view of charging owners of ground rents aud ground values. The difficulties in dealing with the subject, however, are Disagree, numerous. The views of undoubted experts seem at present ^"ng totally irreconcilable. Among the Progressives themselves the experts, widest divergencies of opinion exist. Although, during the last 25 years, the proposed reforms have been considered to a greater or less extent by two Select Committees* of the House of Commons and the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Committees Working Classes (1885), the question is not as yet ripe for settle- onnquiry. ment. It was investigated by the Select Committee on Town Town Holdings more deeply than before. That Committee was first commiffee- appointed in 188fi, and reappointed during succeeding sessions of Parliament. Several reports were presented, but the report made by the Their Committee in May, 1892, is the one which deals with "the ques- re P ort - " tion of imposing a direct assessment on the owners of ground " rents, and on the owners of increased values imparted to land " by building operations or other improvements." — [Report, No. 214 of 1802.) This Committee state that (p. xviii.) — The reforms proposed in the present svstem of local taxation The may be conveniently divided as follows : — proposed. 1. A distinct rate to be levied on the owners of the freehold, in addition to any existing taxation, so as to tax rever- sions in proportion to their values ; * Local Taxation Committee, 1S7<'; Committee on Town HoldingF, 1880-1892. I 130 PROPOSED REFORMS. Disagree. meat among Radicals. Ground rents, &c, already taxed. Increase in local taxation. 2. Separate valuations of the gremnd and of the building, and distinct assessments on each ; 3. Division of rates between occupier and owners ; 4. Imposition of municipal death duties ; 5. Eating of vacant building land on its capital value. " We observe," say the Committee, " that there is little " agreement with respect to most of these proposals among those " who concur in thinking that the present system is unjust, and " that reform is urgently required. The plan of assessing " reversions proposed by Mr. Harrison is rejected by Sir Thomas " Farrer, and is incompatible with the scheme for the separate " assessment of ground and building values advocated by Mr. u Moulton, which Sir Thomas Farrer also disapproves of. Mr. " Moulton's plan is inconsistent with the proposal for the division " of rates between occupier and owner approved of by many of " the witnesses. The imposition of municipal death duties is " supported by Sir Thomas Farrer and Mr. Costelloe, but is at " variance with the views of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Moulton, while " the proposal to tax vacant land was not accepted by Sir Thomas '*' Farrer or Professor Thorold Rogers, and is only adopted in a " very qualified form by Professor Munro." — (1S92, Report, p. xviii.)" After an elaborate consideration of the evidence brought before them and of the arguments arising out of it, the Select Committee summarized, as follows, the principal conclusions at which they arrived (the expressions specially relating to Scotland are omitted in the following extract) : — (a) Ground rents are already taxed as being included in the rateable value of the town holding on which they are secured. They do not constitute a fresh matter of assessment hitherto untouched, as is often supposed. The imposition of a direct assessment upon such ground rents as distinguished from the assessed value of the house itself, as at present rated, would lead to anomalies and inequalities, and has been generally abandoned. (6) There has been a very largo increase in the amount raised by local taxation in towns during the last thirty or forty years, and many new rates have been imposed for purposes not previously contemplated. The total amount of expenditure is not in itself the measure of the burden upon the ratepayers, and the rise of the rate in the £ has not been in any degree commensurate with such success. The rate in the £ in most places has substantially increased, but this rise is not universal or uniform in large towns. * All the gentlemen referred to were " Progressives," and, except the last two. all arc or have been members of the Progressive party in the existing London County Council. TAXATION OF GROUND RENTS AND OTHER PROPERTY. 131 (c) The real as apposed to the apparent incidence of local taxation in Incidence towns, falls partly upon the owner of the land, partly upon the house of local owner, and partly upon the occupier. The proportions in -which the taxation burthen is distributed are difficult to determine, and depend upon a variety of circumstances, among which the demand for and supply of houses is the most important. (d) Owners of ground rents, with or -without reversions, derive no Benefit appreciable benefit from local public expenditure for current purposes. ^ rom pr ,+ Those who have no reversions (such as ... the owners of fee expendi- farm rents in England) or no substantial reversions (such as the owners ture. of ground rents reserved on very long lease) derive no appreciable benefit from the expenditure on permanent public improvements. The benefit to other ground rent owners from permanent public improvements is sometimes appreciable, and sometimes substantial, varying according to the proximity of the reversion. (e) The burden of such increased local taxation as was not in contem- Burden of plation of the parties on entering into leases falls on the lessee, unless m creased the occupier has been unable to shift it. But, as regards lessees, the plated local unforeseen increase in the value of their properties has, in most cases, taxation, more than made up to them for the unexpected burden of increased rates. (/) The proposals made to the Committee for a distinct annual Assessment assessment on reversions, according to their present values, and for the on rever - separate assessment of ground values and building values, are imprac- Separate ticable ; and the proposal for the imposition of municipal death duties assessment is not so clearly within the scope ti the Committee's inquiry as to warrant °* S roun d them in attempting to pronounce a decision upon it. building values." Municipal death duties. (<;) The proposal to rate vacant building land on its capital value Vacant is a total departure from the existing basis of local taxation, and would be building practically very difficult in operation. The proposal to rate reversions land, upon their present values is also open to the same objections. (h) It is desirable that the real and apparent incidence of local Real and taxation should be, as far as possible, identical, and no one should be able faience to free himself by contract from the direct liability to any impost which f local the Legislature may lay upon him. taxation. (i) No sufficient cause has been shown for interfering with existing Existing contracts relating to the payment of rates, and the methods proposed to contracts, the Committee for altering such contracts would be unfair, and would inflict injury without any compensating benefit. (j) The Committee recommend that under all future contracts local Rccom- rates shall .... be equally divided between occupiers and owners, f or division and that each owner should have the right of making a proportionate of rates deduction ifrom his superior owner (the owners of ground rents 2R , . . . and fee farm rents included). . . . Contracts interfering contracts, with these rights should be void. 132 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. Lord Salisbury on Rating Reform. Exemption (&) The Committee recommend that all existing contracts should be of existing exempted from the operation of any measure for carrying the aboye pro- contracts. pogal int0 effect# Personal But whenever the question of altering the present system of property. J oca ] taxation is dealt with a further very important division of the subject must be considered and that is to what extent, if at all, personal property, as distinct from lands or houses, can be called upon to contribute. Speaking at Newport, Mon , on the increase of rates, Lord Salisbury said : — " If this great addition of rate expenses is to be " heaped upon us we must look at the source from which our " supplies are drawn. There is no doubt that the present rating " law, originally made three hundred years ago, and strangely "altered by judicial decisions since, has had this effect, that it "only leaves a very small proportion of the property of the " country liable to support the demands that are placed upon the " rates. I have no desire to disturb any arrangement which is " consecrated by long usage, and of which consequently the diffi- " culties are well known; but if you have to deal with the " liability to rates, remember this, that the statute of Elizabeth " provided that personal as well as real property should be liable " to the rates, but that in the course of ages original personal " property — being about four-fifths of the property of the country " — has escaped payment altogether, and has left the whole " burden upon its elder brother, real property, which is only one- " fifth of the property of the country. If there is any change " it must be to that anomaly that your attention must be " directed."— (Standard, 30th November, 1893.) Another point must be borne in mind before the question can be considered ripe for settlement and that is Personal property. Fffpct of Radical proposal. On ground landlords. County Council to buy London. WHO OWN GROUND RENTS? Doubtless the Progressive party want to strike a blow at the great ground landlords of London, but their proposals would far more seriously injure many thrifty people who cannot bear the suggested additional burthen. Mr. Sidney Webb, one of the London County Council Progressives, in his evidence before the Labour Commission, approves of biiying out the ground landlords, but he wishes to tax them first. He agrees with Mr. Haldane, Q.C. (Radical M.P.), that the land of London should be valued, and the London County Council empowered to take it over at any future time at its value to-day, plus compensation to the owners for improve- ment. — (Labour Commission, 1893, 7,0G3, II., p. 20.) TAXATION OF GROUND RENTS AND OTHER PROPERTY. 133 The persons most injured by the proposal to tux existing On small ground rents ■would be the vast class of small investors, whose investois> aggregate property in ground rents exceeds that of t'ie great owners. Evidence was given before the Town Holdings Committee, On indus- in April, 1891, that there are hundreds of thousands of the J^ses industrial and middle classes who have small savings invested trustees, in ground rents through the instrumentality of benefit and insurance societies, besides innumerable private investors and trustees ■who purchase ground rents as a safe investment, and can ill afford to be victimised by extra taxation. One witness of much experience (Mr. George Beken) quoted the following cases taken from the business transactions of his own firm : — " A Messenger for many years to a firm in the City has Instances. " purchased £1G per annum for £360, and £29 per annum for " £650. He referred to these two investments as his ' little all.' " A Photographer invested about £500 in ground rents. u Has been several years in business. Has thi-ee or four children. " A Barmaid recently invested £368 in buying £15 15s. per " annum. Mr. Beken was informed that this was all she " possessed, except £50 or £60. " A Spinster recently invested a small legacy of £300 in " the purchase of ground rents, amounting to £15 per annum. " A Small Grocer, after about 15 years in business in the " City, made four investments in ground rents. The first was for " £244, the others about £500 each, giving a total income of " about £80 per annum. Speaking about the question, he ended " by saying that he had ' worked for all he had got.' " The cases of two Benefit Societies were also quoted : — The " Hearts of Oak " Benefit Society consists of working Benefit men, and has over 120,000 members, with assets over £1,000,000. Societies. Of this £200,000 is invested in ground rents. Another society, a small temperance body, had, in 1889, 4,700 members, with assets £33,000. Of this £19,800, or more than half their capital, was invested in ground rents. Such investors are surely entitled to the favourable con- sideration of Parliament. As a body they are, from one cause or other, unable or unwilling to speculate in the hope of making high interest, and have taken a low rate of interest on the faith of getting absolute security and a fixed income. Having regard to the foregoing considerations, it is clear Further that the question cannot be dealt with in the light and airy way in necessary. which some members of the Progressive party would have us believe. Further investigation is absolutely necessary before any vital 134 FURTHER INVESTIGATION. change iy made in the system of local taxation which has so many years prevailed in this country. To uproot the landmarks which have bounded the system for centuries without having cleaidy before us the effects of the proposed new line of demarcation, is a project that will commend itself to none but extreme Radicals. Lord Salisbury's Government are alive to the importance of the issues at stake, and more than a year ago they decided to seek further information on the subject.''™ On the 18th August, 1896, a Royal Commission was appointed " to inquire into the present " system under which taxation is raised for local purposes, and " report whether all kinds of real and personal property con- " tribute equitably to such taxation, and, if not, what alterations " in the law are desirable in order to secure that result." The Royal Commission have already taken a good deal of evidence on the subject, and judging from the scope of the reference to them, it may be hoped that their report will materially contribute to the settlement of the question. Until that report is received it is desirable that the opponents, as well as the promoters, of change should reserve further action. B;com- But such a sensible attitude has not commended itself to the D ^ nda " fc Progressive party on the London County Council. The Local Council's Government and Taxation Committee of the Council have Taxation presented a report on ' ; new sources of revenue," in which they Committee, put forward a series of recommendations dealing with the whole subject. These recommendations are as follows :— (a) That it is advisable that a new source of revenue should be obtained by means of some direct charge upon owners of site values ; (b) That this charge be termed " owners' tax " ; (c) That all persons deriving a revenue, or use equivalent to revenue, from the value of a site, be liable to pay such charge ; (d) That the site value of every property be assessed and entered in the valuation list ; (e) That the site value be the annual rent which at the time of valuation might reasonably be obtained for the land as a cleared site if let for building by an owner in fee, subject to equitable reduction in exceptional cases in which the full site value thus defined is not being enjoyed or obtained by any person or persons ; (f) That in view of the fact that considerable expenditure has been incurred from public funds which lias largely contributed to the increase of site value, the Royal Commission* be asked to recommend that such owners' tax commence at the rate of Gr/. in the f, and rise TAXATION OF GROUND RENTS AND OTHER PROPERTY. 135 gradually to such sum as Parliament may determine, and that any increase of burden or expenditure for new services should be equitably shared between the present rate on occupiers and the proposed owners' tax j (g) That any existing or future contract or agreement by which an owner purports to exempt himself from the owners' tax, or to cause it to be paid by any other person in his stead, be invalid ; (h) That vacant land and empty property shall be liable to pay the owners' tax upon the site value as appearing in the valuation list ; (i) That the Royal Commission on Local Taxation should also be informed that the Council is in favour of a municipal death duty upon immovable property held by individuals within the county with an analogous charge on such property when it is vested in bodies corporate or unincorporate. It may be that the labours of the Local Government and Taxation Committee would prove useful to the Royal Com- mission, and it certainly seems desirable that the Commission should have an opportunity of considering them. But the Pro- gressive majority of the Council are superior in their wisdom. It Proposal was proposed at the Council meeting on the 7th December, 1S97 : 9i t ? ie " That the recommendations of the Committee (a) to (i) should be p ar t y> " submitted to the Commission as suggestions for its consideration, " and that there also be submitted to the Commission the report " of the statistical officer bearing on the question, whether and a how far all kinds of property contribute equitably to taxation, " and the report of the valuer upon the incidence of rates as " between owners and occupiers." By a strictly party vote this proposal, which was made and supported by the Moderate party, was defeated by three votes, and afterwards the Council resolved, by a majority of eight votes : " That it is advisable that a new source of revenue should be " obtained by means of some direct charge \vpon owners of site " values."— (1897 M., p. 133S.) As a bid on the part of the Progressives for the support of ratepayers at the forthcoming County Council election the resolu- tion may have its advantages. But to those who will study the question on the lines of the progres- inquiries which are referred to above, the transparent device will sive reek- seem to be foolish even as a matter of tactics ; whilst to all lessness. thinking voters, the attempt to rush a situation having such vast 136 RADICAL RECKLESSNESS. consequences dependent upon it, will seem to be only one more instance of the reckless and dangerous extravagance of the Pro- gressive majority who still rule at Spring Gardens. Dangers to To the small investor, to the thrifty thousands of the lower working middle class, and to a still lai-ger number of the artisan and elass working class population, ground rents have long been a favourite own ' investment for their savings. Let these endeavour to realise the true inwardness of the proposals of the present majority of the "little Parliament" at Spring Gardens and the electioneering manoeuvre of the Progressives will be rejected in the way it certainly deserves. 137 THE METROPOLITAN POLICE. In a city having such vast Imperial concerns as London, the Police, we consider, should be retained as an Imperial force. The existing police district was constituted by an Order in P. res ent Council passed in 1S40. The district is made up as follows : — * (1) The County of London. (2) The County of Middlesex. (3) Part of the County of Surrey, viz.: — Addington. Long Ditton. Banstead. Maldon. Barnes. Merton. Beddiugton. Mitcham, Carshalton. Morden. Cheam. Mortlake. Chessington. Moulsey (East and West). Coulsdon. Petersham. Cuddington. Richmond. Epsom. Sanderstead. Ewell (part of). Sutton. Farley. Thames Dittun. Ham-with-Hatch. WalUngton. Hook. Warlingham. Kew. Wimbledon. Kingston. Woodmansterne. (•i) The County Borough of Croydon. (5) Part of the County of Hertford, viz. : — Aldenham. Northaw. East Barnet. Ridge. Bushey. Shenley. Cheshunt. Totteridge Chipping Barnet. *-S'ee Keport of the Unification Commission, 1894 (Appendix II., p. 56f), 0. 7493.— II.) 138 EXISTING POLICE DISTRICT. (6) Part of the County of Essex, viz. : — Barking. Ilford, Little and Great. Chigwell. Waltham Abbey and Town. Chingford. Wanstead. Dagenham. Woodford. East Ham. (7) The County Borough of West Ham. (8) Part of the County of Kent, viz.: — Beckenham. Hayes. Bexley. Keston. Bromley. Mottingham. Chislehurst. North Cray. Crayford. Orpington. Down. St. Mary's Cray. Erith. St. Paul's Cray. Farnborough. Wickham (East and West). Eoot's Cray. Constables of the Metropolitan police force (specially sworn) act within the Royal Palaces and within ten miles thereof ; also within Her Majesty's dockyards and principal military stations, and within fifteen miles thereof. They have full power within the yards and stations, but outside them only with respect to Crown property aucl persons subject to discipline. Constables of the Metropolitan police have full, but not exclusive, power in the counties of Berkshire and Buckingham- shire; also upon the River Thames within the counties of London, Middlesex, Surrey, Berkshire, Essex and Kent, and within and adjoining to the City of London and the Liberties thereof, and in and on the creeks, inlets, waters, docks, wharves, quays and landing places thereto adjacent. In those parts of the Thames which are beyond the district the powers are concurrent with those of the county or local police. On any special emergency, at the request of the Lord Mayor, a Secretary of State may authorise Metropolitan police to act within the City under their own officers.* The detective department of the Metropolitan police renders assistance in appropriate cases in all parts of the country. Differing It will be seen from this statement that the Metropolitan provincial police, both in regard to their district and their duties, differ very police. widely from the police force of any provincial borough. It would * See Report of the Unification Commission, 1894 (Appendix II., [>. 567, C. 7493.— II.) THE METROPOLITAN POLICE. 139 be quite impossible to put the force as now constituted under the control of a locally elected body like the London County Council. Moreover, it would manifestly be impossible for the Government to surrender the charge of the great Imperial buildings and offices in the metropolis. If the police of the County of London were for London purposes alone, placed under the Council, it would be necessary to constitute another force to fulfil the Imperial duties which the existing force now admirably carries out. Such a force would necessarily act also within the jurisdic- tion of the London County Police, and difficulties and conflicts of administration would be certain to arise such as are impossible under the present system. Responsibility and efficiency would be diminished and expense would be increased. The security of the enormous amount of property confided to the Metropolitan police requires an uniformity of system which cannot be supplied by any fluctuating or divided authority. Moreover, as the election of the London County Council is triennial, it would be impossible in the event of any gross mis-management of the police force, for popular opinion to find expression in such a practical shape as would remedy the evil, except by means of an Act of Parliament. Under the present system, however, in the event of such a contingency, the Govern- ment of the day are empowered to act, and ai-e responsible to Parliament and the country for the management of the force. It may sometime be an important question whether the City police, which are now controlled by the Corporation, should not also form part of the Metropolitan force. The County Council desire the City police to be transferred to them, but the I'oyal Commission on Unification reported against that suggestion. —(1894, Report, p. 24.) As long as the City police are managed as admirably and effectively as at the present time, there is no necessity for any change. It is worthy of remark that on the 17th December, 1897, Mr. Thornton (Progressive) gave notice of motion in the L.C.C. :— " That in the event of any redistribution of duties among the various " authorities in London, it is essential, having - regard to the fact " that the City Police are under the control of the Coi'poration, " that the control of the county police shall be transferred to the " Council."— (Agenda, 25th January, 1898, p. 103.) 140 LICENSING. As the question of licensing, including" places of amusement ani publ ; c houses, involves judicial functions, we are strongly of opinion that matters of this nature would be best dealt with by a special judicial tribunal. Licensing functions of the Council. A judicial matter. The Council has licensing powers in regard to the following matters : — 1. Music halls and certain theatres. 2. Racecourses in the county within 10 miles of Charing Cross, 3. Slaughterhouses, knackers' yards and cowhouses. 4. Places where petroleum is kept for sale. 5. Persons who may sell petroleum. G. Stores for gunpowder and explosives. 7. Firework factories. 8. Locomotives in streets, l'oads, +j r* &w --w O O C — a h ^ O « P< H 0} cd -t-> — ■/. p 5^ C3 _ W > 03 0> ~ = »— , * 1-3 - o -1-3 3 ./. 1 1 a; O o c r U M +J ci oj +s -4-1 >-r en el *£* .. ^ J) o m o t^. CO IN s © £g*2 * C , T3 . ft, a o « c 1 00 C5 < e « cs 1 © ITS H CO CO CO 3 I cs cs £ 1 co t^ ° 1 ° « 2 -a g ■ r— i 00 i6 1 °°^ CI ■^1 *^ tH od" CO" tc*" ° CI g 1 1 00 co S J3 1 »o CO << CO ^o © oi _, S 0) CI t- !/3 c " CO .<= 5 y. tn *o d 85 Main taine by th Roya Societ for pr tectio from Fire eo 1 — 1 CO CI CI 00 T3 , oi -3 s a | B « £ .S fi W « CO 1~ *J ■» A S S 2 1 1- CO a> C t. *5 1 1 — 1 to" E »_. as 2 y | t- -H H CI © CO 1—1 CI a> 2 o fi £ .S'Sb-S C5 l£5 CO feet: i— l to It co o t^ so CO OS 00 CO X <—> V 1— 1 _' CJ o ci ■<> s § «5 atT (3 k^j 3 ^ 5oO r-H 3 1-6 ft^ Sj 00 00 ■p 43 jj ^.^ '"i r-H ■rf 00 ■j: cc ^ r-± i— I o FIRE BRIGADE. 145 The following were the number of fires in each of the specified years (1897, Report, p. 35) : — Percentages. Year. Serious. Slight. Total. Serious. Slight. 1866 326 1,012 1,338 24 76 1867 235 1,152 1,397 16 84 1889 153 2,185 2,338 7 93 1890 153 2,402 2,555 6 94 1891 193 2,699 2,892 7 93 1892 177 2,969 3,146 6 94 1893 180 3,230 3,410 5 95 1894 151 2,910 3,061 5 95 1895 142 3,491 3,633 4 96 1896 122 3,494 3,616 3 97 Population. No. of Houses. Rateable value. Cost of Fire Brigade. 1861 Census 2,808,862 360,065 (1866) £14,524,542 .151,873 (1888, Report, M.B.W., p. 52). 1881 Census 3,834,194 488.885 (1888) £30,758,796 £115,425* Ibid, p. 158 1891 Census 4,232,118 548,315 % st of providing hydrants for the extinction of fire. K 146 COMPARISON OF COST. ^ w m ta fi t~ "tS CM tO CO lO "* k£i Ci .00 rH Cl l> to O O CO "* CO o ^h «0 H i— 1 BO I— 1 I— 1 1— I -«* • cm co to «+J CO CO 00 CM co io i— i o co ■^ o ^ CO •**< o to ^ 1 1C CO o o xo ~r of 1 O CI - ta +3 c U cS 03 03 -t-> -u r- 1 CO CO Ph rt O t- O ^ CO o co to to to „. O CO C5 CO CO m} O^ifil CM C5 C^ ©"af-aT cfaf r-i CM O W O ^ H « CD o £ += e3 i-H 1—1 a . O • O 3 s 8 ^ * 8.2 I I* as n- O £ & "^ Ph ^ « 1 §J CO CO CO 1-H ^ 3 o : : « • «3 • CS pi p3 o 43 eg ^ -13 a a * ce efi .2 -^ 4^ -r- 1 tn CO CO P-t r^i cS r£3 c8 "Is m iO O t— C5 t~ oo o Ci I— 1 O I-H crT of co" CM i— : a >> o »5 b pi a * 22 p> z ci o WO ■r ■(5 P sd >H OJ 5 >> rO _ o M o « < M o M CO ft ft ft O BS o PQ E-i o o ii — 5 B > — c . 'C so 5! ^ a. o Ph o^o n c s o r. 'j oo c x o J ; x o « X CO* Cs ■>* © t-- O.^MiffKOfl ^iflr- — C'^c gxx- cc © o x xr^w^i-xriNo . 289,654 . 312.393 . 390,382 . 313,383 . 279,143 209,265 . 204,G97 . 188,804 . 178,085 . 175,000 . 250,245 'hs. CD 0) © *T © © CI © ?*! © *T O r O o o o i - x l- *c io >b '3 b\ *t »h o -r o^c5'3-3rc55oc ■w t so'n^^ocqqo i- ffT se o cc* r^" — 10 *c"— • o-i t- 5 — • — wTOCc*". rt c Ort 2 » — do — — X — OC(M C * — =; O = ; c . ^. c, C O r^ ^ — " — — cc *' x* cT "^ i.*:' — o" _* I- X O -. 1- t- O -n -^ j; f » _ £• '5 t4 d o b ■•• • ■ b" • ••• • ttf e - = -2 = o d 1 b £ rf 12.! C3 * O 3 -J- ;ajSx^L«3a;.:- eD C X o> pq pq ca m o g*o ft ftws Offi s ~ ^ ~,y,)s,zx "3 i : : : : : -g : : : :o £ g 'i « x a "3 £ •_ - * || l'^ J N~ ego ^ '/: zh xti v: ^ ? ? ? >- ^ c o CD a, CO l e =T c7 co x* o" co o" t*T cT ao' -^ o ocnt*. — — — r-^cr. ox — C* — ■ — t — « 0* CO — CT o o m "E3 3 r3 ' ' : ■? ' : ' ■ 'si 's ' '5 ■ ' '-i ';! ^^S : ."fSflil s = 5 £ g-gu §3 - s S >,ja oj S= ? — '"a 6 5 2 2 i ? ~s £ 6 -S «a E- 2 S"i: CO W W CO H « o p o hi 3 1;",^ o — 2 c* E,_ in c» »o uo ex c: »o o O ^ — iO — £ 1- X !• X w n -* N to ^ to ^ *^r io n o r- oo ox— 'to* im" CO — — X © o c^ © x CO CM ?i © ; X O tO CM x B o o CD ift i0 © - "-T C — — t— O 1- T O X — -^f O. w ^? O 1 - •tO lO O CO' O '^" CO* *n x r^ ^ c» -j — ■v X CO lO CN M - O « « Tf f) 2* ca o ©' co" -^ ^i* eo cT N IS -V I- (N CO CI CO Iq %4 t/3 >» O ft o c . • 5 *H Z. ^ - o c 5 -^ ,** «* ^ s n £ E v ai "^ ri OJ « rf ^= — 3 k tt pq u u w fe 5 = H. S •= J -^ y .£ •5E£ccEC'o» 11 ' « * c H 2 : : s „- : • tib 2 B « J' * (5 £Ss b— = is jj *; £ 2 g P-lrt— • y3t/3t/5C/3c/3? MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. 173 Tt has been alleged that the Unionist proposal for establishing separate municipalities would involve poor municipalities in the East-end and rich ones in the West-end. This is not true. It is the desire of the Unionist party to improve and extend the system of equalisation of rates in the metropolis. EQUALISATION OF RATES. The following history of the principle may be nsefnl : — Prior to the passing of the so-called Equalisation of E a Les Former Act of 18. 1162). At the best it is only, as Lord Salisbury called it, a rough measure of justice. The principle on which it is based is open to serious criticism, and the informa- tion on which it is ft unded was insufficient to afford a satisfactory solution to the equalisation difficulty. The Act creates a fund by the levy of Gd. in the £ upon the rateable value of every London parish. The fund is to be managed by the London County Council, and is to be distributed to the several sanitary authorities of the metropolis on the basis of their respective populations. The amount 174 EQUALIZATION OF RATES. received by any sanitary authority is to be employed for each parish in the authority's area — (a) Under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 ; (b) In respect of lighting ; and (c) In respect of streets. If the wealth of every sanitary district were evenly dis- tributed among the inhabitants of the district, and if the needs of every sanitary district were indicated by its population, the principle by which the formation and distribution of the fund are to be regulated would undoubtedly be satisfactory. But, un- fortunately, neither hypothesis is correct. Kensington, for example, has a wealthy population in its southern, and a com- paratively poor population in its northern, extremity, and to take the rateable value of the whole parish of Kensington as a basis of calculating the amount of the equalisation charge to be levied in the parish, must necessarily inflict a hardship on the inhabitants of North Kensington. Again, Islington is a very populous parish, much more so than the parish of St. Giles, Bloomsbury. But the ratio of poverty in St. Giles is higher than that in Islington. Hence a system by which Islington will benefit to a proportionately larger extent than the parish of St. Giles is certainly lacking in wisdom. Again, the basis of valuation in some of the London parishes is higher than in others, and in parishes where the assessment is high, a rate of a penny in the £ brings in a larger sum in a given area than in those where the assessment is low. Consequently the rate per £ is lower in the highly assessed parishes than in those assessed more moderately. A tradesman in Oxford Street pays a much higher rent for his shop than a tradesman in St. Martin's Lane, but it does not necessarily follow that the former can afford to pay as high a rate in the £ as the latter. A rate of 5s. in the £ on an Oxford Street shop rented at £300 a year amounts to £75 a year, whilst, assuming that the same amount of shop accommodation can be got in St. Martin's Lane for £100 a year, the St. Martin's Lane shopkeeper would have to pay 155. in the £ in order to contribute the same amount to the rates as his fellow citizen in Oxford Street. The fact, therefore, that an East-end parish pays a higher rate in the £ than one at the West-end is not in itself a true test of the comparative burthen of local taxation upon the two parishes, for it must be remembered that the basis of local taxation is not reckoned on the income of the ratepayer, but on the premises he occupies. And a ratepayer in Oxford Street, occupying a given amount of cubic space, does not derive a greater amount of benefit MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. 175 from the various parochial services for which he is rated, than does a ratepayer in an East-end parish in respect of contributions to the local services in the latter parish. A system by which the poor ratepayers in a parish where the assessments are high, and the rate in the £ is low, are compelled to contribute to the rates of a parish where the assessments are low and the rate in the £ is liigh, must of necessity work a hardship in a great many cases, and this is already seen to be the effect of the Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894. It is obvious that the Act requires considerable amendment in order to properly effectuate its object. The Unionist party have not the smallest intention to abandon the principle of equalisation which their own leaders initiated. On the contrary, they desire to bring it into proper working order. TRANSFER OF POWERS. The work to be devolved upon the municipalities must be Transfer of matter for future decision, but subject to this, and in addition to P° wers - such work as is now undertaken by the vestries and district boards of the metropolis, the following matters, now under the London County Council, might, it is suggested, be transferred to the new municipalities : — 1. Control of new buildings, dilapidated buildings and dangerous structures. 2. Street improvements. 3. Regulation of width of streets and control of line of frontage. 4. Sky signs 5. Parks and open spaces. G. Infant Life Protection Act, administration of. 7. Control of common lodging houses. 8. Control of storing of petroleum and explosives. 9. Inspections under Shop Hours Act. 10. Testing of weights and measures. 11. Licensing of offensive trades and slaughter-houses. 12. Licensing of hawkers and pedlars. In 1897 a conference took place between members of the County Council and members of the vestries and district boards, to consider what powers could be transferred from the Council to the local bodies. Notwithstanding the fact that the conference negatived many of the proposals, it is certain that several of the matters negatived could well be managed by properly constituted corporations. It is the latter that are wanted. It is quite true that it would not be well to transfer the powers until proper corporations are set up. 176 TRANSFER OF POWERS. « "rf « 8 03 -.pi-q • PS pq .2 g ^ £ '-p o o^ sJ o Pk o ^ ^ -p 03 is C 03 o ^ -p IS 5 ** c O CD p. o PS _. «4H Q o ps pq Ph -5j co a p ° 53 M P > o o J--43 ft CD CO c H CD Ph CD PS 03 << -' DO -(P CO CD 4) CD +r o pq W PS W Ph o u Xi >> >• o 03 bD •|HJ cS H 0) o co O • PS a* -P CD CD - 0) cu H o '-P -p CD CO CD -p -P> CO o bo .3 c3 i—i ^3 CD XI ^ jj p CO . O ^ o Cp -5 . -p T3 V > a a kg p. CO a> £ § o ^i p 1 o o pq W rt bfl G w ?-h cd co 1— 1 o u HP o x '3 £ £ CM c' 5 ""7 45 oo C -S 0) £" CD -P >- P 00 CD .2 c6 -p> % i— < o PI © Cu O d CCS bfi 1 o bO CD pq C/3 O ex o CO © 1 — 1 -p Ph^ Z -3 co o to P O PS o Ph- £ p— 1 "- 1 r3 '-P -P > # -P o pq pq Ph o co CD - -P CS . H 's ° CD © tc_s CD CO O C co CD '-P CD CO CD -p P^ u p ^ 1 CO S "Se § ;g = CD fcfi 03 co CO c9 1— 1 o co "3 8 O C — -p '-r 5T " >-> u P '^ b CO Ch O »-q o 03 Q -p a: ., p o S rt ° « if- 2 s CD > O 3 CD £h P CO <1 03 O Ph O o 3 IT- 5 p .S -p co ^ o la CD 60 CD CD ^ 73 1) CD -P CO Ph «4H ^-^ O co CD ^h CO PS Ph o O p c3 1 S^ Eh c 0J O CO -p 'o o O PS MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. 177 o P o 178 TRANSFER OF POWERS. 53 ^ CO 0) rd H C © a ■a © ch Fh 1> © Pi Ph a 'oQ Pi OS 0) J": +H a DQ © c3 o •43 o 4= o -P o o u ■P +3 o c H a b be O '$ o 43 d -p d +3 *> © — ■ S r* © d F*»p-j > d o 43 .1) cS o3 cj pi 5H 03 Fh © Fh <*H co Fh c & o o O .2 CO d Pi .© c gj Pi eS O d ^ o 1 ® EH ft o Fh H t*H O A o 43 eg m i> p- cj F- # rP a 5 -g Ph 5 03 | S 3 o b> eS ^ J 3 las *— * -p o fJ £ u % 2 © d c3 c3 o 4^ 53 +3 © H CO rd © ^S d Ph til a . dffl r— 1 Cj v i O O S 5h 3 es qj p CO 43 c3 -p © CO © © "53 Fh © 1 -p g o 73 CO h3A w fh Cv +3 CO •2 -g 43 O © o CO cu •rH Ph B £ o u o -p CO P-l © .i-l Ph d o Pi -P a) CO s O O S3 © o — a r^ CO CO © o o 53 O Fh © . co So o -p o ,4j rt Ph^- Fh © o o Fh o '© 3 f- 3 rrt Fj © p. o 1 — 1 O Ph° PM >> CO f- ^ « a Ph I— 1 • 3 Ph § 3 pi Oh a © d O 30 n p o „ -P pj ^ w.s a Ph co 43 w .3 co 5 "£ o O o © 0) .-i. o -p © CO .a Oj O a^a co- 60 43 d • rH .rH P-,^3 d © d s .a c« fcJO © d 3 o O o o -P CO C5 1 £ I- ■-P o vp -p «" a p 8 ^d DQ a * © . .a Oh - S ft - g >> a s ■— ! -p 8 d Pi © > "Sir >- d 'o © © Fh © F> O Fh P. © ^ !-=• 43 • in © a s d cs co" 43 © CO O © ■+3 88 f* o 43 d o "43 © S © 11 &^ CO ^^ a ^ a. 2 43 --H eS '0 ""d Pi =3 d -P p ce d a s d g3 CO _d d 1 a O o o 1 O O O ^ MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. J 79 d O o ,d U -!-=> g o X -+J CD P ctS ,4 CO cd rr3 > o o M ■+-> 1—1 o >% ■**U C.J CD tM S o o p =4H .- a> -=; f^ > 0) o ? -4-> ^ as CC +3 a 2 CQ "2 CD 93 d CQ 3 ft CO o O ■*J d OS +3 _g hi .* a 9 g To 3 cr rd to r£3 2 l£ ►T 5 O CD O CO ffi a> o ^ >>o^ ,=|r o 5 W £ Ph t3 O JS ' CD ~h y 3 . _ i-" CZ Efl ri "■"■ 73 S " C3 CD ~ O CD d 3 I J P# * ►»« s^ I 1 i T £ 3 >&0>M*,^c: .5 £ 3 P 73 O H s £ £ ° 1 ° 1 •— I CO CO > > a cs cs d rt o +" , .T fl T! o S CD d CD £ >H 4J CO ft£ H & -O to m b-.'d J- *y r 7j f-i 2 T3 CD t0T3 T3 ^ c d3«ci 2 8 * o M d° fi g s il c s ti ^'Sh h s * | -a, 03 | «h2og^ fc |3ci '53 ~ -s § 2? o | B | -2 £ : - ^ § £ & ^ » a t H *»|s> ^ ca.g .9 ^ ^ A3 ~ c6 . ft -- — ^ DO O CD on ^= CO 4J y ft, ft 3 * — ' O d o +a ^> 3 s ro p q ~r. H a _ s) <-c*-ci S"i s oa c a Si-itS « g g a « ? o go M 2 180 TRANSFER OF POWERS. 1 73 J (H .2 rP c o T aq 3 CD p t« o " J 3 -p p a c CO & In 0) > O b +3 +=> To • |M r- 03 .° O °ca c ° H pi M H-i O 1-2 ° +3 d _£* O CD "2 OQ 4_> CO CD ■J-. -U3 HH O 3 ^3 Z/l Ph CD a^ O CD 60 o Pi O 4-3 O r-H Pi O -"•v d^fi w IS Ph O Ph CD ' Ji <3 0) fH, ta .3 S-H cfi ^ 0! 03 03 +3 Ph -P k3 .p O a «S 03 CD •4-3 Pi ,^ "H Pi CD -P Ph p! 03 ojj p "H-H •i-H 5a CD 'to T O PS <» r— i O ^0 cS T 03 c3 M rd * H a 3-, +3 CD >^ . CD O - PI 03 O Ph Co p_. 'o c ■+3 03 CD -, 0: C CD l 12 jj Ph O "3 J 3 "^ +3 03 CD CD PH s Pi ce o 55 l~ 5-, CD t~i ^3 cd B CO 2 CD Pi O O >> O O l-H tS 03 rSi P O 3 T in CD CD to CD +3 -p fl ^ O g V *^' -P -p" -1-3 03 o O o a o H O *-< O c3 Pj O O O CD " Ph ~ P CD CD .1 1 To P >-p CD 1 To "" 2 Ch CD O eS 0; ^ S r/3 ^^ 03 ^ CD ^ T p 5j O -1-3 3 10 s 8 h 1 — | "0 -K PP CO a 'n V> ^H >, CD -1-3 +3 03 cd OS '2 © |6 5 CD SO c >> -1-3 ft © o o ^ O -p M X c 2q 2 -p •—> i O u °o * — c -"■" ii • -< "« 3 co — J3 pj _ £ c_ ii o 3 O O cm Hi o C 2 1 o c , -^ c -p 1 h» CO © H ■5 g> 73 "5 ~ w ft 10 , © c -p ft y-l - © 1! CO -p — 5 ■ l> X 'X .2 o — r£ §<* S» M o ^-' © 73 © - X Act Act. 5 ( !L ft"" v. G y © "H -P O 3 2 ~ - > 0<3 S i. ft o '-p ft C ~— ^ 8 » .s H C u 43 P rJ O J3 (0 u< - © J- d — I — I 2 ^ -r O .^ 3 z '■+3 o 3 •O 'co C o o V 03 © -p rt £ 6 o efl O © % © -p a c ■^ .3 ^J o a © 73 5 o .5 x (+1 c °s © OJ p > o _ S « rt u rt O bJ3J 5 © --s o 3 ^Mg sex ■p 2 2 Londoi Public Parks Weigh i4i|4! — jj 43 2 •^ -= C o > . j^ ,-CJ u ^J - CO OJ S -2 o "+i ft -p w ft t* -p -5 r^ — CO rt _: - > 2 -^ _o -i o "" o •3^0 2 0, " © U ri © »H rg o ^ § t3 w i O c3 to ^H © M © 3 CO «M ° DC? © 2 o •s i=! © cS 7^ « © a co' +i .a © r- ^^ rt o m ©^ Ph ft . rz^ O ^ "^ © r- 2 o O ro © &~> CO "g -p o U © © 23 +^ o 3 t, o r^ « Hi 2 ° .— 1 ft •0 182 TRANSFER OF POWERS. £ w o Ph o o 8 o A ft P3 pp &s > P- -p= P "^ B P o ?^ .3 3 •rj -p= S £ Ph ~ o 3 15 p o 3 P 'o Oh Ph«m g -g«> as x o ft p 0) a Ou PH +3 Sh 05 H-3 3? o o w # P 3 p 'a +3 "-ps cS •+3 a> ph 09 O 1 -p3 o so p p o H-3 03 33 CO o -(-3 P o -p to P •pH 1— H P 0) 'p" o +3 to p +3 •PH pP o u PH 0) Oj pP 53 ■rH Ph 33 o CD Uh CO «4H sh M bfl p 1/2 w ^ p Ph P3 o a P •pHJ © § o gofpb 1- oo § 05 H i ° PH S 5fi5 s =3 >-, o « ph Oj pP +=> 3T ^ M PH «« -° tS c ppj ^a . 1) o >>-p3 ci.a^ s STSg !h p^ Sh a> p O H 8! J ph d^ "r: 3 o Ph O a? pP & O^ d " K! O H £.a *g ^^ ph^s 2 g o3 p o 5 w pj p OS 05 O *P 1 E 2 H3 p-H "^ ' -U "S .S d o . 03 pj p~» I ID jj PH -h 5 if Q Ow *PH PH > — > ^ o^-S a'p ? ^ » J p -*-" a . a ^ a ' ° "5 a MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. 183 ** 0) ai 5 tG 03 O 03 .-£ 9 +3 S O K c! W ri 03 9 •■§ £^ 03 o a ^ <=> £ tf o p o d J33 . 0} p« to to q 03 •a m o to 03 o 3 * ' 03 03 © fl ► ^) O ■ rt pq fr| 3 DEI !s! w g< C/3 S tf 03 d £ d °S. ►4 03 . > S q 03 03 =3 to P 03 fe 0. JZ to t> 03 . H 03 M o 03 M O «8 . 03 CO 03 p '+-< o 1g 4^ S °^ * o tp « > a •" £> ^ £ § 1^2° ^ 03 "13 o 03 -2 o -* a » * .O eg fcJO O O ^3 03 O cS p -g ^ boM Sgo; C .3 -t 3 .3 03 ^ ^ pj >~>-C pi ■£ t* +3 .Pi 03 g § jgg .5 o-S o C 03 03 c3 03 to Sh !=• te C3 »<£ O OS 03 03 § ^ CS O P-3 J 03 2 ^r! 03 Pn.-jJ to 5 U° 5 to 3.3 SO >> .9 £ 0) 03 ^ (h o o OS p 03'j; ^ ^ 03 oS ~ O . o .s^ i 02 ^ 5 r° 2 S^ 2 03 >^G P °^^.^ >-j r MPl' ; - ) e; M 03toS^rPl^ri S*^ -Si I §3 u I P ' i Bli 1 03 /rv M ^ 03 to o ^ «3<« OO >->__. '— 3 '% Ph cS 33 _, J5 5 'to bo^, b O P o ? • PI ,o w> o o .O o^ .a s o 2 o o »3 S 03 a a G Id o ■§•3 a-s^ 3 g s c 3 a -P^ g f * O 184 TRANSFER OF POWERS. ^ p • iH r-4 +3 O p o r^ o +3 o '-P o 3" rg g j^ C^ CD 03 to =4-4 £ 1x O O o CO r^H +3 r-> j a b o q-l f-i ^ $ O £ $ H fa 'c3 & Ph" d ft 6 P o PH co i — i CD ci O o +3 r-H P ± ,1, i a" M CD M a O M-l o HH CO o o 5 CD to p CO CO > CD o +3 a '-+3 '-fc3 % 03 DO ID p co o +3 60 S. era! Y< cb -3 a t> CD Jh SH CD tw rj CO o +3 o3 o .o ,£{ o S H +3 a OS C ^ £ =+i +3 CD CC -£ g3 'ta , CD ■"S CD H t 's -4-3 CC 'So a o +3 r B- 1 &-i CO ■p ^J % § CO ^£ CO u SP o CD .Ph as p •p'a Ph CS 2 CD CO ^ g o CO r- © — CO ?J ® CD ^ « >>, • P to P CD +3 6 CD CO O -P o +3 p Oj ^4 cu Z£ c3 5 'ci 3 co O CD CL, ^ CD [3-i ■^ - t>-i •■43 « M o ST d o R ^ ce ^h 'o o P ~ a § o ^ P CD o > o P o •-D co o . to cL CD £ P o C? O O O INDEX. clxxxv. INDEX. Alien Immigration, sec Foreign Paupers. Amalgamation of City and County of London, see Unification Commission. Asquitb, H. H., M.P., on London Government . under PAGE 164 Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J., M.P., on Mr. Wrightson'a Bill for Housing of Working Classes on Fair Wages Bands, Amount expended by County Council on Baumann, Arthur A., on the Unification Commission Betterment, Notes on Report of Lords' Committee on Holywell Street Scheme delayed by County Counci '• Daily Chronicle" on the delay ' : The Speaker " on the delay " London " on the delay The proposed Strand Improvement and The Tottenham Court Road Improvement and Binnie, Mr., on quality of work done by Works Department Bridges and Ferry, Increase of Expenditure on . Building operations of London County Council, Notes on Burns, John, M.P., on Trade Unionism and Works Department on Local Tradesmen on the Fire Brigade 18 89 120 1G2 93 93 97 98 99 99 95 100 67 9 19 67 76 149 Ctntral Offices, Increase of Expenditure on Chaplin, Henry, M.P., on Housing of the Working Classes on Water Famine Cohen,, B. L , M.P., on The Unification Commission Collins, Dr., on Policy of dropping Public House Licenses Conservative Municipal Programme Conservative Policy on Housing of the Working Classes in regard to Water Supply . on Fair Wages question 10 16, 18 39,40 1G1 12 i. 15, 16 25 87 clxxxvi. INDEX. Constitution of London County Council . County Hall and Offices .... County Rate for 1897-98 .... Motion by Lord Dunraven for reduction of Cremer, Mr., M.P., on Fair Wages Debt of County Council ..... of London Local Authorities Disraeli, Mr., on Sanitary Laws .... Dunraven, Earl of, Motion for reduction of County Rate Economy and Efficiency, Notes on Equalization of Rates, see under Rates, Equalization of. Establishment, Increase of Expenditure on Expenditure, County Council's Increase of Comparison of County Council's Annual Fair Wages, Notes on Mr. A. J. Balfour on Resolution by House of Commons on Mr. Cremer, M.P., on Professor Stuart, M.P., on . R. W. Hanbury, M.P., on . Report of Select Committee on working of resolution Farrer, Lord, on Works Committee's Reports Finance Committee, Statement by Financial Control, Notes on Motion by C. Harrison, M.P. Fire Brigade, Increase of Expenditure on Origin of . Statistics with regard to . Cost of John Burns, M.P., on Report by Commander Wells on . Principles of work of Proposed new Expenditure on Foreign Paupers, Notes on Statistics on Immigration of Committee of Inquiry on Immigration of Lords' Committee on (Sweating system) Foreign Countries action in regard to Conservative policy with regard to Lord Salisbury on Lord Rosebery on C. T. Ritchie, M.P., on Sir Howard Vincent, M.P., on . PAGE 155 6 5 6 90 15 6 9 4 7, 9, 10, 11 80, 89 89 89 88 90 90 m 90 59 12 12 13 9 142 44, 146 147 149 150 150 152 107 107 107 109 109 109 109 110 111 111 INDEX. clxxxvii. PAGE Governing Bodies of London at present . . . .153 Government of London, see under Municipal Government. Government Property, Rating of, Notes on . . .123 Treasury Minutes of 1874 on . 123 Comparison of rateable value of 125 Unionist action with regard to . 128 Government Property in London, Present net value of . . 124 Ground Rents and other Property, Taxation of, Notes on .129 Radical disagreement on question of . 129, 130 Town Holding's Committee Report on . . 129 Conclusions of Select Committee . . .130 Small Owners of Ground Rents . . .133 The Council's Taxation Committee and . .134 Proposals of Unionist Party on . . .135 Gruning, Mr., on Purchase of Timber and Material by Works Department . . . . .63 on Works Committee and Trade Unions . . 66 on quality of Work executed by Works Department 67 on Works Department and Architectural Work . 76 Hamilton, Lord George, M.P., on Mr. Wrightson's Bill for Housing of Working Classes . . . .18 Hanbury, R. W., M.P., on Fair Wages . . . .90 Harcourt, Sir AV., M.P.'s Bill (1884) on London Government. 159 Hardwicke, Earl of, Motion on Returns of Works by Works Department. . . . . . .71 Harrison, Charles, Motion on Financial Control of County Council ....... 13 Hicks-Beach, Sir M., M.P., on Housing of Working Classes . 1G Holywell Street Improvement Scheme delayed by County Council 97 Holborn to Strand Improvement Scheme delayed by County Council ....... 98 Hutton, Sir John, on policy of dropping Public House Licences 11 on Municipal Trading , . .49 Improvements, see Public Improvements. James of Hereford, Lord, Water Board Bill, promoted by . 34 Licences of Public Houses allowed to lapse by County Council . 11 Licensing Question, Notes on . . . . .140 Position of County Council with reference to 140 Licensing powers of the Council . . . . .140 London, Net Debt of . . . . .8 clxxxviii. INDEX. PAGE London County Council, Rate for 1897-98 of . . 5 Rates levied by (see Table) . . 4a, 5 Proposed Hall and Offices fur . . 6 Amount annually expended out of Kate Account by ... 7 Increase of Debt . . '. 8 Increasing Expenditure of . 9, 10, 11 Public House Licences allowed to lapse by . ... II Statement by Finance Committee . 12 Building operations of . . . 19 Occupation of Dwellings of .23 And the Tramways Question . . 45 And Municipal Trading . . 49 "Works Department of . . .54 And Housing of the Working Class . 15 And the Water Supply . . 25 And the Fair Wages Question . . 80, 89 Action with regard to Public Improve- ments . . . .91 And Main Drainage . . . 105 And Parks and Open Spaces . .113 And the Employment of Bands . . 120 Rating of Government Property . 123 And Metropolitan Police . .137 Licensing Questions and . .140 Constitution of . . . .142 And Fire Brigade . . .142 And Foreign Paupers . . . 107 And Municipal Government . . 153 London Government, see under Municipal Government. London Water Supply, see under Water Supply. Lubbock, Sir John, M.P., on London Water Supply Purchase Scheme ....... 37 Main Drainage, The question of . . . . . 105 Metropolitan Board of Works, Rates levied by (see Table) . 4a Annual Expenditure of . . 7 Expenditure on Public Improve- ments . . .91 Cost of Fire Brigade under 143, 145 Notes on . . .137 Existing Districts controlled by . 137 Radical proposal with reference to . 139 Municipal Government, Notes on ... 153 Metropolitan Police, Th INDEX. clxxxix. PAGE Municipal Government, The different principles of . . 153 Governing Bodies of London . .153 Commission of 1837 on London Govern- ment .... 158 Commission ef 1854 on London Govern- ment .... 158 , Sir W. Harcourt's Bill ( 1 884) on London Government . . .159 Lord Salisbury on London Govern- ment . . . 161, 163 The Unification Commission . . 161 Radical Policy with regard to . . 164 Proposed Municipalities for London . 166 The Equalization of Kates and . . 173 Transfer of Powers . . .175 Municipal Programme of Conservatives . . . . i. Municipal Trading, Notes on . . . . 49 Proposals of Radical majority in Council . 49 Sir John Hutton on . . . . 49 Thames Steamboats arid Piers to be worked by Council . . . 50, 51, 52 Municipal Water Undertakings, Statistics relating to . . 38 Comparison of London supply with that of . .41 Municipalities in the Metropolis, see under Municipal Government. National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Association-, Municipal Programme issued by New Services, Increased Expenditure by London County Council on . 11 Open Spaces, see Parks and Open Spaces. Parks and Open Spaces, Increased Expenditure on Notes on Powers of Council's Committe Present Area of Area acquired by Council Particulars of acquisition Council of . Cost of Maintenance of Failure to obtain Open Whitechapel Cost of Bands in the 9 1 1 3 1 1 3 114 11 1 115 119 120 120 cxc. INDEX. Parliamentary Expenses, Increase of Expenditure on on Promotion of Water Bills . Personal Property, Lord Salisbury on Taxation of Police, see under Metropolitan Police. Printing, Postage, Stationery, Increased Expenditure on . Public House Licences allowed to lapse . Public Improvements, Notes on. ... Amount expended by Metropolitan Board of Works in . Cost of the Tower Bridge The Betterment Bogey . Schemes executed and postponed Council Rebuilding of Vauxhall Bridge . The Bridges at the Isle of Dogs . Schemes completed and in progress Estimated cost of schemes sanctioned The main drainage question Purchase scheme of undertakings of London Water Companies Remarks on Sir John Lubbock's calculations on by PAGE 10 43 132 10 11 91 91 92 93 93 101 102 103, 104 105 105 36 37 Radical Policy (1880) with regard to Water Supply on London Government . Rates, Equalization of, History of the Principle of Rates levied by Metropolitan Board of Works (see Table) London County Council (see Table) ,, ' „ 1897-98 Rating of Government Property, see under Government Property Ritchie, C. T., M.P., on Foreign Paupers Rosebery, Earl of, on Foreign Paupers . Royal Commission on London Water Supply Extract from 1893 Report of on London Government . .158 Salisbury, Marquess of, K.G., on Sanitary Laws on Foreign Paupers 25 164 173 4a 4a, 5 111 110 27,35 42 159, 161 15 109 on Taxation of Personal Property, &c. 132 on London Government . 161, 163 Sanitary Laws, Notes on . . . . .15 Disraeli on . . . .15 Lord Salisbury on . . . .15 Select Committee of House of Commons on Water Supply . 25 Simonds, J. S., and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade . .149 Stuart, Professor, M.P., on Fair Wages . . . .90 Sweating System, The Lords' Committee Report on . .109 INDEX. CXC1. Taxation of Ground Rents and other Property, see Ground Rents and other Property, Taxation of. Technical Education, Increased expenditure on . Tower Bridge, The, Cost of Construction of Approaches. Trading, Municipal, see under Municipal Trading. Tramways, Notes on Purchase and Working of . Council's Powers under existing laws Action of Council with regard to Powers granted to Council Cost of acquisition of Undertakings . Interference with Hours of Labour on Maintenance of roads Treasury Minute of 1874 on Rating of Government Property Unification Commission, The Composition and Report of B. L. Cohen, M.P., on Arthur Baumann on PAGE 11 92 92 45 45 45 46 47 47 48 123 161 161 162 Vincent, Sir Howard, Bart., M.P., on Foreign Pauper; 111 Wages, Fair, see under Fair Wages. Water Supply, Notes on .... Conservative Policy in 1880 Radical Policy in 1880 . Select Committee of House of Commons on Royal Commission on Statistics with regard to . Policy of Progressives on the Council Policy of Unionists on the Council . Remarks on Council's Purchase Scheme . Cost of Council's Welsh Scheme . Water Famine due to action of County Council H. Chaplin, M.P., on Water Famine Comparison with large Provincial Towns. Typhoid Death Rate Extract from Report of Royal Commission on quality of, 1893 . Cost of Parliamentary action by Council . Water Board Bill promoted by Lord James of Hereford . Outer London's objections to Council's Pro posals on . . .32, 33, Act passed by Unionist Government in 1897 on . 25 25 25 25 27, 35 28 29 31 36 38 39 39 41 42 42 43 34 34, 35 36 CXC11. INDEX. Water Supply Statistics relating to Municipal Water Under- takings .... Waterhouse, E., on Work executed by Works Department Wells, Commander, appointed Chief Officer of Fire Brigade Welsh Water Scheme of Council, Cost of Wood, T. McKinnon, on London Government . Working Class, Housing of, Notes on Henry Chaplin, M.P., on Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, M.P. A. J. Balfour, M.P., on Lord G. Hamilton, M.P., on Workmen's Dwellings, Improvement in . Extravagance on building of Notes on occupation of T. Wrightson, M.P.'sBill for acquisition of Works Committee, Reports of, Lord Farrer on . Bad work done by Works Department of London County Council, Increase of Expenditure on Origin, Cost and Working of Establishment of Central Depot Irregularities discovered in Lord Farrer on Committee Reports Special Committee of Inquiry appointed on Consideration of Recommendations of Special Committee Purchase of Timber and Material . Management of Labour Trade Unions relation to . Statistics in regard to Motion by Lord Hardwicke as to Returns of Works Contract for Clothing Fair Wages and Conditions of Labour Jobbing Works executed by Capital sunk in Work undertaken by Reports of Special Committee Quality of Work executed by Recent Proceedings and Future of. Wrightson, T., Bill for acquisition of Workmen's Dwellings promoted by ...... PAGE 38 70, 71 149 38 164 15, 16 16, 18 16, 17 18 18 16 19, 20 23 17 . 59 59 10 54 56 59 59 61 83 63 65 66 68, 70 82 80 73 57 57 61 67 85, S7 3 6 8 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. UNlVRRsrrY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES LIBRARY -JN- - Nati onal 1129 union of C7?J19 — conservative 1898 and constitu- tionaX^assOdSi^ ations- ■ ^ .. i ■£ .... JN112y.U/' Nia loso v II Hill II I 1 1 nil III Mill Willi L 009 572 025 6 If SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 001 352 909 4 JN 1129 C7N19 1898