liii: m' xii^' -s r- THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES London County Council Election, 1904. FACTS AND ARGUMENTS FOR CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS AND CANDIDATES. "WITH ALL OUR POLITICAL FORCES." " We must not be sliy of using all our political power and machinery for the purpose of importing' sound principles into the government of London. It is now as much our duty to do so as it is in respect of the Parliamentary elections. .... It is as much our duty in all these elections, from the highest to the lowest, to act as a party, and to vote so that our principles shall prevail, as in the election of members to Parliament." — The late Makqcess of Salisbuey, at Queen's Hall, Langham Place, London, on November 1th, 1894. "I am in favour — I have always been in favour — of the intro- duction of politics into municipal elections, but I am not in favour of the introduction of politics into the Council. That is a different thing altogether. Councillors may be elected on political lines if you like, because they mark out broad distinctions of character and policy, but when elected, let both parties forget altogether political con- siderations and settle down to common Avork for the conunon benefit." — Right Hon. Joseph Chambeklain, M.P. " What are these but political (|uestions — purposes as essentially political, and involving changes as great, as those whicli are discussed in Parliament for the whole country." — 8iR Hknky CAMi'iiELL-BAXNEKiiAN, G.C.B., M.P., Oil Progressive policy in London Municipal affairs, ^t. James's Hall, January IStJi, 1902. I'linlcd by Va< iii;ic & Suns, WoKtmiustcr llouso, (iroat Smith Strivi, S.VV., and I'liblii-lird by tin,' .Joint Coniiiiit Itu of llii; Lundoii Muiiifipai Sui-icty and tlio Mi;li\iiJuliUui Division of the National Union, M, Totlnll Stroot, Wistniiustcr, S.W. CO en >- cs £3 C3 05 ^^4 London County Council Election, 1904. FACTS AND ARGUMENTS FOR CONSERVATIVE SPEAKERS AND CANDIDATES. (( WITH ALL OUR POLITICAL FORCES." " We must not "be sliy of using all our political power and macliinery for the purpose of importing sound principles into the government of London. It is now as much our duty to do so as it is in respect of the Parliamentary elections It is as much our duty in all these elections, from the highest to the lowest, to act as a party, and to vote so that our principles shall prevail, as in the election of members to Paidiament." — The late Marquess op Salisbdky, at Queeii's Hall, Laiigham Place, London, on November 1th, 1894. " I am in favour — I have always been in favour — of the intro- duction of politics into municipal elections, but I am not in favour of the introduction of politics into the Council. That is a different thing altogether. Councillors may be elected on political lines if you like, because they mark out broad distinctions of character and policy, Ijut when elected, let both parties forget altogether political con- siderations and settle down to common work for the common benefit." — R[GHT Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P. " AV'hat are these but political questions — purposes as essentially political, and involving changes as great, as those which are discus.sed in Parliament for the whole country." — Sir Henry CAMi'i5KLr,-BANNi-:KMAN, (J.C.B., M.P., on Progressive policy in London Municipal affairs, ;S7. James's Hall, January I'Sfh, 1902. 4:3;J275 • • • • • • «. « • • • < • • , • • • • NT O T E . The object of the Joint Committee in issuing" this Handbook is to afford to Conservative speakers and candidates information upon the main points at issue in London County Council administration. L. C. C. ELECTION, 1904. rACTS AND ARGXJIVIENTS CONTENTS. 1. Education : — Part I. — The Loiidou Education Act Paet II. — Progressive Hostility at L. C. C. Part III. — The Peril of London's Education Appendix. — Miscellaneous Notes on Education "2. Foreign Contracts . "3. Main Drainage — Floodings 4. Housing of the Working Classes . 5. Locomotion .... 6. Street Improvements 7. The ^Vorks Department 8. Finance : — Part I. — L. C. C. Finance . Part IL — Lord Welby's Speech 9. Taxation .... 10. Powers and Duties of Central and Local IL Port of London — Increased Dock and Riv 12. Conservative and Unionist Legislation affecting London 13. Alien Immigration . 14. Munici])al Trading . 15. Yauxhall liridge 3 0. Conservatives and the non-contentious Work of the Council J 7. Index ....... Authorities er Services page. 1 23 80 37 58 76 87 104 130 140 156 173 184 207 213 222 239 245 248 253 267 EDUCAT I O N. PART I. The Education (London) Act, 1903, gives to the Metropolis one the advantages conferred upon the remainder of England and constituted Wales by the Act of 1902, and now, for the first time, London possesses a single central authority capable, and charged with the duty, of supervising, directing and co-ordinating education of whatever class, and with whatever aim, from the kinder- garten to the college. Further, the Act, while laying upon the central authority control ov6r this duty of maintaining the instruction in the not provided voluntary (Voluntary) schools, confers large powers of control over the instruction given in those schools. Teachers in these schools will hereafter be able to obtain Advan- full recognition in salary and status for the services which Teacheri. they give, and in the past have given, with such unselfish devotion to the welfare and interests of the children. By this grouping of schools in each Metropolitan city and Local in t6r6st borough, and by the appointment of managers, not only by encour- the central authority but also by local councils, the adminis- trative work. of education will become linked with municipal life ; and the administration of the schools, and the progress and success of scholars throughout the various stages of their educational career, will become an ever-increasing subject of local interest and importance. A No change To prevent any possible misunderstanding, it may be character stated tliat tlie Acts make no alteration in the character of of the , . (• 1 1, 1 instruc- the instruction, secular or religious, in any oi the schools. tion. Safe guards All the old safeguards against religious teaching contrary retained ^q ^}^g wislics of the parents are retained, and, in fact, one is increased, added by which power is given to managers of non-provided schools to insure that the religious teaching in those schools does not go beyond the terms of the trust deed relating thereto. No new j^ spjte of much misrepresentation, it will be found that teachers, the Acts do not subject teachers to any tests. Teachers now under the London Board will be, in future, in precisely the same position as in the past ; and Section 7 of the Act of 1902 confers rights on assistant and pupil teachers applying for posts in not provided schools which they have not hitherto possessed. Women's The valuc of womcn's work for elementary education is work con- -^ tinned, recogniscd by the Acts, which require the inclusion of women upon the Central Education Committee. Also in the Metropolitan Act there is a direction that not less than one- third of the local managers shall be women. These provisions insure the continuance of the existing practice in London, but at the same time go further, inasmuch as they amount to a statutory guaranty that the excellent influence of women in school life shall be preserved. Training For the first time a public authority is enabled by the Act to establish and direct training colleges of an undenomi- national character. CoUegj Without disrespect to the voluntary work that has been done in this direction, it may be safely said that the want of adequate facilities for training teachers has been one of the greatest blots on our educational system. It is the practice of those who opposed the passage of Denomina- the two Acts through Parliament to assert that they increase influence the power of the clergy over education, and constitute a increased, further endowment to Voluntary schools. Few statements are less founded upon fact. Indeed, the management of denominational schools by the clergy and ministers will, in future, be tempered by the presence of the managers nominated by public authorities, whose represen- tations naturally will carry the weight of public opinion on controversial questions. That the new Act constitutes an efficient, and at the Denomina- same time economical method of maintaining the education contribu- of the 200,000 children now in London Voluntary schools, is ample. patent from a consideration of the capital outlay necessary to provide new places (at, say, £30 per place) for all these children. In London, at least, it cannot be said that the owners of Voluntary schools are not paying an equivalent for the advantage which they gain in being able to insure denominational instruction in schools receiving rate-aid. The essentials of the Government policy may be Govern- ■■ (. ,, ment summarised as follows : — policy. (1) Central control and local administration. (2) Indirect in the place of direct or ad hoc election. A 2 (3) Similar educational advantages for all children, whether in provided or non-provided schools. (4) The co-ordination of all grades of instruction. For the purpose of carrying into effect this policy, the Act provides for the appointment of a central committee, and for the establishment in each Borough area of Boards of Managers for the administration of details in connection with both the provided and non-provided schools, now known as Board and Voluntary schools. Upon the Central Committee the County Council have power to appoint a majority, and, unless they otherwise decide, such majority will consist of members of their own body. In the interest of the other work of the Council it appears advisable that as far as possible opportunity should be taken to bring in from without those previously conversant with the different forms and aims of educational work affected by the Act. Borough Councils, after consultation with the County Council, and subject to the approval of the Board of Education, will decide how many Boards of Managers will be required for the provided elementary schools within their areas, and the number of Managers. And they have also the right to nominate two-thirds of the number of the Managers on each Board, also a representative upon the Board of Management of non- provided schools. Upon the loyalty with which members of both the County and Borough Councils carry out the Act, depends the future of London education. In their first selection the Act directs that Borough and County Councils shall choose largely from those men and women who, as Managers under the School Board, have gained much experience, and who, in very many instances, have justly earned the confidence of the teachers. At the same time it should be recognised that the management of the futiu-e must be very different from that of the past, when no order involving the expenditure of sixpence could be given by Managers, whose chief mission seems to have been to act as a buffer between the School Board and the teachers. Without endorsing every action of the expiring School Board, due recognition may well be given of the work of the Board which, commencing from the smallest, has developed into the largest educational machine civilisation has perhaps ever known. The following tables, showing the growing character of the work, are taken from recent papers issued by the Board : — 6 p 'o^^;:^2 Or-l^ 01 CO "* « ^ CJ_^ I- I- C5 Ol Tt* lO CO CJ CJ 01 CO m l-X OCO CO o t. Eh i-H '-^ »— ( l-H ^H l-H ^- -H*^ of of 1—* l-H l-H — 01 01 01 Ol Ol 01 Ol CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO OJ' LO crt ■0' ^^^ 00 C>J iC l^(M -* CO "* CO ^ -1 LO X Ol CO l^ ^ T)< rH I--'* t-OT)^ -H t^ Ol CO -t-3 f-H ^^ r—i w^ o 1^ ■* 01 T(< 10 CO CO t^ X m CO OJ CD LO CO fO^ ift CO-* Ol ^ 01 in f-H r- OJ t^ r-i LO 03 F-< rt ^H 1— i ^H ^H ^-< p-H hH 1—{ l—t •—i l-H ^^ r—^ 1 — 1 rH 1 — 1 l-H 1 — 1 :§J?5 1- CO CO « CO CO Z> I- I- 0\ 'O l-H t-01 CC X l-H CO hh Ol CD CJ f-^ 01 hh OJ 01 1- CD CD OJ Ti< 00 CM c; 01 -too: ^ r-^ Oi -* i^ r- l-H CO r^ 01 rH 01 CO CJ 01 l-H X 01 CO in LO CJ^ 00 CO 00 CO_^ CO CO__ x__ o_^ — ^ CO x_^ « CO CO I- x__ * rt* CO X X 01 Ttl CD t^ CO CO in I- m 1—^ O -H y; 02 CO rt> CO C CO CI 10 CO CO X OJ LO CO CJ LO CO LO X CO 10 " in OJ i-^ 01 1^ CD OJ t^ Kl r-i -* 'O »0 CO ^ ■^ Tji CO Tji Tj* 10 CO CO ^ 01 1-< 01 Ol CO "* tH LO LO 10 LO in in in CO LO in co_^ -** CO X 0* crt -t^ .g- (M C5 1*^0 3i 05 X cooi CO 1-0 CO -H CO t^ "* ^ Ol a ^^ f—t 01 t- ITH OJ X CD CO ^ o 1 — 1 l-H r-^ ir-l f—\ . Tj< 000 ■* ira (M Lt coco C5 05 X t-- CO CO l^ LO X CJ CJ IC t- 01 OJ UO CD l^ 01 CO ^ ^ l-H o 01 i-H ^ ^H l-H r^ hH -^ ^^ r-i i-H l-H f-H ^^ 2 to 1— «o 1^ 1— 1 c -* rM I- 05 X C5 ph 1-^ t^ 01 r^ X CO 01 01 ^ r-^ 01 01 ■OJ CO X CxSi o^ (M 00 ai >o i^ CO I- t-- X CJ CO 10 CJ t^ t^ a. ■o co^ CO CO CD ■0 CJ "* LO t- X X ■* Oi CO 00 '■'I'*^'^ (^l Oi^ 00 10 l-H GJ CO__ CO__ OJ_ T)H^CJ CO CJ rt X r-H 01 •^ ^ (Xi -<*<'* OJ LO X ^ a '^ « 00- iC a -* 10 ^'" CO -H l-T jo" 10 CO IC X*CO OJ i-T CO 01* t- CO l-H t^ ■*!< X X CO X 'tY co^ co^ CO o f-H eo 00 00 ^ X C3 CO -* C-) CO -1 ^ CO CJ -rff t-- -H l-H X l~- ■* t- ^ rH rf OJ^ LO rH LO CO 13 l-H (M CO ■* CO X X 05 o_ "1 "*., "*, T# 10__ [-- x__ x^ Ci I-' CO Tt< 10 ■CO 1- rH 01 TtH ^ Th "S l-H 1 — ^ l-H l-H f^ r-~i r^ 1 — i r^ 1—^ -J^of of of of of 01 01 01 CO CO '^ s X s ^^ c+1 V .a 00 C5 CO CO Oi CO ic X IC CO CD ■<*< -H t- t^ 00-1 LO 10 ^ CO c^ t-x -M CO C lO . • Th 00 I- -TJ . . . . t-O Tt< 01 --I IP (>] r-H Oi CO CO X CO CJ 9 ^r'-' Tt* 01 '^ CO CO CO CO CJ in CD • F^ CO -^ 10 lO IC CO CO 10 CO (X do X X r- X rH 6 6 6 r^ 01 01 01 CO CO tH -* * l-H l-H 1 — 1 rH l-H rH l-H l-H r— ^ 1 — 1 1 — 1 rH ^-1 Annual ! le. ''"■ :=! 'z' CO t- ■* (M X Tfl (M CO X CO --JH ^ X 10 ■<* 10 Ol CO OJ OJ X LO 01 t-x ^ -rtf oc T*< 1^ cc 01 1- 0-1 -^ I- ^ ^ CO -H ^ 01 Ol LO r-H lO CO X 1* 01 rH rH CO •f l-H C^' CS '^ CO C5 l^ I- .— 1 0: CO '^ 01 CI LO 't ^ X 1-- ^( 10 CO X LO CO CO X CO ■" t- r- •2^^ 5j ; cc 10 CO 00 -H -rH LO 1.0 C l-H 01 l-H 10 l-H 01 1-H rH 10 hH l^ 01 CO ■^ t- r-H 01 CJ X 01 X ^ CO m X CO c X 01 — . -* 0) 01 OC X 10 X CO Ol 0: 10 CC 01 CO CO X 1^ ~¥ CO '5^ c; oi o) CI CO C^l iC c ■CO CO lO LO '■£■ CO oc oi^^__co 01^ ^, t~: 'O CJ CO C-^ 01 co_^c:j t^ cTo 0" W F-l CO' CO •& -+ CO* r-^ X* X* ai c* 0' 0* rH* rH of CO CO CO -4 >o* LO* CO* CO* 1-^ x*oj' fl r-l C-l CM 'M (M (M C-l 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO It 000 CO CO t-- CO CO t^ ^ Ci>0 Th 10 CO 10 CO "* -* CO CO CO CD CD CJ 01 t- 01 £2 S CO -. CO' ■o '^ CI t^ 0; -H OCO -* 01 X IC X l^ rH OJ 10 CD 01 01 01 X -+ -* t^ tj c w 00 I- oo CO CO c-i I- m uo 01 X CO CO X LO 01^ rH -# 0^ X CO CJ CO I- LO C LO t-. "^ '.ai-'tr^x ».•■»> cs; CO 00 CO CO -H CO CO C5 rt 10 -) IC CO CO CO X OJ 0^ -H q^o l-H 1* i# ■^ TT ^ co_ x^ x^ X rH CO TjH f-H ^H l-H i-H p-^ l-H rH ^^ 1—{ 1—\ rn'of of of of 1 ic X CO — 1 c-i ri CO m lO C5 X '^ ■* Tt X LO -H ■CO f-LO LO 01 01 I— —* I^ Tf in CO ■0 ^ £ - a> ut oc Ip Tj. CO CO ^ 3; LO C; X CO ^ c 01 ■rt< 10 X ^ ^~, CO OJ CO X -H CO •* in •■:; 5fi« • 00 U5 CO »J JM CO — < I- I- CO Tf c; t^ CO t^ X r)- CO t-^ (X)^ iq ■^ X CJ CO CO^t-; CO_^ CO x__ X_^HH . t< 5 I- 00 (M CO ■* CO Tt< x' cT c X* cT Tt CJ X* of LO* r^ of CJ* 0* c* CD* of 6 CJ* ^ CD* of in * (N CO CO c: — •* CO X C: -H ^ CO t- tt -H 01 ■* ■* -+ CO t-CJ -H 01 CO CO ^ ■rt' CO t^ 1 -H Ol 04 01 01 04 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO -i^' ^ T)< Tf ^1 ^i ^^ •* Tj> ^■5 ^ t- I — ' "M CO "* 1.0 CO t^ X Oi c -H C'l CO '^ LO CO I~X OJ ^ CM CO -^ LO 2 t — OJ rH 01 CO- ) pSrl I^ t~ t-~ t-' t^ t-^ t^ 1^ I^ X XXX XXX XXX CJ CJ CJ CJ OJ OJ OJ c; a> , "1 00 X zcx QC X oc CC X cc XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX X oc X X OJ CJ CJ OJ 1— « < r— 1 rH l-H l-H rH ^H l-H ^ H- >"rl ^ 1 Without in any way wishing to disparage the work of the Delegation School Board, and with the greatest admiration for the energy of the members, it cannot be disputed that one of the results of that super-centralised system of administration was to minimise local interest in the schools ; and one of the most useful effects of the new Act will be the expansion of local interest in Education, and a feeling will be aroused in the minds of Managers that their powers and responsibilities in respect of the schools are worthy of their best attention ; and that confidence reposed in them as Managers must be justified by the energy and success of their administration. The above figures abundantly prove that upon an adequate scheme of delegation depends the success of the futm-e educational machinery, at least so far as elementary instruction is concerned. On the assumption that the Borough will be taken as an schools ... . and administrative area, the following tables show the number of scholars in each ordinary elementary schools and scholars in each district : — borough. 8 £> 03 J3 SZ -<.» -M ^ C bD o C3 T> •— < s o 1-^ 3 T3 t-< O) o O «-< C R{ -*-i TJ c S-i a> Ul -^> Q c« T3 o C o CJ rf5 o — C/J o S-, o .c ^ •*^ a c o -•-* X! CJ • ■i^ > T3 O B J3 B bO O !3« « <-) o t-i cS O n t3 C c cS a »« tH o O c a> o ▼H t-l -»-> l« s s a> O O c3 ► .c "T x; w = o P'S 'tis ^ b.!2 (A >5 I 72 -J o X! a 3 >^ •asTiB -pnaiiy s3na3Av P ooooooaoxooxooooocooGOccxooooooooXQOoor-aoxxxxoooc CO X •ooun -pnonv -aau.iaAy cic:J i-H I-H Oi_ ■— 1 •llOH oSutaAy l^-^COOI-^CO— 'i-tXC-lI^t^XIOCOrO— ' — Xt--iCCI^C: — co-^xx OOXrOOOO-Hltl-fCOXlO-Ht^COXO— i:C-H-H-HrOCC^lCCO-rt< c-j_ t-^ CO r-^ o^ c-i^ o CO o ■* x__-rj<_co_^(M_co oi^co^x^c^^Oi^co o;_co_^r-^w^c: i-^co^"* (M* •*' 1^ -^^ i^ ■^' f4" T^ of CO o -^^ c^" o" C5 X i>^ ■* CO CO >-h' (^f CO o' 't o* ■*" ■* I-H r— 1 l-Hi— 1 1— tOl I— IrH X OI CO I-H 0^ •uoijwp -oraxnoboy lOffiC^CSCO-— 1— hOICOOO-hOIO^OIOCO-^X— '-*'-iCOOCOO"*lO CO CO X ci' oi CO 01 CI CI CO t- X o 01 ■* LI -* oi t^ ^ o rt X CO c 01 r- o CO 0_ Ol^ 1 0_ 0_ Si^ CO X^ C£__ X CO CO__ lO O !_ c:^ ;o_ C:__ 0]_ ©_ O^ CO^ rf^ I--; c-^ o >-o_ c; x_^ x_ ^__ co' ■># r-^ ■* :£ Th F-^' •*' -H CO o" ■* of iff x' x" t-^ ■*' -4' as co" oi' of r4" co o" r-^ tJh' o t-H x^ CO OI •sju3nn.ind -OQ JO -ox: o^050ic^oxiccoc5t->cx->*f-4Ti-f— t^xeooco OtOlCOOlCOOl 1-Hi— I^COOI-HCOLO-^XCOIOCOCOCO^IOOI COXOl CO »-H 1 1 f-H •siooqDg }o -o^si ■^c:C500i-0'*ot^t^xcoc;-HO--<-Hcocor^t^xt----* i c: f- ;o i~- C5 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx r •sane -pua^jy O i~- CO X uo C5 -rj* t^ oi o uo X -^ X CO CO »o o m c; ■* LO CO 10 CO X o Ci CO Tt<01'^C0O^-HTt(X^C0C0XXC001OTj*' o 010J01-* rHi— lOl^CO^ -*!— lOl-H OI OlrtCOCO OI OI X a o c' uo UO •not^up -oraniobay t-coxcot-i-'THOcoxxTticoxTfifflOioi— icoco^cooiTi<0)bic;oi -^'::ico--oit^-*oicoTfH-*oci— *' uo' CO CO co' lO ■^' o' CO CO uo' ■*' CO -h' t-^ fo cc x' co' of oT ■^' oT lo' x' TjT — ' oio^oiTf rtrtoi'-HCOi— 1 Ttt-^oir-^ OI oi^eoco oi oi -+ OI £^ of uo •sittgm^Bd -oa JO -oij i:-xc;cO'*oiuoi-Hiot-^--icououoccoxc;»o-^oc:t^oioic;-Hio l0u0OO^-^Tl^■<*l0•<*XC0^l-^OC0C-C0'-ll-^01C0-^XO'-^t:^0■^C0 1— 1 rt 1— 1 1 1 f- ^H •siooipg JO-OM C0C5OOC0i0U0- Government could liavc |)r(i|)(>sc(l l<> giv<' up tlu- Voluntary schools as part of our sy.stem of public education, l-'or (") tlic cost ot providing for liic substitution o^ other schools would be so enormous, that the country would never submit to it ; [l>) m fare of liic pledges given in 1870, it would have been unjusti- 44 fiable ; (c) a very large proportion of the nation are in favour of the Voluntary system and of the giving of distinctive reUgious teaching. (2) The compulsory purchase or renting of the buildings, so as to give up the religious teaching, was out of the question. For (a) the expense would have been very great and unacceptable to the nation ; {b) such a course would be an injustice to those to whom the nation owes the existence of the Voluntary schools, since these have made sacrifices with the definite object of having distinctive religious teaching given ; (c) it would have meant the practical tearing up of many of the trust deeds under which many schools are endowed. Denominational teaching, then, could not be done away Avith in the Voluntary schools ; and this, of course, involves the retention of the practice that the teachers shall believe in what they are called upon to teach. And this the Act provides for, while at the same time providing for complete control of all the secular instruc- tion in them by the popularly elected local e;]ucation authority. In return for the right of having denominational teaching given in their schools to the childi'en of such parents as desire them to receive it, the denominations are bound to render the services mentioned in the following clauses of the Act : — Sect. 7(1)" {d) The managers of the school shall provide the school house free of any charge, except for the teachers dwelling house (if any), to the local education authority for use as a public elementary school, and shall, out of funds provided by them, keep the school house in good repair, and make such alterations and improvements in the buildings as may be reasonably required by the local education authority, provided that such damage as the local authority consider to be due to fair wear and tear in the use of any room in the school house for the purpose of a jjublic elementary school shall be made good by the local education authority ; " (e) The managers of the school shall, if the local education authority have no suitable accommodation in schools provided by them, allow that authority to use any room in the school house out of school hours free of charge for any educational purpose, but this obligation shall not extend to more than three days in the week." Sect. 7 (2) " The managers of a school maintained but not provided by the local education authority, in respect of the use by them of the school furniture out of school hours, and the local education authority in respect of the use by them of any room in the school house out of school hours, shall be liable to make good anj' damage caused to the furniture or the loom, as the case may be, by reason of that use (other than damage arising from fair wear and tear) and the managers shall take care that, after the use of a room in the school house by them, the loom is left in a proper condition for school purposes." 45 The funds provided by the managers represent voluntary contributions, and such proportion of the endowments as is left to them under the Act. It is obvious that the denominations pa}% and more than pay, for the denominational teaching gi\'en. For, besides paying rates equally witli every one else, they provide the buildings rent free for use as public elementary schools, keep them in structural repair, and make alterations and improvements. Take the first item only, and limit tlie consideration to the 11.711 National or Church of England schools. These buildings, -\vitli their sites, cannot possibly be of less rental value than £22,000,000, and 3| per cent. — a low percentage — would yield an annual rent of £715,000. Of course, the Church of England retains the use of the buildings on Sundays and on three week-day evenings, but, allowing for this, there is still a large surplus over the proportion of the cost which represents the time spent in giving Church of England distinctive teaching, which cannot in 1902 have been more than £180,000. If a man persists, in face of the facts, in saying that the rates pay for denomi- national teaching, at least he must admit that he thus creates a great injustice to the denominationalists. If the denominational teaching is paid for out of the rates, then the denominations, besides paying tlieir rates, which go towards the secular instruction, also contribute towards that object the money represented b}' the provision of buildings, their upkeep, alteration and improvement. The statement that the State has paid for the Voluntary schools by its large and increasing grants is, at best, quite pointless. The special building grants alone have gone towards the Voluntary school buildings. The other grants have gone towards the maintenance of education in them, and are payments from the State for work done for it. If I pay a labourer to do some work for me with his own tools, and the payment for the work exceeds the price of the tools, have T paid for his tools ? Neither has the State paid for the Voluntary school buildings. Moreover, that these grants have never sufficed, even for the maintenance of educa- tion in the buildings, is shown by the following figures taken from Cd. 1,476, pp. 66-70 : — Income of Voluntaky Schools, for Maintenance * only, in the Years 1894-1902. Endowments. ^, , ., , . ^ Contributions. £ £ National or Cliurch of England .. 1,121,607 5,649,679 Wesleyan 5,564 178,587 Roman Catholic 24,562 770,072 Britisli and other 208,905 748,647 £1,360,638 £7,346,985 Total— £8,707,623. * These figures do not include sums received for the purposes of new buildings, structural alterations, administration and inspection. 46 Building grants Avere made between 1833 and 1881 : but no application for a grant was entertained unless received before the end of 1870, that is to say, before the State took any direct part in education. The Blue-book of 1902 [Cd. 1,3361 shows that out of 14,294 Voluntary schools then receiving annual grants, 5,350 had received building grants — 4,963 National or Church of England, 87 Roman Cathohc, 110 Wesleyan and 190 British and other schools. These schools had received in all £1,505,329. of which sum London schools received £142,067 4s. 8d., and to meet those grants a sum nearly three times as great as the amount of the grant was contributed by the promoters at the time. It should also be borne in mind that some of these grants were made seventy years ago, none less than twenty-three ; much of the work paid for by them has thus needed renewal since, and has been renewed by private effort only ; throughout, upkeep, alterations, improvements, rebuildings, and extensions have come out of voluntary funds. The conclusion is that the State has paid about one-quarter of the initial cost of rather more than a third of the Voluntary school buildings. The following quotations may be of use in reference to the religious side of the question. In an article on " London Education," in the Nineteenth Century, of October, 1903. Mr. Sidney Webb, L.C.C. (Progressive), who was Chairman of the Technical Education Board from 1893 to 1898, and again in 1901-2. wrote : — " This inevitable segregation of teachers, or, as some persons choose to call it, this use of a religious test, is neither established nor increased by the Acts of 1902-3. . . What the Acts of 1902-3 do, as regards the Voluntary schools, is neither to create nor to alter the existing diversity, nor yet to establish any new test, but, in consideration of the provision of tlie sites and buildings free of cost to the public, to make the salaries of the teachers, and the current expenses of education, independent of the charitable subscriber, and to charge these expenses to the public purse. Whether or not this is financially a good bargain for either party to it, we need not now discuss. Educationally, as Dr. Macnamara has con- sistently pointed out, it is pure gain." What is more, so-called " religious tests " for pupil teachers are done away with in certain circumstances. The Act provides that : — Sect. 7 (5) " In pubhc elementary schools maintained but not provided by the local education authority, assistant teachers and pupil teachers may be appointed, if it is thought fit, without reference to religious creed and denomina- tion, and in any case in which there are more candidates for the post of j)upil teacher than there are places to be filled, the appointment shall be made by the local education authority, and they shall determine the respective qualifications of the candidates by examination or otherwise." 47 In the same article, Mr. Sidney Webb says : — ■■ But it is the simple fact that none of these hotly debated political questions traverses the actual work of educational administration. Neither the pohtical nor the religious difficulty is met with in the schools themselves. Thus, if people feel strongly on these issues, it is as legislators and electors, not as educational administrators, that they must decide them." In the New Liberal Review for Maich, 1902, Dr. Macnamara, M.P. (Radical), wrote : — " Speak to any piactical teacher, and he will at once tell you ' there is no religious difficulty in the schools themselves.' That is jierfectly true, because the teachers, especially those at work in the denominational schools, have always been tactful, and have eased the situation materially, in the cases of children of parents known to be actively opposed to the denomination with which the school is associated. " But in the great majority of cases I should say that even in the Church- schools, the religious teaching varies very little from that of the Board school, except, of course, for the fact that the teaching of the Church Catechism is invariably added. In both Board and Voluntary schools the pupil may be removed, under the ' Conscience Clause,' at the request of the parent from the religious observances and daily lessons." THE COWPER - TEMPLE CLAUSE. In the present discussion the Cowper-Temple clause is frequently referred to. For the purposes of reference, the text of clause 14 of the Elementary Education Act. 1870, which contains the accepted suggestion (printed in italics) of the Right Hon. W. Cowper-Temple, who was a Churchman and the Liberal M.P. in 1870 for Hampshire South, is given below : — " Management and Maintenance of Schools by School Boards. " 14. Every school provided by a school board shall be conducted under the control and management of such board in accordance with the following regulations : " (1.) The school shall be a public elementary school within the meaning of this Act. " (2.) No religious catechism or religious formulary uiJiich is distinctive of any farticular denomination shall be taught in the school,^' THE CONSCIENCE CLAUSE. What is known as the conscience clause, wliich is oj)eraLive in bt)tli Voluntary aiul Board Sc^hools, is also frequently referred to. It is contained in Section 7 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. and tlic foilDwiiiti; is (he text: — 48 " (1) It shall not be required, as a condition of any child being admitted into or continuing in the school, that he shall attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects in the school or else- where, from which observance or instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent, or that he shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any dsy exclusively set apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his parent belongs." *^* Both the foregoing clauses remain in force, and therefore it is not possible for avy child to be compelled to receive any kind of religious instruction whatever against the wishes of his parent. In Wolverhampton, on October 4th, 1902, the Right Hon. Sir H. H. Fowler, M.P. (Radical), said :— " More than half the children of England and Wales were educated in denominational schools ; and to his mind it was not practical politics to assume that denominational schools could be destroyed, except at such a cost as the tax- payers of this country would not undertake. . . The view which he, personally, held was that denominational teaching should be preserved, and so long as the denominational schools existed the teaching of the denominations for which they were founded should continue in those schools. Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, and Jews should have the right to teach to their own children their own doctrine, subject to the right of the parent to withdraw the child. . . " —Times, October 6th, 1902. Speaking in the House of Commons on May 5th, 1902, the Right Hon. R. B. Haldane, K.C, M.P. (Radical), said :— " With those who objected to rate aid for Church of England schools he had not much sympathy, for they themselves had received large sums of pubUc money for the maintenance of their own denominational training colleges and voluntary schools" — Times (Summary Column), May 6th, 1902. In a letter to the Methodist Recorder of June 19th, 1902, the Rev. Dr. Thomas Allen, an ex-President of the Wesleyan Conference, wrote : — " The more the Education Bill is understood, the more evident it will be that it represents an honest effort to improve education over half of the country, and to be fair as between the denominationalists on the one hand and the undenomina- tionalists on the other. In the present state of national opinion, it was absolutely impossible to get rid of the denominational system. The only course open was to modify the system, and this the Government has done." In the same issue, the Rev. T. E. Westerdalji;, of Wesley Chapel, City Road, London, wrote : — 49 " The cry about the priests capturing the Board schools is a false cry, and is doomed to fail. In the one authority that this Bill sets up, there is a governing force for public elementary education far exceeding the cumulative vote of the present School Board systems. This Bill is not a Bill for demolishing School Boards, but a Bill for converting School Boards into Public Authority Boards. It vn.ll, moreover, introduce the principle of local control into every Voluntary school of the land. It is a Bill which should be warmly welcomed, and welcomed as an effort, which promises to endow the elementary educational forces of this country with an enfranchisement of liberty and power, never offered by any previous Government." The provisions with regard to the erection of new schools are given below: — Sect. 8 (1) "WTiere the local education authority or any other persons propose to provide a new public elementary school, they shall give public notice of their intention to do so, and the managers of any existing school, or the local educa- tion authority (where they are not themselves the persons proposing to provide the school), or any ten ratepayers in the area for which it is proposed to provide the school, may, witliin three months after the notice is given, appeal to the Board of Education on the ground that the proposed school is not required, or that a school provided by the local education authority, or not so provided, as the case may be, is better suited to meet the wants of the district than the school proposed to be provided, and any school built in contravention of the decision of the Board of Education on such appeal shall be treated as unnecessary." Sect 9. " The Board of Education shall, without unnecessary delay, determine in case of dispute whether a school is necessary or not, and in so determining, and also in deciding on any appeal as to the provision of a new school, shall have regard to the interest of secular instruction, to the wishes of parents as to the education of their children, and to the economy of the rates, but a school for the time being recognised as a public elementary school shall not be considered unnecessary in which the number of scholars in average attendance, as com- puted by the Board of Education, is not less than thirty." In a letter to the Standard of October 27th, 1902, G. J. D. wrote :— " If the great outcry by Protestant Nonconformists, as to the gross injustice of allowing Church teaching to be continued in Church of England schools, were a genuine one, we should have expected that Protestant Nonconformists would, to a great extent, have availed themselves of the conscience clause, whereby, whilst making use of the secular education provided by Church schools, they are enabled to exempt their children from all, or any part, of the religious education given in those schools. How far they have done this, and how far this outcry is an honest one, may, to a great extent, be judged by a perusal of the following table, which is compiled from the Report of the Diocesan Board of Education for the year 1900 : — D 50 Church Day Schools. Withdrawn from 1 Scholars religious instruction. Diocese. on books. Wholly. In part. Cantei'bury . 67,654 121 184 York . 88,051 107 189 Carlisle , . . 40,776 45 153 London . . , 140,647 689 1,446 Lichfield . 86,581 74 36 Lincoln . . . 41,042 79 93 Newcastle . 25,374 223 168 Norwich . 72,357 30 334 Peterborough (part) . . 55,001 95 628 Ripon (part) . 20,786 22 160 SaUsbiiry . 52,334 109 739 Southwell . 43,238 175 40 Winchester . 77,198 123 364 Worcester . 94,541 101 135 Totals . 905,580 1,993 4,669 Mr. T. J. Macnamara, M.P. (Radical), on May 6th, 1902, said :— ". . . He admitted the extreme difficulty and delicacy of the reUgious difficulty ; and he complained that the leaders of the Churches, and particularly the Free Churches, never gave them anything in the way of a constructive poUcy. These gentlemen never seemed happy unless they were denouncing something." — Times, May 7th, 1902. The following extracts are taken from a letter from the Archbishop of GANTERBlTRy, published in the Times of December 15th, 1903 : — "Lambeth Palace, S.E., December 12th. " Allegations and imputations are now current (as my own letter-baskets daily testify), which would be simply ludicrous, but for the melancholy evidence afforded of what people can be got, by persistent reiteration, to believe. When responsible leaders deliberately state, for example, that ' this Bill takes the Board schools from the people and gives them, roughly speaking, to one section of the people, that is to the Anglican Church ' ; or again, that ' the Act closes the evening schools ' ; or again, that ' what is at stake is not education merely, not the inalien- able birthright of the citizens only, but chiefly our retention of that divinest gift to us men, the right to the free, unfettered, and full use of his inmost soul,' the difficulty of reply arises mainly from our sheer bewilderment as to how the speaker or writer has persuaded himself, as he doubtless has, that his words have some foundation in fact. One thing is certain ; we must employ no such weapons as those which are wielded against us. Misrepresentation, if it be due either to culpable 51 ignorance on the part of the spokesman, or to the deliberate distortion of facts, would be for lis without excuse. . . " But this vast expenditure upon buildings is, of course, only a small part of what has been voluntarily given. Towards what is teclinically known as ' maintenance,' many millions have been subscribed, and so far at least as the Church of England is concerned, the annual amount has shown on the whole a steady increase from year to year. The amount subscribed by the Church of England during the last year alone is £670,324. When to this is added the money subscribed every year for new school buildings, for training colleges, for annual inspection in religious knowledge, and for other kindred purposes, it is probably not too much to say that the supporters of Church schools and training colleges voluntarily expend every year about one million sterling of their OAvn money, in addition to the gratuitous use of their buildings ; and this while very many of the subscribers are paying an education rate for what have hitherto been knowTi as Board schools. Notwithstanding this expenditure, so constant has been the improvement called for, and rightly called for, in buildings, in apparatus, and in the salaries of teachers, and so great the consequent increase in the whole cost of education, that without some re -arrangement of the incidence of the burden, it has been found practically impossible to keep the Voluntary schools in equipment and staff fully abreast of the Board schools. This is the condition of things with which any Government deaUng with the education question during the last few years would have found itself face to face. Every political body and every public man has seen for several years past that the education question must be grappled with. In addition to the reports of two Royal Commissions, there have been resolutions and speeches and reports innumer- able to the effect that the time for action had come. The Government of 1896 introduced a comprehensive measure. It was subjected to keen and bitter criticism, and was ultimately withdrawn. A general election intervened, and last year the Government, with these various resolutions, speeches and reports before it, set its hand again to the task. " From the fact that certain provisions in the Government Bill corresponded with some of the suggestions which had been made by a joint meeting of the Convocations of the Church of England as to what might be fair and reasonable arrangements for dealing with the schools belonging to denominational bodies, whether Church of England, Nonconformists, or Roman CathoHc, it has been strangely and persistently argued, or rather asserted, that the Bill was the outcome of a private arrangement between the Bishops of the Church of England and the Government of the day. This suggestion, it cannot be too often or too empliatically stated, is absolutely without foundation. No single Bishop, to the best of my belief, knew the contents of the Bill until it was completed and printed and was about to be introduced. " We are constantly told — so constantly that it is coming to bo widely believed — that the Bill imposes sectarian tests upon many thousands of teachers.' As a D 2 52 matter of fact it, of course, imposes no test whatever. Teachers stand, in this matter, exactly where they stood before. Tlie Act recognises the enormous advant- age, financial and other, which the State gains from the gratuitous use of privately- owned buildings, the value of which is estimated at the very least at £22,000,000. It permits the managers of such schools to retain (subject to an approving power lodged with the local authority) the right they previously possessed of selecting from among the teachers accredited by the State as qualified those whom these managers think best fitted to give the teaching, religious and secular, which the circumstances of the school require. But a popularly elected element is now added to every managing body, and in my own judgment this adchtion is in every sense a gain. If it be said that the denominational teachingwhich, under the control of these managers, may still be given, is paid for out of the rates, the answer is, of course, obvious, that the value of the buildings greatly outweighs the cost of the denomi- national teaching, which is therefore practically paid for by the denomination to which the buildings belong. . . " The formal publication of this scheme clears the air. We know now definitely what we have to face. We Churchmen have inherited a great trust in the possession of schools, the trust-deeds of which provide especially that religious instruction must (not may) be given, and in the management of these schools we take the responsibility of inquiring carefully, before a teacher is appointed, whether he or she is duly qualified to instruct little children in the elements of the Christian faith as taught in Holy Scripture. Whatever may be possible in the great town schools, where teachers are numerous, I can myself conceive no graver responsibility than that of appointing, in a little rural school, the one teacher who is to give religious instruction to the children, but whose qualification to give it we should be forbidden to ascertain. " Upon these points Churchmen, as it seems to me, must stand firm. If our trust-deeds, which absolutely secure religious teaching, are to be torn up, it must not be done with our consent. " In the case of schools belonging to the Church of England, these trust-deeds provide, with absolute reasonableness, that the religious teaching given shall be upon the lines laid down in the formularies of the Church, and in all except the merest handful of cases (in which some foolish man has said or done foolish or unfair things), this teaching — subject always to the use of the conscience clause — has proved perfectly satisfactory to the parents of successive generations of children. But with a view to removing any possible difficulty which may arise on this point in ' single school areas,' we are encouraging the appointment in all large schools of one or more Nonconformists among the assistant teachers, and the publication of a detailed time-table of religious teaching, parents having power to withdraw their children from denominational instruction to receive simple Scripture teaching instead. Upon all such points we are more than ready to meet legitimate Noncon- formist wishes. . . 63 ", . . It appears to show that there is now nothing for it but that we should meet by definite resistance the attack to which I have, in the outset of this letter, referred. " We beheve that the new legislation, while certainly capable of amendment in detail, is sound and fair in principle, and that under it the whole education of the country will be brought for the first time into line, and will be steadily improved. Therefore we support it, and resolve to persevere in its defence. " Take care that the Act, as it stands, is really understood. Make its pro- visions plain to everybody. It imposes no test upon teachers. In all provided schools every appointment is absolutely open. In denominational schools it reserves only head teacherships to the denomination. Let a clear knowledge of these facts, and of others like them, be brought home in every parish. '■ The National Society can furnish all the necessary information, and the Church Committee, over which you preside, has the machinery ready to hand for making the knowledge eft'ective. In the county council elections, which are shortly to take place, we must perforce take pains to secure that the men returned — the men, that is, who are to administer our education system — are men who understand the subject and mean to deal with it fairh^ We are bound further to secure, so far as in us lies, that the electors know what they are doing. The forces of those who are opposing the principles for which we contend have been organised with elaboration of an unusual kind. Corresponding activity is needed on the part of those who care for securing, not as a possibility but as a certainty, the maintenance of religious education in our elementary schools. The introduction of a rehgious question into the electoral conflict is forced upon us unsought. While abstaining from every unkindly word or unfair imputation against those who differ from us, we are bound to rally our forces and to stand firm. " I remain, yours very truly, " Randall Gantuak." THE COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS AND THE LONDON EDUCATION ACT. "Sir, — We deem it our duty to address some words of counsel and direction to our fellow Churchmen in view of the approaching election to the Loudon County Council and the very serious issues involved in it. " London has now before it, under the Act of 1903, a splendid opportunity for a great and united step forward in the education of its children and younger citizens. It \vill rest with an educational authority, appointed by the new County Council, to carry out the long-desired and long-delayed task of working into one scheme the different forms and grades of education from the base upwards to the University, thus co-ordinating and developing the whole system of secondary as well as primary education, including existing schools and institutions. 54 " Nothing should be allowed to interfere with the immediate and impartial exercise of these great powers. *' These circumstances lend very special importance to the forthcoming elections to the County Council. London must elect a Council worthy of the opportunity. " But the importance of this educational issue, though it may affect greatly things which we hold very sacred, and some of our most valuable work, would not be sufficient of itself to induce us, as leaders of the Church, to intervene. It would be enough for Churchmen that the new authorities to whom the Legislature has committed the control of public education should be comprised of citizens to whom we may look to deal with the matter reasonably and fairly, as with any other business of public importance. We do not think that tlie best County Council is formed by any large infusion of the representatives of special questions or special interests, our own or other. "But at the present time we cannot disguise from ourselves that circumstances demand from lis, in self-defence, some more direct action than usual. We are in the pi'esence of an organised campaign, carried on by those wlio have shown an uncompromising and bitter hostility alike to our schools, and to the permission within the limits of the State system of any security for teaching the great verities of the Christian faith. The attack has been commenced and is to be frankly and openly carried out by a strong effort, worked with all the political efficiency of a compact organisation. Pledges will be demanded from candidates which would effectually hinder them as members from working the Education Act impartially, and dealing justly with the different classes of schools committed to them. " Cliurehmen will be very greatly to blame if they are indifferent or inactive in face of such an attempt. To meet it we do not recommend the policy of identifying the Church with either j)ohtical party ; nor (for the reasons already given) that of bringing forward independent or ' specialist ' candidates ; though in particular localities, or for particular reasons, some adoj)tion of either of these methods may be desirable. " But we would urge that Churchmen of all shades of politics should throw their strength, first, into securing that in the choice of candidates by both parties men should be selected who, whatever their own views upon educational matters or upon the merits of the Act, will be ready to work it impartially and to do justice to all the interests concerned ; and, secondly, that candidates on both sides shall be pressed to declare that they vnll not hamper themselves by pledges which commit them to a destructive policy with regard to denominational schools and teaching, and that they will fairly and impartially administer the Act. We may be able to find ourselves in hearty co-operation with many who, though not in accord with us on religious matters, see the great educational opportunities offered by the Act, and desire, as we do, that the use of these may not be prevented or post- poned for partisan and se(;tarian reasons. 55 "We have appointed a small central joint committee to carry out this policy of defence, and we hope that in every district (the electoral areas being preferred to rural deaneries) a committee \\il] be formed to co-operate with it to decide upon the particular steps best suited to each locality, and to take measures for informing the electorate upon the issues, and for removing prevalent and widely-circulated misconceptions. " Such committees should urge upon all Churchmen the duty of voting, and tlie necessity upon this occasion of giving special importance to the educational issue. "We press this matter strongly upon our fellow Ghurchmen, and look for their cordial and active co-operation, begun promptly from the present time. But we caimot end without expressing the very great regret with which we take a course which brings us even defensively into active collision with large bodies, though by no means the whole of Nonconformist feeling and conviction, and we watch eagerly for the time when we may be able to find in this great and vital matter of rcHgious education an opportunity for some of that co-operation which we enjoy on other questions. "A. P. LONDON. "EDW. ROFFEN." —Times, December 16th, 1903. COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS: APPEAL TO GHURCHMEN. " Sir, — I append a copy of the questions wliich have been drawn up by the Central Committee appointed by the Bishops of London and Rochester, and which will Vje addressed to all candidates at the forthcoming London County Council election. I ti-ust that in view of the importance of the subject you will allow me as Chairman of the Committee to say a few words in explanation of them. Their object is very simple. We have no wish to raise questions of general educational policy. We have no wish to examine the views of others or to press our own with regard to the wisdom or finality of the provisions of the Education Act. We have no wish to discass possible amendments. These are legislative, not administrative questions. It is open to every citizen and party to influence tlie legislature in any legitimate way. The province of the County Council is to administer, not to legislate ; and we wish to keep our questions strictly within that province of administration. "1. We ask them, first, that candidates should pledge themselves to the afloplion of llio .\ct for London without delay. We ask this in the interests not only of our own schools but of education generally. It appears to bo forgotten in current controversies that this Act is mainly concerned not with the position of voluntaiy schools, but with tlie control of all elementary schools by one authoi'ity and wth the co-ortlination of all grades of education under one supervision. These arc advantage.s, indexed necessities, for London education wliicli everyone interested 56 in the question has long and eagerly desired. We cannot aiford to let them wait on the shifts and chances of the political situation, or postpone them until the friends and foes of one class of school have settled their differences. There is the greater need of urgency because the present uncertainity must mean a temporary paralysis of educational activity. The board schools, the voluntary schools, the secondary schools cannot continue the good work which mthin their respective spheres they have done unless they know what their future position is to be. A policy of delay would be a policy of drift, and drifting in educational matters means disaster. " 2. We ask, secondly, that candidates should pledge themselves to administer the Act with fairness to all classes of schools, and particularly to the ' non-provided ' schools. Fairness at the outset will surely mean that schools at present on the grant list of the Board of Education shall be assumed to be efficient and entitled to the recognition of the new authority until they are proved to be inefficient. Fairness will surely not mean that schools, merely because they are ' non-provided,' shall be assumed to be inefficient until they have been proved by some special inspection to be efficient. It would be imfair to leave existing schools after the adoption of the Act under the paralysing anxiety of having to meet the current expenses of maintenance without knowing whether they can or cannot depend on the assistance which the Act provides. Of course, the new authority will have the right and the duty to inspect the schools and to order reasonable alterations. But let this be done not arbitrarily before the schools are recognised at all, but calmly and impartially after knowledge has been gained of the whole area of school provision. And when such reasonable orders have been made let fair time be given to the managers of the schools to carry them out. We submit, therefore, that our third question is only an instance of what fair administration at the outset ought to mean. " I am well aware of the obvious reply which may be made to these remarks. It is that the Progressive party has already through its leaders declared its intention to adopt the Act, and to administer it impartially ; that a similar intention on the part of the Moderate party may be presumed ; and that, therefore, there is no occasion for the interference of the Church in a municipal contest. But (1) mere general declarations are easily evaded. Their value is tested by specific instances. Our questions afford Progressive candidates an opportunity of proving the real meaning and the genuineness of their assent to the general declaration of their party. (2) We cannot forget that there already exists a determined and energetic organisation pledged to the policy adopted by the Free Church Council. It will certainly spare no efforts to induce candidates to accept the particular conceptions of justice and impartiality which are put forward in the resolutions and questions of the Free Church Council. It is impossible for Churchmen to stand idly by without organisation or the possibility of concerted action, and to leave the field open to the persistent influence of those who have shown such an implacable bias against Voluntary schools. 67 " If any candidate, whether Progressive or Moderate, is willing to give the very moderate assurances asked for in our questions, if he loyally stands by them in the coui-se of the contest, if he proves by his utterances that he does not approach the administration of this Act with a prejudice against Voluntary schools so strong that it must be held to colour his professions of impartiality, then Churchmen ^\•ill be free to vote for him on the general ground of his fitness for the work of the London County Council. If, on the other hand, candidates fail to give or to hold by such assurances, Churchmen must be prepared to vote against them even at the cost of waiting for the present election their usual pohtical and municipal s\'mpathies. The issues of the forthcoming election are unique : they will not be presented twice. " We venture to hope that in tliis contest the friends of Voluntary schools, and those of whatever Church or party who are simply anxious that a great oppor- tunity of educational advance in London should not be lost, ^vill be found working side by side. " Yours, &c., "C. G. STEPNEY. " 2, Amen Court, »St. Paul's, January 16th. " Questions for Candidates. '■ The following are the questions to be addressed to candidates at the London County Council election : "1. Will you do your utmost to promote a vigorous and efficient administration of the Act in regard to all grades of education ? " 2. Will you, if elected, vote against any proposals either to delay the adoption of the Act or to adopt it subject to conditions or limitations other than those wliich are contained in the Act itself ? '■ 3. (a) Will you be prepared to recognise all public elementary schools now on the annual grant list of the Board of Education as equally entitled to maintenance out of the rate-aid provided by the Act ? " (b) Will you insist that fair time shall be allowed to non-provided schools to carry out such alterations and improvements as may be reasonably required by the local education authority, under Section 7 of the Education Act, 1902 ? " 4. Will you be prepared to give assistance, under the provisions of the Act, to all educational institutions, liiglicr as well as elementary, without regard to tlio question of their denominational or undenominational character V " — Morning Post, January l8th, 1904. 58 FOREIGN CONTRACTS, The election of the first London County Council in 1889, was followed by the immediate consideration of the conditions of labour among those employed both by the Council itself and by contractors working for the Council. On March 12th, 1889, a resolution was carried, requiring all contractors to declare that they paid such rates of wages and observed such hours of labour as were generally accepted as fair in their trade. At various times, these labour regu- lations were extended and strengthened ; sub-contracting and sub-letting abolished, except for work that contractors could not do in an ordinary manner ; a maximum week of 54 hours established ; no man to work more than six days ; overtime abolished, &;c., &c. At the present moment, the Council's labour regulations as regards contracts may be summarised as follows : — In all contracts for the supply of raw materials or manu- factured articles, a clause shall, whenever practicable, be inserted that the contractor, as regards work within 20 miles of Charing Cross, will (1) pay and observe the rates of wages and hours of labour in the Council's list ; (2) With regard to any trade not in that list, the rates of pay shall not be less, nor the hours of labour more than those recognised by associa- tions of employers and trades unions and in practice obtained in the district ; (3) Where the work is done beyond a radius of 20 miles from Charing Cross, the contractor shall pay the rates of wages and observe the hours of labour recognised by associations of employers and trade unions and in practice obtained. 59 As regards sub-contracting, this is prohibited by the sub- Council unless consent is given. In grantino; such consent the Labour ^ . conditions Council requires the contractor to enter into an agreement which will secure the observance of the following conditions : — That there shall be inserted in the contract a covenant by the sub-contractor that he will pay all workmen employed by him, in or about the execution of such sub-contract, rates of wages not less, and observe and cause to be observed by such workmen, hours of labour not more than the rates of wages and hours of labour as are inserted in the schedule to the original contract as applicable to work within 20 miles of Charing Cross. As regards other work, such rates of wages and hours of labour are to be paid and observed as are recognised by associations of employers and trade unions and in practice obtained in the several districts where the work is done. Rigid penalties are inflicted for breaches of these rules, and — The schedule of wages is to be kept posted in every factory, &c., used by the sub-contractor, who shall also, when requii'ed, produce to the officials of the Council his time and wages books and sheets. — (L.C.C. Standing Orders.) It should be noted that when these regulations were drawn up it was not contemplated that contracts might be given abroad. And, therefore, these onerous conditions cannot be enforced upon a foreign contractor. The intention of these labour regulations is to prevent sweating, and to secure the strict observance of the principle that the London County Council — in common with other public bodies — should show itself to be among the best em- ployers of labour in the country. The keynote of the Council's policy is to secure good conditions for labour — to be a model employer. This policy was a just one so long as it applied to contracts in the United Kingdom. EELCxIAN CONTRACTS. However, beginning with the purchase of Belgian girders in 1895, there has gradually grown up a practice of allowing 60 Parker, R. (Walworth). Phillimore, R. C. (Deptford). Waterlow, D. S. (N. St. Pancras). Wiles, T. (S.W. Bethnal Green). Wood, T. McKinnon (Cen. Hackney). contracts to go abroad. On March 4th, 1902, and January 20th, 1903, this practice was challenged by the Conservative and some Labour members of the Council, upon reports of the Highways Committee recommending the purchase of Belgian rails, &c., for the South London tramways. The following Progressives were members of the Highways Committee when these foreign contracts were recommended : — Baker, J. A. (E. Finsbury). Benn, J. W. (Kennington). Browne, E. (S. Hackney). Hubbard, N. W. (Norwood). Johnson, W. C. (Wliitechapel). Mayhew, Mark (Wandsworth). The following are the facts as stated in the minutes of the Council (1902, pages 237, 305 ; 1903, page 45) :— REPORT OF THE HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE. 13th February, 1902. The London County Council Tramways. Reconstruction, for electrical traction of further portions. Tender for the supply of rails, &c. 1. We have considered the tenders (referred by the Council on 28th January, 1902) for the supply of about 3,250 tons of track rails, 1,850 tons of slot rails, 670 tons of conductor rails, 125 tons of fish plates, 155 tons of sole plates, together with the bolts and nuts and other accessories, required in connection with the reconstruction, for electrical traction, of further portions of the London County Council Tramways. The tenders were as follows : — Name of firm tendering. Place of manufacture. Amount of tender. £ s. d. .. 41,709 10 10 or with special lock nuts. 41,742 4 4 P. & W. Maclellan, Ltd., Glasgow. . . Societe Anonyme des Acieries D'Angleur, Tilleur by Liege, Belgium. BoUing & Low, London . . . Phoenix Works, Ruhrort, Westphalia, Germany. .. 42,897 10 Edward Le Bas & Co., London. . . Ougree Works, Belgium. .. 42,935 P. & W. Maclellan, Ltd., Glasgow. . . Barrow Haematite Company's Works. .. 50,463 15 Bolckow, Vaughan & Co., London. . . At the Company's Works. .. 51,188 8 9 Walter Scott, Ltd., Leeds. . . Leeds Steel Works. .. 52,587 10 J. F. J. Peeters & Sons, London. . . At the Firm's Works (appar- ently). .. 58,381 5 61 We recommend : — (a) That, subject to the result of the usual inquiries proving satisfactory, the tender of Messrs. P. & W. Maclellan, Ltd., be accepted for the supply, for the sum of £41,742 4s. 4d., of the track rails, slot rails, conductor rails, fish jjlates, sole plates, bolts, nuts and other accessories, required in connection with the recon- struction, for electrical traction, of a further portion of the London County Council Tramways ; that the soUcitor do prepare, and secure the completion of, a contract to give effect to the tender ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed to such contract when ^ead3^ (b) That Messrs. P. & W. Maclellan, Ltd., be allowed to sub-let to the Societe Anonyme des Acieries D'Angleur, the manufacture of the track rails, slot rails, and conductor rails, &c., to be supplied under the contract ; that the solicitor do prepare the agreement prescribed by the Council's Standing Order relative to sub-letting ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed to such agreement when ready. The Council considered and adopted the above recom- mendations on March 4th, in spite of the opposition of the Conservative and a few Labour members. The difference in price between the accepted foreign tender and the lowest British tender was £8,721. On January 20, 1903, another report of the same Committee reported a further purchase of Belgian rails, as follows : — Reconstruction, for electrical traction, of New Cross and Greenwich, &c., section, and small section" in the Borough of the London County Council Tramways. Supply of Rails, &c. Capital expenditure, £33,876 19s. 8d. (1.) The Council, on 9th and 16th December, decided to invite tenders by public advertisement for the supply of the following quantities of rails, &c., required in connection with the above-named work : — track rails, 2,775 tons ; slot rails, 1,470 tons ; conductor tees, 705 tons ; together with the necessary sole plates, fish plates, and bolts and nuts. As it was important that the necessary arrange- ments for the supply of the rails, &c., should be made with as little delay as possible, the Council authorised us to open the tenders during the Christmas recess, and to accept that which, in our opinion, might be the most advantageous to the Council. Ten tenders, as follow, were received in response to the advertisement: — Name of firm tendering. Amount of tender. £ s. d. Messrs. E. Le Bas & Co., London . . . . 30,060 5 Mr. Edward Lomer, London .. .. 31,079 15 Messrs. Alex. Penney & Co., London .. 33,303 11 j „ P. & W. Maclellan, Ltd., Glasgow .. 33,876 19 8 Amount of tender. £ s. d. . 35,512 18 . 36,546 9 . 37,431 19 . 41,483 10 a 43,558 62 • Name of firm tendering. Messrs. Witting Brothers, Ltd., London „ J. H. Austin & Co., London Steel, Peech & Tozer, Ltd., Sheffield. „ Walter Scott, Ltd., Leeds „ Bolckow, Vaughan & Co., Ltd., London . . . In all these circumstances, we consider that the tender of Messrs. Maclellan & Co. was the most advantageous, and we have, acting under the authority given to us, accepted it on behalf of the Council, and have given the necessary instructions for the preparation and execution of a contract to give effect thereto. Messrs. Maclellan propose to obtain the bolts and nuts from Messrs. Ibbotson & Brothers, of Sheffield, while the rails, &c., will be obtained from the Societe Anonyme des Acieries d'Angleur, Belgium, who are the sub-contractors under the present contract, and we have given the necessary permission for that course to be adopted, and have instructed the solicitor to prepare and obtain the execution of the agreement prescribed by the standing order of the Council relative to sub-letting. '■a' CONSERVATIVE AND LABOUR OPPOSITION. As lias been said, these two purchases of Belgian rails, &c., to the value of £75,000, met with considerable opposition from the Conservative and some Labour Councillors. The grounds of opposition were (a) that the labour conditions inserted in the Council's contracts did nob apply to foreign contracts, and that those conditions could not be enforced abroad ; (b) that the rails are produced in Belgium by sweated labour ; (c) that it was most unjust to the British manu- facturer and to the British workman to impose upon them restrictive regulations as regards labour ; to thus increase the cost of production ; and then to give the work to foreign contractors who employ cheap labour ; (d) that there were no associations of employers or trades unions at Liege who could fix wages and hours of labour. On the first occasion (March 4th, 1902) an amendment was moved by Mr. Steadman (Labour) that the recommenda- tion be referred back to the Committee. This was seconded by Mr. Gaskell (Conservative). After debate the amendment 63 was put and declared to be lost. The majority consisted of the Progressive party, and the minority of 20 Conservatives and a few Labour members. The following Progressives were present at this meeting of the Council (L.C.C. Minutes) : — Allen, A. A. (Bermondsey). Arnold, Sir Arthur (Alderman). Austin, Ed-nin (Hoxton). Baker, J. A. (E. Finsbury). Bawn, W. B. (Limeliouse). Bay ley, E. (W. Southwark). Benn, J. W. (Kennington). Benson, J. (E. Finsbury). Blackwood, J. W. (N. Paddington). Blake, W. F. (Alderman). Bowerman, C. W. (Alderman). Branch, J. (S.W. Bethnal Green). Brow-ne, E. (S. Hackney). Bruce, W. W. (Bow and Bromley). Carrington, Earl (W. St. Pancras). Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham). Cleland, J. W. (Lewisham). Collins, S. (Kennington). CoUins, W. J. (W. St. Pancras). Cooper, B. (Bow and Bromley). Cooper, G. J. (Bermondsey). ComwaU, E. A. (N.E. Bethnal Green). ■CVooks, W. (Poplar). Dav-ies, T. (Fulham). Davies, W. (Battersea). Dew, G. (Alderman). Dickinson, W. H. (Alderman). Dolman, F. (Brixton). Glanvillc, H. J. (Rothcrhithe). Goodman, W. (W. Islington). Gosling, H. (Alderman). Hardy, G. A. (Duhvicii). Hemphill, Capt. F. (Cen. Finsbury). Homiman, E. J. (Chelsea). Hubbard, N. W. (Norwood). Hunter, T. (W. Southwark). Jackson, R. S. (Greenwich). Jephson, H. (N. Kensington). Johnson, W. C. (Whitechapel). Lampard, G. (N. Hackney). Laughland, J. (E. Islington). Lawson, H. L. W. (Whitechapel). Lawson, Peter (Fulham). Leon, A. L. (Limehouse). Lewis, J. (W. Marylebone). Macdonald, J. R. (Cen. Finsbury). Mayhew, Mark (Wandsworth). Monkswell, Lord (Haggerston). MuUins, W. E. (Hampstead). Napier, T. B. (N. Islington). Organ, T. A. (E. St. Pancras). Parker, R. (Walworth). Parkinson, W. C. (N. Ishngton). PhilUmore, R. C. (Deptford). Piggott, John (W. Newington). Pomeroy, Ambrose (Rotherhithe). Pope, W. (N. Kensington). Radford, G. H. (W. Islington). Robinson, N. (E. St. Pancras). Seager, J. Renwick (Mile End). Sears, J. E. (N. Hackney). Sharp, L. (Brixton). Sheffield, Lt.-Col. F. (S. St. Pancras). Shepheard, A. J. (Cen. Hackney). Shrubsall, G. (Norwood). Smith, Alfred (S. Hackney). Smith, Edward (N.E. Bethnal Green). Smith, J. (St. Gcorge-in-the-East). Somerset, H. Somers (S. St. Pancraa). Spicer, Evan (Alderman). Spokes, R. (Walworth). 64 Steadman, W. C. (Stepney). Strauss, B. S. (Mile End). Strong, R. (N. Camberwell). Stuart, J. (Haggerston). Taylor, H. R. (N. Camberwell). Tweedmoutli, Lord (Alderman). Verney, F. W. (Peckliam). Ward, H. (Hoxton). Warmington, F. W. (Greenwich). Webb, Sidney (Deptford). Welby, Lord (Alderman). West, Rt. Hon. Sir A. E. (Alderman). Wightman, W. (N. Lambeth). Wilberforce, H. W. W. (N. St. Pancras). Wiles, T. (S.W. Bethnal Green). WiUiams, Rev. C. Fleming (Alderman). Williams, Howell J. (S. Islington). WiUiams, R. (N. Lambeth). Wood, T. McKinnon (Gen. Hackney) Yates, W. B. (Alderman). On the second occasion (January 20th, 1903) an amend- ment was moved by Mr. Steadman (Labour), seconded by Mr. Ratcliffe Cousins (Conservative), that the report be received with the exception of paragraph No. 1. After debate the amendment was lost ; the majority again consisted of 41 Progressives, and the minority of 15 Conservatives with afew Labour members. The following Progressives were present on this second occasion (L.C.C. Minutes) : — Allen, A. A. (Bermondsey). Austin, Edwin (Hoxton). Baker, J. A. (E. Finsbury). Bayley, E. (W. Southwark). Benn, J. W. (Kennington). Blake, W. F. (Alderman). Bowerman, G. W. (Alderman). Branch, J. (S.W. Bethnal Green). Browne, E. (S. Hackney) Bruce, W. W. (Bow and Bromley). Carrington, Earl (W. St. Pancras). Clarke, G. Goddard (Peckliam). Cleland, J. W. (Lewisham). Collins, S. (Kennington). CoUins, Sir W. J. (W. St. Pancras). Cooper, B. (Bow and Bromley). Cooper, G. J. (Bermondsey), Cornwall, E. A.. (N.E. Bethnal Green). Crooks, W. (Poplar). Davies, T. (Fulham). Davies, W. (Battersea). Dew, G. (Alderman). Dickinson, W. H. (Alderman). Dolman, F. (Brixton). Gilbert, J. D. (W. Newington). Glanville, H. J. (Rotherhithe). Goodman, W. (W. Islington). Gosling, H. (Alderman). Hardy, G. A. (Dulwich). Hemphill, Capt. F. (Cen. Finsbury) Horniman, E. J. (Chelsea). Hubbard, N. W- (Norwood). Hunter, T. (W. Southwark) Idris, T. H. W (S. St. Pancras). Jackson, R. S. (Greenwich). Jeffery, J. (Chelsea). Jephson, H. (N. Kensington). Johnson, W. C. (Wliitechapel). Lampard, G. (N. Hackney). 65 Laugliland, J. (E. Islington). Lawson, H. L. W. (Whitechapel). Lawson, Peter (Fulham). Leon, A. L. (Limehouse). Lewis, J. (W. Marylebone). Macdonald, J. R. (Cen. Finsbury). Mayhew, Mark (Wandsworth). MuUins, W. E. (Hampstead). Napier, T. B. (N. Islington). Parker. R. (Walworth). Parkinson, W. C. (N. Islington). Piggott, John (W. Newington). Pomeroy, Ambrose (Rotherhithe). Pope, W. (N. Kensington) Radford, G. H. (W. Islington). Russell, Earl (Alderman). Sandhurst, Lord (Alderman). Sears, J. E. (N. Hackney). Sharp, L. (Brixton). Sheffield, Lt -Col. F. (S. St. Pancras). Shrubsall, G. (Norwood). Smith, Alfred (S. Hackney). Smith, J. (St. George-in-the-East Spicer, Evan (Alderman). Spokes, R. (Walworth). Steadman, W. C. (Stepney) Strauss, B. S (Mile End). Strong, R. (N. Camberwell) Stuart, J. (Haggerston) Taylor, H. R. (N. Camberwell). Torrance, A. M. (E. Islington) Verney, F. W. (Peckham). Warmington, F. W. (Greenwich). Waterlow, D. S. (N. St. Pancras). Webb, Sidney (Deptford). West, Rt. Hon. Sir A. E (A derman) Wightman, W. (Lambeth). Wiles, T. (S.W. Bethnal Green). Wi'liams, Rev C. Fleming (Alderman) Williams, Howell J. (S. Islington). Wood, T. McKinnon (Cen. Hackney), Yates, W. B. (Alderman), CONSERVATIVES MOVE FOE INQUIRY. On December 8th, 1903, Lt.-Col. Rotton and Mr. Penn Gaskell (Conservatives) moved the following resolution : — That it be referred to the Highways Committee to ascertain and report to Inquiry, the Council (a) the number of hours of labour per week worked by the men employed by the Belgian firm in making rails for London tramways, and (b) the rate of wage? per hour jiaid to such men, and if they do any work on Sundays in connection with the manufacture of such rails. To this, Mr. McKinnon Wood (Progressive) moved an amendment in the following terms : — 'v That it be referred to the Highways Committee to ascertain and report to progres- the Council (a) the number of hours of labour per week worked by the men sive ob- employed in foreign firms in making rails for the Government, provincial corporations, ^^'''^'"^^°°' London tramways and railways ; (b) the rate of wages per hour paid to such men, and if Ihcy do any work on Sundays in connection with the manufacture of such rails ; and (c) the amount of mining royalties paid by foreign firms as compared with those paid in Great Britain. E m The ' intention of tKe ' ' ' amendment, ' ' wHicli was carried, was to so ,§xtend and delay the inquiry as to smother the point in question. .--...>. • ■ . I On December 22nd, 1903, it was resolved that an ex- penditure not exceeding £150 be authorised for the purpose of the above inquiry. ■ ! .1/1 i- PEOGEESSIVE POLICY DEFEATED. On th6 ' siam:e date, the Highways Committee presented a report stating that they had,— ^ ,^^.,, Considered the tenders for the supply of about 12,500 tons of rails, fastenings, conductor-tees, &c., required in connection with the reconstruction of certain portions of tlie Council's existing tramways north and south of the Thames, and the construction of certain authorised lines. The specification for these materials was divided into two parts, relating respectively to (1) track rails and fastenings, and (2) slot rails and conductor-tees. Fourteen tenders were received for the supply of track rails and fastenings, particulars of which are as follows — I. — Track rails, &c. Name of firm tendering. Amount of tender. Remarks. . ],T, Charles iFrere, Jun., Brussels 40,418 13 € .. Basic steel tendered for. ,^g. ,!p, *ij,d W. Maplellan, Limited, r 41,531 17 10 .. Basic Bessemer steel. Glasgow "^ 3.' X' Peniney and Co., London 42,065 19 .. Do. do. 4. Boiling and Lowe, London . . 42,414 8 2 Do. do. 5. M. Korten, London .. .. 43,250 6 ..Do. do. J ^: J.' G.Whitb arid Co., Limited, 43,353' 1 ^.'Do'.' do. London ,,;• : ^.;; ..il-.i -;: ,■■ ^ '):■■! -"-m' i- 7. The Lorain Steel Company, U.S. 43,389 3 . . Will not accept penalty ^ _,,,,, „^Apap,rica,,:^,,. ^,,^,, .,^r,i{g,ll c.i! for delay in delivery. .„ 8. Bolckow, I Vaughan and Co,, : 43,774& ,.9 ,. Acid steel tendered' for.i ,-. Limited, London ,, , .. ., • . -i ,, ; i,;: !.,... 9. I*, arid W. Maclellan, Limited, 44,501 14 2 .. ,. B^sic Bessemer, steel. • --— ''GlasgbV'^'i ' '■•-1 '■-"- ^ ■^' ■^' *"' ■■'■■ ''^' ■ ' ' ■ ■ lOl'-Waltef'ScktVLiiriiWlV 'Leeds '■■'47;6gi) ''5"''0 .. Do. do. ll .' Barf 6w Haematite Steel Com- 48,146 8 ., Acid steeL pany, Limited, London . ■• .a i«o.h> ,a Mo.^ o=,....(j an. 67 ' - Nar&e t)f «finii^ tend'erilig. ■' - ' Amount of tendei*. I...- ' : •,. ,1 1. Ma -•■'■ ' £ S. d. 12. p. and : W. , M^cleljan, Limited, , , 43,89^ ]L3 2 . Glasgow ^ ^ I . ^^. 13.' Steel, Peech and Tozer, Limited, 49,825 0' . ■ ' ' "Sheflfield ' ' .:■•,'. ■ .. , 14. ttkcobs Brothers and Co., London 50,707 6 Remaik?. A-cid,, steel Do'. do. Bessemer acid or basic ''''• steel at their option. Sixteen tenders were received for the supply of the slot rails and conductor tees, of which the following are the particulars^ II.— Slot rails, &c. £ s. d. 33,979 . Will not accept penalty for delay in deUvery. Basic Bessemer steel ten- dered for. Acid steel tendered for. Basic Bessemer steel. Delivery iii quantities given as far as ship- ments by steamer allow; Acid steel. I. The Lorain Steel Company, U.S. j.,1, -..America ,, •. -.1 i,2.jE.: and W; Maclellan, Limited, 34,067 12 6 __, _^. Glasgow ^ . ,. ''s! J. G. Wljite and Co.. Limited, 34,649 10 London ^"4." ■:6olHng and Lo^e.'tbriaon '^'. "''34,896 19 2 5. Pennsylvania and Maryland Stsel 35,958 10 liO c- Company, U.S. America 6. Frodingham Iron and Steel 36,461 15 Company. Limited, Doncaster , 1?^ Bplckpw, Vaughan and Co., Liniited, London 8. Steel, Peech and Tozer, Limited, ■'" Sheffield ' ''' ' ' ' - "' ' ' 9'. A.' Peniifey aa LABOUR CONDITIONS.: _^^J^mill^VL VEE^M ^^^WM^- The labour conditions prevailing^ift' ffi^ lYianufacttltirig districts of this country (Board of Trade Annual Abstract of Labour Statistics) and in Belgium, where steel rails produced, are as follows : — are Skilled labour. Wages per day., England. Unskilled labour. Wages per day- Hours per week. Skilled labour. Wages per day. Belgium. Unskilled labotir. Wages per day. Hours per week. 6s. 6fL 9(Z. an hr. 4s. 5\d. an hr. 52 il:.! 45. 2s. Qd. 5d. an hr. 3 Jd anhr. 59 to^^Si IT The following extracts from an article in the Daily Telegraph of the 7th December, 1903, shows the condition of the Belgian workers at Liege, where these rails are produced : Everybody has heard of cheap labour in Belgium, but it is seldom realised that the wages paid are so very much below trade union rates in England. Here, at Seraing, in the fitting shops, sl^illed labour is content with 5f., say 4s. a day ; unskilled labour is paid 3f., or under half-ia-crown ; and women and boys will earn 2f. or 1.50f. .•,.lt il The actual time given to skilled labour is reduced i^ about ten hours daily, or fifty-nine hours per week. In some departments, in which, as iri Erigland, the work must go on continuously night and day, the hours are much longer. The blast furnaces, when once started, cannot be iieglec ted, ., The day ^ shift relieves the night shift week after week, and, except for the Sunday oft' every fortnight, there can be no break to a seven-day week of eighty-four hours, inclusive of meal times.'^"!-"^ '"' '•■ ' ■"'""• ^ " -TheVe isno Saint Monday obsefved here,- though, 'as a ' eoheession, ■' the ' Work on Monday morning begins at 8).30 ajiai. instead of 6 a.m.i, and it may happen tJxat some of the mechanics are not in their places until 1 p.m. The Saturday half- holiday is unknown, but once a fortnight — on pay-day — the men knock off at 4 p.m. instead of '6 p.m. Their hieal ^times, to6,' ki^e not' prolonged,' as commonly supposed.; A.' qoaarter of i an hour for breakfast, an hour for the mid-day dinner, and ten minutes for teaj— ;-wi^h; thesp th,e. men are Qontent^^j .[j.^^^jj, _F^or^ there i^ 71 no trade union. . . . ^lutual benefit societies, exist,, but trade lUnioji dict»jL;^OJa is unknoAVTi, and, therefore, there are no trade union conditions and rates of wages, as required by the'London County Council in its contracts vsith'teitish' employers. Further, in Belgiun; ,tliej:e ai'e . no Truck, AQt^i,o;r .ptlier protective labour legislation as in this country. ; r THE MOE AL BASIS OF cbN*,^ERVATIVE' ' ' PjOLIci, ' ' ■■; !■ . i- ■ . ■..■-,.. I :,:. .:.: ( , .( 1,., ,,i.M.,-.| The question has been asked, "What is the moral basis which justifies any interference, wiih our freedom to buy if we like in a foreign market ? " Surely the answer is this— the moral basis which justices the action of the Conservatives in opposing the purcliase''of Belgian rails lies m the fact that such purchase is a departure from the generally accepted principle that a public' body ought to be a model employer itself, and, further, it ought to see that j)ublic money is not spent in the purchase of goods produced abroad under degrading labour conditions. ECONOMIC VIEW. Is the Ratepayers' mumy-. . s^ved hy For.eign ..CoiatraQts .? Mr. J. W. Benn (Progressive) has cbntend-ed in' a' leaflet, entitled "The Belgian Rails Bogey," that the Council had St right to purchase in the cheapest market because ' it saved the ratepayers' money and enabled the tl'ami^ays t'O b'^'CliB^^ly constructed. This is a most reinarkable c'oAtelitibllV' '' ' ' " In the first place, there is no saving of • the ratepayei's' No real money. For, "If the work had been done at home, at least foreign ^ £50,000 of the contract : would haVd reiptesented' wages, and °°" '^'^'^ ^* would have employed 670 men at 3ps. perj week^represji^nting families amounting to. ,nearly 3,;^00 person^^._, Tl^us^_ |670 72 British, workmen, who might otherwise have been employed, have lost a year's work, and it is a moderate estimate to say that at least 10 per cent, of the 3,400 persons mentioned above will have to seek relief from the Poor Law. Therefore, the supposed saving of the ratepayers' money by purchasing in the cheapest market is more than counter- balanced by the increased cost of poor law relief. Agaiu; from another point of view, it must be remembered that the £50,000 of wages would have been spent and circulated among shopkeepers, &c., in this country, if the work had not gone abroad. It is scarcely necessary to enlarge upon this argument, for it is well known how much the prosperity of tradesmen in a manufacturing district depends upon the full employment of the workers. When business is good, more houses are occupied, rateable value is higher, pauperism decreases. When depression occurs the reverse is the case. Employment is more vital than cheapness. Progres- Further, Mr. Benn's aroument that the Council is iustified sive policy ^ ^ ^ _ '' of cheap in buying in the cheapest market is a very dangerous weapon. If that doctrine is once admitted, the whole labour policy of the Council is imperilled. For the logical conclusion of Mr. Benn's argument is, that if it is right to buy tram rails produced by sweated labour, then it is right also to employ sweated foreign labour on the tram lines themselves, in the works department, in every other branch of the Council's establishment, and to even allow the contractor to use cheap and nasty labour. For will not the ratepayers' money be thereby saved ? THE QUESTION OF ROYALTIES. Mr. Benn and his Progressive friends have sought to explain the difference in the prices of British and Belgian rails 73 by suggesting that it is due to the heavy royalties in England. Messrs. Benn, Austin and Wood jointly published a leaflet, in which they set out the royalties in various countries and asked the question — How can we expect to compete with foreign countries while these royalties hang like millstones round our necks ? This argument of Mr. Benn was answered by a letter in the Times, November 28th, 1903, from Mr. J. Eatcliffe Cousins, L.C.C., which stated — Mr. Benn gets more hopelessly adrift when he attempts to attribute the higher prices charged to the fact that the British rail makers are handicapped by a mining royalty of some os. or 6s. per ton, whereas in Belgium the royalty is under Is. He seems to be totally unaware of the enormous amount of iron ore imported into this country, which amounted in 19C2 to 6] million tons. How much royalty do the British rail makers pay on that affords a little problem for Mr. Benn. But, apart from this foreign ore, all the largest firms of steel rail manufacturers own their mines ; CammeU's, The Barrow Haematite Company, and Guest, Keen & Co., own iron mines, as well as being large importers. Even where the manufacturer has to buy English ore, I have it on the authority of one of the largest firms that the royalty does not work out at more than 2s. a ton. A second letter from Mr. Cousins (7th December, 1903,) stated — Now, as to the second point, thai; the British rail makers are handicapped by a minimum royalty of os. or 6s. per ton, whereas in Belgium the royalty is only under Is., Mr. Benn finds himself unable to maintain this statement in the face of the fact that CammeU's, the Barrow Haematite Company, and Guest, Keen & Co., and the other large steel rolling firms own their mines, or else buy their ore principally from Spain, in either of which case no royalties are paid. In a lettei-, whicji I have received from the Cyclops Steel and Iron Works, it is stated that by far the greater proportion of rail steel manufactured in this country is produced from Mediterranean ores, and it must not be forgotten that our large English firms o\vn big iron mines in Spain. VAUXHALL BRIDGE. Another ProOTcssive attempt to favour foreign contractors British or ^ ^ o Foreign was made on June 23rd, 1903, on a report of the Bridges ^^^^"iais t u Cpmmittee, which recommended .that a cla^ise, be, inserted ii^ t^,^, ^specification for ,the erection of the superstructure of jV^^uxhall Bridge, providing that all materials should be of British manufacture only. This was defeated by the Pro- gressives on an amendment — Mr. Ward (Progressive) moving, and Mr. Yates (Progressive) seconding, the reference back, which was carried by 49 votes to 44. The following Progressives voted against the resolution of the Committee to use British materials only: — Austin, E. (Hoxtoii) Baker, J. A. (Finsbuiy, E.) Bayley, E. (Southwark, W.) Benn, J. W. (Kennington) Burns, J. (Battersea) Carringtoh, Earr(St. Pancras, W.) Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Cleland, J. W. (Lewisham) Collins, S. (Kennington) Collins, Sir W. J. (St. Pancras, W.) Cornwall, E. A. (Bethnal Green, N.E.) Da vies, W. (Battersea) Dolman, F. (Brixton) Elliott, G. S. (Islington, S.) .-■!*"'> Gilbert, J. D. (Newington, W.) Goodman, W. (Islington, W.) Hemphill, Capt. F. (Finsbury Central) Hubbard, N. W. (Norwood) Hunter, T. (Southwark, W.) Jackson, R. S. (Greenwich) Johnson, W. C. (Whitechapel) Lampard, G. (Hackney, N.) Laughland, J. (Islington, E.) Lawson,' Peter (Fulham) Leon, A. L. (Limehouse) Little, J. F. (Marylebone, E.) Macdonald, J. R. (Finsbury Central) McDougall, Sir John (Poplar) Parkinson, W. C. (Islington, N.) Piggott, Jolm (Newington, W.) Radford, G. H. (Islington, W.) " ■' Sandhurst, Lord " Sharp, L. (Brixton) Shepheard, A. J. (Hackney Central) Shrubsall, G. (NorWood) Smith, A. (Hackney, S.) Spokes, R. (Walworth) Stuart, J. (Haggerston) Torrance, A. M. (Islington, E.,).,^, . Verney, F. W. (Peckham) Ward, H. (Teller) (Hoxton) Waterlow, D. S. (St. Pancras, N.) Webb, Sidney (Deptford) West, Sir A. E. Wiles, T. (Bethnal Green, S.W Williams, Rev. C. Fleming Williams, R. (Lambeth) Yates, W. B. (Teller) In the above list will be noticed the names of all the leaders of the Progressive party who were present. The Cqnseryatiyes, although supported by, some Labour members, were not able to defeat, the Progressives. 75 On October 20tli, the Bridges Committee presented a report to the Council containing the f oUowing tenders for the erection of the superstructure : — £ s. d. Messrs. Pethick Brothers (Foreign steel) . . . . 132,073 „ { „ ) .. .. 133,664 ':;;'',■■ •„'^; (British 'steel) '■.•■■ 'i^ ' 137,073 A. Fase,Y & Sou ,..,,;i r^ <<, ..:i.,. :...., hi! ■.,•! 141,741 13 ,9, ,,,.. t V. Wall.. .. /.. , ,...,,.. 142,942 9, 5 , , Patent Shaft and Axletree Company . . . . 153,551 10 Heenan St Froude, Limited . . :':i '"'■' :'.' ' ' ' '.'.'• ' • 134,584 " ' ' A. Handyside & Co 158,200 11 4 Cochrane & Sons ;..(,) w*:;: j ..; , ; ,,:<> ,.-.< 4* ^ 158,500 5,Perrv&Co ,. ...^ 160,360 Baudet, Donon & Co. . , . . . . . . 166,587 9 J. Westwood& Co., Limited- ■" '.'.''•'■' .. .. 168,803 -^ . 1' •! 1 ! I I / •> fi [ ..i!i ai^iK> o.l'i' ^'"■' -jil! v.'ij^ r.Iii ll !,,,[! i^, ,•;;,, r !ilf.- il On Marcli 10th, 1891, the Main Drainage; Committee recommended that detailed plans be prepared of the proposed new sewers. On the proposal to adopt this recommendation It 'wa's 'agreed that the following addition should be made to the motion:— — - - .:ii mriui i.,] obr/ui.) -i l^.j: .ttioa.iy.n.i ^jj(j thai the Committee be instructed to' obtain a further report, which shall have special reference to (a) the separation of the rainfall from the ^ewage in districts where it may be practicable ; (b) the better- prevention of- storm overflows into the Thames and Lea ; (o) the better purification of the river. — {.Mimtes, 1891, p. 297.) With regard to (a) it may be stated that this proposal, if carried out, would cost about 20 millions sterling. FOUR YEAiig' MLAY. ' ^^ =^^ ^ '- '"^-^ I'-C-C. Year after year grave complaints of floodings continued inaction, '' ^ ... . . . 1895. to be made by local authorities in various districts, but little was done to obviate the inconvenience, monetary loss and injury to public health. A few minor works were carried out, but the main proposals of Sir Benjamin Baker and Mr. Binnie were disregarded. Serious Q^ ^\^q IQth of December, 1895, an adjourned report injury to of the Main Drainage Committee was considered by the Council. public _ o J ■ . . .health. This report began — tj We have to call the seTious ; attention of the Council, to, -the present state, <^f the main drainage of London on the north sidei of the Thamea^:. ,,,' .,( , It then gave a brief outline of the main drainage system, and the proposals of Sir Benjamin Baker and Mr. Binnie in their joint report of February, 1891. , . , ,. , ;, ...^ In reports, dated 15th February, 1894, and 17tli OctbberV'l'S^S, t!ie'~ cHe! engineer has again called our attention to the necessity of at once undertaking the wbrks required on the north side of the Thames. The chief engineer, revie\\Tng all the facts, informs us that he was more strongly impressed than ever with the necessity of immediately proceeding with these works. If this is not done, he fears that the main drainage system will fall into disrepute. ill!' The Committee recommended the construction of an additional outfall sewer between Old Ford and Barking, and the new intercepting sewer between Paddington and Old gressive Ford — the two chief proposals for North London contained in tJ^sanitary tlie report of 1891. nti J 1 w ill • ' ■ !..)iuPROGPvESSIVE OPPOSITION TO PvEFORM. Pro- gres obstruction t3 sanita improve- ments. :cn il 1 On the motion to adopt the recommendations of the Committee, an amendment was moved by Mr. ]M;cPou,gall (Progressive), seconded by Mr. Idris (Progressive) — • That the general enlargement of the main drainage system is npt now necessary, but that local floodings need immediate attention. This amendment was carried, but, on the motion of 'Dr. Longstaff (Conservative), the following words were added — • And''t'Kaf The Maii\''I^rainage''Co'mmift(?e "be Mstfiicfed t6''brihg- ii^) "d^'rfeport, showing in detail the results of the several works carried out by the Council, with a view to relieve the mam drainage system. Mr. McDougall, in moving his amendment, contended that the new sewers would not be successful in preventing the floodings — 1 1 ',! That during thb last six years the Council had spcntj in connection with the relief of the sewers in the north of London, flGfi.diM), and theiQ Wfts now no need for any general enlargement of the sewerage system. 80 Mr. Idris, in seconding the amendment, said — Further That if they went on as thoy were now doing, he felt sure that every year that d^^^y- passed would only tend to prove the futility of such an expenditure as they were now asked to sanction. This Progressive opposition to the carrying out of extremely urgent main drainage works was directly contrary to the opinion of the engineers, and the result was that London still continued to suffer from floodings. ANOTHER FOUR YEARS' DELAY. 1899. However, four years later, in 1899, Sir Alexander Binnie again recommended the execution of the proposed sewage works, north and south of the Thames, at an estimated cost of nearly three million pounds. These proposals were submitted to the Council on the 5th December, 1899, with an expression of opinion that all the sewers should be constructed with as little delay as possible. The report stated that — For a long time past serious complaints have been made of the insufficiency of the main sewers in the various parts of London, and our attention has been frequently directed to the dangers arising to public health from the periodical flooding of dwelling houses and other buildings with storm waters and sewage. The duty of providing means for the drainage of the Metropolis is undoubtedly one of the principal duties committed to the charge of the Council, and the manner in which the Council fulfils its obligation in seeing that this work is effectually done is, and must be, a matter of the utmost concern to the public— (L.C.C. Minutes, 1S99, p. 1,720.) After recapitulating the facts, as before stated, the report of the Committee stated, in effect, that the minor works carried out would be practically of little avail until the large works were executed. 81 LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONDEMN L.C.C. Strong representations, iiraing the construction of additional relief sewers, have Local A u- ° ^ . . thorities been made by the following authorities : — condemn L G C Battei-sea Kensington St. Luke's Bermondsey Lee St. James, Westminster Camberwell Limehouse St. ^Margaret and St. John, Chelsea Newington Westminster Fulham Paddington St. Martin-in-the-Fields Hackney Plumstead St. Marylebone Hammersmith Poplar St. Olave's Holborn St. George, Hanover Square Whitechapel Islington St. George-the-Martyr Most of these authorities urge the construction of the sewers recommended in the joint report of 1891, and deputations from several of them have, from time to time, appeared before us. We may also state, for the information of the Coimcil, that some time ago a conierence of the representatives of the Vestry of Hackney, Vestry of Paddington, Poplar District Board, Vestry of Stoke Newington, Vestry of Islington, and the Hornsey and South Hornsey District Councils, was held to discuss the serious condition of affairs arising from the insufficiency of the main sewers, and a deputation subsequently attended before us in support of a memorial urging that additional works, recommended as a remedy in the joint report of Sir Benjamin Baker and Sir Alexander Binnie, should be proceeded with without further delay, and that all minor works, which would tend to lessen local floodings and improve the flow of the high-level sewer, should be at once carried out. A further conference of the leading parishes on the north side of the Thames was held at the Paddington Vestry Hall on Friday, 27th October last, when the following resolution, relating to storm floodings and the attitude of the Council in the matter, was passed : " That this conference, comprising representatives of the leading parishes on the north side of the Thames, hereby places on record its surprise that, not%vithstanding the strong expression of opinion by the Main Drainage Committee of the London County Council and its responsible officers, and the repeated representations of vestries and district boards, to the effect that the existing sewer accommodation of the Metropolis was entirely inadequate to carry out the work required of it, no attempt should have been made to abate the intolerable nuisance complained of ; and further, that this conference urges upon the Council the absolute necessity of their at once carrying out such works as may be necessary to remedy the above- mentioned state of things." — {L.C.C. Minutes, 1899, p. 1,723.) MORE PROGRESSIVE OPPOSITION. Notwithstanding the urgency of the matter, Mr. McDougall p 82 (Progressive) moved an amendment, seconded by Mr. Idris (Progressive) — That the Council re-affirms its resohition of the 10th December, 1895, viz., that the general enlargement of the main drainage system is not now necessary, but that local flooclings need immediate attention, and that, therefore, the recommendation be referred back to the Committee. — (L.C.C. Minutes, p. 1,728.) The amendment, however, was lost, and the Council decided, after eight years' delay, to execute certain works. The sums voted by the Council in respect of the enlargement of the Northern outfall sewer are as follows : — Two sewers between the Abbey Mills pumping station and the Barking outfall, inclusive of incidental works at the latter station £600,000 Two sewers between the Abbey Mills pumping station and Old Ford 200,000 £800,000 On the south side of the Thames the Council decided to construct a new outfall sewer between Deptford pumping station and the Crossness outfall, and a high level sewer between Crossness and Plumstead railway station, besides various other works. The sums voted by the Council in respect of this work amount to £650,000. DESCPvIPTION OF THE FLOODINGS. On the 29th June, 1903, the Times contained a letter from Sir Philip Burne- Jones, Bart., on the inadequate drainage in London. After briefly stating the inaction of the London County Council, the letter proceeds : — I need not enlarge. Sir, upon what this flooding involves. Hundreds of houses are inundated with a flood of filthy black water, thick with m\id and sewage, which forces its way up_ through gullies and manholes and any apertures connecting the houses with the drains. In the casa of well-to-do people this causes huge incon- venience and much expense ; where their humbler neighbours are concerned.fthe effect is distressing and disastrous in the extreme. I have thi? morning visited fcveral ba-.ements in the poorer quarters of this neighbourhood ; and the sights 83 ■which I have seen might well stimulate the London County Coimcil to immediate and productive action of some sort, if it were only to provide additional relays of workmen, and so hasten the completion of the new pumping station in Lot's Road. The community vvould, I think, be willing to dispense with the bands in the parks (for a few Sundays) as a contribution to any extra expenses incurred. The soaking damp floors, the foaS, stagnant sswer stssaed water lying in the areas of the little houses, presented a spectacle of desolation which it would be hard to match anywhere. In one case, the fireplace itself was bulging out of its brick setting, having been loosened by the water. A very little imagination will picture the indescribable details of discomfort and misery which would be caused by the sudden immersion of one's living room in several feet of reeking sewage water During the past few days the destruction of property in this parish has been enormous ; the danger to health is just as great. I have stated the bare facts, trusting that you. Sir, will give them pubhcity, and that by so doing the London County Coimcil (who are primarily responsible for this indescribable misery) may be moved to do something more than talk and pass resolutions. Do not let them waste more time, even in defending themselves, but let them act ; and even thus late in the daj% after being in possession of the facts for 14 years without moving in the mati:er, let them de\'ise a practical remedy for the evil at their doors, and thus justify their stewardship to the long-sufferuig ratepayers of the Metropolis." The flooding of houses by sewage has greatly increased in the last few years, and on the 17th October, 1903, the Times contained the following : — The Flooding in South London. — At the Southwark Town Hall, a conference south of delegates from the South London borough councils was held on Thursday, to London consider the subject of the periodical flooding of houses and business premises. The Mayor of Southwark (Mr. T. Bryan), who presided, said that the question affected all the boroughs in South London, and it was a serious menace to the health of the people. In Southwark, for instance, the deaths from consumption numbered 500 annually, and it was out of the question to reduce that fearful rate when the subsoil of tlie district was rendered perennially damp. Recently 2,000 houses were flooded with sewage, and tradesmen had large quantities of goods damaged. Mr. Attenborough (Southwark) moved the appointment of a deputation to wait upon the London County Council, pointing out the serious danger to the health of the inhabitants of South London boroughs likely to arise from the periodical flooding of their premises with sewage, and to urge upon the Council the necessity of taking effective steps to deal with the question at the earliest possible date. The Mayor of Wandsworth seconded the motion. Lieutenant- Colonel W. Kent Lemon (Greenwich) advocated recourse to the Law Courts for a mandamus compeUing the County Council to remedy the matter. The motion was carried. The Maj'or of Wand.sworth then moved : — " That this conference advise the local councils to petition the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry P 2 84 Deputation to the L.C.C. into the serious neglect of the County Council to provide sufficient main drainage for London." Alderman the Rev. J. N. Anderson, in seconding the motion, said that the sewers -were carrying 80 per cent, more sewage than they were built for, and were serving a population 50 per cent, greater than they were intended to serve. He knew of two fever hospitals that had been flooded and their boiler fires extinguished, while in one some of the wards were flooded and the patients had to be carried out late at night. At present five wards in the hospital were not safe to be used. Eventually an amendment was carried agreeing to leave the question of an appeal to the Local Government Board until after the conference had waited upon the County Council. On tlie 1st December, 1903, the General Purposes Com- mittee reported to the Council that — Jointly with the Main Drainage Committee, they had received a deputation from South London borough councils which desired to press upon the Council the inadequacy of the main drainage system for deaUng with storm water on the south side of the Thames, and urged that such steps as might be necessary should be taken to prevent a recurrence of fioodings. The delegates were informed that their representations would receive the most careful consideration of the Council. The statements made by the deputation were now receiving the consideration of the Main Drainage Committee, who had for a considerable time been devoting their attention to the question of the means to be taken for the improvement of the main drainage system in the direction indicated by the deputation. The report was received. SANITARY EXPERTS CONDEMN L.C.C. Sanitary On the 9th of December, 1903, Sir Benjamin Baker, Institute ^ /^ condemn K.C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., M.Iust.C.E., presided at a discussion held at the Sanitary Institute, Parkes Museum, on " The Flooding of Basements in London by Sewage." Dr. H. R. Kenwood, M.B., D.P.H., said he was not going to deny himself the luxury of criticism. The dreadful and disgusting experience of the present year would have been spared if the County Council had acted before. It had required ten years, two reports, a mandamus, and threats to bring the Council before the Courts of Law, befora it could make up its mind. Fourteen years ago the County Council had this before them for eight months, and instructed the Main Drainage Committee to secure the services of an eminent civil engineer. Fourteen months afterwards (1891) Sir Benjamin Baker and Sir Alexander Binnie recommended nuw outfall sewers. Nothing was done for four and a-half years, when the Main 85 Drainage Committee recommended that the work be carried out. Two j^cars after- wards, in response to a deputation, the engineer to the County Council was again instructed to report. This he did, and fifteen months afterwards work was recom- mended at a cost of one and a-half miUions. At a conference of the leading boroughs on the north side of the Thames, six months afterwards, a resolution was passed placing on record surprise that, notwithstanding repeated reports that the existing sewer accommodation of the IMetropolis was entirely inadequate, no attempt should be made to abate the nuisance. In December, 1899, the County Council approved the report of the Main Drainage Committee, pronounced eight years previously to be of so urgent a cliaracter, but Mr. McDougall, as in 1895, moved an amend- ment that the scheme was not now necessary. The failure of the Council to deal promptly with the question endangered health by the flooding of dwellings, and led to a large amount of avoidable pollution. In their own borough they were not under the impression that complamts were r^iade in all instances, and on making a house-to-house inspection had been struck with the very large number of cases where basements had been flooded, and the people had made no complaint, recog- nising the hopelessness of doing so. Wash houses and underground bakehouses and cellars had been inundated, and carpets and goods were injured or spoiled, and deposit left over and under floors, endangering health. They must all fully recognise the excellent work of the County Council, but found it diflticult to realise why this work had so long been shelved, when other schemes had been dealt with. He would have preferred to have seen this great sanitary improvement carried out in precedence to many matters dealt with, such as the housing scheme, which furnished so modest a result, having regard to its costliness. The County Council, as a body, had only during the last few years fully recognised the importance of the work. Under great pressure they made a display of being desirous of doing something by calling for successive reports. They would not escape from criticism until they liad taken hold of the work with both hands, and until the general public found remedied the disgraceful condition under which so many had been com- pelled to live for so many years. Mr. Councillor F. A. Dod, Stoke Newington, referred to the report presented to the London County Council in 1891. He said that body was responsible for the present state of things, and moved the following resolution : — " That this meeting is of opinion tliat tlie flooding of London basements with sewage is a grave menace to public health, and regrets that this menace has been allowed to continue for so many years, owing to the neglect of the County Council. It urges upon that body to proceed with the work of making main sewers to relieve London of its present insanitary state." Mr. Loveday seconded. He said that the County Council had done nothing apparently to increase the capacity of the sewers. The Chairman said it had been proved that a large measure must be carried out. It would not in the least hurt the County Council, if they had behind them the pressure of the Sanitary In.stitute. 86 Mr. Fitzmaurice and Dr. Kenwood having replied. Councillor Dod's rcrsolution was carried as amended according to the suggestion of the Chairman. The amended resolution was : — " That this meeting is of opinion that the flooding of London basements with sewage is a great menace to public health, and regrets that this menace has been allowed to continue for so many years. It requests the Council of the Institute to urge the London County Council t3 proceed with all possible expedition with the completion of the necessary work of the main sewers to relieve London from its present insanitary state." — Local Government Journal, December 19th, 1903. BOROUGH COUXCILS CONDEMN L.C.C. At a Conference of Delegates from the Islington, Hackney and Stoke Newington Borough Councils, held at Stoke Newington, on January 4:th, 1901, a resolution was passed viewing " with regret the delay of the L.C.C. in giving effect to their Engineers' Reports of 1891 and 1899 and in grappling with the question." At Paddington Town Hall, on January 20th, 1904, a conference of delegates from the Borough Councils of Fulham, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Islingt;on, Kensington, Maryle- bone, Paddington and Stoke Newington, unanimously resolved that the Conference " viewed with alarm and regret the great delay of the London County Council in giving effect to their engineer's reports of 1891 and 1899 dealing with the question of the main drainage of London." — Times, January 21st, 1904. It is estimated that the damage to property by floodings in London since 1891 (when the work ought to have been undertaken by the London County Council) exceeds the probable cost of the sewerage works necessary to remedy the evil. For the grave injury to public health, and the serious loss to the community caused by these filthy floods, the Progressives are responsible. 87 HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES. THE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. To the Conservative and Unionist party is due most Housing legislation of the law relating to the housing of the working classes, mainly dae Formerly it was embodied in three sets of Acts — Shaftesbury's vative Acts (enabling local authorities to provide lodging houses for letting to the labouring classes) ; Torrens's Acts (em- powering local authorities to deal with houses unfit for human habitation) ; and Cross's Acts (giving the authorities power to carry out improvement schemes for unhealthy areas). Under Lord Shaftesbury's x\cts scarcely anything was done ; little was accomplished under Mr. Torrens'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. In 1884, mainly at the instance of Lord Salisbury, aiheKoyai Royal Commission sat to inquire into the working of, andsion: its suggest improvements in, these Acts. menda- tions carried out The Commission directed its recommendations mainly to by conser. vative and two objects — (1) The improvement of the means possessed unionist party. by the Metropolitan Board of Works and the local bodies for dealing with the subject ; (2) The reform of the local autliorities themselves. Conservative and Unionist Governments have since passed — 88 (1) The Local Government Act, 1888, and the London Government Act, 1899, and thereby created in the County Council and the Borough Councils municipal authorities capable of dealing with the housing problem ; (2) The Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890, 1900 and 1903, and the Public Health Act, 1891, the great measures with which those authorities are armed for their work. Radical The Writer of the articles in the Daily News, headed testimony toconser- " No Room to Livc " (Rcprmt, 1899, p. 137), thus speaks oi vative measures, tlic latter Acts : — Bear in mind that the powers of the loeal authorities are neither few nor small. They are suflficient to deal with all the forms of overcrowding and horrible housing, and every kmd of unhealthy dwelling. They are fairly simple ioo and clearly defined. They are all compressed within two Acts of Parliament — the Public Health Act and the Housing of the Working Classes Act. The Radicals can point to no piece of effective legislation on the subject. Public The Public Health Act consolidated and amended the Act, 1891. sanitary laws formerly administered by the Vestries and District Boards and now by the Borough Councils. It contains numerous provisions for the prevention of overcrowding and sanitary evils of all sorts, and it places the County Council in the position of a central health authority for certain purposes. A°ri890 ^^^ Housing Act brought within a single Statute the former Acts, with many improvements. Powers Vdit I. enables the County Council to clear large un- under -' o tlTciear ^i^^^l^hy arcas. The Council, if satisfied by the representations large of a medical officer of health that the sanitary defects of an insanitary '' areas. area cannot be remedied otherwise than by an improvement 89 scheme for the rearrangement and reconstruction of the streets and houses, makes a scheme which has to be confirmed by a Secretary of State and Parliament. The Council is required by the Act to provide accommodation for at least as many persons of the working classes as may be displaced, but a Secretary of State may, on the application of the Council, dispense with the obligation to an extent not exceeding one half. The compensation payable for property taken compul- sorily within an unhealthy area is limited by special provisions, wliich forbid any allowance in respect of the compulsory purchase. Part II. of the iVct gives the County Council and the powers Vestries and District Boards power to make improvement part i. to schemes for unhealthy areas, which are too small to be dealt gmau areas. with under Part I. The schemes must be sanctioned by the Local Government Board, but need not be confirmed by Parliament, unless an owner of any part of an area petitions against a scheme. The London County Council may con- tribute towards vestry schemes, and a Secretary of State may order the Council to contribute. The local authorities have extensive powers under this part of the Act as regards the closing and demolition of dwellings unfit for human habitation. Part III. made the powers of Lord Shaftesbury's Act Powers metropolitan instead of local. It enables the London County part iir. Council to buy land by agreement, or compulsorily with the apart from authority of a Secretary of State, for the purpose of erecting lodging houses which include cottages, for the working classes, and also to contract for the purchase or lease of lodging houses. By the London Government Act, 1899, the Unionist Extension _, ,. 1 -r» 1 /^ -1 1 of Part III. Parliament gave power to the Borough Councils to adopt to Borough Part III. of the Housing Act within their own boroughs. 90 County gy j^i^Q Housing of the Working Classes Amendment Act, empowered 1900, introduced by Mr. Chaplin, Parliament has extended to buy land ' , the powers of the Council, under Part III., so as to enable it to buy land outside as well as within the county boundary, and has also empowered it to lease land acquired under Part III. to any lessee, for the purpose and under the condition that the lessee will carry the Act into execution by building and maintaining on the land lodging houses within the meaning of the Act. Provision is made for securing the use of the land for the purposes of the Act and the maintenance and repair of the houses. [The Council has no power to sell land bought under Part III., though it has power to sell or let land acquired under Part I., and is indeed required to sell land so acquired within ten years.] In March, 1902, a Joint Select Committee was appointed to consider the Standing Orders relating to displacement of persons of the labouring classes in connection with the powers given by public and private Acts. Their recommendations were embodied in the Housing Act of the following year. By the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1003 (intro- duced by Mr. Walter Long, the President of the Local Govern- ment Board), the maximum term for repayment of housing loans was extended from 60 to 80 years ; the powers of local authorities to issue loans were enlarged ; rehousing obligations on railway and other corporations were strengthened ; greater powers were conferred upon the Local Government Board to deal with authorities refusing to carry out the law against insanitary houses and districts ; the procedure necessary to obtain sanction from the central authority for an improve- ment scheme was simpHfied ; the power of the local authorities to demolish insanitary houses was enlarged ; and generally, the power of municipal bodies was widened. 91 ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACTS. The Mefropolitan Board of Works carried out sixteen schemes CXGCUtCCl schemes, under Cross's Acts, at a net cost of £1,318,935, by Metro- displaced 21,207 persons, but caused accommodation to be Board of provided for 27,066. (Eeturn of Housing Scheme, published by L.C.C., October, 1899.) The Board sold its sites to the Peabody trustees and others, who provided the dwellings. The CounciVs policy may be divided into two periods : — Council's I ^ >/ J- policy. (1) Before November, 1898. The Council inherited from the Metropolitan Board six schemes under- schemes, initiated under Cross's Acts, the net cost being taken before £278,382. Nov., 1898, It initiated (to 1898) seven schemes, under Part I. and Part II. of the Housing Act, the net cost being £569,050. Property in connection with these, estimated to cost £283,650, had not been acquired (1898) — the only large scheme nearly completed being Boundary Street (net cost £252,588). The return mentioned above (dated October, 1899) dis- closed the following particulars as to housing schemes inherited or initiated by the Council : — Xuinlicr of i)ars<)ns ilis]iliicc'l, or to be ilisplaccd. Oljli'-T'ilioii to reliousc. I'Cl'Slill^ I'll!' whom (Iwelliu^^s Iiavc been provided. I'ei-soiis for wlioiu (Iwellitivrs arc ill course of erection. Ac('()iniiii>clnt inn in (hvelliii!.'s for wiiicli jilans arc being preparcil. Displaced . 12,837* To be dis- placed . 5,192* 11,277 6,812 3,088 1,356 l.'^,O20 XUc-he figures are not given iii the return (oul.y ilie lotiil l-^.oii.i), but tlie.v are official. 92 The Council's than it housed. The return also gave particulars of sites vacant for several years, in respect of which the obligation to rehouse had not been discharged on 31st March, 1899. The total number displaced was 1,844. The return also showed that the Council had displaced 4,881 persons under improvement schemes, involving the submission of a rehousing scheme to the Home Secretary, while the number rehoused, or to be rehoused, was 3,974. The policy of the Council as regards rehousing was thus poiicy"to stated by the Housing of the Working Classes Committee many more in November, 1898 : — T)6I*S0I1S Hitherto the Council, whether acting under Part I. or Part II., has in many cases felt itself justified in securing the provision of dwellings for a number slightly in excess of half those displaced. In other words, the Council, up to the end of 1898, was generally content to aim at the minimum rather than the maximum of accommodation required by the Housing Act, and the result of its operations under Part I. was that it had cleared one large slum and a few small ones, and had displaced many more people than it had rehoused. This is what the Daily News writer says (Eeprint, 1899, p. 57) :- Take the London County Council's record. In their various schemes they have turned out some 24,000 people, but have barely built houses for 10,000. What of the remaining 1-4,000 among the driven out ? Nay, more than 14,000, for we have already seen how very few of the people displaced ever return to the new bmldings. Sir Robert Reid, Q.C., in the debate on the Housing Bill, on 17th May, 1900, stated that— As the result of nine years' work of the London County Council only one-half per cent, of the overcrowded class was rehoused each year. Only eleven out of 5,719 displaced at Boundary Street have been rehoused in the Council's dwellings. Badical criticism. 93 As regards Part III. of the Act, the Housing Committee Part iii. not used by made the following statement {Minutes, November, 1898) : — council apart from rehousing. Apart from the rehousing of persons displaced by improvement schemes, which the Council is by Statute required to carry out, it has not hitherto put in force the powers, which it possesses under Part III., to buy land and build thereon for the purpose of increasing the supply of house accommodation in or near London. And they point out that the Millbank Prison site, which was purchased under Part III., was really acquired and being used for rehousing purposes. The Council, therefore (with the exception of the lodging house at Parker Street, Drury Lane, which was built under Part III.), allowed Part III. to remain a dead letter for eight years, so far as increasing the supply of accommodation was concerned. excuses. The Fortnightly Review of December, 1900, had an article Radical indicting the Council for not having used Part *III. to increase the supply of working class accommodation. Mr. Waterlow, Radical Chairman of the Housing Committee, in a letter to the Review of January, 1901, made this defence : — (1) That Part III. has been used ; and, to prove it, he referred to Mill- bank, and a few other sites, acquired for rehousing purposes ; and also to two large sites, acquired apart from rehousing schemes, one bought eighteen months before, the other just then acquired. And he included in the " number of persons provided for " ( ! ) the persons who might in the course of years occupy dwellings on these sites, though the plans for these dwellings were not yet in existence. (2) That Part III. " has not been used for the purposes of indulging in wild-cat speculations in building estates in suburban London, by buying vacant land with no convenient means of communica- tion." But the point made against him was not that the Council should liave indulged in wild-cat speculations, but that it ought to have made use of Part III. from 1890 to 1899. 94 (2) After November, 1898. Council In November, 1898, the Council formally determined to poiicrby ^ turn over a new leaf. It resolved: — (1) That in future En3^^^°' housing accommodation should be provided for a number of acma/^°™ persons equal to that of the working classes displaced under schemes. ^^^ scheme ; (2) That action should be taken under Part III. apart from rehousing, with this important proviso — " that no charge be placed* on the county rate thereby." The reason given for this change of policy was the deficiency of house room in London. This deficiency, however, existed when the Royal Commission of 1884 held their inquiry, and caused them to recommend that a trial should be given to Lord Shaftesbury's Act. It was also well ascertained by the census of 1891, which disclosed the fact that 214,843 persons lived in tenements of one room, and that 128,000 persons, in families of from four to twelve persons, were living with only one room to each family. The Conservatives took exception to the resolutions referred to in the preceding paragraph as valueless. Their view was that schemes were wanted, not abstract resolutions ; and, in fact, a year passed before the Housing Committee were able to submit any practical proposal. The Conservative party has voted for all schemes brought forward, whether under Part I. or Part III. New In March, 1899, a Conservative was appointed Chairman. clearance Tinder- Tlic Committee during his Chairmanship — taken, and fs'-te (1) Obtained sanction, in October, 1899, for four clear- bought ^ ' ' ' ' ^nder^^ ancc schcmcs under Part I. ; (2) Passed through the Council, in January, 1900, a. scheme under Part III. — the first of its kind. The scheme is for the purchase of 38^ acres at Tooting (Totterdown Fields), for the erection of cottages to house some 8,000 persons. It is e.:itimated tliat land Part III. 95 roads and buildings will cost £500,000, and that no charge will be entailed on the iatepa3'ei's. (3) Discovered the fact, of which previous Committees had been ignorant, that the powers under Part III. were restricted to the purchase of land within the county — a restriction which, as already stated, has been removed by the Act of 1900. In March, 1900, Mr. Waterlow, a Radical, was appointed Chairman of the Housing Committee. "o On 11th, December 1900, on the recommendation of the a building . . . . scheme of Housing Committee, the Council decided to buy a site at doubtful merit Norbury, just outside the county boundary, and thus took under, advantage of Mr. ChapHn's Act of 1900. The site is about 31 acres, the price £600 per acre, and it is proposed to build some 762 cottages. The rents to be charged vary from 6s. per week for two rooms and small kitchen to lis. 6d. for five rooms. The estimated annual surplus, after providing for interest on capital and sinking fund, is £470. The Finance Committee, reporting on above proposal. Remarks made the following remarks : — rlnance Committee. We understand that this scheme will be followed by other projects for the development of estates of dwelhngs for the working classes in other districts outside the county boundary, and, having regard to the Council's heavy commitments on capital account, we think the Coimcil will agree that the total amount which should be expended for this purpose within the next few years must be, to some extent, Umited. We think, therefore, that the Council should carefully consider the merit of each proposal witli reference to the aim in view, viz., the relief of the overcrowding in central London. The scheme, though the Council did not divide upon Pro- it, met with considerable criticism in the Council from members poiTcy.'^ of both parties. The capital which the Council can expend being limited, it is most important that those sites should be bought which can be developed to the advantage of over- 96 Conser- vative policy. crowded London. But the Norbury cottages are more likely to benefit Croydon people than Londoners, and the rents, plus the cost of travelling to central London, are prohibitive to all but well paid artizans. The same remark applies to another scheme, e.g., Wood Green. Mr. Waterlow, in pre- senting the Norbury scheme to the Council, said : " The plan was not one to house the poorest class. He did not think it possible to house that class. The Committee wanted to help those who could help themselves." The Conservative policy is rather to help those who cannot help themselves to decent accommodation. As regards the work of the Council, under Part IIL, the following are the particulars of sites acquired as stated in the Annual Report of the Council, 1903 (p. 102) : — Site, Acre- aj,'e. Cost of Land. Estimated Cost of Buildings. Total Estimated Cost of Land and Buildings. No. of Persons to be provided for. Totterdown Fields, Tooting Norbury, Surrey Wedmore Street, Upper Holloway . . Dufferiii Street Dwellings Caledonian Asylum, Holloway Holmwood Buildings, No. 97, South- wark Street White Hart Lane, Wood Green Old Oak Common Lane, Hammersmith Brixton Hill Hughes Fields, Surplus Lands 38i 31 n 2 225 50 1 £ 44,238 20,000 12,500 • 16,500 t3,200 91,000 30,000 7,500 1,000 £ 356,000 263,000 49,500 66,500 $1,886 1,881,602 360,000 27,305 17,661 £ 400,238 283,000 62,000 *6,615 83,000 5,086 1,972,602 390,000 34,805 18,661 8,300 5,800 1,050 174 1,384 72 42,500 9,200 620 440 Totals 350 225,938 3,023,454 3,256,007 69,540 * Buildings purcliasod after they had been built Ijy otlier persons. X Cost of conversion. t Value of existing ljuildin'ould proceed. He had never said the finance of the Council was not sound, but what he did ask was that, in view of the state of the money market, they should co-ordinate their expenditure and moderate their expenditure for the next few years, so as to prevent a rebuff on the market. — Standard, December 23rd, 1903. WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF THIS LACK OF SYSTEM ? L — Large growth of debt, as will be seen from subjoined table Net Debt of Council. >> ?5 March, 1889 1899 1900 „ 1901 „ 1902 „ 1903 September, 1903 17,563,262 21,562,019 23,031,516 24,813,694 27,188,629 28,699,824 30,130,815 It will be seen that in recent years the net debt has in- creased by leaps and bounds, and it must be borne in mind that only a comparatively small portion is for " remunerative " purposes so-called. Of the net debt of £30,130,815 out- standing on 30th September, 1903, £25,976,287 is devoted to unremunerative purposes, and £4,154,528 to remunerative purposes. 160 2.— Excessive issues of stock in recent years. The following figures give the amount of stock issued by jounty uouncii :- £ 1889 1,000,000 stock. 1892 1,200,000 „ 1893 1,500,000 „ 1894 2,000,000 „ 1895 1,000,000 „ 1896 1,000,000 „ 1897 2,500,000 „ 1898 2,000,000 „ 1899 1,750,000 „ 1900 5,000,000 „ 1901 2,000,000 „ 1902 5,000,000 „ 1903 1 -ITT 11 • -I 5,000,000 „ Lord Welby, in a speech to the Council on 17th November, 1903, said:— I am bound to say that the Council has never, up to the present moment, considered the amount which the Council might fairly borrow every year without turning the money market against it, or injuring its credit in the money market. Again, it may be observed that this is a remarkable criticism to come from the Progressive Chairman of the Council's Finance Committee, who has held his chair for several years. 3.— Enormous capital commitments. The Progressives have tried to conceal the amount of capital expenditure to which the Council is now committed. On 4th November, 1902, a motion was carried for a return showing the total net indebtedness of the Council and also its capital commitments. This return has only just (26th January, 1904) been presented. The Return (Capital 161 Commitments, No. 9,312) discloses the following capital com- mitments : — I. Amounts actually voted or approved . . £16,001,983 II. Proposals for which Parliamentary sanction sought, 1904 2,143,875 £18,145,858 The principal commitments are — Under the head of I. : — n Street Improvements . . £ 4,394,643 Rotherhithe Tunnel . . 1,853,035 Vauxhall Bridge 224,117 Main drainage . . 2,730,924 Clearance schemes 362,584 Working Class dwellings 3,170,425 Tramways 1,924,373 Lunatic Asylums 183,498 Under Head II. : — Thames steamboats . . 280,000 Tramways and street widenii igs 1,516,075 Street improvements . . 236,300 Fire stations 111,500 In addition to the above commitments, the Council has resolved to reconstruct all the tramways for electrical traction. This, with the construction of new lines and the cost of street widenings which will be rendered necessary, means a very large capital expenditure which cannot be definitely esti- mated at present, but is approximately stated at £10,000,000. " OUTSTRIPPING THE BOUNDS OF PRUDENCE." It is no wonder that Lord Welby should say : — Till- growiiij^ (Icumnds on I lie Coiiiicil arc so gi'oat, Ihat 1. mnni say (liat the Councii is outstripping the bounds of prudence.— (6'2>cccA, 17th November, liUKi.) L 162 4.— Depreciation of the Council's credit. In 1896-7, the Council were borrowing at 2 J per cent. To-day its 2| per cent, stock is only worth about £80, and it has to pay 3J per cent, for the money it borrows. The increase in the price the Council has to pay for money is, of course, largely due to the fact that the market is over- stocked with high- class securities. But the Progressive Council has contributed to this result. Lord Welby may be again quoted : — There can be no doubt whatever, I think, for insufficient reason, to a great extent, that municipal loans are not very favourably viewed by the money market. There is a suspicion, and I do not say it is entirely without foundation, but I think it is very grossly exaggerated, that municipaUties are extravagant, and in con- sequence, a check ought to be put upon their borrowings. In face of the admissions of Lord Welby and the Finance Committee, quoted above, can the suspicions of the money market be regarded as otherwise than natural and well-founded ? The results of Progressive lack of system and prudence in the management of the Council's finances have been indicated, and it is important also to note one cause which has contributed to the critical financial position in which the Council now finds itself. The cause is to be found in the refusal of a Progressive majority for many years to carry out necessary street improvements until the incidence of local taxation was changed. The result has been twofold : (1) That delayed improvements are now being carried out at a cost which is greatly increased, both because of the enhancement of the value of property — consequent upon delay — and because of the increased cost of 163 the money borrowed to pay for it ; (2) that the burden of an excessively large number of improvement schemes has been cast upon the rates at the present time, when large sums are required for tramways, main drainage, and other purposes. The following table shows the expenditure of the Council on capital account for street improvements. — (See Annual Report of L.C.C. for 1903, p. 233.) £ 1889-90 . 92,171 1890-1 95,467 1891-2 116,068 1892-3 25,341 1893-4 63,658 1894-5 91,068 1895-6 103,805 1896-7 88,130 1897-8 200,300 1898-9 371,394 1899-1900 . 867,341 1900-1 . 1,214,839 1901-2 . 1,691,834 1902-3 . 2,675,433 FUTURE BORROWINGS. As regards the future, the outlook lor the ratepayers is la)- IVom satisi'actoiy. \\q have it on tlio authorily of liOi-d W'iiWjy (speech 17th XuvcMiibcr, \Wo) that " ihu CuuiKil will have to go next year for a loan in excess of that five mil- lions," and in viow of the coinuiitmrnts of the r\)iiiicil, and I. 2 164 tlie large nmnber of i)rojects in preparation, tlie amount required to be borrowed is more likely to increase than to be reduced in future years. CONSERVATIVE POLICY. "What is wanted, if the Council's credit is to be main- tained, and the ratepayers are to be spared excessive burdens, is — (1) Such co-ordination of expenditure as the Finance Committee of the Council admit to be " indispensable," but which they have not been allowed by the Progressive party to take any steps to secure. The Conservative policy is to promote this object by requiring large schemes to be submitted to the Coimcil in a yearly budget, with such reports from the Finance Com- mittee as will enable the Council to take a comprehensive view of proposed capital commitments, and to marshal its expenditure at a rate which will not unduly press on the ratepayers. (2) The confidence of the money market. This cannot be retained by the Progressive party which, by the admis- sions of its 0"svn principal financier, has failed to regulate its expenditure with prudence, and is, moreover, pledged to a number of speculative schemes of municipal trading. The Conservative minority have, by the consistent manner in which they have advocated, at the Council and in their programme of 1901, the establishment of a proper system of financial control, shown that they are the party of prudent finance. The Conservative policy is one of progress on sound municipal, but not Socialistic, lines. 165 It canuot be doubted that if siicli a policy were dominant at Spring Gardens tlie financial credit of tlie Council would l)e strengthened, and its capacity for beneficent adminis- tration and expenditure woidd be increased. THE RISING RATE. Turning from the melancholy prospect afforded by the Council's ponderous debt, the ratepayer can derive no satis- faction from a contemplation of its rising rate : — TABLE A. Year. Rate in £. Amount raised from Rates. Gen. and Spec. Account. Rateable Value. Amount pro- duced by Id. Rate. d. £ £ £ 1889-90 12.53 1,857,675 31,588,137 131,611 1890-91 13.25 1,718,951 31,788,826 132,418 1891-2 11.75 1,583,169 33,004,612 137,841 1892-3 12.50 1,692,551 33,264,483 139,034 1893-4 13.00 1,777,165 33,578,860 140,108 1894-5 14.00 1,934,592 33,902,747 141,307 1895-6 15.00 2,096,052 34,221,830 142,591 1896-7 15.00 2,196.247 35,793,672 149,306 1897-8 14.00 2,062,267 36,083,9.50 150,400 1898-9 14.00 2,086,041 36,584,981 152,395 1899-00 13.50 2,042,593 37,022,237 154,203 1900-1 14.50 2,225,667 37,492,502 156,456 1901-2 1500 2,431,738 39,769,069 160,460 1902-3 15.50 2,537,256 40,098,130 166,989 1903-4 16.75 2,778,617* — 169,128* (Vide Aiimial Report.) (Financial Abstract, No. 6.51.) (Statistical Abstracts, IS'.mnnd iy02.) (L.C.C. County Rate Analysis, No. 513.) * Kslimated. 166 The receipts from Imperial subventions (Col. 1.) and the total expenditure (Col. 2) are as follows : — TABLE B. Year. Exchequer Contributions* Equivalent Rate in £. Total Expenditure.! CajDital Expenditure, t 1890-1 £ 537,845 d. 4.06 £ £ 642,448 1891-2 622,897 4.52 — 624,190 1892-3 537,309 3.86 — 858,186 1893-4 524,848 3.75 — 1,644,066 1894-5 460,557 3.26 2,495,438 1,501,378 1895-6 517,728 3.47 2,559,097 1,517,003 1896-7 505,676 3.39 2,565,407 1,696,088 1897-8 568,927 3.49 2,586,109 2,255,388 1898-9 588,600 3.86 2,690,381 2,603,258 1899-00 664,487 4.31 2,787,275 2,483,774 1900-1 586,519 3.54 3,006,216 3,895,192 1901-2 559,105 3.37 3,034,214 4,508,449 1902-3 564,549 3.22 3,194,501 1903-4 (E std.) 538,000 — 3,415,515 * Tables prepared in connection with the Council's Annual Estimates for the years 1895 to 1903-4. t Not including Capital Expenditure. t Financial Abstract, No. 654, L.C.C. THE GROWTH OF EXPENDITURE. The main features of the figures in Table A are that — {a) The rate has risen 4jd. since 1888-9 ; but the rate of increase has been most rapid since 1899-00, viz., 3jd. in three years. (6) The sum raised from the rates decreased in the early years of the Council, but rose steadily after 1893-4. Increase, 1895-6 .. £161,460 1896-7 .. £100,195 Then the amount fell again in 1897-8, and no remark- able change came until 1900-1, when the figures rose by leaps and bounds. 167 Increase Over Previous Year. 1900-1- .. £183,074 1901-2 .. £206,071 1902-3 . . £105,518 1903-4 .. £241,361 (estimated). In other words, between 1890-1 and 1899-00 — a period of nine years — the amount extracted from the ratepayers' pocket rose by £323,642, or at the rate of £35,960 a year. During the next four years the increase was £736,024, or at the rate of £184,000 a year. Truly, Progressive rule means progressive rates. Table B shows that the Council is now spending £920,000 per year more than it did in 1894-5, or an increase of 37 per cent, in nine years. . ; HOW THE INCREASE IS MADE. The enormous increase of the individual ratepayer's burden since the Council was established in 1889 is not apparent from a mere scrutiny of the actual rise in the rate, which, in itself, is alarming. The contribution of the ratepayer to the London County Council has been increased in two ways : — ■ 1. By a rise in his rate ; 2. By increasing the assessment of his house. That is to say, the ratepayer, in order to estimate the growth of his local tax, must have regard not only to the rise in the rate, but must compare the present rateable value of his house with the rateable value of it, say, ten years ago. THE GROWTH OF ASSESSMENTS. A memorandum of the evidence of the Statistical Official of the London County Council, submitted to the Royal 168 Commission on Taxation, discloses the remarkable growth in assessments of property. " From these estimates it appears that property built prior to 1871, and valued in 1871 at £19,650,743 is now (1897-8) valued at £25,131,840, an increase of £5,481,097, or 22 per cent." The memorandum further states that between 1878-9 and 1893-4, the estimated amount of rates upon this same property had increased from c£4,596,969 to £6,184,469, or £1,587,500—34 per cent. The following table shows the average rise in rateable value : — Rateable Value per head of Population and per Rated House. — (Statistical Abstract, pp. 78 and 79.) Rise in Rateable Value. Per head of Population. Per rated House. Year. £ s. d. £ s. d. 1892 7 15 9 Not given. 189.S 7 15 8 Not given. 1894 7 15 10 57 17 1895 7 15 10 58 3 10 1896 8 1 6 60 12 1897 8 1 9 60 9 10 1898 8 2 61 7 4 1899 8 2 5 61 8 5 1900 8 6 1 61 12 10 1901 8 18 4 65 18 9 1902 8 16 2 66 4 5 THE SUM OF THE INCREASED BURDEN. Taking the average shown by the above figures, the ratepayer, in 1894, paid to the London County Council in rates, £3 2s. 8d. ; in 1903, he paid £4 12s. 6d. In other words, the amount paid in rates by him rose, in nine years, £1 9s. lOd., or 46 per cent. (Note. — This increase is not inclusive of the rates of other authorities : it simply concerns the London County Council rate collected by the Borough Councils.) Progressive apologists for this serious state of affairs allege that the London ratepayer is not worse off than ratepayers 169 elsewhere. But the Local Government Board Report, 1902-3, pp. 724-728, states that the average amount, per head of popuhition, raised by rates in 1901, was : — London. Rest of England and Wales. £2 125. Od. £1 25. 6d. The average amount, per head of population, of debt was : London. Rest of England and Wales. £12 175. 9d. £9 65. 5d. THE EFFECT OF HIGH RATES. One important effect of high rates is to drive the better class of householder and many industrial concerns out of a highly-rated district into a less -rated area. Such a migration seriously damages the social and commercial status of the district abandoned. This outward movement has begun in London. How seriously the rise in rates affects commercial under- takings is shown by the figures in the Board of Trade Retiu^ns for 1892 and 1901 with regard to railways. In 1892, the receipts of the Companies amounted to £82,092,040 ; in 1901, to £106,558,815. But there was, in 1901, nothing extra available for dividends, though there was an increase of £24,000,000 in earnings. One reason for this was that the rates and taxes paid by the Companies had increased by £1,611,000 in nine years, or 68 per cent. Shareholders in all industrial undertakings should note that the ever-growing rates are a heavy tax on dividends. Another and, perhaps, more important consequence of high rates is the rise in the price of food, and all commodities sold by traders. This is a point not seen by the ordinary householder. Mr. Leonard Courtney, M.P., one of the economic experts consulted by the Royal Commission on 170 Local Taxation, thus describes the effect of rates on shops and trading premises. The rates on shops are borne by the customers. " For," says Mr. Courtney, " if these rates were removed, the trading profits would be "pro tanto increased, and the competition between those engaged in the trade and of others ready to enter into it would bring down prices, and thus secure the ultimate benefit passing to the customer. In like manner, if the rate is increased, the customer has eventually to pay for it by an increase in the price of the goods." Therefore, the question of the rates is of vital importance to all classes of the community, and, particularly, to the poor, who, not paying rates direct, think they are not affected. But heavy rates mean dearer food, dearer rent, and dearer everything. Every rise in rates means a rise in the necessaries of life. Mr. Charles Booth gives authoritative figures in his monumental work, " Life and Labour of the People of London," showing that a large mass of London's population lives on the verge of starvation. And every citizen ought to ponder the heavy taxation of food, and other necessaries of life, which has been brought about by Progressive increase of the rates. Is it right to drive the poor deeper into the abyss of poverty by increasing the cost of living, through the constant rise of the rates ? Ought not every local authority to balance the advantages of its civic expenditure against the undoubted burden thereby laid upon all classes ? The advantages of Progressive expenditure, in many respects, are by no means commensurate with the heavy sacrifice which has to be made by the smaller ratepayers. EXAMPLES OF EXTRAVAGANCE. The Progressive idea of governing London is to pour out money like water. And attention is directed particularly 171 to the huge losses in connection with the asylums work {see " Works Department " chapter) ; to the enormous increase of establishment charges— 1892-3, £97,703 ; 1903-4, £196,485 (estimated) ; and to expenditure in promoting and opposing Bills. A return, recently issued, set out all the expenses incurred by the London County Council in (a) promoting and (b) opposing Bills in Parliament in each session, up to and including the year 1902. The following table shows the total and the amount for each year : — — Amounts expended on promotions. Amount expended on oppositions. Total. 1889 £ s. d. 1,301 15 £ s. d. 4,728 2 £ s. d. 6,029 15 2 1890 9,795 10 3 4,752 1 4 14,547 11 7 1891 5,229 15 5 7,271 15 11 12,501 11 4 1892 9,146 14 9 2,750 4 1 11,896 IS 10 1893 10,499 13 4 3,177 6 7 13,676 19 11 1894 13,884 1 6,187 7 1 20,071 7 2 1895 25,640 15 11 732 18 3 26,373 14 2 1890 7,986 18 1 7,290 17 3 15,283 15 4 1897 14,942 1 2 3,924 3 18,866 4 2 1898 5,909 13 5 5,450 13 9 11,360 7 2 1899 21,893 8 6,611 13 10 28,505 1 10 1900 30,839 16 8 7,054 3 37,893 16 11 1901 13,663 9 7 5,212 2 18,875 12 1 1902 14,599 2 2 13,354 4 5 27,953 6 7 £185,332 13 10 £78,503 8 5 £263,836 2 3 172 It is to be noted that while the Council spent £78,503 in opposing Bills, its expenditure in promoting Bills was £185,332. The greater number of these Bills failed to pass. Looking at the failure of these Parliamentary proposals, the sums spent upon their promotion, and the character of the projects involved, the Council may rightly be accused of recklessness, if not of absolute infatuation. It must not be forgotten that much of this expenditure was directed against private trading — was, in fact, designed for the propagation of Municipal Socialism. In the present state of affairs, when Lord Rosebery tells us that we must cut down our reckless municipal extravagance when present and past Chancellors of the Exchequer and leading financiers view with alarm our huge municipal expen- diture, it behoves citizens to differentiate between expenditure on what is absolutely necessary, and on what is merely recreative, or for enterprises established at the risk of the community and often in competition with large classes of ratepayers. 173 PART II. LORD WELBY (Progressive Chairman of Finance Committee) ON THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE L.C.C. At an ordinary meeting of the Council for the Adminis- trative County of London, held on Tuesday, 17th November, 1903, the following speeches were made in the debate upon the proposal to hold a statutory meeting to consider the purchase of the undertaking of the London Southern Tram- ways Company : — LORD WELBY (Pijogressive Alderman— Chairman OF THE Finance Comimittee) : I am afraid that in following my hon. friend to-day, I shall be in this Council as the voice of one crying in the wilderness. But I do feel that it is so very important that the Council shall clearly understand what is the financial position before it commits itself to a further expenditure. I will venture to ask for a short time to tell the Council two or three reasons which will make me vote against A and B proposals now before us. First of all, I think I am at one with every member of the Council in desiring that the credit of the London County Council should be maintained at its present high position; I say at its present high position, because the credit of the London County Council, I am happy to say, stands at the moment second to that only of the State, and the first object of the Council must be to maintain that position. 174 PROGKESSIYE MAJORITY'S DISREGARD OF ORDINARY FINANCIAL PRUDENCE. But if we are to maintain that position we must act with ordinary financial prudence ; and it is on that point that I want particularly to impress upon the Council the present state of the financial position of the Council in relation to the money market. The fact of the matter is that the growing demands upon the Council are so great that I must say that the Council is outstripping the bounds of prudence. At the present moment we have, first of all, growing demands from the different local authorities and from the different Borough Councils. We have the demands which are urged upon us with the natural anxiety of committees that such work shall be efficient in the interests of London. But none of these bodies pay any attention to the fact that the money must be found to carry out these great and beneficent designs. I, for one, am as anxious as any member of the Council that these designs shall be carried out in order that the Metropolis may be made worthy of being the capital of the Empire, but at the same time if we, and if the Council is going to vote for every proposal put before it, without any considera- tion of, or relation to, the money-market demands, or the price at which we borrow money, then I say, within a very comparatively short time, the credit of the Council must be injured. Now I wffl repeat what I say, because I think it is of so very much importance that the Council should bear these figures in mind. Why is our credit so good as it is ? In the first instance, because we have got splendid security. But, in the next place, let us look back and see what the process of the Council has been in borrowing money in the past. For six years, the Council issued stock to the amount of £1,300,000 a year, and then came another three years in 175 which we borrowed at a figure slightly over £2,000,000 a year ; then we got forward to £3,500,000 a year, and in the last two years we have got to £5,000,000. Now we are going next year — I do not wish to lay down any particular figures — I have been carefully studying them, and I am very much afraid that when the commitments of the Council and its undertakings are considered we shall have to go next year for a loan in excess of that five millions. Therefore we have what the Council has before it, and what is more important to the public, the fact that the Council is constantly increasing its borrowings. NO FINANCIAL CONTROL. I am bound to say that the Council has never up to the present moment considered the amount which the Council might fairly borrow every year without turning the money market against it, or injuring its credit in the money market. At the present moment, the position in the money market is a very difficult and a very critical one. Just add to what I said before by carefully looking through the commitments of the Council. NO HOPE OF CURTAILMENT. I cannot foresee that next year, 1904-5, I can anticipate any great reduction for some time in the amount required. Now the position of the money market at the present moment is very peculiar. The position is this. If the Council will consider the matter fully they will see that the loans which the State requires, which the Colonies require, and the municipalities require, can only be met practically from one source, and that source is the savings of the people. Now 176 tliat at once will be made evident by the fact that if the Council goes back to the years 1896-7, before the South African War, we were borrowing at 2h per cent, all we required. Since then we have had the South African War, which has been an enormous expenditm-e, making necessary a very large issue in securities in the shape of Consols. But at the same time, whether this expenditure is undertaken on the part of the State, or is going to be undertaken by the Colonies or the municipalities, we are not relaxing on our part, and these commitments were continued, and have been a drain upon the limited amount of the savings of the people, until at last you have got into this position, that the market is fairly overstocked with these high-priced securities, and that it will take some time before even the money market takes a turn. Even if the State does not continue to be a large borrower, it will be some time before the savings of the people have reached an equilibrium with the demands upon the market, and during that time we shall have to pay, and must pay very dearly indeed, for the money we find, but, further than that, there is a point which makes and which tells rather against us, or against any municipality. There can be no doubt whatever, I think, for insufficient reason to a great extent, that municipal loans are not very favourably vievfed by the money market. There is a suspicion, and I do not say it is entirely without foundation, but I think it is very grossly exaggerated, that municipalities are extravagant, and, in consequence, a check ought to be put upon their borrowings. I say, therefore, without any fear of contra- diction that municipal loans are looked upon with a consider- able amount of jealousy in the market. HEAVr COST OF BORROWING. What is the significance of these facts I have laid before you ? First of all, the sums that we have to 177 borrow we shall have to pay an extravagant price for, and unless we are careful, if we let it get abroad and let it be believed that it is our policy to increase our loans year by year, without any financial prudence in the matter, we shall injure our credit. It has always been the interest of the Council, and it has been impressed upon us by our expert officers, that it is cheaper to buy land now than to postpone it four or five years. By incurring expenditure at the present moment it is in one sense cheaper than it would be if we did, sometimes out of financial prudence, put off some schemes for a short time. But that is a two- edged weapon. When we buy to-day it must be clear, I think, that the price we have to pay for that money, counterbalances — in fact, more than counterbalances — the saving made on this expenditure at the cheaper rates. Let me explain this for a moment to the Council. In 1896-7 we were borrowing at 2^ per cent. I have no hesitation in saying if we could borrow at 2| per cent, at the present moment we could borrow economically. I want the Council to bear that in mind, and also the fact that to-day a 2J per cent, is only worth about £80, so that for every £100 you now raise, and which you now borrow, the cost to the Council is something like £118. That increase in the price we pay for money is an additional cost to our expenditure, and it is a most important matter to be con- sidered. This matter has never, so far as I know, been before the Council, and I, for one, particularly want to impress upon the Council that there should be no extravagance in the future We, therefore, have to take into consideration these very heavy commitments of the next year. We have got no savings of the public which will be large enough to meet the demands, and it is upon these savings we rely. You may look upon the fact that next year when London goes to the market to borrow, first of all, we shall have to pay a very high price, and we only shall be able to continue M 178 these beneficent works at a very heavy cost, comparing unfavourably with the cost of the past. But further than that we may depend upon one thing, our loans — the prosperity of which has been a feature of our expenditure — will be very closely watched and examined in the City by the money market before they grant us those loans. Having said that I do not wish to detain the Council any longer. I want to say in the most forcible and emphatic manner I can, I do implore the Council to be prudent in the next few years in what it undertakes. Several Hon Councillors : Hear, hear. Lord Welby : I feel sure that unless we are prudent there will be a considerable check upon us, and I think the Council will regret it very deeply if, in the course of a year or two, we have a decided check upon our going to the money market. It will have a very bad effect upon our credit, and we shall all have to regret that, owing to the non-exercise of ordinary prudence at a very critical time, the credit of the London County Council received a check from which it will be some time before it recovers. Mr. BUHNS' dislike OF PRUDENT ADVICE. Mr. John Burns, M.P. (Battersea) : Mr. Chairman, I consider it is the business of a- finance chairman to preach prudence at every opportunity, and to advise economy where- ever he sees a chance of economy being practised. But I must frankly say that we have had lessons in economy and we have had sermons on prudence, and we have had preach- ments about extravagance during the last five or six months to an extent I do not think the facts warrant. It may be, as Lord Welby says, that money is tight. Several Hon. Councillors : Hear, hear. 179 COUNCIL NOT TO REGARD THE COST OF BORROAVING. Mr. Burns, M.P. : It may be that it is difficult for local authorities to get their money as easily as they did, but it is not the business of either the County Council or the local authorities outside the County Council to take to themselves the discredit of the lack of confidence and the difficulty that they have in getting money. It is entirely due to other causes, for which neither the Borough Councils nor the County Council can be held responsible. And Sir, when we are advised, as we are advised — because I note this significant fact, that we never have these sermons on economy except when more or less remunerative undertakings are to be considered. I agree absolutely with Mr. Campbell. What the opinion of the City is about the London County Council's work, in my opinion, is a matter of indifference. We must not defer to the City too much. The City is against us in nearly every- thing we do, and if the average man in the City — especially the financier — had had his way, from Lord Rothschild down- wards, the London County Council would be abolished, so, consequently, we have no right to be too deferential to the man in the City. But Mr. Campbell is absolutely right. At the back of our application, both for money and loans, is the rateable value of the City of London, and all our expenditure to improve the City of London, to make the City of London healthier and better than it is, which our money alone is spent in doing, enhances our credit and does not diminish it by a single penny. And when we are told that we are to be economical only when housing schemes are discussed — on housing, let us have the facts out about houses. I hear men preaching economy when housing schemes are in the wind. We have not lost a single penny by housing. On the contrary, we have both a gross and a nett profit on all our housing M 2 180 schemes, so, consequently, there is no loss of money or credit upon housing. Therefore, all the arguments of right honourable members, Sir Algernon West and Lord Welby, do not apply to housing. With regard to tramways generally, there is both a gross and a nett profit, as everyone knows, over our tramway undertakings. SOCIALISTIC PROTEST AGAINST ECONOMY. Therefore, the argument does not apply either to tram- ways or to housing, and what I protest against. Sir, respectfully, is that these sermons on economy ought to come up when non-remunerative expenditure is contemplated. Not a word about it on fire brigade to protect the City. Some portions of it deserve to be extinguished in the interests of commercial morality. Not a word on fire brigade, which is non-remunerative ; not a word on main drainage, or on parks, or on any of the non-remunerative branches of County Council expenditure. It is only when the London County Council touches the City by withdrawing from private enterprise and competition, such remunerative undertakings as both housing and tramways have been proved to be, that we are advised not to spend more money, and not to borrow more money than Lord Welby considers necessary. Lord Welby : If my honourable friend will allow me a word, I have never made any distinction between remunerative and unremunerative expenditiu-e. I have preached prudence on unremunerative as well as remunerative. My honoiu-able friend does me an injustice when he says that my sermons have been reserved only for remunerative expenditure. Mr. Burns, M.P. : There have been several. Sir. It is true that Mr. Bruce and Sir Algernon West did. I have got to take a comprehensive survey of these things. 181 Mr. Bruce : My point is entirely the question of raising capital. An Hon. Member : That is not a point of order. Mr. Bruce : As a matter of personal explanation, my point entirely is the question of raising capital. What that capital is to be, I do not enter into ; it is the payment for it I refer to. Mr. Burns, M.P. : Mr. Bruce has forgotten the text from which he preached ; I will not take much notice of that. But it is only when we deal with tramways, when we deal with housing, when we contemplate water or electric hght, that we hear these sermons about caution, economy and prudence. For instance, one of the speakers — I forget whether it was the Curate or the Vicar — but one of them referred to the municipal authorities contracting large loans. There, again, that is only an argument of the City, aimed at municipal trading and municipal enterprise by local authorities. What are the facts about that ? Local authorities throughout the United Kingdom have spent £88,000,000 of money in buying up 900 water works, about 250 gas works, about 120 electric light undertakings, and about 200 tramway concerns, and on that outlay of £88,000,000 of money, according to the return which I have in my hand, there has been a profit of £4,000,000 of money made. That is what is making the City howl. It is not our losses ; it is our profits. I know all about it. I could see the men who were cheering Lord Welby and Mr. Bruce this afternoon. Who are they ? They are either friends of the Industrial Freedom League or the London Municipal Society, or those who believe more in Clifton Robinson than in the London County Council. There is a di If ere nee between scratching your head and tearing your 182 scalp off, and both Sir Algernon West and Mr. Bruce have been engaged in that superfluous occupation this afternoon. And the tirade from the City about us being careful is due to what ? The City is envious because this is being transferred from the region of private speculation into municipal ownership, and they want to put a stop to the municipalisation of tramways, not because they are a burden on the rates, not because they are a convenience to the public, but because it withdraws from private enterprise a more substantial asset and security than they will ever get out of Johannesburg, or any other places that have caused this lack of confidence — not in Spring Gardens, but in Downing Street, over the road. A POLITICAL TIRADE TO SILENCE COMMON- SENSE. To hear Lord Welby this afternoon any one would think we had a broker's man in here. If he is here, he has come to the wrong place ; he ought to go to Downing Street or Brum. That is where the broker's man may be. Let us strip this mask from off the face of the City. We have spent as a country £250,000,000 direct on a wicked, wasteful, desolating war. Several Hon. Councillors : Hear, hear. Mr. Burns, M.P. : We are contracting loans at this moment to build tramways in Johannesburg, houses in Pretoria, water schemes in Kimberley, and whilst these places are to be blessed, London that has paid for this war, and has suffered for it, is to be deprived of its own water supply, its housing, and its tramway, simply because the City has bit off more than it could chew or digest. I object to Lord AVelby, or any other man, going through the streets of the 183 City and crying out stinking fish against the London County Council. The fish stinks at the head. The head is at 10, Downing Street, and the tail of it is at Birmingham. That is where the want of confidence is. You do not want to blame the Council for any extravagance. It is not extravagant in tramways and housing which we are discussing to-day. It is engaged in profitable work ; it is work that the people of London want, and I believe the Council would be wise if it passed this tramway this afternoon. And if you want to know the reason why money is scarce, why trade is bad, and why people are not taking up these gilt-edged securities, it is due to the fact that we have got a mischievous politician going up and down the country disturbing trade, dislocating business, shaking confidence ; and his friends in this Council this afternoon are trying to draw a red herring across the path by blaming the local authorities when it ought to be the Government, Mr. Cecil Rhodes, and Joe Chamberlain, and the City, who have brought this about. (Applause.) — {Verbatim Report.) A FURTHER WARNING. On December 22nd, 1903, Lord Welby complained that when he brought forward an amendment to a recommendation for capital expenditure a short time ago he got little encourage- ment. " It was not advisable that time after time it should be told to the world that the Council set its face against prudence and economy. With regard to bringing forward a statement of their commitments the difficulty liad been to obtain from the Standing Committees statements on which they could rely." — Standard, December 23rd, 1903. 1S4 TAXATION. of ground One promise made by the Radicals at every election is ues. u ^^ relieve the occupiers of their unjust burden " by means of the taxation of ground values. Radicals and Conservatives alike agree that the burden which now falls on the ratepayers is excessive, and that new sources of revenue for local purposes ought to be found. But Radicals, at municipal elections, make party capital out of this difficult problem of taxation, although Parliament alone has power to deal with it. for*Pariir "^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ Roscbery, when a candidate for the repre- ment, not scutatiou of the City of London on the London County Council for the "^ ... County in 1889, was asked to state his views with regard to the Council. . taxation of ground rents, and made the following reply : — " The County Council would have nothing to do with the taxation of ground rents. I shall be prepared to state my opinion on that point in the proper place, which is my seat in Parliament, but it is not a question for the County Council." — {Times, January 10th, 1889.) THE RECORD OF PROGRESSIVE FAILURES, 1889-1903. Progres- The record of Progressive attempts to produce a definite sive . . . ... failures, plan to Carry their theory into effect is one of mconsistent schemes, of long delays, and of invariable failure. The following is a short summary of their action : — Fruitless 3 Tinpfl I \ (\ Radical Ou Novcmbcr 3rd, 1892, the Council resolved to ask the ment. " Radical Government, then in power, to introduce a Bill 185 imposing a rate upon " ground values." No plan was sug- gested, and the Government did not introduce a Bill * {Minutes, 1892, p. 1014). In the followinor year a scheme for taxino; all receivers of T>e abor- o '^ ^ tive Bill rent, which, according to the Council's own resolution, was of i893. not " the most equitable method," was, after much con- troversy amongst the Progressives {Minutes, 1892, pp. 1165 and 1185), put forward in the Improvement Rate Bill, 1893. This Bill was introduced as a Private Bill, contrary to the advice of the Council's legal advisers {Minutes, 1892, p. 1014), and on February 9th, 1893, the Speaker of the House of Commons decided that it was wrongly introduced, and must be withdrawn. The ratepayers' money spent in promoting the Bill was thus absolutely wasted. F On January 16th, 1894, the Local Government Com- Disagree- . . ment mittee presented a totally different scheme for taxing ground among . . . Progres- values, in the form of sixteen recommendations. But not one sives. of the recommendations was adopted by the Council, because the Progressive majority could not agree upon any of them. Nothing further was attempted for over four years, but Delays in produciug on July 12th, 1898, the leader of the Progressive party ob- new Bin. tained, without opposition, a reference to committees " to prepare and submit to the Council a Bill, to be introduced in the forthcoming Session of Parliament," for obtaining a direct contribution from owners of ground values. * Not only difl the Radical Government not introduce any such measure, but by their Budget Bill of 1894 they very largely increased the taxation upon land without assigning one penny of the largo additional sums thus raised to relief of the rates. The Progressive Council is largely to blame for this, as by its resolution of November 29th, 1892, it pronounced a Municipal Death Duty not to be tlie most equitable method of relieving the ratepayers, and insisted upon theoretical proposals for taxing " ground values." 180 But the forthcoming Session (1899) came and departed and no Bill was ever submitted to the Council* On August 1st, 1899, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee asked for further time to prepare a Bill (having had a year), which was granted on the condition, proposed by Unionists, that a Bill should be presented before February, 1900. No Bill was then presented, and on October 23rd, 1900, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, and Pro- gressive whip, said that the Committee had not had time to prepare the Bill. THE SHAM BILL OF THE PROGRESSIVES (1900). Jr™ons npj^g -g-jl ^^g ^^ j^g^ (December 18th, 1900) presented. It was entitled the Site Values (London) Rating Bill, and provided that every Assessment Committee was to appoint a site valuer for its parish or union, who was to prepare a state- ment showing the site value of each hereditament, and the proportionate amounts in which each such site value was enjoyed by the various persons (if more than one) interested in each hereditament, but it laid down no rules to guide the valuer in fixing the site values, and did not define the persons on whom the rate was to he levied. " Site value " w^as defined as follows : — (a) In the case of any hereditament wliich consists of land which is advertised or intended or suitable to be used for building purposes, the annual rent which an owner in fee might reasonably be expected to obtain for the hereditament under a building lease for a term of not less than eighty years, without any fine, premium, consideration or restriction, other than the usual covenants on the part of the lessee * In the course of a debate on improvements, on June 27th, 1899, two remark- able suggestions were thrown out by Progressive Councillors. Sir Arthur Arnold suggested that the best way of bringing about the taxation of ground values was to increase the rates. Mr. John Burns, M.P., said he was asked, " What aboiU the taxation of ground values? Well, they had got to transfer that struggle from an administrative body to the legislative and Imperial bod3%" — {London Municipal Notes, June 28th, 1899.) 187 to build, to bear the cost of repair and other expenses, if any, necessary for main- tenance, and to bear all rates and taxes in respect of such hereditament properly bearable by him, and the tithe commutation rent-charge, if any, payable in respect thereof. (r) In the case of any other hereditament, such part of the gross annual value for the time being thereof as shall be attributable exclusively to the site thereof, or if the whole of such gross annual value be attributable exclusively to the site thereof the whole of such gross annual value. Every Borough Council was to obtain from all persons (from the freeholder down to the occupier) interested in any hereditament within its borough particulars as to their res- pective interests, and any person failing to make returns was to be liable to penalties. The site value rate was to be 25. in the pound on each site value shown in the valuation list. This rate was to be collected from the occupier, but he would be entitled to deduct from the next rent he paid an amount equivalent to his payment for such rate. The person receiving such rent was (unless he was the freeholder) to deduct from his next payment of rent any amount deducted in respect of such rate from the rent he received, and so on. The site value rate was to be divided between the County Council and the Borough Council. The Bill also provided for persons proving " inability through poverty " to pay the site value rate to be excused payment by magistrates. This Bill challenged criticism on several grounds : — objectioDs (1) The mode of assessment adopted had already been provisions, condemned by the Town Holdings Committee of the House condemned J . . . . '^y Town of Commons as "impracticable," and, in its application to Holdings ^ ^ ^ Coaimittee existino; contracts, as "unfair." {Vide infra.) and by '" economists (2) It had also been condemned by some of the most on the eminent economical authorities on the Progressive side. Thus, sive'side. at a meeting of the London County Council, on January Kith, 1894, the late Lord Fairer said : — Witli regard to the possibility, by means of experts, of valuing site apart from buildinps . . . T wi;sh ycju to remember that you have to operate in this case. 188 with very rough instruments, viz., the Assessment Committees. They are not experts, and, so far as I know, they judge of the value of one house by what is given for its neighbour, and so on. But suppose you call in an expert. When you call in an expert he has scientific rules, founded on long experience, which have become absolutely established formulce. But what is an expert in this matter of valuation ? He is a man accustomed to buj^ing and selling. He knows the operations of buying and selling, and what is the value of a thing in the market. The value of a thing in the market, after all manner of abstruse calculation, is what I can get for it, and what an exjiert knows is what has been got and what is got for certain property. Now, is it just for persons to separate the land from the buildings, and no experts called in for each to enable them to advise as to the value in the case of every house in London ? What amount of value is to be put on the site, and what amount of value upon the land ? That is the doubt Ave had in the first Local Taxation Committee, and I confess that that doubt is not yet removed. — {The L.C.C. Debates, published by Wyman & Sons, Vol. II., No. 1, p. G.) And at a meeting of the London County Council, on November 3rd, 1891, Lord Hobhouse presented a report of the Local Government Committee, in which the separate assessment of site values was criticised as follows : — We think that if Assessment Committees are ever to work such a plan, there must first be a professional valuation of reasonable accuracy, and that such a valuation for the 600,000 houses of London would take long and cost much. Assuming that it can be done, there must be much difficulty in it. A building and its site are thought of, seen, used, and dealt with in markets, public or private, as one entire thing. The market is the general criterion of value. Assessment Committees work by their local knowledge. They know what rack-rents and prices are actually got in the market, on leases and sales of houses and sites combined, in their neighbourhood. Their knowledge does not extend to hypothetical commodities, such as a site with a house on it but supposed to be Avithout one. . . A house without a site is inconceivable, is only old materials, and to have an annual value at all it must have a right of continuing to stand where it is. If a site is without a house, the first thing wanted is to build a house on it, and that is a costly operation, which, whether performed by owner or lessee, absorbs the annual value for many years. — (Report of Local Government and Taxation Committee of i London County Council, dated June 26th, 1891, pp. 3, 4.) It affected (3) The Committee's proposal was not one for taxing the lease- . holders " unearned increment in the hands of the ground landlords, ground but for taxing all receivers of rent. The popular impression is that the ground landlords are the persons to be taxed, whereas the persons who would have been most largely affected 189 by the Bill are owners of leasehold ground rents, who have no interest in the land except their rent-charge, and leaseholders generally. The Local Government Committee of the London County Council reported in 1894 {Minutes, 1894, p. 14), that " of the whole rent which is now paid in London for the advantages of sites, only a comparatively small fraction is in the hands of the ultimate owner of the freehold estate." (4) The Bill left the proportionate amounts to be paid it supplied by the persons in receipt of rent to be ascertained by each guide the valuer without any rules for his guidance. This course, which would obviously involve serious discrepancies in assessments followed by a host of appeals, was adopted because the Pro- gressives are hopelessly divided among themselves with regard to the principle of division among the ownership interests, and are unable, as a party, to produce any definite scheme.* All the schemes hitherto produced by the conflicting sections of the Progressives would have yielded absurd results. These results would not be avoided, though they might for the time be obscured, by the proposal to leave all difficulties to the valuers. (5) Most experts are agreed that the ultimate incidence No uiti- j of the rates is upon the owners of property. The London benefit ! County Council's own valuer has expressed the opinion, based ratepayers, upon special experience, that " the burden of rates falls * The divergence between the two Progressive schools may be shown by the following example given by the valuer of the Council to illustrate the difference between the two schemes prepared by them. Each scheme prescribes rules of deduction which authorise payers of rent to deduct the site value rate (which is collected from the occupier), or some part of it, from rent paid. The rate is taken at one shilling in the £. No. 6, TICHBORNE STREET (now demolished). Rateable Value ......... £250 Site Value. £130 Amount to be levied ........ £G lOs. 190 Immediate effect upon small investors. entirely upon the owners of property, and for the most part upon the owners of land." If this view is correct, the Bill would ultimately confer no benefit whatever on the ratepayers, as the burden of local taxation would be borne by the same persons that have to bear it now. (6) The persons who would suffer most by the application of the Bill to existing contracts would be the vast class of small investors, whose aggregate property in ground rents exceeds that of the great owners. Evidence was given before the Town Holdings Committee, in April, 1891, that there are hundreds of thousands of the industrial and middle classes who have small savings invested in ground rents through the instrumentality of benefit and insurance societies, besides Interest. Rent. Net pajoncnt for Site Value Rate under two schemes. Received. Paid. Scheme One. Scheme Two. A Occupying Lessee, 7 years from 1866 B Lessee, 20| years from 1866 C Lessee, 21 years from 1865 D Building Lessee, 72 years from 1843 E Freeholder . . £ s. d. Nil. 250 16.3 3 140 17 10 £ s. d. 250 163 140 17 10 Nil. £ s. d. Nil. 4 7 1 3 2 6 17 6 £ s. d. Nil. Nil. Nil. 5 12 6 17 6 It will be observed that B in the above example would have to pay £4 7s, out of a total levy of £6 10s., or about two-thirds of the entire amount, under one scheme, but nothing under the other ; while D (really the principal beneficial owner) would have to pay £5 r2s. 6d. under one scheme, but only 2s. 6d. under the other ! This essential difference between the advocates of the " Site Value " system points to some inherent defects in the system itself. This may be found in the proposed valuation of the site of a house as if no house existed thereon. It is impossible to devise any general rules by which the capital value of a site so ascertained can be equitably apportioned amongst the actual rents fixed and being paid in respect of the whole property (house and site) as it stands. 191 innumerable private investors and trustees wlio purchase ground rents as a safe investment, and can ill afford to be victimised by extra taxation. These persons cannot prove " inability through poverty " to pay, and they would lose one -tenth of their incomes, with a proportionate fall in the capital value of their investments, under the Bill. In 1901 the Site Values (London) Eating Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, too late to have the slightest chance of making any progress. Nothing more has been done with the Bill. THE BILL ABANDONED. In the following year, at a meeting of the London County ^he Bin ^ '^ '^ ' abandoned Council on March 4th, the Parliamentary Committee presented in i902. a recommendation that steps should be taken for the re- introduction of the Bill, but an amendment was carried to the effect that the Council re-affirms its opinion on the subject of the taxation of ground rents, and instructs the Local Govern- ment and Taxation Committee to report to the Council as soon as possible upon the proposals contained in the minority report of the Eoyal Commission. — {Times, March 6, 1902.) STILL NO BILL: ONLY "AN ELECTION CRY." At a meeting of the London County Council on December i903: An _, ,. , ^ -n 1 1 • f ' "Election 1st, 1903, a Radical Councillor moved a resolution reierring to cry." the resolution carried in the previous year, and expressing the opinion that the subject should again be brought before Parliament without further delay. The mover of the resolution ''frankly admitted that this was an election cry ''^ {Daily Chronicle, Dec. 2, 1903), but an amendment proposed by two Conservative Councillors to the effect that, "' in view of the 192 ever-increasing charge on the London ratepayers, the Gov- ernment be invited to take into immediate consideration the proposals contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation for the relief of rates, and to introduce measures of reform without delay," was rejected and the resolution was carried. — {Times, Dec. 2, 1903.) Thus the Progressive majority are still unable to produce any practical scheme of their own, but are still resolved to keep the subject to the front as an "Election Cry," and to oppose the practical proposals made by Conservative Councillors. ACTION OF UNIONIST GOVERNMENTS, While the Progressives on the London County Council have been occupied in propounding general proposals which they have failed to embody in any workable scheme, the Unionist party in Parliament has been promoting impartial inquiries into the problems of local taxation with a view to practical legislation. The Town Lord Salisbury's Government of 1886-92 re-appointed Committee, the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Town Holdings, with instructions to inquire, inter alia, " into the question 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." The Report of this Committee, presented in May, 1892, at the close of an inquiry extending through nearly seven sessions, and after hearing an immense amount of evidence, states that " no sufficient cause has been shown for interfering with existing contracts relating to the payment of rates, and the methods proposed to the Committee for altering such contracts would be unfair, and would inflict injury without any com- pensating benefit," but recommends, as regards future contracts, 193 a division of rates between the occupier and the various ownership interests. It also states that " the proposals made to the Committee for a distinct annual assessment on reversions, according to their present values, and for the separate assessment of ground values and building values, are im- practicable " ; that " the proposal to rate vacant building land on its capital value is a total departure from the existing basis of local taxation, and would be practically very difhcult in operation " ; and that " the proposal to rate reversions upon their present values is also open to the same objections." It has long been felt that no reform of the present system Defects of of local taxation will be satisfactory which does not bring system. under contribution those forms of property which now escape all local burdens.* The need of dealing with the problem on these broad lines has been asserted on several occasions by the late Prime Minister. Thus at Birmingham, on November 24th, 1891, the late Lord SaHsbury said : — I have always entertained the opinion, and expressed it for many, many years, Speeches that our rating system is singularly ineffective and imperfect, and that we do not ° .°J^ draw into the taxation — wliich is to do work in which the whole community is interested, — we do not draw all kinds of property into that taxation. I should * The late Mr. Costelloe, who was the Progressive Chairman of the Local Government Committee of the I^ondon County Council, in his evidence before the House of Commons Committee on Town Holdings, on August 1st, 1890, after explainina^ his scheme of a Municipal Death Duty, said: "If . . . anyone objects that the scheme I have suggested would be putting a considerable tax upon persons who may have invested in incomes, limited or otherwise, to be derived out of land, and that that would place them on a diffcTent footing from those who live on the produce of stock, or on dividends, T can only say tliat I am quite willing to join in levelling the latter up ; and I think it is beyond doubt that they now pay far too little."— (iJepor/ ToAvn Holdings, 1890, p. .^lO.) The Progressives, iiowever, have always opposed any reform in this direction. On the other hand, the Conservatives, at the County Council, in January, 1894 {Minutes, j). 17). supported an amendment expressing the ojjinion that " the necessary revision of taxation should be in the direction of making personal property as well as real property bear a fair share of local expenditure," N 194 be very glad to see that anomaly corrected. I believe that the exclusive operation of the law of rating tends to discourage the building of small houses in towns and on the outskirts of towns, and that, therefore, it is a great evil, and is adding to the difficulties, which we already feel so much, of housing the more necessitous part of our popvdation. The only thing that you have to guard against is that this particular grievance, which is the real one, should not be made the occasion or opportunity for the gratification of some particular class or political antipathy. If the question of all the interests in land being brought under the net of the rate collector is raised, then I quite admit that if you think it necessary to raise that question it will be a very difficult and thornj^ one, and that there is a great deal of logic on that side. But you must bring in the mortgagee and debenture-holder as well as the ground rent owner or else you will not do justice. And at Newport, Monmouthshire, on November 29th, 1893, the late Lord Salisbury said : — There is no doubt that the present rating law, originally made .300 years ago, and strangely altered by judicial decisions since, has had this effect — that it only leaves a very small proportion of tlie property of the country liable to support the demands that are placed upon the rates. I have no desire myself to disturb any arrangement which is consecrated by long usage, and of which, consequently, the difficulties are well known and can be avoided ; 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 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 yorir attention must be directed. ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL TAXATION, Royal Coir- In Order that the whole question might be thoroughly missioQ on . . Local investigated, Lord Salisbury's Government appointed a Royal Taxation ..,,... i i • i Commission to mquire into the present system under which taxation is raised for local purposes and report whether all kinds of real and personal property contribute equitably to such taxation, and if not, what alterations in the law are desirable in order to secure that result." This Commission collected a large mass of evidence, and presented in 1899 195 an interim report recommending a scheme to secure greater uniformity in valuation, and in 1901 a final report [C. — G38] dealing with the whole question and containing an elaborate series of recommendations. The grievances of ratepayers are thus summarised : — (1) Complaint is made on behalf of ratepayers in general that there is thrown Grievances on the rates too much of the cost of certain national services wliich the ^ „„ " payer? . State requires to be undertaken, and the burden of which, it is alleged, ought consequently to be borne on the broader back of the taxpayer. (2) Complaint is made on behalf of ratepayers in certain districts that tlie burden of these ser\nces is heavier than in other districts. (3) Complaint is made that local expenditure is met in too large a measure by what is in effect a tax le%aed in respect of the occupation of rateable property, or. in other words, that sufficient variety has not been given to the means by which the revenue required by Local Authorities is raised. (4) Complaint is made that those who possess and enjoy property not rateable are placed in too favourable a position as compai'ed \nth the owniers and occupiers of rateable property. (5) Complaint is made on behalf of special classes of ratepa,yers [e.g., those interested in agriculture and in certain industries and trades) that, inas- much as they require for their business an amount of rateable property very large in proportion to their general abihty, an undue share of local burdens is imposed upon them, as compared with persons who neither own nor occupy any rateable property except their own residence. It is felt especially strongly tliat the increase of an onerous rate falls with great inequality. (6) Complaint is made by urban ratepayers and latepayers othei' than agri- cultural in agi'icultural districts that, relief having been given under the Agricultural Rates Act to agricultural ratepayers, no corresponding relief has been given to urban ratepayers, or to ratepayers other than agricultural in agricultural districts. (7) Complaint is made on l)ehalf of urban ratepayei-s that all the rates are paid by occupiers and none by the owners of land (at least directly), aUhougli the oAvners of land benefit largely by the development of towns and by expenditure from the rates on improvements. Some of these complaints are pronounced to be contra- dictory and some shadowy, but, on the whole, it is agreed that relief ought to be given, following the principle that the distinction should be maintained in local expenditure between n2 196 national or onerous services, on the one hand, and local or beneficial services, on the other. Poor relief, police and criminal prosecutions, education, and the maintenance of main roads are held to belong predominantly to the former class, though, in practice, the two classes shade off into one another. But to furnish a remedy measured by the " ability " of the contributory class is difficult. Some suggested methods — such as a local income tax and a local house duty — are put aside as impracticable. The general conclusion is : — Methods Slimming up the various considerations to which we have adverted in this ■ chapter, we conclude that, in general, the funds for national services ought to be raised in accordance with the principle of ability. This principle might be secured to a great extent by transferring them wholly to the Central Government ; but such a sohition of the problem is out of the question on practical grounds. On the other hand, no mere readjustment of burden within each locality would meet the demands of equity. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that the grievances Avhich we have set forth cannot be remedied without either a direct contribution from the Exchequer or the extension and development of the system of assigned revenues which has been in existence since 1889. Personalty Thcsc alternative policies — the first being that advocated quateiy by Sir E. Hamilton and Sir G. Murray, while the latter is that '^ ^'^^ ■ to which the majority of the Commissioners adhere — form the centre of the discussion. From this point of view the develop- ment of Lord Goschen's policy is analysed in the majority report. It is contended that, after all the modifications introduced, personalty is still inadequately charged for local purposes as compared with realty. While personal property subject to Imperial taxation is about three times as great as real property so chargeable, the non-rateable property contributes to local objects — if elementary education be ex- cluded — only a little over 6 per cent, of the whole expenditure, Ren-edies while nearly 83 per cent, falls on the rates. To remedy this oSLcl'i inequality in some measure it is suggested that there should be an increased payment from the Death Duties on personalty for local purposes ; that the transfer of 197 trading licences and of establishment licences should be made complete and power given to increase their amount ; and that the local assignment of the beer and spirit surtaxes should be maintained. With regard to new imposts, the transfer of the land tax in aid of the local revenues is rejected, as the charge has become complicated and unequal through the working of redemption. The assignment of a fixed portion of the income tax is said to be " deserving of favourable consideration." The transfer of the existing Inhabited House Duty from the Imperial to the local account is recommended. After reviewing the objections, the Report says : — • It is clear that, speaking generally, the localities on which this tax falls most Transfer of heavily are the most highly rated urban districts, and we think it wrong to assume ^'i^o'tea •^ , , ; . . House that the tax would be distributed " in proportion to the value of the inhabited Duty liouses of the better class." In many districts, especially in rural districts, the ''J^^ houses which escape the tax are of a better class than houses on which the burden of the tax is very severely felt in other districts, and, if we are right in om' conclusion that the tax is one which it is unjust to levy for Imperial purposes on a limited class of persons somewhat arbitrarily selected, we see no injustice in handing it over to the relief of the rates of the districts in which these persons live. Moreover, the Inhabited H oii.se Duty is a graduated tax, paid at higher rates in the case of houses . exceeding certain values ; it is levied at lower rates on farmhouses, publichouses, I shops, warehouses, and lodging-houses, and houses not of the annual value of £20 are exempt from it altogether. It therefore affords an excellent means of adjusting the disproportionate pressure upon the smaller occupiers, which, as we have above observed, is one of the imsatisfactory features of the existing system. We do not propose, hoAvever, that local authorities should have power to alter the amount i or the incidence of the tax. ' While it is contended that the State should contribute Larger state more largely in aid of local burdens under the " assigned subven- revenues " plan, it is acknowledged that central control must be exercised and that assistance must be " made dependent on • compliance with conditions designed to secure efficiency and to prevent extravagance." Modifications to secure this object more certainly are suggested. But the main feature 198 in the yection devoted to the relieJ: oi" rates is the enumeration of the increased " grants " — to use this term with some laxity — that are required and tlie supplementary grants that are claimed. To the former belong the existing Poor Law grants, the pauper lunatics maintenance grant, and the police grant ; to the latter a pauper lunatic accommodation grant, grants for Poor Law children and for sick and infirm in v/orkhouses, for residual Poor Law outlay, and for maintaining main roads. It is proposed also that the whole cost of criminal prosecutions and the conveyance and maintenance of prisoners should be borne by the State. The issue of more explicit directions as to the expenditure on technical education and the simplification of the local taxation accounts complete this part of the scheme. The financial result works out thus : — The '' assigned revenues " in 1899-1900 from local taxation, licences, death duties and beer and spirits (excluding the relief under the Agricultural Rates Act) yielded £7,145,018. The local taxa- tion budget, as modified by the recommendations of the Report, involves an expenditure of £9,715,000, of which nearly one half is made up of Poor Law grants, more than two millions for police, &c., a million for main roads, and an equal sum as free surplus for expenditure by the councils. The State would thus have to furnish additional revenues to the extent of £2,570,000 a year, to be provided in some of the ways suggested. Exemp. As to exemptions from rating, the Report maintains that kating. they are " inadvisable " and should on no account be extended, but does not recommend their abolition where granted by Act of Parliament and made the basis of existing arrange- ments. The objections to the system of compounding for rates are admitted, but it is not held practicable to abolish the system in the case of small tenancies with weekly rents. 199 The recommendations as to the rating of special prt)perties — machinery, railways, gasworks, mines, &c. — go largely into technical details. With regard to the rating of machinery the conclusion is : — Having regard to all the history and circumstances of the ease, we are of opinion that the adoption of the projwsals contained in the Bill introduced into the House of Commons in 1899, as to the class of machinery which should be taken into accoimt in estimating the rateable value of premises containing machinery, would be a fair solution of this difficult problem. These proposals exclude the classes of machinery which, in our opinion, it is desirable should be exempted. The law as to what machinery should be included in the assessment of premises containing it would also be more precise ; greater uniformity in practice among Assessment Committees would be secured, and the probabiUty of htigation lessened. We therefore recommend that in estimating the rateable value of any heredita- ment occupied for trade, business, or manufacturing purposes, there shall be excluded from the assessment any increased value arising from machines, tools, or appliances Avhich are not fixed or are only so fixed that they can be removed from their jjlace ■v\ithout necessitating the removal of any ))art of the hereditament. But the valuo of any macliinery, machine or plant used in or on the hereditament for producing or transmitting first motive power, or for heating or lighting the hereditament, should be included. FINDINGS OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIONERS ON THE RATING OF LAND VALUES. In Chapter IX. of their final report, the Commissioners Ground deal with proposals for the rating of land values. They find aheady that, inasmuch as the value of the land is included in the valuation of the rateable hereditament as a whole, ground rents and feu duties are already taxed, a conclusion which appears to them to be equally applicable to all the other varying contractual interests in the land upon which it is proposed that some new and special burden should be placed. They also find that the real as opposed to the apparent incidence of local taxation in towns falls partly upon the owner of the land, partly upon the house owner, and partly upon the occupier, and that it is impracticable to lay down 200 any general rule as to the proportions in whicli the burden is distributed, or to determine it in individual cases. And they see no reason to believe that there are any special benefits to the landowners from expenditure incurred by local author- ities which the landowners are not practically called upon Objection to bear whenever new rents are fixed. Turning to the various valuation schcmcs placed before them for the separate valuation of and land and buildings, the Commissioners think that, although mgs. ^^ cannot be said that it would be impossible to assign separate values to site and structure, especially where a comparison could be made with neighbouring property of a similar character which had been recently let, such a system would certainly be attended with considerable uncertainty, complication and expense. They point out that the valuation of every site, upon the basis of the rent which might be obtained for it if it were cleared, would be highly speculative where no means of comparison was ready at hand, and even where such means existed many varying factors, such as rights of light, and the existence of easements, and other restrictive covenants, would have to be allowed for, and the circumstances of the surrounding property closely investigated. As the term for which a lease was granted approached its termination, further difficulties would arise, especially where the capacity of the site might not be fully utilised by the buildings then standing. When all these questions had been considered, the results would be so hypothetical in character that a large number of appeals and attendant expense would be inevitable. Any further departure from the basis of fact, and the consequent extension of the element of hypothesis in the valuation of property, is obviously to be avoided if practicable, and they are unable to concur in the view expressed by the various supporters of the scheme, that the ends which they respec- tively have in view would justify the introduction of an admittedly difhcult and intricate system which would certainly 201 result in I'urtlier inequalities of valuation as between one ratepayer and ilnother. They (.-amiut I'diK'ur iu the suggestion that it would bo L'([uitablo to select laud as a particular class of property and place on it a burden in addition tj that which it bears in couunon with all otlicr rateable properties. 8ucli a proposal does not appear to them to be justified upon eitlier of the two grounds which have hitherto formed the basis of our system of local taxation, since — Neither in respect of their ability to pay, nor of the benefits which they receive, does it appear to us that the owners of land values, using the term in its widest sense, contribute inequitably to local expenditure at the present time, as compared with the owners of othei' classes of rateable property. It would be difficult, in their opinion, to maintain any effective distinction between sites which have increased and sites w^hich have diminished in value ; but, even if it were possible, land is not the only class of rateable property the value of which may be enhanced by circumstances beyond the influence or control of its owners, and they see no reason why, by reason of such enhancement of value, it should be placed in a new and separate category so far as rating is concerned. In any case, however, it is obvious that, if a special burden is to be imposed on land, on the ground of any increase of its value, the object could not be equitably met by the imposition of a new rate on site value from year to year. The extent of such increase varies not only as between district and district, but as between different parts of the same district, and in some cases there is either no increase at ail, or a diminution of value. The imposition of a new rate of any given amount upon the anniuil value of all property in land would, therefore, bring into existence new inequalities of liability, unless measures were taken to differentiate not only between district and district, but between property and property — " an obligation which, in our opinion, could not be satisfied by any possible modification of the 202 c^ntSs ^^i^ting rating machinery." A further difficulty arises in considering the manner in which existing contracts shoiiki be dealt with. The Commissioners See no justification for allowing existing contracts to be broken for the benefit of occupiers who have not shown that, as between themselves and the owners, those contracts arc unjust. Trustees and others have purchased ground rents on the faith of contracts that the occupiers should pay all rates on the properties A\hith secure the ground rents, and all such persons Avould be injuriously affected by the proposed schemes, for the benefit of occupiers who, through their represen- tatives, incur and control the expenditure which falls on the rates. Other advocates of the special tax proposed have, howevei', expressed their desire to leave such contracts undisturbed in any manner whatever, the result being that large numbei-s of oHTiers who have accepted fixed rents for fixed periods, extending to 99 and 999 years, or even in perpetuity, on condition that their lessees shall bear all rates and taxes, would be entirely unaffected by the proposal. The new tax would, in such cases, fall to be borne by the lessees, who are not only already rated to the full extent of the enhanced value of the property, but whose interest in it is often gradually diminishing in value, both by reason of the effluxion of time and the growth of waste and dilapidations. The case of a purchaser of a 99 years' lease of a house, subject to a ground rent, may be cited as a case in point. Large numbers of such leases have been purchased in recent years through the instrunientahty of building societies and other provident o)'ganizations. The value of the hereditament to the lessee increases but slowly, his capital outlay should be replaced, and the lessor's claim for dilapidations will ultimately fall to be met. It would be difficult in such cases to reconcile the lessee to the justice of imposing upon him a new and special tax, from which the lessor would be exempted by reason of the existence of a contract having still a long term to run, and a particular form of thrift whicli Parliament . has in the past done much to protect and promote would be seriously prejudiced. Concluding their observations on this subject, the Com- missioners remark that — The advocates of what would be in effect a new land tax, to be applied in aid of local expenditure, have failed to convince us that it would be equitable to select a particular class of rateable property for the imposition of a new and special burden. No new tax on land appears to us to be required to meet any special expenditure incurred by local authorities for its benefit, nor does land differ so essentially from other property, as regards the alteration of its value from time to time, as to justify it being rated exceptionally. In any case it would, we believe, be impracti- cable to ascertain what that alteration may be — a problem which must of necessitj' be solved if the tax is to be of equal incidence ; whilst the practical difficulties of ascertaining even the annual value of what is one element only in the value of the 203 rateable hereditament, and of paying due regard to tlie existence of contracts having eitliei' a j)erjK'tual existence or a long term of run, eonstitut'^, in our judgment, additional reasons against any alteration of our rating system in tli'j direction proposed. This chapter of tlie Report is signed by Earl Cawdor, Sir John Hibbert, Mr. Btuart-Wortley, K.C., M.P., Mr. C. N. Dalton, C.B., Mr. C. A. Cripps, K.C., M.P., Mr. Harcotirt E. Clare, Mr. T. H. Elliott, C.B., Mr. E. Orford Smith, and Mr. John L. Wharton, M.P. Two MINORITY JIE PORTS also deal with the subject. One, signed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Lord Blair Balfour, Sir Edward Hamilton, Sir George Murray, and (with reservations) Mf. James Stuart, confirms some of the most important findings of the majority. The minority say that " the making of a contract for a lease The scheme . -. .of the or tenancy is, on the whole, a transaction carried out in a London deliberate manner, on business principles," that " intending council tenants do take the rates into account," that ''the scheme by the of division of rates must be rejected as a whole," and that asTd/as neither the scheme of the London County Council for the majority separate rating of site values nor the rival scheme proposed couiinis- byMr. Fletcher Moulton "is workable or equitable." Their ^^°'^^'^^' " main objection to botli these schemes, and to others like them, is that they impose a burden upon the rents which tenants have covenanted to pay free of all rates, and which have in many cases been purchased by investors in the open market on that understanding. . . . Legislation enabling occupiers to violate the contracts which they have deliberately made, and to escape the obligations which they have solemnly undertaken, would be, in our opinion, indefensible. We could admit no compromise on this matter of principle." They Recom- ■^ ... meiidations suggest, however, that a valuation of sites should be made, of the minority. and that special site value rates should be levied alongside 204 of the existing rates. They regard the question of the party on whom the rate is to be charged as one of sentiment and temporary convenience, but they are " disposed to recom- mend that under future contracts the site vahie rate should be charged partly on owners and partly on occupiers," and that " the rate should be collected in the first place from the person at present liable to pay rates, and no deduction should be permitted from rents fixed under existing contracts ; but the share of the rate chargeable on owners should be deducted from all rents hereafter fixed, and all agreements to the contrary should be declared of no effect." They admit that the effect would be, to a limited extent, to increase the burden upon occupiers, and suggest that the new charge should be counterbalanced by further relief to be granted in the shape of increased subventions. They further propose that " the purposes for which the site value rate might be raised should in the first place be defined by Statute," that these purposes " should be strictly limited to expenditure tending to increase directly the value of urban land," and that " the rate in the £ of the new impost should be strictly limited by Parliament." The other minority Report is signed only by Judge O'Connor, K.C., who takes the view that all local rates should be borne by " the land interests of the locality," but agrees that " equity requires that all existing contracts should be absolutely respected." LEGISLATION PROMISED BY MR. BALFOUR'S GOVERNMENT. Legislation The present G overnment are pledged to introduce legislation promise . ^j^^j^j^g ^j^|^ ^^^ wliole subjcct of local taxation. In the debate in the House of Commons on the Urban Site Value Rating Bill, on February I9th, 1902, the Secretary to the Local Government Board said : — 205 Tf the question was to be touched, it ought to be touched by the Government, and the Government would deal with it. He was not at liberty to say how the Government would deal with it, but he was perfectly certain that there would not be found in any Government measure any proposal to deal with things, not as they were, but as they might be, or to take such a solid and substantial thing as a house, and say it was to be regarded as if it were not where it stood. — (Hatisard.) Again, in the debate in the House of Commons on the Land Values Assessment and Rating Bill, on March 27th, 1903, the Secretary to the Local Government Board said : — The real solution was to obtain contributions from other forms of property than the form which was now rated, and the passing of the Bill would onlj' delay the steps which the Government would shortly liave to take for the reconsideration of the whole question of the incidence of the taxation. — [Hansard.) RECOUPMENT v. BETTERMENT. The evidence given by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre in April, 1899, Mr. shaw- Lefevre oil before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the recoup- County Council Improvements Bill of that year, amounted to better- a striking vindication by a Radical leader of a principle which the Unionist party has steadily maintained and the Progressives have as steadily resisted. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre said " he had carefully considered the relations between the betterment principle and recoupment. He had never recom- mended betterment as a substitute for recoupment. In any "puhlic 'improvement he had alivays regarded recoupment as the best piode of getting the increment of value arising from, the improvement in aid of the cost of the scheme. But there were other cases in which betterment was the best plan." The words in italics state the position of the Conserva- The tive party exactly. Everyone agrees that, when property can ti°v°e^poIfcy be shown to be specially benefited by public improvements, J^^^^^^- such benefit should, as far as possible, go to the ])ublic who have paid for the improvements, but there are two methods of obtaining this benefit for the public. The 206 first is the method of " Recoupment," under which local authorities are allowed to take, under compulsory powers, land adjoining improvements, with a view to recouping the cost of the improvements by a resale at the enhanced value. The second is the method of " Betterment," which places on property specially benefited a charge representing some part (under recent Acts one-half) of the enhanced value. It has always been clear to the Conservatives, and has at last dawned upon the Progressives, that recoupment is, in most cases, the more profitable method of the two, for, in the first place, it gives to the public the whole (instead of half) of the enhanced value, and, in the second place, it avoids the costly system of assessments, followed by law suits, which is inseparable from betterment. In the case of the southern approach to the Tower Bridge, the Progressives insisted upon applying the betterment principle, but they have never been able to show that it has succeeded there. The Strand Improvement Scheme has been carried out exclusively on the recoupment principle. 207 POWERS AND DUTIES OF CENTRAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES. An important point, wliicli appears to excite more interest every year, is as to tiie powers and duties which shouki properly be undertaken by the County Council and the Borough Councils respectively. The report of the Royal Commission of 1894 upon London Government dealt with the relation of central to local government, and stated that " a consideration of the evidence we have received confirms the opinion suggested by the course of previous inquiries and of legislation — or, in other words, by the historic development of the Metropolis —that the govern- ment of London must be entrusted to one body, exercising certain functions throughout all the areas covered by the name, and to a number of local bodies exercising certain other functions wathin the local areas which collectively make up London, the central body and tlie local bodies deriving their authority as representative bodies by direct election, and the functions assigned to each being determined so as to secure complete independence and responsibility to every member of the system" (para. 22). This double aspect of unity and separability hnving been accorded general acceptance, " any controversy that remains," said the report, " turns upon the partition of powers between this central and these local bodies." The principle laid down by the report was this : " We think it important, for the sake of the dignity and usefulness 208 of the local bodies, whose status should be enhanced as much as possible, as well as for the sake of the central body —where a continuous increase of work may be expected, requiring relief from needless administrative detail — that no duties shall be tlirown upon the central body that can be equally well performed by the local authorities " (para. 106). The Commissioners further suggested that " It might be well, in any legislation, to provide some machinery for such a repartition of functions between the central and local authori- ties as experience might prove desirable, without having recourse to Parliament in each particular case" (para. 107). In developing this principle the Commissioners thought that " everything should be done to maintain the strength, authority and dignity of the local bodies of London." The London Government Act of 1899 established the Borough Councils, transferred certain powers from the London County Council to the boroughs, and provided machinery for a future transfer of duties when rendered necessary by the over- burdened state of the central body. Section 5, sub-section 3, of the Act, enacts that : — " The Local Government Board may, if they think fit, on the application of the London County Council and of the majority of the Borough Councils, make a Provisional Order for transferring to all the Borough Councils any power exercisable by the County Council, or for transferring to the County Council any power exercisable by the Borough Councils." Since the Borough Councils were constituted by the London Government Act, 1899, they have shown a nature;] desire to carry out all duties in their own boroughs, which are of a local as distinct from a central character. 209 It is also important from another point of view tliat this should be done : the County Council has already such an immense amount of work to do that it is most expedient that no further burden of work should be cast upon its members which could be as well done by the local authorities. In fact, the Royal Commission, which investigated the conditions of London Government, expressly reported to that effect, and whilst retaining central duties or those common to the whole of the metropolis, such as main drainage, fire brigade, parks, &c., to the County Council, the Commissioners went on to say that other duties of a local character might well be given to the Borough Councils. Rightly enough, this is the proper municipal spirit, and ought to be encouraged by every possible legitimate means. It was always intended when the old Vestries were superseded by the Borough Councils, and Vestrymen by Mayor, Aldermen and Councillors, that new and further duties should be given to them, and no doubt it was rightly thought that in order to attract men of good standing to the service of the new municipalities, it would be both politic and natural that further powers should be conferred upon them. And yet, in spite of this testimony, the Radical majority on the County Council exhibit a jealousy and distrust of the Borough Councils which is simply contemptible. Many Aldermen and Councillors of the latter are men of greater ability and experience than a considerable number of those who, by strange accidents, find themselves elected to the County Council, and yet these latter affect a lofty and superior air whenever a question as to which authority should undertake certain work has to be determined. 210 It is not too much to say that nearly all the Borough Councils have felt resentment at some time or other at the manner in which the County Council treats them on various questions, and notably on the one of division of powers and duties. This is a most unfortunate state of affairs, and ought not to exist : there is plenty of room for both authorities to work side by side, each striving to do its own work in the best possible manner ; . and, further, the members ought to show that respect and regard for each other's work which the nature of the public duties they have undertaken imperatively demands. The County Council is the authority under the following among other Acts : — Lunacy, Ancient Monuments Protection, Weights and Measures, Shop Hours, Inebriates, Education, Tramway, London Building, Infant Life Protection, &c., &c ; and, of course, it is well known that it carries out the great central services of the Metropolis. The Borough Councils have powers under the Public Health (London) Acts, Infectious Diseases, Public Libraries, Factory and Workshop, Housing of Working Classes, Cremation, Labour Bureaux, &c., &c., in addition to their ordinary work of lighting, cleansing, paving and maintaining the streets, &c. It will thus be seen how wide a field of work there is both for the central and local governing authorities of this great city. A point of controversy has long been smouldering respect- ing the position of District Surveyors. At present they are appointed by the County Council, and their duties are to report as to new, or alterations of, existing buildings, &c., in their 211 district, and to carry out the duties imposed by the Building xlct. Many of the Borough Councils think this work could be done as efficiently and at less cost by their own Surveyors, who have now to inspect the buildings for sanitary and health requirements, but have no power as regards the structure, while the District Surveyors have little or no powers on sanitary matters. Such division of work seems to be absurd, and gives unnecessary trouble to builders and owners, who have to give the notices to two authorities instead of one, and delay and extra expense often result therefrom. In the municipalities of the country no such trouble arises ; ,the Corporation is the authority for all purposes, and no trouble is experienced in carrying out the duties by the Borough Surveyor. It has been stated by Radicals that the Borough Surveyors are not competent to carry out the work required ! But this is strongly denied, and- the fees payable by the owners or builders would enable the local authorities to engage men of the best qualifications and experience. 'O o Several minor powers have already been transferred from the County to the Borough Councils, and if the duties of the District Surveyors were also so transferred, it would give great satisfaction to the local authorities, and would relieve the central authority of a great deal of work. But the Radicals will not trust the Borough Councillors, either with that or any other duty they can help, and so the distrust is kept up while the present Radical majority reigns triumphantly. The Conservative Municipal policy is to entrust the Borough Councils with all such powers of a local character 2 212 as they can best carry out ; the Radical policy apparently is to distrust the local authorities, to sneer at their capacity, and to exalt the County Council to a far greater extent than was intended by Parliament when it passed the Acts under which both authorities were constituted. i Let us hope a better feeling will speedily be shown, and the electors can powerfully help this forward by sending men of integrity and experience to represent them on both authorities. 213 PORT OF LONDON. INCREASED DOCK AND RIVER SERVICES. In tlie early part of 1900 the question of the administra- tion and accommodation of the docks in the Port of London came under public discussion, in consequence of Bills intro- duced by the Dock Companies, and Mr. Eitchie, then President of the Board of Trade, received, amongst other deputations, one from the London County Council, to urge the necessity of an enquiry being instituted into the whole subject. The deputation was composed of members of both parties, and urged that, owing to so many authorities having control over the river, docks, wharves, &c., much confusion was created, and numerous interests overlapped, with a result disastrous to the best interests of the port. The charges were higher than elsewhere, and large ships were unable to come to the port from various causes. The question had not been investigated since 1799, and in the meantime numerous other seaports had greatly increased their dock accommodation, and many foreign ports were now ahead of London in shipping facilities. No definite proposals were put forward by the Council, the case being confined to one for an enquiry. Mr. Ritchie said the matter was of vital importance to the well-being of London. He thought the remarks made justified an enquiry being held, and that the Dock Companies 214 would also agree to tlie proposal. He hoped it might be possible to arrange for a full enquiry into the whole subject, and he assured the deputation the matter should have his earnest consideration. The result was that the Unionist Government appointed a Royal Commission with the following reference : — To enquire into — The present administration of the Port of London and the water approaches thereto ; The adequacy of the accommodation provided for vessels and the loading and unloading thereof ; The system of charge for such accommodation ; The arrangements for warehousing dutiable goods ; And to report whether any change or improvement, in regard to any of the above matters, is necessary for the promotion of the trade of the port and the public interest. The Commission issued its report in June, 1902. The report dealt with the present administration of the port, and the water approaches thereto ; the accommodation provided for vessels, and the loading and unloading thereof ; the system of charge for such accommodation ; and the arrangements for warehousing dutiable goods. The Commissioners find, as a fact, that the river channels and the docks are inadequate to meet the increased size of steamers ; that the tendency of all main ocean traffic is for cargoes to be carried in very large steamers ; and that the ports affording accommodation for the large ships will attract the trade from other ports, in spite of custom and tradition. 215 This particularly applies to exported goods, and may probably account for the insignificant increase in tlie export trade of London during the last twenty years. The apparent danger is that ports like Rotterdam may usurp London's position as a distributor of oversea traffic, and may even re-export to London itself in smaller vessels. This means the loss to the Port of London of shipping dues, and the labour and charges for handling the goods thus transhipped. The Commissioners come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary to get rid of the present chaos of authorities by the formation of a single port authority. The Commissioners recommend that — The con- stitution of the Pro- " (1) The port authority should consist of about forty persons, Authority, partly nominated and partly elected. " (2) On the assumption that the London County Council and the City Corporation accept the financial responsibilities which we have recommended, the nominated members should be appointed by the following bodies : — {a) By the London County Council . . 11 members (6) By the City Corporation . . . . 3 (c) By the Admiralty . . . . . . 1 {d) By the Board of Trade . . . . 1 (e) By the Trinity House . . . . 1 (/) By the Kent County Council . . 1 {g) By the Essex County Council . . 1 (h) By the London Chamber of Commerce 2 {i) By the Governors of the Bank of England from among persons belonging to the mercantile com- munity of London >> 216 " (3) The elected members should be elected by different groups of voters, viz, : — (/) By the oversea (or ocean) trading shipowners . . . . . . . . 5 members {k) By the short-sea trading shipowners 2 „ (/) By the wharfingers and owners of private warehouses on the river . . 3 „ (m) By owners of lighters, barges and river craft, including river passenger steamers . . . . . . . . 2 „■ {71) By railway companies connecting with the docks . . . . . . 2 „ " The Commissioners also recommend the constitution of a statutory committee for the management of the docks and works of dock improvement, which should consist of members appointed by the port authority, with power to co-opt some experts. Financial The financial responsibilties of the London County Council biiEf^" aTi(). 238 The Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1903. — This Act provides the sum of £1,790,000 for the purchase of land and the erection of buildings for Government offices, &c., in various parts of London. The Railways [Electrical Power) Act, 1903. — Under this Act, the Board of Trade can sanction the use of electrical power on railways. The Motor Car Act, 1903. — This Act provides for the regis- tration with the county councils of all motor cars, and for the granting of licences to all drivers, the safety of the public being safeguarded by these and other provisions of the Act. The Employment of Children Act, 1903. — This Act provides that a county council, borough council or other local authority may make by-laws prescribing the ages and hours of employment for all children with respect to all or any occupations, and may regulate street trading. The Military Lands Act, 1903. — This Act enables county or borough councils to hire land for Volunteer corps for military purposes for not less than twenty-one years, and to lease it to the Volunteer corps. This is a record of social legislation that is exceedingly creditable to the Unionist party, and it will be beyond the power of any Radical -Progressive to furnish a list of Radical measures of social reform of corresponding importance. 239 ALIEN IMMIGRATION. In March, 1902, a Royal Commission on Alien Immigra- tion was appointed. Their report, dated August 10th, 1903, stated (with regard to London) that there had been a sub- stantial increase in aHen crime, and that the evil of over- crowding had been largely aggravated by the influx of aliens into East London within the last few years. As to the industrial and economical effect of alien immigration, the Commissioners say (pars. 134, 135, 136) : — Leaving the skilled labour market out of the question, we think it proved that the industrial conditions under which a large number of aliens work in London fall below the standard which ought, alike in the intei'ests of the workmen and the community at large, to be maintained. The effects of the alien immigration are not confined to the occupations mentioned above. The demand for labour in them is not unlimited, especially since the shoemaking and tailoring trades are seasonal and fluctuate widely between periods of slackness and activity. There 's, consequently, a tendency for the immigrants to overflow into other employments ; for instance, evidence as to the large increase of foreign costermongers and other street traders has been placed before us. This has caused ill-feeling and friction between them and the large body of Englishmen employed in the same trades. ^_ j , Complaint was also made by several witnesses with regard to the ill-effects which immigration has had upon tlie native shopkeepers. Their interests have suffered in two ways, for while there is a natural tendency, and even, witli regard to certain ai'ticles of food, a religious obligation, among a large class of the immigrants to deal only with persons of tlieir own i-ace, the great displacement of population caused by immigration has operated simultaneously to disperse the former customers of the English retailers. We consider that these complaints are not without foundation. At pages 40 — 43 of the report, the Commissioners state their results and recommendations : — • 240 RESULTS. 262. From the facts placed before us, many of which are above summarised, it seems to be estabhshed that a large number of ahen immigrants have during the last twenty years entered the country. This number is much in excess of those who had in previous years reached us. The excess is mainly composed of Russians and Poles, who belong for the most part to the Jewish faith. There seems to be no reason to anticipate that under present conditions the number of alien immigrants arriving here in future years will be diminished. 263. We have above stated the opinions we entertain of the condition, character, and conduct of these alien immigrants, and also of the effect their presence has upon the native community and national interests. 264. We do not think that any case has been estabhshed for the total exclusion of such aliens, and it would certainly be undesirable to throw any unnecessary difficulties in the way of the entrance of foreigners generally into this country. But we are of opinion that in respect of certain classes of immigrants, especially those arriving from Eastern Eui'ope, it is necessary, in the interests of the State generally and of certain localities in particular, that the entrance of such immigrants into this country and their right of residence here should be placed under conditions and regulations coming within that right of interference which every country possesses to control the entrance of foreigners into it. 265. Such regulations should, in our opinion, be made in order to prevent, so far as possible, this country being burdened with the presence of " undesirable aliens," and to provide for their repatriation in certain cases. 266. But we think that the greatest evils produced by the presence of the ah'en immigrants here are the overcrowding caused by them in certain districts of London, and the consequent displacement of the native population. There seems little likelihood of being able to remedy these great evils by the enforcement of any law api^licable to the native and alien population alike. We therefore think that special regulations should be made for the purpose of preventing aliens at their own will choosing their residence within districts already so overcrowded, that any addition to dwellers within it must produce most injurious results. 267. We are also of opinion that efforts should be made to rid this country of the presence of alien criminals (and other objectionable characters). 268. We think it must be the duty of those who may have to frame legislation in connection with this subject to remember that they ought not to be content with reviewing its present condition, but also to anticipate, so far as possible, that which is likely to occur in the future. The causes that have so largely tended to produce the conditions above referred to will probably continue, and if this be so the evil will, unless checked by legislative or administrative measures, year by year increase and intensify. 24:1 269. For the purpose of carrying the above views into effect we make the following recommendations : — ^o RECOMMENDATIONS. (1) That the immigration of certain classes of aliens into tliis country bo subjected to State control and regulation to the extent hereinafter mentioned. (2) That a Department of Immigration be estabUshed, either in connection with the Board of Trade and Local Government Board, or of an independent character. (3) That improved methods be employed to secure correct statistical returns relating to alien immigration. That for this purpose the Act of 6 WiUiam IV., c. 11, be repealed, and power given by statute to the Board of Trade to make provision by regulations for obtaining from shipowners returns of the numbers and nationalities of all aUens entering or departing from the United Kingdom, and such further information as may be thought desirable. These regulations to apply to all or any specified ports, and to be subject to such conditions or modifications as may appear expedient. (4) That legislative power be obtained for the purpose of carrying out the following suggestions : — (a) The Immigration Department to have the power of making and enforcing orders and regulations, which may be made applicable to immigration generally, or to vessels arriving at or from certain ports, or to certain classes of immigrants. (b) That a sufficient staff of officers be appointed by the Immigration Department to carry into effect the provisions of this Act, and the orders and regulations made under it. (c) Power should be conferred upon such officers to make such enquiry as may be possible from the immigrants upon their arrival as to their character and condition, and if such officer shall have reason to think that any immigrant comes within any of the classes mentioned as " undesirables," viz., criminals, prostitutes, idiots, lunatics, persons of notoriously bad character, or likely to become a charge upon public funds, he shall report the case, with such particulars as he can give, to the Immigration Department. (d) It shall be the duty of the Immigration Department to act uponany information it may obtain or receive in order to carry out any pro- visions which may be made in respect of tlie above suggestion. And provision should be made for tlie immediate determination of anj- proceedings taken before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction on tlie arrival of the immigrant, pending which the immigrant may be placed under suitable charge. Q 242 (e) Any alien immigrant, who, within two year^ of his arrival, is ascertained or is reasonably supposed to be : — a criminal, a prostitute, a person living on the proceeds of prostitution, of notoriously bad character, or shall become a charge upon public funds, except from ill-health, or shall have no visible or probable means of support, May be ordered by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to leave this country, and the owner of the vessel on which such immigrant was brought to this country may be ordered to re-convey him to the port of embarkation. (f) In reference to all orders of repatriation, due regard must necessarily be had to international arrangements. (g) Such orders and regulations to include provisions for medical examination of alien immigrants at port of arrival. In cases where an immigrant is found to be suffering from infectious or loathsome disease, or mental incapacity, the medical officer to have power to debar such immigrant from landing, and the shipowner to be compelled to re-convey the immigrant to port of embarkation. (h) Immigrants on arrival to give the information demanded from them, refusal, or the giving of false information, to be an offence under the Act, with penalty and discretionary power of repatriation at expense of shipping company. (5) OVEECROWDING. (a) That every effort should be made to enforce with greater efficiency the existing law dealing with overcrowding, and that increased power should be obtained for certam pvirposes, especially with the object of bringing all dwelUngs within specified areas under the operation of the bye-laws made under the powers of the PubUc Health Act. (b) That inquiry should be made by the Immigration Department, either upon the representation of the local authority or otherwise, as to the existence of overcrowding in any area. (c) If it be found that the immigration of aliens into any area has sub- stantially contributed to any overcrowding, and that it is expedient that no further newly-arrived ab'ens should become residents in such area, the same may be declared to be a prohibited area. (d) Full notice that any area has become prohibited should be given at such ports of embarkation as may be thought necessary, and should be communicated to the immigrants by every possible means. (e) That on their arrival in this country enquiry should be made from the immigrants as to their intended destination. If any one should allege his intention of becoming resident in a prohibited area, he shall 243 be expressly informed of the regulation affecting prohibition. All immigrants to be furnished with a Ust, in their own language, of prohibited areas. (f) All alien immigrants (not trans-migrants) coming from and arriving at certain ports to be registered. On registration, a place of residence or intended residence to be given by the aUen. If none can be given, the alien to furnish such residence as soon as obtained. Any change of residence during the first two years of residence in this country to be notified. (g) If within two years after an area is declared to be prohibited, any ah'en who has arrived in this country after such declaration shall bo foimd resident within such area, he shall be removed therefrom, and shall be guilty of an offence. (6) Upon conviction of any felony or misdemeanour upon indictment the Judge may direct as part of the sentence that the aUen convicted shall leave the coimtry. If such direction be disobeyed, the aUen may, on summary conviction, be p\mished as a rogue and vagabond. This power may be extended to convictions for certain offences triable by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction ; such offences to be specified by statute. (7) That further statutory powers should be obtained for regulating the accommodation upon and condition of foreign immigrant passenger ships. To the recommendations we have ventured to make in respect of restriction, it may be objected that they are not likely to prove effective in preventing the landing of undesirables at the ports of this country. In answer to this objection we desire to point out that, in making these recommendations, we have been guided by the opinion we entertain that the suggestions we have made, if carried out, will have the effect of deterring aliens of the undesirable class from leaving their homes, and also of inducing the shipping companies to exercise greater care in selecting their passengers. It seems not improbable that the pu\)hcation of this report, and the prospect of restrictive legislation, may cause those who intend to emigrate to anticipate the proposed restrictions, and thus lead to an immediate and immoderate increase of immigration, and a consequent accentuation of the existing evils in the East End of London and elsewhere. We are impressed with the necessity of avoiding, so far as possible, such a result of our labours ; and we would venture to submit the immediate adoption of such of our recommendations as can be introduced without recourse to ParUament. At the same time we clearly recognise tliat the complete enforcement of the system we propose is only possible by legislation. Dated this 10th day of August, 190.3. (Signed) James of Hereford, Rothschild, Alfred Lyttelton, Kenelm E. Diguv, W. Evans-Gobdon, Henry Norman, W. Vallance. () '"> 244 THE GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATION. The Home Secretary (the Right Hon. A. Akers-Douglas, M.P.), speaking at Shoreditch, on Monday, December 8th, 1903, said :— There was another sort of dumping, and that was the dumping of the undesirable alien. It was a growing evil. A Royal Commission had been sitting, and its members had given great care and attention to the subject, and he would like to say, that none among them had rendered greater service than Major Evans- Gordon — who had gone all over the world to find out the truth of the matter. At the last census the total population of this country was 41,500,000, and of this total the aliens numbered 286,900, or an increase in twenty years of over 150,000. Of these 286,900 aliens, 135,300 resided in London, and 54,300 were living in that neighbour- hood. In Stepney they had increased since 1881 by nearly 16,000. There were 4,600 in Bethnal Green, an increase from 925. The result of this dumping of the foreign ahen here was the overcrowding of an already over-populous district and the displacement thereby of the native population. There had been a general increase over the period of the last twenty years in the number of aliens, and if things were allowed to go on as at present — and there was no tendency to decrease, but on the contrary to increase — he feared that these numbers would in future years still further increase. He certainly thought that the entrance of undesirable aliens into this country, and their right to reside in any particular district, should be placed under the most stringent regulations. But there were aUens and aUens. Many of them were hard-working, sober, and desirable, so far as social order went, and were also desirable citizens. He had nothing whatever to say against them, except that he regretted that they might take work and bread away from a certain number of Engh'shmen ; but it was only fair to say that they were extremely loyal and law-abiding citizens. On the other hand, they had undesirable aliens among them, and a very large proportion of the crime of this country and of the districts in London was committed by them. The criminal statistics showed that in 1901 the native-born iJopulation in England and Wales was 32,000,000. Of these, 166,000, or 0.52 per cent., were sentenced to imprisonment ; whereas of the alien population, 2,880, or 1.16 per cent., were sentenced to imprisonment. In 1902, the number of aUen prisoners rose to 3,446. As these figures were not confined to first convictions, but extended very largely to habitual criminals, he thought the time had come when some stringent measures should be taken in order to deal with this question. There were constant complaints from judges, the Recorder of the City of London, and the Metropohtan pohce magistrates, of the amount of work thrown upon the Courts, and of the expense imposed upon the country by the maintenance of these criminal aliens, who oughtj in his opinion, to be deported from this country. In the opinion of the Government a strong case had been made out before the Royal Commission, and the matter was receiving the very gravest attention from the Government. It was, of course, impossible for him to anticipate any announcement on the subject which might be contained in the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament ; but he was able to give the meeting the assurance that the question was receiving the very carefuF consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, and they had every desire to find a speedy remedy. 245 MUNICIPAL TRADING, A Joint Select Committee on Municipal Trading was appointed by Parliament in May, 1900, but the inquiry was interrupted by the rising of Parliament, and no report on the subject was made. Another Select Committee was appointed in May, 1903, but, owing to the short time at their disposal, the Committee confined their inquiry to the system of municipal account keeping. Their report, dated July 22nd, 1903, stated : — The Committee recommend that a uniform system of audit should be apphed to all the major local authorities, viz., the councils of coimties, cities, towns, burghs, and of urban districts, and their recommendations are accordingly as follows : — (a) The existing system of audit apphcable to corporations, county councils and urban district councils in England and Wales be abolished. (b) Auditors, being members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, or of the Incorporated Society of Accountants and Auditors, should be appointed by the three classes of local authorities just mentioned. (c) In every case the appointment should be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, after hearing any objections made by ratepayers, and the auditor, who should hold office for a term not exceeding five years, should be eUgible for re-appointment, and should not be dismissed by the local authority without the sanction of the Board. (d) In the event of any disagreement between the local authority and the auditor as to his remuneration, the Local Government Board should liave power to determine the matter. (e) The Scots practice of appointing auditors from a distance, in preference to local men, to audit the accounts of tmall burghs should in similar cases be adopted in England. The Committee are of opinion that it should he made clear by statute or regulation that the duties of those entrusted with the audit of '.ocal accounts are 246 not confined to mere certification of figures. They tlierefore further recommend that — (a) The auditor shoiild have the right of access to all such papers, books, accounts, vouchers, sanctions for loans, and so forth, as are necessaiy for his examination and certificate. (b) He should be entitled to require from officers of the authority such information and explanation as may be necessary for the performance of his duties. (c) He should certify : — (i.) That he has found the accounts in order, or otherwise, as the case may be ; (ii.) That separate accounts of all trading undertakings have been kept, and that every charge which each ought to bear has been duly debited ; (iii.) That in his opinion the accounts issued present a true and correct view of the transactions and results of trading (if any) for the period under investigation. (iv.) That due provision has been made out of revenue for the repayment of loans, that all items of receipts and expenditure and all known liabilities have been brought into account, and that the value of all assets has in all cases been fairly stated. Auditors should be required to express an opinion upon the necessity of reserve funds, of amounts set aside to meet depreciation and obsolescence of plant, in addition to the statutory sinking funds, and of the adequacy of such amounts. The' auditor should also be required to present a report to the local authority. Such report should include observations upon any matters as to which he has not been satisfied, or which in his judgment called for special notice, particularly with regard to the value of any assets taken into account. The local authority should forward to the Local Government Board both the detailed accoiints and the report of the auditor made upon them. It should be the duty of the auditor to report independently to the Board any case in which an authority declines to carry out any recommendation made by him. A printed copy of the accounts, with the certificate and report of the auditor thereon, should be supplied by the local authority to any ratepayer at a reasonable charge. (Report on Mmiicipal TratUug, No. 270, VM.i.) If these recommendations become law, the proper and adequate audit of the accounts of local authorities would be secured, and the ratepayers would then be able to ascertain the real results of the various trading undertakings carried on by the local authorities. 247 The Right Hon. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bart., M.P., in a speech he delivered at Cheltenham, on 5th December, 1903, said :— There is in some quarters a strong feeling against what is called " municipal trading." I do not thiak that anything j^ovi have done here can be properly described as going beyond the true functions of the municipalitj'. But, even if it were possible, I should say that, if a municipality takes care that its constituents, the ratepayers, have as full an opportunity of knowing what it is doing as the shareholders in a well-managed public company, there need not be much fear as to the proper administration of its affairs. It seems to me vital that in all these matters the ratepayers should have periodically placed before them the fullest and clearest account of the assets of their several undertakings, of the profit or the loss that maj^ be incurred by any of them, of the necessary provision for the depreciation of plant, and last, but by no means least, of the provision made for repaying loans — not out of fresh loans — but out of rates. And to secure this there must be a proper audit of municipal accounts of all kinds, conducted by qualified and independent auditors, who will show, to the imderstanding of the most unskilled persons, precisely on what tlie rates are being spent and what advantages they have secured. The question of municipal trading is fully dealt with by Major Leonard Darwin, in his recently published work " Municipal Trade," published by John Murray. A summary of his conclusions is impossible in this short article, but particular attention may be directed to his chapter on municipal house building. For further information on the question, see the following : — Municipal Trading Select Committee, 1900 ; evidence. Municipal Trading Select Committee, 1903 ; evidence and report. Tunes articles on " Municipal Socialism," 1902. Municipal Trading, Report of Conference convened by London Municipal Society, May 28th, 1902. Municipal Trading alias Socialism, by J. Ratcliffe Cousins, L.C.C. 248 VAUXHALL BRIDGE— DELAY IN REBUILDING. The long delay in the rebuilding of Vauxhall Bridge is a strong example of inefficient Progressive administration. As long ago as 1892, Mr. John Hutton, the Chairman of the Council, in his annual review of the Council's work, stated — The dangerous condition of Vauxhall Bridge is a matter which is forcing itself upon the immediate attention of the Council. The yearly report of the Bridges Committee also stated that — The question of rebuilding the Bridge will have to be considered by the Council. Despite the urgency of the matter — The Council did not consider it expedient to include the rebuilding of Vauxhall Bridge in its Improvements Bill for 1894. In that year the Bridges Committee stated that the cost of a new bridge would be about £454,000 ; that the foundations of the Bridge were weak, but that a sudden collapse of the Bridge need not be apprehended, as it is anticipated that warning of impending failure would be given. At the same time, the rebuilding of the Bridge should not be much longer postponed. — {Annual Report, 1895.) In 1895, the Vauxhall Bridge Bill was introduced into Parliament by the Council, and passed. It was then estimated that the cost would be about £380,000, including £30,000 for a temporary bridge, and £74,000 for the purchase of property required for forming the approaches. During 1897, the erection of a temporary bridge was proceeded with. The erection of piers and dolphins was entrusted to the Works Department. On the 21st January, 1898, the half-yearly report of the Department {Minutes , 25th January, 1898,) showed that the final estimate of £11,265 had been exceeded by £2,266. 249 On the 18th August, 1898, the temporary bridge was opened to the public. Meanwhile, the design for the new bridge had engaged the continued attention of the Bridges Committee. On February 22nd, 1898, the design submitted for the bridge was adopted by the Council, and the engineer was instructed to prepare the necessary contract, plans, sections and specifications. On the 26tli July, 1898, the Bridges Committee reported that they had considered tenders received for the building of that portion of the new Vauxhall Bridge up to the springing level of the arches, and recommended that the tender of Messrs. Pethick Bros., amounting to £165,435, be accepted. On the 13th December, 1898, the Works Department half-yearly return stated that the construction approaches to the Vauxhall temporary bridge, estimated to cost £3,940, had been exceeded by £263. On the 30th July, 1901, the Parliamentary Committee reported that it might be necessary to apply to Parliament next session for extensions of time for the execution of work in connection with the Vauxhall Bridge Act, 1895. On the 1st July, 1902, a report of the Bridges Committee on the delay in executing the work was presented to the Council. It stated that the order to commence work was given by the engineer to Messrs. Pethick Bros, in September, 1898, and the work should have been completed in March, 1901. The Committee were, however, unable to hold out any hope of the Council entering into a contract for the construction of the superstructure until the early part of 1903. " The unfortunate delay " was attributed to natural and other 250 difficulties ; the stringent restrictions of the Thames Conservancy ; the erection of coffer dams not originally contemplated ; the difficulty experienced in obtaining possession of part of the foreshore ; and the great depth of the old Westminster abutment. Claims for extra work had been made by the contractors, and this was recommended to be settled by the contractors agreeing to take £10,933, and to complete their contract not later than 31st December, 1902. This recommendation, after being withdrawn, was ultimately adopted. On the 29th October, 1902, a report of the Bridges Committee stated that — The question of the rebuilding of Vauxhall Bridge had been before the Council for the last twelve years, although it was not until 1895 that Parliamentary powers were obtained to undertake the reconstruction, After the passing of the Vauxhall Bridge Act some three years elapsed before the contract for the demolition of the old structure and partial construction of the new piers and abutments was let to Messrs. Pethick. The Council will remember that the proposal in 1897 was to construct a five-arched steel bridge, with granite-faced piers and abutments, but that when the sketch was submitted it was rejected upon the grounds that it did not possess those features which it was thought a crossing of such importance should exhibit. Some eighteen months later, as the result of much deliberation, a design was submitted and adopted by the Council showing the granite bridge backed with concrete, which not only had an appearance of stability and massive- ness, but which, it was believed, gave general satisfaction. Having regard, therefore, to the time and talent which have been spent upon the design and proposed con- struction of the bridge, in a manner which has been regarded as so satisfactory, and which would have embodied the principle upon which the Thames Embankments were constructed, we greatly regret to find that circumstances have arisen which will necessitate the Council having to revert to its original conception and build a steel bridge with stone piers. ... In 1898, when a concrete bridge was substituted for the original form of construction, it was pointed out that the head- way of the arches, owing to the centreing required for the support of the concrete arch during construction, would have to be temporarily reduced, and a clause authorising the lowering was accordingly inserted in the General Powers Bill of that session, but was subsequently withdrawn, as it was represented to us that a method of construction had been discovered which woidd obviate the temporary headways at the centre of the arches being less than the prescribed 18 ft. and 15 ft. 251 Owing to deviation from the width of the openings specified in the Act, an action for diimages done to the pro- tective works at the Bridge, by the tug " Frank," was lost by the contractors. The Engineer then reported that he could not carry out the construction of a concrete arch. The Committee recommended : — (a) That the resolution of the Council of 22ncl February, 1898, directing that the new Vauxhall Bridge be a granite bridge, backed with concrete, be rescinded. (b) That the estimate of £170,000, submitted by the Finance Committee, for the building of the superstructure of the new Vauxhall Bridge, be approved, and that an expenditure up to that amount be sanctioned ; that the design submitted, showing a steel elhptical arch structure, be adopted, and that the engineer be instructed to prepare the necessary contract, plans and specification. This was adopted. The report of the Finance Committee stated that they had — Inquired of the Bridges Committee whether they anticipated any further expenditure in respect of the new Vauxhall Bridge other than that provided for in the votes already passed, and the estimate of £170,000 now submitted, and they learn that a further sum of upwards of £10,000 will probably be required for property. This, however, is partly contingent upon the carrying througli of a proposed arrange- ment for an exchange of property and the execution of certain works, and the negotiations are not yet completed. The Parliamentary estimate for the reconstruction of the Bridge amounted to £484,000, comprising £74,000 for property, £30,000 for the construction of a temporary bridge, and £380,000 for the erection of a new bridge. Up to the present time the Council has voted £341,092, which sum, with the present estimate of £170,000, will make £511,092, or £27,092 more than the total Parliamentary estimate, and, as stated above, a further sum of at least £10,000 will probably be required. The excess has arisen in connection with the purchase of property and the construction of the temporary bridge. The Council has already passed supplemental votes for projjcrty amounting to £40,000. On tlie temporary bridge there has been an excess of £8,745, but on the construction of the new bridge it appears that there may be a saving of £30,000. On the 20th October, 1903, a report of the Bridges Committee set out the tenders for the erection of the super- structure (for information as to British versus Belgian steel, see " Foreign Contracts " article) and a tender by Mr. Charles 252 Wall, of Chelsea, amounting to £142,942, was accepted by the Council. In the result, the Bridge will, if no further unforeseen delays occur, be completed in two or three years hence — fourteen years after the date when the necessity for rebuilding it was declared to be urgent. The sole responsibility for the delay and the blunders in connection with this work rests upon the Progressive Party in the Council. It may be added that Lambeth Bridge was, in 1892, also stated to be in a bad condition, but its reconstruction has not yet been undertaken. 253 Conservatives and the Non-Contentious Work of the Council. It is a favourite device of Progressive speakers to expatiate upon the details of the ordinary administrative work of one of the wholly non-political departments of the Council ; to dilate upon the importance of this work, and of the careful and conscientious way in which it is executed ; and then to take all the credit of it to the Progressive party. In effect they say, look how well the County Council Parks are managed ; see how our inspectors are checking the use of false weights and measures ; observe how many prizes and certificates the Technical Education Board is distributing to your children ; therefore vote for the Progressive candidates. In reality there can be no more misleading chain of reasoning than this — there can be no conclusion less justified by the facts. Let us examine the history of the parks and open spaces Parks and now vested in the Council, and see how their management is spaces, actually carried on. As regards the acquisition of new parks and open spaces, all parties and all individuals on the Council have been equally zealous. But of the whole area of some 4,879 acres, which are now in the hands of the Council, it must be remembered that no less than 2,964 acres had been acquired by the Metro- politan Board of Works, and were transferred from it to tlie County Council. 254 It must also be remembered that as regards the cost of the acquisition of new open spaces, the Council only makes a contribution to the total purchase price. In many instances, large sums have also been supplied by local bodies, and by individual benefactors. Thus, in the case of Brockwell Park, the cost of the acquisition was in all about £120,000. Towards this the County Council contributed £61,000, the Charity Commis- sioners gave £25,000, the Lambeth Vestry £20,000, the Camberwell Vestry £6,000, the Newington Vestry £5,000, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners £500, and private donors the remainder. In the case of the Postmen's Park, the cost of acquisition was about £12,000. To this the Postmaster-General gave £5,000, City Parochial Foundation £1,000, City Commis- sioners of Sewers £2,500, public subscriptions £1,800, Metro- politan Public Gardens Association £500, the City Corporation £500, and the County Council £500. In the case of one of the latest and the most beautiful of the gardens that have been obtained for London's use, viz., Golder's Hill, the total cost of acquisition was about £41,000. Towards this the London County Council gave £12,000, while amongst other bodies the Hampstead Vestry gave £10,000, the Marylebone and St. Pancras Vestries £1,000 each. North St. Pancras £1,000, the City Parochial Charities £1,000, and some £14,000 was collected from private subscribers. In the case of Eltham Park, 41 J acres, the Council voted £4,675 ; the Woolwich Borough Council contributing one- half of the purchase money and costs. Fulham Park. — The Council contributed £12,000 towards the cost (estimated at £16,957 10s.) of embanking and laying 255 out 8j acres of land, known as Fielder's Meadow, which had been presented by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the Council of the Metropolitan Borough of Fulham, for addition to Fulham Park. The London County Council had previously contributed £17,500 towards the cost of other portions of this park. The total cost of the park amounted to £52,202 10s. ; the Council's contribution is £29,500, but in agreeing to make this large contribution, the Council had in mind the fact that the Borough Council will bear in perpetuity the cost of main- taining the park. It is true that the subsequent maintenance of nearly all these parks and gardens is borne by the Council, and that they are managed by it. They are managed by and through its Parks Committee. This Committee has always remained untainted by party spirit. Councillors of all shades of political opinion have harmoniously co-operated upon it. Its Chair- men have been chosen equally from either side ; and on the Council, as a whole, whenever any question has arisen as to the acquisition of a new open space, or as to the adornment or management of an existing one, Conservatives have ever displayed the most enlightened desire to make this department of the Council's work an unquestionable success. With regard to the carrying out of the provisions of the weights Weights and Measures Acts, even an electioneering Progressive can hardly pretend that his party are entitled to any peculiar credit in this respect. Every Councillor is anxious to give effect to the beneficial provisions of the several Acts dealing with this subject, all of which were passed in Conservative Parliaments, at the instance of Conservative Ministers. and measures. With regard to the uncontroversial branches of tlie The true Council's work, the true view then is tin's : The many usel'ul view. 256 powers of this kind that the Council exercises have, with hardly an exception, been the outcome of Conservative legis- lation. Conservatives wish to see the Council making use of these powers with zeal and vigilance. They ask their repre- sentatives on the Council to devote their time and energies to the efficient discharge of these — their proper duties, and not to waste them in futile attempts at impracticable legislation. It is to Conservatives, therefore, that the electors can most confidently look for a careful and zealous execution of the administrative functions of the Council, and all electors who wish to see the existing laws well administered, and who are anxious that the Council, through them, should strive to make London a beautiful, convenient and healthy city, must vote for Conservative in preference to Radical candidates. THE COUNCIL'S COMMITTEES. The following short account of the work of the Standing and other Committees of the Council shows the variety and extent of its powers, and the importance of the duties in the efficient discharge of which the Conservatives have taken a prominent part : — Asylums. The Asylwus Committee is responsible for the care of nearly 17,000 lunatics and imbeciles. Eight asylums are at present occupied, and a ninth is in contemplation. The Bridges Committee maintains and repairs eleven bridges over the Thames, Woolwich Free Ferry and Blackwall Tunnel. It is the authority to enforce the Prevention of Floods Act, and initiates and carries out schemes for new river crossings. — For special article on Vauxhall Bridge, see page 248. 257 The Building Act Committee discharges the duties under, BuUding among other Acts, the London Building Act of 1894: —" This important measure, which concerns the County of London outside the city exclusively, consolidates and amends the law relating to streets and buildings in London. It contains provisions with respect to the formation and widening of streets ; lines of building frontage ; naming and numbering of houses ; open spaces about buildings, and heights of buildings ; construction of buildings ; special and temporary buildings and wooden structures ; dangerous and neglected structures ; dwelling-houses on low-lying land ; sky-signs, and other matters. The Act also provides for the appointment of a superintending architect of Metropolitan buildings and of district surveyors. It also provides for the constitution of a tribunal of appeal, to hear and determine appeals against the decisions of the Council and of the superintending architect in certain cases." Other duties are the naming and numbering of streets ; examination of factories, with a view to requiring reasonable means of escape in case of fire ; Hcensing of sky- signs. The Corporate Property Committee has the management of all lands and buildings belonging to the Council. But the exceptions are so numerous and important that practically the work of the Committee is concerned with merely the odds and ends of the Council's property. The chief work of the Committee has been in connection charities, with advising the Council upon the schemes of the Charity Commissioners. It also has power to contribute to the expense of inquiries into charities for the benefit of the county. The question of the abandonment of licensed houses, ^^andon. acquired in connection with street improvements, also comes licences. before this Committee. B 258 Staff of The Estdblishnent Committee. — The chief work of this London County Committee is the management of the staff, which, owing to Council. . . _,.,.. the steadily growing work of the Council, is continually increasing. In January, 1889, the number of officials on yearly salary at the Central Office was 164 ; in March, 1903, it had risen to 546. There are also about 322 temporary and other assistants at weekly salaries, 37 lady typists, 58 mes- sengers, caretakers, office cleaners, &c., 40 chainmen and 60 charwomen. The provision of a new County Hall has occupied the attention of the Committee for a number of years, and a special Sites Committee is now inquiring as to the best position for such an edifice. At present the staff is most inadequately housed. The Finance Committee {see article — L.C.C. Finance and Lord Welby's Speech). — The Committee super\ases the accounts, advises on all borrowings by local bodies for which the Council's sanction is required, reports upon the financial aspects of all new projects, and has charge of the Council's debt, the Con- solidated Loan Fund, &c. Fire statistics. The Fire Brigade Committee controls, maintains and manages the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, established in 1865. The staff consists of 1,259 officers and men ; 70 land fire engine stations and 59 smaller stations ; 75 steam fire engines on land and water and 19 manual engines ; 43|^ miles of hose and 204 fire escapes. There are 294 horses, 841 fire alarms, and over 27,000 hydrants. The brigade attended 3,574 fires last year ; there were also 857 false alarms, and another 296 calls proved to be for chimneys on fire. The General Purposes Committee consists of one elected representative from each Standing Committee, usually the chairman, with the addition of ten members directly elected 259 by the Council. Its work is mainly of an advisory nature. It reports upon the methods of the administrative work of the Council ; makes suggestions as to the Standing Orders and the work of the various Committees ; and reports to the Council on questions affecting the appointment, pay, duties, &c., of the chief officials. New duties delegated to the Council by x4ct of Parliament, or by order of any Government depart- ment, are considered and reported upon by this Committee. The Committee also considers and reports as to what Preserva- tion of course the Council should adopt with reference to the Mstoric, . . . . . &c., proposed destruction of any buildings of historic or architec- buildings. tural interest. In this connection the debates upon the proposal to preserve Rutty's house, at Bromley, and No. 17, Fleet Street, will be remembered. The Highways Committee. — The powers of this Committee Highways, relate to electric lighting, gates and bars, highways and streets, locomotives, main roads, monuments, overhead wires, subways, tramways and railways. — The question of tramways is dealt with under the head of " Locomotion," page 104. The Housing of the Working Classes Committee. — See special article on page 87. The Improvements Committee are charged with the con- sideration of all questions relating to Street Improvements in the County of London, and the carrying out of all street improvements authorized by ParHament. The estimated net cost of all the county improvements now being carried out by the Council is £5,186,806. The gross capital outlay in respect to these improvements, without deducting recoupment to be obtained by disposal of surplus lands, is estimated at £10,964,150.— /See also article on " Street Improvements," page 130. R 2 260 The Industrial and Reformatory Schools Committee. — This Committee is charged with the management and control of the Industrial and Reformatory Schools belonging to the Council, at Mayford and Feltham. Inebriates' The Inebriates'' Acts Committee deals with all matters in homes. connection with the Inebriates Act, 1898. It maintains, manages and controls institutions under that Act ; has power to enter into contracts for the current expenditure of such institu- tions ; and supervises contracts entered into by the Council with the authorities of certified reformatories and retreats for the reception of inebriates. It also licenses retreats within the County of London. The Local Government and Taxation Committee. — This Com- mittee deals with the following matters : — London local taxation and local government ; county boundaries ; division of parishes into wards ; questions arising between the Council and other local bodies not specifically referred to any other Committee ; the assessment of property for rates ; the division of Parliamentary boroughs and electoral divisions into polling districts, for the purposes of Parliamentary and County Council elections. — See under " Taxation," page 184. By-laws. The Committee also suggests by-laws to the Council, under section 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, which provides that " the Council may, from time to time, make such by-laws as to them seem meet for the good rule and government of the county." Some important by-laws have been passed relating to street noises, betting and other nuisances. Main The Main Drainage Committee deals with the great system of main drainage laid down by the Metropolitan Board of 261 Works. The total amount of sewage treated during the year ended March 31st, 1903, was over 89,556 millions of gallons, and the weight of sludge sent to sea was 2,620,000 millions of tons. — See also article on " Main Drainage — Floodings," page 76. The Parks and Oven Spaces Committee controls and main- ^^^ks and "■ open tains the parks, gardens and open spaces belonging to or spaces. under the jurisdiction of the Council. The Council is only one of several authorities for the management of the lungs of London. The authorities maintaining open spaces are : — His Majesty's Government . 1,875| acres. London County Council 4,879 >» City Corporation 6,559 55 Borough Councils 220 55 Conservators of Commons 1,200 55 Metropolitan Public Gardens Association 6 >> Private Persons and Compan ies . . 41j 55 consists of twelve to fifteen members, with the addition of not work, more than fifteen members of the Legislature who are members of the Council. It undertakes the duty of preparing and promoting all Bills sanctioned by the Council, and of con- sidering all Provisional Orders and Bills in Parliament affecting the county. The Public Control Committee deals with the following subjects : contagious diseases of animals, coroners, explosives, gas meters, gas supply, petroleum, cruelty to children, pro- tection of infant life, shop hours, water, weights and measures, sale of coal, market inquiries, smoke consumption, and other matters. 262 Weights Weights and Measures Acts. — A staff of eighty-seven measures, inspectors, &c., is employed in carrying out these Acts. During the year ending March 31st, 1903, the number of weighing appHances and machines dealt with was 2,169,764, of which 449,534 were rejected as unfit for stamping. The fees received for verifica'tion and stamping of weights, &c., was over £7,600. The total number of offences discovered was 1,052. Legal proceedings were taken in 373 cases, and 360 convictions were obtained. ^^^f°f Sale of Coal. — In connection with the sate of coal, 718 coal. ' ' offences were discovered. In 41 cases legal proceedings were taken, in all of which convictions were obtained. Sale of Bread Act. — The Act relating to the sale of bread requires that all bread shall be sold by weight ; 239 offences have been reported by the inspectors during the year ending March 31st, 1903 ; 49 persons were cautioned in writing by the Council and 190 prosecuted. Convictions were obtained in each case and penalties imposed amounting to £176. Protection Infant Life Protection Act, 1897. — The number of houses of infants. ' ' notified under this Act for inspection during the year ending March 31st, 1903, was 333. stop The Shop Hours Act, of which Lord Avebury (Sir John Act. Lubbock) is the author. — The number of premises visited by the inspectors up to March 31st, 1903, was 125,573. Infringe- ments of the Act were discovered in 9,324 cases. In the majority the occupiers were cautioned by the inspectors, and in 1,060 cases cautions in writing were sent by the Council. In 57 cases legal proceedings were instituted, and 52 convictions obtained. 263 Seats for Shop Assistants Act, 1899. — During the year seats for ending March 31st, 1903, there were 13,649 shop, which were LsYstants. affected by this Act ; 36,389 females were found to be employed in these shops. At 13,074 premises, sufficient seating accommodation had been provided, but at the remaining 575 this was found not to be the case. Cautions were sent in 173 cases. It was necessary to take legal proceedings in seven cases. Smoke Consumption. — A number of infringements of the The smoke Public Health Act, 1891, have been reported by the police and also by the Council's officers. The sanitary authorities in the district concerned were notified with a view to their taldng steps for the suppression of the nuisance. In a large number of cases summonses were issued and penalties in- flicted by the magistrates. Petroleum Acts. — Last year 1,185 licenses to keep ^®^^°^^"™- petroleum were issued ; 7,948 inspections were made ; 348 oil wharves visited, and test samples taken ; 93 infringements of the Acts were reported ; in 23 cases legal proceedings were taken, in 22 of which convictions were obtained. Markets. — Although not the market authority for London, Jo^don the Council is authorised to prosecute and to conduct inquiries council and negotiations relative to such existing markets and market markets, rights as are not the property of or under the control of the City Corporation, the expediency of establishing new markets in or near to the administrative County of London and the matters relative or incidental thereto. In addition to the principal markets, the unauthorised street markets have been inquired into by the Committee. The existence of these street markets, although sometimes a nuisance to their neighbour- hood, supply a great want in the shape of cheap food to the 264 Coster- poorer classes, and " Progressive " schemes for their abolition mongers. have been sturdily resisted by the costermongers. health. The PuhUc Health Committee deals with all matters arising under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and the Common Lodging House Acts, 1851 and 1853, and other questions affecting the public health. It licenses and regulates offensive trades, slaughter houses, cow houses and knackers' yards ; administers Local Government Board orders dealing with dairies, cow sheds and market shops. The general sanitary condition of various districts comes under its consideration, where it is alleged that the local sanitary authority has failed to carry out its statutory duties. Rivers River s Committee. — This Committee consists of six Thames and Lea. representatives of the Council on the Thames Conservancy Board, and two representatives on the Lea Conservancy Board, and twelve other members added to the two Boards by the Council. It reports to the Council as to the work in connection with the Kivers Thames and Lea, carried out by the two Conservancies. There is no direct jurisdiction of the Council, but, through its representatives, it exercises considerable power of suggestion and supervision. Inquiries have been Docks. made in connection with the rivers and the docks, as well as the sanitary condition of the Thames, and the powers and duties of the Port Authority. The most important Thames proposal of reccut years has been to institute a Municipal service. Steamboat Service. — See article on " Locomotion," page 104. Contracts Stores Committee. — The Stores Committee prepares the for stjOr€S schedules and considers tenders for all goods (except coal) supplied to the Council. The various departments estimate annually the quantities and descriptions of stores needed. These are then classified, and tenders invited. The Committee carefully considers the tenders received, and recommends the most favourable to the Council for acceptance. 265 Theatres and Music Halls Committee. — The duties of this Committee, which also sits from time to time as the Licensing Committee, are {a) to hear all apphcations for the licensing of places for music or music and dancing within the County of London and also for the licensing for stage plays of places within the County but outside the jurisdiction of the Lord Chamberlain, and report thereon to the Council ; (6) To con- sider and report to the Council upon all questions arising out of or connected with the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment Act, 1878, relating to theatres, music halls, and other places of public entertainment ; and the Section of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act, 1882, relating to the improvement of the means of exit from such buildings. Water Committee. — Although the duties which formed part of this Committee's reference from the Council, relating to the acquisition of the undertakings of the companies supply- ing water to London, have been transferred to the Metropolitan Water Board by the Metropohs Water Act, 1902, the Council still retains powers conferred upon it by the Metropolis Water Act, 1897, under which the Council, as a " local authority," may complain, or aid any water consumer in a complaint, to the Railway and Canal Commission with reference to any Metropolitan water company having failed to perform a statutory duty. The Council may also aid any water consumer in obtaining the determination of any question which appears to it to be of interest to water consumers with respect to the rights, duties and liabilities of any of the Metropolitan water companies in reference to the quantity or quality of water supplied or charges made by them. There are a few special Committees, dealing with small holdings, coroners' courts, &c., which do not call for notice. 267 I N 13 E X PAGE Abbey Mills Section . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Acts. — See Legislation. Also separate headings „ Housing. — See Housing of the Working Classes, and separate headings. „ Agricultural Rates Act, relief under . . . . . , . . . . 195 Akei-s-Douglas, Right Hon. A., M.P., on alien immigration . . . . 244 Alien immigration . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 239 Allen, Rev. Dr. Thomas, on Education Bill . . . . . . . , . . 48 Allotments Act, 1887 226 Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1900 . . . . . . . . . . 235 Appendix of notes on Education question . . . . . . . . . . 37 Ai'nold, Sir Arthur, and ground values . . . . . . . . . . 186 Assessments, growth of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Asylums Committee (L.G.C.) . . . . . . . . . . . . 153, 256 Baker, Sir Benjamin, instructions to „ „ at Sanitary Institute Baker, Mr., motion re education Balfour, Mr. Gerald, M.P., introduces Port of London Bill Baths and Washhouses Act, 1896 Belgian contracts . . " Belgian Rails Bogey," Mr. Benn's leaflet Benn, Mr., on foreign contracts . . ,, See Locomotion and Street Improvements. Betterment, creed of Radical Left „ See Recoupment. Bible, The. — See Religious Instruction. Bills in Parliament, promotion and opposition, cost . . Binnie, Sir Alexander, and Works Department „ „ report on drainage. — See also Sir B. Baker Blashill, Mr., and Works Department . . Board of Trade Statistics, English and Belgian labour Bodies Corporate (Joint Tenancy) Act, 1899 . . " Bolstering-up " Works Department Booth, Mr. Cliarles, F.R.S., on London population and starvation Borough Councils. — See Education. „ „ Elections ,, „ and housing „ „ and locomotion „ „ powers of ,, „ condemn L.CC. drainage schemes 76 84 26 .. 219 .. 231 59 71 68, 71, 72 . . 1.33 144, 145, 171 150 80 144 70 233 151 170 31 102 121 210 86 268 PAGE Borough Funds Act, 1903 230 ,, Surveyors, powers of . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 211 Boundary Street scheme . . . . . . . . . . • . • • • • 100 Bread Act, offences . . . . . . • . ■ • • • • • • • 262 Bridges Gommittee (L.O.G.) 256 report on Vauxhall Bridge . . 75, 248, 249, 250 Brockwell Park, cost of acquisition . . . . . . . . • . • ■ 254 Bruce, Mr., on raising capital .. .. .. .. .. •• •• 181 Building Act Committee (L.C.G.) 257 Burne-Jones, Sir Philip, Bart., on drainage . . . . . . . . . . 82 Burns, Mr. John, M.P., on economy, housing, &c. — Sea Finance. ,, „ motion re trade unions . . . . . . . . 140 „ „ on Works Department . . . . . . . . 141 „ ,, and ground vahies . . . . . . . . . . 186 By-laws of L.G.G 260 C " Ca' Ganny " System . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . 147 Gampbell, Mr., on capital expenditure . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Ganals Protection Act, 1898 224 (London) Act, 1898 232 Canterbury, Archbishop of, letter on education. Appendix . . . . . . 50 Capital commitments of L.C.G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Carmarthenshire County Council, action rt, Education Act . . . . . . 33 Chamberlain, Mr. — See PoHtical Tirade. Charities, and Corporate Property Gommittee (L.G.G.) .. .. .. 257 Child Population and School Accommodation Statistics . . . . . . 8 Church Schools. — See Education. Statistics, Appendix . . . . . . 50 City, Mr. John Burns, M.P., attacks the 181 Cleansing of Persons Act, 1897 232 Clifford, Dr., and Education Act . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Cockerton Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Colney Hatch, temporary buildings, report by Mr. Grunning . . . . 144 Committees of L.C.G. — Also under separate headings . . . . . . 256 Gommittee of Inquiry on Works Department . . . . . . . . . . 142 Conduit and Trolley Systems. — -S^ee Locomotion. Conscience Clause, Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Conservatives and Education Act, 1870 Conservative financial policy housing policy labour policy locomotion policy municipal policy recoupment policy thanked by Mr. Forster . . . . 42 156, 164 87, 96, 99 105 215 justified . . . . . . . . . . 201 269 Oonservative street improvement policy ,, and Unionist Legislation affecting London Conservatives and non-contentious work of L.G.C. . . Gonstitution of proposed Port of London Authority . . Gookham Buildings " Cooking the Accoimts." — See Works Department. Cooper, Dr., motion re Education Corporate Property Committee (L.C.C.) Gostelloe, late ]\Ir., Municipal Death Duty evidence . . Costermongers and Progressive market schemes County Councils. — See Education, and letters in Appendix. ,, „ Association and Education Bill County Council, powers of ,, Improvements, net cost . . Courtney, ex-M.P., Right Hon. Leonard H., on rates Cousins, ]Mr. J. Ratcliffe, L.C.C, on royalties Coward, Mr. H., and Education Act . . Cowper-Temple clause 14. also Appendix Crossness Works PAGE 135, 136 . . 222 .. 253 .. 215 154 26 .. 257 .. 193 . . 264 39 . . 210 138 169 73 40 47 .. 152 " Daily Express," on failure of L.C.C. housing policy "Daily News" commends Conserv'ative housing measures ,, ,. criticises L.C.C. housing policy " Daily Telegraph," article on Belgian Labour Dar^nn, Major L., work on " Municipal Trade." Defective Children, Schools for. — See Education. Delaying Improvements, result of Depreciation of L.C.C. credit Dickinson, Mr. W. H., on Works Department Dimsdale, Sir J., M.P., on Port of London Bill Disadvantages of Municipal Labour District Surveyors, powers of Dixon, late Mr. George, M.P., and Education Act, 1870 Dod, F. A., Councillor, motion re flooding Duty of Londoners with regard to Education 98 88 92 70 247 137 162 142 221 146 210 42 85 35 Education, also Education Act, 1903 . . „ perils of London's. — See Perils. „ total expenditure on . . 99 /\.ClS • • • • ■ • Code Act, 1890 Educational policy of the Government Effect of high rates 6 .223, 235, 237 228 3 169 270 " Election Cry," rating Electric trams Elementary Education Act, 1891. — See also Education Eltham Park, cost of acquisition Employment of Children Act, 1903 Engineers' report on floodings Establishment Committee (L.G.C.) Estimates and costs. Works Department " Evening News," on South London electric trams . . Evening schools Evils of Progressive centralization in education Excessive issues of L.C.C. stock . . PAGE .. 191 .. 112 .. 229 .. 254 .. 238 76 .. 258 148, 149 119 19 10 .. 160 Factory and Workshop Acts 224, 229, 235 Farrer, late Lord, memorandum on contractors' wages . . . . . , 140 „ ,, on rating of sites and buildings . . . . . . . , 187 Finance . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 156 ,, Committee (L.G.G.). — See also Finance . . . . . , . . 25S „ „ „ remarks on housing schemes . . . . . . 95 „ „ „ report on Vauxhall Bridge , . . . . . 251 „ education . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , 17 Fire Brigade Committee (L.C.O.) 258 Fleet Street, No. 17 146, 259 Floodings. — See Main Di'ainage. Foreign contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Forster, late Mr. W. E., M.P., and Education Act, 1870 ; thanks to Conservatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . 42 " Fortnightly Review," article on housing . . . . . . . . . , 93 Fowler, Right Hon. Sir H. H., M.P., on Education 37, 48 Free Churches, — See Perils of London's Education. „ „ test questions . . . . , . . . . . , . , , 32 Fulham Park, cost of acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 " G. J. D.," letter to " Standard " on Education General Purposes Committee (L.G.G.) . . „ „ „ ,, report re floodings Gladstone, late Right Hon. W. E., M.P., and voluntary schools Golder's Hill, cost of acquisition Goodrich, Mr., motion re New Gi'oss sheds Goschen, Viscount, taxation policy Government educational pohcy . . Grant, Mr. Corrie, M.P., and Education Act . . Greenwich tunnel, speed of work . . . . . . 49 258 84 43 254 151 196 3 31 145 271 PAGE Ground values, taxation of — Greed of Radical Left. — See also Taxation . . 133 Grunning, Mr., expert, on Works Department management . . . . 144 Hackney Wick sewer, slow work . . . . . . . . . . 145, 153 Haldane, the Right Hon. R. B., K.G., ]\I.P., on Education . . . . 37, 38 Hampstead Road widening . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 158 Hardie, Mr. Keir, M.P., on Education Act . . . . . . . . . . 42 Harris, Mr. H. P., recommends periodical statement of accounts . . . . 158 Harrison, Mr. Frederic, on Holborn to Strand improvement . . . . 136 Hartland, Sir F. D. Dixon, Bart., M.P., moves rejection of Port of London BiU 220 Hibbert, Right Hon. Sir J. T., ex-M.P., on Education 39 Hicks-Beach, Right Hon. Sir M., Bart., M.P., on municipal trading . . 247 High rents charged by L.G.G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Highways Committee (L.G.G.) 259 „ „ „ report on New Gross sheds . . . . . . 151 „ „ „ and omnibuses . . . . . . . . . . 128 „ „ „ reports on tramways . . . , 60, 61, 66, 109 " History of London Street Improvements,' quoted . . . . . . 133 Hobhouse, Lord, presents report on site values . . . . . . . . 188 Hogarth Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Holborn to Strand, new street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Holloway, Mr., address to Works Department employees . . . . . . 147 Horton Asylum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Housing Gommittee (L.G.G.) — /See special chapter .. .. ,. .. 87 „ &c., Gommittee, policy of Gouncil . . . . . . . . . . 92 ,, of the Working Glasses . . . . . . . . . . , . 87 Acts . . . . 88, 90, 223, 227, 235, 237 „ schemes, Mr. John Burns, M.P., on . . . . 179 Hutton, late Sir John, on condition of Vauxhall Bridge . . , , . , 248 X Idris, Mr., on drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Immigration. — See Alien. Improvement Rate Bill, 1893 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Improvements Commiltce (L.G.G.) .. .. .. .. .. 132,259 ,, ,, ,, Holborn to Sti-and improvement . . 136 Income of Voluntary Schools for maintenance, 1894-1902 .. .. .. 45 Incorporated Association of Assistant Masters and Education Bill . . . . 40 Industrial Dwellings Companies and housing . . . . . . . . . . 103 ,, Freedom League. — See Socialistic Protest. ,, and Reformatory Schools Committee (L.C.O.) .. .. .. 260 ,, Schools Act, working .. .. .. .. .. .. .. H Inebriates' Acts Committee (L.C.C.) . . . . . . . , , . . . 200 272 Infant Life Protection Act, 1897 — 232 ; number of houses notified Infectious Diseases Notification Acts „ „ (Prevention) Act, 1890 Inhabited House Duty, transfer recommended PAGE .. 262 223, 226 .. 228 197 Jephson, Mr., defends Finance Committee Kenwood. Dr. H. R.. criticises L.C'.C. and drainage 158 84 Labour Bureaux (London) Act, 1902 ,, Conditions : British v. Belgian ,, Regulations of L.C.C. Lambeth Bridge, condition Landowners, co-operation in housing Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900 ,, Values Assessment and Rating Bill, 1903 Leaflets by Mr. Benn. — See Foreign Contracts. Legislation, Conservative and Unionist . . Lewisham Sewer Licensing Act, 1902 Littler, Sir Ralph, letter to " The Times " re rails Llandovery National School, letter of manager Local Authorities condemn L.C.C. drainage schemes ,, Government Act, 1888 (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1903 „ „ Board, report on rates per head „ „ ,, Secretary and taxation „ „ and Taxation Committee (L.C.C.) 260.— „ „ „ „ „ „ report „ Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890 „ ,, Royal Commission ,, Veto, Locomotion . . Locomotion . . ,, Increased, and Housing Locomotives Act, 1898 London Cab Act, 1896 . . Coal Duties Abolition Act, 1889 L.C.C. Electors Quahfication Act, 1900 „ Elections and Education Act, letters from Bishops ,, (Tramways and Improvements) Act, 1902 Londoners' duty with regard to Education . . 236 • ■ • 70 > > • 58 • . • 252 ■ > . 103 • • • 234 . 205 222 • . - 152 224 236 68 33 81 223, 226 237 169 205 See als Taxation. on site values 185 ,189 223, 227 • • • 194 120 104 ■ • 103 224, 233 230 • • • 226 • • t 234 . . 53, 55 139 158 . 35 273 PAGE 89, 208, 223, 233 . . 207 London Government Act, 1899 . . ,, Royal Commission Legislation. — See Legislation. Locomotion, Royal Commission on . . Municipal Society. — See Socialistic Protest. Parks and Works Act, 1887 Progressive Education Council . . and Rochester, Bishops of, letter on elections and Education Act Scliool Board and Education Bill Long, Mr. Walter, M.P., on administration of Housing Acts '. . Longstaff, Dr., motion re drainage Loveday, Mr., condemns L.C.C. drainage woik Lyon. ^Fi".. on workers and wages 121, 125 225 31 53 39 98 79 85 147 lYI McDougaU, Mr., motions re tloodings .. Macnamara, Di-., i\I.P., on Education . . Main Drainage Committee (L.C.C). — See also Main Drainage „ „ fioodings . . Margarine Act, 1887 Markets and L.C.C. Members of Local Authorities Relief Act, 1900 Merionethshire County Council, action on Education Act Metropohs ^Management Act Amendment Act, 1890 . . „ (By-law Metropolitan Board of Woiks aiid housing, returns „ „ street improvements , ,, Free Churcli Feilei'ation, test questions Police Act, 1887 „ Court Act, 1897 „ „ (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1897 . Courts (Holidays) Act, 1897 Streets Act, 1903 . . Middlesex County Council, tenders for rails .Mitlwives Act, 1902 Military Lands Act, 1892 . „ 1900. „ 1903. Millljank site Minority Reports, Local Taxation Commission Money market. — See Finance. Motor Car Act, 1903 Moulton, Mr. Fletcher, K.C., taxation sciieme condemned >Iunicipal Death Duly, condemned by L.C.C. ) Act 1899 . . 79, 81 37, 47, 50 152, 260 76 .. 225 .. 263 .. 235 34 .. 228 233 91 131 32 .. 225 . . 231 .. 232 .. 231 . . 237 69 . . 230 .. 230 .. 235 .. 238 93, 154 . . 203 224, 238 .. 203 185 274 Municipal labour, disadvantages . . ,, trading . . „ „ Mr. John Burns, M.P., on National Gallery (Purchase of Adjacent Land) Act, 1901 Portrait Gallery Act, 1889 „ Union of Teachers and Education Bill New Cross sheds, cost Nightingale Street scheme " No tramways, no improvements," Progressive dictum Non- contentious work of L.O.C . . Nonconformists and Progressives Noibury housing scheme . . North Woolwich, cost of drainage O Omnibuses Open Spaces Act, 1890 Opposition to Belgian contracts. Conservative and Laliour 145, PAGE 146 245 181 235 22G 40 151 103 134 253 31 95 148, 152 127 228 62 Parker Street lodging house Parks and Open Spaces . . .„ „ „ list of authorities „ ,, ,, Committee (L.C.C.) . . Parliamentary Committee (L.C.C.) „ „ ,, and Education Bill „ ,, „ and Site Values Bill Patent Office Extension Act, 1897 Perils of London's Education (chapter) . . Petroleum Acts, statistics Police Disabilities Removal Act, 1887 . . ,, Reservists Act, 1902 „ ,, (Allowances) Act, 1900 Political tirade by Mr. John Burns, M.P Poor Removal Act, 1900 . . Port of London yy yy J^IU, ■• •* •• ■• ■• Postmen's Park, cost of acquisition Powers and duties of central and local authorities . . Prevention of Cruelty to and Protection of CliikU-en Act, 1889 Progressive. — See also Radical and Socialist. „ centralisation in education, evils . . 93 253 261 261 261 23 191 231 30 263 225 236 234 182 234 213 219 254 207 226 10 275 PAGi! Progiessive Education Council, London . . . . . . • . . . 31 „ housing policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 hostility to the Education Bill (Education, Part II.).. .. 23, 29 ., majority (L.C.C.), disregard of financial prudence . . . . 174 ., and non-contentious work of L.C.C. . . . . . . . . 253 „ "no control " finance policy condemned . . . . . . 157 „ obstruction to sanitary improvements. — Sec Main Drainage. „ opposition to sanitary reform . . . . . . . , 79, ct seq. „ policy of cheap labour . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 „ street improvement policy . . . . . . . . . . 132 „ tramway failure .. .. .. .. .. .. 120, 134 Protection of Children Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Public Buildings Acts 224, 232, 238 „ Control Committee (L.C.C.) 2G1 „ Health Acts 88, 223, 229, 230, 263 „ ,, Committee (L.C.C.) .. .. .. .. .. .. 204 „ Libraries Act, 1901 235 „ Offices (Acquisition of Site) Act, 1895 230 (Whitehall) Site Act, 1897 231 t^uarter Sessions (London) Act, 189(3 . . . . . . . . . • . . 230 Radford, Mr., motion re Jlducation . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Radical. — See also Progressive and Sociahst. „ criticism and excuses. — Sec Housing. „ municipal policy . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 212 „ opinions on Education, Appendix . . . . . . . . . . 37 Railways (Electrical Power) Act, 1903 238 Rates, L.C.C. raising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Ratepayers, grievances of. — See Taxation. Rating of Land Values, Findings of Ro3'al Commission . . . . . . 199 Recoupment v. Betterment . . . . . . .... . . . . 205 Reformatory' and Industrial Schools Act, 1891 228 Reid, Sir R. T,, K.C., M.P., criticises L.C.C. housing policy . . . . 92 Religious Instruction, 12. Also Appendix . . . . . . . . . . 41 Results of L.C.C. Finance — debt, &c. .. .. .. .. 159 ,, Avorking- tramway systems .. .. .. .. .. .. Ill Return of child population in Metropolitan boroughs, school accommodation, &c. 8 ,, cost of promotion and opposition of Bills in Parliament . . 171 Rhodes, late Mr. Cecil. — Sec Political Tirade. Richard, ]\Ir, Henry, M.P., motion re religious education . . . . . . 43 Ritchie, Mr., on the Port of London . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 27(5 ilivers Committee (L.CUJ.) ,, „ „ Steamboats \Vi\[ Robinson, Mi-. II. A., motion re Education Rosebeiy, Avenue . . „ tlie Right Hon. Earl of, on Education „ „ „ „ ,f Housing ,, ,, ,, „ ,, Municipal extravagance ,, „ ,, ,, „ taxation of groinid rents Rothschild, Lord. — JSce Socialistic Protest. Rotten, Lieut. -Col., motion re Belgian conti'acts Royal Commission on Alien Immigration „ „ ,, Housing of the Working Classes ,, „ ., Local Taxation . . ,, „ ,, London Clovernment ,, ,, ,, ,, Locomotion ,, „ ,, the Port of London Royalties, question of Rutty's house, Bromley PAGE .. 264 .. 124 25 . . l:52 •M . . 237 172 181 Gf) 23!) 87 11>1 . . 2(J7 121, 125 . . 214 72 259 81 2G3 21 245 Sales of Coal, offences . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 202 Food and Drugs Act, 189<;c Taxation. Trade L'^nions. — Sto. Labour Conditions, Woiks Department Tramway Companies. — »S'e>.' Locomotion. „ Policy . . Tiamways, Reports of Highways Committee Tube Railways XJ Unionist Governments, action with regard to local taxaticm University' of London Act, 1898 Urban Site Value Rating Bill, 1902 IT 223, 181 147 20 326, 228 16 32, 57 265 18!» 83 151 6 137 94 20<) Valuer, L.C.C, on incidence of rales Vauxhal] Bridge 104, 134 60,61,66 124 192 . . 233 . . 204 189 73, 248 278 Voluntary Schools Act, 18<)7 ,, „ income for maintenance, 1894-1902 „ ,, and religious question, Appendix „ system. — See Education. 231 45 41 ^5r Warner, Mr. Courtenay, M.P., on cdueation ^Vater Acts . . „ Companies Act, 1887 „ Committee (L.C.C.) Waterlow, Mr., defends L.C.C. housing policy 'Webb, Mr. Sidney, on education Weights and Measures Acts „ ,, ,, statistics . . (Purchase) Act, 1892 Welby, Lord, on financial position Wellington Street widening, cost . . Welsh County Councils and Voluntary schools West, Sir Algernon. — See Socialistic protest. ,, View Cottages, report by Mr. G running Westminster improvement scheme Westerdale, Rev. T. E., on Education Bill " Whiskey " money White, Mr. E., motion re contract Women's work in education Wood Green housing scheme ,, Mr. McKinnon and education ,, „ motion re foreign Working Classes Dwellings Act, 1890 . , Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 Works Department ,, „ housing contr 224, 159 acts , 161 39 232, 233, 236 .. 225 . . 265 93 . . 38, 46 223, 227, 255 . . 262 .. 229 162, 173, 183 .. 137 33 144 . . 137 48 21 75 2 96 35 65 . . 227 224, 231 140 .. 101 "^ Yoxalli Mr. J. H., ]\I.P., on education 39 "^ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. Form L9 — 15m-10,'48(B1039)444 UNIVERSITY of CALIFORJNIA^ AT <^S London Mi mi ci pal 3628 Society - 12QA — T.ondon County L84 council election, 1904 imiininS. f^EGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 514 308 6 JS 3628 1904 L84 WSW-'.'.' m fl(('^:il m Me. Ilili tnmW't|i>>!>':'*lt''l