HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, 24th April 1896. COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]. Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Monday next) putt off to Monday the 4th of May next. RETIREMENT OF VESTRYMEN (LONDON) BILL [H.L.], NOW RETIREMENT OF VESTRYMEN AND Clause 1, [SHORT TITLE.] This Act may be cited as the Retirement of Vestrymen (London) Act 1896. LORD HARRIS moved to insert after "vestrymen" the words "and auditor.” He said that at present auditors were elected in the same way as vestrymen, and, as he understood, one of the objects of the noble Lord (Lord Monkswell) in promoting the Bill was to reduce expense, it was obviously desirable that auditors should be included in the Bill; otherwise expense would have to be incurred in separate elections. LORD MONKSWELL said he had no objection to the alteration. Amendment agreed to. thereof were vestrymen." He said the Local Board at Woolwich retired annually by thirds. Woolwich was within the Metropolitan area, and the Local Board discharged many of the duties of the London vestries, being for example the sanitary authority; and it seemed desirable that the Bill should extend to the governing body of the parish of Woolwich, in the same way as to other parts of the Metropolis. LORD MONKSWELL said, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4, ELECTIONS TO BE TRIENNIAL, AND FULL THE EARL OF DENBIGH moved to insert before "the month of May next" the word "third." He said that when the Bill was read a Second time, he expressed a doubt whether it was required; but the House had decided that question in the affirmative. Therefore, as a matter of public convenience, it was highly desirable that the Clause, as amended, added to the Bill. Bill should be taken advantage of by Clause 2, In this Act, [DEFINITIONS.] (1.) The expression "the Council" means the London County Council. every vestry in London. It would be inconvenient that some should continue to be elected on the present system, and others should adopt the triennial system. As the Bill stood, the London Vestries were asked to adopt the triennial system in the month of May next after the passing of the Bill. In other words, twothirds of the members elected were asked to commit a kind of official suicide. LORD HARRIS moved that "vestry" Those who were elected last May were should include "the Woolwich Local asked to run the risk of a contested Board of Health, as if the members election in the following May, while, if 4 E (2.) The expression "vestry" means a vestry elected under the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, and any Act amending the same. VOL. XXXIX. [FOURTH SERIES.] they adhered to the present system, they | adopt the Act, and to leave them free from would be safe in their seats for three any bias, except considerations of public years. In the same way another third convenience. No doubt, as the Bill was of the vestrymen would have to run the framed, it offered a slight personal inrisk of a contested election at the end of ducement to some not to adopt it; they two years, instead of remaining three might have some slight bias against it; years in their present security. Thus, but under the Amendment, if they contwo-thirds of each vestry would be prac- sulted only their own personal convenitically against the adoption of this Act. ence, they would be desirous to adopt the He had put down the Amendment on Bill. He thought it undesirable that behalf of several persons who were keenly vestries should be put in such a position interested in municipal politics in Lon- that the members should have a strong don, and who had practical experience of personal inducement to vote one way or the working of London Vestries. He the other. He the other. He would suggest as a comwas assured that there was a strong promise, the insertion of the "second" feeling on this point, and that the Bill month of May, and then the personal would be rendered nugatory without the inclinations of the members would be more Amendment he proposed. The object equally divided. His own feeling was of the Bill was to assimilate the election that the vestries should not be put under of vestrymen to the election of boards of a personal bias but should be left to vote guardians, under the Act passed three according to their views of the public years ago; by which boards of guardians convenience. were given the option of adopting the triennial system. They had adopted it because the effect with them was exactly the contrary of what it would be with vestries under this Bill. He understood the proposal was somewhat distasteful to the Local Government Board, because some members who had been elected for three years would be allowed to sit for five years. He was aware that the effect of the Amendment would be that members would retire by thirds at the end of three, four, and five years. The guardians were elected for three years, with the knowledge that those lowest on the poll would retire one-third in one year, and another third in two years. Yet the guardians were given the option of practically prolonging their existence, and all he asked was that the same option should be given to vestrymen in order that, as a matter of public convenience, we might have a uniform system among the Metropolitan Vestries, and we should be subjected to the inconvenience of seeing the Measure adopted by some and rejected by others. LORD MONKSWELL said, the logical outcome of the noble Lord's speech would be that the Bill should be com LORD HARRIS said he could not contest the fact that under the Bill there would be some who would not enjoy the delights of office for as long as they had anticipated when they were originally elected, but from the point of view of a Government Department, it appeared that that was more desirable than that the Government should, by its own action, ensure a certain number of members remaining in office for two years and longer than they were originally elected for, and in certain other proportions for one year longer. If the Amendment was pressed to a Division, he must, on behalf of the Local Government Board, ask their Lordships not to accept it; but he would mention to the President the suggested middle course, and ask him to consider that as well as the Amendment. As at present advised, he must oppose the Amendment. THE EARL OF DENBIGH said he was willing to accept the compromise, and would now withdraw the proposed Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. PROVISIONS OF METROPOLIS MANAGE MENT ACTS.] pulsorily applied to the vestries, and it [ACT TO HAVE EFFECT NOTWITHSTANDING should compel all the members of a vestry to retire every three years. It was proposed to leave the matter to the option of the vestries, and it was thought the best plan would be to give them no personal inducement to adopt or not to Earl of Denbigh. The provisions of this Act shall have full the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890. effect notwithstanding any of the provisions of or any Acts amending the same. LORD MONKSWELL moved to add to the Clause— "And after the passing of this Act every vestry, whether it comes under the provisions of this Act as to retirement or not, shall be entitled to fix the date in the month of May on which the election of vestrymen shall take place." No time being mentioned in the Bill, it would not otherwise come into force until the following January. LORD MONKSWELL said, that in the absence of words to the contrary, the Bill would come into force when it received the Royal Assent. The vestry should be allowed to consider the matter whenever they liked, and pass a resolution when the Act was passed. LORD HARRIS said there was no objection to a date being fixed. vexatious and harassing condition to delay the power of the vestries. He said this was a question on which there had been a good deal of feeling. The vestries had contended that they were legally entitled to fix the date of their own election; and the Local GoLORD MONKSWELL suggested that vernment Board had had a legal opinion the usual course should be followed, and that they were entitled to do it. At as soon as the Bill was passed, the first the Local Government Board were vestry should have an opportunity of determined to abide by their view; but passing a resolution. It was simply a he was happy to find that the Local Government Board had said they would THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY asked give way if the vestries would adopt this Bill; but there was no reason why what possible reason could there be for a vestry which did not adopt it delay. The Bill was an optional and not should be placed in this matter in a a compulsory Measure. The vestries were different position from one that adopted it. The two classes ought not to be put in a different position; and if the Local Government Board surrendered their claim in one case they should do so in the other. As a matter of drafting, he understood the Local Government Board thought the Amendment might be improved, and he was, therefore, willing to leave the drafting of it to them. LORD HARRIS said, the Local Government Board were willing that this power should be given to the vestry. There was no objection to the principle of the Amendment, but he asked the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment now, and at a subsequent stage he would bring up a new clause more in conformity with the ideas of the Local Government Board as to wording, and also some consequential Amendment in the preceding clause. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn ; Clause 5 added to the Bill. THE EARL OF DENBIGH, in order to give the vestries a little more time, moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause :— "6. That this Act shall come into operation on the first day of October in the year One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six." enabled to make application to the Local Government Board, but they were not compelled to do so immediately. He did not see the object of fixing a date in these circumstances. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.--[No. 60.] HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, 24th April 1896. PRIVATE BUSINESS. CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY farmer pointed out that for the carriage of grain produce the Company received about 12s. 6d. an acre, while the landowner received about £1; and when grain and straw were taken together the Company got more than the landowner. For the conveyance of one horse from Valli, in Anglesey, to Liverpool, the charge was £2; while from Dublin, through Holyhead to Liverpool, the charge was only 25s., and a free return for the groom. This was grossly unfair. Liverpool was the market for the agricultural produce of North Wales, and yet the farmers were handicapped in every way. Straw was worth 30s. a ton; and the rate from Festiniog to Liverpool was 21s. 6d. per ton. At that rate it was impossible to compete with foreign producers. For the carriage of food stuffs and manure to the farmer in these small towns in Anglesey the same excessive charges were made. The carriage from Bangor to a small village in the middle of Anglesey was 91d. per ton per mile; the charge from Liverpool to the same town was 1ąd. per ton per LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL-mile. If the same rate were charged in Read a Second time, and committed. Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the City and South London Railway Bill to consider whether any, and, if any, what provisions can reasonably be made for the preservation of the church of St. Mary Woolnoth, without preventing the construction of the railway and station.-(Mr. H. C. Richards.) WAY BILL. both cases the farmer would save 6s. a MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnar-ton. As to the conveyance of slates, von) moved : "That it be an instruction to the Committee to provide that the rates and tolls charged on the Chester and Holyhead branch of the London and North-Western Railway Company's line of railway shall be no higher than those charged on any other branch of their railway system." minerals and coal, the rates were tolerably fair to the large towns; and he asked that the same rates should be charged for conveyance to the small agricultural towns on the Chester and Holyhead line. By a Bill passed in 1891 the Company was entitled to charge 11d. per mile for He said that the traders and others inte- slates on this line; but for a much rested could not afford to fight the greater distance the charge was much Company in the Committee, and the less, and the Company exercised their Instruction gave them the only oppor-power to charge the maximum rates to tunity of ventilating their grievances. these small agricultural centres. It was The preferential charges levied by the time that the rates were reduced when Company on the Chester and Holyhead the railway came into competition with line could not be disputed. A confer-sea-carriage. But if they could carry ence of the agricultural societies of North goods to Cardiff, Swansea and Liverpool Wales was held on the subject at Bangor at the reduced rate and make a profit, a short time ago. It was non-political, the inland rates must be excessive. the President of the Board of Agricul- And if there was no profit, then it ture was present, and most of the was evident that the small inland speakers belonged to the Ministerial towns paid excessively to make up Party. A farmer of Anglesey stated for the loss on the seaport rates. at that conference that he had to pay 7s. per head for the conveyance of his fat beasts to Chester. Cattle were sent all the way from Dublin over the same line to Chester at 7s. 6d. per head, with deduction of 2s. per head. The same The farmer, landowner, and rural trader had to make up the loss, and they were practically taxed in order to enable the Company to crush out the sea competition with other towns. This was grossly unfair, and the House ought to put an end to the injustice. For the conveyMR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire) He was conance of slates from Nantyglo to Carnar- supported the Motion. von the Company charged the maximum vinced that an injustice was being done to North Wales, and that the charges in rate of 1s. 7d. per ton, but if it was assumed that the slates would not be many cases were four times as high as were charged elsewhere in England. discharged at Carnarvon for the purpose Excessive rates like these were really of being conveyed by sea and would be strangling, to a great extent, the trade sent along the London and North- of North Wales, which depended almost Western Railway, the charge was entirely on minerals and farming. The reduced by one shilling. What was the condition of farming in North Wales at object of that? It was simply in order present was most miserable, and it was to crush the sea trade of Carnarvon. cruel to charge the poor farmers for the He thought that he had made out a case carriage of their produce a sum which proving that along this line of railway, almost, in many cases, was equal to the wherever the Company had a monopoly, rate paid to the landlord. The question the farmers, landowners, and small of rates was becoming most urgent. traders were being charged excessive While the price obtained for farming rates, and where there was sea competi- produce and minerals had fallen about tion they were cutting down rates to the 50 per cent. in the last 20 years, the finest point and making them up at the rates charged by the railways for their expense of other trades who had no sea carriage were just the same. competition. He appealed to the House MR. C. T. MURDOCH (Reading) to protect the the small farmers and maintained that there was no necessity traders. whatever for this discussion. The whole MR. W. T. HOWELL (Denbigh of this question was fully discussed when Boroughs) seconded the Motion, remark- the Bill of the London and Northing that his constituency felt strongly on Western Company was before the House this matter of railway rates as exacted a few days ago. The same arguments by the London and North-Western were used on that occasion as the House Railway Company. He protested had heard to-day. The House against the principle which was applied really asked to decide a most intricate. by the London and North-Western question without having the necessary Company, in common with other rail- evidence before it. They were asked to ways, of making non-competitive areas say, without having the evidence for and pay for the cutting of rates at other against particular rates, whether or not points of competition between the rail- a Committee upstairs should be bound to way systems. carry out a particular suggestion. Such a proceeding was quite contrary to the usages of the House. Matters of detail were always left to the Committee, which could sift the evidence necessary to come to a decision. He thought that on this occasion the House would not depart from its usual practice, and would delegate its authority to those who could look carefully into the matter and sift it thoroughly and then come to a decision which no doubt would be ratified by the House. This question of rates had been directly before the Board of Trade and other authorities, and he was surprised at the statements made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon that it was impossible for farmers and traders to put their views before a Committee of the House of Commons. *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue the general principle. MR. HOWELL protested as regarded this piece of line, because it was an application of the general principle which had been explained. In North Wales the railway company which had the largest monopoly of railway carriage was the London and North-Western Company, and there were many instances quite as startling as those which had been quoted in connection with the other parts of the system. They were justified, therefore, in ventilating this question, because it was vain to tell the small farmers in that part of the country either that they should go before the Railway Commissioners, or when the Company had a Bill before Parliament to go before a Parliamentary Committee, and be represented by counsel. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: said a word to that effect. was I never |