i ii ill I ■ mmrm ndon County Council Election, 1910. acts & Arguments FOR unicipal Reform Speakers and Candidates, VOL. I. PACE L.C.C. Finance 1 Locomotion ----- 81 The Works Department 191 Powers and Duties of Central and Local Authorities 255 The L.C.C. and the Supply of Electricity 303 Index -------- 345 Printed by WITHERBY & CO., 326, High Holborn, W.C, and ihed by THE LONDON MUNICIPAL SOCIETY for the Promotion of Municipal Reform, 11, Tothiil Street, Westminster, S.W. yi^ 1^ naoc:^ ^ '' L.C.C FINANCE. The Municipal Reform Policy regarding Finance^ The following statement of Policy is taken from the Municipal Reform Manifesto, dated December 4th, 1906, issued shortly before the last L.C.C. elections. This question of financial prudence and control was one of the chief issues at the Elections in March, 1907. " Financial Control. " The policy of the Progressive Party has been, and is, in relation to finance to embark upon schemes costing millions of money without any proper control or co-ordination of expen- diture by the Council's Finance Committee, and without any adequate system of audit showing profit and loss, and, in addition, to risk the ratepayers' money on unremunerative municipal enterprises. " The poUcy of the Municipal Reformers has been, and will be, to secure more effective control over the whole expendi- ture and commitments of the Council ; to see that the charge upon the rates for necessary improvements is spread over a number of years ; and that improvements are undertaken — as by private owners — only when they can be afforded. They will insist that all large schemes shall be submitted to the Council in a yearly budget, with such reports from the Finance Committee as will enable the Council to take a comprehensive M r^CA OC view of proposed capital commitments, and to marshal and regulate its annual expenditure so as to avoid unduly pressing upon the ratepayers." In subsequent pages we shall show how consistently 4;he Municipal Reformers have pursued this policy since they have been in a majority on the L.C.C., but it will be useful first of all to give some brief account of the system of finance in vogue up to 1907. The Struggle for Financial Control. The Council came into existence in the year 1889. At once differences arose as to the powers of the Finance Committee over the estimates of the various spending Committees. The question came to a head on July 7th, 1891, when Lord Llngen, the Chairman of the Finance Com- mittee, boldly advanced the doctrine that the expenditure of the Council was to be subject strictly to the control of the Finance Committee. The noble lord contended that " the position of the Finance Committee was strictly analogous to the position of the Treasury in Parliament," as the Local Government Act required " every county council from time to time to appoint a finance committee to regulate and control the finance of the count5^" Although Lord Lingen was supported by the minority in the Council, the Progressive majority decided that lie had taken an exaggerated view of the powers of the Finance Committee ; that, if the Council proposed any proceeding which was likely to lead to a financial difficulty, it was the duty of the Finance Committee to call attention to the fact, and to request the Council to reconsider its position, but that within the limits of reasonable financial possibility it was not the business of the Finance Committee to interfei^e with the decisions of the Council. Lord Lingen shortly afterwards resigned, so strongly did he feel that the Council had acted um\isely, and contrary to the spirit and intention of the Local Government Act. Certainly the doctrine which Lord Lingen laid down was one that commended itself to prudent men of business ; and it derived added support from the analogous case of the Treasury control of Imperial Finance. The reckless and far-sighted ambition of the Progressive section at Spring Gardens, however, disdained any real effective financial control. That would have hindered the achievement of their Socialistic aims. Henceforward, the Council discharged its onerous duties without the slightest vestige of real control by its Finance Committee. " Control and regulation" was construed merely to mean " advice." What heed to mere " advice " was to be expected, during the time when the Progressives were in a majority, from the twenty spending Committees which, week after week, presented to the Council schemes involving some hundreds of thousands, some millions of pounds ? Each Committee had its own pet hobby, and vast schemes were rushed through the Council on the principle of " You-scratch- my-back — I'11-scratch-yours ." The decision taken in 1891, to cast financial control to the A^inds, was not, however, acceptable to the Municipal Reform Party. A prominent plank in their election programme of 1895 was " control of expenditure," and in the year 1896 those who then represented the Municipal Reform Party obtained the passing of a rule under which street improvements were to be submitted to the Council in a yearly budget. That was the one solitary step taken during ten years towards securing co-ordination of expenditure. Li their programme issued before the L.CC. election;^ of 1901, the Municipal Reformers made control of expenditure a principal plank, as follows : — CONTROL OF EXPENDITURE. " Control of expenditure is the next principle. The Radicals claim credit for the fact that the County Rate has not risen materially. But the increase m rateable value has enabled larger sums to be obtained from the same nominal rate, and expenditure lias advanced, though past years have not borne their fair share of charge for improvements. ^ Moreover, the Council has in recent years rapidly committed itself to improvements and other undertakings involving a gross outlay exceeding £20,000,000. The undertakings are desirable enough in themselves, and some are of a remunerative character. But schemes are considered merely upon their individual merits, and without due regard to other claims upon the County Fund. The Finance Committee, indeed, have reported that, under present conditions, " it is impossible for the Council to form a correct estimate of its financial liabilities and to decide whether it is justified in under- taking a particular outlay at the moment." " The Moderates have obtained the passing of a rule under which Street Improvements are submitted to the Council in a yearly budget. They consider it imperative to extend a similar rule to other large schemes, and to require sucli reports from the Finance Committee upon the financial position as will enable tlie Council to take a comprehensive view of the proposed capital commit- ments. By such measures, and by economy in general administration, they believe that unnecessary expenditure can be prevented, and the charge upon tlie rate can be spread over a number of years, so as to avoid an oppressive increase of burden in any year." Progressive Policy of " No Control." The Progressive majority, however, took no practical steps to control or to co-ordinate expenditure, thougli their o\vn Finance Committee, in the Annual Report to March, 1903, had to admit the need for so doing. In this Report, the Finance Committee stated : — -» We have for a long time been impressed with the desirability of establishing some system by which the Council should be able to co-ordinate its capital expendi- ture, and thus regulate, to some extent, the amounts of its borrowings from time to time. The present financial system does not afford the Council any special opportunity of reviewing its capital commitments, and of judging of the expediency of entering upon new schemes in the light of its existing engagements. Proposals involving large capital outlay come before the Council at all seasons of the year and votes are passed. After contrasting the practice of the Council with that of the State, the Committee continued — Unlike the State loans for works, such proposed expenditure is not brought before the Council as a whole. The Council, therefore, is not in a position to regulate it according to settled order, or to marshal it at a rate which will not unduly press upon the ratepayers, or affect the credit of the Council in the money market. The Council has no opportunity of considering as to the amount of loans which it will be wise to incur in the next financial year, or in the next few years, and no attempt is made to order the succession of works so as not to impose too heavy a charge on one year. Such co-ordination of expenditure appears to us indispensable if financial order is to be maintained. — (Extracted from the Annual Report of the Finance Committee, to March, 1903.) The following report of a debate (on the proposal to widen Hampstead Road) which took place in the Council on December 22nd, 1903, well illustrates what Avent on when the Progressives were in power. The Improvements Committee recommended that the estimate of £245,500, submitted by the Finance Com- mittee, be approved, and that expenditure on capital account not exceeding that amount be authorised for the purpose of widening Hampstead Road at the southern end. authorised by the London County Council (Tram- ways and Improvements) Act, 1902. Mr. Campbell (Moderate) contended that the Council were going on in a wild way, incurring capital expendi- ture without knowing where the money was coming from. Last February they raised £5,000,000, and that was all spent. Mr. H. Percy Harris (Moderate) said that no doubt the Hampstead Road widening was of urgent import- ance, and the only question Avas that of expense. . . . He would point out the unsatisfactory position members were placed in whenever recommendations involving capital expenditure were brought before them. . . . Years ago, it was urged that there should be a periodical statement of the Councirs commitments, with a view to a co-ordination of capital expenditure^ but the idea was then scouted. Lord Welby (Progressive) (Chairman of the Finance Committee), said that while, no doubt, it would be possible for the Finance Committee to refuse to present an estimate, yet that had never been his view of their duty. In bringing forward an amendment to a recom- mendation for an item of capital expenditure, one must consider the question all round, and when ho brought forward such an amendment a short time ago lie got little encouragement. • 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 bringmg forward a statement of their commitments, the difficulty had been to obtain from the Standing Committees statements on which tliey could rely. They knew, for instance, that the Highways Committee contemplated an expenditure of nearly £10,000,000 on tramways, but the Finance Committee could not find out the rate at which that expenditure would proceed. — The Standard, December 23rd, 1903. Finally, in July, 1904, after repeated speeches from the predecessors of the j)arty now in a majority on the Council, " in favour of co-ordination and control of capital expenditure, the Council passed new Standing Orders. These new Orders were represented as likely to produce some practical effect in checking, reducing, and regulating capital expenditure. When, however, in April, 1905, the Progressive Finance Committee presented estimates of capital expenditure, it was found that the estimates did not relate to future projects, but mainly to schemes already approved. Therefore, the new pro- cedure was rendered ineffective. The object of the new Standing ' Orders was to extend the principles by which a budget of the proposed capital expenditure on street improvements in- volving an application to Parliament was annually laid before the Council. The Improvements Budget was a budget of new schemes «hich the Council had not sanctioned. The budget of capital expenditure presented under the new Standing Orders related to schemes already sanctioned, and in regard to which there could be no " regulation and control." 8 Even Lord Welby {the then Chairman of the Finance Committee) confessed that the object which the Finance Committee had in view in bringing up the estimates in question was to prevent the injurjr annually done to the Council's credit by the publication of inflated estimates of capital expenditure. That view differed from the idea which prevailed when the Finance Committee reported in 1903 in favour of altering their financial system so as to afford the Council a " special opportunity of reviewing its capital commitments and of judging of the expediency of entering upon new schemes in the light of its existing engagements." Speaking in the Council on December 12th, 1905, Lord Welby again referred to this lack of financial control and co-ordination, and said : — " The policy by which the Council passed scheme after scheme was a strange one. In one year the Council passed a scheme involving huge expenditure, put it aside, forgot all about it, and looked upon it as if the thing were done. The next year fresh schemes were produced, and the process repeated." Therefore, there was not, during the whole time the Progressives were in power, that effective control and regulation of expenditure clearly contemplated by the Legislature, and so urgently required in the interests of the London ratepayers. What the Municipal Reformers have Done. Now let us see what the Municipal Reformers have done in order to secure this much-needed control and co-ordination of expenditure. This was one of the first reforms which they took in band, and the follow ing extract from the report of the Finance Committee, taken from the Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Council, 1907-8 (p. 21 et serj.), shows what they were able to do in their first year of office : — " One of the most far-reaching matters wliich has engaged the attention of the Committee during the year is the question whether the standing orders of the Council provided for the exercise of sufficient control over expenditure, and the Committee reported on 22nd October, 1907, that they had arrived at the conclusion that in some respects the Council's control over its expenditure should be strengthened, and the methods of exercising such control improved. After verj' careful consideration by the Council, the recommendations of the Finance Committee were, with certain modifications and amendments, adopted, and the Council referred tlie matter to the General Purposes Committee, upon whose recommendation the Council on 18th February, 1908, made such amendnients of the standing orders and of the orders of reference to committees as were necessary to give effect to its decisions. " The new standing orders aiid oi'ders of reference appear in the minutes of the Council of 18th February, 1908, and the standing orders have also been published separately. " Control by the Council over its expenditure is primarily exercised by means of the submission to the Comicil by the Finance Committee of estimates, upon which expenditure, whether on maintenance or capital accoiuit, is voted by the Council. The jiosition of the Finance Committee in relation to this matter is defined by section 80 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1888, which is as follows : — " Any costs, debt or liability exceeding £50 shall not be incurred except upon a resolution of the Council passed on an estimate submitted by the Finance Committee. " Reference may also be made to section 74 of the Act, which provides for the prej^aration at the beginning of each financial year of an estimate of the receipts and expenses of the Council during the year, and of the amount required to be raised by means of contributions. " Prior to Febrviary, 1908, the practice of the Council was to regard the estimates of expenditure on rate and revenue accounts submitted under section 74 of the Act as estimates of costs, debt or liability \mder section 80 (3), and they have been adopted as such ; and the exjoenditiure has been voted by the Council approving each of these estimates at the beginning of the financial year. No expenditure beyond that provided for in these annual votes could be inciu-red except by the submission of a supplemental or special estimate. The expendi- tiu-e on rate and revenue accounts thus came imder complete review at the beginning of each fuiancial year. " The procedure with regard to capital exi)enditure was on different 10 lines. An annual estimate had to l)e prepared in connection with the Money Bill, for the purpose of obtaining Parliamentary authority for the capital expenditure of each year, but this estimate was not used for the jjurpose of voting expenditure. Exjjenditure on capital account was voted at any period of the year on the submission of an estimate of the cost, which might be spread over several years. Discussions on financial policy involved in proposals for capital exj^enditiu-e could' under this practice, arise at any time, but no opportunity was afforded in connection with the voting of capital expenditure similar to that which was given in regard to expenditure on maintenance account for considering proposals for capital expenditure as a whole. Sonip general discussion took place, as a rule, on the consideration of tho estimate for the annual Money Bill, but this estimate until recently had been regarded as indicating the possible rather than the probable expenditure vuider each of the various heads, as it was desirable in all cases tliat the borrowing power obtained should be sufficient, and it- is only in the last year or two that efforts have been made with any degree of success to limit the estimate to an amount more nearly approximating to the actual expenditure. " The Finance Committee felt that much niore importance should be attached to this annual estimate of capital exjienditure on which the Council settles its general financial policy for the year, so far as capital expenditure is concerned, and that instead of capital votes being passed at any time, irrespective of the year in which expenditure would fall, capital expenditure should be made the subject of annvia! votes, the procedure being as far as i^ossible assimilated to that alread^' followed with regard to the maintenance estimates, and time being specially allotted at the meetings of the Council between 1st April and 30th Jmie in each year for the consideration of the estimates, on both capital and maintenance accounts. It was found necessary, however, to continue the practice of submitting estimates vmder section 80 (3) of the Local Government Act, of costs, debt or liability on capital accomit, at any period of the year ; but the.se estimates are for the- amount of the liability about to be incurred, and the actual expenditiire is to be regulated by the annvial voting. " Other alterations of practice were proposed by the Finance Committee. The more important changes embodied in the standing ordei's mia3r be summarised as follows : — " (i.) Capital expenditure is to be voted annually on the annual capital estimates, and not, as heretofore, on specific estimates of costs, debt, or liability, and the procedm'e is to be brought more closely into harmony with that adopted for the annual main- tenance estimates (rate and revenue accotuits). " (ii.) In considering the annual estimates the Finance Committee 11 are to have regard not only, as heretofore, to the maximum amount Report nt which, in their opinion, the Council should seek to borrow in the the Finaii' year, but to the amount which, in their opinion, the Council should Committi-'< raise by county contributions in the year, and in submitting the annual estimates to tlie Council, they are to make their recom- mendations accordingly. " (iii. ) General discussion of questions of fuiancial i)olicy in relation to expenditure is to take place on the consideration of the annual estimates, the estimates for caj^ital and maintenance accounts respectively for each service being set down for the same meeting of the Council, and no question of financial policy is to be discussed upon, tlie submission of a specific capital estimate, for which provision in whole or in part has been made in the annual capital votes of tlie year. " (iv.) No new projjosal involving expenditm-e on either capital or maintenance account, for {Purposes for which no provision is made in the annual estimates, may be submitted to the Council except in cases of urgency or where the Coimcil is mider statutory obligation to jaroceed. " (v.) No recommendation or proposal for an application to Parliament for powers, the exercise of which would involve exiDendi- ture by the Council, whether on capital or maintenance account is to be submitted to the Council until a report on the financial bearings of such proposals is presented by the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee have hitherto been required to report only on proposals involving capital expenditure exceeding £5,000. " (vl.) Every jjroposal involving expenditure exceeding £50,000 is to be accompanied by a statement showing approximately when the expenditux'e will take place and the expenditure is not to exceed the amount so estimated for any year without the approval of the Comicil on the recommendation of the Finance Committee. " (vii.) The Finance Committee are required to report con- currently to the Council upon the financial bearings of any recommendation in which the Council is asked to approve any proposal in principle, upon proposals affecting new or existing sources of revenue, and, in certain cases, upon proposals in regard to alterations of or additions to staff. " (viii.) The report of the Finance Committee is in every case to appear on the agenda paper of the Council simultaneously with the report of the executive committee. Previously, although both reports were considered by the Council at the same time, the i-eport of the executive coinmittee sometimes appeared before the Finance Committee's report. " In framing standing orders embodying alterations of practice> 12 tlie opportunity was taken to revise and recast the whole of the standing orders relating to expenditure and the submission of estimates." The new standing orders referred to above, which relate to the control of expenditure, are contained in a report of the General Purposes Committee, dated 10th February, 1908, and are set forth in the L.C.C. Minutes of 18th February, 1908, (p. 287 et seq). Owing to exigencies of space, we are unable to set out these standing orders here. Improved Financial Administration under the Reformers. In presiding at a Meeting held under the auspices of the London Municipal Society at Caxton Hall, Westminster, on October 7th, 1909, Mr. H. Percy Harris, L.C.C, m the course of a brief address thus clearly emphasised the distinction between the administration exercised by the Finance Committee during the Progressive regime and the action of this Committee since the Municipal Reformers have been in office. "As one \\'ho has known many Finance Committees of the London County Council, I venture to say without hesitation that the Committee which came into existence in March, 1907, is the first which has been successful in carrying out \\hat is its statutory duty, viz., in the words of the Act, to control and regulate the expenditure of the Council. That the Finance Committee has been successful in that respect I think is best proved by the maledictions with which it has been assailed by the Progressive Party. The task which the Finance Committee have had to carry out has been an uphill one, because the Committees of the London County Council were not accustomed to be controlled, and the work has been very arduous, because the Finance Committee have had to probe the merits of a large 13 number of transactions. Now, I think the Committee have been successful for two main reasons ; the first is that they liave managed to get their financial criticisms and control into play at a sufficiently early period in the evolution of schemes of expenditure. The old Finance Committees always waited until a spending committee liad formulated an expensive scheme and got very attached to it, and perhaps put it before the Council, and then they began tlieir financial criticisms as a Finance Committee. The result was always the same. The Finance Committee showed the Council conclusively that a scheme Avas too expensive to be carried out, and then they meekly allowed the Council to carry it out. Now, the present Finance Committee manage to nip in the bud expensive schemes, and I believe that that is the only way by which economy and financial control can be established. The other main reason why the Finance Committee has been successful in its work is that they have behind them a majority on the Council who are in favour of economy. There is a moral to that remark, and I hope that you will commend it to the people of London, viz., that if they want financial control and economy, they must return to Spring Gardens a Municipal Reform majority, who will support the Finance Committee in their control and regulation of the Council's expenditure." Huge Progressive Commitinents. Although the Municipal Reformers, as we have seen, were able to bring all future expenditure under proper review and control, they could not of course avoid the necessity of providing for the huge capital commitments bequeathed by their predecessors in office — the Progressives. Those liabiUties 14 liad been incurred with such reckless irresponsibihty that it Avill be many years before they can be finally liquidated. The Progressives tried hard at the time to conceal the amount of capital expenditure to which the Council was committed. Lord Welby, speaking in the Council as far back as November 17th, 1903, said: — The growing demands on the Council are so great, that I must say that the Council is outstripping the bounds of prudence. Speaking in the Council on October 24th, 1905, Lord Welby, in referring to the Council's capital expenditure, further stated : — Theposition has changed considerably during the past few years. Within the next year or so the Council would be face to face with a serious condition of affairs. When they passed the Westminster improvement scheme a few years ago it had not committed itself to the enormous financial proposals involved in electrification of tramways, a steamboat service, construction of tunnels, and other great works, which would be felt in the near future. To treat this j)roposal, involving half a million of money (as the proposer and seconder of the amendment wished to do), as a mere bagatelle was, to say the least of it, far from wise. The money market did not regard such sums as mere bagatelles. The commitments, which Mere not in existence at the time the Westminster improvement was decided upon, amounted to between £12,000,000 and £15,000,000, and this was coming upon the Council within the next two or three years. They had expended £5,000,000 on Kingsway and Aldwych, and Mliile time was going on, recoupment was long delayed. The ratepayers were suffering to a large extent, and were paying £120,000 a year on the dead debt of the Holborn to Strand scheme ; and if the Council did not accept the proposal of the Syndicate as regarded Westminster, there would be a deficit to be met by the ratepayers of £175,000. even if all the recoupment was received. Before the Council committed itself to any further large expenditure, he implored the Members to pause and consider that they were the guardians of the public purse, and to realise the responsibilities that guardianship entailed. He hoped that the t'ouncil \\ould not adopt the quixotic proposal of Mr. Hubbard, and add to the already enormous commit- ments of the Council* Return setting forth L.C.C. Capital Commitments under* Progressive Rule. An L.C.C. Return, dated 21st March, 1906, shows the total indebtedness of the Council as on 31st December, 1905, and also the commitments of the Council in respect of (1) services charged directly on the County Rate, and (2) revenue-producing undertakings. This Return states : — " It will be seen from the summary table at the foot of page 3, that the total commitments amount to £21,008,348. Of this sum, £12,111,410 has actually been voted, and is in process of being expended, although the payments A\'ill be spread over several years, and the balance of £8,896,935 has been definitely approved by the Council, though not 3^et voted in detail. '•' The Council has also approved of proposals for which powers are to be sought from Parliament in the present session, involving, if approved bj- Parliament, a further outlay of £4,018,945. They comprise the * Note. — Notwithstanding this appeal by Lord Welby, 27 Pro- gressives voted in favour of this amendment, which, however, as a result of the Moderate opposition was ultimately defeated. This Division List is set out in London Municipal Notes for December, 1905, page 325. 16 reconstruction of Catford Bridge, £59,000 ; the construc- tion and equipment of new tramways, the purchase of lands and other purposes of the tramway undertaking, £1,010,000 ; street improvements in connection with tramways, £359,570 ; the acquisition of sites for educa- tional purposes, £90,375 ; and the establishment of an electric supply undertaking, £2,500,000 ; but all these schemes have to be submitted to the Council again, if Parliamentary powers are obtained, before they become actual commitments. Some of the proposals with regard to tramways have already been struck out of the Bill of 1906 for want of the consents of the local authorities. " An approximate estimate has been included in the return for the cost of the completion of the work of re-constructing and equipping all the tramways in London for electric traction, as well as for the construc- tion of the various new lines for which powers have been obtained. " This estimate, however, does not contain anything in respect of street widenings beyond those which have already been definitely approved, as it is not possible to say what will be the cost of further widenings until the proposals for dealing with the various sections of the lines are worked out in detail. " Some of the expenditure of £21,008,345 to which the Council is already definitely committed, will be spread over several years, but on the other hand the further expenditure in sight, which has not yet reached the stage of definite commitment, must be borne in mind in considering the subject of future capital expenditure. In connection with education, for instance, nothing is included in the return beyond the balance of expenditure actually voted, but the Council is con- stantly voting additional sums. 17 " Recoupments. " The amounts included in the return under the head of ' Street Improvements ' are the figures of estimated gross cost, without any allowance for recoupment ; and, although these figures represent the cash which has to be found, the value of recoupments must be deducted in order to ascertain the addition to the net debt. The estimated value of recoupments in respect of the im- provements included in the return, beyond the value already brought into account in arriving at tlie net debt on 31st December, 1905, is upwards of £1,500,000." Commitinents of the Council Account to be provided fon next few yearsi Summary. on Capital during the In respect of services charged directly on the county rate {see page 4) 2. In respect of' revenue- producing under- takings {see page 5) Balances of votes out- standing on 31st Dec, 1905. Estimated expenditure on schemes approved, but not voted \ up to 31st I Dec, 1905, 7,833,293 Total. 3,037,585 10,870.878 4,278,117 5,859,350 10,137,467 Total .. 12,111,410 i 8,896,935 I 21,008,345 ( Extracted from page 3 of the Return. ) 18 Capital Com rri it merits on " Revenue- Producing Undertakings." The following were the capital commitments of the Council in respect of Revenue- Producing Undertakings (extracted from page 5 of the same Return) : — (a) Balances of votes outstanding on 31st December, 1905 : — Working Class Dwellings — £ £ Dwellings under Parts I., II., and III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act .^ 437,509 Dwellings under Improvement Act 86,786 Tramways — 524,295 Proportion of cost of street widenings (as on page 6) 264,831 Reconstruction works, construction of tramway subway, generating station and other buildings, cars, machinery, &c 3,434,699 3,699,530 Steamboats 54,292 Total of sums voted and outstanding 4,278,117 (6) Estimated expenditure on schemes approved but not voted up to 31st December, 1905^- Working class dwellings — Dwelhngs under Part ,111. of the Housing of the Worldng Classes Act— £ £ £ Totterdown Fields Estate 133,000 Norbury Estate .. .. 161,000 White Hart Lane Estate * 1,440 ,000 Old Oak Common Lane site 450,000 2,18.4,000 Dwellings under Improvement Acts (say) . . . . . . . . 50,000 2,234,000 * This is the estimated cost of buildings to cover the whole Estate, the development of which will extend over some years. 19 Tramways — Purchase of tramways, re- construction for electric traction, construction of authorised new tram- ways, &c. (say) .... 3,600,000 Steamboats (voted 13th March, 1906) .. .. .. 25,350 Total of sums approved, but not voted 5,859,350 At a meeting of the Council, held on October 22nd, 1907, Viscount Midleton (M.R.) gave a summary of the financial commitments which the Council then had to face. He said : — " The position was really serious. In April, 1907, the conamitments of the Council on capital expenditure were taken at about 17 millions with a probable addition of four or five millions under the Electric Lighting Bill and a possible addition of £3,000,000 for Asylums. Considerable reductions had been made in this work by . the new policy of the Council. On a more recent examination they might say that the sums already voted and practically beyond control, for which provision must be made, amounted to a little more than seven millions. To that must be added, subject to any reductions which might be made, one and a quarter million for main drainage, one million for the County Hall, two millions for working men's dwellings, and two millions for tramways, already approved. Their seven millions, therefore became 13 millions, and of that it must be estimated that in the present and two succeeding years about ten millions would be required. And 20 this figure was liable to be increased by any fresh tramways that it was -desired to take over, by any fresh expenditure in connection with education, and by the claim of such schemes as might be pressed on them on grounds even wider than that of municipal interest. They had already bills outstanding for two millions, and it was estimated that their unfunded debt would amount to over three millions including those on March 31st, 1908. At present they were using almost the whole of their sinking fund, not for the redemption of the debt, but to avoid creating a fresh debt." Municipal Reform Economies. Although they could not escape altogether from the obHgations imposed on them in advance, the Municipal Reformers managed to effect considerable reductions in respect of the schemes referred to above by Lord Midleton. Speaking at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, on October 7th, 1909, Viscount Midleton thus referred to this subject. " Now, what was the inheritance upon which we entered two-and-a-half years ago ? I have had something to do with spending in the course of my life, and I know Avhat it is to be a Minister of War, spending 2J millions a week, when we, who would be called to account for details afterwards, had to face all kinds of expenditure which no human being could possibly control at this end of the telegraph wire. But I confess I was appalled to find what our position was on the L.C.C. in March, 1907. We were receiving an income of 10 milUons a year, and we were spending 15 millions. We were steadily borrowing 5 millions a year, our credit was going down (jontinually, and instead of borrowing at 3 per cent., we 21 were borrowing at 3 J per cent., the remunerative and unre- munerative services were huddled together — services called remunerative, and services which were absolutely unremunera- tive. Nobody seemed to have the smallest conception among our opponents that this course of conduct must ultimately lead to financial ruin, and could only be checked by our being pulled up by the City when we required fresh loans. We had then commitments of one kind or another, either actually or partly incurred, to the extent of about 17 millions of money, and I may say that every farthing that we have knocked oft' those commitments has been met by the dertermined opposition of the Progressive PartJ^ I cannot recall one single occasion when the Progressive Party have gone into the lobby of economy, nOr one single occasion on which our opponents have given us any help towards reducing those great commitments What was the result of all our efforts at economy ? The result has been that we have brought our debt within moderate limits. I think in all we have knocked off about 7 millions out of those 17 millions of commitments." Financial Embanrassments. The difficulties in connection with the huge capital commitments with which the Municipal Reformers were faced when they came into po\\er in March, 1907, were complicated considerably by a serious depreciation in the financial credit of the Council. The Progressives, unable to raise money by a fresh issue of stock, had accumulated a large floating debt which had to be liquidated in some way. At that time the Council's 2 J per cent, stock had fallen in value to about 77| per cent., and no less than 6 per cent, had in cases to be paid for temporary loans. 22 To this result the Progressive Council had very largely contributed. Lord Welby, the Progressive Chairman of the Finance Committee, may be again quoted. Speaking in the Council on November 17th, 1903, he said :— *' There can be no doubt whatever, I think, for insufficient reason, to a great extent, the municipal loans are not very favourably viewed by the money market. There h 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." In a further speech in the Council on December 12th, 1905, Lord Welby said :— " The Council would have to raise many millions of money in the next few years. The money market was the Council's master. In every one of the numerous cases he had mentioned, the Council was bound to go to the money market. They were constantly borromng, and it was necessary, if the credit of the London County Council was to be maintained, that they should produce to the money market evidence that they were acting jirudently, soundly, and in a business-like way. " It was not sufficient for the Council to think that because a scheme was passed it was done with. The Council might undertake useful works, but that was not all that was necessary to success. They must have reasonable co-ordination, and regulation. They must have a true appreciation of the relative proportions of the various sums tliey proposed to borrow, and regulate their applications to the money market with wisdom." Speaking again in the Council on April 3rd, 1906, Lord Welby said that " he was bound to admit that the 23 present price of the Council's Stock was not altogether satisfactory." The results of Progressive lack of system and prudence in the management of tlie Council's finances have been indicated, and it is important also to note one cause whicli contributed materially to the critical financial position which the Municipal Reformers had to 'meet. The Progressive majority for many years refused to carry out necessary street improvements until the incidence of local taxation was changed. The result Avas twofold: /(I) Improvements had ultimately to be carried out at a greatly increased cost because of the enhancement of the value of property — consequent upon delay — ^and because of the increased cost of the money borrowed to pay for it ; (2) The burden of an excessively large number of improvement schemes was, in consequence, cast upon the rates at one time, when large sums were required for tramways, main drainage, and other purposes. Temporary Borrovi/irtgs by the Progressives. Tlie Progressives had avoided issuing any stock since December, 1905, but had to indulge in temporary borrowings to a considerable amount. On December 15th, 1906 [i.e., shortly before the Progressives were ejected from office), the Council was owing about £3,500,000 on temporary Bills. That, however, by no means included the whole of the Council's temporary borrowings at that time. The Council had taken powers, at various times, for temporary borrowings amounting to a further total of £1,500,000. The Finance Committee in tlieir report dated October 24th, 1906, stated :— 24 " The Council on 17tli July, 1906, authorised us, subject to the sanction of H.M. Treasury, which has since been received to negotiate between that date and 31st December, 1906, such temporary loans, not exceeding the sum of £1,000,000, as might be necessary for the Council's purposes, for periods not exceeding six months. " On 31st July, 1906, we reported that under this authority a sum of £100,000 had been borrowed from the London and Westminster Bank from 23rd July until 3rd August, 1906, at 3 per cent, per annum interest. We now report that arrangements have been made with the Bank to borrow further sums amounting to £800,000 from time to time between the present date and 31st Decem- ber, 1906, the rate of interest being the Bank Rate* for the time being with a minimum charge of 3| per cent, per annum." [Extracted from the L.C.C. Minutes, October 30th, 1906, page 953.] The Finance Committee in a further Report dated December 5th, 1906, recommended that application be made to the Treasury for sanction to the Council obtaining, between January 1st and March 31st, 1907, temporary loans not exceeding £500,000 for periods of not more than six months. Mr. R. A. Robinson (M.R.), (the then leader of the Party), at the meeting of the Council on December 11th, 1906, strongly opposed the further proposed temporary loans, as recommended by the Finance Committee, and expressed the serious concern felt by his Party at tlie way in which * The Bank Rate at that time (January 15th, 1907), was 6 per cent. 25 the debt of the Council was being piled up. The Council, said Mr. Robinson, had now £3,500,000 out in county bills, and with the sums proposed to be borrowed and temporary loans on capital account the amount of the Council's temporary loans would come to £4,800,000. The net debt of the Conncil, continued Mr. Robinson, including that in respect of education, was £44,000,000. The Council's rate had risen from 12Jd. in the £, when it came into existence, to 17d. The rateable value of London was £31,800,000 in 1890, but to-day it exceeded £43,000,000, and a penny rate reahsed £181,000, as compared with £131,000. Instead of allowing the rate to go up, the Council should have tried to keep the increase of expenditure within the increase of rateable value. The Council was exacting from the ratepayers now double the amount for which they were asked in the first year of the Council's existence. The policy of temporary loans at a high rate of interest meant that the new Council, immediately after the election, would have to face a certain issue of new stock. Mr, Robinson concluded by moving that the recom- mendation be referred back, that the Finance Committee be instructed that the Council was not willing to continue indefinitely the policy of raising money by temporary loans at a high rate of interest, that the Committee should report after the Christmas recess as to whether it was not possible to issue stock, and that the provision of a temporary loan should not extend beyond January 31st, 1907, or for a larger sum than £250,000. Sir Melvill Beachcroft (M. R.), who seconded the amendment, spoke of the seriousness to the ratepayers of the fact that the Council had a floating debt of £4,800,000. The amendment was lost on a division by 63 votes to 29, and the recommendation was adopted. 20 Depreciation in the Council's Credit under Progressive Rule. The last L.C.C. issue of stock by the Progressives was in December, 1905, and 3 per cent, stock was then issued at the average price of £93 10s. 8-89d. Duiing the year 1906, the Council's 3 per cent. Consoli- dated stock fell as low as 86|, whilst the lowest price touched during 1905 \vas 92*. Again and again the Progressive-Socialists were challenged by the Municipal Reformers to go to the market, and issue a fresh loan in the form of stock. They realized, however, how severely such an issue of stock would damage their Election chances, since it would demonstrate conclusively how seriously Progressive financial administration had injured the credit of London. The Progressives' contention that the heavy decline in the value of London Consolidated 3 per cent. Stock was due merely to the same causes which had affected Consols, etc. was absurd, as shown by the fact that {inter alia), at the time, the 3 per cent, stocks of several of the principal towns in Great Britain stood at a higher price than did the L.C.C. 3 per rent, stock. Speaking in the House of Lords on Jul}^ 9th, 1906, the late Viscount Goschen, one of the greatest authorities at the time on Finance, and an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said : — " My Lords, there is only one point connected with this very important subject to which I wish to be allowed to refer, and that is the present credit of tlie London County Council The works to be undertaken may be excellent in themselves, but there nmst be a certain moderation in taking up the vast number of schemes to which the London County Council commit themselves. This question is not only a Metropolitan one ; it almost becomes a national question. If the other great boroughs see that the London County Council, the premier council in respect of the whole Empire, borrowing at the pace at which they have been borrowing, and producing Bills for £12,000,000 at a time like the present, I think it is calculated to have a disadvantageous effect on municipal finance generally. My noble friend Lord Avebury said that the credit of the London County Council was good, but I am surprised to hear that it is not as good as the credit of Manchester, Birmingham, and Liverpool. I do not know whether Lord Welb}^ \\ ould confirm or dispute that, but I am told that these cities are able to borrow more cheaply than the London County Council. If that is so, it appears to me that it is a most serious warning to the London County Council as to the degree to which they are straining their credit, and it is a circumstance which should induce the Council to look to their waj^s. . . ." — Extracted from the Official Reports. According to The Times Financial and Commercial Supplement of December 10th, 1906, the following Corjior- ation 3 j)er cent, stocks, for example, stood higher on December 8th, 1906, than did the London County Council 3 per cent, stock, viz., Blackburn, Bristol, Edinburgh, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield. The real causes for this large depreciation were : Firstly, the enormous increase in the issue of stock by the L.C.C. extending from the year 1890 to 1906; and, secondly, that investors were beginning seriously to be frightened by the liopelessly unbusinesslike methods and Sociahstic schemes of the Progressive-Socialist majority. The Hon. W. R. Peel (the present leader of the Municipal 28 Reform Party) thus described — in a letter to the Press on December 18th, 1908— the position in wliieh the Progressives left the finances of the Council : — " In order further to illustrate the views of the President on finance, let me examine the matter more closely. When the present Council was elected in March, 1907, after this year of magnificent finance, the unfunded debt of the Council was : — 9th March, 1907. London County Bills outstanding (principal moneys) £3,349,574 Overdrawn balance on capital account . . 2,590,987 £5,940,561 " The Council had, in fact, reached the end of its financial tether. There were outstanding as many County Bills as it was legally possible to issue ; and the Finance Committee had been compelled to borro\^- largely from their bankers at rates rising to 6 per cent. The Reformers were obliged to issue a loan for £5,000,000 a month after they came into power, at an unfavourable moment from a market point of view, merely to straighten out the financial entangle- ments of their predecessors." Municipal Reformers Issue New Stock. It was as the Municipal Reformers had foreseen. The Progressives successfully evaded an issue of new stock down to the date of the Elections of March, 1907, and directly aftei' the Elections the Municipal Reformers had to appeal to the investing public for money. This first issue of stock by 29 the present Coancil is thus described by the Finance Committee in the Report of the Proceedings of the Council for 1907-8 :— " At the commencement of the year under review the Council's financial position was such that it was necessary to make a further issue of stock. There were at that time outstanding £2,500,000 of London Coimty Bills, maturing on 18th April, 1907, and £923,000 maturing on 2nd August, 1907 ; and in addition to this the capital account of the Council was overdrawn on 31st March, 1907, to the extent of £1,789,401, the fimds having been temporarily provided by a loan of £1,000,000 from the London and Westminster Bank, at the current bank-rate, which ranged between 4 and 6 j^er cent, dm-ing the currency of the loan, and by the balances in hand on other accbimts. £5,000,000 of stock was issued in April, 1907, for the purpose (i.) of paying of? £1,500,000 of the London County Bills, part of £2,500,000 falling due on 18th April, 1907, (ii.) of making good the overdrawn balance on capital account, and (iii.) of providing funds to meet further capital expenditure. " Having regard to the monetary condition then prevailing it was decided that tliis stock should bear interest at 3| per cent., and as the only Council stock then existing which bears interest at this rate was the 3 J per cent. Metropolitan Consolidated Stock, wliich is compulsorily i-edeemable in 1929, it was necessary that the stock thus issued should be of a new denommation, viz., 3h per cent. London Coiuity Con- sohdated Stock. The stock was issued at a fixed price of £97 per £100 of stock. " The stock was of the same character, as regards redemiJtion, as the existing London County Consolidated stocks which the Council is not bound to redeem at any fixed date, but which may be redeemed at par on one year's notice at any time after 19th March, 1920. After careful consideration the date before which the Council bound itself not to redeem the new stock was fixed at 6th October, 1929, in order that the period might correspond with the remainmg currency of the 3^ per cent. MetropoUtan Consolidated Stock. The dates of payment of the dividends were also made to correspond with those for the latter stock, viz., 5th April, 5th July, 5th October, and 5th January. " Having regard to the large amount of the issue and the general financial situation, it was necessary to make arrangements with various bankers and financial houses in London to take stock amounting in the aggregate to £2,500,000 " firm " in the terms of the jjrospectus. " Applications for the balance of £2,500,000 of stock numbered 10,217 and amomited to £59,848,100. As upon the last occasion of an 30 issue of stock at a fixed price, special consideration was given to the small subscriber in allotting the stock. The expenses of the issue amounted to £28,557 5s. 5d. The formal approjiriation of the proceeds of the issue was not made imtil the year 1908/9." The Council is authorised under its annual Money Acts to raise temporary loans for periods not exceeding six months, subject to the consent of H.M. Treasury being obtained. The amount of such loans outstanding at 31st March, 1907, was £1,000,000, and during the year under review it was found necessary to borrow from the London and Westminster Bank further sums amounting to £1,650,000. All the sums so borrowed were repaid by 24th May, 1907- The Progressives tried hard to make political capital out of the fact that a portion of the above-mentioned stock was issued " firm" to certain financial houses and bankers. The fact, however, that that course was adopted in order to assure the success of the flotation, and on the advice of the Govern- ment broker and of the Bank of England, is a sufficient answer to all such party criticism. A further issue of £2,750,000 3i per cent. County Stock was made in April, 1908, and the credit of the Council had by that time so far improved that it was decided to increase the issuing price to par. Although the list was closed four days before the advertised time the money was subscribed many times over. The applications, numbered 13,395, and amounted in value to £110,337,460. Of those applications 10,261 received Stock in amounts of £500 and under, representing a total of £1,896,525, These figures show that the credit of the Council had greatly improved out of all proportion to the credit of any other borrowing body. 31 Below we publish a table which gives particulars regarding the Issue of Stock by the London County Council in each year ended 31st March, 1890-1910. Yearly Amount Rate of Selhng Price Amount raised by Interest at of each £100 Year ended of Stock the Issue wliich (a) of Stock 31st March. issued. of (a). was issiied. issued. («) (b) (c) id) Million £ £ Per cent. £ s. d. 1890 1.00 913,000 2i 91 5 3 1891 1892 - . 1893 1.20 1,070,000 2i 89 3 6 1894 1.50 1,351,000 2I- 90 1 2 1895 2.00 1,898,000 2I 94 18 3 1896 1.00' 1,024,000 2| 102 7 5 1897 1.00 1,045,000 n 104 9 7 1898 2.50 2,512,000 2i 100 9 7 1899 2.00 1,905,000 2i 95 4 9 1900 1.75 1,614,000 21 92 4 10 1901 5.00 4,846,000 3" 96 18 6 1902 5.00 4,910,000 3 98 3 11 1903 2.00 1,968,000 3 98 8 7 1904 5.00 4,730,000 3 94 11 10 1905 5.00 4,467,000 3 89 6 10 1906 4.00 *3,842,000 3 *96 1 1907 1908 5.00 4,821,443 H 97 1909 2.750 2,735,714 H 100 11910 Improved Credit under the Reformers. In the table below we set out the prices of two kindred 3 per cent. Stocks, viz. : India 3 per cent. Stock, and Metropolitan 3 per cent. Stock — to show the improvement which has taken place in the credit of London consequent * These amorunts, based upon the London County Council's retiu-ns, appear to be too high. For the reason that a trustworthy authoritj', the Stock Exchange Official Intelligence for 1906, states that the last London County Council loan (December, 1905) was issued at an average price of £93' 10s. 9d. t Estimated. 32 on the change of Government made at the last L.C.C. election. Closing Quotation (Lower Price). Description of Stock. 1 Dec, 1890. 1 Dec, 1894. 1 Dec, 1898. 1 Dec, 1902. 1 Dec, 1905. 1 Dec, 1908. 1 Dec, 1909. Metropolitan 3 per cent. Consolidated Stock India 3 per cent. Stock lOli 95i~ 1091 103 IIH 107 100 100^ 96 98 93 85^ 92 83^ It will be seen that during the last three years the L.C.C. Stock has not fallen to anything hke the same extent as India Stock, although the latter has behind it practically the guarantee of the British Government. Speaking at the Council on March 30th, 1909, Viscount Midleton (M.R.) said : — " The exertions on the part of the Municipal Reformers had not been thrown away in the matter of the Council's credit. When they came into oflBce the London County Council Three per Cents, stood at 86; now they stood at 92 to 92|. It was significant that two years ago Consols were at 87. To-day they had dropped to 83. So that whilst within that period the London County Council stock had appreciated six points, Consols had fallen four points." The following figures (taken from The Times) represent the quotations of these same two stocks at a more recent date. On December 28th, 1906, the Seller's price of Consols was 85 j^;:, and of London 3 per cent. Stock 87|. On December 28th, 1909, the Seller's price of Consols was 82|, and of London 3 per cent. Stock 88 J. Thus it will be seen that during a period in which the price of Consols has declined in value over 3 per cent,, the 33 : credit of theL.CiG. th^-s actually appreciated in value. The first date takeii„it!will be noted, represents a date only two months prior to the defeat of the Progressives, whilst the corresponding plate in 1909, is that on which tliis 'section is remitted to thq printers for printing off. I Redemption of Stock. | Undoubtedly one of the great factors in securing this improved credit is the policy of stock redemption which lias been one of the most noteworthy features of the : Municipal Reform administration in regard to the finances of the London County Council. A considerable amount of the previously existing stock of the Council lias been bought up and cancelled, thus resulting in a saving to the ratepayers of large sums in respect to the payment of interest. The following figures illustrate how this has been done. (These figures are exclusive of the debt owing in respect of education.) Year. Party in Power. Cash outlay. Stock (debt) cancelled. 1904-5 . . Progressives . £250,000 . . £290,686 1905-6 .. ,, 400.000 . 453,250 1906-7 .. ,, 50,000 . 56,083 1907-8 . IMunicipal Reformers . 750,000 . 805,019 1908-9 . , , , . 1,000,000 . . 1,153,418 1909-10. )> . *1, 000,000 . . * 1,100 ,000 * Partly estimated. The above figures show an average cash outlay for the three Progressive years of £233,333, and for the three Municipal Reform years of £916,667, or nearly four times as much. The L.C.C. Debt. The alarming growth of the L.C.C. Debt under the Progressive regime will be seen by a reference to the tabic which we set out below. B 34 Table showing the Total Debt and the Total Assets OF THE London County Council, also the Net Debt. Total Debt. Total Assets. I At Net Debt. 31st March. Amount. Amount. a—b (a) (b) (c) £ £ £ 1890 30,198,000 11,880,000 18,318,000 189J 30,294,000 12,389,000 17,905,000 1892 30,641,000 12,835.000 17,S06,000 1893 31,421.000 13,378,000 18,043,000 1894 33,026,000 14,340,000 18,686,000 1895 34,859,000 15,416,000 19,443,000 1896 35,822,000 16,607,000 19,215,000 1897 37,301,000 18,195,000 19,106,000 1898 39,378,000 19,284,000 20,094,000 1899 41,941,000 20,379,000 21,562,000 1900 44,436,000 21,405,000 23,032,000 1901 47,939,000 23,125,000 24,814,000 1902 52,750,000 25,661,000 27,189.000 1908 57.627,000 28,927,000 28,700,000 1901 61,131,000 30,529,000 30,602,000 *1905 71 585,000 26,967,000 44,618,000 1906 . 74,514,000 29,280,000 , 45,234,000 1907 i 78.801,000 30,487,000 48,314,000 1908 81,155,000 31,217,000 49,938,000 * In 1904 [905, the -London County Council took over the debt of the Sciiool Board for London, aniounting^on May 1st, 1904, approxi- mately to £1 1,549,000. {Extracted from the Statistical Abstract for London, 1908, pp. 54 and 55.) 35 L.C.C. Capital Expenditure. Tlie expenditure of the Council on Capital Account is sliOAvn in the following table : — 1900-1 £2,356,288 1901-2 £2,922,280 1902-3 £3,831,633 1903-4 £3,386,307 1904-5 £3,836,758 1905-6 £3,528,057 1906-7 . . £4,722,256 1907-8 £3,260,983 1908-9 £2,391,581 1909-10 . . (Not yet available) {Extracted from the Annual Report of the proceedings of the Council, 1908-9, pp. 286, 287.) The accompanying Statement shows the Capital Expendi- ture for the past seven years ending March 31, 1909, by the London County Council, dividing such Expenditure up into Rate Services and Revenue-Producing Services. c2 36 , be '2'd f^l OH -M ■♦^ •-. I o O ;, ^3 c!: ffi «*, '—00 2 o CV o ,— , I- c CI w l^ i~ c — L~ ^ X *— cc ^^ CO (M tc ^ ^ o o Tt< CC ^ O M o: o t^ M ^ CJ 1^ ^ ?-M cc 00 IM « CI C) t ffO 05 -* O O? (N OC to CI -* C3 QC W Tf GO r-< CM -" c. C fC — — ^ r-l CI —> CO CI o o oc c) cr. cf i r-T^" CM Tt- » fC i-O :o o c -r^ O CO oo C CO 00 -*■ -t fC a: i~~ -^ 66 ci CO IS Tf' OC ■* C - ^ -2 '^ „ C _^ CI ►-<2C o 'S -w — '-P i CO '^ -S tfi -2 .=i ^"^ i I H S t^ Q * ^ "I- ® i2 ' rt". ^ C5 "^ : HH «; '/. C" Hi :; o b ~ :n: t: -2 ^ °i K s s ^ s * ^ ^ £ t^ ^ 1 r- '-■o Cl o r-* o ^^ ~f o 0 1-- "* o o t-- X -t CO o d Ti< -^' c^i ' " 00 t^ r-i d «5 Ol C4 t^ CO o 1—1 00 ^ 1 O o; — 1 (N Oi t- Tf r— 1 -* rl CO 05 i-H " Cf " c- Tt< M C-) lO QC CO of 1 i-T' X t-^-+" »— » ' (M t^ -^ ' ^ t- ^ ' C: (M o_ '—1 CO M r4~ r-^ i-H _w CO C3 o ^ —i in t~ CO i:^ o lO • CO 00 05- lO C<1 o X o C| t-^ IM^ CO -^ IC '02 CO ■^ CO 00 1 CO (M X o ' o 00 — , CO 1 CO CO (M ' CO CO 't o (M Cc T+ X ^ 00 ^ CO CO (M O CO «-< O CO IC m 1— 1 O w '-O t1< 1-^ Cl (N 1 ^' d -t-t 1 00 cf 1 cf ' « IS CO CO ' m iM ' ' (M ^^ 1—4 O (M t- t^ c-f (M W ^ T*4 t^ r— 1 00 05 X (>• 00 C-l o r- o lO t- ■^ 1?: CO M t- iC o o^ eo CO (M r: X r^ r— ■ Lt Lt x" X cc (M l- C 1— 1 OJ X 1 iM -* (M 1- X ' CO O i-i 1 o ■* (N t- o >n co' (N" CO CO X O ffO c? cr. r- X . o cm f-H fO CO i.O X o ^H '^ c IS 1— 1 o CO^ » -<^ rt CO (M L-; t- ^'' ^'' x'cf 1 CO" '-''" "s' 1 co' (M X c. ' X ^ oi ' CO • t- -M t^ o^ X^ 00 (N r^ J'O CO >o (M Ol CO O t^ \ ' X (M f-l rt GO rH CO CO of r-n" CO CO M Tf< X CO o CO lO X CO ■* t- CO — < ^^ 1 CO 00 rt t~ OJ x_^ , X (N CO M - H-^^ ; b , 6c bD ; ' !- : : : i .X'Ti'Ti S >>::r si- R*^ : g % •S.S >^ t— 1 O 0^ o ® X ■J3 t^ X o P o p mgs— (i.) Under the Hous of the Work Classes Act, 1890 (ii. ) Under Impro ment and ot Acts . . Tramways Small Holdings . . Parks Boating . . and I of St resen ,nsfer coun Sur of 18 -I" H o . Workshops AM YARDS (Works ment) w w 1— i 1 « go M % fcc u o Total of I., II. Expenses of issue Expenditure rep by loans tra from former of Middlesex, and Kent (Act Q 1— ( 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 « .« ? o '^ a'i ^ 1 2 S" S* S "o !£ "^ o _. - o is 'H o Cj 05 IE 4J +i ^ m cii t S^J t^ CO — ^ ] 01 oi _ oJ £■ TJ -; q ,-< t^ --< o in — O O l^ 1 '.0 — 1 t^ t^ rj o ■* 05 CO -H >~" ■ ~j 1 ^ oi co' ^ • -H CH "H (M 0) -- !-i t^ 1*^ [ ^j <>j 1 ^ iC 05 r~ ^ r^ — oa 0-. cc t- in o' .^ ,»< S ® o ■o M O 0"j t- ^ X '^. ~. "". ~. co' 1 m oi X t^ * ri T)< CO W r-^" ■-*■ 1 -t c^i cc" 1^ "3 ■*-' '-' ~" 1 OJ 1 o ^ 1 CJ3 00 !>. IC 1— < CO Ol 01 01 X CO 1 r-H M CO o: o 05 ■d "* cc O 00 ^ CO -H q lo r-H q q CO . . . . ^. in -^. 1 M lO in " (M > _fl (M i-H CO I-H I-H I^ 05 O CO X X OD X m CO CO Qj o CD «+J 00 O o m co' O' Ln o m CO 01 -f c m cc ] P^ t^ o CO CO. t- ~ X -* C-J^ q o ■"* oi (N '^ CO ^ • '=il o ® -H O i-H rH Oi TiH in -" o. ^~ 'c (M ^O (M CO t-^ >0 02 Tt< >0 C-1 \ 0~ (M CO o -h 00 CO -H — t- o oi -^ — m c; oi f—^ X s t^ '^ IM CO >o t^ X ^ CO^ x_^ ■< " cf cf o X £ <4H >. % Q I : ;.5 : ; * 40 P o o ct 1 •A 'S ^ S^ : : B : : r- ! a: CO .2 73 (D c p S «: P P « 03 • ■-! 5 r:; c 3 1 '3 a o o ® "3 "3 t/: "5 "3 d H O o !* P > CQ Cjrr- cc " r- o o ^ S^^^ 0.73 CO oj ~ D -t- _o fl fl s s o o It p C/1 " o HO 22 o g p: a J ^ c ti o 1-^ o -£h:1 g^ § o 50 Report of the Finance Committee on tiie Debt of London. On May 4th, 1909, an interesting report was presented to the L.C.C. by the Finance Committee on the question of the Debt of London. This report dealt only mth the debt secured on the rates, and left out of consideration the outstanding debt of the City Corporation (£4,206,539), which is secured on the estates and revenues of the Corporation. From this report we quote as follows : — " The total net debt of London secured on the rates on 31st March, 1808, was £109,931,239. The total net debt on 31st March, 1907 was £108,558.377, and on 31st March, 1906, £105,596,986. This shows an increase of £1,372,862 over the total on 31st March, 1907. This is less than one-half of tlie increase of the previous year, although a considerable addition to the net liability, and inasmuch as a sum of no less than £2,528,291 was paid off, or set aside for the redemption of debt during the year 1907-8, it represents the creation of fresh debt to the aggregate amount of £3,901,153. It will be seen, however, that a large part of this debt has been incurred for revenue-producing services, " The total net debt in its relation to the rateable value of London shows only a very slightly increased percentage. On 31st March, 1908, the net debt was equivalent to 25493 per cent, of the rateable value of London, whereas on the 31st March, 1907, it worked out to 25390 per cent. 51 eij in -*-> . ^^ >< o v S «u Q O 2 " O 0) ■§ ° o 3§ o 'SO 1) rS c3 a> © o o d .S O ^ a> ^ I -^ CO •■ -l-i ^ CO '^ o o o cS •^ CO tC oT cr 1- o H G<1 O t^ CO~ ^^ '^ Ci O o I— 1 I— ( >— 1 . o o a> o -^.2 o O r— 1 00 ^ W O m 1—1 oT ''f lO" u o ^■g CO 1— 1 O r^ o S 00 — o Cl 1^ P o m <^ t^ *3 X) IN. t^ o d 3 . CO IN. o CJ S *3 r73 >o (>l 'if r/l '*3 f2 ■ o OJ rfi a. d a Cj o a> > o Si O oo &D 2 d P S 0} K! d O 00 a> 0) d^ _d '^ **-• ^- "^d +s CD a) ».! Ph Oi >. £ S u d a> d i| P^rP ::"'d oJ >> c3 52 " The rateable value of an area is considered to be a fair test of its ability to bear a given amount of indebtedness, but it is essential to consider how much of the total net debt iifv^olves a burden on the ratepayers. For example, although the charge for interest and repayment on the total net debt amounted in 1907-8 to £6,031,856, only £3,926,316 was borne by the rates, equivalent to a , rate in the pound of Is. 9-72d. (against Is. 9-71d. in 1906-7), the remaining sum of £2,105,540 being a charge on the net revenue of various undertakings Mhich are for the most part carried on with little or no charge on the rates and on certain fees. " The net debt attributable to revenue-producing under- ' takings is nearly 50 per cent, of the total, and is as follows : — " Water supply (Metropolitan Water Board — London's rateable proportion) £38,726,514 " Tramways (London County Council) . . 7,262,140 " Electric lighting (Metropolitan Borough Councils) 5,408,701 " Working class dwelhngs (London County Council and MetropoUtan Borough Councils) 3,126,260 " Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . 25,519 £54,549,134 " The revenue of each of these undertakings constitutes I lie primary security for the loans raised therefor, and the liability of the ratejaayer for debt charges is only a contingent one. So long as equilibrium is preserved between revenue and expenditure, including the charges for interest and repayment of the capital, no charge Mill fall on the rate- payer. The two most important revenue-producing under- 53 takings (water r>,nd tramways) have not so far necessitated a Report of 1 Tji ii'-ii- l-'iuauee Oom- Ciiarge on the rates ; the other undertakings mvolved in mitteeouDei.f of Loniloii. 1907-8 a total cliarge on the rates of £26,947. " The total net debt outstanding on rate services on 31st March, 1908, was £55,292,742 or 128 per cent, of the rateable value. In involved a charge on the rates in 1907-8 equivalent to Is. 9-6d. The total sum provided in that year for the repayment of debt on rate services was no less than £2,118,943. " The following figures for the past three years show that tliis portion of the net debt has not greatly increased : 1905-6, £54,513,724; 1906-7, £55,274,967; 1907-8, £55,292,742. Allowing the item of steamboats debt, £265,484, included in this section of the debt for the first time in 1907-8, the figure for comparison is £55,027,258 or £247.709 less than the previous year. " In considering whether the net debt of London on rate services is likely to increase or decrease in the near future, the following points should be borne in mind. As regards the Council's own debt, the important street improve- ments undertaken in recent years are now either completed or nearing completion, and there is an estimated further sum of about £1,000,000 to be brought in as recoupment in respect of the value of surplus lands, which Avill be appropriated as an asset of the sinking fund, and thus will reduce the net debt. The large main drainage extension scheme is also well on the way to completion. When these works are finished, the rate services which appear likely to demand the largest outlay on capital account are those in respect of education and the County Hall. The debt of the Metropolitan Asylums Board has decreased in the last three years, and, under the recent scheme for the consolidation and repayment of its debt, the whole of the existing debt, which amounted 54 to £2,773,954 on 28th February, 1909, will be paid off within 13 years from that date. We understand that the Board does not contemplate any further borrowings in the near future. The debt in respect of the Metropolitan police service, London's proportion (£226,131 on 31st March, 1908), is rapidly decreasing, and the debt of the boards of guardians (£4,029,013 on 31st March, 1908) also shows a tendency to decrease. As regards the debt of the Metropolitan Borough Councils on rate services, the figures on 31st March in each of the last three years are as follows : 1906, £7,998,074; 1907, £8,071,364; and 1908, £7,821,383. Table No. 7 of the return shows the charge on the rates for debt in respect of loans of Metropolitan Borough Councils for the last six years. " It will be seen, therefore, that the outstanding debts of all the various classes of authorities in London except that of the Council and of the Metropolitan Water Board (the latter showing an increase of £283,163) have decreased during the year. The increase in the Council's debt (£1,624,382) is more than the increase in the total debt of London (£1,372,862). The greater part of this increase is due to tramways. " Taking a broad view of the present position and bearing in mind the large amount now being provided annually for the repayment of debt, it does not appear to us that the aggregate net debt of London for rate services is likely to show a material increase in the near future unless further large schemes of capital outlay are undertaken. " (Extracted from the L.C.C. Minutes, pages 965-966.) 55 The IViunicipaB Reformers and the Redemption of Debt. The following figures afford a striking testimonial to the work done by the Municipal Reform party on the Council, since the date on which they first came into office. Excluding the cost of education, the Progressives, during the ten years extending from 1897-8 to 1906-7, repaid debt amounting to the total of £1,092,323. During the two years, 1907-8 and 1908-9, the Municipal Reform party repaid debt amounting to no less than £1,990,238 In other words, the average amount per annum placed towards the redemption of debt by the Progressives amounted to £109,232, and by the Municipal Reformers, to £995,119. Or, to put the matter in another way, the Municipal Reformers, in TWO years, have placed towards the repay- ment of debt a total sum amounting to very nearly twice the total contributed under Progressive rule during a period of TEN years. In considering this work of the Municipal Reformers, it is necessary also to bear in mind the fact that at the time the Municipal Reform party entered upon office, the finances of the Council had been reduced to a very low ebb by the Progressive party, and that the former had to take over the countless liabilities already incurred by the Progressives. This circumstance naturally tended materially to impede the work of re-establishing the finances of the Council upon a sound basis. Very possibly the redemption of debt may exercise but few attractions for the ordinary individual, but those who are versed in finance recognise how exceedingly important a part such action plays. It should be the duty, therefore, of Municipal Reform candidates and speakers to emphasize the exceedingly valuable nature of the work tluis carried out by the Reformers. 56 The Rates. Now Ave come to the important question of the rates, \\ hich bulks so largely in the public mind. The majority of ratepayers are apt to disregard the question of Capital expenditure, vitalty essential though this is, and to concentrate their attention solely on the actual rate in the £ levied for the year in question. It is easy for those who care nothing for sane finance to charge against Capital what should rightly be debited against Revenue, and thus to attempt to disguise the extent of the expenditure which they are incurring. A day of reckoning is, however, bound to come before many years are past, where such methods are adopted ; and unquestionably, had the Progressive-Socialists continued in office for a further period of three years, a crisis in the financial affairs of London would have arisen which would have come as ,a rude awakening to the ordinary inhabitant of London. It should be the duty, therefore, of candidates and speakers in connection with the L.C.C. Election campaign, to bring home to the ordinary elector how much the Reformers have done, as shown in the preceding pages, in reducing Capital expenditure, and in placing the finances of the Council on a sound and business-like basis. The table subjoined shows the average rates for the Administrative County of London since the year 1890, tliat is, for each year since the Local Government Act, 1888, came into force. It also shows the division of such average rates between those levied for central authorities and those levied for local authorities. 57 o >-,.S '-^ .2 - . S ^ 'H, -^ "8 * M o « p, =: o — ' fl ^ o rfl ® -I-' cS :3 ^ rl - G o w 1-2 2 o1 o • O -^ O t-- ^ lO O JC O O 'O Ti< JO -.O 05 (N O 00 M »0 O oi o isi f-5'c4 i^ — i" — i o 00 o o iri coMiMtNC^iioMrjr'srocoeococoMcofOMsocoeo __; CC 1— I 00 i-H 5<| fc -^ 5} »4 !,(:) : SO OD l> i-H C5 t- CD (M 'lO "^ "N i-H ci c-j o ~: o — < — < 05 o o S'i ID lo CO Ti5 fo (N oi cc e-l "M M C-l Cl '75 -M — . — 4 ^< iM CI •?! iJI (M C IM CI O CI 00 t^ X Tt< 'M O IC ^- rO O O CO t^ O Lt X CO CO rt CO O O 1-0 to O O LO CI O t- 'r-^co't-^t-^x'ir^— i'— HOcicoocdt-^oiooio 7) CI CI CI C) C3 CI 01 C! 01 01 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO i — ■-'a O C3 — CI oi CO ; ro -r -f •* Tfi ■ uo >c ■* -^ o o lo lo lo lo lo _• CO CI CD o X 1-0 >o -+ o «:■ t- oo'co o i-o CO o -* 00 X t^ ^ oi ■*' Th o 00 ^' ^ — H o -H c i id 00 1-i 1-H c-i \6 lo ci co Ti< -XI O K: O IC LO LO X: CC CD 110 CO o o t^ t^ t- t- t^ t^ t- t^ Oi— iC^icO'+i-Occt^xcJOi— icico-^occr-xojo ClC10050:ClC501SlCSiOOOOOOOOOO^ xxxxxxxxx.xooo5C20300JC»a>C5Ci O CO -, £ .^ •" o a >» 2 o _ &.=+< O ^ 2 "3 — -^^ O ^ Zh ^ o . V tS't; -^ S t- "*-* •-H C^ '-4-I ® ,-^ CD £; r-H '5 ;^ y o o fci -^ ^ o § D ■*" rr -»-' t3 o — ; ® y> 3) '> ? <0 ? ^^ ^ c3 c3 H be*-' d ■■« '5 _2 58 L.C.C. Rate. The following diagram shows the London County Council's general rate for the ten years 1900-1909 (exclusive of the education rate) : — Year andiDg March; '99 00. '01. '02. 03. 04. .'05. -'06. '07. "08. '09. Rates are " made " in Februarys and August of each year. Tlie dotted line represents the beginning of Municipal Reform control — in March, 1907 — since which date, it will be observed, there has been no rise. [Extracted from the Annual Report of the L.C.C. for the year 1907-8.] 59 Apropos of this it should be recollected, that a penny rate OYer the whole County produced to the Council in 1908-9 a sum of about £184,500, and over the county, excluding the City, about £161,800. (See Annual Report of the proceedings of the Council, 1908-9, page 26.) It will be seen from the foregoing table and diagram that the L.C.C. rate, under Municipal Reform, has not increased. In view of the huge commitments which they anticipated, on entering upon office, that they would have to meet, the Municipal Reformers knew that it would be impossible, during their first term of office, to reduce the L.C.C. rate, but they pledged themselves (see M. R. Manifesto, December, 1906) to try and keep it from rising still further. The fact that the Reformers have been able to redeem that pledge is, in view of the special circumstances to Avhich we sliall refer later, highly creditable to them. The Education Rate- So far as the Education rate is concerned, this has actually increased from Is. 7d. in 1906-7 to Is. 7|d. in 1909-10, as shown in the foregoing table. The average Education rate, accordingly, for the three years of Municipal Reform amounts to Is. 6[^d., and there- fore shows a small reduction as compared v\ ith the final rate at the time when the Progressives went out of office. The increase in this rate has been due mainly to the imposition by the Legislature of fresh duties upon the Council, 60 and, therefore, to causes over which the Municipal Reformers could not be expected to exercise any control. At the meeting of the Council held on February 9th, 1909, a sj)ecial report of the General Purposes Committee, upon the subject of national and local charges in respect of education was brought up as a matter of urgency. The report stated that the Prime Minister had been asked to receive a deputation fron^ local education authorities, who wished to urge that " a far larger share of the cost of education should be borne by the Imperial exchequer, in order that the charges for this service, which is national in its character and effect, may be equitably distributed." Mr. Asquith's reply was that, while appreciating the importance of the subject, he conceived it to be a matter which came within the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee recommended that the Prime ^Minister should again be requested personally to receive the deputation, in company, if possible, with the Cliancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Educcation. The report was agreed to. In the course of a lecture flelivered at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, on July 14th, 1909, Mr. Cyril Jackson, the Chairman of the Education Committee, thus referred to this question of the L.C.C. Education Rate : — " There is no doubt that we found wlien Me entered office two and a quarter years ago that we had to meet a very very heavy liability from the Progressive Party for education. But we set to work, at once, with all the zeal in our possession to see that education did not suffer, but that its details, its organisation, and its arrangements Mere overhauled and made more satisfactory and more economical. Now, of course, M'hen I say more economical I shall be faced at once by some 61 speaker with the fact that the education rate has gone up fcl. I think, gentlemen, that you ought to be very thankful that it has not gone up more. Under Progressive government we should certainly have had the rate go up a very great deal more. That |d. is very easily explained in connection with the various additional charges that liave been put upon us by the Imperial Government and by certain pledges which at the last election we gave to the electors, which meant money. " Now, the first of the pledges we gave to the electors was that we would be fair to the non-pro\dded schools. That is a thing upon which, I think, every member of our Party was quite agreed. The other side had done their best to crush the non-provided schools." The lecturer subsequently proceeded to refer to such matters as the feeding of necessitous school children, medical treatment, etc.* Later, in again referring to the same subject, Mr. Jackson said : — "Next, as to the increased education' rate. We have done our best to keep that do\\'n. Some speakers have said that the education ■ rate is popular. I believe there is a good deal in that really. Although Ave have been extremely careful, the education rate has gone up. Although we have been very economical indeed, we have also been most careful to see that there has been no false economy. We have not wished to cheesepare these schools. It is quite clear that the parents, and rightly so, want their children fittingly educated, and we have got to show them that we can do it at least as well as the Progressives, and at the same time cheaper. We * This Lecture is published in pamplilet form by the London Municipal Society. 62 are doing the work to-day as well or better, and we are also, at the same time, doing it cheaper. The addition to the rate is due, as I have said, to new services, the feeding and all those other various duties which the Government have placed upon us, and to the equa- lizing of the salaries of the teachers in the non-pro- vided schools with those in the provided schools. It is due partly also to the fact that we shall for a long time yet require new schools, and shall have to build fresh schools and provide fresh educational arrangements in the outer ring of London, which is growing in popu- lation all the time. Meanwhile the schools in the inner ring are getting emptier, and those schools, as they get emptier, also become relatively more expensive. These are some reasons why the rate has gone up." Rates Levied by the Borough Councils. As regards the average total rate the foregoing table sliows a marked decline in this rate, under Municipal Reform, as contrasted with the year 1906-7. Although not strictly relevant to the L.C.C. Elections, it has been thought advisable to include the following table, as the question of the borougli rates under Municipal Reform is sure to be raised at the forthcoming L.C.C. Elections, just as, in the case of tlie recent Borough Council Elections of November, 1909, attacks were made upon the Reformers in regard to the L.C.C. rate. Tlie subjoined table shows : — The Rates Levied in the IVIetr*opolitan Boroughs. For the 6 years ending 31si March, 1910. Borough. 1904-5. 190 5-6. 1906-7. 1907-8. 1908-9. 1909-10. s. d. s. f^. .*. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. City of Lon- don 6 6.5 6 9.5 6 9.5 6 2.5 6 5.8 6 6 Battersea . . 8 2 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 6 8 5 Bermondsey 9 7.2 9 4 9 4 8 8 11 9 1 Betlinal Green 8 1 8 2 8 2 8 8 8 Camberwell 8 1.5 9 s 11 8 3 8 8.5 8 10 Chelsea 6 11 7 4 7 7 1 7 1 Deptford . . 7 6 8 7 5 7 3 7 2 7 6 Finsbury . . 6 9.7 7 L9 7 2.2 6 11.9 7 2 7 2.25 Fulham 7 4 7 6 7 9 7 6 7 5 7 4 Greenwich 7 8.8 8 1.4 7 6.2 7 0.4 7 4.6 7 8.79 Hacliney . . 7 2 7 11 8 7 8 7 11 8 1.5 Hammer- smith 7 4 7 7 1 8 8 1 7 8 7 5.5 Hampstead 7 7 2 7 2 7 5 7 3 7 4 Holborn 7 6 11.9 7 2 6 11.3 7 1.1 7 4 Islington . . 7 4 7 3 7 8 7 8.5 7 6 7 6 Kensington 6 6 6 7 (5 8 6 8.5 6 8.5 6 11 Lambeth . . 7 5 7 8 ( 5 7 3 7 6 7 6 Lewisham . . 7 6.2 7 6 7 10 7 8 7 8 7 8 Paddington 6 8 6 6.5 6 8 6 9 6 11 7 2 Poplar 10 1.3 12 11 8 10 6.3 11 6 *9 4 St. Maryle- bone 6 11 6 8.5 < 0.5 6 11 6 11 7 St. Pancras 7 1 7 1 7 3 7 1 7 1 7 1 Shoredith . . 7 7 8 1 8 1 S 8 2 8 5 Southwarlv 7 2.4 7 3.6 7 4.3 7 3.4 7 7.3 8 0.5 Stepney 8 5.7 8 11.4 8 11.9 8 6.2 8 4.4 8 5.75 tStoke" Newington 7 7 3 < 6 7 3 7 7 7 8 Wandsworth 7 1.7 7 5 1 4 7 6 10 7 5 Westminster 6 7.8 6 8 6 8.1 6 7 6 5.9 6 4.04 Woolwich . . 7 10.3 7 9.6 8 0.1 9 8 10.8 8 4.82 Average for County of London (including City) . . 7 2.6 7 5 7 5.4 7 2.8 7 3.8 J 4.7 * Th ree quart .ers only t Stol ce Newin gton — Th 3 rate in South Ho rnse V Wa rd is 3d. ea.s t han the r ate s lown abo ve. This . '64 NOTE, — Where a borough consists of more than one parish with separate rates the average rate for the whole borough is given. As a result of the 1909 Borough Council Elections, the Progressive-Socialists possess a majority only in the case of Bethnal Green^ Hackney and Southwai'k. The Truth about London Rates. In a letter to the Press, dated December 7tli, 1909, Mr. W. G. Towler, the Secretary of the London Municipal Society, thus succinctly replies to a canard M'hich at the present time finds particular favour with members of the Progressive-Socialist Party. " Mr. Johnson states that under Municipal Reform the rates have ' steadily risen.' What are the facts ? The London County Council Return which is issued annually : ' Return showing the amount in the £ of all rates made in the Administrative County of London,' shows as lows : — s. d. 1906-7 . . . . (Progressive) .. 7 5-4 1907-8 . . (M.R.) .. 7 2-8 1908-9 . . (M.R.) . . 7 3-8 1909-10 .. (M.R.) .. 7 4-7 " Therefore, compared with the last Progressive- Socialist rate, the effect of Municipal Reform rule has been a marked reduction in the total average rate. "' Observe, too, that this has been done in spite of : — 1. Heavy Progressive-Socialist deficits and liabilities left behind for Municipal Reformers to pay. 2. The cost of County Council by fresh duties laid upon the London the Radical-Progressive Government — Mr. Johnson's allies. '■ Mr. Jolinson wishes to exclude the City of London from the table of Average Rates; but the City of London is 65 part of ' the Administrative Count}-.' It returas four Muni- cipal Reform members to the London County Council, and the City Corporation has always been described by Mr. Johnson and his friends as ' Moderate.' It strongly favours Municipal Reform. " But, even granting that Mr. Johnson is right in his opinions — and he is not — on his own showing there has been a slight reduction in the total average rate of London, though the City be excluded. " The average rate for the County (excluding the City) is as follows : — s. d. 1906-7 . . . . (Progressive) . . . . 7 6-5 1907-8 . . . . (M.R.) . . . . 7 4-5 1908-9 . . . . (M.R.) . . . . 7 5-2 1909-10.. .. (M.R.) .. ..7 6-2 '.' This represents a reduction in the average rate of 2d. in the £ in the first year of Municipal Reform : of IJd. in the £ in the second year of Municipal Reform ; and of a little over :^d. in the £ in the present year. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, the Municipal Reformers have reduced the rates as compared with the last year of Progressive- Socialism, Ratepayers will perhaps note, too, that the average rate had risen every year until the victory of the Municipal Reformers. '' One word with regard to Municipal Reform pledges at the Municipal Elections of 1906-7. " At the Borough Council Elections in 1906, Municipal Reformers did pledge themselves to reduce the Borough Councils' rate. The London County Council return, to which I have already alluded, states that the average net rate in respect of Borough Council expenses ' borne locally ' was as follows : — s. d. 1906-7 .. . .(Progressive^ . . .. 1 5-19 1907-8 . . .. (M.R.) .. . . 1 4-90 1908-9 . . . . (M.R.) . . . . 1 406 c 66 " As regards the London County Council, the MunicipaJ Reform party in its manifesto issued in December, 1906, stated : ' We appeal to them (the ratepayers) to place their confidence in the new party, the Municipal Reformers, who, if on account of the enormous commitments of the Progressive party are unable to reduce the present rates, will at all events, call a halt on future expenditure of a reckless and unremunerative character.' " The Municipal Reformers have fulfilled that pledge in spite of Progressive-Socialist obstruction and Progressive- Socialist attempts to force up the rates by continually moving amendments at the County Council in favour of extravagant expenditure. " Barren of economy as the Progressive-Socialist party are, they seek to enlist the sympathy of Londoners by denying that the virtue of prudence exists in their opponents. But, as I liave shown. Municipal Reformers have reduced the rate-burden and will make still greater financial improvements when they are returned to power in Marcli next. ..." New and Costly Duties. The special financial obligations over which the Council has no control and which have prevented any reduction in the County rates were summed up by a writer in The. Morning Post of April 6th, 1909, in the following words : — " It will be observed that the General County Rate and the Special County Rate have remained very steady, and that it is the education rate which has fluctuated. The rise in this rate is not peculiar to the London County Council. It is general throughout the country, and the fault is not with the local administration, but with the Board of Education and the Government. New duties are continually being placed on local education authorities either by legislation or departmental circular, or both, and the local authoi'ities liave been left to bear tlie \; liole of the additional cost. As we showed in a special article a fortnight ago, wliile the total cost of education is rapidly increasing the proportion borne by the Central Exchequer is rapidly decreasing, and advances in the local education rate are therefore inevitable. It was for this reason that the recent deputation to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Education was organized by the whole of the local education authorities in the land. How unsj^mpathetically that deputation was received is now a matter of history, and there is the greatest danger of a set- back to educational progress because of the great burden which the local proportion puts on local ratepayers. " A mere list of the new duties placed on local authorities by the present Parliament will show how helpless they are to prevent advances. Take the new expenses, for instance, recently placed on the London County Council by Govern- ment action : — " (a) Collection of licence duties, £8,000. " (6) New glanders and farcy order, £20,000. " (c) Medical insjaection of school children, £20.000 to £30,000. " {d) Medical treatment, £20,000. " (e) Feeding of necessitous children, £37,000. " In addition to these the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police is demanding an extra £60,000 this year, which the Borougli Councils will have to collect from the ratepayer. " Excluding medical treatment, which may or may not have to be taken in hand, we have here, in items over which no local authority has any real control, an increase of £148,000, or more than a |d. rate. From the last Council, too, the present Council inherited schemes in education which Lord Welby, when Chairman of the Finance Committee in 1905, propliesied would mean a rise of 3d. in the education rate within the next few years. It has been c 2 68 necessary, too, during the life of the present Council, to do something in the way of improving the efficiency of the voluntary schools, and when all these things are considered the wonder grows that the increase in the education rate is no more than |d., and that the other duties imposed on the Council can be paid for without increasing the general rate." Mr. W. Hayes Fisher (M.R.), (the chairman of the Finance Committee), in moving, at a meeting of the Council, held on November 24th, 1908, that the work arising under the Finance Act, 1908, in connection with the collection by the Council of tlie duties on certain local taxation licences, be carried out by means of a central office staff and of a local staff at district offices, pointed out that the collection of these taxes would cost the Council about £12,000 a year, while the Government would only allow them £4,000 a year towards the cost. He believed the Government had thrust these new duties on the Council because they wanted theif own Inland Revenue officers to undertake duties under the Old- Age Pensions Act. The Hon. W. R. W. Peel (the leader of the Municipal Reform party) in a letter to the Globe, on March 6th, 1909, wrote : — " The action of the present Government has added greatly to our charges. Take one instance out of many. The Government have handed over to us the -collection of the estabhshment licences (including armorial bearings, carriages, male servants, and the like), and have allowed £4000 expenses, vvhereas the estimated expenses work out at between £14,000 and £15,000. " The rise in the education rate is, of course, due to two causes. On a is the rise in the scale of teachers' salaries according to a scheme settled by the Progressives in 190*, over which, of course, we have no control. Then there is another £40,000 a year under the Feeding of Children Act, 69 which was passed in 1906. In this and other matters Progressive criticism oscillates between two points of view. At one moment they are making wild charges against us about starving the services and not spending enough on fresh schools or medical inspection, and the next moment they turn round and complain that there has been an increase in the rates. It would be as well perhaps if, before the next election, they would come to some decision on which ^de of tlie fence they will descend." Inadequate Government Grants. The large claim which local authorities, and particularly the local authorities in London, have to further aid from the Imperial Exchequer in re-pect both of new duties and of old duties is now practically admitted by all parties. Although, however, representations were made time after time to the present Radical-Socialist Government, no such additional aid was forthcoming, and no redress has been able to be obtained. The Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Council, 1908-9, in referring to this subject, states (p. 33) : — - '"* Land Taxation — Exchequer Contributions. "Full information has been given in previous annual reports in regard to the position of London in the matter of contributions received by it from the Imperial Exchequer and as to the action taken by the Council with a view to obtaining an increase in the total Imperial subvention to local taxation and the revision of the existing system of exchequer contributions, as recommended by the Roj-al Commission on Local Taxation. " This matter has again engaged the attention of tlie Finance Committee during the year, more especially in connection with the new duties, iinaccompanied by adequate contributions from Imperial funds, placed upon the Council under the Finance Act, 1908, and the increased cost of education to which further reference is made below. " The balance on the exchequer contribution account in respect of the year 1907-8 available for transfer in relief of the county rate for the year 1908-9 was £30,455 13s. 3ci. This balance is considerably less 70 than that for the previous year, which was £86,246 Is. 2d., and is hy far the smallest ever available, as will be seen from the following statement, showing the amounts wliich have been available for transfer to the general counts' aecomit up to and including the year 1007-8." The amount available in the year 1907-8 is relatively large when compared with the balance of Exchequer contri- butions for the year 1908-9 (viz., £1400). According to the statement (No. I.) which accompanies the Report of the Finance Committee (No. II.), dated 10th November, 1909, and which came before the Council at its Meeting on December 21st, 1909, the balance of Exchequer contributions carried to the General County Account was, in the under-mentioned years, as follows :— Year. £. 1889-90 203,546 1890-1 379,282 1891-2 459,855 1892-3 339,411 1893-4 288,827 1894-5 213,461 1895-6 261,487 1896-7 172,697 1897-8 196,420 1898-9 190,681 1899-1900 . 255,992 1900-1 162,375 1901-2 127,509 1902-3 92,371 1903-4 64,374 1904-5 50,449 1905-6 53,333 1906-7 86,246 1907-8 30,456 1908-9 1,400 71 Exchequer Contributions and the L.C.C. At the meeting of the Council, held on November 23rd, 1909, some interesting information, relativ^e to the heavy decrease of late years in the amount of Exchequer contribu- tions received by the L.C.C, was forthcoming. Sir George Goldie, the acting Chairman of the Finance Committee, was asked by IVIi'. N. L. Cohen whether it was a fact that during the three years of the present Council, as compared with the term of the previous Council, the net sum available from Exchequer contributions, after payment of the prescribed statutory charges thereon , showed an aggregate diminution of over £50,000, and the net amount similarly available from Exchequer contributions for 1908-9 was only £1400, as compared with an annual average of about £65,000 during the period of the last Council. Sir George Goldie said that he could not give the results for the third year of the present Council, but the aggregate diminution on the last two years was £107.723 The net amount available from Exchequer contributions for the financial year 1908 9 was £1400 as compared with an average of £63,342 during the period of the last Gouncil. The Report of the Finance Committee, brought before the Council on December 21st, 1909, drew special attention to the decrease in the amount of Exchequer contributions. It appeared by the Report that the amount coming from this source applicable to the rehef of the County rate had dwindled to £1400. The Finance Committee in their Report stated, inter alia : " The Council will see that the amount of this balance is exceedingly small, amounting to only £1400, this being by far the smallest amount ever available for transfer." Speaking in the Council on the above date {i.e. December 21st, 1909), 3Ir. Evan Spicer (P.) urged that all parties on 1-1 the Council should combine in the effort to induce whatever Government Imppened to be in power to relieve the Council's financial position in this respect. He argued that the Council should have some power of supervising the expenditure upon the INIetropohtan Police. Mr. Sidney Webb (P.) suggested that the Council should consider the propriety of discontinuing the payment of large subsidies to Boards of Guardians — bodies which ought to be " scrapped." Sir George Goldie (INI.R.) said that the facts were that new burdens were steadily being put by the Government upon London, wliile the grants from the Imperial revenue were being as steadily diminished. He assured the Council that the matter was receiving the close attention of the Finance Committee. Increased Police Rate. Another burden over which the Council has no control is the police rate, which this year shows an increase for the first time since the Council has been in existence. The Municipal Reformers have protested strongly against this increase ; and at a meeting of the Council on 29th June, 1909, the Finance Committee recommended :— " (a) Tliat in the opinion of the Council, an increase in the Metropolitan Police rate shoiild, for the following reasons, not be made — " (i.) That such increases do not, from the facts before the Council, appear to be necessary. " (ii.) That such increase, if made, will have the effect, so far as can at present be foreseen, of causing the anioimts chargeable under statute to the exchequer contribution account to exceed the amount of the Exchequer contributions. "(b) That in the opinion of the Council, the proposed increase in the Metropolitan Police rate, couj)led with the proposal of the Secre- tary of State to grant, as an administrative Act, a weekly rest day for the Meti'o|)olitan I'olice. which will ha\'e the effect of throwing a larg<- additional cost ui)on the ratepayers of London, constitutes a strong reason for the Government dealing witliout delaj' with tlie question of 73 further grants from the Imperial Exchequer m aid of London rates and especially of a new grant in respect of the Metropolitan Police. " (c) That copies of the foregoing resolutions be forwarded to the Secretary of State, and that he be asked to receive a deputation from the Council for the purpose of placing before him the objections of the Council to the j^roposed increase in the Metropolitan Police rate, and representations as to the need for an additional grant in aid. " (d) That the deputation referred to in the foregoing resolution (c) do consist of members of the Finance and Local Government Conimittees, to be nominated by those Committees respectively ; and that the Finance Committee do take the necessary steps to give efiect to the foregoing resolution (c). " (e) That copies of the foregoing report and resolutions be for- warded to the county councils of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey, and to the covuity borough councils of Croydon and West Ham, and that they be informed of the action which the Comicil pro230ses to take and be asked to support the same, so far as they are affected by the proposed increase in the Metropolitan Police rate." Negotiations with tlie Home Secpetar>y. The report of the Local Government Committee upon the same subject was in these terms : — " On 30th March, 1909, we drew attention to the fact that the Receiver of the metropolitan police district had apjilied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for sanction to levy an additional rate of one halfpenny in the £ to meet a large deficit in the metropolitan police pension fimd. We pointed out that the proposal affected London local taxation in several important respects, and would doubtless be accomi>anied by an increase in the amount intercepted by the police out of London's share of exchequer contributions. On 6th April, 1909, the Finance Committee reported that they conciu-red in oiu" recom- mendation, and the Council resolved to ask the Secretary of State to defer giving his decision upon the application in order that the Council might have an opportunity of considering the questions raised as affect- ing the ratepayers of the County of London. " Correspondence has passed with the Secretary of State, who has now informed the Council that he has come to the conclusion that he must give his consent to the levy of an increased rate, but that he has decided that the additional rate shall be one farthing in the £, the remainder of the sum required being supplied by the i^roportionate contribution from the taxes assigned to the local authorities concerned. He adds that this decision applies only to the pension fund deficiency, and is to be taken quite apart from the question of the police being granted one day's rest in seven, which, as recently stated in the House 74 of Commons, will impose a considerable additional expens© (estimated ultimately at £174,264 a year) on the ratepayers in the metropolitan police district. " In the commimications which were addressed to the Secretary of State with reference to the matter, we represented that the proijosal to increase the present maximum rate of 5d. in the f , which has not been exceeded since the year 1874, would be so serious a departure that it should not be sanctioned except after a specific inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, and that, as the ratepayers had no control over the metropolitan police expenditure (although they have to find the greater part of the money required) an assui'ance should be given that such increase was clearly authorised b^'^ law, and was necessary for the proper and economical administration of the service. With a view to ascertaining whether by revision of revenue and expenditure, the levy of an increased rate might be obviated, we suggested to the Secretary of State that fuller information than that contained in the })olice accoimts should be given as to the cost of police administration, and the charges made for Imperial and special services performed by the police, in order to ascertain whether such charges are sufficient, and also as to the reasons for the falling off in the receipts from fees and tines at the metropolitan police courts, and in the revenue in respect of public carriage licences. A point to which we drew special attention was the method adopted during recent years of meeting the cost of erecting and furnishing police stations. From the years 1887-8 to 1898-9 such cost was, charged partly to capital and partly to rate account, but since the latter date tlie whole of the cost has been charged to rate account ; and the ])resent ratepayers are therefore bearing, not only a charge for interest and repayment in respect of certain police stations paid for in past years out of borrowed money, but the whole cost of stations erected in the current year, the benefit of which will accrue to the ratepayers for many years to come. It would appear that if the sums charged to rate account during the past three years, viz., 1906-7 to 1908-9, amounting together to £251,711, had been charged to cajDital account, the immediate need for an inci'ease of the police rate would have been obviated. The cost of the erection and furnishing of police courts, and to a lesser degree police offices has been defrayed in a similar way. " It will be observed that the Secretary of State has given his sanction to the levy of an additional rate without an inquiry of the kind we suggested being instituted. " The increase of |d. in the £ for j)olice pension purposes will be levied in July, 1909, the remainder of the amount needed being supplied by the proportionate contribution from the assigned taxes, in other words, by an interception of further sums (amounting to the produce of a rate of one-fifth of a penny in tlie £) from the exchequer contributiona 75 that would otherwise have been applied in relief of the rates of the counties and county boroughs in tlie metropolitan police district. So far as the county of London is concerned, the amount deducted from exchequer contributions will be £32,(335. " Whether the additional levy referred to will provide against the deficiency on the i^olice pension fimd for more than the year 1909-10 cannot be definitely ascertained from the police accounts, but it is possible that the extra rating is intended to meet one year's demands only. " We have referred in our previous reports on excheciuer contribu- tions, and also in oiu:- report on the Finance Bill, 1909, presented on loth June, 1909, to the serious position of the County of London by reason of the dejiletion of the Exchequer Contribution accoiuit owing to the large increase in the police and other statutory grants chargeable thereon. The small surplus of £13,664 which it was anticipated would be available from the Exchequer Contribution Account for the current year (1909-10) in relief of the county rate will, owing to the additional charges for the metropolitan i)olice, now be turned into a deficiency. With regard to the method of meeting this deficiency the Council has been advised that, so far as London is concerned, the grants in substitu- tion for local grants to guardians and others must be reduced pari passu, the metroijolitan police grant being reduced with the other grants pro rata. " With regard to the effect of the weekly rest day for the metro- politan police force, it would appear that, even after charging the whole of the pension fund deficiency on the extra rates (which may be sanctioned only for that specific purpose), the cost of the weekly rest day cannot with certainty be met out of the limited 9d. rate. In these circumstances it would seem that, apart from any grants in aid from the Imperial exchequer, as recently foreshadowed by the Secretary of State, the only courses open to the Receiver of the metropolitan police district would be either to effect savings on expenditure, or increase the charges for police services, or to apply to Parliament for increased rating powers. " We have brought the matter to the notice of the Finance Com- mittee who have informed us that they propose to report fully to the Council on 29th June, 1909, on the financial effect of the increase in the Metropolitan Police rate, and the proposed weekly holiday for the police, and also on the question of exchequer contributions. That Committee has suggested that a deputation should be appointed to wait upon the Secretary of State with regard to the matters referred to, and also that the other county authorities concerned, with whom we have already entered into communication, should be approached with a view to concerted action being taken. These proposals commend themselves to us, and we recommend : — 76 " (a) Tliat the Secretary of State for the Home Department be asked to recei\-e a deijutation from the Comicil for the purpose of placmg before him the objections of the Council to the increase in tlie MetropoHtan pohce rate, and representations as to the need for an additional grant in aid of metroiaolitan police exjsenditure,. and for the question of the financial relations between^the Imperial Exchequer and the local authorities being dealt ■«'ith by the Government without further delay. " (h) That, subject to the Secretarj' of State agreeing to receive a deputation, such deputation do consist of members of the Local Government and Finance Committees, to be nominated bj^ those Committees ; and that the Local Go^-ernment Committee do take the necessary steps in the matter. " (c) That copies of resolution (a) be forwarded to^the Essex. Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey County Councils, and the Croydon and West Ham Corporations, and that those authorities be asked to support the same." In presenting the report of the Finance Committee on June 29th, 1909, Mr. Hayes Fisher (M.R.) said he was afraid this deficiency would be a matter of constant recurrence, and it was the duty of the Council to look into the matter. He hoped the present Government would reinvestigate tlie relations between taxation and rating. ]Mr. Pilditch (M.R.), who presented the re^^ort of the Local Government Committee, said the Council had no objection to the objects for which the money was being raised. But it objected to a state of things which prevented any representations being made to the Government until it was too late. What tliey wanted from the Home Secretary was the right to make their representations at the proper time. Both the Committees reporting on the matter simply asked for a consultative voice at the proper time. . Capt. the Hon. Fitzroy Hempliill (P.) moved an amend- ment in favour of more adequate supervision by the rate- payers over ])olice expenditure. He congratulated Mr. Hayes Fisher upon the report of the Finance Committee which put the matter so clearly before the Council, and trusted that the other side would see its way to supporting the amendment. In seconding the amendment Mr. Allen, M.P. (P.), said the Progressives had long complained of the way in which the police force was managed without any consultation with the representatives of the ratepayers. He'was pleased to see that the Municipal Reformers were substantially in agreement with that view. Mr. Hayes Fisher said he was unable to accept the amendment in its particular form, though he sympathised with its spirit. It was the immediate business of his com- mittee to consider the present rather than the future. The committee did not wish to shut itself out from approaching the Government on the lines indicated in the report. He agieed that the estimates of the Home Office sliould be submitted to the County Council, in order that they might be discussed by the representatives of those who had to bear a large share of the burden. The Hon. Wm. Peel (M.R.) said the great objection to the amendment was that it gave up the Council's present case. Mr. Cooper (P.) regretted that the reports of the two committees contained no commendation of the principle of one day's rest in seven for members of the Metropolitan Pohce. Mr. Cassel, K.C. (M.R.) associated himself with much that Mr. Cooper had said, but added that it was only right that the County Council should have an additional sub- vention. On a division the amendment was negatived by 40 votes to 25. ' Mr. Gosling (P.) moved a further amendment welcoming the principle of one day's rest in seven for the Metropolitan Police. This was seconded by Mr. Dew (P.). Mr. Hayes Fisher (M.R.) pointed out that the Council had already approved of this principle. There was no need to approve it every Tuesday. After further discussion Mr. GosUng's amendment was carried, and the Finance Committee's recommendations, as 78 well as those of the Local Government Committee, were adopted, subject to that amendment. The Evils of Profligate Municipal Expenditure. It is perfectly certain that if the Progressives had been returned again to power in 1907, the L.C.C rate instead of remaining stationary would have shewn a large increase. It is equally certain that if the Progressives succeed in securing a majority on the Council in March, 1910, the expenditure of the Council will go up by leaps and by bounds. It is worth while, therefore, by way of warning, to quote a few representative opinions on this question of rates : — "Nations," said the late Professor Lecky, the distin- guished historian, " seldom realise, until too late, how prominent a place a sound system of finance holds among the vital elements of national stability and well-being ; how few political changes are worth purchasing by its sacrifice ; how widely and seriously human happiness is affected by excessive, injudicious, and unjust taxation," Professor John Stuart Mill in his " Principles of Political Economy" wrote: — " If the capital taken in loans is abstracted from funds either engaged in production, or destined to be employed in it, their diversion from that pui-pose is equivalent to taking the amount from the wages of the labouring classes." Statements such as the foregoing could be quoted from most, if not all, of the great publicists of recent years. We find even leading members of the Progressive- Socialist party inspired at times in regard to the evil of high rates, as witness for example the following : — Speaking in the House of Commons, on May 17th, 1905, during the discussion in Committee of the Agricultural Rates BiU, 1905, Sir. J. W. Benn, M.P., L.C.C, stated : " The 79 position of the London ratepayers had become critical . . . . The increasing rates of London were driving away industries by the dozen." Lord Wei by (late Secretary to the Treasury, and for many years Progressive Chairman of the L.C.C, Finance Committee) wrote as follows upon the question of public expenditure in The Tribune, of August 7th, 1906 : — " To an old Treasury official like myself nothing is more striking than the change which has come over all classes in this matter of public expenditure. Where people used to talk shyly about thousands they now lightheartedly dispose of milhons .... " Working men are as extravagant as anyone else in the matter of public expenditure .... But waste can never be to their interest .... And remember that the real burden falls not upon the rich, but upon the middle classes, the artisans and the poor. " Unless a determined effort is made to secure economy in managing the affairs of the nation and of the municipalities, I can see nothing for it but very large increases, both in rates and taxes. This lament- able habit of thinking in millions will cost us dear." The late Leader of the Progressive-Socialist Party, Mr. McKinnon Wood, M.P., L.C.C, in a letter to The Tribune of September 1st, 1906, wrote: — "No doubt the present basis of rating and methods of collection obscure the facts ; but without going into the arguments as to the ultimate inci- dence of rating, it appears to me obvious that whether the poor occupier of a small tenement makes a weekly payment covering rent and rates, or the occupier of a house or shop pays a rent and rates in addition, makes no ultimate difference in that incidence. . . . The labouring classes have as vital an interest in the wise and economical expenditure of public money as the middle classes. . . ." Those who wish for further evidence on this important 80 branch of the subject should refer to Part II. of the section on L.C.C. Finance, pubHshed in " Facts and Arguments " (1907 edition). Space prevents our deahng further with this aspect of the question in the present edition. A reference to the 1907 edition of the handbook will refresh the minds of speakers as to the burdens which Progressive - SociaUst administration had imposed upon London. Unfortunately, " The evil that men do Uves after them," and it will be many years before London will be able to recover from the effect of the debacle consequent upon the Radical-Socialist orgy of extravagance. This party was, and still is, dead to the fact how easy it is to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs. Only as recently as January 1st, 1910, the Statist, in an article dealing with the future of house property in the West End of London, writes : — " .... The advent of the motor, combined, perhaps, with the eYer-increasing burden of the rates, is likely to exert a material influence on houses there situate by inducing a large portion of their occupants to move still further afield." High rates constitute unquestionably one of the principal reasons ^^hy so much of the house property in London is vacant at the present time. The ratepayers who remain are hit in two ways by an increase in municipal expenditure ; since, in the first place, such increased expenditure in all probabihty necessitates an increase in the rate in the £ ; whilst, secondly, a large amount of empty house-property increases per se the rate-burden which has to be divided among those who still inhabit the borough. [Mr. Hayes Fisher's annual budget speech is always a mine of information in regard to L.C.C. financial matters. For a full report of Mr. Fisher's annual budget speech for 1909-10, we would refer the reader to, London 31 unicipal Notes for May, 1909, pages 310-323 inclusive.] LOCOMOTION. The adequate provision and proper regulation and control of cheap and effective public locomotion are, as reflection speedily proves, matters of vital concern to all great urban communities. Nowhere in the world are they more important than in London, Avith its enormous population, its congested central district, and the gigantic area over which its suburbs and outlying towns extend. Several hundred thousand persons require to be brought into central London by train, tram, and other means of transport every morning, and to be carried back before night. The comfort, the well-being, and the health of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and particularly of those who belong to the industrial working-classe?, are involved in the manner in which this great traffic problem is solved. The Progressives of the London County Council for many years past have endeavoured to claim for themselves a monopoty of interest in this question, and have attempted to pose as the special patrons and promoters of cheap public locomotion. At the same time, they represented the Municipal Reform party as indifferent to the subject, or actively hostile to the extension of the tramway system. During the last L.C.C. election campaign they even went so far as to assert in speeches, leaflets, and the Radical press, that the Municipal Reformers, if returned to power, would sell or lease the trams. How little justification there was for this can and will be seen by studying the following extract from the Municipal Reform 82 Manifesto of December 4th, 1906, in conjunction with the record of what has been done during the past three years by the Reformers. The Municipal Reform Poiicyk The following is the statement of the policy of the party in regard to tramways and traffic which appeared in the Municipal Reform Manifesto dated December 4th, 1906. The Municipal Reform Party "will feel bound to continue the policy which has been adopted by the Council, of working the tramways itself, but they will enforce the necessity of conducting the business on sound financial principles, with ample provision for renewals and reserve funds, and for a reasonable contribution from the tramway account towards the cost of street widening for tramway purposes. It will be their aim to improve the means of locomotion and transport in London and its suburbs. With this object, they will urge the immediate appointment of a Traffic Board, as recommended by the Royal Commission, in order that there may be a regular and systematic examination and control of municipal and private schemes, leading to the gradual adoption of a harmonious plan of traffic for the entire area of Greater London." The fact is, that the Progressives, according to their custom, have regarded the Traffic problem largely from the point of view of politics and municipal socialism. They may have been, as they professed, anxious to place better facilities in the way of working-class travellers; but they were obviously quite as anxious to secure a large increase of municipal management and direct employment by the London County CouDcil. 83 Historical Survey. It is a common thing for the Progressive Party to com- mend their cause to-day by reference to the history of their Tramway pohcy in the past. That history is to a large degr-ee legendary. They were and still are too fond of claim- ing for themselves the advantage of every good thing which has been done by the Council, and they do not scruple to ignore any blunders for which they themselves were re- sponsible. In spite of Progressive statements to the contrary, the need of efficient, rapid, and cheap methods of transit in London was always fully recognised by the Moderate Party. The latter were keenly aUve to the large responsibilities which fall upon the L.C.C., both with regard to direct municipal action, and also in the control and encouragement of private enterprise. The Tramways Act, 1870. By the Tramways Act of 1870, passed under the Administration of the late Mr. Gladstone, private effort in the construction and improvement of tramways was severely handicapped. The Tramways Act gives only a 21 years' life to a company, and at the end of that period the undertaking becomes purchasable by the local authority. In the early '90's, great advances were made in tramway traction in other countries. American cities were served by electric tramways, and persons wondered why electric tramways were not constructed in London. The reason was that companies whose undertakings had then only two or three years of life to run were naturally loth to introduce a system of electric traction, only to be bought out in a short time at a " scrap " price by the municipality. By the Act of 1870, nothing is 84 paid by the local authority for goodwill, but only the value of the rolhng stock, permanent way, &c., are computed in the price.* When private enterprise is charged with lack of progress in regard to tramways, the blame rightly should be attributed to the ill-advised legislation of 1870, which placed our private tramway enterprise in chains, and then expected it to make as rapid progress as the free, unfettered tramway undertakings in the United States have made. Progressive Lease of Tramway Linesi 1891. That was the position of affairs in 1891, when 4f miles of the London Street Company's lines became purchasable by the L.C.C. The Council decided to purchase that small section. What happened ? They did not work the lines, for it would not have been profitable to do so. The Progressive Party leased the undertaking, and received a rental which gave a return of 5 per cent, on the capital invested.f There- fore, when Progressives condemn the system of leasing tramways to companies, the fact should be emphasised that the Progressive party were the first to institute the practice of tramway leasing in London. The Position regarding the Northern Lines, 1892. In 1892, 19 miles, out of a total of 35| miles, of the North Metropolitan Ti-amways became purchasable. Those 19 miles of purchasable lines were not consecutive, but were *See Section 43 of the Act of 1870. -j- L.C.C. Minutes, 1891, p. 1059. 85 split up into sections and. inextricably interwoven with the rest of the system. The wliole tramway system of London was not laid do^\ai at once. Parts of the hnes were built at different times under various Acts, and became liable to purchase at different dates. The position can best be described by reference to the Minutes of the L.C.C. for May, 1896 : — " The tramv/ays of both companies have been constructed at various dates and under different Acts of Parliament ; and, although about half of these tramways have already come under the operation of the purchase clause of the Tramways Act of 1870, there are several lengths of tramway whicli will not do so for varying periods, the last piece becoming purchasable under that clause in the year 1910. "The following table shows the mileage with decimal fractions, and the dates at which the hnes Avould become purchasable : — Years 1898. 1900. 1903. 1905. 190G. 1908. 1909. 1910. Miles. Mis. Mis. Mis. Mis. Mis. Mis. Mis. London Street .. 1-84 -90 -61 -11 1-95 2-87 -50 — North Metropolitan 12-88 — -63 -75 1-63 1-25 -50 -63 " Taking the London Street Company's line first, the Caledonian Road Ime becomes j)urchasablc in 1898 ; that in Prince of Wales Road, &c., in 1900 ; that in Pentonville Road in 1903 ; the doubling of one portion of the Fortess Road line in 1905, and of another portion in 1906 ; the Southampton Road, Fleet Road (part of), and Kentish Town Road lines in the same year ; the Imes in Fleet Road (part of), Southend Green, Gray's Inn Road, Highgate Road, Chalk Farm Road, and Ferdinand Street, and the doubling of the Junction Road line in 1908 ; and the junction lines between Caledonian and Pentonville Roads, and between Gray's Inn Road and Penton- ville Road, in 1909. " The North Metropolitan Company's lines in Grove Road (part of), Canonbury Road, New North Road (part of), 86 Slioreditch, Cazenove Street, Whitechapel High Street (part of), Whitechapel Road, Mile End Road, Bow Road, Dalston Road, Graham Road, Hollo way Road, Seven Sisters Road (part of), Liverpool Road, City Road, and Finsbury Square and Pavement become purchasable in 1898 ; in Green Lanes in 1903 ; in West India Dock Road, Great Eastern Street (part of), and Commercial Road (part of) in 1905 ; in Clerken- well Road in 1906 ; in Leman Street and Dock Street in 1909 ; and in Stamfoi-d Hill and Seven Sisters Road (part of) in 1910."— (L.C.C. Minutes, l^h May, 1896, p. 555.) It will be seen, therefore, from the above quotation from the Minutes tliat the position was extremely complicated. A deadlock ensued. The Com^jany refused to sell the whole system, of Avhich the L.C.C. could not secure complete possession until 1910. In this state of affairs, the Moderate Party, on December 17th, 1895, proposed and obtained the passage of a resolution that the Tramways Committee of the L.C.C. should be authorised to consider any proposals that might be made by any Tram^^ay Company to the Council. That was a wise proposal. Upon that, the North Metropolitan Tramways Company wrote to the Council to ask Avhether the Council " were prepared to consider a proposal for the immediate sale to the Council of the tramways of the two companies within the county, and for a subsequent lease to the first-named Company (the North Metroi^olitan Tramways Co.) of the Avhole of those lines, and also of that portion of tlie undertaking of the London Street Company already purchased by the Council, and leased to that Company." On the 23rd June, 1896, the Finance Committee reported "... That the jjroposed purcliase by agreement of the whole of the lines is tlie more advantageous to the Council, because of the larger rent accruing in the earlier years, and of the 87 saving of upwards of £100,000 in the purchase money." {See page 705, L.C.C. Minutes, 1896.) On the 20th October, 1896, the Report of the Tramways Committee stated that they had considered "... what would be the best course for the Council, as representing the public, to pursue with regard to the Avhole of the tramways in London. We found that there were three ways in which the Council could deal with them. It could — [a] Acquire them at once and immediately after- wards lease (Company's offer) ; (6) Acquire each portion as it becomes purchasable. and let the same on leases all expiring in 1910 ; or (c) Acquire and itself work immediately on acquisi- tion the portions of the undertakings as they become purchasable, and could also, at the expiration of the existing lease (say in 1898), itself work the line already purchased of the London Street Company. "... The result of the calculation has been summarised as follo^^•s by the Comptroller : — Total Relief to Debt Estimated Value " .: Rates during outstanding, of Tramway Proposal. the 14 years to Midsummer, Property, Mid- [|1910. 1910. summer, 1910. A. North Metropohtan Co.'s offer £463,907 £917,237 £1,098,000 B. Acquiring under purchase clause and leasing 326,962 928,028 950,000 C. Acquiring under purchase clause and the Council working 281,303 903,724 965,000 {See pages 1091 and 1092, L.C.C, Minutes, 1896.) 88 The Tramways Committee, therefore, came to the con- chision tliat it was best, in the interests of the travelling public, the ratepayer, and the emi^toyes,— " That an arrangement should now be entered into with the two companies for the purchase of their Unes and depots, and for leasing them to the North Metropohtan Company for a comparatively short term. By that means all disputes and litigation between these two companies and the Council \\-ill cease ; the lines of the two companies will be amalgamated and placed under one manage- ment ; new lines and connections can be made ; and greater facilities afforded to the travelling public." {See page 1092, L.C.C. Minutes, 1896.) The remarkable point m the Report is that the leasing system promised more profit to the rates than if the Council had purchased and worked the lines itself. Lease of the Northern Lines, 1896. By the action of the Moderate Party, ^\'ith the help of a few Progressives, the purchase and leasing solution of the difficulty was adopted. An agreement was made by which the purchase price for double lines was £10,000 per mile, and £5.000 per mile for single liues. The purchase price was £4,752 per mile less than the price paid under arbitration by the Progressive Party in 1891 for the 4| miles already referred to. Advantages accruing from the Lease of 1895. Under this lease, the pubUc benefited considerably. The rental paid to the Council was £45,000 a year and an additional 12| per cent, on the increased gross receipts, as compared with the gross receipts in 1895. To safeguard tlio ti^avelling public 89 and the tramway employes, these conditions were embodied in the lease : — (1 ) The Company are not to raise the fares on Sundays and Bank HoUdays. (2) The Company are to run workmen's cars between 3 and 8 a.m., wlierever the Council may require them to do so, at Id. fares for the whole distance, with a 2d. return ticket available at any time. (3) They are to work any new lines that may be made by the Council, and pay the Council 8 per cent, per annum on the cost thereof until Midsummer, 1910. Tliose terms were better than the 5 per cent, secured by the Progressives under their lease in 1892. Then ^dth regard to the employes : — (4) The Company are not to increase the hours of labour nor reduce the rates of wages of their employes. (5) They are to pay rates and taxes on the value of the hnes. (6) They are to work the lines by electric or other traction, if and when required by the Council, and on most advantageous terms to the Council. (7) They are to lay do\Mi at their own cost, when required by the Council, a mile of tramway for the purpose of experimenting as to the suitability of any improved system of traction. (8) They are to set aside a sum equal to £12,500 a year as a fund to be applied ^ or renewals or reconstruction of the lines, which they are to keep in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Council. 90 Therefore, the lease safeguarded the interests of the rate- payers, the emploTjes, and the travelhng public. As a result the fares were reduced, passengers ^\'ere carried much longer distances ; omnibuses on the routes reduced their fares and gave their passengers the same benefits as those given by the tramways. Otlier advantages which accrued were the avoidance of costly htigation and the immediate construction of new lines. From the financial point of view the gain to the ratepayers has been satisfactory. The profits to the ratepayers of London up to March, 1906, after which date the accounts of the Northern and Southern systems were merged, were as follows : — Profits from the Northern System. 1894-5 1895-6 1896-7 1897-8 1898-9 1899-00 1900-01 1901-2 1902-3 1903-4 1904-5 1905-6 £ 1,121 2,659 69,526 66,315 40,152 39,156 37,794 27,657 22,836 24,514 — 2,098 — 14,781 16,879 Profit (after deducting deficits) £314,851 {Extracted from the L.C.C. Tramway Accounts.) Not^v ithstanding these excellent results, the Progressives were not satisfied. 91 Purchase of the Northern Tramways' Lease Adopted, 1905. On May 23rd, 1905, the Council resolved, on the proposal of the Progressive Party, to buy up the remainder of the lease, paying £121,000 for it, and £315,000 for the rolling stock, &c. The reasons alleged for the purchase of the lease were : — (a) That it was not possible to electrify the lines when in the possession of the Company ; and (6) The desirability of early electrification. The Finance Committee, in their report, pointed out that the electrification of the Northern lines involved £5,000,000 of capital expenditure, and a total loss during the years 1906 to 1910 of £100,000, being the profits estimated to be derived from the leasing arrangement, if allowed to run its full term {i.e., up to the year 1910). In fact, during^^the first ten years after electrification it was estimated that there would be an annual loss of £30,000. That is a striking contrast to the profits realised up to the time when the lease was extinguished. There are two points which are constantly raised at L.C.C. elections by the Progressives, and with which, consequently, it is necessary to deal. (1) " That it was possible to purchase the whole Northern system in 1896, and for the L.C.C. to work it." The fact is that this was not possible. When the Progressives make the statement that the lines \\ere, or could have been, first bought, and then leased, the answer is that such a statement is absolutely untrue. There was no question of the transaction being split up into two parts : first, purchase ; secondly, leasing. The Council never had it in their power to work the whole system. The purchase was subject to re-lease. 92 The second Progressive " terminological inexactitude," dinned into the ears of the electors, is that, owing to the lease, the Northern system could not be electrified. That is a •statement which comes under the category of " terminological inexactitudes," Power to Electrify under the Northern Lease. The clause in the lease regarding electrification was as follows : — " (k) Not to use, except with tlie consent of the Council in writing, other than animal power upon any of the lines included in the lease ; provided that the Company shall allow the Council, as an experiment, to lay down and equip with mechanical traction a length of not less than three or more than five miles of tramway selected by the Council, the same to be worked by the Company as regards division of profits, under the conditions of the electric traction clause (c), the Company making due allowance for the cost of the one mile which it will la}^ down and equip, and will, at its own expense, whenever called upon by the Council so to do, lay down and equip a length of about a mile of tramway selected by the Council, for any system of traction which may be chosen by the Council. " In the event of the Council deciding to adopt electrical or other mechanical power on the whole or part of the lines included in the lease, the Council or the Company, at the option of the former, shall reconstruct in the first instance the permanent way, the Council in either case paying the cost; and the Council or the Company, at the option of the former, shall provide the 93 necessary fixed machinery, which shall be maintained by the Company to the satisfaction of the Council during the term of the lease ; the equipment shall be provided by the Company to the satisfaction of the Council, and shall be taken over by the Council at a valuation at the end of the term of the lease ; and the rent to be paid by the Comj)any shall be as follows : — " (a) The Company shall continue to pay the rent to be reserved in the lease on the lines and depots and other buildings included therein ; subject, however, to deduction of the proportion of the rent allocated to such of the depots or other buildings which may have to be disposed of as unsuitable for use in connection with the altered mode of traction or otherwise. " (h) The Company shall pay an additional rent equal to 6 J per cent, per annum upon the cost of reconstructing the lines, and of the acquisition of any necessary lands and buildings,' and ^also upon the amount of any loss on the sale of depots or other buildings disposed of as unsuit- able, and the cost of adapting, for the purposes of electrical or other mechanical traction, any of the buildings included in the lease ; and also a rent equal to 7| per cent, per annum upon the cost of the necessary fixed machinery, if 23rovided by the Council. " (c) The Company shall also pay to the Council 80 per cent, of the net revenue of the \A'hole of its undertaking inside and outside the county, after deduction of (i) the rents payable to the Council under the Clauses a and b, {ii) 5 per cent, on (a) the capital of the two companies on 30th June, 1895, less the purchase moneys subsequently paid by the Council to either of the Companies in respect of lines or depots ; (6) the additional capital outlay made by the Company for machinery (if provided by the 94 Company) and equipment, and the loss, if any, on the sale of horse cars. " The Council shall, if it so desire, appoint an auditor, who shall have full power to examine and report upon thfi transactions of the Company." [See page 1446, L.C.C. Minutes, 1896.) Progressive Misrepresentation regarding the Lease. The Progressive Council never tried to enforce that clause and to compel the Company to electrify. During the discussion in the Council on May 23rd, 1905, Mr. (now Sir J. W.) Benn, M.P., made the statement that the Northern lines could not be electrified because the Companj^ would be able to claim verj^ heavy compensation for disturbance. Sir Melvill Beachcroft * challenged the truth of Mr. Benn's statement, and quoted the opinion of counsel (Mr., now the Right Hon. R. B. Haldane, K.C., M.P.), which had been sought bj^ the L.C.C, and which was to the effect that the Council could proceed, under the lease, to electrify the Northern system without B,ny claim for compensation for disturbance being maintainable against the Council. As a matter of fact, what occurred as regards that electrification clause was this. The Company introduced a Bill in 1897, to give them power to electrify their lines. The local Borough Councils, who have an absolute power of veto as regards tramways, opposed that Bill on the ground that they did not agree to the system of electrification to be installed. Therefore, the Standing Committee of the House Cf. "London Municipal Notes," June, 1905, pages 164 and 165. 95 of Commons deleted the electrification clause from the Bill. It was not until 1900 that the L.C.C. secured the necessary power for electrifying the Northern lines. Progressive Delay in regard to Electrification. And here the question may well be asked, Why did not the L.C.C, in 1899, prepare their plans for electrification in anticipation of the passage of the Bill of 1900? The transformation from horse to electric traction might have been begun, in North London, eight years ago, if the Progressive majority had cared to do it. In fact, on February 5th, 1901, Mr. Westacott (a Moderate) secured the passage of a resolution through the Council urging the Council to proceed at once to electrifi- cation. The Progressive Highways Committee, however, dallied in their action and made all sorts of excuses for delay. The real truth is that the Progressive majority did not want to electrify under the lease. The Progressive game was to play off the Northern horse trams against the Southern electric fines for election purposes, further, the Progressive Party were influenced in their action by the very grave difficulty that they could not have afforded to electrify both the Northern and Southern systems at the same time. However that may be, these facts admit of no contra- diction viz. : — (1) That there was full power to electrify the lines under the lease, and (2) that it was owing to the dilatory policy of the Progressive Party that the Northern system remained unelectrified for so long. 96 The Southern Tramway System. It is necessary next to study the history of the Southern system. The South London Companies were much more amenable to reason in 1898, and on an offer by the L.C.C. the companies in South London agreed to sell their systems outright, and they were purchased at various dates, and the L.C.C. became responsible for the working. Two years after the purchase, the L.C.C. decided to electrify the system. To do this, they had practically to " scrap " the old horse lines and rolling-stock, which involved a sacrifice of about three-quarters of a million pounds. It is also to be noted that in the course of recon- struction the estimates for a considerable part of the lines were exceeded by no less than 50 per cent. The following are the profits which accrued from the South London Tramways up to the time when the accounts of both systems were merged. In 1899-1900 . . . . £54,847* profit 1900-01 14,326 1901-02 9,062 1902-03 2,251 deficit. 1903-04 8,284 „ 1904-05 7,055 profit. 1905-06 2,319 „ or a total profit, deducting deficits, of £87,609. {Extracted from L.C.C. Tramway Accounts.) This alleged profit compares with £258,424 profit on the Northern system during the same period. Nearly the whole * Fifteen months' working. 97 of the relief to the rates (viz., £293,000, so freely advertised by Progressives, came from the Northern Hnes. Of course, the losses in the South may, in part, be attributed to reconstruc- tion, but not wholly so. They were mainly due to the cost of electrification largely exceeding the estimates, and to blunders in the course of reconstruction. Ti»airiway Profits in relief of Rates. The profits applied to relief of the rates by the L.C.C. from tramway balances, were during the undermentioned years officially stated to be as follows : — • 1897-8 1898-9 1899-1900 1900-01 1901-02 1902-03 1903-04 1904-05 1905-06 1906-07 £49,000 110,592 69,000 45,000 20,000 nil. nil. nil. nil. have been m office uses to the relief of The Municipal Reformers since they have made no attempt to divert the surp rates, but have used them to build up the Reserve Funds shown to be necessary by the commercial audit of the accounts. The following table gives the total results of the tramway system for the years 1894-5 to 1908-9 : — 98 «5 «C M i-O lOOOOOl-^C"--^—! ■— « O •* 00 -t r-<-*-H^.-<'+'0(MO c6 Crt 1 CO (» o ict-coeo-^xooco , - 1 -H'O O o (Ml— lXt^COt^^C-^C5 C^ *. •^ o s ' C) C-l CO t-COOJOX-^COCO-t -4^ CO CO CO CO -.O X i-H LO -i lO rt ^ — CI Ol 1— » © p^ ^^ ^_i (^ m p O . o o ^ p-H CO cj -H CO c: u-t o c; o C5 t^COXOCJCOM't-CO c '-H ° t- l~ CO CO t^ CO t^ X c^y cs 0 CO CD co_^ r- ci^ t- ^^ t- co_^ CO ci^ "T:; t- '-3 O o crt i-T CO Lo ■*' OD x" --H r-^' o' x' — — <" t-^' o u i^ CO -f -t CO X 1" CO -' O CO C-) m + + + + + ++++++ g-S-d -" CJ 'M 00 ^ :o ci c; 10 o; — co •M CC QC o l^ f-H X CO»X X -* 01 Cf! 1 '^, 'T^^ ^\ CO CI —1 X '~ ~ c-1 c; 1 cC - fc- -3 0? ' — 1 CO -< 01 r^ CC X CC — * * ' ^^a Ol CI -^ 01 CO o o r- C5 £ IC CO t^ X ? T ■— 1 CI CO -+ 10 CO 1^ X cc i^ 1 1 ' 1 -f lO CO !•- X C5 O — CI CO -t O CO 1- X c: o s: O c; C5 S 2 2 9 5 5 9 ? £ oc X oc v: X cc CC X -2 ^ j; 02 o p. oi C p-H .° 2 ^ O 1) p (E S 2 ® tc oi£ ;2; S '^ - ^ o c6 P (^ 's!^ "^ " O tj ^H -p ® r- ^ >.a t- o ca -S ® a o a S ® o ^ § g-' £ I ■St ? s ^ O Cj " dj 1^ ^ a J^ o a^ O p (D -l-J a — : k! o O Cj ^ -ti ffl s * CC. TS -ifg Cl c!ja iZ ^ .a a --^ a ^< >i -r^ S O 99 S ^ C3 cfl !h c3 cc t- — I 00 » O OC Tl< !M CO O — H CO_ <0 05 C^l o — r cT x jT — " i.o •ri ^ CI fo COO o o o o o o =C >j_ C flj ^ s r^ ■tj O C £ o ^ « r^ « O "0 ^ ?:! o o o o o o o o o o o o O O O I o o o — . O C-l 00 CI X X o ,-^ r^ :0 17-1 CC (M 35 LO S» O fC ^ 00 '^O -^ X -ji c-i (M I— I X O C; C^l G5 — —I (33 be *« rges inst rkin <>J O O (M O Tt X •-0 O CJ oS 03 ti P O cS 03 t^ lO ++++ + +++++++ + + i~ 13 t^ X 05 I M '^H CO t^ l-*^ t^ C-1 lO X ■-< 1.'^ X CO --H O -* O X CD (M CI CO t-^ tcT rlT O CJ" ^" 05 X O '-0 C) -^ CO -^ (?) C-1 CO ^ CI COl -^ 'O o t^ I I I I I I I •^ I': ;c t^ X 05 O ^ Cl CO -* l.t --0 (33 o; Si 05 C5 03 o o o o o o o X X X X X X 05 S3 33 33 O 05 33 tf c > c Cl n^ o CO ^^^ c ^ Cj O ^. « Tif^ i: -tS ? c ® ^ c S ; Or^ ^ • ■ ^J in ^ :1? 1^ D 2 100 Unfulfilled Progressive Promises. A leaflet was published in January, 1901, by " the Pro- gressive Election Committee," during the L.C.C. election of that year, entitled " Progressive versus Moderate Tramways." The leaflet was a cunning compilation of half-lies and fulsome promises. Among the various remarkable statements in it was this : — " . . . The tramway system is now earning £100,000 per annum for the ratepayers. Under Pro- gre sive management and electric traction, this sum may in a few years, be increased tenfold. ... It is estimated that, at no distant date, from one to two millions per annum may be secured from the electrified Progressive tramways of the Metropolis." That prophecy was made nine years ago. In this con- nection it is worth noting that in The Daily Chronicle of February 21st, 1901, an article appeared by Mr. (now Sir) J. W. Benn, M.P., on " What the L.C.C. has done." " Cheap and efficient Tramways for Londoners," and the " prophecies" of profits and other "statements" in that article correspond closely witli those in the Progressive leaflet. That leaflet undoubtedly secured considerable support to the Progressive Party from the electors. The entrancing vision of two millions of profits per annum from " Progressive " tram- ways was a powerful argument. These, according to the same leaflet, were to be used to achieve wonderful results in regard to remedying overcrowding, &c. If the " prophecy " had been realised, it would have practically reduced the L.C.C. rate by 70 per cent., or by considerably more than one-half. Another Progressive promise in this same leaflet, which, the Progressives failed to fulfil was as follows : — " . . . If the Progressives are returned, a maximum charge of a penny any distance, will certainly be the next 101 step in the Council's tramway policy, and that without inter- fering in any way with the system of half-penny fares or the profits to the ratepayer." Faulty Tramway Accounts. While it is important to impress on all the failure of Progressive promises, it is still more necessary to direct attention to the disclosures which have been made with regard to the way in which the Tramway Accounts were relieved of expenditure properly chargeable to that Depart- ment, during the period when the Progressives were in ofiice. There is no doubt that, like other municipal undertakings, the L.C.C. tramways, under Progressive control, were not charged with all the expenditure which they would have had to bear if they had been run as an ordinary commercial undertaking. The items to which reference is made more particularly in this connection are : — 1. The cost of street widenings for tramway purposes. 2. The failure to provide an adequate annual sum for depreciation. 3. The failure to charge the tnmways with a sufficient sum on account of the services of other Departments. Under these circumstances it is impossible to regard the paper profits shown in past years as anything but fictitious profits. The proof of this is to be found in the results of the independent investigation of the accounts by expert accountants (Messrs. Peat & Pixley) which the Municipal Reformers instituted as soon as they got into office. The following is the essence of the report made by those gentlemen in March, 1908 : — 102 The investigation covered the period from 1892-3 when the Council commenced expenditure in connection with Tramways, down to the 31st March, 1907. "I.— HORSE TRACTION. '■ All the Tramway Undertakings acquired have been on the Horse-Traction System, with the exceiDtion of a small section worked on the cable system. In May, 1903, the Clapham to Tooting section was opened on the Electric Systena, and this system of traction has been gradualij'^ superseding the Horse System. The Electrification is not yet wliolly completed on the southern side of the Thames, and a large portion still remains to be electrified on the northern side. " Owing to the supersession of Horse-Traction the original system of traction becomes obsolete as Electrification jsroceeds. " The total net Expenditure imder this head up to 31st March, 1907, was £2,380,736 13s. Id. This debt is being repaid over the following periods : — CO years £1,819,831 12 11 25 years 463,117 12 8 8 vears 97,787 7 6 £2,380,736 13 1 " The debt outstanding at 31st March, 1907, was £2,010,902 7s. M. " The Council includes in its Capital Account up to 31st March, 1907, the outlay on both the Horse Traction and the Electric Traction Tramways, the latter including the Expenditure on Street Improvements, &c., namely : — Horse Traction £2,380,736 13 1 Electric Traction 4,356,000 12 4 Total £6,736,737 5 5 " This principle in our opinion is not sound because there are^ practically no existing assets to represent the Horse System of Traction so far as it has been disjilaced. " It is suggested that a certain residue of value exists in some of the displaced Horse Traction Assets, but in our o^Dinion this value cannot alter the fact there is a large loss not provided for on the displacement of the Horse Traction system. 103 " The following is shortly the position in regard to this Loss : — " Permanent Way and General (inclnding Goodwill) — (a) Track— cost £1,017,942 9 11 Add— Payments to the Tramway Companies in respect of theii* Expenditure on Street Im- provements (included in Purchase prices) . . . . 23,82(i 3 Additions by the Council .. 13,827 11 Less — Proceeds of Sales of old Material Leaving a balance of . . £1,027,651 11 " This balance represents the Track of the Horse Tramways wliich has been displaced or is in process of being displaced by the Electric Sj"stem. It is suggested to us that there is a residue of valhe in the Track of the Horse Tramway System in excess of the scrap value of the old materials, but no figure has been placad upon this residue — subject thereto, and to a jiroportionate amount of the Sinking Fund Instalments which have been paid out of Revenue, the above balance is a loss for which no provision has been made in the accounts of the Tramways. " Practically the whole of the Debt in respect of the above Expenditure is being repaid over a period of (jO jears. (6) Parliamentary Expenses . . £40,737 Law and other Costa's.. .. 36,796 8 11 £77,533 8 11 " These expenses were incurred by the Tramway Companies, and as the Horse Tramways have to a large extent disappeared, and the remainder is rapidly being displaced, it is reasonable to conclude that these expenses have now no value and subject to a proportionate amoimt of the Sinking Fund Instalments which have been paid out of Revenue the above amount represents a loss, for which no provision has been made in the Accounts of the Tramways. (c) Goodwill . . . . . . £166,937 7 6 104 Rpport of " This Goodwill relates to the Horse Tramways acquired by the ■at &' Pixley. Council, and was estimated by the Valuer to the Council in apportioning the purchase prices of the various Undertakings. The debt in respect thereof is being rejiaid over the following joeriods of years. 60 years 25 years 8 years £40,000 29,150 97,787 7 6 £160,937 7 6 " The tliird item of £97,787 7s. 6d. is the amount paid to the North Metropohtan Tramways ComiJany, as the consideration for cancelling the unexpired term of their lease from the Council, viz., 4 years. " It is advisable that this £166,937 7s. 6d. should be written off out of Revenue over a shorter period than is provided by the payment of the Sinking Fiuid Instalments. " Pboperty and Buildings — Acquired from the Tramway Companies '. . £736,777 17 Freeholds .. .. £497,123 . Leaseholds .. .. 239,654 17 £736,777 17 Extensions and alterations by the Council .. £39,402 II £776,179 17 II Deduct — Proceeds of Sales 2,861 9 Leaving Net Capital Outlay .. £773,318 8 II " Some of these buildings have been converted by the Council to other uses in connection with the Electric System, and the Leases in some cases have been disfDosed of or determined. " Where the buildings have been made available for other purposes the expenditure has been rightly charged to the capital of the Electric Undertaking, but the capital displaced by demolition or reconstruction has not boon wi-itten off and remains part of the cost of the Horse Tramway System. It is in the circumstances impossible for us to indicate what loss (if any) will arise in connection with the property and buildings. 105 Rolling Stock — The Total Cost was £126,232 7 Consisting of — 1,156 Horse Cars 90 Horse Omnibuses The Realisations have been : — 90 Omnibuses . . . . £1,958 5 259 Horse Cars . . . . 791 10 174 Broken up, etc. . . 907 9 1 6 7 6 £3,657 5 Stock remaining — 720 pair-horse Cars, 3 single-horse Cars — esti- mated value .. .. 2,166 2 5 S^S 2 Leaving an Estimated Loss of . . £120,408 15 5 for which no provision has been made in the Accounts of tlie Tramways subject to a proportionate amount of the Sinking Fund instalments which have been paid out of Revenue. " The debt in respect of Rolling Stock is being repaid over a period of 25 years. " Machinery and Plant. The total cost was : — Special Cable Plant at Streatham . . . . £30,000 General Plant at Depots 39,328 11 10 £69,328 11 10 Deduct — Proceeds of Sales . . . . £1,830 Plant purchased in 1906 (mainly from the North Metropolitan Tramways Company) at cost . . . . 12,438 6 14,268 6 6 Leaving an Estimated loss of . . £55,060 5 4 subject to a proportionate amount of the Sinking Fund instalments which have been paid out of Revenue. There may be some small 106 quantity of Plant remaining, in addition to that purchased in 1906, but it cannot materiallj- affect the above loss. Practically the whole debt is being repaid o^'er 25 years. " Harness and Equipment : — The Total Cost was £15,057 II Deiuct — Proceeds of Sales . . . . £395 5 Harness and Equipment pur- chased in 1906 (mainly from the North Metropolitan Tramways Company), at cost 8,681 10 5 9,076 10 10 Leaving an estimated loss of . . £5,980 10 1 subject to a proportionate amount of the Sinking Fund instalments which have been paid out of Revenue. The debt is being repaid over 25 j'^ears. " With the exception of the cost of temporary generatmg stations and other Expenditm-e of a special and temporary nature, in all amounting to £43,885 4s. 4d., paid for out of Revenue, the combined total net cost of the Horse Traction System and the Electric Traction System appears as an asset in the Capital Account. " As already mentioned in Clauses 6, 8, 9, and 10, the Council, apart from the Repayment Instalments of the Debt charged against Revenue have made no jjrovision for the loss on any of the foregoing items of Permanent Way, Rolling Stock, &c. ■" While we recognise that the Council had no means of writing off at once the loss on the displaced Assets of the Horse System we consider that such loss should be provided for out of Revenue more rapidly than by the cliarging of the Annual Instalments in rei)ayment of the Debt, lentil tliese losses are provided for there can bo no Profits applicable for relief of the rates. '■ Summarising the position as regards the Loss on the displacement of the Horse Traction Sj'-stem, we are of opinion that, even assuming that the Freehold and Leasehold Properties and Buildings referred to in juiragraph 7 are of suflficient value to represent the amount at which tliey stand in the accounts, and after allowing for any Residue of value which may remain in some of the other Assets, tiie Loss for which the Coimcil will have to make provision, must ai)proximate £1,500,000- 107 Subject to the proportionate amount of the Sinking Fund Instalments in redemption of the debt, which have been paid out of Revenue, and which on the whole of the Horse Traction debt amoimted at 31st March, 1907, to £369,834 5s. 9d., the approximate Loss still to be provided for must exceed £1,000,000. " We find that the following amoimts have been applied in relief of rates : — 1897-8 . . 1899-1900 1900-1 . . 1901-2 . . 1902-3 . . 1903-4 . . Total £49,000 64,592 2 11 86,000 29,000 45,000 20,000 £293,592 2 11 " These sums liave been applied out of the earnings of the Horse Traction System. We consider that these amounts should have been reserved towards the loss referred to in paragraph 14. " Until the Revenue of the Tramways has been charged with (1 ) the losses on disj)laced assets of the Horse System, (2) a full provision for renewals on the system now in force, (3) the charges in respect of the outstanding debt, and (4) a proportionate amount of the full Central Office Charges, we are of opinion that no sum will be available for relief of rates. " In the Balance Sheet the loss referred to in paragraph 14 should appear as Loss on conversion of the Horse Sj'stem to Electric Traction " XL— ELECTRIC TRACTION. " The Total Net Expenditure to 31st March, 1907, not including the amount charged for Street Imi^rovements, &c., was : — 1. Power Supply £942,887 14 2 2, Construction 3,133,297 2 8 Total £4,076,184 16 10 " The whole Debt in respect of which is being repaid over tlie following periods of years : — 60 years £947,241 16 11 25 years 3,128,942 19 11 £4,076,184 16 10 108 " The Debt outstanding at 31st March, 1907, was £3,853,376 8s. 5d. " The Expenditure is, in our opinion, all proiDer Capital Expenditvire, and allocated to the proper heads. " To the extent that the Works Department has been employed aa Contractors actual cost only has been charged to Capital, and no allowance made for Profit to that Department. This is quite in accord with our views of a proper basis of the Capital Charge. " RENEWALS RESERVE FUND AND REVENUE. " The amount at the Credit of Renewals Reserve Fvind, at 31st March, 1907, was £141,855 Is. 3d., made up as follows : — 1. Balance of amount set aside. out of the Horse System Profits, to 31st March, 1903 . . . . £29,051 4 9 2. Amount set aside out of Electric System Profits, from 1st April, 1903 105,000 3. Interest and Dividend Accumula- tions 7,803 16 6 £141,855 1 3 " What provision should be made out of Revenue for Renewals of the Electric Undertakings is a very difficvilt question to decide when the life of the assets formmg part of such Undertaking has not yet been ascertained by experience. It is impossible for us to fix a rate. The Council has been advised by its Officers that at least one penny per car mile run should be provided for the Renewals Reserve Fund, this being in addition to any general Repairs of the Undertaking and the Renewal of the Machinery, Plant and Buildings of the Generating Stations. " If Id. per car mile had been reserved the amount which ought to have been set aside from 1st April, 1903, to 31st March, 1907, would have been £182,636 The actual amount set aside was .. .. .. 105,000 Hence there has been short charged against Revenue to that date, the sum of . . . . £77,636 " We refer to the Estimates for 1907-8, where it is shown that one penny per car mile for Renewals will amount to . . £100,000 The provision proposed is . . . . . . . . . . 35,000 " If this estimated provision for 1907-8 is carried into effect there will bo at the 31st March, 1908, the sum of £142,636 short charged to- 109 Revenue since 1st April, 1903, in respect of Renewals, on the basis of one penny per car mile run, and before providing anything for the renewal of the Machinery, Plant and Buildings of the Generating Stations. " We do not regard a provision for Renewals as less iinportant than any Expenditure of a current cliaracter in connection with the Tramway Undertaking. It is an exjaense incurred daily, the payment for which is deferred, and ought to be provided for along with current working charges. " A charge for Renewals is, in our opinion, essentially an element in the cost of the year's trading, and should not be determined or affected by the result of such trading. It should form a charge in the Revenue Account of each year before the balance of Net Revenue is arrived at. It should not be treated as an appropriation of any balance of Revenue available. " As an example of the erroneous method of dealing with this Charge we refer to the Accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1907. " The Svirplus Revenue is shown as £9,673 15s. Od., but if one penny per car mile had been charged for Renewals, the Tramway Undertaking would have shown a deficiency of £58,107 5s. Od. It is to be noted that the result for 1906-7 was exceptional, and consequent on the working of the remaining horse systems at a loss before charging Interest on and Repayment of Debt. " We are of opinion that Revenue should be charged with the cost necessary to maintain the Undertaking as a going concern, which can only be done by providing an adequate reserve for futiu-e Renewals ; otherwise, long before the terinination of the loan periods, the Under- taking will become an instrument incaj^able of making profit, because of the excessive repaii'S and renewals which will be necessary, and the absence of an adequate Renewals Fund out of which the cost of the Renewals could be met. " As having an important bearing on this point we draw attention to the increase in ordmary Repairs, etc., dvxring the 4 years of the work- ing of the Electric System, as shown in the following statement : — Year. Total Car mileage of the Electric Systein. Total net Repairs, etc., of the Electric System. =:Per Car mile run. 1903-4 1904-5 1905-6 1906-7 4,469,576 10,931,396 12,164,292 16,267,579 £ s. d. 15,060 8 6 40,988 10 57,842 15 10 89,429 7 8 .808 pence. .899 1.141 1.319 „ 110 Messrs^^ " ^^' "'^^^ '^® observed that 1906-7 shows an increase of Jd. per Car \ & Pixley. niile nm over 1903-4. " The inference to be drawn is that the increase in repairs inevitably points to the need for early renewal. " In our opinion it is essential that the whole of the Renewals Fund should be specifically invested so as to be available when required. " We find that out of the Coimcil's ReneM'al Fund of £141,8i>5 Is. 3d. at 31st March, 1907, only £83,008 16s. 2d., had been so invested, the balance of £58,846 5s. Id., having been used for the general purposes of the Tramway Undertaking. " The Renewals provision necessary to keep the Undertaking as a going concern have in oiu" opinion no relation to the Statutory Sinking Fimd. " In answer to the question as to whether the Renewals Fund should be drawn upon for the pvu:pose of the Renewal of Special Track Work at the Elej^hant and Castle Junction, estimated to cost £8,000, we are of opmion that as the provision for renewals has not been sufficient on the Coimcil's basis of one penny per car mile run the Re- newals Fund should not be used for this purpose. " III.— CENTRAL OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT CHARGES. " It having been recognised by the Council dvuing the year 1906-7, that the then existmg method of allocating the Central Office Charges against the various services benefiting thereby, did not charge such services with a sufficient proportion, a new method of allocating these charges was adojited which took effect from the 1st of April, 1907. The Comptroller has presented us with a statement showing that supposing the new method had prevailed in former years, a further charge should have been naade against the Revenue up to the 31st March, 1907, of £5,547. In our opinion the principle adopted in the new method is somid. " IV.— STREET IMPROVEMENTS. " With reference to the question as to the allocation of the expenditure under this head, we are of opinion that the proportion of the cost of the Street Improvements and Widenings which should be charged to the Tramways should bear a direct relation to the benefit derived or to be derived by the tramways. (a) When the Improvements were undertaken wholly to accommodate the Tramways and were not otherwise necessary. Ill (6) When Improvenaents were undertaken along a route con- currently with the construction of a Tramway. (c) When the Improvements were undertaken with the object of accommodating general traffic and also providing a sufficient width of thoroughfare for a contemplated construction of Tramways. {d) When the Tramways although constructed derive in common with the general traffic benefit from the Improvement. " With regard to (d) it may be lu-ged that the Tramways should not be charged with any improvement made subsecpient to their construc- tion on the grtjund that an incorporated company owning a Tramway system under a charter for a term of years could not be called upon to pay any portion of such expense. This may be true, but the incor- porated company may run an inefficient service of trams, if it prefers to do so, rather than bear any share of the expense, whilst on the other hand, the Council being responsible for providing facilities for both the general and the tramway traffic, the expenditvire thereon should be apportioned according to benefits received. We are further of opinion that in assessing the benefit apportionable to Tramwaj^s the Council should ))e guided by the advice of experts who would take into account all the circumstances of each particular case. "Improvements undertaken or proposed in connection WITH Tramway Schemes. " The Comptroller in a Return dated the 10th October, 1906, in reference to Street Improvements and Tramways, has classified under the heading of " Improvements undertaken or proposed in connection with Tramway Schemes," a number of improvements, the net cost of which has been charged or is proposed to be charged to Improvement Account, and in respect of which no allocation of the cost has been made, or any part thereof charged to Tramways. We vmderstand these improvements were considered necessary for TramwajJ- purposes — the Tramways being the originating cause in each case. " The following are examples : — - " S?:. John Street, Clerkenwell, — Net Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 .. £69,246 7 4 " This has been entire 1}^ charged to Improvement Account. " On the 29th October, 1901, the Council resolved to postpone the charge to Tramways Capital 'until such time as the profits of the proposed Tramway shall be sufficient to meet the ajfinual charge in respect of the Capital Outlay.' 112 jport of " Tliis Resolution is based upon an unsound principle ; the appor- & Pixlcy. tioninent of expenditure between the various accounts should be made on business and commercial principles, quite irrespective of the results which may be derived from such expenditure. " The whole of the Tramway is now constructed and working. " Batteesea Rise. — Net Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 .. £42,745 4 5 " In this case a Resolution of the Council was passed that the Tramways should bear one-sixth of the cost of the property and the whole cost of the works. " Nothing has in fact been charged to Tramways. " We understand the expenditure was made in contemplation of Tramway powers which were not obtained. The local Authority concerned contributed £7,500, and the balance of £35,245 4s. 5d. has been charged to the Improvement Account. " Blackheath Road, Blackhea^ch Hill, Etc. — Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 .. £15,176 19 " All charged to Improvement Account. " The Council resolved that half the cost of property and the whole cost of the works should be charged to Tramways. Nothing has in fact been charged to Tramways. The reason given is that the application for powers to make the Tramway was not successful. " In the two cases of " Battersea Rise " and " Blackheath Road " the Tramways have not been constructed, but in a commercial under- taking expenditure of a similar character would have been charged to capital, although it might be regarded as lost, and therefore subject to earlier writing off than if the expenditure had resulted in a revenue- earning instrument. " Kentish Town Road. — Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 .. £6,832 2 2 " All charged to Improvement Account. " The Solicitor apj)ears to have advised that as the Widening was on the route of the North Metrojjolitan Tramways Company (who were then the Lessees of the Council) the Council had no jjower to charge the cost to the Tramways Capital Account. 113 " After the Council had purchased the Tramways they leased thera forthwith to the North Metropolitan Tramways Company. The Coimcil purchased the unexpired Lease as from the 1st April, 1906, for £97,787 7s. 6d., and the same reasons, if sound, do not now exist for the absence of a charge to Tramways Account in respect of this expenditure. " Brixton Road. — ■ Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 .. £7,351 6 7 " All charged to Improvement Account. " The Committee's Report to the Council on the 13th November, 1900, described this as an improvement which ' was necessitated largely by the Council's Tramways along the thoroughfares in question.' It is to be noted that a double line of Tramway existed before the im- provement. " Merton Road, Wandsworth. — Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 £35,703 4 1 " All charged to Improvement Account (subject to a contribution of £9,333 6s. 8d. by the Local Authority.) " In the Coimcil's Minutes of the 30th October, 1900, it is stated that ' the construction of the Tramway will involve the widening of Merton Road to 60 feet throughout.' " We now refer to some other cases where an apportionment of part of the expenditure has been made to Tramways, but the basis of apportionment has varied from the usual one-third charged to Tramways " Red Lion Street to Tooting High Street. — Total expenditure to 31st March, 1907 £194,758 11 7 In this case the Council made the allocation To the Local i\.uthority, by agreement. one- third, not exceeding „ Tramways . . ' ,, Improvement Account The allocations up to 31st Marc Local Authority Tramways Improvement Accoiint . . £91,316 63,000 . . the balance of cost. 1907, were : — £64,919 10 6 48,700 81,139 1 1 £194,758 11 7 114 ieport of " FlTLHAM PalACE RoAD. — Messrs. Total expenditure to 31st March, 1907 £124,524 19 '{> The Coiuieil resolved to allocate the cost : To Local Authority by agreement, one third, but not exceeding . , . . £30,000 ,, Tramways . . , . . . . . One third ,, Improvement Accoim.t . . . , One third The allocations up to 31st March, 1907, were : Local Authority £30,000 Tramways 34,500 Improvement Account . . . . . . 60,024 19 9 £124,524 19 9 " In all these cases of street improvements and widenings, we have not seen any evidence of a satisfactory character which would form the basis for an allocation between the Local Authorities concerned, the Tramways and the Improvement Account, and we are of opinion that the Resolvitions of the Council making allocations require to be supported by an independent expert opinion based on the advantages derived or to be derived by the Tramwaj's from the expenditure. "It is to be borne in mind that in all the cases referred to in paragraphs 40 to 47 the information before us is that the Improvement or Widening was necessary for Tramv/ay purposes. " Improvements for the Purposes of General Traffic. '■ The second classification of Widenings included in the return of 10th October, 1906, already referred to, is described as " Improve- ments for the purposes of General Traffic." " Xo part of the expenditure on Widenings under this head has been charged to the Tramways Capital Account, but it appears to us that before we can express an opinion on this policy, it is necessary to consider whether the Tramway has derived or will derive benefit from these Iniprovoments. It is clear that some benefit must accrue, as the Tramway has a special but not exclusive right to a certain part of the roadway as compared with the general traffic, and the avoidance of a congested state of traffic must be a direct and important benefit to a Tramway enterprise. " A congestion of general traffic may be so continuous as to make a Tramway ati unprofitable instrument or even an impossibility 115 Assume, however, a Tramway co-existing with heavy General Traffic and a Widening becomes absolutely necessary in the interests of both ; the expenditure should then be apportioned between ' Improvement ' and ' Tramway ' Accounts, the former representing General Traffic. " The same reasons which result in the allocation of a part of the cost of a widening to the capital cost of a Tramway about to be con- structed, in order to make it a profitable enterprise, apply with equal force to the allocation of the cost of a similar improvement with a similar object, although the Tramway is already in operation. In both cases the widening is necessary to enable the Tramway and the General Traffic to be conveniently accommodated. " It is to be observed that the whole of these Widenings in the second category, referred to in paragraph 50, are on the route of Tram- ways existing or sanctioned by the Coiuicil. " We are therefore compelled to come to the conclusion that the Council have not dealt fairly with the cost of Improvements and Widen- ings under the second category, referred to in paragraph 50, when they have charged the whole to Improvement Account. " Eliminating from the second category, referred to in paragraph 50, an expenditure of £1,394,125 13s. Od. at 31st March, 1907, on Improve- ments in certain cases where there is reason for maintaining the allocation of the whole cost to Improvement Account, there remains a number of important Improvements where, in our opinion, an alloca- tion should have been made of j^art of the cost to the Tramway Capital accomit, but where, in fact, the whole expenditure has been allocated to the Improvement Account, subject to deduction of the amount paid by the Local Authority concerned. " The leading cases where, in ovir opinion, an allocation should have been made of part of the cost to the Tramways Capital Accoimt are : — " Old Street ajstd Goswell Road (various Improvements). — Charged to Improvement Account . . £246,868 17 7 Contributed by Local Authority .. 8,839 Oil Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 £255,707 18 6 Mare Street, Hackney. — Charged to Improvement Account . . £395,395 1 7 Contributed by Local Authority .. 103,91117 9 Total Expenditure to 31st ^Nlarch, 1907 £499,300 19 4 port of 116 Cambridge Road (continuation of Mare Street). — r Messrs. Charged to Improvement Account . . £25,898 2 7 & Paxley. Contributed by Local Authority .. 8,518 8 11 Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 £34,416 11 6 Nine Elms Lane, — Charged to Improvement Account . . £103,617 14 6 Contributed by Local Authority .. 15,000 Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 £118,617 14 6 Camberwell New Road. — Charged to Improvement Account . . £59,307 6 9 Contributed by Local Authority . . 3,000 Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1907 .. £62,307 6 9 " In total the Expenditure on these improvements, as shown in Schedule XV, up to the 31st March, 1907, amounts to £1,007,103 11 2 The contributing Local Autho- rities have provided . . £142,982 1 1 And there has been charged to Improvement Account .. 864,121 10 1 £1,007,103 11 2 a portion of the £864,121 10s. Id. ought, in our opinion, to have been charged to the Tramways Capital Account. . " Summarising our remarks, therefore, in connection with the expenditure on Improvements undertaken or proposed in connection with Tramway Schemes, referred to in paragraphs 37 to 49, we find the total expenditure up to 31st March, 1907, was £752,128 Us. 8d. ; of this, £190,999 6s. Id. has been charged to Tramways and £173,690 7s. Id. has been contributed by Local Authorities, the remainder, viz., £387,438 18s. 6d., being charged to Improvement Account. A substantial, but as yet unascertained, proportion of this last figure, in our opinion, should be charged to Tramways Capital Account. 117 " The expenditure on ' ImproYements for the Purposes of General Traffic' in respect of which we have instanced some im- portant examples in paragraphs 54 to 58 (of which we think there is no doubt that a portion of the cost should be charged to the Tramway enterprise), amoimted at 31st March, 1907, to £1,007,103 lis. 2d., the Local Authorities concerned contributed £142,982 Is. Id., the balance, £864,121 10s. Id., being charged to Improvement Account. In our opinion a considerable, but as yet unascertained, proportion of this latter figure should also be charged to Tramways Capital Account. " In all the cases sunnmarised in Clauses 60 and 61 it is impossible to ascertain the proportion chargeable against Tramways witliout the aid of independent professional valuers. " v.— THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION OF THE TRAMWAY UNDERTAKINGS BY THE VALUER TO THE COUNCIL, DATED 16th JANUARY, 1907. " The basis adopted by the Valuer, viz , ' of applying a Multiplier to an ascertained net income,' is a fair and usual basis for arriving at the Value of the Goodwill of an Undertaking, the property and other assets being as a rule taken over at the valuation of an expert, but assuming that such a basis is a fair one to apply to the Tramway Undertaking as a whole, the number of years used as the multiplier should be arrived at after due consideration is given to the following : — (1) The permanence and profitable character of the Under- taking. (2) The provision made for Depreciation and Renewals, before arriving at the Net Income to which the Multiplier is to be ajjplied. " With regard to No. 1. — This should be the main consideration in fixing the number of years to be used as the Multiplier. The Valuer has fixed 25 years as his multiplier (he regards the Undertaking as a profitable monopoly in perpetuity) but in so doing we think he has not given sufficient consideration to the possibility of supersession by some other system of traction and competition by other means of conveyance, although on the other hand the Valuer states that he has taken into his consideration ' The possibilities and capabilities of the Undertaking for Development.' " With regard to No. 2. — The Valuer, in arriving at his figure of Net Income, for the Southern System, has not in our opinion made sufficient allowance for Renewals and nothing at all for contingencies such as accidents or for possible loss by the substitution of other means of traction. One penny per car mile run is regarded by the Coimcil's 118 expert advisers as a niinimiim allowance for Renewals, exclusive of the Renewal of the Machinery, Plant and Buildings of the Generating Stations. One penny per car mile would have amounted to over £50,000. The Valuer only allowed £35,000. It has not yet been proved that even Id. per car mile is an adequate provision for Renewals. We therefore consider that the Net Profits upon which the valuation is based are not properly ascertained. " In the case of the Northern System the valuer has not given the figure of Net Income on which his calculation of value is based, and therefore we cannot comment upon the result at which he has arrived. " If the net income had been properly ascertained we consider that 25 times the amoiuit of the Annual Net Income yielding a purchaser only 4 per cent, is too high a valuation for an undertaldng subject to all the risks of a tramway enterprise and the liability to make good tlie roads in the event of its discontinuance. " In our opinion, without questioning the principle, we think that both the IMultiplier and the net Income are too great." The Report concludes with a few minor suggestions for improving the form of the pubhshed accounts. Tramways and Sti^eet Improvements. One of the subjects dealt with by the Auditors was the allocation of the cost of Street Improvements carried out in connection with the Tramways, and it is interesting to com- pare their conclusions with some authoritative statements of Progressive policy. But first let us see what the practice is in the case of company undertakings and other public authorities. As a rule, when a private corajsany wishes to construct tramways in any area, the local authority makes the company pay the whole cost of any street widening necessitated by the introduction of the tramways. The local authority has the whip-hand, in as much as they can veto any proposal on the part of a tramway company. Local authorities not only make private companies pay the whole cost of street improve- ments, but very often impose upon them other onerous conditions. 119 Sir J. Clifton Robinson, the Managing Director of the London United Tramways Company, m giving evidence before the Traffic Commission, made the following statement concerning the sums his company had had to pay in respect Of street improvements, &c., in Greater London :— [c./. Answer 24,853, Cd. 2751 of 1905.] " The street improvements represented an outlay of £745,500, apart from the capitalisation of numerous wayleaves, which I also deal with, which amounted to a further £241,000. That means an enormous capital value in the cost, not only of constructing a tramway, but in meeting these enormous demands for improvements and the capitalisation of the wayleaves." The Middlesex County Council and the cost of Street Widenings. Eyery penny of every improvement made under every Order by the Middlesex County Council, in connection with the widening of a street up to 50 feet in width, is debited against the Tramway Accounts by the Middlesex County Council. Progressive Theory and Practice. What was the method adopted by the Progressives ? One of their rules — not by any means observed in every case — was to split the cost into three parts : one- third was to be paid by the local Borough Council, one-third was to be charged to the tramways account, and one-third to the L.C.C. Improvements Fund. At the debate in the Council on July 3rd, 1906, Mr. McKinnon Wood, M.P., himself admitted that " This system of charging one-third to improvements is a rule-of- thumb system, and proceeds upon no principle." Mr. Cockerton, the Local Government Board Auditor, in his report dated April 4th, 1906, stated : — 120 " The Council does not appear to have had before it any data when fixing these proportions, which seem to be of a somewhat arbitrary character." Giving evidence before the Traffic Commission, Mr. W. H. Dickinson, L.C.C., said that he spoke on behalf of the London County Council, and went on to use these words {Answer 2199, Cd. 2751 of 1905) : — " We have laid down a rule as far as possible, and we do not wish to depart from it, in justice to all parts of London — that is, that one-third of the cost is paid by the Council, one-third by the Tramways Department, and one-third by the Local Authority." Mr. Gomme, the Clerk of the London County Council, in giving evidence before the same Commission, answered Question 4164: "What are the arrangements made about cost where streets have to be widened for the making of tramways ? " as follows : — " One-third of the cost is contributed by the Council, one-third by the Local Authority, and the remaining third is charged to the tramways account." As a matter of fact they did not even adhere to their own rule, and tlie auditor's report above quoted, shows that up to March, 1907, only a fourth of the total cost of improvements undertaken in connection with Tramway schemes had been charged to Tramways ; while in the case of other improve- ments indirectly connected with the Tramways nothing had been charged at all. Municipal Reform System. The Municipal Reformers devoted a good deal of attention to this subject and have now devised machinery for a scientific allocation of the cost of Improvements. The matter was first referred to the Finance, Improve- ments and Highways Committees jointly, and on July 13th, 121 1909, these Committees presented a joint report reviewing the whole subject and concluding with the following recommendations :— " (a) That the resokition (No. 1 (a) ) of 20th November, 1906 (p. 1215), as to the allocation of the cost of street improvements in connection with tramways, be rescinded. " (6) That when the widening of a thoroughfare is entirely neces- sitated by the construction of a new tramway, or the doubling of an existing single line of tramway, the whole cost of the improvement shall be charged to tlie tramways account. " (c) That when the widening of a thoroughfare is partly necessi- tated by the construction of a new tramway or the doubling of an existing single line of tramway, the cost of such widening, or such balance as is not contributed by a Metropolitan Borough Council, shall be allocated to tlie tramways accoimt and the account of the improve- ment respectively, in such proportion as shall be fixed, regard being had to the benefit accruing to the tramway traffic and to the general traffic respectively, provided that the consideration whether a tramway is likely to result in financial loss or gain shall not be a determining factor in deciding whether any or what proportion of the cost of a street widening consequent on the construction of the tramway shall be debited to the account of the improvement. " (d) That, in cases not covered by resolution (6) the Metropolitan Borough Councils be asked to make some contribution, and that when the Borough Council is willing to contribute one-third of the cost of the widening of a street in which a tramway is being laid or reconstructed, the proportion to be charged to the improvements ai^l tramways accounts shall be decided by the Council on the recommendation of a special committee to be hereafter appointed. " (e) That in the cases of street widenings carried out along the routes of existing tramways electrically worked where double lines already exist, and there is a margin of at least 9 ft. 6 in. between the outer rail and the kerb, and where there is a sufficient radius, no charge shall be made to the tramways account. " (/) That when powers ai'e obtained for new tramways along thoroughfares which have been widened for the jjurposes of general traffic and the width is sufficient for a double line of tramways no charge shall be made to the tramways account provided that the improvement has been completed for more than five years, but that if the period is less than five years the question of allocating any part of the cost to the tramways accomit shall be decided by the Council on the recommenda- tion of a special committee to be hereafter appointed. 122 " (g) That when improvements have been undertaken in connec- tion with tramway schemes, but powers for the construction of the tram- waj'S liave not been obtained, no charge shall be made to the tramways account until such time as jiowers to make a tramway shall be obtained, when the question of allocating a part to the tramways account shall be decided by the Council on the recommendation of a special committee to be hereafter appointed. " (h) That the duty of advising the Council as to the application of the principles laid down in the foregoing resolutions be placed upon a special committee appointed by the Council, consisting of the Chair- man, Vice-Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Council and six members to be appointed by the Council on the recommendation of the General Purposes Committee, and that the sjiecial committee be required, in each case, before submitting their recommendations, to obtain reports from the comptroller, the chief engineer, the valuer and the chief officer of tramways, and that the report of the special committee be submitted to the Cotmcil concurrently as far as jiossible with the reports recommending the tramway scheme and street widenings, and that the procedure necessary to carry this into effect be provided for by standing order. " (i) That it be referred to the General Purposes Committee to submit any necessary amendments of the standing orders and the order of reference to give effect to the foregoing resolutions (?;) to (h) inclusive. " (/) That it be referred to the sjiecial committee to consider and report whether, in regard to the allocation of the cost of street improve- ments, the principles laid down in the foregoing resolutions (b) to (h) inclusive should be retrospective, and if so to advise as to the action which should be taken in regard to each case." These recommendations, which are given in their amended form, were agreed to by the Council. In accordance with the above resolution {h), the General Purposes Committee delivered a report on November 9th, 1909, in which was incorporated the following recommenda- tions : — (a) That the i-eference to the special committee on the allocation of cost of tramway street improvements be as follows — " J. The conunittee shall consist of the chairman, the vice- cliairman and the deputy-chairman of the Council, and six members to be ap]K)inted on the recommendation of the General Piu-poses Committee. " 2. The committee shall advise the Council as to the allocation <^f the cost of the street improveuients along tramway routes. 123 including cases where a metropolitan borough council is willing to contribute to the cost of widening of a street in which a tramway is being laid or reconstructed, and the report of the committee shall be subinitted to the Council concurrently, as far as possible, with the rej^orts recommending the tramway scheme and street widenings. " 3. The committee shall, before submitting to the Council any recommendation as to the allocation of expenditure, have before them statements from the Improvements and High- ways Committee.s of the facts relating to the pro^iosed street widenings and the tramways affected thereby and reports from the comptroller, the chief engineer, tlie valuer and the chief officer of tramwaj's. " 4. The comniittee shall in franiing any such recommendation observe the following rules — " (a) When the widening of a thoroughfare is entirely necessitated by the construction of a new tramway, or the doubhng of an existing single line of tramway, the whole cost of the improvement shall be charged to the tramways account. " (6) When the widening of a thoroughfare is partly necessitated by the construction of a new tramwaj'^ or the doubling of an existing single line of tramway, the cost of such widening, or such balance as is not contributed by a metro- politan borough council, shall be allocated to the tramways account and the account of the improvement respectively, in such proportion as shall be fixed, regard being had to the benefit accruing to the tramway traffic and to the general traffic respectively, provided that the consideration whether a tramway is likely to result in financial loss or gain shall not be a determining factor in deciding whether any or what proportion of the cost of a street widening consequent on the construction of the tramway shall be debited to the account of the improvement. "(c) In the cases of street widenings carried out along the routes of existing tramways electrically worked where double lines already exist, and there is a margin of at least 9 ft. 6 in. between the outer rail and the kerb, and where there is a sufficient radius, no amount shall be charged to the tramways account. " (d) When powders are obtained for new tramwaj's along thoroughfares which have been widened for the purposes of general traffic and the width is sufficient for a double line of tram^^'ay, no amount shall be charged to the tramways account ]24 rt of the provided that the improvement has been completed for more JeiierHl than five years, but if the period is less than five years the umiittee, question of allocating any part of the cost to the tramways ^^^' account shall be decided by the Council on the recommendation of the committee. " (e) When improvements have been undertaken in connection with tramway schemes, but powers for the con- struction of the tramways have not been obtained, no amount shall be charged to the tramways account until such time as powers to make a tramway shall be obtained, when the question of allocating a part to the tramways account shall be decided by the Council on the recommendation of the Com- mittee. " (6) That a paragraph as follows be substituted for paragraph 3 of the reference to the Improvements Committee — " All correspondence and negotiations with the local authorities with reference to street improvements shall be conducted by the Committee, and the Committee shall in all cases of imiirovements along tramway routes, where the widening of a thoroughfare is not entirely necessitated by the construction of a new tramway or the doubling of an existing single line of tramway, ask the metro- politan borough councils concerned for a contribution towards the cost of the improvement. No binding arrangement as to any such matter shall, however, be made without the consent of the Council. " (c) That an addition as follows be made to the reference to the Improvements Committee — " When the Committee shall have resolved to submit to the Council a proposal which may involve expenditure by the Council on a street imj^rovement along the route of an existing or proposed tramway they shall forward to the special committee on the alloca- tion of the cost of street imi^rovements along tramway routes a statement of the facts relating to the proposal, and the report of the Committee shall, as far as possible, be submitted to the Council concurrently with the reports dealing with the tramway and the allocation of the cost of the improvement. "(d) That an addition as follows be made to the reference to the Highways Committee — " When the Improvements Committee, as required by their reference, forward to the special committee on the allocation of the cost of street improvements along tramway routes a statement of the facts relating to a street improvement along the route of an existing or proposed tramway, the Committee shall forward to the special committee a statement of the facts relating to the tramway 125 along the street in question, and their report deaUng with the tramway shall, as far as possible, be submitted to the Council concurrently with the reports dealing with the improvement and the allocation of the cost thereof. " (e) That paragraph 5 (1) (6) of the reference to the Improvements Committee be amended by the omission of the words " on the rates " in line 1." These recommendations were all agreed to by the Council. The Special Committee went speedily to work, and on 7th December, 1909, the Council approved the first attempt at a business-like apportionment of the cost of improve- ments which was as follows : — " We recommend — " That the net cost of the street improvements along tramway routes indicated in column 1 of the following table be ajjportioned between the accounts of the improvements and the tramways account, as indicated in columns 2 and 3 of the table respectively — Proportion of cost chargeable. Improvement. Account of the Tramways improvement. account. (1) (2) (3) (i. ) Mitcham-road . . One-third One-third (ii. ) Mitcham-lane and Southcroft- road . . One-third One-third (iii. ) Southampton-road Three-fovirths One-fourth (iv. ) Gray's-inn-road to Pentonville- road (bridge over railway) . . One-half One-half (V. ) Kilburn Priory, jimction of Alexandi-a-road and Hil- grove-road and junction of Adelaide-road and Upper Avenue-road . . Nil Two-thirds ] >0 CO tC lo co' co' 00 1— I CO CM 'M 00 "t. '^ CO <— I Oi OJ ^ CO CO _^ o^ CO I— I CM Oi 00 -M 00 CX) <7i ^ r-H CM 1.^ (M CO o 9 o O G^ 00 CO >— I (M CD CO O O -^ lO 00 lO >0 1— ( CO »0 CO CO 00 di »0 rH r^ CO ^ r^ CO -^ 00 r~ . IN. 1— 1 -* O CX) I-H CO 1^ CO (M CO a) CO Ol o C7i CO ■ CM CM L^ o lO CO -cH (M r-H -^'' CO kO r^ nvi -t< CO l-H CO 05 T-H 3^l r-H CO o o cf CO 00 o 142 There is no evidence here of any disposition to starve the Tramways, and the programme to be submitted to Parliament next year, shows that the pohcy of rapid development will be continued. At the meeting of the Council held on July 27th, 1909, the Highways Committee submitted the following proposals for new tramways, viz. : — - " (a) That authority be sought in the session of Parliament of I'JIO, to enable the Council to construct the undermentioned new traniwaj'S : — " (i.) Marble Arch to Harrow Road, via Edgware Road. '■ (ii.) Harrow Road to Cricklewood, via Edgware Road, Maida Vale, High Road, Kilburn, and Shoot-up Hill. " (iii.) Chalk Farm to Child's Hill, via Chalk Farm Road, Adelaide Road, Upper Avenue Road and Finchley Road. '" (W.) Seven Sisters Road to Hanley Road, via Fontliill Road to ToUington Park (double line) and single loop line via Evershot Road, Hanley Road, Regina Road and Tollington Park. " (v.) Heme Hill Station to Brixton Hill, via Dulwich Road and Water Lane. " (vi.) Putney Bridge to Wtindsworth, via High Street, Putney, Putney Bridge Road and Higla Street, Wandsworth, to join the tramways in Garratt Lane. '■ (vii.) Wood Lane to Harrow Road, via projjosed new road between Wood Lane and Latimer Road, Silchester Road, Lancaster Road (double line), and a single line in Lancaster Road, St. Luke's Road, Cornwall Road and Ledbury Road, and a single line in Ladbroke Grove, Cornwall Road, Powis TeiTace and Talbot Road, and double line in part of Talbot Road and in Westbourne Park Road and Porchester Road and on Lord Hill's Bridge. " (\'i!i.) Extension of existing tramways in Tooley Street to near London Bridge. " (ix.) Single diversion line along Arcjier Street and Bond Street, Vauxliall. " (x.) Additional double line of tramways on Dog Kennel Hill, Camberwell. " (xi.) Diversion of a portion of one of tlie Hues in GJreen Lanes. 148 " (6) That the Highways Committee be authorised to negotiate with the Middlesex County Council with the view of settling, subject to approval by the Council, the terms of an agreement between the Council and the INIiddlesex County Council for the construction and working of the proposed tramways from Bridge Terrace to Cricklewood." It is interesting to compare the capital expenditure on the electrification and construction of tramways under the two parties. Under Progressive Rule the figures are — 1902-3 .. .. £722,000 1903-4 1904-5 1905-6 1906-7 812,000 793,000 780,000 2,064,000 Under Municipal Reform Rule — 1907-8 .. .. £1,468,000 1908-9 .. .. 1,069,000 1909-10 . . . . 1,800,000 (estimated) Practically, the Municipal Reformers have been spending on the average half-a-million a year more than the Pro- gressive party in improving and electrifying the tramway system. The report of the Highways Committee also states that the total capital expended, or to be expended, on the existing undertaking may be put at about 12| miUions. The expenditure to 31st March, 1909, was £9,484,000, leaving, roughly, 3i millions for future expenditure. Mr. A .Sliirley Benn (M.R.), Chairman of the Highways Committee on July 27th, 1909, in moving the reception of the report, explained to the Council that " The Committee's proposals were over the average, but he did not apologise for this, as he believed that every member of the Council, irrespective of party, was anxious to perfect the London Tramway 144 system as soon as possible. They realised that the system was neces- sary for the people, and was likely to be remunerative. The lines the a brought up were mostly paying lines, the exception being the one from Wandsworth to Putney. In stating that the lines would be remiinera- tive, they had taken into consideration the fact that the present reasonable fares would not be increased. In fact, the Committee hoped that while working expenses were kept at their present level it would never bo necessary to increase the fares. Now the profit per passenger carried last year amoimted to .109d., and as there were 413 million people carried, it enabled the tramways to show a fairly good profit on the other hand, if there was a small percentage the other way, it would total up a big loss. It was obvious, therefore, that the tramway administration had at all times carefully to watch fares and returns, in order to keep as near as possible to a balance with working expenses. " In the estimates submitted, provision was also made for work- men's cars. Unquestionably, workmen's cars were a source of con- siderable expense to the Council, but the Committee recognised the necessity of a good system of workmen's cars, because it enabled the workmen to live out in the subiu"bs, and, therefore, the Highways Com- mittee hoped rather to increase than to decrease the accommodation of workmen's cars. He believed that, to several of the proposals, local and other opposition would be forthcoming, but he urged critics to remember that, not only were tramways laid down in the general public interest, but that the tramway, when constructed, relieved the local authority of considerable expenditure in connection with the main- tenance of the roads. Every mile of double tramway track that the Coimcil paved with wood cost about £7,000 to the tramways. It took ten per cent, of that amount for annual depreciation and upkeep, and he hojoed that when the Borough Councils were dealing with his new ti'amway proposals they would bear those facts in mind." The Tnainvw'ay Employees. Although the Progressives always posed as the special friends and protectors of the working-classes, the L.C.C. tramway employees were very far from satisfied at the treat- ment which they received at the hands of that party. The Municipal Reformers have, however, become entitled to the gratitude of their employees by introducing various reforms in the conditions of employment and by providing machinery for settling all labour disputes and grievances which may arise in the future on amicable terms. 145 Mr. Whitaker Thompson, in his lecture at the Caxton Hall on 30th June, 1909, summed up the labour policy pursued by the E-eformers in the following terms : — " There is one other matter I ought not to pass over, and that is the way in which we have treated our men, because, after all, we have been accused to some extent of not dealing as generously with our men as we might have done. That is not true. Of course, many of you know that our predecessors when they took over the North Metro- politan system set to work to remove, or proclaimed that they were going to give better terms and improve the position of the men all round. To a very large extent they did, there is no doubt about that, and a very good reason why, the elections were coming on, and all the rest of it ; but during our time we have had to consider whether the men in our service did not deserve some holidays, and we have also had to consider other matters wil li regard to the raising of rates of wages. The following alterations in wages have been made : — Date. Class. New Rate of Pay. 18th Jime, 1907 16th July, 1907 10th Dec, 1907. 11th Feb., 1908 11th Feb., 1908 3rd Mar., 1908 . 31st Mar., 1908 District Permanent Way Foremen Storekeepers, etc. Horsekeejiers Assistant Inspectors Machine Drillers . . District Depot Super- intendents Foreinan at Lea Bridge horse dep6t 70s. to 90s. a week. Rates var3dng from 8s. to 15s. a week for boys to 50s. to 60s. a week for the Chief Store- keeper. 28s. a week (maximum). 3Ss. to 40s. a week. 30s. to 35s. a week. £3 10s. to £4 10s. a week. 87s. 6d. a week. " The rates of pay in the case of the undermentioned classes of employees at the Greenwich Generating Station have been raised as from 1st April, 1909, as follows : — Boiler house foreman . . Boiler cleaners Shunters and tippers Repairs foremen Electricians Assistant electricians Leading coal and ash hand Labourer (employed as i lamp trimmer) £4 to £4 10s. a week. « £1 10s. to £1 158. a week. £1 10s. to £1 15s. a week. £4 to £4 10s. a week. £3 to £3 5s. a week. £1 15s. to £2 a week. 30s. to 35s. 7d. an hour, equal to 31s. 2-|d. a week. 146 Labourer (employed as leading ) 7d. an hour, equal to 31s. 2^d. boiler scurf er) i a week. Conveyor drivers . . . . 35s, to 40s. Arc lamp trimmers . . . . 30s. to 35s, Leading boiler scurfer . . 32s. 6d, to 35s, Pumphouse attendants at the Greenwich Generating station now receive 35s, to 40s, a week. The rate of pay for hand-wiremen has been raised from 9|d, to lOJd, an hour, " We have been" the first to establish a well-organised system of holidays in connection with our tramway service. We recognised that the men on our electric cars, running six days out of seven and running for ten hours a day, deserve some holiday in the course of the year. It is very trying work, and we began with the drivers and the conductors on the electric cars, and we established a rate of holidays begirming with two days a year when it was established, four days the next year, and six days the third year, and that has since been extended ; and now all the men in our tramway employ get either two, four or six days' holiday during a year. Of course these things cannot be done without exjaense ; " it all means expense," and it all means that if you are going to give this to your men it must affect your fares. You must see that your service is worked on an economical basis, otherwise you cannot afford to do it. And as I have shown you, I do not think we have put up any fares at all. We have kept some of the fares at a point at which they ought never to have been established, but which by custom they have been established before we took them over. But we are not raising fares. At the same time, we are using the revenue we get, not only justly to the public, but I venture to think even generously to our men. The men deserve it ; I have told them so when I had an opportunity of speaking to them, and I believe they appreciate it, " But with regard to a little incident that occurred a year and a half ago as to the medical examination of the men. I do not Icnow whether anybody thinks that of importance now, or whether it has been forgotten I hope that it has been forgotten. There was a certain misunderstanding amongst the men with regard to what we were desiring in regard to that 'medical examination ; much was made of the misunderstanding by certain leaders of the men, but we were able to show the men that all we wanted was a very reasonable examination in order that the aafety of the public might, as far as we possibly could secure it, be secured, and the men have now I think settled down to that, and they are perfectly satisfied, I believe. It had previously been the p;:actice to test the eyesight of all these men, but it was thought advisable to arrange also for the men to undergo a general medical examination. 147 and the Council, on 30th July, 1907, approved a maintenance estimate of £350 in respect of the cost involved up to 31st March, 1908. " With regard to the question of finding other employment for men declared to be medically unfit, this affected two classes of men namely, those already acting as motormen, and whose rate of pay ranged from 5s. to 6s. 6d. a day, and horse-car drivers in the service, with rates ranging from 4s. 9d. to 6s. 3d. a day, whom it was proposed to transfer to electric cars. To deal with this question, the Council on 3rd December, 1907, decided that all such men who might be examined in pursuance of the arrangements referred to above, and who might be found to be medically unfit to act as motormen, should not be dismissed in consequence, but should be offered some other employ- ment in the tramways service at rates of pay not less than those of the lowest grade of their jaresent employment, provided that the men were physically fit for the duties that they might be so called upon to perform, and so long as they eflficiently i)erformed such duties, full power being reserved to dismiss any man for misconduct." Conciliation Boar>ds. The master stroke of Municipal Reform policy in this respect has been the establishment of Conciliation Boards. On May 11th, 1909, tlie Highways Committee reported as follows : — " We wish to direct the attention of the Council to the ])ractice which at present obtains in dealing with the questions which are from time to time arising as regards the conditions of labour of the tramways employees. As the Council is aware, we have reported from time to time with reference to alterations of the conditions of labour of the different classes of employees, but in doing so we have not jjroceeded upon any definite basis as regards either the period at which anj^ such proposals should be brought foi^ward or the procedure which should be employed in dealing w-ith labour matters. After careful consideration of the matter we have arrived at the conclusion that the time has arrived wlien a. new de[)artiu"e should be made in this respect. " The ciuestions of the nature referred to which call for considera- tion affect a large number of different classes of employees. In order, therefore, that the interests of. the whole of the Council's tramway servants may be dealt with equitably, it appears to us to be very desiralile that a more systematic basis of action should be adopted. " Our attention has been directed to the scheme of conciliation boards which were set up in 1907 under the auspices of the Board of 148 Trade for dealing with certain matters arising between the railway companies and their employees. Under this scheme the various grades of emjiloyees of the several companies covered by the scheme are grouped for the purpose into a number of sections. Representatives are elected bjj^ each recognised grade, who, with representatives from the company, form a sectional board for the settlement of disjiutes relating to rates of wages and hours of labour affecting the classes of empIo,yees in each section. Where a sectional board fails to arrive at a settlement the question is referred, on the motion of either side, to a central conciliation board, consisting of representatives of the company and one or more representatives chosen from the employees' side of each sectional board. There is in the last resort a provision for arbitration in the event of the conciliation board failing to arrive at a settlement. If a settlement is arrived at which involves increased expenditure it is submitted to the company, and if it declines to agree thereto the matter is referred to arbitration. Should it involve, on the other hand, the reduction of rates of wages, it is referred to the men, and, if they disagree with it, it goes to arbitration. The arbitrator is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Master of the Rolls, and the cost of the arbitration is borne equally by both [parties. These arrangements have now been in force for some time in a number of railway companies, and we understand that they have worked with advantage. " Should the Council decide to adopt such a scheme it might be necessary to introduce certain modifications to meet the somewhat different conditions which obtain as regards the Council's tramways undertaking as compared with that of a railway company, but these are points of detail which we believe to be easily capable of solution. " The adoption of a similar system for the London County Council tramways would, we feel sure, conduce to the maintenance of cordial relations between the Council and its employees. Before, however, going into the matter in the detail which will be necessary before a final decision can be arrived at, we have thought it right to ask the Council to express a general approval of the proposal, and to authorise us to place ourselves in communication with the Board of Trade in the matter. We recommend — ' That the Highways Committee be autho- rised, after the conference with the Board of Trade, to submit to the Council the details of a scheme for the establishment of conciliation boards for the Council's tramways on the lines of those agreed to in the case of railway companies.' " The recommendation was approved with the proviso that matters at present in dispute be submitted forthwith to the conciliation boards for settlement. 149 The following communication from the Board of Trade was issued on July 1st, 1909, with reference to the Conciliation Boards : — " The Board of Trade, having been requested by the London County Council to assist in the formation of Conciliation Boards covering the employees of the Tramways Department of the Council, it was decided to ascertain by ballot whether a majority of the employees affected were in favour of the scheme. Ballot papers were issued to the employees at pay-time last week, and were to be returned to the Board of Trade direct not later than June 30th. " The employees were asked to vote ' for ' or ' against ' the estab- lishment of Conciliation Boards, and the result of the ballot is as follows : — " For the establishment of Conciliation Boards . . 4,734 " Against . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 " Majority for 3,975 " There were two spoiled papers. " Steps will now be taken by the Board of Trade to conduct the elections of the employees' representatives for the four sectional boards." Foreign versus British Rails. The Municipal Reformers have practically abandoned the old Progressive practice of going to foreign countries to buy tramway rails. The motives which have actuated them in this matter were thus described by Mr. Whitaker Thompson in the lecture before-mentioned (June 30th, 1909). He said : — " Let me here refer to the question of Belgian rails, which is made a subject of comjjlaint against us periodically when we add to our stock of rails or lay new lines. In November, 1907, the Council passed a resolution directing Committees to give a preference wherever possible in the purchase of manufactured articles to goods made within the United Kingdom. That is not an unreasonable suggestion after all for a Britisher, for a British Council to make, but I suppose it has been resented more than any other resolution that was passed, except perhaps the resolution with regard to London work for London men. It has produced more resentment m the minds of the Progressive Party than almost anything 150 else, louring the summer of 1908 we had asked for tenders for rails and for track rails and fastenings, and the tenders were to be opened by the Chairman of the Highways Committee and to be accepted by him during the recess. That is one of the happy waj'S they have of passing things before the recess, and the unhappy Chairman of the Committee has to attend during the recess and open the tenders and of taking the responsibility of making an exjwnditure of from £20,000 to £25,000. When I opened them in due course, I found that the lowest tender, £21,439, was sent in by the Societe Anonyme des Acieries d'Angleur, Belgium, and the next one was sent in by Walter Scott, of Leeds, and that was for £24,263, the difference being £2,824. The ordinary course for a Chairman of Committee to take is to accept the lowest tender. At the same time I had this resolution of the Counci 1 and I had my pre-concoived ideas, and my preconceived ideas did not direct me towards Belgium. I asked the Engineer whether we coukl tide over the recess, or whether we were running short of rails. Fortunately, we were not running short of rails, so we could tide over the recess. It was therefore brought before the Committee and the Committee recommended the Covuicil to take Walter Scott, of Leeds, and to ignore the Societe Anonyme des Acieries d'Angleur of Belgium. And if you want a nice thing for the platform — I have said it myself over and over again^ those are very blessed words, the Societe Anonyme des Acieries d'Angleur, especially when contrasted with W' alter Scott, of Leeds. That was wliat we did, that was what was proposed. What do you think the Progressive amendment was ? It was excellent as showing the ingenuity of the man who does not like to face the music all at once until driven into a corner ? Sir John Benn moved this amendment : ' That the Committee do accept the lowest tender, and that the Committee do report with a view to the amount saved as the result of the acceptance of the lowest tender being applied to such extensions of the tramway service as will best alleviate the present conditions of unemployment in London.' " That was the prettiest little bait ever held out to the Labour bench, and it was such a small minnow, too, the whole saving was £2800, and when you try to electrify a piece of line with £2800 you don't get much forrarder ; it's like a halfpenny tart, it doesn't satisfy anyone, and, of course, the Council scouted that. They knew there was no foundation in it. But since that time we have had further proposals. On the 11th May, 1909, we brought up a projiosal that we should take the tender of Bolckow, Vaughan & Co. for track rails and fastenings, £24,958, as against the Societe Anonyme d'Ougree Marihaye, Belgium, tender for £22,(>56, so that there was a saving of £2302 — a saving so-called— by accepting the foreign tender. And then wo had another little exhibition in the Council. Instead of Sir John Benn moving the amendment in the Council on this occasion it was moved bj' a gentleman 151 who was very wittily described the other day as ' The Leaderette of tlie Progressive Party,' Mr. W. C. Joluison, and he suggested the sub- stitution of the lower tender and figure, ' and that it be referred to the Finance Committee to consider as to bringing up a special maintenance estimate on General County Accoiuit for any excess expenditure caused by the policy of the Council as set out in the resolution of the 19th November, 1907 ' — another ingenious way of not facing the music. In other words, what he w^anted to do was this, that the Highways Committee or the Tramways Account should get the benefit of the lower sum, that they should only be charged with the amovmt which tliey might have got if they had gone to Belgium, but that the Genera! County Accomit, the City and the General Account, should bear the racket of the resolution of tlie Coiuicil, a very ingenious way of putting it ; in other words the tramway authority was to be subsidised by the General Coiuity Account to the extent of £2000 odd. But that, of course, was ignored, and last night we had what I believe is, at least what I hope will be, the final kick on this question. We had a httle discussion last night as to an extra thousand pounds which we are going to pay in order that the steel work may be made in England instead of being imported from abroad. But the Covincil was true to its tradition, at any rate, this Coimcil's tradition, which I hope will obtain in the future, viz., to get the work as far as possible done in Britain rather than sent from abroad. It is interesting to know in relation to this matter of foreign contracts in connection with rail orders that during the time, two and half years or more, that we have been in office Vife have passed £193,000 odd worth of track rails and other work which might have gone abroad, and if it had gone abroad it would have cost £185,000 odd instead of £193,000, so that as a matter of fact by our joolicy of keeping the work in London we have only expended about 4 per cent, more on those contracts, and I venture to think that -we have got more than 4 per cent, value for that expenditure." The Surface Contact Experiinent. The experiment with the G. B. Surface Contact system of traction in the Mile End Road has been made the subject of a good deal of underhand criticism by the Progressive- Socialists in their e£Eorts to make party capital out of its supposed failure. The history of the experiment was admi- rably summarised by Mr. Wliitaker Thompson in his lecture, and shows that whether the experiment was wise or unwise, 152 the Progressives cannot escape some share of the responsi- bility for it. Mr. Whftaker Thompson on this occasion said : — "As I told you, our avowed policy was to electrify the horse lines and to do that as rapidly as possible, and in doing that we were brought face to face with the difficulty that I spoke of with regard to street widenings, and also difficulties with the Borough Councils ; and that brings me to what is known as the stud system experiment, or what has happened and is hapjoening in the Bow Road. I think it is only due to you that I should as far as possible tell you what I know about this, the existence of tliis stud system and how it came about. I have some notes here as to what happened in the Council some time ago, and right away from the year 1903 the Progressive Party were anxious to electrify the horse lines in the North of London. I give theni credit for this, that as a Committee they desired to do it with some idea of economy. I do not think they have desired it since — but that was their desire when they were in power and they approached the Borough Councils of St. Pancras, Islington, Stepney, and of Hackney, asking them to allow overhead traction on certain lines within their boroughs, and they were met with deliberate replies in the negative, with the result that the Progressives were face to face with this difficulty, they either had to adopt the enormously expensive under- ground system or they had to endeavour through the medium of the Board of Trade to get over the veto of the Borough Councils, or they must find some other system. In November, 1906, that was four months before they went out of office, a letter was received from the G.B. Company (the Griffiths-Bedell Company), which put before the Highways Committee an alternative scheme of siu'face traction, the letter of the 7th November from the G.B. Company calling attention to the success of their tramways in Lincoln. And the note of the Highways Committee was, ' Engineer and Chief Officer to report.' The Engineer and Chief Officer did report, and the report of the Chief Officer, that was before the Committee on the 15th January, 1907, was this : ' In reference to the letter dated 7th November, 1900, from the G.B. Surface Contact Company, I beg to report that I have inspected the G.B. surface contact system, both at Ilford, where a short length of experi- mental line is laid down, where the system was first brought out, and also at Lincoln, whore the line has now been in operation for over twelve months. This system of surface contact is certainly the best that I have seen, and apparently works very smoothly. The low resistance of London mud might cause a rather heavy leakage of current between the studs, but in Lincoln this is almost a negligible quantity. I consider the system worthy of very full consideration, as it 158 might be useful for certain lines where the conduit system is too expensive and the overhead lines cannot be installed.' " That was the report of the Chief Officer of Tramways vmder the old Council. That was in January, 1907. That report we found when we caine into office. I had been on the Highways Committee, and I knew of this. Now, what was the Highways Committee of the Council to do under these circumstances ? We were face to face with the difficulty, money was very dear, we were anxious to spend no more on capital expenditure than we could avoid. That was prudence, that was nothing more than prudence. We liad this report from our officer with regard to the surface contact system, and, personally, when T thought about that surface contact systeni I looked at it from several points of view. There could be no complaint about it from the sesthetic point of view, as there were no overhead wires and poles, and all the rest of it. It was very much better than the conduit system from the point of view of sanitation. Of all the nasty stinking holes that ever were put into the middle of a street the conduit is about the worst, and you have to sweep it out very constantly to keep it decently clean and sweet, especially in the hot weather, at a very heavy cost. The surface contact system could be laid for very little more than the cost of overhead, and only about three-fifths of the cost of conduit and required much less interference with gas and water mains. Also there was the possibility that within a measurable time self-contained cars might be running on our lines, and should that come, and should that be found economical, away goes the value of the whole of your conduit system. Therefore I personally was not anxiovis to put down more than I could possibly avoid of this extravagant system, except, of course, in the middle of London, where it would be linked up with existing systems. I think I was perfectly right in asking my Com- mittee to do their level best to see what could be done with this surface contact system, reported on by our officer as the best surface contact system he had seen. When it was brought up again we decided we would go down to Lincoln to look at it, and both sides went down — Captain Hemphill, Mr. Ward, and the rest of us, saw all about it, came back, and called for further reports, thinking that it might be the bridge by which we could get over those difficulties with the Borough Councils in electrifying the whole of the northern systems. I am bound to say that I must take responsibiUty myself for, to some extent, retarding the St. Pancras development and some of those other developments, because I did hope that we could have worked it on those streets. I may have been wrong, I did hope and I feel I was entitled to hope on, because we had another report on the 11th of June from the Chief Engineer, who was of opinion ' that the only way of determining whether the G.B. system can be worked without trouble in London is to lay 154 a short length iii some street where there is a large amount of heavy traffic, heavy ordinary traffi:c,' and Mr. Fell on the same date said ' Bow Road would have been an excellent section on which to have thoroughly tested a surface contact system, but it is one of the most important routes in North London, and it would be a very serious matter if the system proved a failure.' So there were the two reports. I do not keep this back from anybody, becavise it was the Committee's duty ti> decide, and the reason why we chose the Bow Road was this, first of all we had got a car shed, a new car shed, at the end of the road, at which we could store all the cars which were to be used and adapted to this new system. Then Bow Road was the entrance to the new lines which were to be electrified in Hackney, and if the Bow Road had turned out a success, we should have been able to extend the system fan-shape over the whole of the north-east of London. I do not think that anyone raised his hand against the proposal that the Bow Road should be the place where we should develop it. We took the res])onsibility. I am sorry that as history relates, it was not aS successful as it ought to have been on that road. Now, I have told you the genesis of this. What has happened since is, I think, common knowledge to all of yoii. [ do not think it is necessary I should repeat to you how this thing has ileveloped. But I am bound to say this, that if this had been run by a company, so far as I personally can see, it would have been made a success, bvit because it was run by a Highways Committee of the London Coimty Council, and because the Progressive Party realised that if this Vvas a success they stood convicted of extravagance, and that success on our part would be fatal to their party cries and their ]iarty manoeuvres, they set to work to crab it and to kill it. When difficulties arose they were magnified ; when accidents hapjiened thej'^ were adver- tised : the Progressive leader wanted party capital, and when they found it was being taken up by the halfpenny press they set to work to run it down, in order to prevent us from having any credit for doing the best for the people of London with that economical working system. " Now, gentlemen, I was hard on my own friends in the Highways Committee, because I almost insisted on their backing me up over this, but when I ceased to be Chairman of the Highways Committee my loyalty was due to my chief, and when the j^resent Chairman of the Highways Committee considered that we had had enough of this experi- ment, and it was time something else was done, I gave him my loyal support, although personally I still think the surface contact system may be and will be a success if proporlj' taken in hand. I cannot help thinking that myself, but still I l)olie\-e that a Chairman ought to be supported by his Committee, and therefore liaving received suj)port myself 1 was quite prepared to gi\e it to the j)resent Chairman of the Committee, my colleague." 155 The Highways Committee, in a Report dated 9th and 16th December, 1909, state :— " We liave had under consideration the question of tlie expenditure incurred in connection with the adaptation of the Aldgate to Bow tramways for the underground conduit and overhead trolley systems of electric traction which would not have had to be incurred had this route been reconstructed in this manner originally instead of on the G.B. surface contact system of traction. All the accounts in connection with the reconstruction of these lines have now been received, and we are advised tliat the expenditure in question has aiiioimted to £25,265. " In arriving at this figure credit has been allowed for £987, which represents three-quarters of the value of the special work taken up from the line, as this work is practically new and has been used or can be used at a later date, for Hues to be constructed on the overhead system. No allowance has been made for other materials removed which have only a scrap value. " We are advised that the expenditure of £25,265 in question should not be charged to capital account but against the general resei've fund, which amounted on 31st March, 1909, to £35,270. The expendi- ture of £25,265 is covered as regards £24,991 by the estimates in respect of the reconstruction of the tramways, and as regards £274 by the estimate of £50,000 approved on 23rd July, 1907, in respect of the erection of Bow car-shed, and these estimates should be cancelled to the extents indicated. ." . " We would point out that it is now estimated that the cost of the reconstruction of the lines throughout on the conduit system of traction had this been carried out in the first instance, would have amounted to £106,000, while the cost of the i-econstruction on the svirface contact system and the subsequent a,daptation for conduit and overhead sj^stems, after allowing for the credit of £987 referi-ed to above, has amounted to £110,849, a difference of £4,849. Had the Unes been reconstructed in the first instance on the underground conduit and overhead trolley systems, as at present working, the cost would have been £86,530, a difference of £24,319. The cost of cables, ducts, etc.. is not included in the above figures, as the value of this class of work was not affected in an important degree by the alteration in the system of traction. We would point out that no additional exjienditure is involved by the adoption of our recommendations, the course proposed being a readjustment of estimates." 156 Miscellaneous Economies and Improvements. Although the Municipal Reformers have pushed forward the development of the Tramways, they have at the same time kept in mind the necessity for economy and prudence. When they came into office in March, 1907, they found that there was a piece of linking up that had to be done by means of a subway between Kingsway and the Embankment. They found also that the Progressives had proposed to build a station under the Strand, with 64 or 70 steps down to it. It was seen at once that the station was quite unnecessary, as it was obvious that with the Kingsway Station or the Embankment only a few yards away, people would not go down the steps to get to the trams. So the proposed station was abandoned altogether, and in that way a saving of £20,000 was effected. At that time (1907) the first part of the new generating station at Greenwich had been completed, and the Chief Officer reported that extensions and more engines were necessary. But a difficulty had arisen with the Admiralty and the Greenwich Observatory, as it was feared that the vibration of the engines would affect the instruments at the Observatory. The Reformers got over the difficulty by agreeing to instal turbines and to restrict the height of the chimneys. Large extensions have now been made ; two new turbines are at work, and two more will shortly be installed. A new car repairing depot has been estabhshed between Greenwich and Woolwich, on which £50,000 has already been expended ; another £50,000 remains to be spent. This surely does not look hke starving the tramways ! One reform which has been much appreciated by the public is the provision of shelters for tramway passengers. 157 The first of such shelters was erected on the Victoria Embankment, and on July 6tli, 1909, the Council decided to erect another shelter at Camberwell Green, at a cost of £80. Since the tramcars have been run over Blackfriars Bridge to the Embankment complaints have been received from tramway travellers and others, as to the conditions of traffic at the stopping place near the junction of the Embankment with New Bridge Street. Large numbers of passengers wait for the cars at this point and are at present put to incon- venience owing to the absence of any protection from the weather. With the object of improving the conditions, the Highways Committee in a report, dated 2nd, 9th, and 16th December, 1909, recommend the provision of two street refuges in the carriageway, one 25 ft. and the other 180 ft. long, and the erection on the larger of a shelter consisting of a central portion 80 ft. in length, with a covered queue 50 ft. long at each end. Each queue will have four divisions, the two together providing for eight different car services. This arrangement will provide a length of 180 ft. under cover, and will enable three cars to take up passengers opposite the shelter at the same time. It is also proposed that, in order to meet the wishes of the Commissioner of the City Police, the smaller refuge shall be placed in the middle of the road. The Committee is of opinion that the work should be put in hand at the earliest possible moment, in order that the shelter may be available during the present winter. Tramway " Ppofits " and Inconfie Tax. The report of the Finance Committee, dated 15th December, 1909, brought before the Council at its meeting on December 21st, 1909, goes far towards clearing up the much- vexed question of Income Tax in regard to the L.C.C. 158 tramways, of which we heard so much at the time of the last L.C.C. Elections, and of which the Progressives then endeavoured to make so much party capital. The report in question is as follows : — " 1. — The assessment for the past five years of the Council's tramways undertaldng to income tax vinder Schedule D has been stand- ing over pending the settlement of the aniounts to be allowed for dei)re- ciation and certain other questions. Meanwhile various sums have been paid by the Council on account of its liability for income tax. " Negotiations have for some time been proceeding with the chief inspector of taxes with a view to a determination of the liability of the Comacil and a settlement has now been arrived at. Before giving the amounts payable under the settlement, it would be well to deal ■wdth some special points to which attention was devoted during the course of the negotiations. " As regards allowances for depreciation of permanent way (con- duit traction), figures were prepared for the Council, which showed that the average cost of renewal of conduit lines was £5,450 a single mile of track, and this figure has now been accepted by the chief inspector of taxes. Taking the average hfe at 10 years tlie annual allowance is £545. The following items have also been allowed, in accordance with a scheme adojited by the Inland Revenue, viz., £315 a single mile of track for permanent way (overhead traction), 7 per cent, on written- down capital cost of cars, 3 per cent, on written-down capital cost of cables and 5 per cent, on written-down capital cost of general plant and macliinery. The total allowances for depreciation for each of the five years, 1904-5 to 1908-9, are as follows— 1904-5, £36,202 ; 1905-0, £52,308; 190G-7, £77,878 ; 1907-8, £122,080; 1908-9, £160,900. ^ " A claim was also made on behalf of the Covmcil under section 101 of the Income Tax Act, 1842, to set off against the " profit " on the tramways the loss on the steamboats, during the three years in which a .service was rvm. This claim has been admitted, and tlie total amount which has been allowed is £88,171, made up as follows : — 1905-0, £36,454 (loss on working £29,543, wear and tear £6,911); 1906-7, £26,885 (loss on working £18,416, wear and tear £8,469) ; 1907-8. £24,832 (loss on working £16,363, wear and tear £8,469). The allowance for wear and tear in each year rejjresents 4 per cent, on capital expendi- ture on boats. " A claim was also made for an allowance of £3,725 a mile in respect of horse lines reconstructed for electric traction, and which 159 were wholly worn out at the time of reconstruction. The Council will remember that originally an allowance in resjject of horse lines partly worn out was claimed, but on appeal to the High Court against tlie disallowance of this claim by the District Commissioners, the Council was unsuccessful. The present position is that the Comicil has been allowed £3,725 a mile in respect of about 71|- miles (single line) — of which five miles were allowed in 1903-4 — wholly worn out, and nothing in respect of about 50 miles not wholly worn out at the time of recon- struction. On 31st March, 1909, there were about 69 miles not re- constructed, and the Council will no doubt be able to claim allowances for the greater part of these. The ainounts allowed each year for the five years now in question were as follows — 1904-5, £12,436 ; 1905-6, £17,135 ; 1906-7, £104,747 ; 1907-8, £82,829 ; 1908-9, £29,688. " In order to compare the amoiuit of ' profits ' on which the Council has to pay tax, and the siu-plus balance showTi by the tramways accoimts, figures are given below for the year 1908-9 which show that the net amount on which tax is payable is £126,759, after "allowing for the fact that in accovinting to the Inland Revenue for the tax deducted by the Council from interest on its consolidated stock, the Council is allowed to retain tax on interest jjaid out of income already taxed. Interest upon the money borrowed for the tramways under- taking is n< t allowed as a deduction in arriving at the amount of tramways 'profits' liable to tax, and inasmuch as such interest is payable out of taxed tramways profits, the Inland Revenue would get tax twice over on the same income if the deduction and retention of tax on the interest were not allowed. Shortly stated, the net amount on which the Council pays income tax on its tramways is the net surplus of the year, plus items of expenditure not allowed by the Inland Revenue to be taken into account in arriving at the assessable 'profits,' plus repayment of debt but deducting allowance for depreciation. " Total lax payable for year 1908-9 — Under Schedule A on . . . . £68,307 „ D „ . . . . 326,585 s. d. 394,892 tax 19,744 12 - Less .-Interest on debt .. .. 268,133 tax 13,406 13 - N<^; amount on which tax is ivable 126,759 tax £6,337 19 160 The sum of £126,759 is accounted for as follows — Surplus on year's working carried to appropriation account (as shown by the published accounts) . . £107,570 Add — Repayment of debt (not allowed as a working exi3ense) . . £254,968 iess— Depreciation and allowance on reconstructed horse lines — Depreciation .. £160,900 Allowance on recon- struction of horse lines . . . . 29,688 190,588 64,380 Add — -Items of expenditure not allowed in arriving at assessable profits — - Income Tax — Schedule A (assessment £68,307, see a6oue), charged in accounts .. .. .. 3,415 Income tax — Schedule D, charged in accounts — Amount payable . . . . £21,000 Less — Tax deducted and retained from interest on debt . . 13,407 7,593 Parliamentary expenses . . . . . . . . 1,464 Deficiency on dwellings . . . . . . . . 160 Works of a capital nature and certain renewals charged to revenue account . . £10,812 Less expenditure out of renewals fluid on special trackwork .. 5,795 ■ 5,017 Untaxed interest on cash balances . . . . •f5,742 Less adjustment for depreciation not fully allowed 195,341 in 1905-6 and 1906-7 .. 68,582 Net amount on which tax is jjaj^able as above . . £126,759 '■ fAdjusted item — The amount brought into assessment is that for the previous year (section 100 of Act of 1842). The above figure is that included in the assessment less the sum charged in the accounts. " It will be observed from the above statement that a deduction of £68,582 has been made for 1908-9 in respect of depreciation not fully allowed in 1905-6 and 1906-7. In those years the tax payable by the Council under Schedule A and Schedule D was less than the tax deducted from interest which has to be accounted for to the Inland 161 Revenue, and the effect of the Council paying,over the latter amount of tax was that the claim for depreciation was only partially allowed. Under section 26 (3) of the Finance Act, 1907, the amounts disallowed have been carried forward and added to the amount included for depreciation for 1908-9. " The following summary shows the amount payable under the terms of the settlement in respect of each year, the amount already paid on account, and the amount charged in the tramways accounts. Year. Tax payable.* Tax already paid on account. Tax charged in tramways annual accounts. 1904-5 1905-6 1906-7 1907-8 1908-9 £ s. d. 6,341 16 - 5,925 13 1 6,143 4 1 10,567 14 - 16,329 5 - £ (3,500) (2,000) 6,500 6,000 10,000 15,000 £ 3,500 8,000 10,000 1.5,000 21,000 45,307 12 2 43,000 57,500 Balance payable, £2,307 12s. 2d. " It will be seen that the tramways accounts have actually been charged with £57,500, or £12,192 7s. lOd. in excess of the total liability. It nuist be pointed out, however, that £4,408 lis. of this credit is due to the loss on steamboats being brought into account, and as that loss has fallen upon the general county rate, the general county accoiznt should be credited with the sum of £4,408 lis. The balance of £7,783 16s. lOd. will be credited to the tramways account for 1909-1910. " We are glad to report that so satisfactory a settlement has been arrived at with the Inland Revenue. It is also a matter for satisfaction that the basis for fviture settlements has been clearly laid down." If as the Progressives were wont to contend the payment of income-tax is to be taken as proof of profits, it will be apparent from the foregoing table* that according to this contention (a contention which, by the way, in the form used by the Progressives we are far from endorsing), the L.C.C. trams have proved much more profitable during the period in which the Municipal Reformers have been in office, than during the years in which the Progressives were in a majority. F 162 Progressive Opposition to L.C.C. Tramways. The following sufficiently indicates the latest attitude adopted by the Progressive-Socialists, at the time we go to press, towards the L.C.C. trams under Municipal Reform administration. At the meeting of the Council held on December 21st, 1909, the Highways Committee brought up the following Report, dated 9th and 16tli December, 1909, bearing on the subject of the reconstruction of the Aldgate to Bow tramways : — " We have had under consideration the question of the expenditure incurred m connection with the adaptation of the Aldgate to Bow tramways for the underground conduit and overhead trolley systems of electric traction which would not have had to be incurred had this route been reconstructed in this manner originally instead of on the ' G.B.' surface-contact system of traction. All the accounts in connection wdth the reconstruction of these lines have now been received, and we are advised that the expenditure in question has amounted to £25,265. " In arriving at this figure credit has been allowed for £987, which represents three-quarters of the value of the special work taken up from this Hne, as this work is practically new and has been used, or can be used at a later date, for lines to be con- structed on the overhead system. No allowance has been made for other materials removed wliich have only a scrap value. " We are advised that the exjaenditure of £25,265 in question should not be charged to capital account but against the general reserve fund, which amounted on 31st March, 1909, to £35,270. The expenditure of £25,265 is covered as regards £24,991 by the estimates (Nos. 6288, 6289, and 6290) of £30,750, £31,990 and £3,586, approved on 6th and 7th April, 1909 (p. 907), in respect of the reconstruction of the tramways, 163 and as regards £274 by the estimate (No. 5739) of £50,000, approved on 23rd July, 1907 (p. 292), in respect of the erection of Bow car-shed, and these estimates should be cancelled to the extents indicated. The estimates of £30,750, £31,990, and £3,586, referred to, also contain provisions amounting in all to £5,990 in respect of rails, cables, feeder pillars, ducts and duct laying, which were at the time, or have since been, also made in block estimates for these items, and the estimates named should therefore be cancelled to this extent in addition to the above-mentioned amount of £24,991. We propose as the most convenient way of dealing with the matter, that the estimates of £30,750, £31,990, and £3,586 should be cancelled entirely, and that anew estimate of £35,345, representing the difference between the total amount of the estimates and the total of the two sums of £24,991 and £5,990 should be approved, " We would point out that it is now estimated that tlie cost of the reconstruction of the lines throughout on the conduit system of traction, had this been carried out in the first instance, would have amounted to £106,000, while the cost of the reconstruction on the surface-contact system and the subsequent adaptation for conduit and overhead systems, after allowing for the credit of £987 referred to above, has amounted to £110,849, a difference of £4,849. Had the lines been reconstructed in the first instance on the underground conduit and overhead trolley systems, as at present working, the cost would have been £86,530, a difference of £24,319. The cost of cables, ducts, &c., is not included in the above figures, as the value of this class of work was not affected in an important degree by the alteration in the system of traction. We would point out that no additional expenditure is involved by the adoption of our recommendations, the course proposed being a readjustment of estimates. We recommend : — (a) That the special estunate of exjaenditure of £25,265. submitted by tlie Finance CommitteQ. iu respect of works connected f2 164 with the adaptation of the Aldgate to Bow tramways for the under- groiuid conduit and overhead trolley systems of electric traction, be approved as an estimate of costs, debt or liabiUty under section 80 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1888. " (6) That expenditure not exceeding £25,265 be sanctioned for the purpose specified in the foregoing resolution (a), and be charged to the general reserve fund. " (c) That the estimate (No. 6546) of expenditure on capital account of £35,345, submitted by the Finance Committee in respect of tlie adaptation of the Aldgate to Bow tramways for the underground conduit and overhead trolley systems of electinc traction, be approved as an estimate of costs, debt or liability under section 80 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1888. " (d) That expenditure, on capital account, not exceeding £35,345, be sanctioned for the purpose specified in the foregoing resolution (c). " (e) That the resohitions No. 1 (b) {d) and (g) of 6th-7th April, 1909 (p. 907), approving estimates (Nos. 6288, 6289 and 6290) of £30,750, £31,990 and £3,586 in respect of the reconstruction on the underground conduit and overhead trolley systems of electric traction of the Aldgate to Bow tramways, be rescinded. " (/) That the resolution No. 1 (6) of 23rd July, 1907 (p. 292), ajDproving the estimate (No. 5739) of £50,000 in respect of the erection of the Bow tramways car-shed, be .rescinded so far as it relates to expenditure in excess of £49,726." The adoption of recommendation (c), above set out, was challenged by the Progressives and, on a division being taken, there voted : — For the Recom'mendation — 42. Benn, A. Shirley .(M.R.) Benn, I. Hamilton . . ») Buxton, A. F. ,, Chevlesmore, Maj.-Gen. Loi •d „ Clarke, H. J. J) Cobb, C. S „ Collins, E !) Coumbe, E. H. >> Davis, D. • Dove, F. L ',', Dowton, W. L. >> Easton, E. G. ,, Fishor, C. U. »J Goldie, Rt. Hon. Sir George ,, Greene, W. R. J) Greenwood, H. J. „ Hall, F • • J9 Harris, H. Percj^ • • !» Haydon, W. • • 5J Howes, Enos ,, Hunt, William ,, Hunter, J. H. Jay, E. A. H. Knight, W. S. M. Lort-Williams, J. R. Lygon, Hon. H. {Teller) Mm-chison, C. K. Norman, R. C. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Pilditch, P. E. . Probyn, Lt.-Col. C Reynolds, W. Robinson, R. A. . Salmon, Isidore . Skinner, Major C. Squires, W. J. Swinton, Capt. (Teller) Thompson, W. W. Thynne, Lord Alexander Vosper, P. . . White, Edward (V.G.) Wild, E. E. (M.R.) 165 Against the Recommendation — 21. Beaton, Dr. R. M. . . . (P.) Johnson, W. C. . . (P.] Brav, R McDousall, Sir John Briant, F Russell, Arthur B. {Teller) ,, Chapman, T. Shepheard, A. J. ,, Clareniont, A. W. Smith, Edward {D.C.) . . J, Dew, G Smith, F. S (Soc Gilbert, J. D. Spicer, Evan (P-) Gordon, H. H. '. (LP.) Taylor, H. R Harris, P. A. [TelUr) . (P.) Ward, Henry ,, Hastings, Rev. F. . . Wilson, A. ,j Hemphill, Capt. the Hon. Fitz Roy . . >) It will be seen from the foregoing division lists that the voting was strictly on party lines. London Traffic Problems. The L.C.C. Tramways are not by any means the only form of locomotion in London, and there are other forms of transit, which, combined, introduce special traffic problems which sooner or later must be dealt with. A Revievt^ of the Recommendations of the Royal Commission on London Traffic. The question of coping with the tremendous traffic incidental to great cities has been one that has for long past occupied the minds of statesmen. Many side issues are raised when the subject is under discussion, and the more the subject is investigated, the more apparent becomes the need of dealing with the problem of locomotion on a predetermined plan. The haphazard methods of the past sorely hamper the efforts made by the present generation to solve the problem, and in a city of the magnitude of London, with its millions of population, this difficulty becomes, on consideration, all the more apparent. All those who interest themselves in civic affairs recognise the supreme necessity for a proper solution being found, for as the years roll on the solution of the 166 problem will inevitably be attended with still greater difficulties. The enormous importance of the subject is conceded on all sides, and much satisfaction was caused, when on Feb- ruary 10th, 1903,. a Royal Commission was appointed, under the late Unionist Government, to inquire into the matter. The scope of the Commission was plainly indicated in the orders, which were as follows : — " Whereas we have deemed it expedient tliat a Commission should forthwith issue to inquire into the means of locomotion and transport in London and to report : — (a) As to the measures which the Commission deem most effec- tual for the improvement of the same by the development and inter-connexion of railways and tvinnels on, or below, the surface ; by increasing the facilities for other forms of mechanical locomo- tion ; by better jjrovision for the organisation and regulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, or otherwise. (b) As to the desirability of establishing some authority or tribunal to which all schemes of railway or tramway construction of a local character should be refeiTed, and the powers which it would be advisable to confer on such a body." For the purpose of carrying out these instructions, 112 meetings were held, and 134 witnesses examined. The Chair- man, Lord Ribblesdale, Sir G. C. T. Bartley, and Sir G. S. Gibb visited the United States in September, 1903, and examined the means of locomotion and transport in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington. In the autumn of 1904, Sir G. C. T. Bartley visited Vienna, BudaPesth, Prague, Cologne, Dre den, BerUn, Brussels and Paris, and prej)ared a report on their systems of urban locomotion. An Advisory Board of Engineers was appointed for the purpose of consultation, and Sir John Wolfe Wolfe-Barry, Past President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, presided over it. The services of the late 167 Sir Benjamin Baker, Past President of the Institution of Civif Engineers, and Mr. W. B. Parsons, M.Inst.C.E., Chief Engineer to the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commis- sioners of the City of New York, were also secured. Being thoroughly representative, and exceptionally quaU- fied, the Royal Commissioners began their labours, and on June 26th, 1905, their report was issued, signed by eleven of the members. Whilst the Commission was sitting, Earl Cawdor resigned, owing to the pressure of his official duties at the Admiralty. Sir G. C. T. Bartley did not sign the report, for reasons stated in a separate report made by him. Sir J. C. Dimsdale signed the report, but added a supplementary report, on matters on which he was not in agreement with the majority of the Commissioner&. Sir G. S. Gibb signed the report, subject to a note written by him. The report of the Commission is divided into three parts. Part I. deals with the magnitude and importance of the problem of locomotion in London, and the fundamental diffi- culty in the way of improving the means of locomotion, and also gives a brief account of measures adopted in the past for facilitating locomotion. Part II. contains information relative to the improvement of the means of locomotion and transport necessary in London, and offers recommendations as to street improvements, tram- ways, railways, traffic regulations and other matters. Part III. deals with the expediency of establishing a Traffic Board, and outlines its constitution, duties, and cost. Then follows a summary of the conclusions, and the reports of individual Commissioners who dissent wholly or partly from the majority. 168 The Magnitude and Importance of the Traffic Problem, The area dealt with is that known as Greater London, comprising 693 square miles. Within this area are six adminis- trative counties, London, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, and Hertford. The control of municipal matters in the County of London is vested in thirty authorities (theL.C.C, the Corpora- tions of the Cities of London and Westminster, and 27 Borough Councils). The remainder of this area is governed by 142 local authorities, ranging from County Councils to Parish Councils. The population of Greater London in 1901 amounted to 6,581,402, and it is estimated that by the year 1931 it will be about 11 milHons. London itself is gradually being abandoned as a place of residence. Mr. Harper, the statistical officer of the L.C.C., divides Greater London into a large central area, a middle zone^ and an outer zone, and in his evidence he ; howed that while the population of the central area tends to decrease, that of the outer zone increases more rapidly than that of the middle zone. This is the cause of much unavoidable travelling, and is one of the main reasons why London traffic should be taken in hand at the earliest possible moment. The convenience of the public is at stake, and if anything can be done to make life in London easier (and undoubtedly better travelling facihties would assist towards that end), it js the duty of the public authorities to render all the assis- tance in their power. The enormous increase in the number of persons travelUng can be seen from the following figures : In the year 1881, the number of passengers carried by local railways, by tramways, and by the two principal omnibus 169 companies was 269,662,649 ; whilst the corresponding figure in 1901 was 847,212,335. The Advisory Board of Engineers estimated that for the year ending June 30th, 1904, the total number of passengers carried by local railways, omnibuses, and tramways, amounted to 1,164,000,000. Importance of Facilitating Locomotion. Paragraph 10 of the report says : — " The figures we have just given, taken in connection witli the present conditions of congestion- of traffic in so many of the streets of London ; the difficulties which persons residing in the suburbs experi- ence in moving to and from their daily work ; the overcrowding of houses in the central area ; and the impossibility of housing the working classes in that area at rents which they can afford to pay, are conclusive as to the necessity of dealing with the whole problem of London locomotion on a comprehensive plan, and with as little delay as possible." A history of the construction of railways and street tram- ways in London is given, and it is shown that the absence of a fixed plan for treating London as a whole in connection with matters relative to locomotion has been responsible for the chaotic state in which London locomotion is found at the present time. The evil has also been aggravated by the *' vetoes " possessed by municipal authorities. Tube rai'ways have been constructed without full cons deration of the wants of London, and the antagonism between the L.C.C. under Progressive domination, and private promoters has been detrimental to public interests. Speaking at the opening of the tube railway, which runs from Finsbury Park to Hammersmith, on December 15th, ]70 1906, Mr. Lloyd George (the then President of the Board of Trade), said: — " Another feature of their new railway was the admirable spirit of co-operation which had been displayed during the past few years between those promoting these electric tubes and the great municipal authority of London. After all, we could not do without private enterprise. We could not do without municipal enterprise either. We must have both, and they might depend upon it that the success of their company in future would depend upon the wisdom with which one of these systems could assist the other, because it was not on antagonism but on their healthy co-operation that the Buccess of this great country depended." Recomnnendations of the Commission. The Commission dealt with the problem in a comprehen- sive manner, and the recommendations which emanated from it would, if carried out, have far-reaching effects. These recommendations are issued under four separate headings : — (1) Street Improvements ; (2) Tramways; (3) Railways; and (4) Traffic Regulations and other matters. Street Improvements^ The Advisory Board of Engineers made suggestions to the Commission, and their suggestions Mere embodied in a separate volume. They suggested that new streets and widened streets sliould be laid out according to a fixed 171 standard. Five classes of streets are proposed, ranging from main avenues 140 feet wide, to fourth-class streets 40 feet wide ; but in carrying out such streets, the work should be undertaken in conformity with a carefully considered plan, which might be carried out over a long series of years. In the opinion of the Commission, the most important recom- mendations coming from the Advisory Board were those advocating the construction of two main avenues through London, one from west to east, to connect Bayswater Road with Whitechapel ; and the other from north to south, to connect Holloway with the Elephant and Castle. These avenues would be 140 feet wide ; they would have four lines of tramway on their surface, and four lines of railway a few feet below the surface. The financial aspect of this suggestion is dealt Avith by the Commissioners, and on an estimated ex- penditure of 30 millions sterling, deductions are drawn as to its effects upon the municipality. By leasing or working the railways and tramways, and by " recoupment " by the purchase of adjacent land, the cost would be greatly decreased ; but, recognising the colossal nature of the proposed undertaking, the Commissioners come to the conclusion that works o' less magnitude " which may be within available resources," should not be retarded in the expectation of its early accomplish- ment. Amongst the other suggested street improvements are the : — Widening of Euston and Marylebone Roads. Widening of Constitution Hill, and the construction of a road between the Mall and Charing Cross. Widening of Princes Street, Westminster. Widening of Wandsworth Road (Putney to Lambeth). Widening of Bayswater, Hammersmith, Fulham, and King's Roads. 172 The report points out that these are examples given for the benefit of those who will take in hand the work of dealing with London locomotion, viz., the suggested Traffic Board. The Commissioners think that all the proposals are valuable, but do not commit themselves to a final recommendation without fuller investigation. Tramways. The great defect in connection with London tramways is the want of through communication. " Within the County of London nearly the whole of the tramways are owned, and in a great part worked by the L.C.C, whose policy has been consistently directed to the exclusion of private promoters from withm the County of London." The Report goes on to state that in Greater London the tramways are largely worked by private companies, and that in no case can passengers obtain through running. In the County of London itself there are three systems, the Northern, Southern, and Western, which are not connected with each other, and consequently the systems are not so useful as they ought to be. The Advisory Board of Engineers reported to the Com- mission the various directions in which the construction and operation of tramways would be beneficial and useful. In the first place they recommended the tramways on the two main avenues from north to south and east to west, already referred to, and they next advised the construction of twenty- three other systems, both surface and subway, which would link up the tramwaysof theL.C.C.,and in some cases join theLondon 173 United Tramways Co. and the Middlesex County Council Light Railways. The carrying out of these projects would bring a tramway along the Euston, Marylebone, and Edgware Roads, which would connect the eastern and western systems on the north side, and pass close by five of the principal railway termini in London. The north and south would be connected by two hues outside the City; four lines fnm the we't would penetrate to the central area, and thence be continued to the eastern districts ; and tramways would cross the Thames over West- minster and Blackfriars Bridges, which would be united by a line along the Thames Embankment. These proposals are criticised in regard to the length (about seven miles) of subways involved, and the financial aspect thereof, but the following recommendation is made by the Commissioners : — " We recommend : — " A large extension of tramways in London and the suburbs ; that immediate attention be given to providing througli communication between the different tramway systems within the administrative County of London ; -across the Thames by the Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges ; and that provision be made for through running inside and outside the administrative County of London." In dealing with the administration of the L.C.C. tramways, the report states : — " So far as the question involves considerations of municipal trading, we do not think it is within our province to express an opinion. We think it reasonable that some 174 profit should be derived from the tramways for the benefit of the mimicipahty. but it does not follow that the best way of securing the largest profit will be that the municipality, even if it finds the money for construction, should undertake the task of operating. ... If the tramways are operated by the municipalities concerned, we think that they should be worked on sound financial principles, with ample provision tor depreciation, and repayment of capital or discharge of debt. . . . The matter is one of such importance that, having regard to the conflicting views that have been laid before us, we strongly recommend that the whole question of the expediency of the working of large tramway sj^stems by municipalities be specially inves- tigated." The development of tramways has been largely checked through the local and road authorities possessing the right of veto. The Commissioners consider that " the best course is to abolish the ' veto ' in all cases, but to provide that, in Greater London, the County Councils and the Corporation of the City of London should have a preferential right to construct any tramwaJ^s within their districts, if they are prepared to do so." They considered " that instead of a ' veto,' it would be sufficient that local and road authorities should have a locus standi to appear before the proposed Traffic Board and Pai'liament in opposition to any tramway scheme within their districts." Railways. The Commissioners think that when the " tube " railways, ahead}' authorised, have been completed, wnth the addition of a line from Victoria to Marble Arch, the most pressing require- 175 ments of railway communication within the central area will have been provided for. There is, however, a necessity for further north-east, and east and west railway facihties. The marked feature in connection with underground railways is the difficulty experienced in raising the necessary capital, mainly owing to the moderate pecuniary returns, " but not- withstanding the difficulties imposed by high cost of construc- tion (£500,000 to £1,000,000 per mile) Ave think— and this applies to railways beyond as well as within the central area — that, as in the past, so in the future, London should, as far as possible, rely wholly upon private enterprise for the construction of new railways." The importance of not imposing undue burdens upon, or exacting impossible conditions from, private promoters is in- sisted upon. In a summary of conclusions arrived at, the Report states : — " In regard to railways, their further development must be governed by the features of the existing and authorised systems, which should be extended and improved : we have suggested various extensions and improvements. "It is important that all possible facilities should be afforded to suburban passengers arriving at the terminal stations to reach their destinations throughout the central area by railway, either by means of through trains, or by interchange within the stations to which the suburban trains may run. "In the more crowded parts of London, where property is expensive, railways must be placed underground. Railways in shallow subways are preferable to ' tube ' railways, where the cost is not prohibitive, or where other considerations do not render them impracticable. We desire to draw special 176 attention to the importance that urban railways, traversing London fiom side to side, on routes where there is a heavy traffic, should have four lines of way, in order to provide a separate service for fast and for stopping trains, and thu& admit, by means of a few interchange stations, of rapid transit to the suburbs from all the stations on the local service lines. " Owing to the high capital cost of ' tube' railways, con- structed under present conditions, there is a difficulty in jiroviding a sufficient number of such railways to distribute population over the outlying districts, but we are advised that it is possible to construct a cheaper type of deep-level railway adapted for suburban traffic, with fewer and less expensive stations, and rising to the surface when the open country is reached. Such railways would help to solve the ' housing problem ' by carrying the population to districts not yet built over. " If private enterprise will not construct the necessary railways, the local authorities might be authorised to give assistance in view of the fact that re-housing within the central area involves a hea\^y loss to the rates, and that it may be cheaper, and will be better in other respects, to help in making healthier residences in the suburbs accessible. Assistance might be afforded, either by remission of rates, or by direct contribution, according to the precedent of the Light Railways Act, 1896, and the recommendations of the Joint Committee of 1901 on London Underground Railways. " In cases where railways exist, but additional train, services are required to open up new districts for building, and railway companies decline, and cannot, under the existing law, be compelled, to put on additional trains, local authorities might be empowered, if the necessity is urgent,. 177 to guarantee, for a limited period, such net receipts per train mile, for the proposed trains, as may be reasonable. " In cases where a new railway is proposed to be made, which would have the effect of opening out a district for building purposes, we think that a railway company might be authorised to purchase, under proper safeguards, land likely to be increased in value by the construction of a railway, by means of voluntary agreement with the owner of such land." The Appointment of a Traffic Board. Perhaps the most important recommendation of the Commission is that a Traffic Board be created, to control measures affecting locomotion and transport in London. It was felt that it would be impossible to confer the necessary powers, with jurisdiction over the whole of Greater London, on the L.C.C. or any other existing local authority or body. The estabhshment of a central body is advocated, and ns it is impossible to have upon it the representatives of all the authorities in Greater London, it is recommended that the members of the Board, including the chairman, should be appointed by the Government. Amongst the duties and powers suggested to be taken over by the Board are the following : — It should make a yearly report to Parliament on loco- motion, transport, and traffic in Greater London ; examine private Bills, report thereon for the information of Parliament, and make suggestions for the improvement of such Bills, and settle clauses for the protection of pubhc or private interests. The Board should also prepare schemes, investigate certain 178 problems, and make bye- laws and regulations, and in many other ways promote the provision of better locomotion. Some important questions on which the Board might be required to report are the improvement of the main roads leading out of London, the building laws in Greater London, the breaking up of streets, and the consolidation and amendment of the laws affecting trafl&c. It should keep in touch with all the local and other authorities in " Greater London," and maintain a friendly attitude towards them and towards all companies and persons that work railways, tramways, or other means for faciUtating locomotion and transport, in and around London, using its influence in the direction of conciliation ; encourage and assist all attempts at co-operative action ; and be ready to act as arbitrator in cases of disagreement between the public authorities, private companies and other persons above referred to. It should be given such a staff as experience may show to be necessary for the proper discharge of its duties. •It is suggested that the Board should consist of a chairman, and not more than four nor less than two other members ; preferably not more than three in all. The really essential point about the members is that they should be capable men of business, energetic, impartial, and able to devote, if necessary, their whole time to the work of the Board. Progressive Opposition to the carrying out of the Recommendations of the Commission. The establishment of a Traffic Board for London on the lines laid down by the Royal Commission would prove, we 179 contend, of incalculable value to the inhabitants of the Metropolis. Tlie question of London locomotion has been a burning one for many years, and those who were interested in the welfare of London anticipated that a permanent and satisfactory solution would result from the task undertaken by the Commission. As a matter of fact, these persons found that their anticipations w^ere more than realised. The suggested Traffic Board met with the approval of all those who wished to see an improvement in the lot of the inhabitants of London and of all those who desired to see such improvements carried out as would place the chief city of the British Empire in its rightful position when compared with the rest of the great cities of the world. To the appointment of a Board such as is recommended by the Commission, considerable opposition exists. The report of the Royal Commission struck a heavy blow at the Progressive party— a party which, for years, had been scheming to get the entire control of London government into the hands of one body, namely, the L.C.C. To satisfy its ambition the Progressive party sought to secure the control of travelling facilities in order to prevent competition with the L.C.C. trams, which could not under any circumstances provide for the full need of the travelhng public. That party wanted to become the Traffic Authority for London. The Report of the Royal Commission tears to shreds the Progressive policy, and it is because of the attitude adopted by the Commission that the Progressives view with hostility the creation of an independent Traffic Board. Li view of the attitude adopted by the Progressives, it is incumbent on those who, first and foremost, seek the welfare of London and of its inhabitants, to put before the people of 180 London the injury which would inevitably fall upon them if the Progressive policy were to be allowed to prevail. Its Bearing on the Unemployed. During recent years one of the most difficult problems confronting British statesmen has been that connected with the unemployment that has been prevalent in this country, and particularly in London. One of the most pitiful spectac es to be seen in London is an unemployed " procession." Un- doubted y amongst the " out-of-works " are some who are " professional," but many are genuine workmen. Outside all this public display of distress, there are thousands of others, who decline to parade their poverty before the eyes of their feilows, and who, rather than exhibit to the world the straits to which they are reduced, suffer in silence, a suffering in which are often included starving wives and children- The late Unionist Government recognised the genuine nature of the trouble, and in order to mitigate the evil passed the Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905. In the face of this unemployment, one would have supposed that whenever anything of a practical nature was suggested, it would have received the support of all parties. But not so in London. It is we 1 known that numerous schemes have been brought forward for the provision of electric railways and cheap electric power in and around London. Many milHons of pounds would have been invested in those undertakings, and vast numbers of workmen would have been kept in steady employment for years had they been carried out. Those sohemes were hung up. The question of a Royal Commission on London Traffic was in the air, and when it was apjiointed ParHanient refused to sanction any schemes until the Report of that Com- mission was issued. The RejDort was issued four and a half 181 years ago. The people of London know the recommendations. They are grand in their conception. Railways and tramways radiating in every direction, street improvements on a very large scale, a vast impetus given to all the trades connected with building — surely these provide a solution of much of the unemployed problem in London. The non-ability to obtain work on the part of genuine Avorking men in and around London would be diminished to a large extent if the Progressive Party and the present Radical-Progressive Government had not refused to give practical consideration and effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Its Relation to Housing. The Royal Commission found that a large proportion of workers in the overcrowded parts of London do not need to live near their work, and that where facilities for locomotion have been afforded the people take advantage of them and live outside London. This is illustrated by the increase in popula- tion in towns such as Edmonton, Walthamstow, and Leyton. It is not expected that railway companies will construct lines where there is not a sufficient population to make the under- taking pay, but the Commission suggests that " where a new railway is proposed to be made, which would have the effect of opening out a district for building purposes, a railway company might be authorised to purchase, under proper safeguards, land hkely to be increased in value by the con- struction of the railway, by means of voluntary agreement with the OAATier of such land." ] " Many places suitable for building are not accessible by railway," and the report goes on to state that " there has been 182 a great aggregation of the working classes in those districts which have been opened out, especially in the east and north- east of London, where the Great Eastern Railway Company have done much to supply means of cheap transit." The question of locomotion is closely bound up with the question of " housing," and there is scarcely any subject of greater importance to the poorer people of London than that of " housing." On it depend health, comfort, and the remedying of that " overcrowding " which is one of the chief curses of London. The Londoner who lives in a tenement, or in one to two rooms, will never be able to appreciate the comforts of home life until he is in a position to have a house to himself. Such a luxury can only be obtained for him by opening out the country surrounding London by a network of different kinds of locomotion such as is suggested by the Royal Commission. The following paragraph on page 15 of the Report is deserving of attention : — " With the raj^id growth of a large population, the require- ments of urban life — streets, drainage, lighting, &c. — have also rapidly grown, while the presence of so many houses of comjiaratively low rental has discouraged the construction of better-class houses. For example, in Walthamstow, out of 18,600 houses, 15,000 are assessed at less than £16 a year. This explains why, in certain of these districts, the rates are so high. The poorer people are Umited in their choice of residence ; they crowd to places where they can get acilities for locomotion ; hence the rateable value of such districts is low, and the rate in the pound high in proportion." The limitation of means of communication is thus shown to result in the aggregation of working people in fixed districts, and as a consequence high rates. 183 The housing and re-housing in the Metropolis as under- taken by the L.C.C. cannot be done without a charge on the rates. Tlie follo^ving extract from the Report of the Commis- sion shows how the housing figures are at jsresent manipulated, and gives an insight into the futihty of attempting to solve the housing problem in London itself. " In connection AAith certain street improvements, especially the formation of the new street from Holbom to the Strand now in course of completion, the Council was required, under the authorising Act, to build workmen's dwellings in place of those that were demoUshed. For this purpose they bought the Bourne Estate, close to the site of the improvement. The cost price was £201,107, beuig the commercial value. They were obhged to ^\Tite this sum down to £44,000, its value earmarked for artisans' housiag, and to debit the balance to the cost of street improvements. This was necessary in order to admit of charging rents within the means of the families to be provided for. Even after this writing down, they have had to charge rents of from 9s. 6d. to lis. a week, for a three-roomed tenement, in order to reimburse themselves for this artificially-reduced outlay. The buildings erected wiU accommodate 2,640 persons, and there is therefore a loss of very nearly £60 per head of the persons re- housed, and the whole of this loss falls upon the rates." Delay, then, in the matter of dealing with London traffic means additional burdens for the poor. The man who is cooped up in London in a gigantic building closely resembling a work- house, must, surely, sometimes long for a cottage in the country, and a small garden. The terrible overcrowding so prevalent in this great city, and so largely responsible for the crime, immorality, and disease within it. Mould be to a considerable extent remedied if decent housing were provided in outlying districts, served by efficient means of transit. 184 Its Bearing on Trade. The benefits that would accrue to London as a commercial city if such improvements were to be made in the means of locomotion within its borders, are too self-evident to require emphasising. The delays caused by congestion of traffic would be remedied, if not eradicated, and commercial enterprises would benefit largely from the financial sav ng consequent upon the saving in time resulting from improvements in locomotion. To the business man, an improvement in London locomotion is yearly becoming more and more necessary. Radical-Progressive Substitute for a Traffic Board. The only attempt made by the present Radical-Pro- gressive Government to respond to the frequent representations made to them on this subject was the establishment of a special Traffic Department of the Board of Trade in August, 1907. But this Department is merely a statistical Depart- ment and has no powers. It is therefore no substitute whatever for the independent Traffic Board recommended by the Royal Commission. The London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade in its first report,* dated September, 1908, states in the prefatory note at the commencement (p. vii.) : — " London traffic presents not one, but a number of problems, differing from each other, yet so inter-related, that no one of them * For a summary of the Board's 2nd report, see London Municipal Notes for February, Ji>lU. 185 can be dealt with without at the same time bearing the others in mind. These problems which all involve social and economic considerations of great magnitude and intricacy, call for incessant vigilance, inasmuch as they are changing in some of their aspects from day to day, and a change in one is liable to affect all the others. A close study of the whole subject tends to support the conclusion that it can only be dealt with effectively by a permanent body giving continuous attention to it in all its branches. In any case, improvement must necessarily be slow, and might at first be scarcely perceptible. A large amount of preliminary work has to be done before a definite line of advance can be marked out, and a plan devised to which future action can be made to conform. Until that stage has been reached it is difficult to see how progress, adequate to the needs of its vast poinilation, can be made in the orderly development of means of locomotion and transport through- out the area of Greater London." Municipal Reform Activity. It must not be thought that the Municipal Reformers on the L.C.C. have been idle in this matter. They had of course no power to carry these Recommendations into force, but they have kept the subject constantly before the Government On July 23rd, 1907, the General Purposes Committee presented a long report to the Council, and it was decided to send a deputation to the Prime Minister to urge the immediate establishment of a Traffic Board. On November 3rd, 1908, the General Purposes Committee reported that the Council, on July 23rd, 1907, referred it to them to arrange for a deputation to wait upon the Prime Minister to urge the necessity of securing the immediate establishment of a London Traffic Board upon the lines 18(3 indicated in the Report of the Royal Commission on London Traffic. The late Right Hon. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, then Prime Minister, consented to receive a deputation, but pressure of Parliamentary business delayed matters, and his regretted illness and death then followed. The Committee had approached the Right Hon. H. H. Asquith, the Prime Minister, and he was willing to receive a deputation in November, 1908, on a date to be fixed. On November 26th, 1908, the Prime Minister received the deputation in his room at the House of Commons, accom- panied by the Home Secretary, Mr. Churchill, M.P., Sir Hudson Kearley, M.P., Sir H. Llewellyn Smith, Sir Herbert Jekyll, Mr. Nash, and Mr. E. S. Montagu, M.P. After a few remarks from Mr. R. A. Robinson, Chairman of the Council, the Hon. W. R. Peel (the leader of the Municipal Reform Party), said (according to The Times of November 27th, 1908), that " although the deputation only represented London County they wished that in the question of traffic the whole of the area of Greater London should be taken into account. The Board of Trade figures for 1907 were that 363 million passengers were carried on railways, 585 millions on tramways, and 331 millions on omnibuses, &c. This gave a total of 1,280 millions as against 259 millions in 1881. The traffic service was carried on by a great number of different companies and authorities. There was no co-ordination, all were competing with each other. London had suffered from this want of co-ordination. Large quantities of goods were now carried by road within a 25-mile radius of London, and the great trunk avenues leading to London were being built on and blocked. Having a large tramway system of their own, the L.C.C. did not desire to be the authority in this matter of traffic, but recommended 187 on the lines of the recent Royal Commission that an advisory board, having judicial power only, should be appointed." The Prime Minister, in reply, said : "I need not tell you that it is a great satisfaction to my colleagues who are here, and myself, to have the opportunity of meeting you and hearing, as we have heard from Mr. Peel, a statement so lucid and comprehensive about the position you take up with regard to this most important question. I confess to you it is a matter which has not hitherto greatly occupied my own attention, although, like many other people, I attached some interest to the Report of the Royal Commission some three years ago. I do not suppose there are any of us who spend much of our time in London who do not realise the magnitude and the widespread character of the evils, and the inconveniences, some of them inherited from the past, others repeated year after year, from M'hich, in greater or less degree, we all of us suffer. I gather from what Mr. Peel has said that you do not propose, indeed you see insuperable objections to any proposal, that the County Council should themselves undertake the special functions which appear to be appropriate to the new body, or a new body such as the Royal Commission recommended. I gather further that you do not regard it as within the purview of the mandate which your Council has given you to make any suggestion to us to-day as to what should be the composition — elected or nominated, whether an indepen- dent authority, or an authority under a department of the Government — of the board or body which it is proposed to caJl into existence, I gather further that you do not suggest that any authority which is created should exercise what are called executive functions, and still less coercive functions ; that it should be, I think, to use the language of the Royal Commission, an advisory body, a kind of intelligence department, on this particular 188 subject of municipal interests, and that it should not either possess an independent initiative or the power of final decisio I think I am right in thus interpreting what has been said. Mr. Peel. — Of course, initiative, I may say, in this sense, that it might offer proper advice. The Prime Minister. — To the Government in the way of suggesting new schemes ? Mr. Peel. — It might suggest new schemes. The only reason for guarding ourselves is that we must carry out the schemes. The Prime Minister. — I see, they might have a suggestive initiative power in that sense. Mr. Peel. — It might hold inquiries. The Prime Minister. — That, I think, about summarises the scope of your proposals. Well, gentlemen, I frankly confess to you that there are strong prima facie objections to setting up any new authority in London if we can possibly avoid doing so. If I may venture to say so, I think London suffers rather from a superfluity of authorities, as may be gathered from the figures mentioned by Mr. Peel a few moments ago, when he spoke of over 140. Mr. Peel. — One hundred and forty outside the nmnicipal boundaries. 189 The Prime Minister. — Exactly, outside the municipal boundaries ; that is, in addition to those inside. Therefore, to apply an old scholastic maxim, which was a very good principle of logic, and also of common sense, if that is true of c 'mmunitiesin general, it is particularly true of administra- tive bodies in dealing with municipal and local affairs. Therefore, I confess that I should look with some prima facie apprehension on any proposal to constitute a new authority, at any rate of such a kind that it should be regarded as having in any sense an over-lapping jurisdiction with any of the authorities which at present exist. On the other hand, I confess — and here again I am only giving one's first impression — I am greatly struck with the want of concert, with the want of prevision, with the want of co-ordination, as regards routes, and as regards competing forms of traffic, which has characterised and continues to characterise our metropolitan action. I do not think I can do more to-day than to promise to give, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, very careful con- sideration to all the points which you have brought before us. We have the advantage now in the Board of Trade, by the new London traffic department there, of our further report, the admirable report Sir Herbert Jekyll has presented ; we have the advantage of skilled advice in this matter, which we never previously have possessed ; and the Home Office is interested in the matter ; and the Local Government Board is interested in it ; of course the Board of Trade has a peculiar and direct interest in it, and it could not be without consultation and complete consideration in concert with all those departments that the Govern- ment could come to any conclusion as to what steps they ought to take. But you may be sure that the points which you have urged before us to-day, supported as they are by such weight and authority from the London County Council, will receive from His Majesty's Government the most respect- ful consideration." 190 The Present Policy of the Municipal Reform Party. There the matter rests. Meanwliile, the establishment of a Traffic Board for London, as recommended by the Royal Commission on London Traffic, still forms part of the Programme supported by the Municipal Reform Party, and occupied a prominent position in that programme at the recen*. Borough Council Elections of November, 1909. ADDENDUM. LiC.C. Tramways. Latest Returns. A Report of the Highways Committee, dated December 2nd, 9th, and 16th, 1909, furnishes the follo\^dng information regarding the L.C.C. Tramways : — System of traction. Length of hne (street miles) in operation. Passengers carried during week ended 11th Dec, 1909. 12th Dec, 1908. nth 12th Dec, Dec, 1909. 1908. Electric traction . . PTorse traction Miles. 107.33 20.44 Miles. 79.92 39.98 8,406,480 6,770,142 478,707 1,146,226 Total . . 127.77 119.90 8,885,187 ' 7,916,368 "Tlie total traffic recei])ts from 1st April, 1909 to Gth Deceinl)cr, 1909, wcro £1,259,252 from lines worked by electric traction, and £95,803 from lines worked by horse traction, or a total of £1,355,055. The receipts for tlie corresponding period in 1908 under the same heads were £1,085,972, £204,102 and £1,290,074 respectively. " The Works Department. One of the most mischievous blunders ever made by the Progressive-Socialist Party vpas the establishment of a Socialistic Works Department. This Department was established shortly after the creation of the Council, and this is how it came about : — The first Council was elected as the successor to the Melro- politan Board of Works in the year 1888, and held its first meeting in Januaiy, 1889. At that time there were returned to the Council only three or four Labour members. One of the questions that were fre6]y discussed was the conditions to be imposed on contractors, and the following resolution was adopted by the Council in March, 1889, both parties of the Council having approved of the terms : — " That a declaration be required from all contractors that they pay such rates of wages and observe sucli hours of labour as are generally accepted as fair in the trade." This worked well, and caused no friction, and was a sufficient protection for workmen, and no complaints arose during the existence of those regulations in the first three years of the Council's existence. However, in March, 1892, the second L.C.C. election took place, and several Labour members were elected, and two Labour aldermen, making the strength of the Labour bench up to nine or ten. These gentlemen were anxious to do something to obtain distinction, consequently on May 27th, 1892, Mr. (now the Right Hon.) John Burns, bi'ought forAvard the following motion which the Council adopted and referred to a committee : — " That all contractors be compelled to sign a declaration that they pay the trades union rate of wages, and observe the hours of labour and conditions recognised by the trades unions in the place or places where the contract is executed." 192 In December, 1892, this committee submitted their report, which imcosed most oppressive, and hitherto quite unheard of conditions on contractors. Among other things, contractors wei'e required to keejj such books as the Council might appi-ove, anrl submit tht-m to the inspection of anybody whom the Council should appoint, who might make extracts. They were also required from time to time, and whenever applied to by the Council, and, within seven days after such application, to make and dt-liver to the Council a statutory declaration stating that all the entries in such books were correct. For every breach of this stipulation the contractor was to pay to the Council the sum of c£10. There were further penalties for infringement of other regu- lations up to, iu one case, £200, and these penalties were to be en- forced by th ^ Council and to be deducte 1 from the amount of the coniract. These conditions very naturally aroused a considerable amounr of indignation among contractors, and deterred many from tHndeiiug for the Council's work. This abstention led to the unfoun-led charge on the part of the Progressive-Socialists that there was " a ring " of contractors, and the fact that certain tenders exceeded the estimates afforded the necessary excuse for establishing, in November, 1892, a Works Department. As the late Lord Farrer (then Sir T. H. Farrer, Bart.) pointed out. in an able memorandum on the subject, by its action the Council was — '' Therefore, committed to the policy of doing its own work and erecting its own buildings without the intervention of a contractor, and it has been driven into this course, not only by a priori con- sideration of expediency, or by socialist theories of municipal actiim, but by its own previous dealings with contractors' wages, which had made it impossible for contractors to tender except at an exorbitant price." Instead of beginning on a small scale and extending operations as experience was gained, a large central establish- 193 ment and workshops were got together, and the supervision of the Department was entrusted to a Committee of twenty-three members, mostly amateurs. This Committee invited as much work as possible from the Council at a time when, according to the Comptroller, neither the establishment, the premises, nor the organisation were ready to cope with it. Nevertheless, when the Department had to explain a con- siderable excess of expenditure over the estimates, the excuse was tendered that the premises were insufficient for the work thrust upon them. Objects of the Department. The three main objects which the Progressives urged would be gained by e.iitablishing a Works Department were : — (1) Better work ; (2) Higher pay and shorter hours of labour for workmen ; (3) A saving of the contractors' profit of ten per cent. At the end of the first three years of its existence, the results of the Works Department were not those anticipated by the Progressives ; nevertheless, Mr. John Burns then described the state of things as — The beginning of greater success in the nimiicipal socialism the Council has done so much to justify and realise. But Mr. Dickinson, the then Progressive leader, could only express the hope that — As the organisation perfected, the financial gain would be greater. It was hoped, in fact, that the future would atone for the shortcomings of the past. "Cooking the Accounts." The organisation was " perfected." At the end of the year 1896, the Comptroller brought to notice a series of grave a 194' irregularities in the book-keeping of the Department. A Special Committee of Inquiry was thei'eupon appointed, with two expert assessors and an accountant and an architect of high standing, to investigate the whole system and methods of the works management. It is unnecessary to refer to the false entries in the accounts, save to state that their object was not to misappro- priate money, but to veil the excessive cost of certain works by transferring expenditure incurred on them to the account of other work which, being within the estimate, could bear a little fictitious loading. The gravity of the offence lay in the fact that it was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Council and the Public as to the real >vorking of the Department. At the same time it was a clear admission that the Department had failed. Report of the Special Committee. The investigation conducted by the Special Committee led to the dismissal of the manager, and to important changes in the control of the Works Department. The Progressive majority, on the Keport of the Committee of Inqniry, presented a report with recommendations and th(? Moderate minority did the same. The reports agreed that by amendment of the labour clauses in the standard form of contract, the door should be re-opened to the best class of contractor. The right of inspection of accounts, accordingly, was limited to the wage and time -sheets ; and in place of the stipulation that the rates of wages should be tliose settled by one party to the bargain, the basis was in future to be the rate agreed upon between 195 associations of employers and trades unions, and in practice obtained. As regards the future management of the Department, the majority report suggested a Board composed of the Chairmen of the Finance and Chief Executive Committees, eight in number. But, on the motion of a Moderate, it was resolved that the manager of works should stand in the position of a contractor to the various Committees having work to be executed, whilst the financial control of the operations should be vested in the Finance Committee, The arrangement was proposed as a temporary measure only, in view of the approaching L.C.C. election of 1898 ; but the Progressive majoi-ity, in spite of their regret at the abolition of the old Works Committee — often expressed by the Lal)our Bench — allowed the Department to be conducted, for five years, on the lines adopted in 1897. Reconstitution of the Wopks Cotninittee, 1902. The Department, however, became so disorganised ; that the manager retired, and in March, 1902, the Council decided to reconstitute a Works Committee, to which was referred the carrying into execution of all works which the Council resolved to execute by direct employment of labour. The Progressives resolutely refused to let their opponents have a single representative on this Com- mittee. The Works Committee was, therefore, composed exclusively of Progressives, and conducted its business in secret right up to the time of the last L.C.C. elections in March, 1907 The First Object. The first main aim of the system of dii'ect employment of labour was to secure better work tlian could be done by the contractors. The conclusion of the expert, Mr. Grunning, who G 2 196 was called in by the Council at the special inquiry held ii^ 1896 into the management of the Works Department, was that : — "On the whole, I had no doubt that all buildings, whether executed by contractors, or Works Department, are structurally sound and substantially and well built." This statement was corroborated by Sir Alexander Binnie, the Engineer, and by Mr. Blashill, the Architect to the Council, who both stated that they were unable to draw any distinction as to quality between the work done by the Works Department and Contractors. Bad Work. With regard to West View Cottages, one of the early works of the Department, Mr. Grunnmg stated : — " The joinery is very inferior, certainly the worst I have seen in all the buildings of the Council. The wood is inferior, had not been properly seasoned, was patched in ^ilaces, and very full of shakes and hard knots. I understand that some of the defects had been remedied jDrior to its being seen by Mr. Cubitt Nichols, but I am not surjarised at some of the remarks he made on this subject. There can have been no proper supervision or selection of material when issued to the jomers' shops." Again, as to Coliiey Hatch temporary buildings, Mr. GTrunning reported : " The flooring, which, I understand, is of two thicknesses of three-quarter inch boarding, is of veiy good quality, but the match-boardmg throughout is the worst I ever saw. The boards are about seven inches wide (batten width), beaded on one end with solid tongues. The wood itself seems to be spruce, fit only for packing cases, &c., and although 1 was told it had been two years in stock before use, it had in many places shrunk to such an extent that the tongues had come completely out of the grooves. The workmanship was rough in the extreme, though jjarts had been hand-planed on the job, and other parts had been smudged over with oi)aquo stain or paint before being varnished. How such stuff came to be purchased for the Works Department I cannot conceive. On the other hand, some of the joinery, such as partition work, which was panelled and moulded, was of very good quality both as to material and workmanship." 197 Slow Work. One point of criticism of the Department's work was its extreme slowness as compared with the work done by contractors. One of the most flagrant cases was that of the drainage of North Woolwich, where the actual cost exceeded the final estimate by £16,714. Sir A.lexander Binnie, the Chief Engineer of the Council, said : — "That the work was from the very first badly mismanaged . . . It has taken four years to execute whereas it should have been completed in eighteen months." And he also added : — " I cannot close this report without drawing tlie Committee's attention to another work now ifiider construction, which, unless some improvement be made, will, I fear, result in the same imfortunate manner. I allude to the tunnel under the Lee, in connection with the Hackney Wick sewer. This tunnelling was commenced about the beginning of February, 1901, and up to the 30th November last, or in a period of ten months, about 681 feet in length of the iron rings had been completed. It is only necessary for me to draw the Committee's attention to the rate of progress under the contract for a larger and more difficult tunnel — that at Greenwich — the driving of 1200 feet of which, wholly under the river Thames, was finished in nine months." Sir Alexander Binnie concluded his report by stating : — " It is well known to the Committee and the Council that from its initiation I have strongly, and to the best of my ability, supported the Works Department, and I am sure that they will not impute to me any animus in the above remarks ; but having been called upon to make them, I feel it my dutj' to speak plainly, and can but regret that this — one of the last reports which I shall write while in the Council's service — should have to be couched in such unfavourable terms." After such a strong condemnation from so staunch a supporter of the Works Department, no further comment is necessary. 198 Similar delay aud waste of time occurred in the recoustruc- tiou by tbe Department of No. 17, Fleet Street. The Second Object : Better Pay and Labour Conditions. The next great aim expected to be attained was better pay and conditions of labour for the workmen. But both the contractors and the Department were bound to pay to all workmen the rates of wages and to observe the hours of labour and conditions agreed between trades unions and employers. Thus, again, we have equality between the contractors and the Department. In the treatment of employees, one was not better than the other. Indeed, if the Works Department had ventured to pay a higher rate of wages than that in practice paid by the best employers, it would have been creating a privileged class of workmen, and there would have been strong ground for suspecting the existence of corrupt influence Disadvantages of Municipal Labour. While on this point, it is important to observe that the system of municipal labour Jias produced two salient evils — one, at least, familiar .enough to students of sosial history. The first evil was that the Works Department labourer, taking as his motto: " A minimum of work for a maximiim of pay," did not work with the energy that he would havQj worked for a private employer. The second weakness was the power of the vote which was wielded at municipal elections by a'large body of municipal workmen. The undue pressure which was brought to bear on the Councillors by their Avorkmeu, on the eve of such elections, was distinctly inimical to i^ure administration. The evil was naturally intensified as the number of workmen employed by the Department increased. 199 The Socialists fully recognised what a powerful means of bringing pressure to bear they had here, as is shown in the work of the well-known Socialist, Mr. Sidney "Webb, L.C.C., entitled The London Programme. On page 84 of this work, Mr. Webb, in referring to the municipalisation of tramways, writes : — " Here is one practical method by which the wage-earners, as municipal electors, can secure their ends by less barbarous methods than industrial war. Where industry is carried on, not for private profit but for the public convenience, it is obviously for the colledtive public to determine the conditions of employment. A labour revolt against a town or county covincil elected by a labour vote is an obvious absurdity. In the final stage of industrial organisation the ballot-box logically replaces the strike, and 'industrial piece,' no longer tottering in the unstable ec^uilibrium of the ' labour war,' rests at last ' broad based upon the people's will.' " The Shirkers. The manager (Mr. Hollo way), in giving some reasons for the heavy losses incurred by the Works Department in 1895 stated: — "The wages bill amounted to 10 per cent, more than it should, as we did not get the amount of work done by the men that we had a right to expect." Further, the then manager of the Department also stated " that great diflBculty is found in getting the men to do a fair day's work, and that there was a tendency on the part of the skilled men in our employ not to do the same amount of work for the Council which they would be expected to do for a contractor. The men were evidently under the impression that the foreman had not the free hand in dealing with them that a foreman usually has, and there is no doubt in some instances that the foremen were under the impression that the conditions were different. In connection with this matter, I am afraid that the visits of individual members of the Council to our works, and who enter into conversation with the men employed there, are a]>t to l)e misconstrued. Some of the 200 men store up their grievances until Councillors go on to the works, when they are related, and often, I am afraid, in a most exaggerated form. Several of the foremen have com- plained to me of the bad effect this has on the men, and have stated that their authority over them is very much diminished owing to the misconstructions the men place on the effect which the relating of their grievances to these gentlemen will have. This effect in a most pernicious one." The Councillors referred to were Labour members — most of them Trade Union Officials. Labour Disputes and Trade Union Tyranny- Other difficulties arose through the members of Trade Unions refusing to work with Non-Unionists, In one particular ^^ase — a fire station — 70 Trade Unionists struck work because four Nou-Unionists were employed on the same job. Although there was great pressure to get the work done, the job was closed and picketed, and stood idle for a' long time until these differences were adjusted between the Trade-Unionists and Non- Unionists. The Council then, on the motion of Mr. E. White (M.R.) passed a standing order to this effe t : — •' No man employed in the Council's service shall be in any way prejudiced by reason of his belonging or not belonging to any trade or other organisation. No official or foreman shall make any enquiry, directly or indirectly, under any pretence whatever, as to whether any workman belongs or does not belong to any trade organisation, and shovild he incidentally become aware of the fact he shall make no difference by reason thereof. Any interference, whether by officials, foi'emen, or others on the Council's works with the freedom of any of the workmen in this i^articular will involve instant dismissal." The Trade Union representatives tried their utmost to prevent this motion from being carried. It seemed, however, so reasonable to some of the Progressives, that they felt bound to support it, because they knew of the grave difficulties 201 consequent upon these labour troubles. This standing order ]n-odueed a better state of things, but it was viewed with great disfavour as it was regarded as a blow at Trade Unions. The representatives of the Unions wishei the Council's work to be their preserves to the exclusion of all workmen who did not subscribe to their funds. On the 5th December, 1901, the manager of works, in his report on the North Woolwich draina.ge excess, stated : — *' Several strikes also took place after tliis date, and later, the work was stopped one week, and is still suffering more or less interruption, owing to the bricklayers striking for Is. 2d. per hour on a certain portion of the work ; they were paid off, and there has been some difficulty in getting a requisite number together again." In 1906 we had an instructive lesson from the Provinces. A strike took place in Halifax on the part of the tramway employees of the Corporation, which in point of savagery equalled, if it did not surpass, any directed against a private company. Even The Mvnicipal Journal, the organ of Progressivism in London, in an issue of September 7th, 1906, tearfully had to admit :■ — " Serious issues are raised by the strike of tramvvaymen that commenced at Halifax on Saturday, and is still in progress. Here is a body of municipal employees whose wage and general labour conditions are amongst the best obtaining anywhere in the United Kingdom under either local authority or company, holding up an important industrial centre for the flimsiest .of reasons." The Third Object; to Save the Contractors' Profit. There remains, therefore, only the third, and, perhaps, the most attractive reason advanced for the institution of the Works Department, namely, that it would save the contractors' profit of 10 per cent. But before showing how completely and conclusively the Department has failed to achieve this object, it 202 is necessary to explain the conditions under which the results of its operations have been estimated. How Work was Allotted. The methods by which work was distributed between the Works Department and Contractors were lucidly explained by Mr. E. White, L.C.C., in a lecture given at the Caxton Hall, on October 13th, 1909. On this occasion, Mr. White said : — " When it was decided to carry out any important work, the Committee concerned — that would be the Employing Committee — gave instructions to the engineer, or architect, as the case might be, to prepare plans and specifications. When these had been approved and an approximate estimate of the cost given, the officer was further instructed to have bills of quantities prepared. This was done by an outside surveyor — it would not be done by any member of our own staff — and these bills were pi-iced out at the value of the Avork ; that is, the value at that time at which work could be carried out. Usually the surveyor's estimate was somewhat in excess of the lowest tender — not_ at all an uncommon thing, because surveyors naturally have to include every contingency which they think may arise, and it is generally found that contractors take a more lenient view of the contingencies. It is quite usual that tenders are sent in loAver than the estimate. I may add that very great care is taken in the preparation of bills of quantities and estimates, perhaps more care than is taken in ordinai-y cases which relate to private individuals. Plans, specifications and quantities, but not the prices, were then sent out to the contractors for them to estimate from. If the Committee decided to offer the work to the Works Department, the same course was pursued, but with this difference — the estimate of the officers was communicated to the Works Manager. The Works Depart- 203 ment then prepared their own estimate, that is to say, tlie Manager prepared under their direction his own estimate, but never disclosed its amount. We were never allowed to know what was the actual amount of the Manager's estimate, and if the Committee were satisfied — because the sum with which they had to deal was the officer's estimate — thev reported to the Committee concerned that they were satisfied with the sufficiency of the officer's estimate, and the depart- ment Avas ordered to carry out the work. If, however, the Manager considered the work had been under-estimated, he refused to carry it out, and it Avas then submitted to tender from outside firms, and in almost all cases the lowest tender was very much less than the officer's estimate " The Works Department had advantages which the ordinary contractor does not enjoy. It could accept or refuse any work, if it had any doubt as to the sufficiency of the price at which the work was offered. It could, and frequently did, refuse work. If it had as much work in hand as it could deal with, it was not compelled to take any more. The Department had the advantage of unlimited capital at its disposal. It had to give no credit, as the monev required was advanced by the Council ever}^ week. It could make no bad debts, and any loss which it made on the work it carried out, had to be made good by the Committee that gave the Department employment." Some millions of the ratepayers' money have been spent by the Works Department under these conditions without the schemes being alloAved to undergo the criticism of the Opposi- tion, at all times of the utmost value to the public. It is con- sequently impossible to take seriously the results credited to the Department on a basis of compai'ison betAveen the estimates and actual cost, although where the cost has exceeded the estimate we can say that the ratepayers would not have been liable for the loss if the work had been e-iven to contractors. 204 As regards jobbing works done by the Department, we shall deal with this subject later on. Losses which the Ratepayers have had to Meet. Mr. E. White, L.C.C., who, as an ex-Chairman of the Works Committee is qualified to speak with authority on the subject, gave the following specific instances of losses in connec- tion with the Depai'tment, in the lecture above referred to. Mr. White was careful to preface his exposure with the state- ment that his facts and figures had throughout been taken from the Minutes of the Council. The First Year. Mr. White said : — " One of the first jobs handed to them (the Works Department) was the New Cross Fire Station, the value on completion, as certified by the supervising officer after it had been adjusted by the quantity surveyor, who allowed for additions and omissions, was certified at ^8 15,800 ; it cost the Council £18,789. That was their first attempt to build a fire- station, and the loss amounted to .£2,989. They then undertook a lodge on Plumstead Common, and on completion the Vahier's certificate was .£1,063, and the actual cost was £1,345 ; so, on that small job there was a loss of ,£282, or some- thing over 5 per cent. The Council then resolved to give the Department a chance of building some workmen's dwellings, and a large block of workmen's dwellings was erected in Poplar, called the Council's Buildings, Yabsley Street. The final estimate for these dwellings Avas .£10,943, the actual cost was £13,782, or a loss on this one block of dwellings of £2,839. They next undertook the West View Cottages in Blackwall Lane. The final figures were j£21,623, but the cost to the Council was £28,244, or a loss on that block of dwellings of £6,621. Then there were refreshment rooms in Victoria Park; they were valued on completion at d£l,029, but they 205 cost the Council £1,520, or a loss of £491 on that small con- ti'act — that is between 40 per cent, and 50 per cent. They then undertook Mayford Cottages, a small job at Mayford, one of our industrial schools, and three cottages were put up for the workmen on the estate. On completion they were certified to be £908, but they cost the Council £1,116, or an excess of £208. Then some cottages were undertaken at Bethnal Green, which were estimated at £2,170, but they cost £2,276, or a loss of £106. " That is a brief record of some of the works entrusted to the Committee in the first year of its existence. They number seven works, to the aggregate value of £53,536, and they cost £67,072, Of a loss of £13,536. In addition there were eight other jobs also given to them, five of which, all being much smaller jobs, showed an aggregate loss of £787. So that on the first twelve works the total loss, on works undertaken in the first twelve months, was no less than £14,323. But all the jobs did not entail a loss, for out of the fifteen, three showed a margin on the right side, and they were works of putting in foundations, quite a different class of work to building superstructux'es, and a class of work which could probably be better undertaken by a local authority than the erection of buildings. These three works were the foundations of Hughes Fields, Boundary Street, Block A, and Cable Sti-eet. The estimate of the three works amounted to d£10,000, they cost £8,391, so that there was a saving, or a set-off against the other side, of £,1,609. Consequently, the nett result of the works entrusted during the first year of the Works Department's existence was a loss on twelve works of =£14,323, and a saving on three works of =£1,609 ; a nett loss to the Department of ^12,714. Engineering Work. " It was generally supposed that engineering works were the most suitable for the Department to undertake, and after the 20fi success of the York Road experiment, on which a saving of something like £4,000 was made, the Council gave a large amount of this class of work to the Committee. The result was that whilst some of the smaller Avorks came out all right and showed a saving on the estimate, some of the larger works turned out very badly indeed, as the folloAving figures will show you. " In 1895 the Council undertook a large amount of new sewer construction, and the following works were carried' out by the Works Department. Fulliam and Hammersmith sewer, loss £6,646 ; Lewisham sewer, value £54,000 — omitting odd figures — the cost to the Works Department was approximately £77,000, and the loss on that one sewer was £22,924. That was the heaviest loss up to then, but small compared with some of the losses made later. There was the Wandle branch sewer, a small job, £10,000, the loss on which was £2,345 ; the Heath well Pumping Station, £10,000, where the loss was £1,525 ; the Vauxhall temporary bridge, the value of which was £11,265, and the loss on it £2,266. The Crossness outfall extension; this was valued on completion at £34,617, but the loss on it was £16,279. Then the North Woolwich drainage^ £47,683 value on completion ; that job cost £64,398, or a loss to the Council of £16,715. The Hackney relief sewer, which was rather a large job, was estimated on completion to be of the value of £125,329, but it cost £136,946 ; the loss on that was £11,617. And then there was the Southern high level sewer, the value of which on completion was estimated, or certified, by the supervising ofi&cer at £5,644; it cost the ConiK-il £7,217, and the loss on it was £1,573. Hence on these nine sewer jobs the total loss to the Council was £81,890. This tremendous loss arose because on its first attempt at sewer construction the Council had saved on the York Road sewer £4,000 by doing the work instead of handing it over to a contractor, whose inflated estimate 207 was due to the onerous and odious conditions which the Council itself sought to impose upon private contractors. " In tlie earlier reports. which wei-e submitted every half-year, under Standing Orders, only the works that were actually completed and accounts made up were reported. As in most cases these small works showed a balance, the half- yearly report sometimes showed a margin on the right side ; but when, at a subsequent period, the larger works, which extended over more than one half-year and often over several half-years, came to be reported, heavy losses were disclosed. " In engineering works better results were sometimes obtained in more recent times. This was in a large measure due to the fact that the Council's officers in estimating for such works — which were mostly below the surface of the ground — not unwisely provided a margin for contingencies. From the figures which I will now give, it will readily be seen that con- tractors were willing and actually did undertake to carry out works for large amounts at 25 per cent, below the engineer's estimate. Those works were all undertaken in 1904, at the same time as similar works were given to the Works Depart- ment. These works — some of which had been offered to and refused by the Works Department — were the southern outfall sewer, section "D," which the engineer estimated at .£470,979. For this work the lowest tender was accepted by the Council, and the contractor carried out the work in a most satisfactory manner for the sum of ^£348,416, or £1 22,563 !ess than the estimate. " The Battersea sewer, estimated at £53,958, was carried out for =£41,978 ; No. 2, high level sewer, estimated at ^£91,727, was carried out at d£8i,285 ; the northern outfall sewer, estimated by the engineer to cost .£117,000, was carried out by the contractors for ^682,5 10. Again in the case of the Netting Hill sewer, estimated to cost .£37,083, there was a saving of nearly £7,000, the work being carried out for .£30,713. 208 " Consequently there was a saving On these five sevt^ers of £185,845, on very nearly 25 per cent, below the engineer's estimate. I think you will see that giving the work to contractors was certainly much more advantageous to the ratepayers of London, although it did not please some of our Radical-Socialist friends on the Council. " Now, 1 come to a list of similar woi'k, being part of our main sewer extension, carried out by the Department, and I think you will admit my fairness in showing you where the Department did succeed. The southern outfall sewer, section C, was accepted at the engineer's price of d£347,855, and was carried out for d8295,000 ; middle level sewer, accepted at £131,440, carried out for =£130,000 ; southern outfall, section B, accepted at £298,954, and carried out for .£234,000. The last Job, which has only just been finished, was the Shad Thames pumping station ; this work was accepted at £44,664, and carried out for d£40,000, so that the saving on working cost, estimated by the engineer at .£822,913, was .£123,913, whereas on work carried out by the contractors, totalling .£770,747 (or d£50,000 less than that given to the Works Department), the saving was =£185,845, or upw^ards of £62,000 more than the saving made by the Works Department. Thus, while the Council effected a saving on this list of jobs which I have given you of 15 per cent, below the engineer's estimate, the Council made a saving of 25 per cent, below the engineer's estimate by giving the work to contractors. This list of works carried out by the Works Department presents the best results which tlie Department has been able to show during the period of its existence." Building Losses. Now we come to the building operations of the Department, of which Mr. White says : — 209 " The Council has undertaken a large amount of buildings under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, and it divided work between the Works Department and the contractors. The following buildings were carried out bj the Works Department, in addition to those which I have mentioned to you at Poplar and Blackwall, and in each case a heavy loss resulted. They were the Hughes-fields Buildings, Boundary Street Dwellings, one block, and then four other blocks, the Green Street and Gun Street Dwellings, Clifton and Molesey Street Dwellings, Hogarth Buildings, Wargrave, Hedsor, Cobham and Shelton Street Dwellings, all at Millbank. These were ten works, the loss on which, without troubling you with all the details, amounted to £20,809. The seriousness of that loss lies in the fact that when the Council decides to erect Avorkmen's dwellings, they get a report from the Compti'oller and the Finance Committee showing the exact financial bear- ing of the scheme. This report sets out at what rents the dwellings can be let in order to repay the Capital and 3 per cent, interest that we have to pay on the loans raised for this work. Ou this basis, after allowing a very small percentage, I think only 2 per cent., for losses on empties, which is quite in- sufficient, the rents are fixed. When a loss of .£20,809 had been incurred on these ten blocks, the Council had to consider the financial aspects, and the rent which the Avorkmen should l-ay for their rooms, in order to pay for that very heavy loss. Sa that the incidence really of this loss falls upon the unfortunate workpeople who take these buildings, be- cause they have to pay for it in the form of rent. What Contractors Saved. "The Woi-ks Committee refused to carry out the following Housing Works because they considered that the estimate was insufficient. They were consequently put out to tender, and in every case a tender was accepted at a lower sum than that offered to and refused by the Works Depai'tment. On the 210 Boundary Street area the Works Department were building four blocks. Block B, for which the estimate of the architect was £10,800, they refused, and the tender was let for .£10,100. On Block I, the Architect's estimate was £7,550, the tender accepted was for <£G,990 ; Idenden Cottages, the Architect's estimate Avas for £13,990, and the tender accepted was for ^13,803; Cotton Street Dwellings, estimate £13,580, tender accepted was £12,321 ; Ann Street Dwellings, estimate £16,648, tender accepted was £15,674. I Avill now give you the last on the list, the Caledonian Eoad Dwellings — an important block of buildings erected on the site of the old Caledonian Schools, for which site we gave an enormous sum of money. This the Works Department refused to take at £41,000, and the con- tract was let to a contractor for £36,000. So that on those six works which were refused by the Works Department, the Council let them all to contractors at a saving on the estimate of their own officers of £8,680. " While the Works Department was engaged in building some of the blocks on the Millbank Estate, Messrs. Holloway Brothers — a well-known firm of builders — were building similar blocks under contract for the Council. They were the Romney and Rossetti buildings and the Turner and Euskin buildings. These were built from precisely the same plans as the Hogarth and the other buildings I have mentioned. They were let to them in two blocks at a tiine. The first block, the Romney and Rossetti buildings, the Architect estimated would cost £27,930, but on that being given out to tender, Messrs. Holloway undertook the job for £23,034. The Turner and Ruskin buildings were estimated by the Architect at ^46,420, and Messrs. Holloway secured the contract for £38,441. So that the Architect's total estimate for these buildings was £74,350, and the Council actvially paid contractors £61,475. The result was that on four buildings erected by contractors the . Council saved off the Architect's estimate £12,875. What they would have lost if the Covmcil had carried them out by the 211 Works Department can only be judged from what they lost upon the others. Asylums Work. " Now I will deal with the Works carried out for the Asylums Committee. I might here explain that the Asylums Committee of the L.C.C. is a statutory body practically independent of the Council, and that it only has to go to the Council when it wants capital expenditure sanctioned. All other matters are carried out entirely on the Committee's own responsibility under the Lunacy Acts. " . . . . It was decided to build an asylum at Horton, a job running into between ^250,000 and ^£300,000. Tenders were invited from builders. The lowest tender was considered too high, and the Manager of the Works Department was asked if he would undertake the work at something like ,£10,000 less than the price at which Messrs. Kirk & Randall were prepared to carry it out. The Manager replied that he would, and expected to make a large saving because he thought that the cjuantities were full. Therefore he undei'took the work at ^£10,000 less than they could have given it to a first-class firm of contractors. When it came to be finished up, how- ever, instead of having saved anything, the loss was £37,878. " Next, let me mention the celebrated Colney Hatch job. The Council was erecting two sets of temporary buildings in order to meet the great j^ressure for accommodation, and a licence for five years was granted, and this was subsequently extended, and tenders were invited for these buildings. The two sets of buildings were designed by the asylums engineer, they were precisely alike, the same class of building, iron structures — corrugated iron, lined with matchboards. One set to be erected at Banstead was let to a firm at Bermondsey for £14,000. It was thought that it would not be well to give the 212 contractors the two, as tlie work was needed in a very great hurry, and had to be expedited, consequently the other building, namely, that at Colney Hatch, was given to the Works Depart- ment. The Department estimated the work at rather a higher sum; I think they wanted ^18,000. There was just this one difference, the land at Colney Hatch was not a level plateau as was the case at Banstead ; there was sloping ground to be dealt with, and so there w^as some additional expense in connection with the foundations. However, we agreed that the department should receive the £18,000, because the job was wanted in a great hurry and there was no time in which to advertise. The contractor for the Banstead work carried out the work within the estimate. The engineer assured me that it was an excellent job, and that he could not detect any difference between the two buildings, excejjt that Colney Hatch was not quite so well done as Banstead. However, when Colney Hatch came to be finishel, instead of having cost d£18,000 — which should have shown a margin of profit — the loss was £3,827. The Council had to pay £22,000 for a set of buildings for which at Banstead they paid only £14,000, with that little additiou to which I have referred of the foundations. " When it was determined to erect an epileptic colony on our estate at Epsom, the work there was also undertaken by the Works Department. In this instance also, Avhen the accounts came finally to be adjusted, there was a loss on that small asylum of £5,018. On the same estate we erected a central station, for pumping water, supplying gas and electric lighting and other administrative purposes, one station to serve three or four institutions. When that work came to be settled up, we found that Ave had lost dei,977. So that on five works entrusted by the Asylums Committee to the Works Department, there was a loss of £56,623 on the officers' estimates. Now, with the experience thus gained by the Asylums Connnittee, it will not be a surprise to anyone that the Committee have not offered any other work to the 213 Works Department, but have elected to carry out a very considerable amount both by direct employment and under the direction of their own engineer, and in some cases by contractors, after having received tenders. Tlie Asylums Com- mittee bad had enough of the Works Department, and, OAving to the fact that it is a statutory body, did not have to go to the Council to be told how they should give out the work." How Profits were made on Jobbing Works. Mr. White explains very cleai'ly how the so-called profits were made on Jobbing Works. He says : — " I will now briefly refer to the jobbing works carried out by the Council, on which it is triumphantly claimed by the Progressive- Socialist Party that a profit of 6 per cent, has been realized. This class of work, which cannot always accurately be specified, and estimated beforehand, should be limited, and was intended to be limited, to small works, as it is carried out on a schedule of prices plus 12| per cent. I may say that the schedule is settled by the officers of the Council in consultation with, and with the approval of, the Manager of the Works Department. Woi'ks of a con- siderable amount are executed under this schedule, and when this is the case there ought to be a good profit shown, because this schedule is only supposed to apply to very small works. Consequently the work is priced at a higher rate than works aragraph in the report which Avas as follows :— " In conclusion I have pleasure in repeating that the suggestions which I was able to make in my rejaort of the 15th March, 1897, have been put into practice and that the jsresent state of the accovmts of the Department appears to me satisfactory. The further suggestions now made by me deal with matters of detail rather than with the general system. " My investigation leads me to believe that the ' present position of the Department from a commercial point of view ' indicates sound and careful management, with efficient and accurate recording of the Dei^artment's transactions." But the Municipal Reformers had never suggested that there was anything wrong with the book-keeping of the Depart- ment, and they knew quite well that that branch of the work had been put right when the scandals referred to above were unearthed in 1897. It was hardly likely that the grave offence then disclosed would be repeated. But still in this last report Mr. Waterhouse was able to recommend various reforms in details which need not be specified. On the i-eal point at issue between the two parties, viz. : the relative cost of direct labour versus contract work, he was not able to express an opinion as the following passage will show : — " I had intended to include in this report such remarks as might occur to me on examination of a statement which is now 220 lieing prepared, showing the cost of works executed by the Works Department and the amoiuits paid for works executed by outside contractors, as compared with the estimates in each case. I am informed, however, that the necessary figures will not be available for some considerable time, and I have, therefore, decided not to keep back the present report but to hold myself at the disposal of the Council if it is wished that I should refer to this matter when the data are collected." The most important part of Mr. Waterliouse's report deals with " Comparison of Estimates with Costs." The Progressive party previously had always claimed that large savings to the ratepayers were made whenever the department executed a job under the figure of the estimate of the arcliitect or engineer. This Progressive delusion is rudely dispelled by the report which states : — " It is very ea,sy to attach an undue importance to these tomparisons between estimated and actual costs, and it is not necessary to point out that the comparison may be taken quite as much as a test of the skill with which the estimate was framed as of the economy with which the work was executed." Whether the contractor or the Works Department have, in the past, worked cheape'st for London, is a question not answered by the report of Mr. Waterhouse. This is the vital point around which the controversy had raged. The report states : — " Comparison of Cost between the Works Department and Outside Contractors. " I had intended to include in this report such remarks as J night occur to me on an examination of a statement which is now being prepared showing the cost of works executed by the Works Department and the amounts paid for works executed by outside contractors, as compared with the estimates in each case. I am informed, however, that the necessary figures will not be available for some considerable time, and I have, tliercfore, decided not to keep back the present report, but to hold myself at the disposal 221 of the Council if it ia wished that I should refer to this matter when the data are collected." The above summary practically exhausts the prominent features of Mr. Waterhouse's report. Directly the report appeared, the Progressive Party and its " Yellow Press" proceeded to try and make party capital out of it. To do this, it was necessary to set up a " bogey " and then to assail it with vituperative epithets. The Municipal Reform Pai'ty was falsely charged with having published calumnies concerning the Department during the municipal elections of 1906-7; of alleging that "the accounts" (of the Works Department) " had been recently ' cooked ' by the Progressives in order to deceive the electors." " Mr. Waterhouse smashes that false pretence," wrote The Star of December 11th, 1907. " The Report," stated The Star on December 10th, 1907. "is a complete vindication of Progressive policy and Progressive administration." The Daily Neirs, of course, went even further in its journalistic frenzy than any other Progressive paper. " The end of a lie " is the title of its leading article upon the subject. This article stated that Mr. Waterhouse " takes his part in exposing the slanderous mendacities spread broadcast over London last March by the organisers of the anti-municipal victory." . . . " This is the reply of the ' commercial ' auditor to the Londoji Municipal Society," &c., &c. This violent and lying attack upon the London Municipal Society and the Municipal Reform Party was answered by Captain H. M. Jessel, the Chairman of the Society, in the following letter, dated December 14th, 1907 : — " My attention has been called to statements in the Progressive Press to the effect that the London Municipal Society and the Municipal Reform Party issued leaflets and statements broadcast over London last March, alleging that the accounts of the Works 222 Department of the London County Council were cooked, rigged, and falsified.' " Will you kindly allow me to state that neither the London Municipal Society nor the Mimicipal Reform Party issued any leaflet or statement about the Works Department diu'ing the London Covinty Council elections, nor was any charge made that the accounts of the Works Department were ' cooked. ' " The Progressives may, if they please, console themselves with the fact that Mr. Waterhouse's report declares that the accounts of the department are well kept, but a certificate for correct book- lieeping does not entitle the Progressives and their supporters to make false charges against their ojiponents. " It is to be noted that Mr. Waterhouse's report expressly states that he does not deal with the real jaoint of contention between the two parties, namely, ' comparison of cost between the Works Department and outside contractors.' " Until it is ascertained that the Works Departrnent does its work at less cost than contractors, it is indeed premature for the Progressives to claim that their policy has been justified by results." Below are set forth some Press comments upon the Report : — " The Progressives in the County Council show extravagant thankfulness for small mercies. . . . All this delight has been afforded simply by the statement of Mr. Waterhouse that, while ' in early years instances occurred of the accounts being dealt with in a manner to prevent certain works being charged with their full cost,' he now finds that ' the bookkeeping is careful and accurate.' Certain suggestions which he made eleven years ago liave been carried into effect in the interim, and he now regards the accounts as indicating ' sound and careful management with ' efficient and accui'ate recording of the department's transactions.' That is very satisfactory so far as it goes, but it does not go further than certifying that the most, elementary duty of those who carry on business, whether public or private, is now '^^^- "duly performed by the Works Department, The report does (.^ not go into the substantial merits of the business transacted. ■.•f' ■ The f/ato, for anything of that kind were not before Mr. Water- house. He simply finds that the business, upon the character of which he has nothing to say, has been duly recorded in the books upon a system which insures as far as jjossible the usual check ujjon irregularities on the part of tlie staff. But it is not the formal accountancy, or the discharge of their duties by the staff, which has formed the basis ot the charges of extrava- 223 gance brought against the Progressives. Bad business can be* and frequently is, recorded in a manner just as satisfactory to an auditor as if the business were of the best. The charge has been that the business was not good business, or at all events nothing like such good business as to justify the pretence that by eliminating contractors the Council con- ferred great benefits upon the public. It has been charged that ilhxsory economies have been shown by the simple process of making a liberal estimate of the cost of a given work in one depart- ment of the Council, and then, if the Works Department saw its way to do the work for less, accepting that estimate and claiming the difference as evidence of the gi-eat saving effected by doing without contractors. It must be obvious to everyone that this is no saving at all. The only way to prove a saving is to allow other contractors to tender for the work. If the depart- ment can do it for less than they charge, well and good, but that the department can do it for less than a mere estimate on paper does not prove anything, least of all when those who prepare the estimate are under the control of the same body that wants the estimate to leave a good margin for its Works Department. Mr. Waterhouse does no touch the real charges against Progressive management of the Works Department, and only very ignorant people will be misled for a moment by the exaggerated delight of Mr. McKinnon Wood over a certificate of regularity in the accountancy." The Times, December 11th, 1907. *' Municipal Trading and Boole-Keeping^ " . . . . Thus far the Progressives are thoroughly entitled to express their satisfaction. The charge against them was that of cooking and mismanaging, and in this respect at all events their opponents are effectively silenced. But, of course, tliey do not take the commercial audit as a deliverance on the policy of the Council in regard to the Works Department or any other kind of commercial activity. The commercial auditor, whether he is dealing with a public company or a pubHc body, confines himself to a scrutiny of the business methods and the system of account- keeping. Given a certain business and a certain set of books, he can say whether it is on a sound footing, whether its books are well kejot and its moneys properly accounted for ; but he does not say, or pretend to saj^, wliether it is a wise thing to go into that business, or what the prospects are of making a profit out of it. It is extremely important to keep the distinction between these two things, for we know what an insidious temptation it is to 224 directors who are not quite honest to insinuate that an auditor's report covers their policy as well as their book-keeping. The Council's policy is iU own affair, and it would be greatly deroga- ting from its own authority and influence if it admitted that any auditor, however respected, had the power either of approving or condemning its policy. Mr. Waterhouse, of course, makes no sucli claim ; his report goes merely to tlae length of saying that the Council, having undertaken a Works Department, has proved itself ablo to conduct the business in a straightforward and competent manner. The question of policy raises altogether wider issues, and it would not be determined for us even if the accountant went on to show that the department had in certain transactions made what is called a ' loss ' — i.e., spent more on certain contracts than would probably have been spent if they had been given to a private contractor. We can imagine that bemg the case in certain instances and the policy of maiaitaining the department being, nevertheless, thoroughly justified. " For though municipal trading needs, like all other trading, strict and honest account-keeping, it cannot be either justified or condenxned simply by its profit and loss account. There are certain operations which a municipality is justified in undertaking .simply because they cannot be conducted at a profit by private traders ; there are others which it is justified in carrying on at a loss, if only to save itself from being wholly at the mercy of private contractors. It is, in our opinion, a necessary means of protecting the ratepajers' interests that a local authority should have a Works Department sufficiently well organised to make private contractors aware that if their terms are exorbitant the authority will do its own work for itself. What is saved in this respect cannot, of course, be traced to any audit, but we are very strongly of opinion that if tlie Moderate Party took advantage of their term of office to destroy the Works Department the resvilt would very quickly be seen in the increased cost of [)ublic contracts. The same consideration applies to a great many other forms of municipal activity, and to the municipal trams not least. We can see, in fact, from actual experience at this moment that, but for the existence of a municipal service of trams, the London public would bo entirely at the mercy of a combination of the tube rail- ways and i:)rivate t)mnibus companies. Whatever temporary checks there may be, we do not believe there will in the future be any going Vjack in these municipal enterprises, and it is, therefore, a matter for real satisfaction to be assured that in honest and efficient business management a public body need be no whit below the standard of honest and well-managed private fu-ms." The Westminster Gazette, Derember 11th, 1907. 225 In view, therefore, of the manner in which the Prog\'essive- Socialists have sought to mislead the public in regard to the contents of this report, it becomes necessary to quote from it at some considerable length. Mr, Waterhouse's Report on the Works Department. Mr. Waterhouse commences his report by recalling the fact that in March, 1897, he made a report to the Special Committee of the Works department, and then offered suggestions for the better and more accurate keeping of the accounts of this Department. These suggestions were to a certain extent adoj^ted, and the first part of the report deals in part with the system at that time in use. The other parts deal with minor points of no great interest, and the report continues : — " General and Establishment Charges. — The charges which cannot be directly allocated to any particular work are collected together and distributed by a percentage on the cost of the various works. At the suggestion of the Comptroller a sub-division was made in 1899 into ' general ' charges and ' establishment ' charges. The general charges include interest on and repayment of capital outlay, interest on working capital, workmen's compensation, and certain incidental and imappropriated charges, and the net tigm-e is arrived at after deducting cash discounts allowed by svippliers of goods and any surplus on stock and working accounts. The estabhshment charges consist of salaries and office wages, rent, rates and taxes, gas, water, insurance, repairs, travelling expenses, stationery, postage, etc. For the seven years since the division was arranged on the present lines the totals have been : — General. Establishment. £ £ Year ending 31st March, 1901 . . 5,572 . . 17,238 Do. 1902 . . 5,873 . . 17,410 Do. 1903 . . 7,179 . . 17,232 Do. 1904 . . 4,981 . . 17,523 Do. 1905 . . 5,010 . . 19,332 Do. 1906 . . 4,263 . . 23,053 Do. 1907 . . 6,284 . . 24,171 H 226 " The most important item under the head of establishment charges is salai-ies and office wages. This is divided into Manager's branch and Accountant's branch, and the totals for the same seven years are as vmder : — - Manager's Accountant's branch. branch. Total. £ £ £ fear ending 31st March 1901 . 6,536 . . 3,688 . 10,224 Do. 1902 . 6,856 . . 3,891 . 10,747 Do 1903 . 7,025 . 3,965 . 10,990 Do. 1904 . 6,968 . 4,033 . 11,001 Do. 1905 . 7,744 . 4,493 . 12,237 Do. 1906 . 8,868 . 5,326 .' 14,194 Do. 1907 . 9,162 . 5,686 . 14,848 "It will be observed that there has been a considerable increase in the total salaries of both branches during the last three years, although the total value of work done was less for 1906-7 than for 1905-6 and less for 1905-6 than for 1904-5, the last-named year having had the largest volume of work in the history of the Department. " Another item included in tlae estabUshment cliarges is the ' Proportion of salaries, etc., charged by the Central Office.' For the eight years ending 31st March, 1905, the annual charge was £495 ; for the following year £505 I'Os. ; but for the year to 31st March, 1907, it has been increased to £1,400. I have seen a memorandum prepared by the Comptroller which shows that this increase is mainly due not to special work diu'ing the particular year but to a revised method of estimating the cost of the work performed for the Department at the Central Office, having regard to a new Standing Order passed on 31st July, 1906, so that the increased charge is likely to be maintained. The chief increases are in respect of services rendered by the Solicitor's and Valuer's Departments. The sum of £1,400 is made up as follows : — Comptroller's Department . . . . . . £515 Solicitor's Department . . . . . . 500 Engineer's Department . . . . . . 45 Valuer's Department . . . . . . 340 £1,400 I an^ not able to ex^iress any opinion as to the correctness of thb charge. " For the distribution of tlie establishment charges varying percentages are charged year by year on the jobbing work, the estimated work completed during the year and the estimated work uncc'inj^leted at the end of the year, and it is impossible to 227 tabulate these percentages so as to give a general view of the jjj. ^ater variations from year to year. I have, therefore, prepared the l't>"se's Ee) ,. „ . ^ ' i i „j, ^|jg Wor lollowing table to show the percentage of the estabhshnient charges Deixtrtmen to the cost of the work clone : — Percentage Cost of of Efstalilish- work ex- estahlish- meut clusive of ment Total charges establish- charges to cost cf included ment cost of work. therein. charges. work. £ £ £ i^ear to 31st March, 1901.. 344,765 17,238 327,527 3.3 Do. 1902.. 411,412 17,410 394,002 4.4 Do. 1903.. 349,153 17,232 331,921 5.2 Do. 1904.. 416,206 17,523 398,683 4.4 Do. 1905. . 662,458 19,332 643,126 3.0 Do. 1906.. 641,295 23,053 618,242 3.7 Do. 1907.. 572,896 24,171 548,725 4.4 " It will be seen tliat the total of the establishment charges was practically stationary for the first foiu* of the seven years and that the percentage varied inversely with the volume of work. In tlie last three years there has been a continuous increase in the total ; and though the percentage was lower in the two years 1904-5 and 1905-6, when the work was very heavy, it has i-isen in 1906-7 to the same level as in 1901-2 and 1903-4, when the work was less by one-fourth. It appears, therefore, that the percentage of establishment charges has not been permanently lowered by the increase in work. " The general charges are distributed in a similar way, but I have ^ot thought it necessary to tabulate them. " Capital Expenditure and Repayments thereof. — The total expenditure dealt with as on Cajiital Accovmt in respect of the Works Department is £112,728 5s. 5d., made up as under : — Central Worlds, Belvedere Road — Purchase of premises New buildings, paving, etc. Alterations and enlarge- ments Enclosure of foreshore New river-wall and reser- voirs New ballast screen, etc. Battersea Depot — Purchase of land Enclosure of foreshore New river-wall Stabling, etc. £39,038 18 6 48,301 19 11 4,606 14 4 2,044 13 6,905 1 6 2,632 17 7 6,519 10 2 130 5 980 6 1,568 4 11 103,530 4 10 0,198 7 £112,728 5 5 ~2 228 " It will be seen that only expenditure on land and buildings is charged to Capital Account. The plant and machinery are treated as floating or revenue assets, in the same way as the stores and materials on hand. " The Works Department is charged with the annual instalments required for the repayment of loans contracted in respect of this outlay, and such instalments are dealt with as part of the cost of the works carried out. The amounts year by year are shown in the Summary of Accounts (Schedule ' A '), the total repayments up to the 31st March, 1907, aggregating £23,753 3s. 3d., leaving a net sum of £88,975 2s. 2d. outstanding. For the first year's expenditiu'e, i.e., 1893-4, the term of repayment was 55 years ; for the expenditure in 1894-5, 54 years ; for that in 1895-6, 53 years ; for that in 1896-7, 52 years ; and for exiDenditiu-e in 1897-8 and subsequent years the term has been extended to 59 years. The Department is thus gradually buying its land and buildings by including these instalments in the cost of work done. " Interest is charged each year in respect of the outstanding amount after dedvicting repayments, such interest representing the cost to the Council of the money borrowed for the service of the Department. The expenses of issuing the loans are included with the interest charged. The charges year by year in respect of capital repayments and interest on outstanding capital give average percentages calculated on the outstanding capital as under. As the capital is repaid by equal instalment^, the per- centage for repajanent in relation to the outstanding amount has a tendency gradually to increase. . . . ''' Comparison of Estimates xoith Costs. — I pass now from the methods of account-keeping and turn to the results of the working of the Department as disclosed in the cost accounts. " Estimated Works. — I have been suiiplied with copies of the I'eturns made from time to time, giving the final estimate and the actual cost of all estimated works carried out by the Department. The final estimate or final certificate is the value of the work fixed by the certifying officer on the basis of the original estimate, after allowing for any alterations in the original specifications and for extras not included therein. I have sejiafated these returns of completed works into four sections : — " (1) Works completed prior to 31st March, 1896. " (2) .Works begun prior to 31st March, 1896, and completed after that date. 229 " (3) Works begun after 31st March, 1896, and completed jj^. wate prior to 31st March, 1901. '^^^J'^'^J' '■ on the Wc " (4) Works completed during the six years ending 31st Departme: March, 1907. " (1) Works completed prior to 31si March, 1896. — Particulars of these works were given in my previous report. The total of the final estimates was £383,538 15s. Id., and of the actual costs £377, 643 14s. lid., showing a net shortage of cost of £5,895 Os. 8d., an average of 1.5 per cent. This net shortage was composed of shortages amounting to £28,754 17s. Od. and excesses amounting to £22,859 16s. 4d. There were large shortages of cost in the case of the Hackney to Holloway sewer (£4,622), the Fleet storm relief sewer (£5,495), and the Works Department's own workshops, etc. (£3,551), while the largest excess of cost was for the West View cottages (£6,621). " (2) Works begrm prior to 31st March, 1896, and completed after that date. — With i-eference to these works I stated in my previous report : — " ' A large excess of cost over estimate appears from the e\idence as likely to arise on the works completed since 31st March, 1896, or now in hand.' " This forecast has been completely justified by the ascertained results. The total of the final estimates in respect of these works was £321,801 4s. 6d. and of the actual costs £380,921 17s. 3d., showing a net excess of cost of £59,120 12s. 9d., or 18.4 per cent. The cases in which the cost was less than the estimate only totalled £1,129 13s. 4d., whereas the excesses of cost came to £60,250 6s. Id. Tlie largest excesses were Bexley Asylum fomidations (£7,924), Fulham and Hammersmith sewer (£6,646) and Lewisham sewer (£22,924, or 42 per cent, of the estimate). " (3) Works begun after 3lst March, 1896, and completed prior to Zlst March, 1901.— The total of the final estimates was £451,131 17s. Id. and of the actual costs £462,209 12s. 8d., showing a net excess of cost of £11,077 15s. 7d., or 2.5 per cent. This net excess is composed of shortages totalling £24,049 2s. Id., and excesses totalling £35,126 17s. 8d. The excesses include an amount of £16,280 in respect of Crossness Drainage Outfall and new pumping arrangements, a work which was referred to the Department in April, 1896, so that it is on the border line of the previous categorj'. Excluding this work, there is a shortage of cost on the remaining works of £5,202, or 1.2 per cent. There are three or four pretty large excesses of cost on blocks of buildings for the Housing Committee, but in the main the differences are moderate. 230 " (4) Works completed during the six years' ending 31s< March, 1907. — In the case of these more recent works, I have prepared tabular summai'ies which will be found in Schedule ' B.' I have distinguished between engineering and architectural works, and have detailed every work of the value of £10,000 and upwards. It will be seen from the tables that the cases in which the cost falls short of the final estimate very much outnumber those in which the cost exceeds the estimate. There was a large excess of cost (£37,878 IGs. 6d., or 13 per cent, of the estimate) on the Horton Asylum superstructure completed in 1902-3 and also on two drainage works for North Woolwich and Hackney Wick completed in 1901-2 and 1902-3 respectively, but in thejast four years the cases where the cost has exceeded the estimate have been only 13 out of 104, and the aggregate amount of the excess has been £4,639. On the estimated works completed during the six years the net shortage of cost as compared -with, the final estimates is 4.4 per cent, made up of 7.3 per cent, for engineering works and 1.9 per cent, for architectural works ; if only the last four years ax'e taken into account the percentage is increased to 10.0, viz. : engineering 15.3 per cent, and architectural 0.7 per cent. " All the three above-mentioned works wliich show excessive costs were comjjleted or practical^ completed before the present Manager was appointed in Jvily, 1902. On examining the report of the Works Committee with regard to the Horton Asylum worl^, I find that the excess of cost was thus explained : — " (a) Error of judgment on the part of the late ^Manager of Works in undertaking the work, and insufficiency of accepted esti- mate, viz., difference between that esti- mate and the lowest tender obtained from a contractor .. .. .. .. £12,130 " [h) Refusal of local authority to allow tem- jDorary railway for carriage of material, etc., involving additional cost of cartage . . 1 1,450 "" (c) Rise in price of materials and in wages . . 16,150 " (d) Scarcity of labour, involving overtime . . 1,000 " £40,730 whereas the excess cost was £37,879. This work was commenced in 1898, shortly after the re-organisation of the Works Department in June, 1897. " The report of the Main Drainage Comiuitteo on the excess cost of the North Woolwich drainage work (£16,714, or 35 per cent.) 231 states that this work was the first undertaken by the late INIanager Mr. Water , , . - , r ^, -1 liouse's Re in March, 1897, and that a principal cause of the excess was the on the Wo i delay in completing the work, which occupied four years instead Departmen of the 18 months provided for in the estimate, this delay being attributed by the Engineer mainly to mismanagement. " I also called for explanations in two cases where the cost fell short of the estimate by a large amomit, viz. : — " Kings way and Aldwych paving and tramway works . . £39,734, or 18 per cent, " Kingsway tramway subway, etc.. Section A .. .. £13,810, or 15 do. both of which works were completed in 1905-6. With reference to these, the Manager reported to the Works Committee that the saving ' is attributable in a great measure to the fact that we have Ijeen able to execute this large piece of work, althovigh referred at different times, with practically one organization and control. We have also been able to take up the work immediately the house- breakers have demolished buildings, in some cases having our men working in the same buildings and on the same areas at the same time as them.' The Committee adds, ' we have also benefited by the general fall, since the estimates were made, in the price of materials.' "It is very easy to attach an undue importance to these comparisons between estimated and actual costs, and it is not necessary to point out tliat the comparison may bo taken qxiite as much as a test of the skill with which the estimate was framed as of the economy with which the work was executed. " These estimates,, prepared by the Arcliitect or Engineer of the Council, are not infrequently spoken of as if they were prepared by officers of the Works Department, and where a work is let to a contractor at a figure lower than such estimate, the difference is apt to be regarded as a saving resulting from the work being executed by a contractor rather than by the Department. But taking the last four years as representing the working of the Department iinder the present management, dating from July, 1902, it would appear from the figures given above that if about 15 per cent, in the case of engineering works and 6^ per cent, in the case of arcliitectural works had been deducted from the estimates of the Council's officers the resulting figiu-cs would, taking one work \\ ith another, have approximated to the actual cost under the Works Department. " Jobbing Works. — I have also been suppUed with copies of the returns for the various j'ears comparing the actual cost of jobbing works Vi'ith what is known'*' as the schedvile value. From these 232 returns I have prepared svunmaries for the last six years, which Mill be found in Schedule ' C The returns for the year ending 31st March, 1907, are not complete, so that some of the works completed in that year are not included in the figures given. " The schedule value is intended to represent the amomit at which an outside contractor could fairly be ex]oected to undertake tlie work with a reasonable margin of profit. Where the work can be measured up and priced from the measurements so that the schedule value is ascertained quite independently of the actual cost, the comparison between the two may be of value as a test both of economical working and accurate estimating. Where, on the contrary, the work is carried out on ' day-work ' lines, and the schedule value is fixed merely by the addition of a per- centage to the actual expenditure by the Department on labour and materials, the comparison appears to lose at any rate a great part of its value, and, as I have suggested below, it is somewhat doubtful whether the labour involved in the pre])aration of such schedule values is justified. " It will be seen from the tables that the average percentages of shortage of cost below schedule value for the six years are — Engineering works. . . . . . . . 6.0 per cent. Architectural works . . . . . . 3.5 do. Hoarding and shoring works . . . . 17. G do. Total of all jobbing works with schedule values . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 do. " If the last four years were taken instead of the last six, there would be a slightly better showing, the percentages being — Engineering works . . . . . . 7.0 per cent. Architectural works . . . . . . 3.6 do. Hoarding and shoring works . . . . 19.6 do. Total of all jobbing works with schedule values . . . . . . . . . . 7.S do. " In my report of March, 1897, I made two observations upon the work entailed in the preparation of the detailed accounts of jobbing works, viz. : — " ' The office work in connection witli the very numerous jobbing works no doubt necessitates a larger staff than would otherwise be required.' " ' The use apparent!}^ made of these estimates of cost of small jobbing works seems hardly to justify the expenditure of the largo annual sum which their preparation entails. The Comptroller ai))icars to think soine modification of this work might be introduced.' 233 " In his report on the accounts for the year ending 31st March, jjj. -^.j^^ 1902, the Comptroller says — house's I '■ . on the W " ' A good deal of expense to the Department is entailed by ^^P*"*^' the preparation of accounts under the jobbing schedules in addition to the cost accounts kept in the books. These schedule accounts, which during the past year numbered 2,685 and ranged in amount from lid. to over £3,000, have no operative vahie, bvit merely serve as a guide to enable a comparison of the cost of each jobbing work to be made with its assumed value, the latter figure purporting to be the esti- mated sum which would have been paid if the work had been carried out by a contractor. I have on more than one occasion called the attention of the late Finance Sub-Committee to this matter, and no doubt the Works Committee will wish to consider it at a convenient date.' " I have had the opi^ortunity of perusing a I'eport of the Comjotroller to the Works Committee dated the 15th February, 1907, together with memoranda thereon by the Manager and the Accountant dated 20th February, 1907. From these it ajDpears that no method of substantially ctirtailing the work which will give satisfaction to the certifying officers, whether engineers or architects, has yet been arrived at. I am informed that the number of sejjarate jobbing accounts on the ledger for the year ending 31st March last was approximately 7,000, and that the increase in the jvork on these accounts explains to a large extent the increase in the salaries paid to the iiccovintant's staff. " Two main suggestions for reducing the laboiu" have been made : — " (1) That a number of similar accounts should be grouped under one order number, so as to decrease the number of sei^arate accoimts carried on the ledger. " (2) That for day-work accounts the certifying officers should accept a total figure of wages paid instead of the present detailed statement under the various trades, subject to the right to require further details if the labour cost appears to them excessive. " It appears to me that these are reasonable suggestions. The whole expenditure must be accounted for under separate heads, but there is no occasion so to multiply these heads as to render the Ust too long for useful criticism, and it should be possible, by introducing a certain amount of elasticity into the system, such as leaving some details over (to be obtained, if required 234 certain accounts, by further analysis) to c\u'tail the labour, and in consequence the cost, without any corresponding loss of usefulness." Companative Costs— Works Department and Contractors. The statement to whicli Mr. Waterhoiise refen-ed has now been published (L.C.C. Eetuvn 1296, 14th October, 1909), and gives particiiUirs of the principal works (£500 and over) executed by the Council between November, 1892 (the date of tlie inception of the Works Department) and September, 1907. ' In the following pages will be found a summary of the totals in this return. In order to see how this entirely disposes of the case for the Works Department it is necessary to bear in mind the folloAving ])oints : — 1. That daring the period covered by the return the Works Department had the pick of the work and co\dd take the most profitable jobs, while the contractors had to take what was left. When the returns are available for the later period during which the Con- ti'actors have tendered on more equal terms the results will be even nioi'e damaging to the Works Department. 2. That during the period 1892 to 1897, when the manipu- lation of accounts took place (the totals for this period are marked (a) ) there was a serious net loss on the working of the Department. 3. That the work done for the Education Department showed a net loss. 4 That the work done for the Asylums Committee showed a net loss. 235 5. That the cost of building work (done under the Architect) shows but a trifling net saving, compared with estimates and certified value. (>. That the only practical savings on the estimates have been effected in respect of Engineering work (mostly large sewerage work) where an ample margin is provided in the estimates for contingencies. 7. That the new sewerage work which, the Council has undertaken is now nearly completed, and therefore it was impossil>le to keep the Department going with the only work which it Avas in any Avay fitted to undertake. 8. That the best result which the Works Department can show on its total operations up to 1907 is a saving of 5.64: per cent, on original estimates, and 3.12 per cent, on certified value ; while in the case of work for which no estimates were prepai'ed there was an excess cost of 7.03 per cent, of the certified value. 9. That the founders of the Works Department pledged it to save the 10 per cent, contractors' profit. 10. That far from there having been any saving of the contractors' profit, the work done by the contt-actors {i.e., work which the Progressives did not care to give to the Works Department) shows a saving in cost compared with estimates quite equal to the saving shown by the Works Department. 11. That in the case of works refused by the Works Department as being unprofitable, contractors have been able to show a net saving on estimates of 4.72 per cent, and 2.03 per cent. 236 O C-i J^'-' f^ "* o _fl (yj o H -fl CO o r/; ^ <^ is hJ e+H O 4i o (7? P CO O u 1— 1 C M <1 H > !«=, H ^ 05 s P^ -tj P W ^ w P 05 " — ' « o 1 !>■ w W H >< W Q W H t> O H ^ W 7) w « 00 CO W5 F-l Oi r- X o © 110 O t- o t- X o CO -b co' ■ co' r^ o CO CO id ©-So I— ^ i-H '1^ ® > o &, '^ 00 > 8 + + 1 1 + 1 1 1 00 ^ CO 00 M £ ® 2 r„- O ^ 1 cc CO CO !>. C-j ^ -H S _^ CO ^ , , ' O 3 '-0 g CO C5 00 o X CO -H o © O 00 00 OJ 00 Ci tH O O o t"^ o q^^ -.o^ CO O -H <>]_ *l + > (3 g c+> o" o" o t-^ofio" t-^ "-"t3 o < (M '^ "M ^ rt rt X © 03 ^—^ > cc o -^ -is -1-3 + + 1 i + 1 1 1 (-(M 05 _^_ T-H lO O <1 I-H Ti ^■r^ 1 cost uncil iding ts pa ther IE © ^O 1 C5 t^ 00 (M LI ^ 1 CO (M CO Ol Ja^§° 00 ^ '^ t 05 lO ■* Oi ^ lO t^ o x_ cft ^^ 5 c+! o" ^ o IC CO CO uo" o »o t^ CO CO o: — 1 -* CO so CO co__ -* rtn t- CO -h" r— r '^'^'^v. ' r- ~ t-H CO O _ «*-! CO (N CO -H lO C^J >0 O CO X o o ■* ■<* lO -* CO ^ CO CO ^^ "^ ^ e ^3, ?3 »o 3 iH CO © ^ S be ^ o © t: o C u 5£:^ 'r-« © © O > 237 ^ -H O -T — H a> rH O 03 — 05 C5 ,_, o o CM X in G5 -* X o Tt<; CO 05 !>• X o o ^' i> CO ti ci d 00 05 00 ■* lO CD lO ci CO Oi ^ CM '"' 1 1 i + + + + + 1 I + 1 1 + 1 ^^"tF" ■* ^ -H Tf( CM t^ CM lO X CM CM ^ 1— 1 1 X X 2 t^ O C5 ^ !>• ■* C5 tr-'CO CO CO CO t> o CI lO I-' C5 C^l ■CO lO O O X ^ lO CO CO O CM CO t-- i—i Tt< tH CO CO ■* o o -t CO Th CC^'-l^ CO rH PH lO rH CI CD -ri CO t-^ ^ CM i-i o 1 1 1 + + + + + 1 + 1 1 + 1 t- 05 ,_l o lO o X !>■ to X CO T)< t^ ■* " X o CO o O rt t- CO lO o CM O LO LO c-q LO CD rH X r-^ CM 1— < '— < '—' '— < 3S ■* -* Oi O CO ^ LO >o CO -t< CO X X 05 1— ( pH ^-> "— ' ■—I r-H '—' '-^ ■—1 CO >o OS CO -tH C-1 lO rH X X 05 CO 05 CD rt CO 05 CM Tt< t^ Tj< C5 1— ( C-1 o -H CO CM C^J t- -h o^ lO C5 LO ^ O i-H r^ I-H 00 rH -* LO CD M cf LO lO ^ CO rH cf X X 1 1 1 + + + + + 1 I + + 1 + 1 iM lO t^ o • -* CD "# X X rH O O — 1 ■-0 X >* C) t- "* l>- 1—t lo ooo-t ■CD t- o ~t< -h T— 1 C^ -* CO X <35 ^ ^ rHCD CO lO O CO rH t- 05 X lO 'J* -* CO O -H LO CO C5 « •-0 X •>* CM '-< OS CO CM t- LO CO >* o -* — < C^ 05 CM 1-H -* lO >o I-H CO ?i"c>" ;::! ;i3 -^ o o lO 1 1 •* CO "H ::! i> -H CO 'iH so CO X CO LO *J ^ Tf LOlO '* CO •-* 1— 1 I— 1 '— 1 '^ •—I rH 00 X CO CO 05 rh X C^l CO CO ^ ai-< -* C^l —1 lO !>■ X CO rt CM rH f—t X o '^ CO X CD ^^ ©_ ^^ Si CO ^^r-^ C-1 'CO lO ^'"l'*^ CO CM ox CO CO "rt< C5 -^ X CO CM 00 ■* lO o o -* F-H rt X Tt* LO uo CM^ CO ^ "i~r~ ~n 1 1 1 c- t- 1 1 CD CO t- -* X - 1 ^ 1 1 1 '^ ;:; 1 1 05 »OI> CM 05 CI t^ o o © O CM CM CO o lO I-I rH OJ 05 CO CO t^ !>. O O t^ (>• CM o CM X 05 05 C^l o t^ CD f— 4 CM >0 t^ T(H CD CD lO X lO 05 CO O X X l> Tjl t^ CO X C^ I-H X C^l c^ Tj< IC T(H PM rH X -* lO CO CO CO IN o CO -H 1-H CO lO T-H >— 1 CM -H -< Tt* C5 o CO >2,tS- 1 o s ^;£, o ^ e ^^ 3 ^^ ***' C -cX) ■^3 .s u +3 -2.2 Officers of Asylums Committee t-l o •4H 6 i • t3 ■^ 02 CO 1-5 H o H 238 c3 ^-fS o CO o (M o ^ o 00 ci 1— i id CO ^' t- Si ii a> (—1 (N -H I-H II 1 1 1 + + + + tS 0) ^ r-jt-«^ m o 1 CO CO r- c a . t! 02 ^2 "3 2^ '"^ I~- -HCO t- CO § § g >C Tt^ o 00 CO QC c^ p_ 0- rJ «5 t^ ■<*' «5 CI t^ o CO ?1 o o 00 CO CO CJ 00 00 la' 00 CO ^TJ C << CO '^ CO a, 0) >cC o v3 1 1 1 + + + + + t^ - Tt^ o o 05 o " 3 '73 03-5 * t- © t-- (M O "* ^ IC Total to Co (inch to o Ci 00 t^ CO Tt< I-- CO c6 «®«l o -^^ NO "^i CR ^ >o ^ w -* cTo OO -* TJH O (N IM CO (N CO t-H S i-H CO CO lO ~f-H lO o cq 1 Tj< ■—I <—{ r- ^ ,• (N «0 00 CD 00 CO C-1 l> 'C ~ _o 03 ,_^ '— ' r-t r-l I-H Is ^"'S ■* CO -* t^ CO CO o C " -H CO TlT CO f-H f-H c CO C — c ^ cc ' ' cs -►-' t; i =*. ;:!, « eo O tH '# 05 CO • 1 c c o £ t^ o ■■^ 00 (S o: a> lo lo- -* I-H =- o ■* (X> co 4> 1 bt) t-^ Tj< CO o t- CO (M -t^ 1 t-^ O t-H o 1—*' r-i id CC 1 O ^ X f-H O ^ o 1 1 + + + 1 _J_ ^ O 00 C5 -^ iO 10 ^ C3 tH M c6 O 1 j^ lo o lo eo CO" O' CO X CO 00 -H 1 1 + + + 1 J 1 • :0 >ti Ci ^ -* 10 !>• T3 -H xl cost oimcil luding tits pai other •ties). 6 • C3 rt t- O -H LO 02 Xh rt ri CO -H 00 O X IC LI fO O —1 X t- CO c3 lO L'5^10 ^ 00 rH_ f-H :rt t> ^^ C-f '* c5 e-r CO ^ XI CO LO (M LO CO '-<^'M ao i-H .— ^ -^--0^35- -t t- ;::; Total ertified alue on npletion 5 . 05 r-( t- -H LO «J rt rt r-H --0 --* X X 10 CO lO ro CO 1— 1 X t- CO 10 10 r— 1 X Tjf ^ '^ > 7^ crt t-^ »0 M -f 0" (m" CO •^ O -* CO CO CI LO o CO ^^ LO O a> ^ " ? "TJ^ 10 "* x^ (M ■^ o o c3 -^ crt CO -<'' t-^ •^ ■rf cf •^ X 10 10 !M 1-- rs '^^'M X^ f-^ r^ ^•111 1 1 1 1 Total of riginal timates. 3 «5 1 2 ' ' iM CO 00 1 1 LO Tt< |^^ CO c^i 10 X ^ iM^ 0^ r- X 01 o tc trt TiT co" oT CO 0" of 10 © t^ ^ JO CJ 10 CO S^J^(N rH ^_ ^ M |l^| - W CO LO -H I-H -t t- L-3 t^ ' r^ i • A • 3 =^ . . fl ,„ • >i • S to 73 _ ^ 2 '"3 * >. 2 Ofticer su wor 1 . -rt -t) •*^ " -*j ^ -, -"3 -C J 0 00 (M — - 0) 1 be tn C8 (» ■<* i-< o: r- ^ 1 M t^ id cc ■*■ ce of cos below (- timates. O ^ CC III 1 1 X 1 r- CO ;c C t. m 'C CO r^ ^ (N t> S W + C c* CO CO o >c C5 O CO I-- o lit j^ (N O o t^ (M ■<# CO Tt* o ce ,-v ~ c O Tt lO r-H O # r-, o • lO ^ lO "" " o ll tal ified e on o j^. o t- >o I> CO I> OC tt' irT O o rt QC Tt< ■<* c: -* r-l CO ^- «:> o 1 1 CO "" _. . -1 t- O 1 r- ^- (N O >0 lO CO , , CO J^ CO IM 05 C^l CO p I' (N O n r- ■ ■ ■ s ■ be o 'Jd : : o 23 : '> ■■;3 c - < o o C o CO ■* CC r-1 r— 1 L~ o -* ^ 00 o C^l CO crt "^ ut . CO CO o cf -* t-^ CO cq o ■"^ '"' t; cc 1 o CO CO 05 1 crt CO ci CO C^l ^- co"^ o CO CO rr "-^ o t^ X XSl p_if '—' fM o CO CO IC CO cq f-1 Crt^. CO CO CO CO co w -T~ 1 w. 00 -< 00 M CO Tj< Ttt f- CO O CO i-t IC -^ _. CO t-^ im" Tji 00* CO* t-^ t-^ -+ ci r^ lO CD ^.-C t ^ t^ lance of co or below or accepte mates. PL c a. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^+±.L + +i 'O CO o CO 02 00 1 CO r^^ X 1 (N CO t^- (M O 05 t^ as t- Tt( 1 CO « . — ' '+2 p— ( r—i 1—1 1— 1 I-H I-H I-H I-H I-H I-H c o t^ LO O Oi O) O CO X o CO o o Ol •"** .p^ lO 00 o: CO t^ a> o t^ O "C CO (M CO (M I-H «C (M r-i C5 ^ 00 ^ ■^ M ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 + + 1 + _,• Tt< ?0 O CO —1 Tt* CO -~" I> O 05 IC 1 -w 13 T3 JP § •« 1- • lO O Ci Tt< Gi f-^ t- I> CO ■ o; r^ »o - CO ■*^ -^ cS '^ CG r-H I-H r-H i|»l « 00 CD (M t- Tj( rH Tfl o CO X X CO I-H T(H >0 Tt< -* 05 CO O X T»< — 1 CO -H o *- c ^ 00 O 00^ 1 -^ lO (M (>) ^^ lO^ rtH^ "f^ "^ 5 fe tfj tIh" t-T CO Cd" 00 LO t^ l—t CO 00 c^f x" 05 O CJ O nC O Tt< ^ CO O CO X I-H IC -* CO tK lO H 3 ?: -le CO CO ^ o_ lO -H rt Oi (M CO TX r; O 6°^ '"' c-f I-H r-< M- 'C 00 CO lo t- 05 ■<*< CO t^ 1 -H 05 lO I-H T5 ^H CE CC "5 CO C5 C5 (M X 1— 1 r- t- ■* (M t^ »0 CO *-5 I-H 1—1 I-H I-H I-H I-H 1-H t; «> (E S rj- OC O (M t- •* -H -^ o CO CO X CO X ^^ ■^ lO ■* "* LO CO lO Tf Ir^ X CO -H CO LO^ 1 ^ 00 • t^ CO Tt< lO crt^.-:,-! co^ CO (M (N X CO r-^^O^O^ (M O w ® t-TtH CD t^ CO CO >0 l> (M lO O M< O ITS lO •* LO O lO CO CO ^ 1^ t^ IM (M r-H o o (M (M ^ ^ 'S ^^ ■^ ^t;^ (I) d • w ■ • 's ^:;5 ^h' X 'a ^ i-H O S£ '■B o • ■«:> ^ '>^ ■*^ 11 4^ IS o •5b r5 3 ^ ^ bl 242 oo t- 00 00 t^ CO >c t- GO (M ,_l ■ — . i 1 CO t- OS lo lO CO ^ t- CO CC 't -^ 1 _ oi --5 oo M d CD ^ 't 1-4 S>j i6 03 ' tJ © -p t- 1 o o IT- CO CO t- o IN CO CO Ji, -'^ -=H cS V3 CO r-^ JS O O, Si 8 .s, J a -o ■^ 00 "^ t- c- LO ■^ lO rH 05 00 00 lO C^ o 1— ) TtH (M t- o lO -S =J g S >o 00 eo 00 Tj< (— ( -* >.o -"t o CO Irt o o o o rh "O iM X CI O r] O rC OJ lO ^ T^ LO C^l t> o f^ g a o (N t-- O cS lO O t- _J U'J O 05 t- 1 T)< 1 rt t- CD '•^ rH © y3 • O IC t- 00 CI o P.H TtH rH CO a> ■■£ 6 72 '"' ■"* '-' rH rH © s -* iM 00 ^ ^ M IC CO Tt4 IC o tH «^ r-l 00 lO o ac X t- CO CO (M 00 M -* ^ r-H o CO^Tl^^ X iM 1 ^ trt -00 o <© o -* 't<"c^f CO TtH p-H lo -* r— 1 o C^l t- o '-' C^ 00 rfl CO t^ 1 1 1 -H 1 '^-l 3 '^ CO ,/ '-' 1 i ^ 1 1 1 > >1 CO 3 . is © * ^ Pm © O §3 © S6 © H o © © O H o © .'^ s 5fi •2, ',2 " "3 O O o o > -aj 243 Total balance of cost aliove ( + ) or below { — ) estiinatoa. Per- centage. 7 — 9.60 - "4.51 : -o o Total cost to Council (including annomits paid to other i)arties). 5 £ s. d. 122,577 17 2 321,966 13 8 130,485 13 9 o CO 1 t- 1— 1 lO o 00 lO (M to o CO l-H CO 00 24,112 14 3 12,302 10 6 05 CO eo Total certified value. 4 £ s. d. 134,917 18 11 321,966 13 8 130,485 13 9 o o CO 00 1 t-. >c o 00 o o CO CO 00 o 23,743 16 5 12,302 10 l-H o eo Total of Estimates. 3 £ s. d. 135,594 - - 136,652* 15 3 CO ' 1 1 1 1 05 CO o o l-H !>• 1 1 (N O OO o CO No. of works. 2 O 00 o CO 1—1 .-H UO "CO Officer. i i-H Architect (a) (6) (c) U ® g "Eb H .2 '-i3 o 13 o 244 !zi ■91 o Q K CO -«) m M o M O o CO ^^.^ p o -p 1 W) . . "*' 1 CO '^ ® ^J t- , r-H 1 9.^ Ph d 8 + °'® §^ -d :^ s ^ . cS O 00 lO -- ^■^ =0 s C*^ °i o r-H CO Tji 00 05 '"' — , cS »5 C; 1 SB '^ ; ; CO i H (M °i ©q e» (N > i-j 00 -u (H t ^^-t O O J6 CD (H o o H se "a :a o t> o Oi5 CI t3 >< 3 0) 'n >< u 0) o Ti > fl >> ^ 245 Abolition of the Works Department. On Marcli 17tli, 1908, the Council instructed the General Purposes Committee to consider and to report on the work and financial position of the Works Department, and that Committee on 28th July, 1908, submitted a long report upon the Works Department, and recommended : — (a) That the Works Department be discontinued. (b) That it be referred to the General Purposes Committee to consider and report as to the steps necessary to give effect to resohition (a). After a long debate, in which the Progressives tried every possible method of obstruction, these recommendations we?re agreed to. It was understood that the practice of allowing the various Committees to undertake jobbiug works under the supervision of the chief officers would be continued. On December 1st, 1908, the General Purposes Committee recommeuded that the premises occupied by the Works Depart- ment be transferred, as surplus property, to the Improvements Committee from January 1st, 1909, with the proviso that the Works Department may occupy the premises, subject to one month's notice, until such later date as the committee con- trolling that department may require ; that the Works Committee be authorised to arrange for the disposal of the plant and stock of the Works Department, and that it be referred to the General Purposes Committee to submit amendments, necessitated by the discontinuance of the Woi'ks Department, of the standing orders, and of the references to committees, such amendments to provide for the execution by direct employment of labour under the direct supervision of the executive officer concerned of works which it may be desirable to carry out by his method. This was approved. The Winding up. The winding up of this wasteful Department has not been by any means a simple matter. There were loans outstanding 246 in resj^ect of land and buildings, and tliere was a large amount of plant, stores, material, etc., etc., to be disposed of. On March 23rd, 1909, the Finance Committee recom- mended : — (a) That the operation of Standing Orders Nos. 161 and 162 be suspended in order that the following recommendation (6) may be dealt with : — (6) That application be made in the session of Parliament of 1909 for authority to enable the Council, notwith- standing the provisions of Section 27 of the Metropolitan Board of Works Loans Act, 1869, to defray, out of any surplus aiising from the sale or transfer of proj^erty acqviired for the purposes of the Works Department out of money raised by loan after paying off the amount of debt outstanding thereon, any deficit arising from the sale of plant, materials and other items, the purchase of which was defrayed out of advances from the general county account. The Progressives offered violent opposition to these recom- mendations, and protested against any sale of land, but Mr. Hayes Fisher (the Chairman of the Finance Committee) fully exposed the hollowness of their opposition. He said : — " I would like the Cotuicil to iinderstand that this proposal does not in any way bind the Council to sell that particular piece of property. All it does do is to enable the Council if this propertj' is so sold or transferred to treat the proceeds as part of the wliole account which has to be liquidated in connection with the breaking up of the Works Department. That is the position. After all it may not be ad\'isable' to sell, but supposing it be advisable to sell, that must be a definite proposal coming from the Improve- ments Committee, to whom this property has to be transferred. Then will be the oi^portunity for this Council to debate any proposal for the sale of any {irojoerty whicli may be brought forward. I am only too deUghted to feel that this projoerty is increasing in value, but I would point out that all property bought by the County Council does not increase in value. At Battersea proiiertj' cost £9,198 and j'et the valuer only transferred it to the Highways Committee at a valuation of £8,500, so that that appeared to be a purchase bj-^ the Council wliich had not upheld the original price at which it was bought. I hope it is very different with the Belvedere Road site. I should like Sir John Benn to say what is to be the future of the wharf. Is it to be retained by the County Council and used by the County Council ? If it is retained and not used then obviously there is interest running on the property which 247 would mean an outlay of something like £1,000 a year. If it is not used that will make it a bad bargain for the Council. If on the other hand it is kept and used, it must be used by one com- mittee or another, and then it will be transferred by the Improve- ments Committee to the committee which is going to make use of it. If it is so transferred then any price of that transfer should bo treated as part of the whole matter we are now liquidating." Sir George Groldie (M.R.) iu the course of the same debate (March 23rd, 1909) said :— "The question before us is simply that of applying to Parliament to set to the side of certain accounts any surplus which may arise from the sale or transfer of land which has been occupied by the Works Department. I think that any member who has read the report which comes before the recommendations will note that one very important transsier is contemplated. It is proposed to transfer a piece of land from the old Works Department to the Highways Committee; so that it is not necessarily a question of selling land which has been occupied by the Works Department. ' But suppose it were a question of sale. Suppose the whole of the land used by the Works Department should be sold ? If so, there would be nothing irregular in such a transaction. I understand that this land was bought for the purpose of the Works Department, and this is not land held by the Council since 1859. It is land which the Works Department have been utilising and land bought specially for them, and I can imagine nothing more proper from the ordinary business point of view than that when th department comes into liquidation the whole of estate should be liquidated together. Whether it be land, or buildings, or machinery, or stock, or books, or whatever it be, the whole lic|uidation should be conducted as one single operation." The recommenJations were eventually carried, and application was made to Parliament. But the Treasury intervened on behalf of the Progressives. When the L.C.C. (Money) Bill, 1909, came before the Committee of the House of Commons on Unopposed Bills on July 1st, 1909, it was announced that the Treasury had reported in opposition to Clause 23, which would empower the Council 248 to apply tlie surplus arising from the sale of lands and other real properoy connected with the late Works Department, after meeting the moneys due to the Consolidated Loans Fund, towards meeting any deficiency that may occur between the sum realised by the sale of the stores, materials, and plant of the department and the sum advanced for their purchase from the General County Account. Mr. J. S. Bradbury, of the Treasury, refused to accept a proviso that such i:»owers should not be exercised without the sanction and approval of the Treasury, and the Committee adjouimed the consideration of the Bill for a week to give the promoters time to amend their pi-oposals. On the 8th July, 1909, Mr. C. E. C. Browne, on behalf of the Council, submitted a new clause to provide that the whole proceeds of the sale of lauds, property, plant, stores, and materials used in connection with the late Works Department, should be taken as one sum and disposed of (1) in carrying to the Consolidated Loans Fund the sum necessary to discharge the debt outstanding on moneys raised by the issue of Consolidated Stock for the purposes of the department ; and (2) in repaying to the general county account of the county fund the amount outstanding in respect of moneys advanced from that account for the purposes of the department. Mr. J. S. Bradbury, on behalf of the Treasury, said that the new clause did not touch the main point of the Treasury's criticism that the proceeds of the sale of anything, being part of the permanent projierty of the municipality, which had been purchased out of rates or out of loans, ought to be carried to the redemption of debt. The Committee ultimately resolved, by a majority, that they could not give the County Council the powers asked for, and the clause was struck out of the Bill. 249 Lessons frotn the Provinces. In deciding to abolish the Works Department, the Municipal Reformers on the L.C.C. were strengthened by the knowledge that all the other large municipalities in the country had refused to adopt, or had definitely abandoned, this Municipal fad. When the abolition of the Works Department was under discussion at a meeting of the L.C.C, on 28th July, 1908, the Hon. W. R. Peel (M.R.) said :— " We are not the only people who know anything about municipal government in London, but we often forget there are many other municii^alities all over the country which have gained as large an experience as London itself. If there was a danger of contractors' rings it would be infinitely more likely to take place in the smaller municipalities than in the larger ones. In London the forces of competition are likely to be far greater than in the smaller muni- cipal areas where there is more chance of combination amongst contractors. We find two things, not only that there is no other works department in the country except our own, but the evidence is even stronger, because we find that some municipalities actually tried these works departments and have given them up. " West Ham, Sheffield and Huddersfield — they tried these works departraents and they have given them up. Now what is the charge ? They say you are going to hand things over to a cbntractor and are going to injure the workmen of London if you abolish the Works Department. Let us reflect a moment — that is not a charge brought against London alone, but a charge against municipalities all over the country. Are you going to assume that the municii^alities all over the country are governed by Municipal Reformers ? Of com-se, it is not so. Although you have a good many bodies with working men members and representatives of labour there, what did Manchester do ? They refused to have -a Works Deisartment. (Note, by 69 votes to 10.) I have got here the evidence for Bradford. I never heard that the Bradford Municipal Council was supposed to be a Municipal Reform body, and yet what did they do. They looked into the whole thing, appointed a special committee, examined the London Works Department, and they said : ' We are compelled to report we do not consider it advisable to establish a Works Department in Bradford and we do not want such a department.' Is it possible that this Council attaches so much weight to this 250 contention that we in London are going to put ourselves in for a works department when no other mimicipal body in the country has estabKshed a works department ? " At the end of the year 1907, the Leeds Master Builders' Association presented a highly significant report to the Leeds CorjDoration, from which we extract the following : — " The Association most gi'atefully acknowledge your kindness in permitting them to briefly and personally lay before you facts and arguments in support of tlie memorial which was lodged by them last month in favom- of the abolition of the Corporation's Works Department. " With respect to the quality of the woi'k done, it lias not been and cannot be contended that works carried out by emj^loyees of the Corijoration are better than works carried out by private con- tractors. Under both naethods it must be generally admitted many works ha'/e been executed which are structurally sound and substantially and well built. " There are many instances, however, in which works carried out by Corporation emploj'ees have been unduly slow, involving considerable inconvenience and increased exiaense. The Hudders- field reservoir was estimated to cost £150,000, but after works had been carried on for four years by direct labour at a cost of nearly £300,000, thej- were found to be neither satisfactory nor watertight. The completion of the works was let to a contractor for £78,000, and these were executed to the full satisfaction of the Corporation within a period of two years. . . . " Another argument which is often advanced in favour of the Works Departments is that these afford higher pay and shorter hoiu-s of labour for workmen. It is apparent, however, that they cannot create more work or find greater employment, and the only difference, therefore, is one of employer. Both the Corporation and contractors are equally bound to i^ay the standard rate of wages and to observe the conditions of labour mvitually agreed upon between masters and men in the locality where the work is performed. . . . " On the other hand, it was freely admitted in Manchester that the ]irincipal reason fgr the increased cost of municipal work as against private contract was that the Corporation workmen had not done their simple duty and that the work had been shirked. In London, the advocates of municipal trading have had to make frequent appeals to the workmen to do an honest day's work for an honest daj^'s j^ay. '' 251 " Another argument used for the estabUshment of Works Departments is that they save the contractor's profit. That this is a coniplete travesty of the actual facts is abundanth^ testified by the experience of Works Departments in all parts of the country. In Sheffield, the Works Department has been abandoned. In Manchester, the official report admitted that the cost of excavating work, carried out by the regular staff, averages 156.83 per cent, more than contract work. Labour leaders in Manchester were bound to admit the fact tliat public work done by the Corporation worknien cost, in some cases, three times as much as similar work done by private contractors. Work carried out by a Salford firm for Is. 6d. per cubic foot, cost the ratepayers no less than 4s. 9d. when done by Corporation men. This experience has obtained in other parts of the country." References were also made in this report to the failure of the Works Department in London. Works Completed by the Department subsequent to 30th September, 1908. The L.C.C. Agenda for December 21st, 1909, contains (page 9 et seq.), a Report from the General Purposes Com- mittee. This Report contains a statement of works com- pleted by the Works Department subsequent to 30th September, 1908. Space prevents our reprinting this Report, for which purpose reference miist be made to the Agenda in question. This report the Progressives have attempted to make use of as vindicating the success of the Works Department. How utterly devoid of justification is such a contention is shown in the following letter, dated December 20th, 1909, from Mr. W. G. Towler, Secretary of the London Municipal Society, wliich appeared at the time in the London Press : — " Sonie comment has been made by the Press upon the last Six Monthly Return of the L.C.C. Works Department, which shows that whereas upon architectural works the department has exceeded estimates bj' £13-,067 or nearlj'- 6 per cent., there has been a saving on engineering or underground works of £133,150, or over 15 per cent. 262 "It is argued that the latter ' saving,' namely, £133,150, shows that London benefits by the Works Department to a larger extent than if the work were given to a contractor. " However, this is not the case. On engineering works under- taken by contractors the estimates were £770,747, and the work was carried out by the contractors for £584,902, or a saving of £185,845, which is very nearly 25 per cent, below the engineer's estimates. " From these figures it will be seen that on engineering works the saving to the L.C.C. is 10 per cent, more when it is done by a contractor than when it is done by the Works Department. " To those unacquainted with the nature of the work performed, the vast difference between the engineer's estimates and the actual cost of the work may seem to be due to bad estimating. The difference arises, however, mainly from the large percentage which is allowed for vmknown ri'iks likely to be met with in driving sev.'ers and other underground work." Effect of Abandonment on Labour. In order to make as much parU^ capital as possible, the Progressives are spreading abroad most un scrupulous reports about men being thrown out of employment by the closing down of the Works Department. The chief reason for closiug the Department was that the amount of work which the Council, could give to it, did not justify the heavy establishment charges. The available amount of work had been gradually diminishing every year, even before the Progressives went out of office. What the Progressives really suggest, therefore, is that the present Council should have put in hand uunecessai'y work simply for the purpose of keejiing a wasteful Woi'ks Department alive. On this point Mr. E. White, ex-Chairman of the Works Committee, speaking at Caxton Hall on October 13th, 1909, said — " There is just the same amount of work be ingdone for the Council as would have been done if we had continued the department. There is more in this respect, because the jobbing work is not all going to the contractors on 253 schedule, but only so much as it is thought desirable should go to them. The Committees of the Council, in the last completed year, executed £134,000 of work by direct employment of their own men under their OAvn officers, and probably they will do more in the future. The Works Department did about £40,000, but the Committees do two or three times as much, and always prefer to do it themselves, because the results are so much more satisfactory and because they escape their share of the .£35,000 management expenses. " As regards ,the permanent staff, I am glad to say that up to the present time, with the exception of the Assistant Manager, all the men, except the temporary clei'ks who were only taken on week by week, have been absorbed by other departments of the Council. I am now doing the best I can, and I hope to be successful with the few remaining who are winding up the concern. I should be very sorry indeed, if, after many years' continuous service the men who came to us should be turned adrift. The Council has shown a very sympathetic attitude towards them, and they have been drafted to other depart- ments. There are very few left now, and I hope before the close of our year, namely March, 1910, that all the men who are still in our department will have finished what has to be done and will be drafted into some other branch of the Council's service." In answer to a question as to whether the wages and conditions of labour of the men employed, were the same as those of men engaged outside, Mr. White said: — "There was not the slightest diiference. The Council never paid more wages than the sum agreed upon between the repre- sentatives of employers and the representatives of the workmen. If any change was desired by the men working for us, all that we did was immediately to apply to the Master Builders' Association, in Bedford Street, to know what had been the figure agreed upon on both sides. When we ascertained that, we communicated it to the workmen or to their represen- 254 tatives. Therefore we never paid them more, or gave them better conditions, or different hours, or better wages, than those which were current in the trade." The Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Council for the year ended 31st March, 1908, contains the following information regarding the Staff employed by the Works Department : — - " Tlie professional and clerical staff of the Works Department employed at the Central Works on 31st March, 1907, and exclusive of those engaged on certain large construction works, numbered 72, of whom 38 were in the works branch, and 34, including two travelling time inspectors, in the accounts branch. In addition, at the end of that year 22 temporary assistants were employed. In consequence of the diminution in the amount of work in hand, referred to above, the staff was, during the year under review, considerably reduced, and on 31st March, 1908, numbered 58, viz., 29 in the works branch and 29 in the accomits branch. In addition 7 temporary assistants were employed. The amount ])aid in salaries to the staff during the year 1907-8 was £13,805 17s. Id. as compared with £14,8-47 19s. 9d. in the preceding year. "The average number of workmen emploj-ed, including all branches of the building and allied trades, was 2,330 a week, as compared with 3,137 in the previous year, and wages as follows have been paid during the year : — £ s. d: 213,485 19 4,105 10 Total amomit jiaid in wages Average amount paid in wages each week Largest amount paid in wages in any one week 4,810 13 4 Smallest amount paid in wages in any one week Amoimt paid in wages in first week of year Amount paid in wages in last week of year N.B. — The special efforts made by the Municipal Reformers to secure trade union conditions for workmen and London work for London men, and to provide work for the unemployed, are detailed under the heading " The Municipal Reformers and Labour."] 2,339 7 3,150 4 1 3,852 18 9" POWERS AND DUTIES OF CENTRAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES. Progressive Plot to Destroy Local Governnnent. Just before the last L.C.C. elections the Progressives were engaged in hatching a plot to turn the existing system of London government upside down, and to concentrate all power in the hands of the London County Council. They had enjoyed unfettered control of the London County Council for a long period, and they hoped to gain similar control of the whole system of London government by making that body dominant overall tjie other local authorities. If the Progressives had been successful at the elections in March, 1907, that plan would no doubt, have been carried out before now. But they were not successful, and the Municipal Reform Party have been able to frustrate their " wrecking " policy. But the Progressives still hope to regain their lost influence, and have been quietly developing their scheme during the three years in Avhich they have been in opposition. The abolition of ^ the Borough Councils would mean the neglect of local wants and the centralisation of London govera- ment. Officialism would become still more rampant, and instead of being governed by their own elected representatives, the people of London would be under the rale of paid officials. Unless the ratepayers at the coming L.C.C. elections (1910) 256 crush this attempt to stifle the free expression of public opinion, they will lose the privilege of having a voice in the management of their own affairs, and will be instrumeTital in placing London under the absolute control of a bureaucracy. Report of the Royal Commission, 1894. Before showing how the Progressives, during the past three years, have been trying to influence a Liberal Grovernment to override the wishes of the electors of London, it will be interesting to give a short historical summary showing the development of London government. A Eoyal Commission was appointed by the Radical Govern- ment, which was in office between 1892 and 1895, to consider the amalgamation of the City and the County of London. The Report of this Commission was issued on September 29th, 1894, as a Blue Book (Cd. 7,493 of 1894). The Report dealt with the relation of central to local government, and stated that " a consideration of the evidence we have received confirms tha opinion suggested by the course of previous inquiries and of legislation — or, in other words, by the historic development of the Metropolis — that the goveriiment 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 within the local areas which collectively make up London, the central body and the 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 responsi- bility to every member of the system " (para. 22). Since this double aspect of unity and separability has been accorded general acceptance, " any controversy that remains," said the Report, "turns upon the partition of powers between this central and these local bodies." 257 The principle laid down in the Report was this: *' We think it important, for the sake of the dignity and usefulness 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 thrown upon the central body that can be equally well performed by the local authorities" (para. 106). This was the policy embodied by the Unionist Grovernment in the London Government Act, 1899, which brought the Borough Councils into existence. As the Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P., speaking at Birmingham on November 23rd, 1897, said : — " We hope to complete, according to the original intention, the municipal organisation of London. The London County Council was created by a Conservative Grovernment But the County Council of London, even if it were composed entirely of archangels, would l)e unable to deal with the municipal details of that vast constituency. Why, the very essence and value of municipal government is that it is near to the People, that it is in close touch with them, that you know who your representatives are, and that they know what your wants and your requirements are ; and that is impossible as long as one body sitting in a central place pretends to deal, let us say, with the drainage of every house of five millions of people. And therefore it is absolutely necessary, and it was always intended, that, while the County Council should deal with matters which are common to the whole of the Metropolitan area, separate municipalities should be created for the separate towns which go to form the great cities of London. There is no necessity why these municipal privileges should be forced upon any one of these towns, but for the life of me I cannot see why Westminster, why Islington, why Kensington— all of them places as large, or nearly as large, as Birmingham— should not, if they 25S wish, have the right to apply for, and the right to receive the same municipal privileges as we enjoy. I am quite certain tliat until tliey get theui the health and the comfort and the enjoyment of the people of London will not be properly cared for." — The Times, November 24th, 1897. 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" (i^ai'a. 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, 1899. The London Government Act of 1899, passed at the instance of a Unionist Government, established the Borough Councils, transferred certain powers from the London County Council to the Boroughs, and provided machinerj' for a future transfer of duties when rendered necessary by the overburdened state of the central body. The following summary of the provisions of this Act, by means of which the Unionist Government have given the Metropolis a complete system of municipal government on the basis of popular representation, is comi:)iled from an article in The Times of October 13th, 1899, by the Editor of " Chitty's Statutes of Practical Utility." The Boroughs. The Act divides the whole of the administrative County of London, exclusive of the City, into 28 boroughs, as substitutes for nearly 100 vestries and other boards, naming as "areas which are to be boroughs " 15 whole parishes and 13 composite ai*eas. 259 The Councils. For each of the boroughs so formed, an Order in Council establishes a separate Council, consisting of a mayor, aldermen, and councillors. The number of .aldermen is one-sixth of the number of councillors, the total number of aldermen and coun- cillors in no case exceeding 70. Powers of Borough Councils. All powers, duties, projierty, and liability of each existing vestry and district board ai*e transferred to the Council of the borough comprising the area within the jurisdiction of such vestry and district board, the Borough Councils succeeding such vestries and boards just as the County Council succeeded the Metropolitan Board of Works. There are transferred the powers of the County Council as to the licensing wooden struc- tures and removal of unauthorised sky-signs and of street obstructions, and as to registering dairymen; and the Borough Councils obtain jurisdiction as to the demolition of buildings erected and pioceedings in respect of timber stacked in contra- vention of the Building Act, as to procuring traffic facilities by order of the Railway and Canal Commission from railway or canal companies, as to acquiring land, and as to making by-laws for the good rule and government of the borough and for the prevention and suppression of nuisances not already punishable in a summary way by statute throughout the borough. Main roads and roadways of bridges also come under the manage- ment of the Councils, and the power to stoj) up streets taken over fx'om the vestries does not requii'e the sanction of the County Council. The Borough Councils also have wide powers under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. A most important power is that of pi'omoting and opposing Bills in Parliament and of prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings, when necessary, in the general interests of the borough. Section 5, Subsection 3, of the Act of 1899, enacts that: I 2 260 " 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 trans- ferring 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 " The Act of 1899 also simplified the complicated rating systems of the Metropolis by providing that the expenses of a Borough Council are to be met out of one General Hate. The Progressives called this great measui'e of representative govern- ment, "The attack upon the London County Council." The untruth of such statements is evidenced by the fact that it was the Conservative and Unionist Party who brought about the reform of local government in 1888, not only in liondon, but throughout the whole of England and Wales, and who subsequently extended it to Ireland, in the year 1898. Loudon government is the creation of the Unionist Party, to whom belongs the entire credit of it. Radical Approval of the Act of 1899. The Act of 1899 was in no way carried by Party pressuie, but met with approbation from both political Parties. On July 14th, 1899, London, the Radical and Progressive organ stated : — - ''.... This reform, with the important changes made in it during its passage through Parliament, makes a great advance. It will make for better local government. It will add new dignities to municipal life. The unity of local administration which will follow will be welcomed. The reduction in the number of members will lead to more business-like proceedings. The amalgamation of the smaller areas will end petty parochialism, with all its little scandals and personalities. The objectionable 261 elemftuts about vestrydom whicli have led local government in London to be misundez'stood will disappear with the boroughs. ..." In the House of Lords, on the second reading of the Bill, June 20th, 1899, the late Earl of Kimberley, the leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Lords, said : — " I have little fault to find with the Bill. ... As a whole the Bill is one of great moment to the inhabitants of the Metropolis. It is not an heroic measure, and may not seem to be of such great importance as some of the far-stretching political measures with which we have to deal ; but as regards the individual comfort of the inhabitants of this vast Metropolis, few Bills are of more importance than that now submitted to the consideration of your Lordships." — The Times, June 21st, 1899. Reasons in favour of the Maintenance of the Borough Councils. Since the Borough Councils were constituted by the London Government Act, 1899, they have shown a natural desire to carry out all duties in their own boroughs which are of a local as distinct from a central character. It is also important from another point of view that this should be done: the London 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, tli3 Royal Commission which investigated the conditions of London government, expressly reported, in 1894, to that effect. Whilst retaining central duties or those common to the wliole of the Metropolis, such as main drainage, tire brigade, parks, &c,, to the County Council, the Commissioners 262 C -1^ g •2 S (I) tH S ,15 c; Si fe S £ C' - ■^ XT. 0- y- '-*^ c .^ c o o ^ s ,^ F-^ ■^ c S O o i>j * O .2 •rt E fi > t^ S? 1-^ =? -S P o ^' c p o o c >> .2 K- V Ti C3 P-l II -^ ^ -^ S o s'S e- '^ u o dicat admi City, Lond o o g .2 ^ QD o 263 ■3 C8 3. buildi tructur house ng, &c. SV.3 Oao O •3 r- >» . ■T'.aii e a O es a service ^^ Iiistered with by the C on Corporatio S5^ "o i'li'g 31-^ S o tsloHl 264 bi) W) iii ■- .S bi o O) -iS o C3 ft O cS E £t3 OS K t, 2 t^ ."2 ~ o II O 2 vx ® c > E o Hi ■~ 3 . • I m"^ ^ p cS ^ i" O '-' =« M « ° ! -a 0= C m S rt tad .-S cj 1^.3 TO .^ O) "-^ C 265 weat 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. No doubt it was rightly thought that in order to attract men of good standing to the service of the new muni- cipalities, it would be both politic and natural that further powers should be conferred upon the Borough Councils. Yet, in spite of this testimony, the Progressive majority on the County Council have always exhibited a jealousy and distrust of the Borough Councils. 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 London County Council, and yet these latter affect a lofty and superior air whenever a question as to Avhich authority should undertake certain work has to be determined. It is not too much to say that nearly all the Borough Councils have, not without reason, felt resentment at some time or other at the manner in which the London 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. It is only fair to say that the Municipal Reformers, during their three years of office, have managed to bring about a better understanding between the central and local authorities, and, as we shall show later, in defining their policy, they are pledged to a more businesslike distribution of powers and duties as soon as it is practicable. 266 The table given on the preceding pages will show how wide a field of work there is both for the central and local governing authorities of this great city. Genesis of the Progressive Scheme- Captain Hemphill on enlarged Powers for the L.C.C. In the Daily Chronicle of July 31st, 1906, Captain the Hon. F. Hemphill, L.C.C, the then Progressive Chairman of the Highways Committee, and one of the leaders of that Party, first outlined the Progressive scheme for a greater London with centralised control. The following extract from the article will explain its scope : — " There seem to be tAvo ways by which the necessary reform may be effected. The first is. to retain the present area of the County of London and the Borough Councils, with the London County Council, doing away with all other authorities, and improving the centralisation of the work, so as to make the County Council the body which would equalise and control the administration all over London. " The second plan, which is probably the preferable, is to enlarge the London County Council so that it practically becomes a new body altogether, and to extend the area of the County of London, so that it includes roughly an area of fifteen miles' radius from Charing Cross. " The precise area," says Captain Hemphill, " is a little difficult to fix," but Greater London is suitable. " This ai-ea is defined in general terms as containing every parish the whole of which is within fifteen miles of Charing Cross, or any portion of which is within twelve miles of Charing Cross, and covers 692-84 square miles. " The functions of the new Council would be to deal with all matters connected with its area, and to carry out the duties performed by the 72 bodies which it would supersede within the County of London, and of those bodies whose place it would 267 take iu Outer London. A Council of this size and importance would have many powers entrusted to it which the Houses of Parliament now exercise. If legislative powers iu local affairs are to be granted to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the London area, in view of its poj)ulation and wealth, will have at least equal claims to consideration. *' The number of this Council should be from 300 to 350. . . . It is probably desirable to disturb the present electoral divisions as little as possible. Therefore, in the County of London the present County Council divisions might be retained, and in Outer London either some present divisions might be used or the Parliamentary divisions might each furnish two Council divisions. " If County Council electoral areas under 12,000 electors have, as at present, two members, electoral areas with 12,000 electors or over have four members, and electoral areas over 19,000 electors six members each, this would give 180 members for the County of London. One hundred members might be added for Outer London, which would be rather more than its share on the basis of population, but, having in view its much larger extent and probable increase of population, would be a fair proj^ortion. Then twenty members from outside might be elected by the Council on the ground that they would be useful from their knowledge of special subjects or otherwise. For the same reasons, in the same manner, twenty women might be elected by the Council, which would bring the nxxmber up to 320. The number might be increased to 350, as the area of Outer London became more densely popiilated. "Beanches of the Council. *' The London Council would no doubt follow the example of the London County Council, and work by committees, which would report to the whole Council and be fully under its control. "... In addition to the central administration, it would be necessary to secure local administration and control. The 268 areas for local administration should not be too large, and would probably be best formed by grouping from three to six Council electoral areas together as a unit. For each of these districts there should be a district committee, which would consist of the members of the Council for the district, together with an equal number of representatives elected at the same time as the Council members by the same electoi'ate, with, if it is thought desirable to increase the number, a few members elected by the London Council. " These district committees would be committees of the London Council, and while lai-ge local powers might be delegated to them, and could safely be entrusted to them, their decisiors on important points would be subject to confirmation by the Council. A great deal of the work of the main committees would be worked out and localised by the district committees. " Whatever may be the system eventually decided upon for the reform of Loudon government, two things are essential : (1) that it should be done quickly, and (2) that it should be con- ceived upon a broad and statesmanlike plan. Local govern- ment in London is in a state of chaos and confusion. London has suffered from parochial administration long enough. Sheltered behind vestrydom and parochialism lie all those whose inter- ests it is to make money for themselves and who do not regard the benefit of the community at all. Fi-om these comes the demand of company promoters and financiers to lease every department of municipal work that they may make a profit, not only for the profit, but in order that by curious transactions of finance and company promoting they may make an excessive profit, to the loss and disadvantage of the public." Mn. Sidney Webb, L.C.C., on the Revolution in Local Government. " Mr. Sidney Webb, L.C.C., lecturing on October 7th, 1906, at the Hatcham Liberal Club on ' The Coming Revolution in London Government,' advocated the extension of the boundaries 269 of the area of the administrative County of London, and an increase in the number of its members. One of the reasons for urgency in the unification of the Metropolis was, stated Mr. Webb the need for the equalisation of the rates. This central body» he contended, should take control of all matters of London government, including the relief of the poor, the carry- ing on of the business of the port of London, and London traffic. He mentioned, too, the necessity for centralising the administration of the hospitals. With the larger central body there would have to go a large scheme of" devolution to local l)odies, and to bodies appointed with large powers to deal with special subjects — but the central body must be the creature of the electors of the larger Loudon, responsible to them directly and always in their sight. " Touching upon Poor Law administration, Mr. Webb said that what had happened in connection with some of the Boards of Guardians liad led people in other parts of London to the conclusion that they could not trust them Avith their money. He was sure that it was politically impossible to extract money from the West End for districts like Poplar, for instance, which, rightly or wi-ongly, had achieved a reputation for not managing their aflraii's as well as they might. It was not possible to continue much longer the thirty-one Boards of Guardians which at present existed in London — the situation was im- possible. He laid great stress on public control, and as the people of London did not vote at elections for Guardians the Guardians were not under effective control. It was, no doubt, Loudon's own fault that at the last election of Guardians not one-tenth of the electorate voted, but the fact remained that the Guardians were not representative. Further, the areas of the existing unions were not large enough in face of the fact that quite a number of different institutions had to be provided for the poor, and for every union to provide every one of them was unnecessarily extravagant. The Guardians had got to go. Poplar had been very unfairly treated by public opinion. 270 not because it was not open to criticism, but because people supposed that Poplar was the only sinner, or the greatest sinner, whereas if his information were correct there were other Boards of Guardians as bad as that of Poplar. Poor Law adminis- tration was destined to become part of ordinary municipal work — it was all one business of the management of institutions. It was not necessary to have all the apparatus of a Board of Guardians merely to discover the circumstances of the cases that came up for relief, and he thought the best thing would be to have the classification done by a competent officer, the question of whether the relief should be outdoor or indoor being left to the local body."— T/te Morning Post, October 8th, 1906. Progress of the Progressive Conspiracy- Early in 1907 a Special Committee was appointed by the London Reform Union (the Central Organisation of the Progressive Party) to consider and to report on the question of the Reform of London Government. Undeterred by the result of the municipal elections in that year this Committee continued its labours, and issued its report and recommenda- tions early in the year 1908. The London Reform Union issued this report in the form of a pamphlet entitled, " London To-day and To-morrow," which may be taken as an authoritative declaration of Progressive policy, although, as we shall see later, that policy is still undergoing a process of development. The report tells us that : — •' For 15 out of the 19 years, the party known as the Progressive Party, has been in power at S^^ring Gardens, and for three years (1895-98) in divided power." And then comes the following highly significant admission: — " One fact stands out conspicuously from the experience of the last twenty years ; that London administration — if the life of London is to be lived decently and healthily — is now far too costly and too complicated " 271 This little slip gives the case away for those who claim to have been I'esponsible for London administration during so many years. Equalisation and Central Control. The following is taken from the chapter in the report dealing with equalisation : — " The whole sum raised in rates by all authorities, central and local, in London is about £15,000,000 a year, of which £11,000,000, or nearly three-quarters, are raised uniformly over all London. But notwithstanding this fact the inequalities in rating as between one district and another are still very great, and it is universally acknowledged that there is pressing need for further equalisation. But it is clearly impossible for those representing the central purse to hand over still more money to the local bodies unless the change is combined with some scheme under which the interests of the central ratepayers are safeguarded. At present there is in reality no safeguard. The only central body that has anything to say to any part of this expenditure is the Local Government Board, and its power of control is limited to poor law and is in practice almost nil. Moreover, a Government department cannot represent the London ratepayers as a whole, and we hold that the control, if any, should be in the hands of a representative body responsible directly to those whose money it receives. " It seems, therefore, that any change in London government must be accompanied with financial arrangements wliich will enable the whole, or at any rate the greater part of the money required for purposes of local administration, to be raised by the Central Coimcil and paid over to the local authorities under conditions which will ensure that the money so handed over is properly and economically expended. " This will best be accomplished by putting an end to the various equalisation fmids and instituting one special metropolitan rate providing for the local expenditui'e of the borough councils. This rate should be levied by the Central Council upon annual budgets submitted to it by the borough councils. The Central Council should have power (subject to appeal to the Local Govern- ment Board) to disallow any items in the budget which, having regard to economy and good administration, it naay think ought not to be charged upon the central fund, and in any such case the 272 local council should be empowered if it so desires to raise the money by means of a rate within its own district. " By this means there will be attained a, full equalisation of all properly incurred expenditure and at the same tirae an =conoraical and wise administration on the part of the local iithorities." General Recommendations. Then we get the following sumniarj of the recommendations of this Committee : — " The foregoing considerations lead to the conclusion that the government of London can be greatly simplified and improved (1) by consolidating the municipal and poor law administrations, so that all duties of a local character will be entrusted to the local authorities, whilst all work of a metropoUtan character will be administered by the central authority, and (2) by providing as far as possible for expenditm-e being met out of one central rate, the central authority having the necessary powers of financial control. " The steps whereby this result should be achieved, are : — " 1. The Metropolitan Asylums Board and all boards of guardians should be abolished. " 2. The Central Authority should become the authority for indoor poor, and should have charge of all institutions (workhouses, asylums, schools, casual wards, infirmaries, cottage homes, labour colonies, etc.) at present maintained by poor law authorities in the county area ; should manage all contracts and keep a central store. " 3. The Central Authority should be the authority for the care of imbecile asylums and of hospitals for infectious diseases, and for all other duties of the M.A.B. " 4. The Central Authority should be the authority for valuation and assessment throughout the whole of the countj' area. " 6. There should be only one local elected authority for all purposes in each minor area. " 6. The other duties of the boards of guardians should be transferred to the Borough Councils. " 7. The Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, the County Grants and the Equalisation of Rates Fund should bo abolished, and in lieu thereof the Central Council should raise 273 a special Metropolitan rate for the purpose of defraying the expenditure of the local authorities, the Central Council to have such powers of financial control conferred upon it as will enable it to secure proper and economical expenditure of the money so handed over to the local authorities." Fate of the Borough Councils. The follGwing passage shows the fate in stox'e for the Borough Councils if the Progressives ever had their way : — " The changes proposed above will necessitate some recon- sideration of the respective positions and functions of the central and local authorities. The first question which arises is as to the constitution of the latter. There is a school of thought that recommends the reduction of the Borough Councils created by Mr. Balfour in his Act of 1899 to the i^osition of local committees, no longer elected, but appointed by the central authority, after the precedent of the old London School Board managers. Such thinkers find no difficulty in suggesting that these new bodies should pass under the complete control of the central authority, and should exercise their functions only subject to the direction of central officials. That is, roughly, the plan of government pursued in Paris and Berhn. But the concUtions of English local government are very different from those of the Continent ; and Londoners would find it very difficult to submit to the amount of biu'eaucratic control that regulates the Ufe of Continental municipalities. For these reasons, therefore, it is clear that the Borough Councils and any other covincils coming in within the new area should remain elected bodies. " From this decision other decisions follow. If boroughs or districts are to be put to the trouble of electing local assemblies, those assemblies cannot be entirely denuded of governing powers. In all such local matters as hghting, cleansing, and paving, as in their control of libraries, baths, and wash-houses, the local authorities must remain, roughly, in their present position, subject always to the control of the central authority with relation to expenditure which the local authority desires to charge against the central rate. " But there remain groups of subjects which cannot be left entirely to local control. For example, as there is essential need of a central traffic authority, the borough coiuicils must be deprived of their veto over tramway schemes, and the London central authority must have miuiicipal control over all questions of traffic and transport. 274 " Also in the important matter of the health of the population of London, the non-existence of a supreme central health authority has been one of the principal causes of failure to attain a higher standard of public health than at present exists. It is essential for the sanitary safety of the millions of people in this great city that a central authority should be armed with full powers for securing, if necessary by compulsion, the proper administration by the local authorities of the laws relating to public health, and that it shovild be able to secure uniformity of action and take immediate action for London as a whole in the presence of any great or sudden emergencj^ " There should therefore be a strengthening of the control of the central authority in questions of public health. The Act of 1899 left the legal relations of the local and central authorities in many respects vague and unsatisfactory ; and there should be changes in some of these respects. The Borough Coiuicils should cease to have the power of spending public money in promoting public Bills or ojjposing Bills of the London County Council or of one another — a power which has resulted in an absurd and suicidal waste of public money." Greater London Project. This report Avas, however, curiously guarded on the subject of the Greater Loudon project ovitlined by Captain the Hon. F. Hemphill in 190(5 (see page 266 ante). It had been recognised by this time that the towns and villages on the outskirts of London were violently opposed to incorporation, and conse- quently the Progressives were cautious iu pushing that part of their scheme. The report says : — " Any scheme for the enlargement of London would have to run the gauntlet of a Parliamentary Committee, and such com- mittees have shown themselves hostile to the rapid and com- prehensive extension of boiuidaries in growing towns like Manchester and Birmingham. It is well known also that sentiment as well as material advantage has a great deal to do with the settlement of such questions, and that amalgamation of areas requires mutual consent. The peojDle interested on both sides have to be convinced that there is mutual advantage in co-opera- tion. At the same time nothing but good can result from frank and friendly public discussion of the problem as it has recently been raised. . . . There are numerous questions of administration 275 which compel us to realise that there would be great advantages in extension to some at least of the great commmaities which have clustered aroimd the Comity, and whose interests are in reality as much Metropolitan in character as are those of London residents themselves." After enumerating various public services which they would wish to see controlled by a central authority, the report concludes : — " There are therefore very strong reasons why the question of the extension of the area of the county of London should be carefully considered both by Londoners and by the great population outside which lias so many interests in common with London." Although this pai*agraph is designedly vague, it is sufficient clearly to indicate the trend of Progressive policy. Parliamentary Intrigues. Long before the above report was issued, the Progressives were busy trying to induce the Kadical Government to embody their wrecking policy in a Bill. A committee of Progressive members and ex-members of the L.C.C. and certain London Liberal M.P.'s was formed for this purpose, and on August 8th, 1907, a deputation waited on the then Prime Minister (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) in his private room at the House of Commons with regard to the inclusion of special legislation for London in the programme of the following session. The following members of Parliament attended the deputa- tion :— Mr. R. K. Causton, Mr. W. H. Dickinson, Sir William Collins, L.C.C, Mr. T. McKinnon Wood, L.C.C, Sir Edwin Cornwall, L.C.C, Mr. B. S. Straus, Mr. J>. S. Waterlow, L.C.C, Mr. E. J. Horniman, Captain Cecil Norton, Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. T. II. W. Idris, Sir W. E. Cremer, Mr. J. Sears, Mr. J. Branch, Mr. Horatio Myer, Mr. Timothy Da vies, Mr. W, Pearce, Mr. E. H. Pickersgill, Dr. George Cooper, Sir J. W. Benn, L.C.C, Mr. W. Benn, Mr. J. A. Baker, Sir A. M. Torrance, Mr. P. W. Wilson, Mr. W. Crooks, L.C.C, Mr. H. Bottomley, Mr. H. W. Carr-Gomm, Mr. C J. O'Donnell. 276 Mr. Causton introduced the deputation, and Mr. Dickinson, Sir William Collins, Mr. McKinnon Wood, and Sir Edwin Cornwall addressed the Prime Minister on behalf of the deputation. The following i-esolution, passed at a meeting of the London Liberal and Progressive members on July 22nd, 1907, formed the basis of the discussion : — " That it be represented to the Prime Minister that there is urgent need for legislation for London to achieve the under- mentioned objects, and that he be asked to allow of the preparation of a Government measure, for the session of 1908, dealing with as many of these subjects as he thinks feasible, with a view to send it to a London Grand Committee constituted on the system adopted with regard to the Scottish Committee. " (1) The institution of one uniform rate to provide for all expenditure on Local Government in London, accompanied by such financial control, in the hands of a central representa- tive body, as will effectively secure economy in administration and by such readjustment of the relationship between the various authorities in London as is necessary in order to carry this into effect. " (2) A revision of London's share in Government grants. " (3) The consolidation of municipal and poor law administration, so that both in central and in local manage- ment these functions shall be entrusted to one authority. " (4) A reconsideration of the boimdaries of the County of London, so as to bring within it the rich as well as the poor districts around it. " (5) The reconstitution of the Central Council for London, with rearrangement of the number of its members and the electoral divisions. " (6) The establishment of the Central Comicil as the assessment authority for London. " (7) The grant to the Central Covmcil of powers to compulsorily acquire land for municijial purposes. " (8) An arrangement whereby the water, gas, and electric imdertakings of London shall fall ultimately into the possession of the Central Council. 277 " (9) The consolidation of the separate Parliamentary boroughs in London into one borough, so as to facilitate ' successive occupation,' and to abolish plural voting within the Metropolis. " (10) Amendments in the system of settling the boundaries of electoral divisions and polling districts, and of preparing the register of electors and conducting the elections, so as to meet the special requirements of' London." Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in reply to the deputation, said the deputation would realise how difficult it was for the Government to take up one single phase of the problem of London without finding it to be interwoven with many other questions — for instance, the equalisatioii of rates, a most necessary reform, all must agree, but most difficult to carry out. To properly effect this reform, the first thing was to pass a Valuation Bill. He entirely agreed with the aspirations of the London Liberal members, and with every one of the proposals in the resolution submitted to him. It was only right that he should tell them at once that it was not possible for him to definitely promise legislation next session, but he would see to it that this important question should be dealt with before laying down the task they had undertaken. Not one of those proposals which they came to him about required to be commended to him. They were all common sense reforms, equitable developments of our government system, and while he must warn the deputation not to be over-sanguine, he did want to assure them that with their aims and aspirations he most heartily sympathised, and he would bring the matter to the notice of his colleagues. Mr. John Burns, President of the Local Government Board, in a sympathetic speech, said he could tell the deputation that the Local Government Board were much more in sympathy with the aspirations of London Members than perhaps they were aware. He would suggest that the Progressive Members should consult together, prepare definite proposals, and submit them to him and the Prime Minister, and upon those matters 278 in which unanimity prevailed he would promise legislation at the earliest convenient opportunity. There the matter ended until the following year. Dissatisfied with the apparent disinclination of the GoTern- ment to take iip their scheme, another deputation waited upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith, who had succeeded Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) on June 30th, 1908, at the House of Commons. Mr. R. K. Causton, M.P., again introduced the deputation, and among the Members present were Mr. W. H. Dickinson, M.P., Sir E. Cornwall, M.P., L.C.C., Sir W. Collins, M.P., L.C.C., Captain Norton, M.P., Mr. B. S. Straus, M.P., Sir W. R. Cremer, M.P., Mr. T. Lough, M.P., Mr. P. Alden, M.P., Dr. Cooper, M.P., L.C.C., Mr. Seaverns, M.P., Mr. T. Davies, M.P.,Mr. PickersgiU, M.P., Mr. S. Collins, M.P., Mr. C. J. O'Donnell, M.P., Mr. Hart-Davies, M.P., Mr. Carr- Gomm, M.P., Mr. Stopford Brooke, M.P., Mr. P. W. Wilson, M.P., Mr. W. Pearce, M.P., Mr. Wiles, M.P., Mr. Radford, M.P., Mr. Horniman, M.P., Mr. Myer, M.P., and Mr. Bowerman, M.P. Mr. Dickinson placed the views of his colleagues before the Premier, and reminded him that this was the first time the London Members had had the pleasure of meeting him as a deputation. No doubt he would remember that they waited upon the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman last year, and received many promises from him. Now, as then, the deputation had to urge certain points on the attention of the Government, and he handed to Mr. Asquith a copy of the resolutions passed at the meeting of Progressive Members on July 22nd, 1907, and set out above. Of the ten resolutions, it was to the first to which they attached the greatest importance. The Prime Minister, in reply, said he felt sure they would realise how very difficult it would be for him to make any definite promises for the future, though he would point out that much of the legislation now before Parliament affected the metropolis. He hoped to see the principle of Mr. Dickinson's Elections and Registration (London) Bill become law before the 279 next municipal elections in the metropolis, in November, 1909. He was entirely in favour of the principle of that Bill. He would be glad if they would kiudly give him further details as to the way they proposed to deal with the question which to them was apparently the most important — he meant the equalisation, or, as he preferred to call it, the unification of London rates. He would welcome any details, and the information so supplied should be laid before his colleagues. In conclusion, he would say that he hoped next session to make substantial progress with the reform of London government. He thoroughly understood how important the subject was, and it should have the most careful attention. — (Daily Telegraph, July 1st.) It should be noticed that the Progressive proposals were still as vague and indefinite as ever, although Mr. John Burns had requested the previous deputation to prepare a more definite scheme. It Avill be seen that Mr. Asquith also asked for details. The Latest Scheme. When it came to the consideration of details, the Progres- sives and Liberals seem to have had some difficulty in coming to an agreement among themselves. Several private meetings Ave re held, and at last, on November 3rd, 1908, the Daily Chronicle announced : — " Yesterday afternoon the London Liberal Members and Progressive M.P.'s representing other constituencies met to con- sider the scheme for the reform of London government drafted by Mr. Dickinson's committee. The meeting decided, almost unanimously, against an ' ad hoc ' authority for education. The scheme in its entirety has now been approved, and will be sub- mitted in due course to the Prime Minister. " The main features of the scheme are as imder : — " (1) Abolition of Boards of Guardians ; their duties to be transferred to Borough Councils. " (2) The London County Council to absorb the functions of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. 280 " (3) A common poor rate for London, to be levied by the London County Council. " (4) Inspectors of Poor Laws in London to be appointed by the London County Council. " (5) Borough Covuicils to have no power to raise a rate ; and to submit an estimate of their expenditure to the Central Council. "(G) The London Col^nty Covmcil to have extended powers with respect to locomotion and traffic, and its membership io be increased to 200." Full details of tliis scheme were published in the Municipal Journal on December 11th, 1908, and were as follows : — " I. — The Poor Law. " 1. That the boards of guardians in London be aboUshed. " 2. That, subject to regulations to be made by the County Couicil, the metropolitan borough councils shall be charged with the duties connected with Poor Law relief hitherto exercised by the guardians witliin the area of their own boroughs. " 3. That the powers and duties of the Metropolitan Asylums Board be taken over by the Central Council. " 4. That the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund be abolished, and in lieu thereof the Central Council shall raise a poor rate for the purpose of meeting all expenditure ui^on the relief of the poor in London. " 5. That the proceeds of the poor rate shall be expended — " (a) On maintaining such Poor Law institutions as the Central Council may administer. " (b) On granting to the borough councils such sums of money as the Central Council apjjroves as being proper to be expended on the maintenance of local institutions and the provision of outdoor relief. " 6. That, subject to the general rules made by the Local Government Board, the Central Council shall have all the powers of the Local Government Board of making regulations governing the administration of the Poor Law and the expenditure of the poor relief by the borough councils. " 7. That the Central Council shall have the appointment of inspectors employed in the administration of Poor Law in London. 281 " 8, That the Central Council shall have power to make all arrangements rendered necessary by the proposed changes for the use of buildings, &c., by the borough councils ; and all existing debt and future capital expenditure for Poor Law purposes shall be borne by the Central Council. " II. — The Borough Councils " 9. That the metropolitan borough councils continue to be elected bodies. " 10. That, subject to the provisions of this scheme, the borovigh councils shall take over the duties of the guardians of the poor with respect to Poor Law relief. " 11. That the municipal powers and duties of the borough councils be the same as at present, with the following exceptions : — " (a) They shall have no power of raismg a rate. " (b) They shall have no power of borrowing money. " (c) They shall have no power of promoting or opposing Bills in Parliament or of vetoing tramways. " (d) They shall have only such functions connected with assessment as may be allocated to them by the Central Council. " 12. That all money annually rec^uired by the borough councils shall be paid to the borough councils by the Central Council under the following conditions : — " (a) Once in every year every borough council shall submit to the Central Council an estimate of its expenditure for the following year. " (b) The estimates shall be prepared in such form as the Central Council shall by its regulations (to be approved by the Local Government Board) require, and such regulations shall, as far as possible, provide for the grouping of the estimates under sejDarate broad headings so as to allow of the expenditure on services under each such heading being approved en bloc if deemed advisable. " (c) The estimates shall be examined and reported upon to the Central Coiuicil by an officer specially employed for this duty, who shall advise that Council thereon, and when that Council has approved the estimates, the county treasurer shall pay to the borough council the amounts so approved. " (d) Any expenditure not approved by the Central 282 Council shall, nevertheless, if the borough covincil repeats the demand, be provided for by the Central Council, but the money shall be raised by a special rate levied on the borovigh in question. " (e) A borough council shall have discretion within the limits of a " bloc " estimate, as laid dowTi by the regulations, to expend the money granted to it as it deems fit. "(f) The accounts of every borough council shall be audited by an auditor appointed by the Local Government Board. The auditor shall report both to the Local Govern- ment Board and to the Central Council, and in his report shall draw attention to any circumstances that he thinks should be considered by the Central Council, and, in particular, to any expenditure which he considers to be unautiiorised by the approved estimates, and the Central Council may disallow such expenditure or take such other action thereon as it thinks right ; but any borough council may appeal against the decision of the Central Council to the Local Government Board. "13. That the powers now possessed by the County Council of acting in default, &c., with reference to matters of public health, shall be extended so as to apply to all the duties of a borough council. " III.— Thk Rate. "14. All rates in London shall be made and levied by the Central Council, who, for this piu-pose, shall be the overseers. "15. The Central Council shall make one rate, which shall be charged equally over the whole of London, but which shall be divided under the following heads so as to show the amount required for — " (1) Central Council's purposes. " (2) Borough coiuicils' purposes. " (3) Poor Law pur^Doses. " (4) Education purposes. ^ " (5) PoUce purposes. " The principles upon which expenditure shall be charged to any 6f the above rates shall be settled by the Local Government Board. " IG. The Central Council shall, in any borough where it may be necessary, make and levy a special rate to provide for such of the 283 estimates of a borough council as do not receive the approval of the Central Council. " 17. The rate shall be made half-yearly, and be collected by means of one demand note, which shall contain particulars of the amounts required in respect of each of the purposes named above. " IV. — The Central Council. "18. The Central Council shall have all the powers and duties of the present County Council. "19. The Central Council shall be the sole authority in London authorised to raise a rate or to borrow on the security of the rates. " 20. The Central Council shall grant to the borough councils the money recpiired by them, in accordance with the scheme of financial control already set out. "21. The Central Covincil shall be the sole authority in London having power to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament. " 22. The Central Council shall have extended powers with respect to locomotion and traffic. " 23. The Central Council shall be constituted in the same manner and be elected by the same electorate as the present County Council. " 24. The number of members of the Central Council shall be approximately 200. " 25. The electoral divisions of London shall be rearranged so as to make the representation on the Central Council more in proportion to the population of the different districts, whilst at the same time making each meti'opolitan borough coterminous with grovijJS of such electoral divisions. " 26. The Central Council shall have powers of adjusting the boundaries of metropolitan boroughs, wards, electoral divisions, and polHng districts. " 27. All the powers of the Central Council shall ajjply uniformly to the whole of the administrative county of London. " 28. The area administered Ijy the Central Council shall be constituted one city and county of a city under the name of London. " 29. The ■ Central Council shall be styled the Municipal Council of London. " V. — The County of London and its Magistracy. " 30. The County of London shall include the whole of the administrative countv. 284 "31. The Justices of the Peace for London shall include : — - " (1) Existing Justices of the County of London. " (2) Existing Aldermen of the City of London, and " (3) Future Aldermen of the City of London, and of the Municipal Council of London. " 32. The Court of Qviarter Sessions for London shall be presided over by a Recorder, who shall in future be appointed by the Crown. " 33. The present Recorder of the City of London shall be the first president of the Court of Quarter Sessions of London, and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Coiu-t of Quarter Sessions of the present County of London shall be Deputy Recorders. " 34. The Recorder of London shall be one of the Judges of the Central Criminal Court." At a meeting o£ the London Liberal Federation held on December 9th, 1908, resolutions generally agreeing with the above proposals were adopted, together with an additional proposition in the following terms, viz. : — " That the proposed scheme of legislation for London should include the creation of an Educational Authority for London directly elected ad hoc." The Progressives fondly hoped that they would succeed in inducing the Government to embody this scheme in a Bill in the session of 1909, but they were doomed to disappointment. All that the Government did was to introduce a Bill to make London a single borough for electoral purposes. The primary effect of this Bill would have been to abolish plural voting in London, while leaving it to flourish in other parts of the country. The Bill was so manifestly unjust and local in character that the House of Lords, on November 8th, 1909, rejected it. At the time the Earl of Derby, in moving the rejection, said : — " If the object of the Government had been to abolish the period of disfranchisement through a change of residence a remedy could be easily provided by a one-clause Bill applicable all over the country, and the Lords would be only too willing to accept such a Bill."— T^jz/es, 9th November, 19U9. (See as to this, London Municipal Notes, November, 1901^, p. 321.) 28^ The Municipal Keform Policy. The Municipal Reform policy with regard to London government is to resist any attempt to interfere with local authorities, and to proceed cautiously with such reforms as mav be necessary, and to prevent friction and overlapping of duties between the various authorities. On October 27th, 1907, the Local Government Committee presented a report to the London County Council recommending that application be made m the next session of Parliament to amend the Local Government Act, 1888, so as to provide that from January 1st, 1910, the Battersea, Clapham, Pulham, Lewisham, Wandsworth, and Woolwich areas should all bo divided into two divisions, with the exception of Wandswoi'th, which the Committee thought should have three divisions. 'The effect of the adoption of these proposals would be to increase the total number of county councillors by fourteen, and the county aldermen by three, thus bringing up the total membership of the Council to 154, The recommendation was amended to provide that the Government should be asked to introduce legislation, and adopted in that form. Needless to say there has been no response from the Government, but the Municipal Reformers deserve credit for this attempt to remove some of the worst electoral anomalies. Poor Law Reform. On March 10th, 1908, the London County Council approved a scheme of Poor Law Reform for submission to the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws. The following formed the first part of their resolution embodying the scheme : — - " (o) That, while reframing from expressing any opinion as to the future redistribution and apportionment of any Poor Law charges, whether national or local, the Council is of opinion that in the Administrative County of London the powers and duties of the Poor Law authorities should be merged in the general municipal government." 286 " (b) That the City Corporation and the metropolitan borough coimcils should be the authorities charged with the administration of those duties now performed by the London boards of guardians which are local in their character." The remaining resolutions of the Local Government Com- mittee were materially altered by the Council, and therefore we quote from the L.C.C. minutes as follows : — " Following recommendations, (c to n) in the report, dated 14th and 17th February, 1908, of the Local Government, Records and Museum Committee, brought x\p to the Coimcil on 25th February, 1908 (p. 438), and postponed on that date, and on the 3rd and'lOth March, 1908 (pp. 480 and 557), considered further :— " Royal Commission on the Poor Laws. " Principles on which Refortns should proceed. Consolidation of Local Adr)iinistrative Authorities. 1. — (c) That to the City Corporation and the metropolitan borough councils should be transferred : — " (i. ) The powers and dvities of the guardians of the poor and sick asyltmi district managers with respect to all local poor law ser\dces, inckiding the maintenance of workhouses and infirmaries, casual wards and outdoor relief. " (ii.) Services of a municipal character, viz. : — " (1) Assessment (in the six cases where boards of guardians appoint assessment committees). " (2) Registration of births, deaths and marriages. " (3) Vaccination. " (Agreed as amended. " (d) That the City Corporation and the metropolitan borough coimcils should a]ipoint poor relief committees (consisting, as to the majority, of members of their own bodies and a number of co-opted or appointed members) for dealing with poor law services ; and that the administration of other transferred duties should be amalgamated with the administration of the existing duties of those authorities. " (Agreed as amended. " The Central Poor Law Authority for London. " (e) That the central poor law authority for London should be the London County Council. " (Agreed as amended. " (/) That the central poor law authority for London should appoint a committee consisting, as to the majority, of members of its own body and including representatives of the City Corpora- tion and the metropolitan borough councils and a number of co- 287 opted or appointed members ; and that all matters relating to the exercise by the Council of its jjowers under this scheme, exclusive of such matters as shall be referred to other committees of the Council, should stand referred to and may be delegated to the Committee so constituted, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing'money. " (Agreed as amended. " (r/) That there should be transferred to the central poor law authority for London, acting through its poor law committee : — " (i.) The maintenance of the county pauper lunatic asyluiTis now in the hands of the Asylums Committee of the Council. " (ii.) The powers and duties of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in resj^ect of asylums for the imbecile poor. " (Amendment carried. " (h) That there should be transferred to the Council, acting through its Public Health Committee, the powers and duties of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in respect of : — " (i.) Infectious diseases hospitals. " (ii.) Ambulances. " (iii.) Other health services. " (Agreed as amended. " (t) That there should be transferred to the Council, acting through its Education Committee : — " (i.) The powers and duties of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in respect of — " (1) Special schools for poor law children. " (2) Remand homes. " (ii.) The management of institutions and homes for poor law children now in the hands of the guardians of the poor and the joint boards for school districts ; the education of 2^oor law children ; and the maintenance of poor law children other than those maintained in workhouses, aided where joossible by local committees of management. " (Agreed as amended. " (/) That such general co-ordination and control as may be necessary as regards the provision of buildings, principles of administration, classification of paupers, and the like, should be exercised by the central poor law authority for London. '■ (Agreed as altered. 288 " (A-) That it shovild be tlie duty of the Local Government Board to frame such general rviles as may be necessary to co-ordinato the practice and expenditure of the London Poor Law Administra- tion with that in the rest of the coiuitry. " (Agreed. " {I) That the audit of accounts should remain in the hands of the Local Government Board. " (Agreed. " (m) That the administration of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund should he transferred to the London County Council. " (Agreed. " (n) That the foregoing resolutions be commimicated to the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, and that evidence be sub- mitted to the Commission with respect to the matters referred to therein. " (Agreed. " (c) Motion (recommendation (c)) considered further. "Amendment moved by Mr. Jolmson (P.), seconded by the Rev. J. Scott Lidgett (P. ) : — That the word ' maintenance ' in line 3 be omitted, and the word ' visiting ' substituted therefor ; that the word ' and ' in line 3 be omitted ; and that the word ' and ' be inserted after the word ' infirmaries ' in line 4. " After debate, amendment put to the vote, and the Council having divided, there appeared — " For the amendment, 37. " Against the amendment, 63. " Amendment lost. " Amendment moved by Dr. Forman (M.R.), seconded by Mr. Shepheard (P.) : — That the following words be inserted after the word ' relief ' in line 4, "* except such relief as shall take the form of providing, wholly or partially, for the children.' " Amendment put, and agreed to. " Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. " Resolved. — That to the City Corporation and the Metro- politan borough coimcils should be transferred — " (i.) The i)owers and duties of the guardians of the poor and sick asylum district managers with respect to all local poor law services, including the maintenance of workhouses and infirmaries, casual wards and outdoor relief, except such -I 289 relief as shall take the form of providing, wliolly or partially, for the children. " (ii.) Services of a municipal character, viz. : — " (1) Assessment (in the six cases where boards of guardians appoint assessment committees). " (2) Registration of births, deaths and marriages. " (3) Vaccination. " (d) Recommendation (d) moved. " Amendment moved by Mr. Chapnaan (P.), seconded by 'Sir. Wilson (P.) : — That all words after the word ' cominittees ' in line 2, dowTi to and including the word ' members ' in lino 3, be omitted. " Amendment put and declared to be lost. " Amendment moved by ]Mr. Johnson (P.), seconded by Mr. Gilbert (P.) : — That the following words be inserted after the word " members ' in line 3, ' including wom?n.' " After debate, amendment put and agreed to. Miition as amended put, and agreed to. " Resolved. — That the City Corporation and the metropolitan borough councils should appoint poor relief committees (consisting, as to the majority, of members of tlieir own bodies and a number of co-opted or aj^pointed members, including women) for dealing with poor law services ; and that the administration of other transferred duties should be amalgamated with the administration of the existing duties of those authorities. " (e) Recommendation (e) moved. "Amendment moved by Mr. Jolmson (P.), seconded by Mr. McKinnon Wood (P.) : — That the following words be added, ' the membership of which for this and other purposes should bo enlarged.' " The Chairman of the Committee intimated his willingness to accept the amendment. " Amendment put and agreed to. " On the motion, as amended, " Amendment moved by Mr. Pilditch (]M.R.), and seconded : — That the following words be added, ' by giving to those electoral districts at jiresent insufficiently represented their proportionate representation.' 290 " Amendment pvit and agreed to. " On the motion, as further amended, " Amendment moved by Mr. Knight (M.R.), and seconded :— That the follomng words be added, ' and that such authority should act through appropriate committees.' " After debate, amendment put and agreed to. " Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. " Resolved. — That the central poor law authority for London should be the London Coiuity Council, the membership of which for this and other purposes should be enlarged by giving to those electoral districts at present insufficiently represented their proportionate representation, and that such authority should act through appropriate committees. " (/) Recommendation (/) moved. " Amendment moved by Mr. McKinnon Wood (P.), seconded ■ by Mr. Waterlow (P.) : — That all words after the word ' That ' in line 1 be omitted, and that the words ' the recommendation be referred back to the Committee ' be substituted therefor. " After debate, amendment put and declared to be lost. " Amendment moved by Mr. Johnson (P.), seconded by Mr. Gilbert (P.): — That all words after the word 'committee' in line 1, down to and including the word ' meinbers ' in line 3, be omitted. " After debate, amendment put to the vote, and the Council having divided, there appeared — - " For the amendment, 38. " Against the amendment, 74. " Amendment lost. " After debate, amendment moved by the Hon. W. R. W. Peel (the leader of the Municipal Reform Party), seconded by Mr. Pilditch (M.R.) : — That the word ' rei^resentatives ' in line 2 be omitted, and that the words ' persons rejDresentative ' be substituted therefor. " After debate, amendment put and agreed to. " On the motion as amended, " Amendment moved by Dr. Beaton (P.), seconded by Mr. Briant (P.) : — That the following words be inserted after the second word ' and ' in line 2, ' ten members from.' 291 " Amendment put and declared to be lost. " After debate, amendment moved bj^ Mr. Sidney Webb (P.), seconded by Mr. Edward Smith (P.) :— Tliat tlie word ' other " be inserted after the words ' number of ' in line 3. " After debate, amendment put and declared to be lost, " Motion, as amended, put to the vote, and the Coimcil having divided, there appeared — " For tlie motion, as amended, 72. " Against the motion, as amended, 41. " Jlotion, as amended, carried. " Resolved. — That the central poor law authority for London should appoint a committee consisting, as to the majority, of members of its own body and including persons rejaresentative of the City Corporation and the metropolitan borough coiuicils and a niunber of co-opted or appointed members ; and that all matters relating to the exercise by the Council of its powers under this scheme, exclusive of svich matters as shall be referred to other committees of the Coiuicil, should stand referred to and may be delegated to the committee so constituted, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money. " {g) Recommendation (gr) moved. "Amendment moved by Sir Melvill Beachcroft (M.R.), seconded by the Right Hon. Sir Geoi-ge Goldie (M.R.) : — That all words after the word ' That ' in line 1 be omitted, and that the words ' the recommendation be referred back to the committee for further consideration and report ' be substituted therefor. " Amendment put and declared to be lost. "Amendment moved by Mr. Goodrich (M.R.) : — That all words after the word ' That ' in line 1 be omitted, and that the following words be substituted therefor, ' the asylums now luider the control of the Metroi^olitan Asylums Boardy wliich are work- houses under the Lmiacy Act, 1890, should be transferred as county asykuns to the Council ; and that the Asylums Committee should continue to be the visiting committee under the Lunacy Acts, but with power to co-opt members, only to such extent as shall conserve the control of expenditure to elected members.' " The amendment was seconded by Mr. T. Hunter (P.). Debate on the amendment moved by Mr. Goodrich (M.R.). " Resolved, on the motion of Mr. Goldsmith (M.R.), That the question be now put. K 2 292 ' Amendment put, and agreed to. " On the amendment as a siibstanti\'e motion, " Amendment moved by Mr. Johnson (P.), seconded by Mr. Edward Smith (P.) : — That the following words be inserted after the word ' Council ' in line 4, ' together with the powers and duties of the City Corporation with respect to kmacy.' " After debate, amendment put, and the Council ha\ing divided, there appeared — " For the amendment, 53. " Against the amendment, 64. " Amendment lost. " Substantive motion put and agreed to. " Resolved. — That the asylums now under the control of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, which are worldiouses under the Lunacy Act, 1890, should be transferred as county asylums to the Coiuicil ; and that the Asylums Committee should continue to be the visiting committee imder the Limacy Acts, but with power to co-opt members, only to such extent as shall conserve the control of expenditure to elected members. " (/)) Recommendation (/;) moved. "Amendment moved by Mr. Johnson (P.), seconded by Mr. Edward Smith (P.) : — That the words ' acting through its Public Health Committee ' in line 1 be omitted. " Debate. " The mover of the amendment (Mr. Johnson), by leave of the Council, altered the amendment as follows : — That the word ' acting ' in line 1 be omitted, and that the words ' which miglit act ' be substituted therefor. " Amendment, as altered, put and agreed to. " Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. " Resolved. — That there' should be transferred to the Coiuicil, which might act through its Puljlic Health Committee, the powers and duties of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in respect of — " (i.) Infectious diseases hospitals. " (ii. ) Ambulances. " (iii.) Other health services. " {i) Recommendation {i) moved. •293 " Amendment moved by Mr. Johnson (P.), seconded by Sir John Benn (P.) : — That the word ' acting ' in line 1 be omitted, and tliat the words ' which might act ' be substituted therefor. " After debate, amendment put, and agreed to. " On the motion, as amended, " Amendment, moved by Dr. Forman (M.R.), and seconded : — Tliat the following words be added, ' jirovided always that the cost of maintenance of poor law cliildren, apart from education, shall' not be charged upon the amoiint included in the county rate for educational piu'poses.' " Amendment put and agreed to. " Motion, as amended, put and agreed to. " Resolved. — That there should be transferred to the Council, wliich might act through its Education Committee — " (i. ) The powers and duties of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in respect of — " (1) Special schools for poor law children. " (2) Remand homes. " (ii.) The management of institutions and homes for poor law cliildren now in the hands of the guardians of the poor, and the joint boards for school districts ; the education of poor law children ; and the maintenance of poor law children other than those maintained in workhouses, aided where possible by local committees of management, pro\ided always that the cost of maintenance of poor law children, apart from education, shall not be charged upon the amount included in the county rate for educational purposes. " (/) The Chairinan of the Committee, by leave of the Council, altered recommendation (/) as follows: — That such general co- ordination and control as may be necessary as regards principles of administration, the sanction of loans, the provision of buildings, classification of paupers and the like, should be exercised by the central poor law authority for London. " Recommendation, as altered, moved, put, and agreed to. " Resolved accordinglj'. " (k to n) Recommendations [k) to (n) inclusive moved, [)ut and agreed to. " Resolved accordingly. 294 " Following recommendation in the report, dated 6th March, 1908, of the Local Government, Records and Museums Committee, brought up to the Council on 10th March, 1908, (p. 545), considered further : — Royal Commission on the Poor Laws. ■'1. That evidence on the lines indicated in the foregoing report be given on behalf of the Council by the Chairman (Mr. Ernest Gray) and the Vice-Chairman (Mr. Philip E. Pilditch) of the Local Government, Records and Museums Committee, and by the Medical Officer of Health and the Statistical Officer, before the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws. " (Agreed as amended. " Recommendation moved. " Amendment moved by Mr. Rowe (M.R.), seconded by Mr. Johnson (P.) : — That the following words be inserted after the word ' Committee ' in line 3, ' Mr. A. O. Goodrich, of the Asjdums Committee, and the clerk of the Asylums Committee,' " Amendment put, and agreed to. " Motion, as amended, jjut, and agreed to. " Resolved. — That evidence on the lines indicated in the fore- going report be given on behalf of the Council by the Chairman (Mr. Ernest Gray) and the Vice-Chairman (Mr. Philip E. Pilditch) of the Local Government, Records and Museums Committee, Mr. A. O. Goodrich, of the Asylums Committee, and the Clerk of the Asylums Committee, and by the Medical Officer of Health and the Statistical Officer, before the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws." Mr. P. B. Pilditeh (M.E.), Chairman of the Local Grovern- nient Committee, speaking on the report of the Poor Law Commission on May 12th, 1900, and referring to these proposals, said : — " The majority adopt a considerable part of our proposals, but go further in the way of centralisation than the Council did. Their central body would be a Statutory Committee of the London County Council with co-opted members, but their local body, instead of being a similar committee of the Borough Council Avith co-opted members, would be a committee appoiated 295 by the central body, with, it is true, some members appointed by the Borough Councils. No doubt they were di'iven to this by another of their recommendations — viz., that the whole poor rate of London should be made uniform ; if which is done it is clear the financial responsibility must be central." Other Reforms. As showing the general attitude of the Municipal Reformers towards the Progressive scheme and the reform of London government, we cannot do better than quote from an address given by Mr. Philip E. Pilditch (Chairman of the Local Government Committee of the London County Council) at the Westminster Palace Hotel, on the 19th July, 1909. He said : — " What is in the minds of our friend the enemy is perfectly clear. The propositions which they have made involve the Borough Councils having for the future no power of raising a rate, of borrowing money, of opposing or promoting a Bill in Parliament or of vetoing a tramway, and they also involve only delegated powers as to assessment. Now, the proposed great Council, which these gentlemen suggest, and which they mean to put before the electorate, was to consist of anything from 200 to 300 or 400 members — it was, I suppose, to absorb the London County Council. Tliat proposed new Council was to be the sole authority in London authorised to levy a rate or borrow on the security of the rates ; it was to be the grantor to the Borough Councils of the money required by them and have complete control of their expenditure. It was to be the sole authority in London for promoting Bills in Parliament or for opposing Bills, and it was to become the controlling authority in all respects. All money required by the Borough Councils was to be raised by this central authority, which was to hand over to the Borough Councils what it considered necessary ; any, further expenditure beyond what the central authority considered necessary bemg raised by a special rate levied by the Central Council on the borough in question. A further provision in this scheme provided that powers now possessed by the London County Council of acting in default in matters connected with the public health are to be extended to all the duties of a Borough Council, to all matters in which a Borough Council has power to act. 296 " Now, I venture to say that this foresliadows most clearly and definitely the abandonment of the principle which you referred to as being enunciated by Mr. Sidney Webb in 1891, the principle which had been enunciated by all the various leaders of the Progressive Party, by Mr. Dickinson in his evidence before the Royal Commission, and Mr. Asquith himself — Mr. Asquith in 1895 said, ' We propose to extend to the new local bodies ' — who they then thought of setting on foot, but did not find the time to do it — ' that large corporate life wliich brings witli it the dignity of responsibility, and we propose to give them the stimulus of more attractive titles and more conspicuous position that will create a more fruitful field for the best energies and the best efforts of the best men of the localities.' That was Mr. Asquith in 1895. All this is being thrown over, and the fruition of all those excelbnt ideas witli regard to develojjment of localities and of local patriotism, and of the desire to bring forward in the localities the individuals best able by local knowledge to serve the localities in wliich they live with effect and responsibility is found in this scheme of destruction of the local bodies which has been approved by all tlie London Radical Members of Parliament, by the London Radical Federation, by the leaders of the Progressive Party on the London County Council and impliedly by the Prime Minister ! There is net the slightest doubt about it that they mean, though not in name but yet in fact, to kill the Borough Councils. I think we may start off with that, and I should have no hesitation whatever in any public assembly, in telling the people that if the Progressive Party came back to power again in the County Council, and if this coincided with the remaining in power of the Radical party at St. Stephen's, or their return at the next General Election — then those are the projsosals which they are jiledged to bring forward. " Now, I do not think I need say anj'thing more about the question of what the Progressives propose with regard to the relations between the central authority of London and the local authorities of London. Just a sentence about what our ])olicy is with regard to them. I am not one of those who believe tliat everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds witli regard to the relations between the central authority and the Borough Council authorities in each district. There is still a good deal of overlapi^ing, there is still from time to time a certain amount ulk to authorised distributors throughout an extensive area. Provision was made for the purchase by the Council, or any piibhc authority authorised by Parliament, of the undertaking of the joint committee and the undertakings of the combining companies. 344 " The London {Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Bill. — This Bill was promoted by five existing electricity supply companies, to enable them to enter into agreements for mutual assistance, including the supply of electrical energj^ to one another. " The bills were introduced into the House of Lords and were considered by a Select C-ommittee which met on 7th May, 1908. The Council lodged petitions against the bills in order to secure amendments therein, but decided that on the materials and facts before it, there was no reason to depart from the view that it had hitherto held that the most satis- factory solution of the question of a bulk supply of electricity for London was to be found in a principal generating-station in a favourable situation. At the same time the Council considered that the purchase clause in the London and District Bill was unsatisfactory ; that a sliding scale of prices and dividends, subject to revision by the Board of Trade, should be substituted for the provisions in the bill as to limitation of dividends, and that the provisions in the bill permitting com- petition with the existing authorised distributors required amendment. Other amendments were put forward on behalf of the Council, and, eventually, in deference to the suggestion of the Select Committee, an agreement was arrived at .with the promoters of the bill and embodied in clauses which were approved by the Committee. The bill with various other amendments was passed by the Committee. The amend- ment put forward by the Council that the Council should be constituted the purchasing authority under the London and District Bill was refused. The bill was read a second time in tile House of Commons and referred to a Select Committee, who came to a decision that the preamble was not proved. " The two other bills were allowed to proceed subject to amendments. Particulars of the amendments made will be found in the table at the end of this report " (see p. 214). 345 INDEX. Abolition of various authorities threatened by Progressives ,, ,, the Works Department ... Accounts, tramway, faulty ... Administrative County, &c.. Electric Power Company, Bill ,, ,, Electricity Supply Bill, 1908 Advisory Board of Engineers, Traffic Commission ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, street im- provements ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, tramways ... Aggregate capital expenditure, L.C.C., table Allen, Mr., M. P., on increased police rate ... Amalgamation of City and County of Ivondon. — Sec Royal Commission. Asquith, Right Hon. H. H., M.P., deputation (L.C.C.) on traffic ,, „ „ .. (London M.P.'s) on London Government Asylums work and Works Department Audit of Works Department accounts PAGE 255 245 lOI .305 342 166 170 172 36 76 186 27S 211 219 Ballot-box and strike, Mr. Sidney Webb on Beachcroft, Sir R. M., on temporary loans Belgian rails ... Benn, Sir J. W., on L.C.C. commitments ,, ,, ,, effects of high rates ... ,, ,, ,, electrification of northern tramways Benn, Mr. A. Shirley, on tramway proposals Binnie, Sir A., on quality of building work ,, ,, ,, slowness of Works Department Blashill, late Mr. T., on quality of building work ... 199 25 149 46 78 94 143 196 197 196 346 PAGE Board of Trade on conciliation boards ... ... ... ... 149 ,, ,, traffic department ... ... ... ... 184 ,, ,, and electric supply ... ... ... ... 305 ,, ,, President, on Electric Supply Bill, 1907 330, 340 1908 ... 341 Board, Traffic, suggested ... ... ... ... ... ... 177 Borough Councils, loans, limitation under Municipal Reform ... 39 ,, tables ... ... ... ... 40, 41 rates levied by ... ... ... ... ... 62 threatened abolition by Progressives 255, 273, 281 constitution, powers, &c., under Act ... 258 reasons for maintenance ... ... ... 261 and electricity ... ... ... ... 304, 319 Borrowings, Progressive ... ... ... ... ... ... 21 Bovirne estate, development ... ... ... ... ... 183 Boyle, Sir Courtenay, on electric supply legislation I ... ... 305 Bradbury, Mr. J. S., on Works Department property ... ... 248 Briti-sh V. foreign rails ... ... ... ... ... ... 149 Browne, Mr. C. E. C, on Works Department property ... ... 248 Building losses in Works Department, Mr. E. White on ... ... 208 Bulk, electricity in ... ... ... ... ... ... ... t,o^ Burns, Right Hon. John, M.P., on Municipal Reform economies 38 ,, ,, ,, motion on contractors and wages 191 ,, ,, ,, on success in municipal socialism 193 ,, ,, ,, on legislation for London ... 277 Campbell, Mr., on D.CC. finance ... ... ... ... ... 6 Campbell-Bannerman, late Sir H., M.P., on legislation for London 277 Capital expenditure, L.C.C., tables... ... ... ... 35, 36 ,, ,, on tramways, comparison ... ... ... 143 Cassel, Mr., K.C., on weekday rest for police ... ... ... 77 Central authorities, powers and duties ... ... ... ... 255 Central Council, London, Progressive scheme. — See Powers and Duties. Central office, locomotion, Messrs. Peat and Pixlcy's report ... no Chamberlain, Right Hon. J., M.P., on London government ... 257 Churchill, Right Hon. Win.ston, M.P., on electric supply ... 341 City and County of London, government ... ... ... ... 258 Cockerton, Mr. T. Barclay, on cost of street widenings ... ... 119 " Coming Revolution in London Government, " Mr. Sidney Webb's lecture ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 268 347 I'AGK Commit meats, huge Progressive ... ... ... ... ... i j; ,, capital, return ... ... ... ... ... 15 Com.parative costs, contractors aud Works Department... ... 234 Comparison of tramway expenditure, ISI.R. and Progressive ... 143 Comptroller (L.C.C.), tramways calculation ... ... ... 126 ,, ,, on renewals and reserves ... ... ... 127 ,, ,, report on tramway accounts, extracts ... 136 ,, ,, Works Department accounts ... ... 193 Conciliation boards, tramways ... ... ... ... ... 147 Contractors and Works Department ... ... ... 191, 217 ,, ,, ,; comparative costs ... 234 Control of expenditure. Municipal Reform programme ... ... 4 " Cooking " Works accounts ... ... ... ... ... 193 Cooper, Mr., on weekday rest for police ... ... ... ... JJ Corporation 3 per cent. Stock compared with L.C.C. 3 per cent.. Stock ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 27 Credit, L.C.C, depreciated under Progressive rule ... ... 26 ,, ,, improved under Municipal Reform ... ... 31 ,, ,, Lord Welby on ... ... ... ... ... 307 Da/Yy CATOKic^f", details of Progressive London scheme ... ... 279 Daily News, attack on London Municipal Society over Works Department audit ... ... ... ... ... ... 221 ,, ,, on electric supply scheme ... ... ... ... 325 Death rate of London, comparison... ... ... ... ... 38 Debt of Borough Councils, table ... ... ... ... ... 42 ,, L.C.C, growi;h of, under Progressive regime ... ... ^;i ,, ,, Mr. Hayes Fisher on ... ... ... ... 43 ,, of London ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 46 Deputation, L.C.C, to Prime Minister on traffic ... ... ... 186 Deputation, Progressive, to late Prime ^linisters, on London government ... ... ... ... ... ... 275, 278 Derby, Earl ofj on London legislation ... ... ... ... 284 Dickinson, Mr. W. H., M.P., on cost of street widenings... ... 120 ,, ,, ,, hope for future of Works Depart- ment ... ... ... ... 193 ,, ,, ,, on legislation for London ... ... 278 Disadvantages of Municipal labour ... ... ... ... 19S Drainage work and Works Department, Mr. E. White on ... 206 Duties of L.C.C, new and costly ... ... ... ... ... 66 ,, and powers of various authorities ... ... ... ... 255 348 Education rate Elections and Registration (London) Bill, Right Hon. Asquith on Electric Lighting Acts Electricity supply and L.C.C. Electric Supply Bill (L.C.C.) 1907 Electric traction, Messrs. Peat and Pixley's report Electrification of northern tramway lines ... Employees, tramway Engineering work and Works Department, Mr. E. White Engineering, on electric supply scheme Enterprise, municipal and private, in locomotion, Mr George on Equalisation, London Reform Union on ... Establishment charges, tramways ... Exchequer grants to local authorities Executive powers of local authorities, tables Expenditure, capital, L.C.C, tables ' ,, ,, on tramways, comparison... H. H. ;i3, 308, Lloyd 262, et 35 'AGK 59 27S 303 330 107 92 144 205 309 170 271 136 69 seq. , 36 143 Farrer, late Lord, on Works Department ... Faulty tramway accounts ... Finance, L.C.C. Finance Committee (L.C.C). — See Finance, L.C.C and tramway lines . . . on renewals and reserves ,, tramways and establishment charges tramway " profits " come tax and in ,, ,, ,, and Works Department property.. ,, ,, on Electric Supply Bill, 1907 Financial results of electric bulk supply scheme ... 192 lOI I 91 126 ^36 246 3H 317, 3^1 349 pa(;e Fisher, Mr. Hayes, on L.C.C. capital commitments ... ... 43 ,, „ new and co-stly duties ... ... 68 ,, increased police rate ... ... 76, "jj ,, Budget speech, reference ... ... 80 ,, tramway renewals ... ... ... 129 ,, Works Department property ... ... 246 Foreign v. British rails ... ... ... ... ... ... 149 Freeman, Mr., K.C., speech for Electric Supply Bill, 1907 ... 336 G.B. surface contact system... General Purposes Committee (L.C.C. and education rate report on street improve- ments on Traffic Board ,, Works Department abolition and property work after September. 1 908 ... 151 60 122 185 -45 251 George, Right Hon. D. Lloyd, M.P., on travelling facilities ... 170 ,, ,, ,, on Electric Supply Bill 331, 340 Goldie, Sir George, on Exchequer contributions ... ... ... 71 ,, ,, ,, Works Department property ... ... 247 Gomme, Mr. G. L., on cost of street widenings ... ... ... 120 Goschen, late Viscount, on L.C.C. credit ... ... ... ... 26 Grants, Government, to local authorities, inadequate ... ... 69 Great Eastern Railway Company, travelling facilities ... ... 182 Greater London under central control, Progressive scheme, 266, 274, 283- Greenwich Observatory and generating station ... ... ... 156 Grunning, Mr., on quality of building work ... ... 195, 196 H Halifax tramway strike ... ... ... ... ... ... -oi Hampstead Road widening, expenditure, debate... ... ... 6 Harper, Mr., on traffic problems ... ... ... ... ... 168 Harris, Mr. H. Percy, on L.C.C. finance 6, 12 Haward, Mr., L.C.C. Comptroller, on tramways renewals 127, 136 350 I'AGE Hemphill, Capt. the Hon. F., on increased police rate ... ... 76 ,, ,, ,, ,, enlarged powers for the L.C.C. 266, 274 Highways and Finance Committees (L.C.C), on tramway renewals ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 127 Highways Committee (L.C.C), new tramways proposed ... 142 ,, on conciliation boards ... ... 147 ,, ,, surface contact sj'stem 155, 162 latest tramway returns ... ... 190 ,, and Works Department tender 217 ,, ,, electricity ... 303, 307 Historical survey, locomotion ... ... ... ... ... 83 Holborn to Strand improvement ... ... ... ... ... 183 ,, ,, ,, Lord Welby on ... 14 HoUoway, Mr., on shirkers and Works Department ... ... 199 Home Secretary and increased police rate negotiations ... ... y^ Horse traction, Messrs. Peat and Pixley's report ... ... ... 102 Housing and locomotion problems ... ... ... ... ... 181 Hybrid Committee (H.C) on Electric Supply Bill ... ... 331 I Improvements Committee (L.C.C), Hampstead Road widening 6 Inadequate Government grants ... ... ... ... ... 69 Increased police rate... ... ... ... ... ... ... yz Instruction to H. C Committee on Electric Supply Bill ... ... t^^t, Jackson, Mr. Cyril, on education rate ... ... ... ... 60 Jessel, Capt. H. M., on Progressives and Works Department ... 221 Jobbing profits in Works Department, Mr. E. White on ... ... 213 Johnson, Mr. W. C, and rates, Mr. W. G. Towler on 64 Joint Committee (L.C.C), report on street improvements ... 120 Kimberley, late Earl of, approval of London Government Act, 1899 261 351 Labour disputes and trade unions ... ,, how affected by the abolition of Works Department Lease of tramway lines, 1 89 1 Lecky, late Professor W. E. H., on sound national finance Leeds Master Builders' Association, report on works depart ments Legislation, special, for London, urged by Progressives ... Lingen, late Lord, on L.C.C. financial control Loans, temporary, L.C.C. ... ,, of Borough Councils ... ... 39 ; tables Local authorities, powers and duties ,, government menaced by Progressives Local Government Committee (L.C.C), on increased police rate ,, ,, ,, ,, suggested sub-division of areas ,, ,, ,, ,, poor law resolutions Locomotion ... London, debt of London, approval of London Government Act, 1899 .T..C.C.. — See Powers and Duties. ,, Finance ,, debt, table ,, rate and debt ,, rate ,, and Exchequer contributions ,, (Money) Bill, 1909, and Works Department property ,, and Electricity supply London and District Electricity Supply Bill, 1908 ,, Electric Supply Bill, 1908 ,, Government Act, 1899 ,, ,, ,, summary ... ,, Liberal Federation, resolution on London legislation London Municipal Society, Progressive attack, Works Depart meut London Reform Union, pamphlet on London Government traffic problems London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Bill 1908 .. ... ... ... ..^ Losses on Works Department. Mr. E. White on ... 40 'AGE 200 252 84 78 250 2 21 , 41 2S5 255 285- 46 et 341- 285 294 81 46 260 I 34 seq. 58 69 247 303 342 343 257 258 284 22 1 270 165 344 204 352 M PAGE Magistracy, London, reform schemes of Progressives ... ... 283 Main Drainage Committee (L.C.C.), and Works Department tender ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 218 Middlesex County Council and street widenings ... ... ... 119 Midleton, Viscount, on L.C.C. commitments ... ... 19, 20, 46 ,, ,, ,, improved credit ... ... ... ... 32 Mill, John Stuart, on sound national finance ... ... ... 78 Money Bill, L.C.C, Mr. Hayes Fisher on ... ... ... ... 45 Money market as L.C.C.'s master, Ivord Welby on ... ... 307 MorwtMg Pos^, on new and costly duties of L,.C.C. ... ... 66 Mowatt, Sir F., on electric supply ... ... ... ... ... 307 Municipal Joufjial, on Haliisix trsiTnwa.y strike ... ... ... 201 „ ,, details of Progressive London scheme ... 280 Municipal labour, disadvantages ... ... ... ... ... 198 ,, Reform and finance ... ... ... ... ... 1,8 ,, ,, ,, redemption of debt ... ... ... 55 ,, ,, ,, locomotion policy... ... ... ... 82 ,, ,, ,, ,, street improvements ... 120 ,, ,, ,, renewals and reserves (tramways) ... 127 ,, ,, tramway development ... ... ... 138 ,, ,, ,, economies and improvements ... ... 156 ,, ,, ,, Traffic Board ... ... ... ... 190 ,, ,, ., Works Department ... ... ... 214 „ ,, policy, London government ... ... ... 285 ,, ,, electric supply policy ... ... 313, 323, 321; N Net debt of London, tables ... ... ... ... 47 et seq. " No control," Progressive financial policy ... ... ... 5 Non-provided schools, Mr. Cyril Jackson on both policies ... 61 Northern tramway lines, 1892 ,, 1896 „ „ 1905 91 North Woolwich drainage, strikes ... ... ... ... ... 201 Objects of the Works Department ^93, 19s, 198, 201 363 PAGE Parliamentary Committee (L,.C.C.) on Electric Supply Bill 326, 332 ,, intrigues, Progressive ... ... ... ... 275 Peat and Pixley, Messrs., report on tramway accounts ... ... loi Peel, Hon. W. R. W., M.P., on Progressive finance ... ... 27 ,, ,, ,, ' ,, new and costly L.C.C. duties ... 68 ,, ,, ,, and Prime Minister on Traffic Board 186 ,, ,, ,, on works departments generally ... 249 ,, ,, ,, evidence on electric supply 332, 334 Pilditch, Mr. P. E., on increased police rate ... ... ... 76 ,, ,, ,, London government reform ... ... 295 ,, ,, ,, Poor Law Commission ... 294, 299, 301 Police rate, increased ... ... ... ... ... ... 72 Poor law administration, Mr. Sidney Webb on ... ..." ... 269 ,, ,, reform scheme of Progressives ... ... ... ... 280 ,, ,, L.C.C. scheme for Royal Commission ... ... ... 2S5 Poplar and the poor law, Mr. Sidney Webb on ... ... ... 269 Powers and duties of various authorities ... ... ... ... 255 Profits, tramway, in relief of rates ... ... ... ... 97 ,, ,, and income tax ... ... ... ... ... 157 ,, contractors', and Works Department ... ... ... 201 Profligate mi;nicipal expenditure ... ... ... ... ... 78 Progressive. — See also Radical. Progressives and finance. — See Finance, L.C.C. ,, ,, locomotion ... ... ... ... ... 81 Progressive misrepresentation as to electrification ... ... 94 unfulfilled promises ... ... ... ... ... 100 theory and practice , ... ... ... ... ... 119 opposition to tramways ... ... ... ... 162 opposition to traffic recommendations ... ... 178 substitute for Traffic Board ... ... ... ... 184 Progressives and Works Department ... ... ... ... 191 ,, ,, ,, " Yellow Press " attack on London Municipal Society 22 1 ,, ,, ,, unemployment misrepre- sentation 252 Progressive plot against local government ... 255, 266, 275 Progressives vote with Municipal Reformers, electric supply ... 308 Provinces, works departments in the ... ... ... ... 249 R Radical. — See also Progressive. ,, approval of London Government Act; 1899 ... ... 260 354 Rails, foreign V. British Railways, Traffic Commission on ... Rates, reform scheme of Progressives ,, and debt tables ... ... ... ... ... 46 ,, levied by Borough Councils... Reasons for maintenance of Borough Councils Recoupment, delayed. Lord Welby on ,, return Redemption of L.C.C. stock ,, debt and Municipal Reform... Reduction of Borough Coimcil loans Renewals and reserves, tramways, Messrs. Peat and Pixley's report Renewals and reserves, tramways, L.C.C. estimates for, 1906- table Resolution, Progressive, on legislation for London Returns of capital commitments, L.C.C. ... " Revenue-producing undertakings," capital commitments Revolution in local government, Mr. Sidney Webb on ... Rider, Mr. J. H., evidence on electric supply " Ring of contractors," fictitious Progressive charge Robinson, Sir J. Clifton, on cost of street improvements... Robinson, IVIr. R. A., on temporary loans ,, ,, amendment on electric supply Royal Commission on Amalgamation of City and County of London ... Royal Commission on London Traffic Royal Commission on the Poof Laws, L.C.C. scheme submitted St. Paul's Cathedral, danger from new sewer Select Committee (H.C.) on Electric Supply Bill, 1906 ... Shelters, Tramway ... Shirkers and Works Department ... Slow work of Works Department ... Southern tramway sy.stem ... Special Committee of Inquiry into Works Department ... Spicer, Mr. Evan, on Exchequer contributions ... Stai? and wages, Works Department, return Star, attack on London Municipal Society over Works Depart ment audit 355 I'AGE S/rt^/s/, the, on effect of increased rates ... ... ... ... 8p Statistical Department (L.C.C), tables of executive powers of local authorities ... ... ... ... ... 262 et seq. Statistical Officer (L.C.C.), on traffic problems 168 Stock, L.C.C., issues, Progressive ... ... ... ... ... 26 ,, ,, ,, Municipal Reform ... ... ... ... 28 ,, ,, ,, table ... ... ... ... ... 31 Street improvements, Messrs. Peat and Pixley's report... ... 110 ,, ,, Advisory Board of Engineers on... ... 170 Surface contact experiment ... ... ... ... ... 151 Table of tramway financial results ... ... ... ... ... 98 Thompson, Mr. Whitaker, lecture on tramways ... ... ... 138 ,, ,, on tramway employees ... ... 145 ,, ,, ,, British and foreign i-ails ... ... 149 ,, , ,, ,, surface contact system ... ... 152 Times, The, on Works Department and audit ... ... ... 222 Towler, Mr. W. G., on truth about rates ... ... ... 64 ,, ,, ,, Works Department, latest return ... 251 Trade and locomotion problems ... ... ... ... ... 184 Trades unions and Works Department ... ... ... 191, 200 ,, ,, ,, labour disputes ... ... ... ... 200 Traffic Commission. — See Royal Commission. ,, growth, table ... ... ... ... ...■ ... 141 ,, problems, London ... ... ... ... ... ... 165 ,, Board, suggested ... ... ... ... ... ... 177 ,, department, Board of Trade ... ... ... ... 184 Tramways. — See Locomotion. Act, 1870 83 profits in relief of rates ... ... ... ... ... 97 valuation, Messrs. Peat and Pixley's report ... ... 117 new, proposed ... ... ... ... ... ... 142 capital expenditure, comparison ... ... ... 143 employees ... ... ... ... ... ... 144 conciliation boards ... ... ... ... ... 147 " profits " and income tax ... ... ... ... 157 Advisory Board of Engineers on ... ... ... 172 latest returns ... ... ... ... ... ... 190 strike, Halifax ... ... ... ... ... ... 201 Transfer of local powers under Act of 1899 ... ... ... 260 356 PAGE Trust fiction, Progressive, electric supply ... ... ... ... 324 Truth about rates, Mr. \V. G. Towler on ... ... ... ... 64 U Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905 ... ... ... ... ... 180 Unemployment and locomotion problem ... ... ... ... 180 Unfulfilled Progressive promises, tramways ... ... ... 100 Valuation of tramway undertakings, Messrs. Peat and Pixley's report ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 117 Valuation Bill, recommended by late Prime Minister ... ... 277 W Wages and staff. Works Department ... ... ... ... 254 Walthamstow, rateable value ... ... ... ... ... 182 Waterliouse, Mr. E., F.C.A., audit of Works Department accounts ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 219 Webb, Mr. Sidney, on subsidies to Guardians ... ... ... 72 ,, ,, ,, municipal labour ... ... ... ... 199 ,, ,, ,, revolution in local government ... ... 268 Welby, Lord, on Iv.C.C. finance ... ... 6, 8, 14, 22, 67, 79 ,, ,, ,, profligate finance ... ... ... ... 79 ,, ,, ,, electric supply and credit of ly.C.C. ... ... 307 IVestminster Gazette, on Wor'ks De-partinent and audit ... ... 223 Westminster improvement scheme. Lord Welby on ... ... 14 White, Mr. U., on labour and trade unions ... ... ... 200 ,, ,, lecture on Works Department ... ... 202, 252 Winding up of the Works Department ... ... ... ... 245 Wood, Mr. T. McKinuon, M.P., on reckless finance :.. ... 79 ,, ,, ,, ,, cost of street widenings ... 119 ,, ,, ,, ,, electric supply ... 305, 330 Works Department (L.C.C.) 191 Works executed by Works Department, tables ... ... 236 e^ seq. ,, ,, ,, „ after September, 1908 251 "•Yellow Press " attack on London Municipal Society over Works Department audit ... ... ... ... ... 221 Printed by Witherby & Co., 326, High Holborn, W.C UUUU VJUUUIJ UUUUUll U1CV;11UU, 1910. uh S Arguments FOR micipal Reform Speakers and Candidates. YOIi. II. PAGE Taxation of Ground Values 1 Education 3 Municipal Trading 55 The Municipal Reformers and Labour . 77 The Housing of the Working Classes •• 127 Miscellaneous Work of the Reformers . 1 79 L.C.C. Steamboat Service Port of London Main Drainage Street Improvements ... London and the Budget Work of the L.C.C. Committees The Poor Law Report and London ... 346 Index 1. 199 233 253 271 317 325 ttted by GEORGE BERRIDGE & CO., 174, Upper Thames Street, E.G., AND Shed by the LONDON MUNICIPAL SOCIETY for the Promotion of ^^y^ -„tw?*) 2°> OCT Kyi f^ TAXATION OF GROUND VALUES, Etc. It lias not been thought necessary to deal with this question in the present Handljook, more especially as the taxation of ground values, etc., is to a large extent a Parliamentary question. Reference should he made to the chapter Avhich deals with this subject in Vol. II. of " Facts and Arguments," 1907 Edition (page 151 et seq.). Reference should also be made to Mr. Wilson Fox's " The Rating of Land Values " (published by P. S. King & Son), as also to " The Case against Socialism " (published by David Allen & Sons, price 2s. Gd.), chapter xiv., page 429 et seq., where every aspect of this question is briefly dealt with. " The C-ampaign Guide " also contains a useful chapter bearing on this subject. A valuable pamphlet on this subject is " The Taxation of Land Values : A Delusion and a Danger," by Mr. Harold Cox, Liberal M.P. for Preston (published by P. S. King & Son, price 6d.). Reference should also be made to 'Mr. Harold Cox's "Land Nationalisation," published Ijy Metlmen & Co. The subject is, of course, intimately connected with the Budget for last year. This is ably dealt Avith in a book entitled " The Case against the Budget," by Philip G. Cambray (published by " The Penny Budget," Caxton House, Westminster, price Gd.). The National Union, St. Stephen's Chambers, West- minster, have also issued a useful volume explaining the projiosals of taxation respecting land contained in the Budget. 1 2 In conclusion it may be well to emphasise that the Administrative County of London consists of 116 square miles, in which there are, up to the present, recorded and knoA\'n to be 34,500 freeholders. This affords a striking contrast to Radical-Socialist statements such as that delivered by Mr. Hemmerde in the House of Commons on June 9th, 1909, when he stated : — " To-day the bulk of the land of London is owned by about seven men." Apropos of this it is well to point out that there are only 14 persons or corporations who o^vn upwards of a square mile, such as Dulwich College, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Bishops of London and Paddhigton Trustees' Estate, Sir Spencer Maryon Wilson (Charlton and Hamps'ead), etc. The Prudential Assurance Company is thought to be rapidly approximating to the ownership of a square mile. Further there are six persons or corporations of Avhich Magdalen College is one, owning three-quarters of a square mile — the Duke of Westminster is in this class ; 13 own half a square mile — among these are t lie Portland (now Howard de Walden), Northampton and I'ortman Estates ; and some 50 to 60 own one-quarter of a square mile, such as the Bedford, Cadogan, Xew River, and Duehv of Cornwall Estates. EDUCATION. NoTK. — It has not been thought necessary to deal here with what is known as the rehgious difficulty, owing to the fact that this subject has already been dealt with so frequently in current pamphlets, and students of L.C.C. policy are already fully acquainted with this subject. S(M-ondary and Technical Education are only inciden- tally dealt with here. These matters are largely non- contrdversial, and the attitude of the Municipal Reformers has, iu a word, beei^ to secure for London the best possil^le advantages of this nature at a fair and reasonable cost. The Municipal Reform Party and Education. The iV)llo^ving statement of policy in regard to the subject of Education is taken from the Municipal Reform Party's Alanifesto, dated December 4th, 1906. This statement is of imxDortance, because it defines the polic\- \\]iich the Party put forward at a time when they were still in a minority, and it is in the light of this statement of policy that their subsequent administration of Education must be judged. "The Education Acts and Reiig^ious Teaching:. " No gravel- issue is involved iu this election than that which will determine for the next three years in what mauner tlio Education Acts shall be administered, and what kind of religious teaching (if any) shall be given to London's cliiMrcn. " The Progressive policy is dominated by three ideas, viz., hostility to Voluntary schools where definite denomi- national religion is taught, involving the needless closing of many schools and unnecessary additions to the rates ; secret administration, with doors closed to the Press ; and Central OflBcialdom, destructive of local eflFort and sympathy, "The policy of the Municipal Reformers will be directed, on the other hand, to secure open public adminis- tration of the Education Acts, encouragement to local managers who have both knowledge and desix-e to promote educational efficiency, by delegating to them work which they can well do without interfering with a proper central control of the educational machine. And, above and beyond all, in administering the Act of 1903, or any other Act entrusted to them, they will be guided by the following cardinal principles : — " Fair play to all schools, whatever religious teaching may be given in them, provided they are otherwise efficient. Equal treatment of all teachers, i.e., equal salaries for equal qualifications and equal services, wherever found. En- couragement of such religious teaching as is desired by the parents, whenever practicable, and encouragement to the teacher to give such teaching. For it is the firm belief of the Municipal Reformers that character must be based upon religion, and that this must be given a prominent place in (he regular school life of the child." The Education (London) Act, 1903. The Education (London) Act, 1903, gave to the Metropolis the undoubted educational advantages conferred upon the remainder of England and Wales by the Education Act of 1902. The new Act came into force on May 1st, 1904, and after that time the fjondon School Board ceased to exist, and the London County Council became the single Central Authority charged with supervising and co-ordinating education of all classes, from the kindcrgai'ten to the college. AltJiougli the i^assing of the Ivlucation Acts of 1902 and 1903 at the time stirred up very cousidcralile opposition, tlianks to the unscrui:)ulous mis-statenunits of certain Konconformist members wlioso political creed is .Socialism, many of those Avho have to do with tlio administration of Education are beginning to realise that tliese Acts hav'e done niuch towards advancing, at all events, the cause of secular education. It is not intentled here to attempt to enter upon a lengthy justification of the principles of these Acts, as this groimd has already heen ahundantly covered. Tlic following recent testimonials to these measures should, however, specially be noted : — In the House of Commons, on July 11th, 1907, i\tr. A. G. (\ Harvey, M.r. (R.), said :— " . . . He admitted that the Ast of 1902 had had the effect of improving elementary education by the raising of the salaries of the teachers and by stimulating public interest in education. . . ."—(Extracted from the Anthorisdd Debate?.) In Morecambe on April 12th, 1909, Mr. C. W. Hole, President of the National Union of Teachers, said •.-^- " . . . In 1902 the beneficent Bill of Mr. Lialfour— for beneficent it was in many of its provisions — provided that all the elementary schools of England and Wales should be financed by the local education authorities. Many of these schools had previously been wretchedly stafi:ed, and were furnished with apparatus almost prehistoric, while in some the education of the children was necessarily far from being satisfactory. . . . Unfortunately a few education authorities, particularly some in Wales, appeared to regard the teachers of the non-provided schools as the pariahs of their profession, and unjustly refused to place them upon the same scale of remuneration as t'leir colleagues in the provided schools. Yet generally after 1902 the authorities rose to the occasion. . . . The consequence had been that a far higher level of education now prevailed in the voluntary schools than was possible before. . . ." — {The Times, April 13th, 1900.) In an interview on November 19th, 1909, Mr. W. S. Sanders, L.C.C., the Socialist Parliamentary candidate for Portsmouth, said : — "... 1 am interested in getting all the elementary schools placed upon an efficient footing. The Education Act on its secular side has done that. It has brought the buildings of the non-provided schools up to the highest standard, given the schools more highly qualified teachers, and furnished them with improved equipment. The public authorities have now control of all the schools. . . ." (The Times, November '^Oih, 1900.) The New Age (one of the leading Socialist weekly ]>apers in London), on November 25th, 190'J, described the Education Act as "a wise and salutary " measure. Broken Progressive Pledgees. Between the passing of the Education Act, JlHi,"), and its coming into force, a fresh election of members to the London County Council took place in March, 1901. Supporters of the Voluntary or, as they are now called, " Non-provided " Schools, took steps to obtain pledges from the candidates Avith a view to securing fair treatment at the hands of the new Council for the non-provided Schools. Out of 118 members elected to the ncAv CViuncil in March, 1904, 97 had pledged themselves in this direction, and the electors Avere assured by Progressive leaders that the non-provided Schools Avould be justly treated. Amongst others, ]\Ir. McKinnon Wood, the then leader of the Progressive-Socialist Party on the Council, laid doAvn the ofTicial programme of that party Avith regard to tlic administration of the Education Act. He is reported in the Times of December 22nd, 1903, as having spoken as follows : — " Wliat they could do, Avhat they A\<)uld do, Avas to administer it (i.e., the. Education Act) in a progressive spirit, free from sectarian bias, impartially in the public interest, in the interest of education and of th(> (children." The Bishop of Stepney, writing to tlic Ti)iics on ]^larcJi -h-d, 1904, dealt Avith the candidates for the tlien impending L.C.C. Elections, and stated that pledges liad been demanded from all the candidates Avith a vioAv to the administration of the Pxlucation Act in a spirit of justice and impartiality to all classes of schools. The Bishop Avrote : — " Section A contains the names of those candidates who have given a favourable answer to the official questions drawn up by my committee. It will be noticed that all the Conservative candidates and the great majority of Progressives are in favour of the adoption and fair administration of the Act. Whatever the results of the election may be from a party point of view, an overwhelming majority of the new Council will be committed by specific pledges to follow this policy." In " Section A," to which tlie Bishop of Stepney referred as containing the names of those who would support the claims of Voluntary Schools, were the following Progressive candidates, amongst others. (Many of these, it Avill he noted, are still members oi the Council.) Battersea. — The Right Hon. John Burns, M.P., W. Davies. Bermondsey. — A. A. Allen, Dr. G. J. Cooper. Bethnal Green, North-East. — Sir E. A. Cornwall, Edward Smith. • Bethnal Green, South-West. — J. Branch, T. Wiles. Bow and Bromley. — W. W. Bruce, B. Cooper. Brixton. — F. Dolman, L. Sharp. Camberwell, North.— R. A. Bray, H. R. Taylor. Chelsea. — E. J. Horniman, J. Jeffrey. The City.— F. W. Buxton. Clapham. — J. G. Kipling. Deptford. — R. C. Phillimore, Sydney Webb. Dulwich. — G. A. Hardy. Finabury, East. — J. A. Baker, T. E. Harvey. Greenwich. — R. S. Jackson, F. Warmington. Hackney, North. — G. Lampard, J. E. Sears. Hackney, Central. — A. J. Shepheard, T. McKinnon Wood. Hackney, South. — E. Browne, A. Smith. Haggerston. — Lord Monkswell, J. Stuart. Hammersmith.— J. G. Ritchie, F. Whelan. Holborn. — Aubrey Goodes. Hoxton.— H. Ward, Graham Wallas. Islington, North. — T. B. Napier. Islington, South. — S. Lambert. Islington, East. — A. A. Thomas, Sir A. M. Torrance, Kennington. — Sir J. W, Benn, Stephen Collins. Kensington, North. — H. L. Jephson, W. Pope. Lambeth, North.— W. Wightman, J. Clarke, W. E. Clery. Lewisham. — J. W. Cleland, Hon. A. L. Stanley. 8 Limehouse. — A. L. Leon. Marylebone, West. — W. Sands, Mile End.— B. S. Straus, G. J. Warren. Newington, West. — J. D. Gilbert, J. Piggot. Paddington, North — H. H. Turner. Paddington, South — J. Kennedy, D. V. Owen. Peckham — G. Goddard Clarke, F. W. Verney. Poplar.— W. Crooks, M.P., Sir J. McDougall. Rotherhithe — Rev. W. F, Brown, A. Pomeroy. St. George's-in-the-East. — H. Gosling, J. Smith. St. Pancras, North — Dr. Beaton, D. S. Waterlow. St. Pancras, South — Sir W. Geary, G. Bernard Shaw. Southwark, West — E. Bayley, T. Hunter. Stepney. — Harold Spender, W. C. Stead man. Strand.— J. S. Hyder, Rev. A. W. Oxford. Walworth. — Rev. A. W. Jephson, R. Spokes. Wandsworth. — R, Tweedie-Smitb, E. Pascoe Williams. In spite, however, of tlie pledges given to the Bishop of Stepney's Electoral Committee, many of the gentlemen whose names appear in this list during the time that their Party was in office lost no opportunity of injuring the Non-provided Schools in London and of treating these schools oppressively. After the 1904 1^0. C. elections, the attitude of the Progressives Avas no longer disguised. During the whole of their subsequent three years' tenure of office, the Pro- gressive London County Council acted in the most flagrantly unjust and partizan manner towards the V'oluntary Schools of Ijondon. For proof of this statement we must refer the reader to the section on Education in the 1907 edition of Facts and Arguments (see Vol. 1., page 129 et seq.), and toLondon Municipal Notes for those years. Education under the Municipal Reformers. Administrative Reforms. The Municipal Reformers have to-day completed nearly three years of office on the L.C.C., which is noAv, as shown above, the Education Authority for London. The two chief educational problems which presented themselves <) to the party, and which were discussed before the 1907 L.C.C. Klections, were the condition of the voluntary- schools and the reform of educational administration. The first of these questions has been settled. With regard to the second, and perhaps the more difficult question, the remodelling of the Council's educational machinery, the Municipal Reformers liave done good work. They have reformed the administration of education. When the Reformers came into otiice they found a system in existence unparalleled in England for costli- ness and inefficiency. Correspondence on education AMIS carried on l)y two sets of officials, working almost independently and sometimes contradicting each other. The ^\'aste of 'time and energy, the duplication of office arrangements, the friction, and the disorganisation of administration may be more easily imagined than described. The Municipal Reformers appointed a strong special committee. This committee sat for 17 days. They heard a great deal of evidence, and, as they reported, " no witness exj)ressed himself other than dissatisfied witli the system as at present worked." (See L.C.C. Minutes, July, 1908.) Speaking at the Education Committee on July 1st, 190mbodied in a standing order. HenCG, according to the rules of the Council, no resolution inconsistent with the principie can be passed without formallif rescinding or suspending the standing order. In consequence, it becomes impossil)le for this or any other Council to do anything hostile to the non-provided schools, without openly proclaiming its intentions, and taking full and public responsilulity for its action. The cpiestion was before the Education CV^JUimittee on May 15th and July 17t]i, 1907, and before the Council on October 8th and October 29th, 1907. The precaution proposed was strongly opposed by the Progressive party. (School Government Chronicle, May 18th, July 20th, October 12th.) [Education Committee Min., May 15th, p. 1392 ; July 17th, p. 2318; L.C.C. Min., October 8th, 1907, p. 571.] The vest of the action of the Municipal Reform party Avith regard to non-provided schools, may be said to be merely the necessary consequences of this resolution, important tliougli these consequences are. Staffing: of Non-Provided Schools. Tlir lati' Council laid down what was called a final or maxiinuiu staff for the non-provided schools. This " final stall' " was a list for every school of the number and quaHficatlons of the teachers allowed. The managers of the non-provided schools, as vacancies arose, were to i:5 appoint according to this list. It was spoken of as the " upper limit " towards whicli " it was desirable " that the non-provided scliools " should move." [Report of Education Committee on Public Elementary Day Sch(jols for year ended March, 190G, p. vii.] Here, therefore, if anywliere, we may exj^ect to find an indication of tlie settled and permanent policy of the late Progressive-Socialist Council to non-provided schools. Now the Council's schools are staffed with certificated teachers only. According to the final staff, no loss than 23 per cent, of the teachers in the non-provided schools were of such poor qualifications as to be unlit for the Council's service. In Eebruary, 1007, the final staff for the non-provided schools was 2,218 certificated and 671 uncertificated teachers ; and this, as explained, was (he best they Avere ever to have. The actual state of affairs Avas much Avorse. On j\larch 1st, 1007, there were l,5i(3 teachers in the non-provided schools Avho had not obtained the teachers' certificate. There Avere no such teachers in the Council's schools. The Municipal Reformers resolved tliat, in future, no teaclier should be appointed to a non-provided school Avho Avas not iit for a I'ouneil school. (L.C.C. Min., July :30th, 1907, pp. -116, 417.) Tlie ultimate iDinual cost of this change is £10, .'520. (L.C.C. Min., July 30th, 1907, p. 417.) As has been pointed out, the final staff allowed by the Progressives to the non-provided scliools Avas extremely poor, Avhile that of the Council's schools Avas A'ery good. It should not be forgotten, however, tliat as soon as the Council found any difficulty in obtaining teachers, it restricted still further the scanty supply to the non- provided schools. In the years 1005 and lOOt), the supply of teacliers Avas not as ample as could be desired. The Council thereupon (L.C.C. Min., December 5th, 1905, p. 1917) reduced the number of certificated teachers allowed, beloAv even that permitted by the final staff. Tliey had to do, that is, Avith tAvo sets of schools, one Avell and one badly staffed. They deliberately staiwed the poorer 14 schools in order to feed the rich. This arrangement lasted till August, 1906, when the deartli of teachers was practically over. «vSuch j^artial treatment is incompatible with the new standing order, passed 1)}' the Municipal Reformers, to which we have already referred. While forbidding the appointment of any fresh teachers of low qualifications, the Municipal Reformers were not forgetful of those whom they found in the non-provided schools. The late Council had instituted half-time classes, and classes in the evenings and Saturday morning for such teachers. The pay offered to the half-time teachers was not good, and the evening and Saturday classes only prepared for one ])articular examination. Only 43 teachers availed themselves of the half-time classes, and only 28 of the Saturday classes. The ]\Iunicipal Reformers improved the conditions for half-time training, and 222 teachers now attend the classes. They also extended the scope of the other classes. The teachers have eagerly availed them- selves of the opportunities offered. The result of all these efforts has been that instead of 1,5-1() teachers without certificates in London voluntary schools, there are now only 900, and of these 900, more than 500 are actually undergoing a course of education in pre- paration foi- their certificate examination. Of the remainder 175 have l)een reported upon as good practical teachers, but too old to l)e benefited by a course of study, and have been excused. There remain only about 200 teachers to be dealt with. The staffing of the non-provided schools has therefore ]-»ractically been brought up to the level of the I)rovid(Ml. This would never have happened if the Pro- gressives had remained in charge. Salaries of Teachers in IMon-Provided Schools. Tlie Municipal Relormcis, avIumi out of office, always asserted that the payment of teachers in non-provided' schools slioidd b(^ determined, exactly in the same way as that olollicr teachers, by their (|iialiric:iti(.)iis and experience. and by that alone. They proposed tliat the salaries of the teachers Avhom the Council took over in 1904 should be the salaries they would have received if they had, under the ordinary rules, onlerod the Council's service from outside. The Progressives, on the other hand, based the salaries on what the teachers had, at a particular date, happened to be receiving from their managers. This was especially hard for the teachers, as many of them had accepted Ioav salai'ies in order to assist their managers through the difficult period innnediately before the appointed day. At that time, too, there were numerous vacancies in the Council's own service ; and a great part of the non-provided teachers could have secured a substantial rise in salary if, at any time before 1905, they had chosen to desert their old schools. It is perhaps interesting to compare wliat the Municipal Reforuiers promised in the year 1905 with what the}' performed so soon as they came into office in 1907. The resolution of 1905 states that the teacher's commencing salary should be " what he would receive as a teacher entering the service." The resolution of 1907 says that the commencing salaries of the teachers shall be fixed " at such amounts according to qualifications and experience as they would have been awarded if apj)ointed from the outside." llie Municipal Reformers that is, when in office, did ])recisely what they had pledged themselves to when out of office. (L.C.C. ilin., July 30th, 1907, pp. 415, 410; l':ducat ion Committee Min., March 29th, 1905, p. 1898.) Tlie estimated cost of this improvement for the year 1907-8 is £0,J(i(t. (Reference as al)ove.) Structural Improvement of the Voluntary Schools. Building of Non-provided Schools. ilcrc, too, the record of the Municipal Reformers, is in ili(> highest degree, satisfactory. When they took office- in -Mai'ch, 1907, the greater part of the repairs demaijded by tlic Council from the managers of non-provided schools IG liad not been carried out. Only G4 schools in the Avhole of London had carried out the requirements of the survey of 1905. (L.G.C. Min., June 18th, 1907, p. 1231.) The Municipal Reformers determined that with regard to rej)airs, as in other matters, they would bring Ijoth schools up to the same standard of educational efficiency. The managers of the non-provided schools made a most remarkable and public-spirited response to the require- ments of the Council. On October 26th, 1909, there were 377 existing non-provided schools. No less than 340 schools liad carried out all the requirements of the survey ; 20 more schools had agreed to carry out these requirements by the previous September ; and were actually being inspected by the architect ; in only eleven cases Avere any requirements still under discussion. Some of these were very trivial. (L.C.C. Min., October 20th, 1909, p. 7i31.) According to information furnished by the Aarious diocesan societies, the following amounts had, l)y March, 19J7, been spent on the repairs demanded l)y the L.C.C. : — Churcli of England schools iti the diocese of Loudon, £223,000 ; Churcli of England schools in the diocese of Southwark, £90,000 ; Roman (Catholic schools in the County of London, £100,000. It is probable that by now the total is not far sliort of £600,000. As to the buildings tliemselves, the alterations iu the survey requirements of the late Council have residted in a gain of 3,095 places. To replace these would have cost the Council al)out £30 a place, equivalent in other Avords to a sum of al)out £92,850. (Report of Education Officer to the Ivlucation Committee, 1907-8 -Ran 4, p. 38.) To sum up, therefore, when the ^Municipal Reformers took office they found that the staff of the non-])rovidcd schools consisteil largely of uncertiiicated teachers, 1,546 in all, they found 48 teachers attending half-time classes ; they found Briant, F. M Jeseon, C. 1) Casson, W. A. 1J Johnson, W. C. ji Chapman, T. »■ Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott Davies, W. »• McDougall, Sir John ^^ Dawes, J. A. »« Mullins, W. E. ,, Denny, Rev. E. ») Russell, Arthur B. ,, Dew, G. 11 Salter, Dr. A. u Gautrev, T. 11 Sanders, W. S. (Soc.) Gilbert, J, D. !1 Sharp, L. (p.) Glanville, H. J. T^ Shepheard, A. J. ^1 Gordon, H. H. (LP.) Smith, Edward 55 Gosling, H. (P-) Smith, F. S. (Soc.) Harris, P. A. (Teller) 11 Spicer, Evan (P-) Hastings, Rev. V. 11 Taylor, H. R. Headlam, Rev. Stewart Ward, Henry 15 (Teller) ;i Williams, Howell J. Wilson, A. 5) Against the Amendment, 73. (M.R.) Alexander, George Anstruther, H. J. Beachcroft, Sir R. Melvill , Billings, G. , Boy ton, J. , Brandon, Jocelyn , Buxton, A. F. Cassel, F. M. Cheylesmore, Maj.-Gtn,» Lord Cobb, C. S. Cohen, N. L. , Collins, E. Coumbe, E. H. Davies, Dr. J. Davis, D, Domoney, J. W. Dove, F. L. Dowton, W. L. Duncannon, Viscount Easton, E. G. Eicho, Lord Fisher, W. Hayes Forman, E. Baxter (M.R.) 29 GoflP, T. C. E. (M Goldamith, Frank (Teller) Gooch, H. C. Goodrich, A. 0. Gray, E. Greeve, W. R. Greenwood, H. J. Guinness, Hon. Rupert Guinness, Hon. Walter Hall, F. Hanson, F. S. Haydon, W. Hoare, S. J. G. Howes, Enos Hunt, William Hunter, J. H. Jackson, Cyril Jay, E. A. H. Key, W. H. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Lancaster, Sir William Lewisham, Viscount Lygon, Hon. H. Michelham, Lord Midleton, Viscount R.) Montgomery, R. H. (M. Morrow, F. St. John Murchison, C. K. Naylor, G. K. Norman, R. C. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Pilditch, P. E. Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. Reynolds, W. Robinson, R. A. Salmon, I. Sankey, Stuart (V.C.) Simmons, P. C. Skinner, Major C. Squires, W. J. Stewart, W. Burton Sturge, C, Y. Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. (Teller) Taylor, John T. Thompson, W. W. Thynne, Lord Alexander Vosper, P. Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. White, Edward Wild, E. E. R.) On December ITtli, 1907, the Council had before them the folloAving recommendation contained in Section 5b of a Report of the Education Committee (see L.C.C. Minutes, page 1414) :— " (b) That additional expenditure not exceeding £250, for incidental expenses in connection with the preparation and service of meals to necessitous children, be sanctioned." To this recommendation the following amendment was moved by Mr. Allen (P,), and seconded by the Rev. Scott Lidgett (P.) :— " That the following words be added — ' and that it be referred to the Education Committee to consider and report as to putting into immediate operation the powers of the Education (.Provision of Meals) Act, 190t), for providing meals for necessitous children out of the rates.' " 30 This amendment was put to the vote, and there voted- For the Amendment, 40. Allen, A. A. (P.) Beaton, Dr. R. M. Benn. Sir John „ Billings, G. (M.R.) Bray, R. (P.) Briant, F. „ Chapman, T. „ Claremont, A. W. „ Cornwall, Sir Edwin ., Crooks, W. Dawes, J. A. ,, Denny, Rev. E. „ Dew, G. „ Gaiitrey, T. ,, Gilbert, J. D. Glanville, H. J. „ Gordon, H. H. (I.P.) Gosling, H. (P.) Harris, P. A. „ Hastings, Rev, F. „ Headlam, Rev. Stewart ,, Hemphill, Capt. the Hon, FitzRoy (D.C) (P.) Jephson, H. L. ,, Johnson, W. C. ,, Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott „ McDougall, Sir John „ Mullins, W. E. Phillimore, R. C. Russell, Arthur B. (Teller) „ Salter, Dr. A. „ Sanders, W. S, (Soc.) Sharp, L. (P.) Shepheard, A. J. „ Smith, Edward (Teller) „ Smith, F.S. (Soc.) Taylor, H. R. (P.) Ward, Henry „ Williams, Howell J. ,, Wilson, A. „ Wood, T. McKinnon „ Ag^ainst the Amendment, 64. Alexander, George (M.R.) Anstruther, H. T. Barlow, C, A. M. Beachcroft, Sir R. Melvill Benn, A. Shirley Benn, I. Hamilton Bentinck, Lord Henry Boyton, J. Brandon, Jocelyn Buxton, A. F. Cheylesmore, Maj.-Gen. Lord Cobb, C. S. Cohen, N. L. Collins, E. Coumbe, E. H. Davies, Dr. J, Dove, F, L. Dowton, W. L. Duncannon, Viscount Easton, E. G. Fisher, W. Hayes Forman, E. Baxter Gaff, T. C, E. (M.R.) Goldsmith, Frank (Teller),, Gooch, H. C. Gray, E. Green, W, R. Greenwood, H, J. ,. Guinness, Hon. Rupert ,, Guinness, Hon, Walter „ Hoare, S. J. G. „ Hunt, William „ Hunter, J. H, „ Jackson, Cyril „ Jay, E. A. H. Johnstone, Hon. G. „ Kerry, Earl of „ Lancaster, Sir William „ Lort-Williams, J. R. ,, Lygon, Hon. H. „ Michelham, Lord ,, Midleton, Viscount „ Montgomery, R. H. ,, Morrow, F. St. John „ Murchison, C. K. „ 31 Norman, R. C. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Pilditch, P. E. Pownall, A, Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. Robinson, R. A. Rowe, H. V. Salmon, Isidore Sankey, Stuart (V.C.) Simmons, P. C. (M.R.) Stewart, W. Burton (M.R.) Sturge, C. Y. „ Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. (Teller) Taylor, John T. „ ,, Thompson, W. W. „ „ Thynne, Lord Alexander „ „ Vosper, P. „ Welby, Lt.-Col. A C. E. „ „ White, Edward ,, At the meeting of the Council held on December 1st 19f)S, the Education Committee brought up a Report which included, inter alia, the following: — " 2.— The Council ou November 10th, 1908 (p. 908), referred to us a petition (presented by Mr. Frank Smith) from the Lambeth and District Trades and Labour Council praying the Council to exercise its power, under the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, to levy a rate for the purpose of providing necessitous children with food. We have to report that we have received the petition." It was moved by Mr. Dawes (P.), seconded hy Mr. Frank Smith (Soc.) — "That the Report be received with the exception of paragraph No. 2." On a division taking place, there voted : — ■ For the Motion, 46. Allen, A, A. (D.C.) Beaton, Dr. R. M. Benn, Sir John 5J Billings, G. Bray, R. Briant, F. (M.R.) (P-) Casson, W. A. , , Chapman, T. Claremont, A. W. >? n Cooper, B. Crooks, W. 7 ' Davies, W. n Dawes, J. A. ) J Denny, Rev. E. Dew, O. Gautrey, T. Gilbert, J. D. 5> Glanville, H. J. Gordon, H. H. Gosling, H. Hirris, P. A. Hastings, Rev. F. Headlam, Rev. Stewart Hemphill, Capt. the Hon. FitzRoy Hunter, T. Jephson, H. L. Jesson, C. Johnson, W. C. Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott McDougall, Sir John Mullins, W. E. Phillimore, R. C. Pomeroy, Ambrose (P.) (LP.) (P.) (P.) 32 Russell, Arthur B. (Teller) Salter, Dr. A. Sanders, W. S. Sharp, L. Shepheard, A. J. Smith, Edward (Teller) (P-) (Soc) (P.) Smith, F. S. Spicer, Evan Taylor, H. R. Ward, Henry Webb, Sidney Williams, Howell J. Wilson, A. (Soc.) (P.) Against the Motion, 62. Alexander, George (M.R.) Anstruther, H. T. „ Beachcroft,SirR.Melvill „ Benn, A. Shirley Benn, I. Hamilton ,, Brandon, Jocelyn ,, Buxton, A. F. Clarke, H. J. Cobb, C. S. Cohen, N. L. „ Collins, E. Davies, Dr. J. ,, Davis, D. Domoney, J. W. „ Dove, F. L. Dowton, W. L. „ Duncannon, Viscount ,, Fisher, W. Hayes Forman, E. Baxter ,, Coff, T. C. E. Goldie,Rt. Hon. Sir George,, Goldsmith, Frank (Teller) ,, Goodrich, A. 0. ,. Gray, E. Greene, W. R. ,. Greenwood, H. J. „ Guinness, Hon. Walter Hall, F. Harris, H. Percy „ Haydon, W. ., Hoare, S. J. G. Hunter. J. H. „ Jackson, Cvril (M.R.) Jay, E. A. H. Johnstone, Hon. G. ,f Lewisham, Viscount ,, Lort-Williams, J. R. „ Midleton, Viscount Montgomery, R. H. ., Morrow, F. St. John Naylor, G. K. Norman, R. C. Panuell, W. H. Peel, Hon. W. R W. Pownall, A. Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. Reynolds, W. Rowe, H. V. Salmon, Isidore Sankey, Stuart Simmons, P. C. Skinner, Major C. ,, Squires, W. J. Stewart, W. Burton ,, Sturge, C. Y. Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. (Teller) Taylor, Andrew T. Thompson, W. Whitaker, (V.C.) Thynne, Lord Alexander ,, Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. „ White, Edward Wild, E. E. „ At u meeting of tlie Council, held on Fcbi-uary 2."5tli, 1909, the Education . Committee l)ronoiit up the following recommendation : — " 2. — That, in regard to the petition presented to the Council on 21st January, 1908 (p. 2), on behalf of the Social 3)5 Democratic Feiloi'atioD, nrii^inijr the Council to put into force the Eilncatioji (F'rovisioii of Meals) Act, 1906, the petitioners be informed that the Council has put into force this Act and has proceeded in accordance therewith to promote the forma- tion of (ihildren'scare committees, and to aid such committees by furnishing equipment, and in other ways ; further, that the Council has not defrayed, out of the rates, the cost of food InrnisluMl under the Act, because the conditions on which the Council is entitled to do so, namely, that funds are not available or are insufficient, have not been fulfilled." T(i lliis i'(V()niinondatiou the following amendment was moved by Air. Allen (P.), seconded hy Mr. Bray (P.) : — "That all words after the word ' because ' in line 6 be onntted, and that the following words be substituted therefor, 'although during Novem.ber and December, 1907, voluntary contributions were demonstrably insufficient to meet the needs, the Council disapproved of the policy of drawing npon the rates to meet the cost of providing food for necessitous children.' " Tills amendment was put to the vote, whereupon there voted : — For the Amendinent, 38. Billings, G. (M.R.) Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott (P-> Bray, R. (Teller; (P.) McDougal], Sir John fj Briant, F. Mullins, W. E. » Caseon, W. A. „ Pomeroy, Ambrose >» Chapman, T. ,, Russell, Arthur P.. 5> Cooper, B. „ Salter, Dr. A. (Teller) >> Davies, W. „ Sanders, W. S. (Soc.) Denny, Rev. E, „ Sharp, L. (P.) Gautrey, T. „ Shepheard, A. J. J' Gilbert, J. D. Smith, Edward ,^ GlanviUe, H. J. Smith, F. S. (Soc.) Gordon. 11. H. (LP.) Spicer, Evan (P.) Gosling, H. (P.) Taylor, H. R. 5» Harris, P. A. „ Ward, Henry ?» Hastings, Rev. F. „ Waterlow, D. S. »> Headlam, Rev. Stewart ,, Webb, Sidney >) Hemphill, Capt. the Hon. Williams, Howell J. >> FitzRoy (D.C.) Wilson, A. >> Jesson, C. „ Wood, T. McKinnon ?> Johnson, W. C. „ 84 Against the Amendtnent, 70. Alexander, George (M. Barlow, C. A. M. Beachcroft, Sir R. Melvill Benn, A. Shirley Benn, I. Hamilton Bentinck, Lord Henry Boyton, J. Brandon, Jocelyn Buxton, A. F. Cassel, F. M. Cheylesmoi'e, Maj.-Gen. Lord Cobb, C. S. Cohen, N. L. Collins, E. Davies, Dr. J. Davis, D. Domoney, J. W. Dowton, W. L. Duncannon, Viscount Easton, E. G. Elcho, Lord Fisher, W. Hayes Forraan, E. Baxter Goff, T. C. E. Goldie, Rt.Hon.Sir George Goldsmith, Frank(Teller) Gooch, H. C. Goodrich, A. 0. Gray, E. Greene, W. R. Greenwood, H. J. Guinness, Hon. Rupert Guinness, Hon. Walter Hall, F. Hanson, F. S. Hay don, W. R.) Hoare, S. J. G. (M.R.) „ Howes, Enos „ „ Jackson, Cyril „ Jay, E. A. H. „ „ Johnstone, Hon. G. „ „ Kerry, Earl of „ Key, W. H. „ Kinloch-Cooke, Sir „ Clement „ ,, Lancaster, Sir William „ Lort- Williams, J. R. „ „ Michelham, Lord ,, , Montgomery, R. H. „ „ Naylor, G. K. „ I, Norman, R. C. ,, Pannell, W. H. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. „ Pilditch, P. E. „ Pownall, A. „ „ Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. „ „ Reynolds, W. „ „ Robinson, R. A. „ „ Rowe, H. V. „ „ Salmon, I. „ Sankey, Stuart (V.C.) „ „ Simons, P. C. „ „ Skinner, ]V[ajor C. ,, „ Stewart, W. 13urton „ , Sturge, C. Y. „ „ Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. (Teller) „ Thompson, W. W. „ Thynne, Lord Alexander „ Vosper, V. Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. „ „ White, p]dward „ Health of School Children. The liealth of Ixmdon children is a matter of national importance. It is no exaggeration to say that the manner in which tlie ]\lniiicipal Refoiniers liavo dealt with this matter affords a model of the way hi ^vhich great social reforms should l)e treated. They have instituted a new and far-sighted poli<'y which must j[)rove of incalcnlable Tieneht ;55 to Loii'lon ; and at the same time they have taken steps to throw greater, and not less, responsil)ilit_y on the parent. I'he Report of tlic Inter-departmental Committee on Physii-al Deterioration, and especially the Rejjort <»f the lnsj)e>' 'tor-General on recruiting (1902), caused, as is well known, eonsidera1)le anxiety. The Municipal Reformers felt that it was one of the lirst duties of an educational authority to discover how far the health of school children suffers from preventible causes. At the same time they considered that it was above all things necessary to oljtain infoi'mation, and to make small experiments, before com- mitting themselves to any large scheme of action. The Council, in July, 1908, resolved that a special Committee, consisting partly of members of the Council and partly of representatives of the hospitals and other charities, should be formed. This Committee was to enquire how far the health of the poorer children is affected by difficulties in obtaining medical treatment. The Committee reported to the Council on March olst, 1909. The effect of the report was to show that through neg- lect the health of great numl)ers of children was suffering most severely. Such a state of affairs was a matter oi national importance, and the ]\Iunicipal Reformers did not hesitate what to do. They resolved " that certain of the diseases referred to in the foregoing reports are of such a nature as to justify their medical treatment." This motion was moved by Mr. Hayes Fisher (M.R.), and the Education Committee was directed to prepare a scheme. On October 23rd, 1909, the Education Committee brought up its scheme to the Council. It reported that arrangements had been made with a certain number of hospitals to take, Avithout any charge, 17,<)00 additional cases of children suffering from defects of vision, dis- charging ears and ringworm ; that in order that all shoidd be treated, it would be necessary that the Council should :3(; make grants to tiio liuspitals to induce tlieni to treat ill, 000 utlier cases. They proposed, therefore, to pay for the treatment of 1G,0()0 children at eight hosj^itals, at a total cost to tlie rates of £4,000 a year. These proposals Avere adopted Ly tlie Conncil on November 30th, 1U09, and ])ro- posals for dealing \\\\\i the l)alance are now under consideration. This ti-eatment is not to be free. It was felt that a system of free treatment from the rates would be most undesirable, and that every parent should pa}' as much as he can. A short Bill was introduced and successfully piloted through Parliament by the lion. Walter Guinness (a member of the Municix^al Reform Party in the Council). This Act (Local Education Authorities Medical Treatment Act, 1909) lays upon the ( 'ouncil the dutj^ of recovering the monej' spent on treatment Avhenever the j)arent can pay.* Tlie Municipal Peformers, therefore, will have rescued from neglect thousands of child sufferers ; they will have relieved no parent of any obligations which he is able to meet ; and the}' will have brought help and health to the homes of the very poor. The whole of this great scheme Avas started and carried through by the Municipal Reformers. The whole of the credit, therefore, undoubtedly belongs to them. The Reformers are now considering whether, on the same safe and prudent lines, it is possible to do anytliing for the teeth of the children. Provision of New Schools. The Municii^al Reformers, Avhen they took ofhce, found tiiemselves in a difficult position. The Progressives had closed no less than tio non-provided schools. In Marchi 1905. the non-provided scliools were recognised as providing for 209,208 children, in March, 1907, they were only recognised as accommodating 153,935 children. Hardly any progi'ess had been made in jDroviding permanent accommodation for tlie children thus displaced. A very great * For further particulars as to this, see London Mioiicijial Notes, January, 1910, p. 54. 37 iiuiubtM' ol' iiiisalisructory l(Mii[)oi';iry IxilKlings had bcou opened. By various iienotialions with the inaiiagcfs, tlie nuniher of children who could ho acconnnodatcd in thi! non-i)rovided schools was increased, with tlii^ resull that on March .']lst, ]9U9, tlie nund)er w hich could Ijc so accom- modated amounted to lo'J,')!)!, and vA the same time building proposals were pushed Forward. During the 2:)resent year (1910) no less than ].") new schools and six- considerable enlargements will be opened, and the pressure and inconvenience caused l)y the policy ol' 1904-7 Avill be a thing of the past. — (Annual rej^ort of the lulucation Com- mittee, 1907-8, Part 4, ]). xxx.;L.C.C. Min., June 18th, 1907, p. li^")l; Ed. Com. Estimates, 1909, reports accompanying the Buildings Sub-committee and the Acconnnodation and Attendance Sub-committee Estimates.) A good deal of money has also heen spent on improving old schools. The Iv.C.C;. voted £11,000 for partitions and £10,(300 more for new staircases and other improvements to schools in 1909.— (L.C.C. Min., ]\lay 11th, 1909, p. .1080.) Tra.de Scholarships. To the Municipal licformers must be given the credit for having enlarged and improved to a very considerable extent the trade schools and trade sclKjlarships. The Scholarship scheme of the (_*ouncil of 1904 to 1907 was good in so far as it gave an op)port unity for tlie most intelligent in the elementary schools to get further educa- tion in secondary schools and even to the Universities. But on looking into the scheme, the ^lunicipal Reformers were of opinion that it was directed too exclusively towards developing what may he termed academical advancement, and that small provision Avas made for developing industrial education. In 190G-7, -'jO Trade Scholarships Avere given to boys and 80 to girls. In 1908-9, 93 I'rade Scholarships were given to boys and 188 to girls. 38 And tliis namber will be increased as soon as the necessary accommodation can be provided. Technical Schools. The technical schools for boys provide a two, and in some cases three, years' course of technical instruction involving principles of science applicable to particular trades or industries. The course of training is intended to lead up to rather than to supersede apprenticeship, and to provide instruction suiDplementary to workshop practice. It is anticipated that boys who complete this course satis- factorily before entering workshops will be better fitted to fill higher positions than those who enter workshops immediately on leaving school. The course of training for girls is intended to be an apprenticeship, and it is hoped that the i)upils who have satisfactorily taken a course of two years' instruction will be able to obtain good positions, at least, as improvers. The schools are open on five days a week, and about two-thirds of that time is devoted to instruction under a skilled trade teacher in the trade chosen by the pupil. The rest of the time is devoted to the improvement of the general education of the i^upil, with special reference to the requirements of the particular trade. The general fee for admission to the L.C.C. Schools is £1 10s. a session, or 10s. a term of three montlLs. The fee for the Engineering School at Paddington Technical Institute is £2 5s. a session, or I5s. a term ; for the Engineering School at L.C.C. School of Engineering and Navigation, £1 lOs. a term ; and at the L.C.C. School of Building, £4 lOs. a session, or 30s. a term in the second and third year, for boys who intend to enter builders', surveyors', or architects' offices. There is no charge for materials except for those taken away from the school by the pupils as finished Avork. 39 The Education Coininittee on December 1st, 1909 (pp. 2731-2), presented the following return of attendances : — Year. Number of „ Students. 1 ^«^'"- Niimlier of Students. Day Technical Schools for Boys „ Domestic Economy School „ Trade School for Girls „ Classes other than those ^ mentioned above ) In Evening Classes only 1908-9 t> 299 1 1907-8. 137 299 1652 7773 „ 239 122 165 1402 6880 The ahove figures are very encouraging, and clearly indicate tluit the policy o£ the Municipal Reformers is a riglit one. To assist the Council in this work consultative committees have been appointed. For the purpose of visiting and reporting on the classes for goldsmiths, silver- smiths, jewellers, &€., the following gentlemen generously undertook to ])lace their services at tlie disposal of the Council : — Re|irpsentati\'es of the London Wholesale Jewellers and /vllied Trades Association, Mr. H. W. Ayres and Mr. C. Uarling Comyns. Representatives of the Goldsmiths', Silversmiths' and Jewellers' Art rbuucil Mr. C. J. R. Smith and Mr. Caspar Wolff. Representatives of the London Society of Goldsmiths and Jewellers, Mr. F. F. llenes and ^h\ S. Lowen. Representatives of the Gold and Silver Trades Council, Mr. W. R. Franks and ]^Ir. (\ A. Pezzey. Representatives of the Council, Mr. J. Starkie Gardner, Mr. GeiM'gp R. lleming and Mr. H. Wilson (chairman). The Consultative (Committee stated in their report that the visits paid by them to the various training centres in London had proved stages in a voyage of discovery. Rieviously few of theai had any idea of the extent, variety and high quality of the instruction provided, or of the admirable equipment of the principal schools \'isited. They feel that the trades of London are deeply indebted 40 to tlie energy and enlightened enterprise ol' the I'onnciL Tliey are of opinion that tlie co-operation, now happily hrongiit about between the masters and -workers ol London and the schools, cannot bnt be pi'odnctive ol great benefit to the whole community. The report proceeds — " As a step in that direction it muy be suggested that the masters would at the same time aid the cause of technical education at hirge, and secure adequate artistic training for their employees if they would com))ine to recruit their apprentices and assistants from the students of the various schools. In addition to this tlie example ol those liberal- minded employers who send their workmen and boys to the classes during working hours might be more widely followed. Combined action of this kind would not only make it evident that the possession of technical and artistic training was the condition and the means of livelihood, it would give those already employed opportunities of increasing their know- ledge and therefore their value. "A further result of this valuable co-operation might be the evolution of some efficient substitute for, or rehabilitation of, the apprenticeship system, the decay of which is being combated on the Continent by drastic legislation." — Educa- tion Committee, November lOth, 1909 0>- 2512). Again on December 8th, 1909, tlie Educatiijn Com- mittee reported (pp. 2789-90) — ■ " that as a result of a recent visit to the L.C.C. School of Building (Brixton), by the Federation of London Building Industries the following letter has been addressed to the chairman of the committee — ' Dear Sir — You may be interested to learn that a few representatives of the London Building Industries Federation have visited the Brixton School of Building, Ferndale Road, Brixton. 'The following account of the visit will, I trust, convey to you and the Educational Committee of the L.C.C, some of the impressions made upon us as the result of inspecting the many interesting sides that the school presents, in the development of technical educa- tion as applied to the building industries. 41 ' The Federation have consistently opposed what might be termed "indiscriminate education." By that we mean the education of a number of persons in trades or professions who have no intention of following ?ame. Happily, at the Brixton School of Building " indisci'iminare education " does not exist, and we were assured by Mr. A. R. Sage, who conducted the i)arty, that, without exception, all the evening students are working at the trades in which they are receiving instruction. In the case of the day students the fathers of the boys ai'e required to sign a declaration that their sons are to follow the craft taught. The Fedei'ation regards the above with every satisfaction, as it not only insures the proper expenditure of public funds but also safeguards the interests of the several trades concerned. ' The whole work of the school bears the stamp of intelligent treatment, the kindred trades working hand in hand in the carrying out of schemes which cannot fail to be instructive. For example, in the bricklayer's shop the students are building a wall in English bond, with part end wall, door and window openings, etc. ' The carpenter students have made the necessary door frames, etc., and have also fixed same, thus securing for the students a practical demonstration of every-day building practice. This system appears to be carried a good deal further, for we were shown a very fine example of brick work which had been executed from plans prepared by student draughtsmen under the instruction of Professor B. Pite, F.R.I.B.A. 'The plumbing class is a particularly good one, and we were shown some very good examples of work. Carpentry, painting, masonry are tully catered for, and some of the work in the masonry and carving shops is excellent. A beginning has been made with in- struction in ferro concrete construction, but all agree that this important study must be carried further, as little is known about it in this country ; but we must all admit that in the practice of building construction in the future, ferro concrete must play a very important part owing to its almost unlimited possibilities '. . . In conclusion let me state that the Brixton School of Building is not by any means a play house ; on the contrary, we found it a home of science and intelligent training for building trade workers, and we heartily wish its work to be extended (Signed) 'Alex. Greig, Secrctftrij:" 42 In the Teclinical Institutes maintained by tlie Council mucli activity prevails. A large extension to the Paddington Institute is nearing completion. Plans liave heen ai:)proved for the extension of Shore- ditch Institute and also for tlie re-lniilding of the School of Photo-liingraving and Lithography, and the work will be put in hand at once. , The Trade School for Girls (Blooms- bury) has made an excellent start. Tlie Beaufoy Institute and the Hackney Institute have this year been ac.piired by the Council. Further proposals are under consideration providing for the co-ordination and extension of the various Institutes, whereby greater efficienrv will be secured. Apprenticeship Scheme. Since the advent to office of the Municipal Reformers, much valuable information has been collected dealing with the problem of: apprenticeship, and the time is approaching when jjroposals of a definite character should be considered. Legislation is probable at an early date, and the Council, as the local education authority for London, should l)e in a position to place their views before the Government. As is well known, a large nuuiber of boys, a few years after they leave the public elementary schools, drift, in the case of the large towns, into the ranks of unskilled labour. I) I'. Arthur Sliadwell, who at the present time is one of the greatest living authorities on sociology, is of opinion that here lies one ot the chief causes, if not the chief cause, (^f unemployment in this country. According to Dr. Shadwell — and the experience of many others who have studied the question will go to corroborate his views on this subject — a large and increasing number of boys leave school with the equipment conferred by a 4:5 book}" tMlncaiinn, ;uul liiul ('iii[)luyiiiciit in the services of comiininieali(Mi and coineyaiices, as messengers, en-and boys, ^'aii 1)oys, and so on. Their services are in great demand, and they begin to earn money at once. Bnt they learn no trade and acquire no skill. When they ai)])r()acli maidiood and expect a man's "wages.tliey ai'e discluirged in I'avour ol other boys. Then they become nnskilled laljonrers, getting jobs as porters, messengers, carriers, dockers, hewers of wood and drawers of waler, doing work wliich is always ill-paid because it is worth little, and generally irregtdar because its nature is to fluctuate from day to day. Where does this happen? In tlie centres of trade and transpoi't, wh(n'e such unskilled labour is chiefly in demand. In the manufacturing towns boys go rather into the mill and workshop ; the chief demand for them is there, and tiiere they leai'u a trade and acquire skill. When they reach manhood they have acquired it and are set to do man's w(T)'k foi' man's wages. In the country they acquire skill in agricultural work, in the small town they may learn a handicraft. Bnt in the trading centre they learn nothing except their way about and bad habils. This, at all events, is the opinion of Dr. ShadwelL Of courst^ tlinre is some demand for skilled labour in trading centres, and some for nnskilled in manufacturing towns and all messenger boys are not discharged, nor do all factory boys acqnire skill and get a man's place. But this broad distinction holds good ; the one type of place rears and fosters predominantly unskilled, irregular, ill-paid labour ; the otlier rears and fosters skilled, regular, well- paid labour. They do so because those are the kinds of labour respectively demanded l)y trade and transport, whicli are unproductive occupations, on the one hand, and by productive industries on the other. 44 Of the 26,096 boys who left school durini;' the year 1907-8, only 33'2 percent, engaged in skilled employment ; and of 23,694 girls, 5S'l per cent. Sufficient evidence is to liand to show that the sole consideration Avhicli determines the employment to which many boys are sent is the amount of wages innnediately secured. It is, of course, Avell known that the" occupations generally followed by the boys are considered unskilled, and this accounts for so large a percentage being classified as unskilled. In the case of the girls it will be seen lliat the number ^vlio have been classified under the heading of skilled employment is much higher than tlie number entered as unskilled. This difference betv."een girls and boys is largely accounted for by the fact that dijiuestic service is regarded as skilled employment, and also by the large number of girls avIio are described as dress- makers, milliners, and under kindred occupations. It should be borne in mind that these returns rciVi' In the Jirst form of occupation followed by the children i\\'icv leaving school, and must not be interjoreted to signify the kind of Avork ultimately selected. Many changes are made during the first year of employment. This in itself is not desirable, as such a practice militates against any jJi'"!'*^'" system of trade-training. Taking into account these facts, it would seem desirable to consider whether the time has not come for raising the age of compulsory attendance from 14 years to 15 years. At the same time, it woidd seem advisable to ascertain the extent and nature of the co-operation which might be established between the employers in London and the CVmncii in the matter of technical education genei'ally ; also whctlier employers would be prepared to allow apprentices or learners to be present for j^art of the Aveek at trade classes held (hiring the day. 45 The L'ouiicii lias for some time past l)eeu taking steps to establish " part-time " classes for boys and youths who are employed in its various services. On NoA'ember 6th, 190(3 (^linutes, p. lOTC), the Council ] Kissed the following resolutions on this question--- " {a) That the Council do approve the principle that, until they attain the age of 21, boys and youths employed in departments under the control of the Establishment Committee be allowed leave of absence, for a period not exceeding an average of &ix hours a week, for the purpose of attending classes with a view to improving their educa- tional qualifications, the times at which such leave of absence shall be allowed to be determined by the head of the department coucerned. " {fi) That the several committees having under their control tises and proj^osals have now been approved whereby all boys and youths in the Council's service are to be alloAved a t'crlain lime off in orfler to attend educational classes. Further, the Council itself lias carried on an inde- pendent enquiry on the same lines, and as a residt, the following " part-time " classes, in addition to others, are noAv in existence — L.C.C. Central Scliool of Arts and Crafts— About CO silversmithing api)rentices. 46 L.C.G. Central Seliool of Arts and Crafts — About apprentices, etc., enga.i;ed in the furniture trades. L.C.C. Central School r.f A rts and Crafts -About 20 apprentices in the dressmaking trades. L.C.C. Paddington Technical Institute -About 15 apprentices engaged in the dressmaking trades. L.C.C. Hammersmith School of Arts and Crafts — About 12 apprentices, etc., engaged in the furniture trade. L.C.C. Westminster Technical Institute — About 20 apprentices in gasfitting, from the Gas Light and Coke Comi^au}'. Northampton Polytechnic Institute — About 30 silver- smithing apprentices. Borough Polyteelmic — A1)out 18 dressmaking appren- tices. An additional year of comx^ulsory attendance at tlie elementary school Avill do something to secure the ends in view. If, as already suggested, certain chile h-en at the age of lo are transferred to schools of a special industrial type, closely associated Avith the tr;ide school, an extra year -will lay the foundation of a trade training. It may also be hoped that the curriculum of the elementary school will Ije made more practical in its results by a considerable increase in the time devoted to various kinds of manual training. This Avill undoubtedly be a distinct gain, but cannot alone be expected to meet the need. We cannot expect much trade instruction of a definite cliaracter to be given in tliis way. There is a real and great difference between an industrial bias imparted to a curriculum and the cun-iculum of a trade school. The object of the latter is to give instruction to one who has ab-eady entered or intends to enter a certain recognised trade; the object of the former is to encourage an interest in a whole group of tr;ides with the hope that the pupils will eventually select one or other of the trades concerned. The aim of the iirst is primarily educational and only indirectly practical ; the aim of the second is both practical and educational. 47 It is scarcely necessary to point out that any estimate of the cost of developments of such ^reat importance and far-reaching elTect, must necessarily he problematical. If it Avere decided to raise the minimuui seliool-havhifj age from 14 to L"), nud to leave the minimum school-aitcndiivj ages a« at pvexcni, i.e., ."> optional awl o cowpiilsofij^ the Conncil avouM prol)al)ly find itself compelled \(^ find additional accommodation for 25,oOn children, and the estimated annual cost for the first '2ij years would be £190,000. If, on the other hand, it Avere thought l)etter to raise the minimum school-leaA^ing age from l-I to 15, and to increase the minimum school-attending ages from o to I (optional) and from 5 to (compulsory), the additional accommodation AA'ould be for 10,800 children at au annual cost for the first 2d years of £110,000. The Council on No\-ember 23rd, 1909'^- (Minutes, pp. 1< 151-2), resoh-ed-- "(a) That, Avliile not expressing an opinion on the various suggestions contained in the report, the Council considers that if ueAv duties connected AAith the appren- ticing of boys and girls are entrusted to local education authorities, corresponding grants should be made ; that, inasuiuch as industrial training is a national and not a local question, technical institutions and technical scholarships should be supported to a much larger extent than at present out of funds provided by the national exchequer ; and that the Education Committee be instructed to consider whether they should confer with the Board of Trade with reference to the establishment of employment agencies for children leaving school in conjunction with the ucav labour exchanges of that department." '* (B) That in order that public attention may be directed to the subject and criticism elicited, the Education Committee be directed to prept^re for publication by the Council the report on apprenticeship, together with any reports by the Finance Committee on the subject, taking care that it is made clear that the Council has not committed itself to any opinion on the subject." * For a report of this Debate, see London IShinicipal Notes tov December, 1909, p. 410 ct seq. •IS Suflicient, we tliink, lias now been said on this sul)ject to demonstrate its extreme imj)ortance, and to show that the ]\Innieipal Reformers are entitled to the thanks of all who desire to rectify the present growing evil of nnemployment, for thns endeavonring to remedy this nnfortunate state of affairs. Althongh no one remedy Avill jn'ove snfficient to eradicate nnemployment, it seems at all events probable that a really carefnlly thonght-ont system of apprenticeship may go far towards the prevention of one of the leading canses. Open Air Schools. For some time it had been evident that there were in the elementary schools of London, 'chiefly in the poorer districts, many children who, owing 1o their poor state of health, were nnal:)le adeqnatel}" to profit by the instruction given thei'ein, and for whom it appeared to be desiral)le to make some provision. The mental and physical develop- ment of these children was clearly being retarded by their nnhealthy mode of life and insnfficient feeding. It appeared essential that they should have a complete change of environment with a view to their obtaining an abundance of fresh air and good wholesome food. The Royal Arsenal Co-oj)erative Society, Woolwich, generously offered the use of their grounds at Bostall Woods, and the Council on July 0, 1007 (pp. 122-4), api^roved tlie oi)ening of the school for anremic and weakly children ; the school being carried on under the provisions of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899. 49 boys and 04 girls attended. Despite the unfavourable weather, a great improvement was noticeable in the health and physique of the children. They were brighter and more self-reliant and had increased considerably in vreiglit. The Council on May 26th, 1908, (p. 121;")), approved three sites, vi/., Birley House and grounds, Forest Hill, Shrewsbury House and grounds. Shooters Hill, iMontpelier House and grounds, Kentish Town, 49 eacli school providiiii;' ucconiniodiition for 75 children (mixed) in jiverage attenchmcc and to l)e open for five months, from June 1st, 1908, to October 31st, 1908. Extremely favoural)le reports were received, and tlie ( ouncil on February 9th, 1909 (p. 197), agreed that the open air schools should he continued for another year. The rej)ort of tlie worlc for the year 1909-10 is not yet to hand. The cost amounts to about £23 per head, as against £(3 18s. per head in the ordinary school. It should be pointed out that the sum of £23 is enlarged by the items of Jiire of sheds for stock, &c. So far the Board of Education Jiave awarded a grant of £4 10s. per head, as against £1 19s. Od. per head in oriHnary schools. Mr. Gilbert's Vindication of the Work of th@ Municipal Reformers. In conclusion, we would draw special attention to tlie excellent address recently delivered by Mr. J. W. Gill)ert. Ill tliis lecture Mr. Gibjert a(bniral)ly summarises the work of the I\luni(npal Reformers in regard to the voluntary schools, of which Tlie Tablet of December 18th, 1909, published the following report : — " A crowded audience assembled in Our Lady's Hall, Johnson Street, Commercial Road, on Sunday last, to hear the promised reply from Mr. J. W. Gilbert, B.A., K.S.S., to Mr. W. C. Johnson, L.C.C. The subject of the former's address was : ' Which party have accorded more favourable treatment to London Catholic schools, the Progressives or the Municipal Reformers ? ' The Rev. Dean Ring, M.R., presided and was supported by the Rev. Fathers Deady, Farrell, Magrath, Irwin and McCarthy, and a large number of the chief Catholics from Commercial Road, Wapping, and neighbouring districts. " Father Ring, in opening the meeting, expressed his regret that Mr. Johnson had interfered in the affairs of St. George's-in-the-East. He thought it would have been better for him to have let those who differed in that division settle matters amongst themselves. The policy of those who were supporting Mr. Gilbert, however, was not to say things behind an opponent's back which they were not prepared to defend to his face. Accordingly, a letter had been sent 4 50 to Mr. Johnson inviting him to bo present that evening. He asked the Hon. Sec. of the Stepney Catholic Federation to submit the correspondence to the meeting. " ]\Ir. T. Doyle then read two letters, one inviting Mr. Johnson to be present, and promising him the right of reply, the second from Mr. Johnson, stating that he had another engagement, and expressing the view that as the matter had got into the Press, it was impossible to limit it to a smaller audience. " Father Ring, after saying he was sorry Mr. Johnson had not seen his way to accept the invitation, called upon Mr. Gilbert to deliver his address. "Municipal Reformers and Catholics. "Mr. J. W. Gilbert began by expressing his agreement with the chairman's regret that Mr. W. C. Johnson had interfered in the difference between Mr. Mathew and himself. He thought that both the Catholic candidates were well able to take care of themselves, and might have been left to settle their own differences. As a corresponding manager of a Catholic school in the Whitechapel division, he had frequently experienced acts of kindness from Mr. Johnson, both towards the teachers and the children in his school. As, however, he had spoken to Mr. Johnson about the question of the salaries of his teachers as fixed by the last Council, he candidly was extremely surprised at the extraordinary statements made in his letter to Mr Mathew. This letter contained, first, a deliberate denial that the Municipal Reformers had generally treated Catholic schools better than the Progressives, and then proceeded to make a special point with regard to the question of salaries. He proposed to deal with each of these points in turn. Anybody could test the first matter for himself. He invited those present to approach the corresponding managers and teacliers of the Catholic schools whom they knew, and to put the question to them. He would that evening enumerate five points upon which the Municipal Reformers had treated Catholic schools much more favourably than the Prog^res- sives. First, the Municipal Reformers had given them two co- opted Catholic members upon the Education Committee. Nobody could deny that it was a great advantage to the Catholic body to have two of their co-religionists to represent their views upon the education authority. The last Progressive Council had refused to give Catholics a representative, and as if to emphasise the injustice of their action, whilst ignoring the claims of the late Father Beckley and Mgr. Brown, both of whom had worked hard for the Progressive party, they had co-opted Miss Adler to represent the Jews, and they had made room for Mr. Scott Lidgett to represent Nonconformists. Secondly, the present Council had decided to give exactly the same type of staffing to non- provided schools as was allowed in Council schools. 51 In the latter only certificated teachers could be emploj'ed. A similar restriction was now made for voluntary schools. On the other hand, the last Council had resolved always to have a propor- tion of uncertificated teachers in non-provided schools. "Which was the more favourable treatment in this respect? Thirdly, the present Council had decided by resolution that in every rtspect, except where the law provided for a difference, there should be absolute equality of treatment as between Council and non-provided schools. In illustration of this point he asked those who remembered the Johnson Street schools in the days of the last Council, to contrast their equipmei^t then with what it was at present. Fourihiy, he claimed that the consideration shown by the present Council towards non-provided school manaejers and teachers contrasted most favourably with that of the last Council. In illustration of this he showed how managers were now consulted before a decision was arrived at. As a specimen of the treatment accorded by the Progressive party, he produced the letter of protest sent to the Council in 1905 by Southwark Catholic managers against the harsh treatment accorded to them in connection with the survey of non-provided schools. "Teachers' Salaries. "As his fifth point, Mr. Gilbert dealt with the question of teachers' salaries. He g^ave the cases of four teachers, at present in Catholic schools, who for three years, from August 1st, 1904, as a result of Progressive administration, received in all for salaries £254, £440, £224, £344 respectively. These sanne teachers, for three years, from August 1st, 1907, as a result of Municipal Reform administration, v^fould receive in ais £426, £714, £426, and £540 respec- tively. He thought he would liave great difficulty in persuading these teachers that the Progressives had treated them more favourably than the Municipal Reformers. Prom May 1st, 1904, until August 1st, 1905, the Progressives kept Catholic teachers on the, in many cases, miser- able wages which their managers were able to pay them prior to the present Act. When the Progressive salary scheme came into force on August 1st, 1905, it actually contained the following glaring injustices with regard to teachers who had been reported upon satisfactorily by the L.C.C.'s own inspectors : (a) It left teachers with salaries as much as £40, £50, £G0, and £70 a year less than the minimum due to them according to the L.C.C.'s own scale ; (b) It left some head teachers and assistant teachers with many years' experience with lower rates of pay than some pupil teachers in Council schools ; (c) It enabled newly appointed assistant teachers without experience to receive a higher rate of pay than head teachers and assistant teachers with equal qualifications in the same school ; ) the manu- facture and retailing of alcoholic drinks." ^Vhat private enterprise, it may lje asked, remains unthreatened by this declaration of policy ? To further tliis policy, the delegates of the Trades Union Congress were urged to come forward as candidates for election to the different representative l^odies, and it was stated at the Congress in 1894 that, out of the delegates present, over 100 were members of some local or Parlia- mentary body. A pamplilet issued by the Independent Labour Party states : — " The practicability of Sociilism is shown in no better way than by recent advances in municipalisation. . , . Every Town Council in the country is contemplating some greater or less application of the Socialist idea . . . So with the ideas which underlie all worthy political action, Socialism is effecting a revolutionary change. The whole notions of individual enterprise arc? going." Mr. Hunter Watts, in December, 1901, in the organ of tlie Social Democratic Federation, discloses the plot: — "The capture of a few more seats on administradve bodies . . . will enable us to guide the policy of a great many of these bodies, for they are mainly composed of ^\ p11- meauing people, who have no policy of their own and are only waiting for a lead. . . . The step towards Socialism, which we can make through the Municipality, the Connty Council, or the Board of Guardians, may be only a short one, but it is one we shall never require to retrace again ; let the State or Municipality organise labour in the production of the food, housing, clothing, and other necessaries of life." Sidney Webb, in " Socialism in England " (1803), wrote :— "By far the moat important advance in Socialist opinion and Socialist work has taken place outside the professedly Socialist organisations." As an example of recent important strides in Socialism Mr. Wel)b gives chief place to the triumphant progress in collectivism of the I^ondon County Council : — " The triumphant victory of the Progressive Party on the London County Council in 1892 was the more striking in that the contest was avowedly fought upon the issue of Municipal Socialism. The large majorities by which John Burns and other declared Socialists were returned were not more signifi- cant of the change of tone in London politics than is the way in which the Liberal Party, as far as the Metropolis is con- cerned, has been driven to adopt and actively to support the whole municipal programme put forward by the Socialist o 'ganisations." At the Trades LTnion Congress in September, 1902, the President stated : — " In the past Trades Unionists had only studied the indus- trial Bide of the question. The time had now arrived for them to pay more attention to the political side, an.d not only make themselves a great industrial but a great political force in the country.'" Mr. J. Keir Haitlie, MVI'., at tlic City Socialist Circle, (17 .;;-I.i;iling (.)ver the Progressive successes at tlie London ('oui)ly (.'onncil election of 1901, said : — "They were proud ol' the work they had done in the (Jonncil ; they had been to that body what the motor is to the tdectric engine." We li.ivo shown tliat municipal trading was originated l)y ]>iiiei> Socialistic groups, was actively advocated hy them, and was insidiously engineered by them on to municipal bodies. The feverish and frantic delight Avitli which tlie Progressives, as a body, developed the scheme (iu the London County Council when they were in power j)r()\('s that, in practice, at any rate, they are very effective pl(^ii('ers of Socialism. Tliej^ may perhaps be gratified to know tliat the real character of their Avork is understood at any rate l)y such shrewd observers as Mr, Bernard Shaw anil Mr. W. T. Stead. Mj'. Bernard Shaw has himself stated that " Municij^al Socialism is, in fact, really on foot among us under the name of Progressivism." (See " The Common Sense of Municipal Trading," Ijy Bernard Shaw, p. 1, j)ublislied 1901.) Mr. Shaw gave the case away even more completely in some comments on tlie results oL' the t^'ounty Council elections in 1907. Writing in The Clarion on April 6th, 1907, he staled : — "The little epoch which began Avhen the Fabian Society invented London Progressivism and which closed on Mareh 2nd last was an important chapter in the history of Socialism." Further, there occurs in TJic licricir of lievieics for October, 190G, amongst the Notes whicli, it is believed, Mr. W. T. Stead, the editor, personally contributes, the admission that " The London County Council has been the nursing mother of Municipal Socialism." Mr. Robert Hunter, in a work recently published, entitled " Socialists at Work," says :— ''Wholly without an organised movement the Fabians have almost from the beginning been the brains, conscience, and will of the Progressive majority in the London County G8 Council, and the results they have attained are not to be despised. But to say this is not to ignore the dangers of their policy." What is municipal trading ? For a definition, it is only necessary again to turn to the A\Titings of that well-known Socialist,:'Mr. Bernard ShaAv, who, in his work entitled " The Conniion Sense of Municipal Trading " (on page 1), says : — " Municipal trading seems a very simple matter of busi- ness. Yet it is conceivable by a sensible man that the political struggle over it may come nearer to a civil war than any issue raised in England since the Reform Bill of 1832." On October 13th, 1906, Mr. Dickinson, M.P., for many years one of the most leading Progressives on the London County Council, presided at the meeting of the Land Nationalisation Society, held in London, and said, according to The Daily Chronicle of October 15th, 1906:— " . . . He would remind the Conference that the object of the Land Nationalisation Society was to abolish absolutely private ownership of land." The principles on which the claim lor land nationalism is based are practically identical with the princij)les upon which municipal trading proceeds. Mr. Russell Williams has summarised them for us — "All that is socially needed, should be socially owned." Speaking at the principal Progressive Conference, held priiir to the London Borough Council elections of 1906, at the Westminster Palace Hotel, liOndon, on October 19tli, 1906, Mr. Sydney Buxton, M.P., the Postmaster-General, laid doAvn the general principles of the Progressive policy, and said: "As Progressives they had ;ill readied this conclusion — what was wanted m muni^fpal governnnent was not so-called individualism, 1)nt SO-cailed coilectivism." —{The Daily News, October 20th, 1906.J It may be fairly claimed, therefore, that the identity of the Progressives with the Municipal Socialists has been established, and tlial one of the issues — if not the principal issue — at the coming County Council election lies between 60 Collectivisni allan Socialism on tlic one hand, and Liberty and Individualism (m tlie other. No donbt, as the resnlt of the London County Council (■li'cli(,uis oL" 1907, tlie advance of Socialism has been pre- \cntt'(L The access once again to power of the Progressive- Si icialist Party would be fraught with dangers, if possible, i'.iealer to-day than in the past. It is essential, therefore, to recall tu the electors the dangers of Progressive- Socialism, and to enforce upon their minds the fact that IVogressivism lacks alone the opportunity, and not the will, to einlxirk upon fnrtlier costly experiments in Socialism. EVfunicipal Trading: in its relation to Rates and Debt. livery possible ell'ort has been made from time to time by " sujjporters of municipal trading to represent their concerns in a favourable light. Unfortunately their system of account-heeping and unbusinesslike balance sheets make tlie ascerta'iMuent !•:' the real financial position a jDractical iinpossi])iliiy. ■SO attempt has been made by Parliament to collect and to aiial\-se the results of these undertakings since 1902. l>ut we do ]cn(jw, from the unsatisfactory and incomplete returns whicli are pul)lished, that whereas some undei'- lakings claim to have made profits, an equally large number admit losses, which the ratepayers have had to make good. We know, also, that the indebtedness and expendi- ture of local authorities liare increased of late years by leaps and by bounds, and there is good reason to believe that nmnicipal trading schemes are largely responsible for that. On this point some striking evidence appeared in son;e statistical memoranda published by the Local Government Board in ^lay, 1909. As showing the growth of rates all over tiie country, we were given a series of charts and tables, which are well calculated to cause alarm among ratepayers. Il will not be necessary to give these tables in tiieir entiretv, to show how rates have increased out of all 70 proportion t<.) the increase in rateable value and in population. The following iignres relate to England and Wales : — Year. 1850-1 Amount raised In rates. ,£9,016,0()0* Per vn Averapje pound of iluation. 2/ir^^ s Rates. Per head of population. 1867-8- 10,503,000 3/3i 1 5/3 1889-90 1905-6 27,713,000 58,256,000 3/8i- 6/l| 19/6 £1 11 1 * Approximate '. The point to be noticed about this tabSa is that, whereas betweere 1868 and 1890 (22 years) the rates increased by only 5d. per pound cf valuation, and 4s- 3d. per head of popuSation, during^ the period from 1890 to 1906 (IS yea^s) they increased by 2s 5d. per pound of valuation, and 14s. 7d per head of population. A little further on, in an attempt to explain these increases, we find the highly significant admission that the period since 1890 has Ijeen marked by an extension of local " trading " undertakings, and that while the cost of these works is primarily a charge on the revenues of the undertakings, in some cases deficiencies have to be mot out of the rates. It is more easy to trace the direct ctl'eGt of municipal trading in increasing the debt. It is pointed out in the return that the authorities responsible for the largest increase in the amount of out- standing loans are sanitary authorities in urban districts (including London). Furthermore, the explanation given of this fact is that such local authorities have been most active in promoting large Avorks of public health or utility, such as water, gas, electricity supply, aiid tramways, or, in other words, trading undertakings. These, we are told, are "very commonly of a remunerative nature," })ut apparently this is merely a- surmise, because no figures are given to justify the statement. The following table shows the increase in debt classified under the different services between 1881-5 (the first year 71 for Avliicli a coinj)lele classification can he obtained) and I005-G. Tlie figures relate to England and Wales: — 1884-5. 1905-6. Trading undertakings 78,805,000 ... 255,244,000 Public health 57,5(i(5,000 ... i:]6,440,000 Education (elementary and higher) 15.252,000 ... 41,720,000 Poor relief 5.951,000 ... 13,.%0,000 Lunatic asylums 8,326 000 ... 10,878,000 Miscellaneous purposes 12,308,000 ... 25,342,000 Total ... 173,208,000 ... 482,984,000 Tliis local deljt was equal in tlie year 1884-5 to £1 -3s. lOd. per pound ol rateable Aalne, and had grown in 1905-6 to £2 7s. 7d. per ponnd of rateable value. When Ave remember that the money is borrowed mnch more upon the security of the rateable value than upon the value of the undertakings themselves, Ave shall realise something of th« seriousness of this in,crease in debt. The return includes some, figures showing the approximate revenue and expenditure of certain of the trading undertakings, taken froni the out-of-date return, Avhicli AA'as submitted to Parliament as long ago as 1902. Could there be a more damning admittance of ignorance on the part of tlie Local (lovernment Board, Avhich could quite easily, if it Avished, obtain complete figures shoAA'ing the profits and losses on these undertakings. But suc- cessiA^e presidents of the Board have failed to make any effort to collect this information. The public do not Avant probabilities discussed in official volumes of statistics ; Avhat they Avant is reliable information to shoAv Avhat the municipal trading fad is costing the country. The return shows that of the total'local debt (excluding the Metropolitan Water Board) of £435,545,000 outstanding at the end of 1905-6, no less than one-fifth, or £82,813,000, was oAving by the local authorities in London. The debt of London has shoAvn a rapid rate of inci'case since 1861. From 1875 to 1890, and again from 1890 to 1907, the amounts doubled. In 1874-5 the debt Avas equal to £1 Os. 2d. per pound of rateable value ; in 1899-1900 it had gTOAvn to £1 8s. 4d., and in 1906-7 to £1 10s. 9d. per jxjuiid (>[' ratealjlt' value, exclusive uf the debt ol tlie A\'ater lioard. Mucli of tliis inerease, ^ve are told, lias l)eeu due [o loans raised in connection with those municipal wliite elephants, electric lighting and housing schemes. As an answer to those people who are alvrays telling us that we need not Avorry about nrunicipal debt, l)ecause it is being paid off by means ol' sinking funds, wt^ need only mention that wliile no less than £500,00U,n()() (ex- clusive of sums ])orrowed by the Metropolitan Water Board) was borrowed by various local authorities in England and Wales bet^teen 1874 and 190(5, the amount set aside for the repayment of debt, during that period, only reached the comparatively insignificant total of .£170,000,000. This rate of repayment cannot represent anytliing even approaching an adecpiate provision for depreciation. • Some Useful Quotations. Lord Rosebery, in his monograph on the late Lord Randolph Churchill, writes: — " It is a great disappointment in connection with our new or renewed democratic bodies, parliamentary and municipal, that economy has no friends." Lord Rosebery, speaiving at Glasgow on Septem I ler lOl li, 1909, said that the adoption of liie full Socialist l)rogramme Avould lie " tlie end of all — tlie negation of faith, of family, of property, of Monarchy, and of Empii'c." Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., has defmed the purpose of Socialism and its municipal application as follows : — "The purpose of Socialism is to transfer land and industrial capital to the people. There are two wajs in which, simultaneously, this object may be carried out. Th© one way is, by the municipal and national appropriation (with such compensation to the existing owners as the community may think fit to give) of the land and industrial concerns. To the extent to which public owner- ship of latul and capital exists, will the private appropriation of rent and profit be stopped and money be available for purposes of public utility. The second method is by taxation. Taxation has its special sphere of usefulness in 7;} helping the community to secure some part of its own by (livei-ting into the national purse portions of the rent interest and profit which now go to keep an idle class in luxury at the exjiense of the industrious poor. It is with the possi- bilities and the ways of using taxation to advance Socialist aims and to finance schemes of social reform that I am in this essay concerned. Startling as the cold-blooded declaration of the Socialist aim, and of the Socialist designs on taxation, may sound to those to whom they are unfamiliar, t\\^ re is nothing reallj' new suggested either in the principle oi in the praciic. . There is no limst to the present rating powers of the iooal authoritjf, nor to the taxing powers of the State. Each authority can compel the ratepayers or the taxpayers to contribute to the extent of the requii'ements of the locality or of the nation." The folloAving quotation indicates the break of family life which will result il' the Socialists ever have their Avay : - " It is more than ])robable that the ordinary Church marriage service will be abandoned. . . . Under Socialism the marriage service will jDrobably be a simple declaration on the part of the contracting parties before the civil representatives of the State, It will be held binding except with the consent of the community to its dissolution. There will be no special command of obedience from one to the other Divorce will, in all probability, be much less frequently askud for under a reorganised society ; but it will be made more easy of accomplishment. For if, after marriage, it is discovered that two people are absolutely incompatible in temperament, having acquired an unconquerable aversion for one another , . , , the sufferer shall have complete dissolution of the conti'act with leave to enter into another marriage, , . . The childien will belong more to the State than to the parents." — {Pages 00, t^L and 62, '' The Woman Socialist," by Mrs. Philip Snou'den, ^'■Labour Ideal Series "). Recent Socialistic Proposals. Just before tlie last L.C'.C. elections of 1907, the Labour- Socialist Party brought out a programme in which they advocated municipal docks, trams, tubes, local railways, motor omnibuses, hospitals, farms, milk supply, ccal depots, markets, as well as an enlarged County Council to exercise complete control over London government, including the police. This programme has never been 74 ofRfially repudiated l>y the Pfogressive Party, and it Avas Avannly supported l»y ^h. Sidney Wel)b, L.C.C., who is so largely responsible for dircctiug tlie poiiey of that party. On Feln'nary Itli, 1.908, ]\Ir. Jesson (Labour) brought forward a motion to eommit the l.ondon County Council to the establishment of coal depots to retail coal to the general public. In the course of the debate on this prepostei'ous projoosal ^Ir. ^McKinnon Wood said : — '*! havs never comsnitted myself, and Hon. members opposite know that, nor has the party Vi^hich i have had the honour for a gocd many yB&rs to represent, to the theory that ive wore to enter into campetition with trades that are themselves competitive." Other Progressive Mend)ers refrained fmm saying anything, but in spite of their leader's declaration, the following gentlemen voted hir the coal depots : — C. Jesson (Lab(uir). T. Chapman (Progressive). Dr. A. Salter (Progressive) (late Socialist Parliamentary Candidate for Bermondsey). F. S. Smith (Progressive). To see the insincerity of ^Ir. ]\IcKinnon Wood's declaration of p)olicy, Ave ha\e only to remember the highly competitive trading undertaking (i.e., the Works Dept.) AAdiich his fjarty established in I^ondon. Rig^ht to Work Bill. The so-called " Plight to Work " Bill introduced in the House of Commons early in lOOS might avcU be described as the most mischievous and the maddest scheme ev(u- ])ut before the public by the Socialists. Its object AA'as, in bi'iei", to compel the municipalities to find Avork at trade union Avages for anyone avIio cared lo apply for it, or failing av or k , the municipalities Avere to.j)rovide Avages Avithout Avork. Yet the .second reading ol" this Bill Avas. moA-ed by a pro- fessed Liberal, Mr. P. W. Wilso]), Avho sits for South 75 St. Paiicras, and the following I'mgressivc C'ounclUois and ex-Councillors, among a nundxn'oi" other professed fyiborals, voted for the Bill on March i:'>, 1908 : — A. A. Allen. William (Jrooks. C. W. Bowerman. Timothy Davies. James Branch. \V. II. Dickinson. J. W. Cleland. E. 11. Blekersgill. G. J. Cooper. Thomas Wiles. ]\lr. John Bnrns, M.P., who has gained some wisdom and exjDerience during his tenure of tlie office of President of the Local Government Board, said of the Bill, speaking in the House of Commons on March loth, 1908 : — " . . . . there vv^as not a distress committee in the country \vhich did not agree that relief works, whether carried out by philanthropy or by a public authority, did the workman more harm than good, and perpetuated the very chaos and disorder which they w'ere supposed to remove. Under this Bill every local authority was to be compelled to employ every unemployed man and woman according to their capacity at trade union or standard rates of wages, and, in the event of its being unable to provide such work, there was to be maintenance. What was to be this maintenance in the absence of work ? Was it to cost 24s. per week as at the Laindon rural workhouse, or 80s. as at Hollesley Bay .? They knew, as practical men, that if once they conceded the principle of this Bill they would have the lanes of our country districts black with men, no longer content to receive 15s. or 18s. a week, and coming into our towns and cities where the minimum rate would be 28s. or HOs., and thus they would reach this condition of things, that the last lot of the poor in our cities would be infinitely worse than the first. ... If they did not reject the Bill they would be encouraging every workman to be indifferent to the claims of his trade union and to the claims of collective prudence in many other ways. The Government considered that this Bill was unworkable, that it was a delusion and a snare, and thej" intended to vote against it. . . ." — The Times, March 14th, 1908. The Bill has been well sunjmcd up as a Bill to bestow the right upon one man to take another man's job. As to the inevitable effects of such a Bill in practice, we may cite the following : — "As a final example of the results that ensue when public bodies attempt to make work for the unemployed, 76 tiike the case of the reclamation works at Fambridge under- taken by the Central Unemployed Body for London. On Xovemb(>r 26tb, 19(>'J, in answer to a question in the House of Conimons, the President of the Local Government Board stated that the total sum estimated to be expended on these works was £17,950 ; that about 200 acres of land were to be reclaimed ; and that the value of the land after reclamation would be about £') an acre. So that the Central Unemployed Body is spending nearly £18,000 in order to get back £1,000." This ridiculous measure was revived by the Socialists in tlie [louse of Conunons, but altliongh the Progressives have uo\ withdrawn their support, it failed, fortunately, to make any progress. Such a measure still to-da}^ forms a part of every Socialist candidate's stock-in-trade, and the danger, though scotched, is b}' no means averted. [h'of (urther information on the subject of Municipal Tradiug and Socialism, and the deception practised on the public in connection therewith, see the books mentioned at the commencement of this section, and also the sections herewith dealing witli Locomotion, Housing, Steamboats, &c., Arc] THE MUNICIPAL REFORMERS AND LABOUR. Throughout their peiiod of adminislration, the ]\[uiii('ipal Reformers have shoAvn every consideration foi- tli(> claims of labour, and cvory desire to stimulate employ- incut undei' Trade Union conditions both lot'all}- and nationally. Their policy has been to giA'e a preference wherever possible to British goods as opposed to foreign manufactures and to provide that contractors engaged on London work should employ London men. The Pro- gressives, to their shame, have opposed this policy, as we shall show to be the case. Tlie Municipal Reformers immediately upon entering upon office appointed i\ir. Naylor, a Avell-known Trade Unionist, as one of the Aldermen of the Council. (Jn July l()th, 1907, the Council decided that uphol- sterers in the asylums should for the first time be placed nnder Trade Union conditions and receive Trade Union rates of pay. (See L.C.C. Minutes, July Itltli, 1907.) Foreign Contracts, and the Po!icy of the Municipal Reformers. It will be remembered that the election of the hrst L.C.C. took place in the year 1889. On March 12th, 1889, a resolution was passed by the Council 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. The dispute between the 7S two parties as to the placing of contracts abroad lias no\v continiiod for a space of upwards of fourteen j^ars. As far I'ack as the year 1805, the Progressives on the London ('ount.\- Council adopted a policy of purchasing Belgian raiU. Vvnm that time forward contracts were not infre- ([uently ;dlowed liy the Progressive majority in the Council to go abroad. On March 4th, 1902, and on January 20th, 1903, this practice on the part of the IVogressives was challenged by Avhat is now known as the .Munic"i])al Reform party. Sluirtly after their return to power, the Miuiicipal liohirm party on tlie Coiuk il, in Xovemher, 1907, passed a resolution'-'- directing committees to give a preference wherever possilile in the f)urcliase of manufactured articles to goods made Avitliin the United Kingdom. Since the /.huiicipal Reform party attained a majority ill llMiT. tlie Progressives have still continued to advocate a ])olicy of placing contracts abroad, entirely regardless of other facts, provided only that the h^reign tender happens to be the cheapest. A moment's reflection will, it is submitted, show that the ]uilicy of imposing upon Britisli contractors certain laloiii (mditiois, unJess such conditions ara also to be imposed upon foreign comtractors, is really inimical to the interests of the British indnstiial working-classes. Such a policy, entaihng as it does upon the British con- traeloi' streniions limitations in regard to conditions of lalxMii-, hours of work, &c., &c., necessitates as a corollary a higher estimate, in order that the contiact(,ir may safe- guard himself, than were no such regulations to be enforced upon him. Jt stands, therefore, to reason that the foreign contractor, who is subject to none of these regulations — who, in a word, may pay whatever rates of Avages he thinks ht, and work liis men whatever length of hours he is able to o1>tain fi'om them — is necessarily in most instances in * We refer to this resolution to-wards the end of this section. the iiosil'uin to eslliuatc Ini- a oivcn jiieco of \V()rk at a (•()usi(l(M'nI)ly lower scale tliaii ean iJk^ Ijiillsli eontractor. Tlierelore, if tlie lowest eslimale is to bo accepted by the Council, quite regardless of otluM' conditions, it follows almost iiuarialily that the h)reiou contractor nnist secure tlie ciiuiiacM. Siiiiie o£ ilie reasons that ha\e induced the Municipal liei'orm party, since they attained a majority on the L.C.C., to acce])t a British tendei', notwithstanding the fact that such t(>n(ler may exceed in amount that of foreign contractors, were recently "well summed up in a speech l)y ^Ir. A. Shirley Benn (]\1.R.), tlie present chairman of the Highways Committee. Speaking in the Council on OctolHM- :*7Th, 1008, Mr. Benn said :- "The fact remained that If they purchased the British rails the money remained at homo, and 70 per cent, of the cost of those rails was used up in wages, and was participated in by many. It was not only the men in the rolling miiSs who received the wages, but they could trace the influence of the wages in many directions. Undoubtedly the Belgian tender was a low one, but he thought they were justified in looking a littie ahead and antscepating that if, by means cf this low price, the foreign con- tractor was able to first cripple the English market, he would then be In a position to command it at his own price in the future, it might also be the case that the foreign tenderer was desirous of obtaining work for his own workmen, and it that was the case the Council had all the more reason for sayisig they would give the manufacture of those rails to British people." Th.' so-called Labour bencli on the L.C.C., wdiich oil practically every other occasion may be reckoned merely as an adjunct of the Progressive party, have been forced to recognise the justice of the Municipal Reformers' con- 80 teiitiou. Speaking iu the I'ouueil u)i October :^7tli, 190S, during tlie discussion on the subject of Belgian tramway rails, Mr. H. Gosling (Labour) said : — "The Labour men d^tl not care partEOularly about the colour of the men who made the goods, but they did wish to take oare of the conditions under which the labour was done, and the wages paid for the work. The Labour party made their own enquiries, and were convinced that by obtaining the Belgian rails they would be helpsng the sweating of labour." As regards the policy ol th(.^ Municipal Reform party on the L.C.C. during tlieir lirsl: two-and-a-half years of office, Mr. Whitaker Thompson (M.R.) (^ex-Chairman of the Highways Committee), in a lecture delivered at the Caxton Hall, Westminster, on June oOth, 1009, stated : — ' It 16 interesting to know in relation to this matter of foreign contracts in connection witii rail orders that during the time, two-and-a-half years or more, that we have been in office we have passed £193,000 odd worth of track rails and other work which might have gone abroad, and if it had gone abroad it would have cost £185,000 odd instead of £193,000, so that, as a matter of fact, b}' our policy of keeping the work in London, we have only expendtid about 4 per cent, more on those contracts, and I venture to think that we have got more than -l })er cent. value for that expenditure." What do these ligures represent in wages to the British workmen ? About 70 per cent, of the money spent in such contracts represents the share of the wage- earnei'. Therefore, by giving a preference to British iirnis, the Municipal Reform ])arty on the Council liavt^ secured work to British workers to the amount of about £133,000. If you divide that into the average wages of Avorkmen, the ^Ianicii)al Reformers have, in fact, ])n)vided £U)0 worth t)f Avork for u') less than l,:i")<) ni-'ii. Taking the average family, this is equivalent to providing a decent fiving for nearly 7,000 people in this country for a whole lear. 81 Tliougli tlie individual efforts of eacli Municipal body may seem relatively small, yet Avhen taken collectively the adoption of this policy will inevitably add substantially to the quantum of" employment available in London and throughout the countiy. In conclusion, it may I)e said that this question of foreign contracts, which has for so many years constituted one of the most important distinctions between the policies of the two parties on' the L.C.C, is still as much to the fore as ever. The policy of the Progressive party, as instanced by their speeches and votes even as late as the past l^vo years on the Council, is, "Buy in the cheapest market, witli- out any consideration whatsoever of other circumstances." Tlie policy of the Municipal Reform party, on the other hand, is that it is not fair to allow the foreign contractor to receive the contract merely because the estimate happens to be somewhat lower than that of the British contractor, if the goods in question are, in the case of the foreign 1 Beachcrof t, Sir R. Mel vill ]] Goodrich, A. 0. 19 Benn, A, Shirley Gosling, H. (R> Billings, G. Gray, B. (M.R.) Boy ton, J. Greene, W. R. ?» Bi-andon, Jocelyn Greenwood, H. J. ?? Cheylesmore, Maj .-Gen. Guinness, Hon. Waltei ?? Lord Hall, F. t* Cobb, C. S. Hanson, F. S. 5? Cohen, N. L. Haydon, W. 5» Collins, E. Hoare, S. J. G. ^, Davies, Dr. J. Howes, Enos »5 Davis, 1). Hunt, William ?> Dew, G. (P.) Jackson, Cyril >1 Dove, F. L. (M.R.) Jay, E. A. H. '.y Dowton, W. L. Johnstone, Hon. G, )! Duncannon, Viscount Kerrv, Earl of Easton, E. G. Key,'W. H. i» Elcho, Lord Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Fisher, 0. U. Clement „ Fisher, W. Hayes Lancaster, Sir William t Forman, E. Baxter Lort-Williams, J. 84 Michelham, Lord (M.R.) Skinner, Major C (M.R.) Midleton, Viscount »> Smith, F. S. (P.) Morrow, F. St. John ?» Squires, W. J. (M.R.) Naylor, G. K. ?i Stewart, W. Bur toil Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Sturge, C. Y. ^» Phillimore, R. C. (P-) Swinton, Capt. (Telle >■) 5, Pilditch, P. E. (M.R.) Taylor, H. R. (P.) Pownall, A. 95 Taylor, John 1\ (M.R.) Probjm, Lt.-Col. C. ,, Thompson, W. W. ,, Reynolds, W. ,, Thynne, Lord Alexander ,, Robinson, R. A. ,, Vosper. P. , Rowe, H. V. )) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. „ Sanders, W. S. (P.) White, Edward Sankey, Stuart (V.C.) (M.R.) Wild, E. E. 55 Simmons, P. C. ?» Wilson, A. (P-) Againsi : the Amendment— 34. Beaton, Dr. R. M. (P-) Jephson, IL L. (P-) Benn, Sir John 95 Johnson, W. C. ?> Bray, R. 55 Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott 5> Briant, F. 55 McDougall, Sir John 5? Buxton, A. F. (M.R.) Mullins, W. E. T* Chapman, T. (P-) Norman, R. C. (M.R.) Cornwall, Sir E. 55 Pomeroy, AmbroRe (P.) Davies, W. 55 Russell, Arthur B. (Teller),, Denny, Rev. E. 55 Salter, Dr. A. Gautrey, T. 55 Sharp, li. Glanville, H. J, >5 Shepheard, A. J. Gordon, H. H. Smith, Edward (Tell er) „ Harris, P. A. 55 Spicer, Evan Hastings, Rev, F. 55 Ward, Henry Headlam, Rev. Stewart „ Waterlow, D. S. Hemphill, Captain (D .C.) „ Williams, Howell J. Hunter, T. >» Wood, T. McKinnon Mr. Gilbert (P.) and a few other Prugi'essives present refrained from voting. Mr. W. Sanders (P.) moved, and 'Mv. H. Gosling (P.) seconded an amendment limiting the scope of tlie reference back to enquiries into conditions of labour in glass factories. Mr. R. A. Robinson (M.R.) said tluit he could not support the amendment because he wished the Stores Committee also to adopt Mr. Shirley Benn's suggestion, and to report as to tlie possibility of dissecting the tenders and as to the quality of the glass. 85 The aiiieudnieut was defeated on a division, and on Mr. [{ayes Fisiier's amendment being put as a substantive motion il was aaToed to. A somewhat similar question was before the Council on November 19th, 1907, when Col. Wolby (M.R.) moved, pursuant to notice: — That with a view to decreasing the amount of unemploy- ment in this country it be an instruction to all committees authorising the purchase of manufactured articles to prefer whenever possible those goods which had been wholly or in part manufactured within the United Kingdom. Mr. Shirley Benn (M.R.) seconded the motion, '\vhich was opposed by the Progressive party, but carried b}^ 46 votes to 27. For the motion Against the motion 45 ^lunicipal Reformers. 1 Progressive. 27 Progressives. The follo\\-iiio- is the division list : — For the Motion— 46. Beachcroft, Sir R. Melvill (M.R.) Benn, A. Shirley (Teller) „ Benn, I. Hamilton „ Cassel, F. M. „ Cobb, C. S. Cohen, N. L. ., Collins, E. „ Davies, Dr. J. „ Domoney, J. W. „ Dowton, W. L. ,, Duncannon, Viscount „ Easton, E. G. Fisher, W. Hayes ,, Goff, T. ('. B. Goldsmith, Frank „ Gooch, H. C. Goodrich, A. 0. „ Gosling, H. (P.) Gray, E. (M.R.) Guinness, Hon. Walter „ Guinness, Hon. Rupert „ Hall, F. Haydon, W. „ Hoare, S. J. G. ,, Howes, Enos „ Hunt, William „ Hunter, J. H. „ Jay, E. A. H. Johnstone, Hon. G. „ Key, W. H. Lancaster, Sir William „ Lewisham, Viscount ,, Lort-Williams, R. J. „ Michelham, Lord „ Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. 86 Robinson, R, A. Sankey, Stuart (V.C.) Simmons, P. C. Skinner, Major C. Stewart, W. Burton Sturge, C. Y. (M.R.) Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. (M.R.) „ Taylor, John T. „ „ Thompson, W. W. „ „ Vosper, P. Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Teller) „ Against the Motion— 27. (P-) Allen, A. A. Beaton, Dr. R. M. Briant, F. „ Chapman, T. „ Claremont, A. W. „ Davies, W. „ Denny, Rev. E. „ Gautrey, T. „ Gilbert, J. D. Gordon, H. H. ,, Harris, P. A. ,, Hastings, Rev. F. „ Headlam, Rev. Stewart ,, Hemphill, Capt.the Hon.F.,, Hunter, T. (P.) Johnson, W. G. „ Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott „ McDougall, Sir John „ Mullins, W. E. Pomeroy, Ambrose „ Russell, Arthur B. (Teller),, Salter, Dr. A. „ Sharp, L. „ Shepheard, A. J. „ Smith. Edward (Teller) „ Ward, Henry „ Wilson, A. „ On December 9th, 1907, the Stores Committee submitted a schedule of tenders for the supply of general stores. Mr. vSanders (P.) moved that the list of tenders for the supply of glass be referred back in order that the Committee might inquire whether the glass was of British or foreign manufacture and as to the conditions of labour in the places of manufacture. The amendment was seconded by "Sir. Gosling (P.). Mr. Salmon (M.R.) regarded the amendment as impracticable and unbusinesslike, and declared that 96 joer cent, of the glass bought by the Council was British. Mr. Shirley Benn (M.R.), Mr. Coumbe (M.R.), and ]\Ir. Cooper (P.) supported the amendment. Sir Melvill Beachcroft (M.R.) advised the Cormcil to approach the matter from a practical point of view, and 87 said that the adoption of the amendment wonltl lead to endless difficidties. The amendment was carried by 44 to 15 votes. As a further amendment Mr. Johnson (P.) moved a general reference hack in order to inquire to what extent the other articles in the schedule were of British manufac- ture. He reminded the Council that it had already given instructions to the Committees to give a slight preference to British-made goods. Mr. Chapman (P.) seconded the amendment. Mr. Hunt (M.R.) said the Progressives had short memories, and forgot what they did when Belgian rails were under discussion. Mr. Edward Collins (M.R.), chairman of the Stores Committee, said thera were 2,400 items to be dealt with, and the amendment was impracticable. Mr. Johnson's amendment having been defeated, the Committee's schedule, as modified by the first amendment, Avas approved. On March 16th, 1908, the Stores Committee recom- mended that with regard to the supply of glassware, a slight preference he given to goods of British manufacture. The glassware was scheduled in two groups, and British preference meant a difference of £4 lis. 6d. in one case and £38 4s. 8d, in the other. Lord Elcho (M.R.) maintained that whether the goods were British or foreign the lowest tender ought to he accepted. Mr. Buxton (M.R.) took the same view, reminding the members that they were trustees for the public. Mr. Shirley Benn (M.R.) believed that it was the Council's duty, as far as it reasonably could, to spend its money at home. 88 An aiuendment to refer back the proposal as to the first batch of glass Avas negatived by 62 to oO votes, and the Committee's recommendation adopted. Lord Elclio succeeded, however, in inducing the Council to refer back the proposal regarding the second schedule of glass, the amendment being carried l)y 3o votes to 26. On April 6th, 190(S, the Stores Committee reported : "The Council on 17th-18th March, 1908, referred back our recommendation with regard to certain tenders for the supply, until 31st December, 1908, of horticultural, window, plate, etc., glass, under general stores schedule No. 10. The recommendation in question was to the effect that glass of British manufacture should be purchased under each of the 39 items of the schedule. In the case of 30 items, the lowest tenders were for British goods ; but for the remaining nine items the aggregate amount (£121) of the lowest tenders for British glass was £38 in excess of the tenders for glass of foreign manufacture. This excess represented about 4 per cent, of the total value (£999) of the tenders recommended for acceptance. Having regard to this comparatively small increase in cost, and to the resolution of 19th November, 1907, with reference to the purchase of manufactured articles, we considered that this was a case in which preference might be given to British made goods. We gather, however, from the discussion which took place when our recommendation was before the Council on 17th March, 1908, that it is not the wish of the Council to incur this additional expenditure, and we therefore recommend in the case of the nine items abov^e referred to the acceptance of tenders for foreign glass." Mr. Edward Collins (M.R.) oi^posed the report, argu- ing that it was greater economy in the long run to employ British labour. He moved a reference back. Mr. Leverton Hariis, M.P. (M.R.), seconded the amend-^ ment. The Hon. William Peel (M.R.) declared that inasmuch as the difference was 30 to 40 per cent, ho Avas against giving a British preference in this case. The amendment was defeated and the rejxirt adopted. 89 Belgfian Tram Rails.* Tlie fligliways Committee, in a Reptjrt dated May 15th and 21st, 1908, wliicli was considered at tlie meeting of the Ixindon (Vninty Council on May 2Gtk, 1008, stated : — "Tenders for Track Rails and Fastenings — Capital Expenditure, £34,640. " '.]. — We have considered the tenders, received as the result of public advertisement, and referred to us on May 19th, 1908 (p. 1118), for the supply and delivery of track rails and fastenings required for the construction and reconstruction of further lines included in the programme of tramway works for 1908-9. Alternative tenders were invited for about 2,000 or 5,000 tons, and the following are the particulars of the six tenders received after arithmetical errors have been corrected : — Amount of Tender. Name of Tenderer. For about For •2,000 tons 3. 5,000 tons • £ s. d. £ s. d. Socicte Anonyme des Acieries d'Angleur, Belgium 12,429 14 2 32,098 6 8 Edward Le Bas & Co., London (made by Societe Anonyme d'Ongree, Belgium) 12,623 :! 9 32,523 10 P. & W. MacLellan, Limited, London ( made by Augleur Com- pany, Belgium) 1:5,115 11 3 34,068 1 Messrs. Boiling & Lowe, London (made by Phmnix Co., Ruhrort, Germany) 13,191 5 33,803 10 Bolekow, Yaughan & Co., Limited, London and Middlesbrough in,306 17 6 34.640 Walter Scott, Limited, Leeds 13,761 5 35,832 10 " The chief engineer's estimates comparable with the above tenders are £14,227 10s. and £36,567 10s. respectively. " It will be seen that the first four tenders are for rails of foreign manufacture. The lowest tender for rails of British manufacture is that of Bolekow, Vaughan & Co., Limited, amounting to £34,640 for 5,000 tons, and this is £2,541 13s. 4d. higher than the lowest tender actually * See as to this subject, the section on Locomotion. t This tender is not in accordance with the specification. 90 submitted for the same quantit}^ We would, however, point out that, in the past in cases in which materials required for tramway construction and reconstruction works have been obtained from abroad, considerable delay has arisen owing to difficulty in arranging for deliveries to be made in accordance with the requirements of the work for which the materials were to be used ; further, in the event of it being necessary to reject any of the work, the delay caused thereby is a very serious consideration. We are advised, moreover, that if one of the tenders for the supply of foreign rails be accepted, additional expenditure will have to be incurred for the inspection of the materials during manufacture. In these circumstances, and having regard to the terms of the resolution of November 19th, 1907 (pp. 1134-5), instructing committees to give a preference, wherever possible, in the purchase of manufactured articles to goods made within the United Kingdom, we have decided to recommend the Council to accept the tender of Bolckow, Vaughan & Co., Limited, for 5,000 tons. This firm proposes to sub-let a small portion of the work, and we see no objection to the adoption of this course. Provision for the expenditure involved is, as regards about 2,000 tons, made in the estimate (No. 5629) of £81,000 approved on February 5th, 1907 (p. 185), and, as regards the remaining 3,000 tons, in the estimate (No. 5,981) of £70,000 which will be before the Council on May 26th, 1908. Provision in respect of the expenditure involved is also made in the vote on account of the capital estimates for 1908-9. We recommend : — " («) That expenditure, on capital account, not exceed- ing £34,640, be sanctioned for the provision of the track rails and fastenings required for the electrification of further portions of *he Council's tramways. " (b) That the tender of Bolckow, Vaughan & Co., Ltd., amounting to £34,640 for' the supply and delivery of the rails, etc., referred to in the foregoing resolution (a), be accepted ; that the solicitor do prepare, and obtain the execution of, a contract to give effect to the tender ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed to the contract. " (c) That Bolckow, Vaughan & Co., Ltd., be allowed to sub-let to Guest, Keen, and Nettlefolds, Ltd., of Birmingham, or to such other person or firm as may be approved by the chief engineer under the contract, the supply of the bolts and nuts required for the work specified in the foregoing resolution (Jj) ; that the solicitor do prepare the agreement prescribed by standing order No. B 248, relative to sub- 91 letting ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed to the agreement." These three recommendations were all agreed to without a division. On October 27th, 1908, the Highways Conimittee presented the following report : — "The London County Council Tramways. *' Tenders for slot rails, conductor rails, track rails and fastenings — Capital expenditure, £39,456 16s. 8d. " We have considered the tenders, received as the result of public advertisement, and opened during the summer recess under the authority given to us on 2l8t-22nd July, 1908 (p. 240), for the supply and deliver^' of (a) slot rails and conductor rails, and {b) track rails and fastenings required for the construction and reconstruction of further lines included in the programme of tramway works for 1908-9. The following are the particulars of the tenders received : — *' Slot rails and conductor rails. " Name of Firm. Amount of Tender £ s. d. " P. and W, MacLellan, Limited, London (made iby the North-Eastern Steel Company, Middlesbrough) ... 15,193 1 8 " Frodingham Iron and Steel Company, Limited, Doncaster ... " Walter Scott, Limited, Leeds ... "Edward Le Bas, London (made by Ougree Marihaye Steel Company, Belgium). (For slot rails only) " Societe Anonym e des Acieries d'Angleur, Belgium. (For slot rails only) " Track rails and fastenings. " Name of Firm. Amount of Tender- £ s. d. " Societe Anonyme des Acieries d'Angleur, Belgium ... 21,439 10 " Edward Le Bas, London (made by Ougree Marihaye Steel Company, Belgium) 22,080 1 8 " Walter Scott, Limited, Leeds 24,263 15 " Bolckow, Vaughan & Co., Limited, London and Middlesbrough 24,453 17 6 15,611 16,559 5 12,197 10 12,300 16 8 92 " The chief engineer's estimates, comparable with the alove tenders, are £15,857 lis. 8d. and £24,773 15s. respectively. " We have carefully examined the tenders received, and are of opinion that the lowest complete tender for slot rails and conductor rails, namely, that submitted by P. and W. MacLellan, Limited, amounting to £15,193 Is. 8d., should be accepted. The prices in the two tenders above mentioned for slot rails only are considerably higher than those for that section in the three complete tenders. As regards the track rails and fastenings it will be seen that the first two tenders are for rails of foreign manufacture. The lowest tender for rails of British manufacture is that of Walter Scott, Limited, amounting to £24,263 15s., and this is £2,824 14s. 2d. higher than the lowest tender submitted. We would point out that, in the past, in cases in which materials required for tramway construction and reconstruction works have been obtained from abroad, some delay has arisen owing to difficulty in arranging for deliveries to be made in accor- dance with the requirements of the work for which the materials were to be used ; further, in the event of it being necessary to reject any of the work, the delay caused thereby might become a very serious consideration. We are advised, moreover, that if one of the tenders for the supply of foreign rails be accepted additional exj^enditure will have to be incurred for the inspection of the materials during manu- facture. In these circumstances, and having regard to the terms of the resolution of November 19th, 1907 (pp.1 134-5), instructing committees to give a preference, wherever possible, in the purchase of manufactured articles to goods made within the United Kingdom, Ave have decided to recommend the Council to accept the tender of Walter Scott, Limited. Both P. and W. MacLellan, Limited, and Walter Scott, Limited, propose to sub-let portions of the work, and to this we see no objection. "The expenditure involved is provided for in the estimate (No. 5981) of £70,000 approved on May 26th, 1908 (p. 1210), and provision therefor is also made in the tram- ways capital estimates for 1908-9. We recommend : — " (a) That expenditure on capital account, not exceeding £39,456 168. 8d., be sanctioned for the pro- vision of slot rails, conductor rails, and track rails and fastenings required for the electrification of further portions of the Council's tramways and the construction of new lines. ''(h) That the tender of P. and W. MacLellan, Limited, amounting to £15,193 Is. 8d., for the supply 03 and deliveiy of the slot rails and conductor rails referred to in the foregoing I'esolution (a), be accepted ; that the solicitor do prepare and obtain the execution of a contract to give effect to the tender ; and that the seal of the Council be afiBxed to the contract. "(f) That P. and W. MacLellan, Limited, be allowed to sub-let to the North-Eastern Steel Company, Limited, of Middlesbrough, or to such other persons or firms as may be approved by the engineer under the contract, the manufacture of the rails specified in the foregoing resolution (a) ; that the solicitor do prepare the agreement prescribed by standing order No. B 248 relative to sub-letting ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed to the agreement. "(^) That the tender of Walter Scott, Limite.l, amounting to £24,263 15s., for the supply and delivery of the track rails and fastenings referred to in the fore- going resolution (a), be accepted ; that the solicitor do prepare and obtain the execution of a contract to give effect to the tender ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed to the contract. " (e) That Walter Scott, Limited, be allowed to sub- let to the under-mentioned firms, or to such other persons or firms as may be approved by the engineer under the contract, the following portions of the work specified in the foregoing resolution (d), namely, (i) to the Coghlan Steel and Ii*on Company, Limited, of Hunslet, Leeds, the rolling to section of the fish plates ; and (ii) to Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds, Limitf^l, of Birmingham, the supply of the bolts and nuts ; that tbe solicitor do prepare the agreement prescribed by standing order No. B 248 relative to sub-letting ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed to the agreement." The discussion Avliich then followed in tlie CoimcJl, which we report below, is of importance, since it indicates the attitude of the various parties in regard to tliis question of Foreign Contracts. Sir John Benn, M.P. (P.), moved the following amend- ment : — " That the words ' Walter Scott, Limited, amounting to £24.263 15s.,' in line 1, be omitted, and the words 'Societe Anonjme des Acieries d'Angleur, Belgium, amounting to £21,439 Os. lOd.,' be substituted therefor ; 94 and that the following words be added—' and that the committee do report with a view to the amount, viz., £2,824 148. 2d., saved as a result of the acceptance of the lowest tender, being applied to such extensions of the tramway service as will best alleviate the present conditions of unemployment in London.' " He said that this was one of tlie most interesting proposals with wliicli the Council had had to deal since its inception. It was an object-lesson in tariff reform, and they were able to understand in figures what was meant by " keeping the foreigner oat." In the early history of the present Council, a great principle was set up of British work for British Avorkmen, and in May, 1908, the Highways Committee brouglit up a proposal showing the Belgian figures and the British figures. The Chairman of the Highways Committee pleaded for the acceptance of the British figures because they were only 8 i3er cent, more than the Belgian figures. If the Council would refer back to those figures they would discover an interesting development ; for the Council would discoA^er that they were face to face with the fact that only tAvo tenders had been sent in, showing that the Council Avas dangerously near a ring,* and the 8 per cent, had become 13 per cent. ^ It Avould be an interesting enquiry as to Avhere this Avas to stop. The limit set doAvn by the Chair- man of the HigliAvays Committee Avas 10 per cent., and as long as the ratepayers had not to pay more than 10 per cent., Mr. Hayes Fisher was satisfied. ••• Sir John Benn is wrong in stating that only two tenders were sent in. As a matter of fact four tenders were at the time received, two of which were from [British firms tendering British goods, one from a British firm tendering foreign goods, and one from the Belgian firm. As a matter of fact there is not the slightest evidence which supports the suggestion that any ring in fact existed. Naturally there are not many large firms of repute engaged in the manufacture of tram rails. In the present case the chief engineer's estimates for the track rails and fastenings amounted to a total of £24,77o 15s., so that the tenders were well within the amount of the chief engineer's estimates. This alone should amply disprove the statement that any ring existed, as the L.C.C. engineer has sufticient knowledge of the state of the market to enable him to fix his estimates close up to market prices. 95 Mr. Ilayos Fislier : I said about 10 per coiit. Sir -loliii Benn said tlie CVnuicil was the trustee of the ratepayers' money, and they should not adopt different methods from those which woukl be applied to a private undertakino-. He understood tliat it would be said this was not the iirst time in the Idstory of the Council when extra had l)een paid for British rails. That was perfectly true, and the Progressive party's action in the matter coidd be briefly stated that when they commenced completing the tramways they had a patriotic desire that those tram- Avays should be of British work. They got tenders on that t)asis, and they were advised the price was too high, and that if they wanted a sound market for their rails they must go to tender. They did so, and tlie English prices came down with a run. He submitted there was such a thing as economic law — the interchange of conunodities. We sent goods of various kinds to Belgium to a far greater extent than Vv-e bought goods from that country, and if the principle now advocated was applied to its logical conclusion, the balance would be on the Avrong side as far as we wei'e (concerned. This proposal practically meant tliat the ratepayers of London Avere to be asked for a subsidy of £2,800 in order to assist unemployment in Leeds, but if they looked at the iigures they would see that the rate of employment in Leeds was much higher than in London. The difference in price was entirely owing to the fact that the owners of the raw material in this country received a mining royalty of 12| per cent., and if they got rid of the mining royalty they would get rid of that section of the unemployed which would be distinctly assisted by this proposal. Li conclusion, he said that he believed that the real reason at the bottom of this proposal Avas that the authors desired to kill municipal tramways. His amendment Avould j)rovide for rails being olitained at the proper market price, 96 not only now, luit hereafter. He understood that the Labour bench were desirous in these distressful times of doing something to help the British workman, and he was not surprised ; and he understood that objec- tion was taken because the work under a foreign contract would not ensure the labour being done under the conditions laid down by the regulations of the Council. While admitting the soundness of that view, he believed the remedy was not to be found in accep- ting British goods at higher prices but by establishing a solidarity of labour all the world over. ]I( asked tlie Council, in the interest of trannvay extension, to hiiy their goods in the cheapest market, and to devote slraii^'ht-away the difference of £2,800, which would be saved by passing his amendment, to tramway Avork. He put it quite seriously that those who voted against the amendment really voted against employment for London men. If they were really sincere they would accept the Belgian contract, and save money. Mr. H. Jephson (P.) seconded the amendment, and con- tended that it was not justifiable to call upon Ixmdon to pay this additional amount of money in order to assist the workpeople of Leeds. Mr. A. Shirley Benn (M.R.) supported, the recom- mendation of the Committee. Li giving the reasons which had guided the Highways Committee to its conclu- sion, Mr. Benn reminded the Council that in the ad- vertisements for the tenders it was stipulated tlie Coimcil Avere not bound to accept the lowest or any tender, there- fore no injustice was done if the lowest tender was not accepted. The fact remained that if they ])iircl)ased the British rails the money remained at home, and 70 per cent, of the cost of those rails was used up in wages, and was participated in by many. It was not only tlie iiu'ii in the rolling inills who received the wages, but they conld trace the inlluence of the wages in many directions. I^ndoubtedly the Belgian tender was a low one, but he thought they were 97 justified in looking a little ahead and anticipating that if, loy means of this low price, the foreign contractor was able to first cripple the I'higlish market, he Avould tlien ])e in a position to command it at Ids own price in the future. It might also he the case tliat tlie foreign tenderer Avas desirous of obtaining work for his own workmen, and if that was the case the Council bad all the more reason for saying they Avould give the manufacture of tliose rails to British people. He would have i:»referred to ha\'e kept politics out of the (bscussiun, but in vicAV of the fact that the amendment was moved by the leader of the Progressive party, he was unal)le to do so. The action of the Progressives in dealing witli tliis mat'.er Avas both unreasonal)le and illogical. Sir John Benn had said the Miniicipal Ueform party were tr\dng to kill the trannvays, and had said in 1903 that if 5s. Od. a ton was put on to the price of rails, the London tram-ways would not be enabled to maintain halfpenny fares. Sir John Benn, M.P. (P.j : WJiat I said at that time was that any addition to the cost of that kind jeopardised the continuance of halfpenny fares. Mr. A. Shirley Benn (M.R.) said he would read the exact words of Sir John Benn on that occasion: '*An increase of only 5s. (id. a ton, that would mean an increase of 20 per cent., and if that Avere put on it would be impossible to maintain munici])al tramways in London with their halfpenny fares." The SUgg^estion that this difference of £2,800 should be applied to the extension of the tramway services, and alleviate the conditions of unemployment in London, was one of the most barefaced political manoeuvres he had ever experienced in connection with the unemployed. Sir John Benn knew that £18,000 represented about a mile of tram- ways; if this sum of £2,800 were saved it would represent about 273 yards of new tramway, so that even if these Belgian rails were obtained he did not think that the unemployed would be benefited at a!l. 98 Sir Jolin Beim had referred to what had taken place ill 1903, and the I'eason Avhy he said the amendment Avas illogical Avas l)ecause the Progressives were condemning the Municipal Reform party for the very thing that they them- selves did in that year. This matter was of greai importance, and he hoped that memhers on either side of tlie Council Chamber would go with the majority in carrying a proposal which must he for the good of their fellow-countrymen . Mr. H. Gosling (Lab.) said that he had not been able to discover any reason why the Labour bench should alter the opinion it expressed when the subject was before the Council on the last occasion. The Labour men did not care particularly about the colour of the men who made the goods but they did wish to take care of the conditions under Avhich the labour was done, and tlie wages paid for the work. The Labour party made their own enquiries, and were convinced that by obtaining tlie Belgian rails they would l)e helping the sweating of labour. The curious thing to him was that it was only on tlie Belgian rails that the majority raised this question. There were other foreign goods in which the Council dealt, namely, Swedish doors, for instance, and he thought if the majority were sincere they would apply the principles they now advocated to the other articles, as well as to the Belgian rails. Mr. W. Hayes Fisher (M.R.) observed that the debate would lie useful as showing the principles upon Avhich they received and accepted tenders from Britisli and foreign manufacturers. It was not unfair to conclude from the remarks of Sir John Benn tliat the ProgressiAe party was prepared, Avlieii in oflice, always to buy everything in the cheapest market. Sir John Benn, M.P. (P.), explained that the illustration of Piogressive policy was to be found in their action in December, 1903, namely, that when the difference is a slight one they would decide in favour of the British manufacturer, but if it was a question of from 7 to 13 per cent., it was quite another matter. .Afr. W. Hayes Fisher (M.R.) said that he thought this Avas an astounding attempt to modify a speecli just delivered in favour of buying in tlie cheapest market. lie thouglit that everyl)ody woukl be justified in conchiding from tlie speech which Sir John Benn had made that under all circumstances he and his party would buy in the cheapest market, without regard to the conditions of labour. Sir John Benn now said that was not his principle ; then, what was his principle ? His principle appeared to be ^^ery much what the principle of the majority was, namely, that it was a matter of degree. That was exactly the principle he had laid down for himself. They did not say that under all circumstances they woidd adhere to the policy of British work for British workmen, but Avhere there was only a ditference of something like 10 per cent., they contended they were acting in the best interests of the ratepayers, and getting the best value for their money by placing these contracts at home. Was that subscribed to by Sir John Benn and his party ? He wanted to know how far the two sides of the Council were in agreement on this matter. That was the only principle he had laid down. If ever they obtained a tariff people would know how to act in these matters, and there would be different conditions altogether. The foreigner in that case would be weighted, as he ought to be w^eighted, by a tariff, and put on a greater equality with our own manufacturers, but until they had a tarifE he contended that they were perfectly j astilied in giving these contracts to British makers who employed British labour, paid Trade Union rates, and ol)served Trade Union con- ditions. Quite recently the Bi-itish Consul in Belgium had reported on the relative amount of unemployment in Belgium and Great Britain, and that report showed that there was infinitely less unemployment in Belgium than in 100 Great Britain at the present moment. Therefore, Belgian workers were well emi^loyed, and British workers were not Avell employed, and this was an additional reason why at a slight extra cost the manufacture of these tram rails should be retained in this country. As to helping the unemployed workmen of Ijceds, he thought that that Avas ratlier a narrow view to take of the situation. In the first place they were all I^nglish people, and in the next place it might he that if this contract went to Leeds it might prevent some of the Leeds unemj^loyed coming to London to swell the depressed London market. As to conditions of labour abroad, it appeared that the highest wage j)aid for labour of this kind to the Belgian workman was 5d. an hour, with longer hours, while the English rate was about lOd. an hour, with sliorter hours, and he thought matters of this kind ought also to be taken into consideration in deciding such a point. It was surprising tliat the Labour party should resist proposals for putting on a tariff which would effect the principal objects which they seemed to desire. Mr. H. Gosling (Lab.) observed that the reason ^^-as shown by the report from which Mr Hayes Fisher had quoted, viz., that protection did not increase wages or improve conditions. Mr. W. Hayes Fisher (M.R.) rejoined tliat if the lion, member was in favour of Free Trade let him be in favour of Free Trade, l)ut he should remember that Free Trade in reality meant the absence of restrictions as to wages and conditions. In concluding, Mr. Hayes Fisher again defined the policy of his party, and said that wherever there was only a small difference relatively between the home and the foreign price, the home tender should have the preference. At a time of great depression and emergency they could even go further, and say that even if there was a substantial difference between the two tenders, they ought to take steps to protect British firms employing British labour under fair conditions. 101 Alderman Ben Cooper (Lalj.) said that lie did not think they could regard a change of tariff as likely to improve the condition of workmen. What inducement was there in the Belgian ligures quoted by j\Ir. Hayes Fisher to adopt pro- lection from the point of view of rates of wages or hours of labour? The matter was simple. Certain conditions were imposed on the British manufacturer which were not imposed on the foreig^n manufacturer. If the British manufacturer did not comply with those conditions he would be excluded. The Labour bench accordingly were prepared to exclude the foreign firm just as they would a home firm and for the same reason. They intended to apply the trade union rule apart from party politics. Sir John Bonn's argument that the difference of some £3,000 should be spent on tramway extension was fallacious, because no scheme costing so little as £3,000 was ever likely to be submitted to the Council, and if the amount were ear-marked as part of some larger scheme, how could the workmen at home benefit ? That Avas no argument for sending the work abroad. Unemployment was the question with which they were dealing at the present time ; they were appealing to the Government to make special efforts to' provide work for the unemployed as a matter of national duty. Was it consistent, therefore, to send many thousands of pounds' worth of work abroad for the sake of saving two or three thousand pounds. On that bench the question was not one of Tariff Reform. For his part he did not Avorship Free Trade as a fetish, nor did he regard Protection as the salvation of the industrial classes ; neither had the poAver to remove the poA^erty of the Avorking classes. There Avas something to be said for both vieAvs, but he believed the balance of the argument lay in a continiiance of a free trade policy in preference to a tariff. The Hon. W. R. W. Peel (M.R.) said that after Mr. Hayes Fisher's speech it Avas not necessary to add much to the discussion. He Avas glad to get Mr. Gosling's support, although the hon. memlier seemed partly to apologise to 102 Sir John Benn for doing so. There were Labour x:)arties in other phices which showed a little more indej^endence than the I;abour party on tliat C'ouncil. When challenged l)y Mr. Hayes Fisher, Sir John Benn deliberately got up and said his party did not buy in the cheapest market. Was that a new policy ? Sir John had criticised the Municipal Keform party for their patriotism. Did the Progressives thus throw over the Avhole of the Cobden policy? Would Sir John make that speech in the House of Commons ? ^Vould he tell his leader that he threAv over the policy of buying in the cheapest market. This was not a question of Avords, but a far-reaching jDolicy. Sir John was not there for the moment, but he would ask his able lieutenant, Captain Hemphill, was that the polic}' of the party ? Or was it a plan adopted for the moment because they would not face the question ? Nothing had been said really in favour of the anend- ment, which was a grotesque one. The suggestion was to save £2,000 and to send £25,000 Avorth of Avork abroad. That Avas a pretty good measure of the standard of Sir John Benn in regard to the British workmen — £25,000 for Belgian Avorkmen and £2,000 for British Avorkmen. Surely that Avas enough to satisfy anyone in regard to Sir John's policy. The capital A^alue of the tramAvays was tAvelve millions, and yet the ProgressiA^e Leader said that because they Avanted to employ British labour at an extra cost of £2,800 they therefore Avanted to smash the tramA\ ays. The charge had many times been refuted, but again and again it Avas brought forAvard. Sir John also said that this Avas making London pay for Leeds Avork, but the Council could not take such a parocliial view as that. There was a float- ing body of labour between the towns, and if they could prevent the migration to London of the Leeds unemployed they were doing London a great service. The case Avas an extreme one, and he believed llie fact tliat the present AA'as a time of serious and excei^tional ciisis AA''hich justified him in voting in favour of the proposal. ]03 Aldennau W. S. Sanders (FaiIj.) said tliat he- ^\'as going to support liis colleagues on the Labour bench for the reason that llie present uKiment was excep- tional in regard to uneniploynient. They were urged as a municipality by the Government to expedite their work in order to alleviate distress. That doctrine had been held before, ])oth by Lil)eral and Conservative ^linisters. There were 14,023 persons employed in rolling mills, or 1,851 less than this time last year. There were in this particular industry twelve per cent, out of work. If by relieving these people with this work they were breaking some economic theory they were justified in doing it. Cai^tain the Hon. l^lt/.Roy Hemphill (P.) iirged tlie Council to understand what it was doing by adopting the recommendation, viz., putting a tax of 14 per cent, on the tram rails and on all the ironwork going to be used by the tramways. It Avas, therefore, not merely a cpiestion of £2,800, Init of increased prices on all tramway work undertaken l)y the Council. Ironwork formed 40 per cent, of tramway work. 'J'hey would have to pay more and that was the usual result of x^reference. The amendment was then put to the vote, and the Council having divided, there appeared : — For the Amendment, 33. Allen, A. A. (D.C.) (P.) Hunter, T. (P.) Beaton, Dr. R. M. „ Jephson, H. L. „ Benn, Sir John „ Johnson, W. C. „ Bray, R. „ Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott „ Briant, F. „ McDougall, Sir John „ Casson, W. A. „ Mullins, W. E. Chapman, T. „ Phillimore, R. C. „ Claremont, A. W. „ Pomeroy, Ambrose ,, Davies, W. „ Russell, Arthur B. (Teller) ,, Gilbert, J. D. „ Salter, Dr. A. Glanville, H. J. „ Sharp, L. „ Gordon, H. H, „ Shepheard, A. J. „ Harris, P. A. „ Smith, Edward (Teller) „ Hastings, Rev, F. „ Spicer, Evan ,, Headlam, Rev. Stewart „ Ward, Henry ,, Hemphill, Capt. the Hon. Waterlow, D. S. „ FitzRoy „ Webb, Sidney „ 104 Against the Amendment, 68. (M.R.) (Lab.) (M.R.) (P-) (Lab.) (M.R.) Alexander, George Anstruther, H. T. Beachcroft, Sir R. Melvill Benn, A. Shirley BilliDgs, G. Boyton, .J. Brandon, Jocelyn Cassel, F. M. Clarke, H. J. Cobb, C. S. Collins, E. Cooper, B. Conmbe, E. H. Davies, Dr. J. Davis, D. Dawes, J. A. Dew, G. Domoney, J. W. Dove, F. L. Dowton, W. L. „ Duncannon, Viscount „ Easton, E. G. „ Fisher, C. U. „ Fisher, W. Hayes „ Goff, T. C. E. Goldie,Rt.Hon.Sir George ,, Goldsmith, Frank (Teller) „ Gooch, H. C. Goodrich, A. 0. Gosling, H. Gray, E. Greene, W. R. Greenwood, H. J. Guinness, Hon. Rupert Hall, F. Harris, H. Percy Amendment lost. (Lab.) (M.R.) Haydon, W. (M.R.) Hoare, S. J. G. Howes, Enos Hunt, William Hunter, J. H. Jackson, Cyril Jay, E. A. H. Jesson, C. (Lab.) Key, W. H. (M.R.) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement „ Knight, W. S. M. Lancaster, Sir "William „ Lygon, Hon. H. ., Montgomery, R. H. „ Morrow, F. St. John „ Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Pownall, A. „ Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. Rowe, H. V. Sanders, W. S. (Lab.) Simmons, P. C. (M.R.) Skinner, Major C. „ Smith, F. S. (Lab.) Squires, W. J. (M.R.) Sturge, C. Y. Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. (Teller) Taylor, A. T. Taylor, H. R. (Lab.) Thompson, W. Whitaker (V.C.) (M.R.) Thynne, Lord Alexander „ Vosper, P. „ White, Edward „ The motion was next i>\xt to the vote, and the Council having divided, there appeared : — For the Motion, 64. Alexander, George (M.R.) Anstruther, H. T. Beachcroft, Sir R. Melvill Benn, A. Shirley Billings, G. Brandon, Jocelyn Cassel, F. M. Clarke, H. J. Cobb, C. S. Collins, E. Cooper, B, Coumbe, E, H. (M.R.) (Lab.) (M.R.) 105 Davies, Dr. J. (M.R.) Davis, D. ,, Dawes, J. A. (P.) Dew, G. (Lab.) Domoney, J. W. (M.R ) Dove, F. L. Dowton, W. L. ,, Duncannon, Viscount „ Easton, E. G. „ Fisher, C. U. Fisher, W. Hayes „ Goir, T. C. E. Goldsmith, Frank (Teller) „ Gooch, H. C. „ Goodrich, A. 0. „ Gosling, H. (Lab.) Gray, E. (M.R.) Greene, W. R. „ Greenwood, H, J. „ Guinness, Hon. Rupert ., Hall, F, Harris, H. Percy „ Haydon, W. „ Hoare, S. J. G. „ Howes, Enos ,, Hunt, William „ Hunter, J. H. „ Jackson, Cyril ,, Against the Allen, A. A. (D.C.) (P.) Beaton, Dr. R. M. Benn, Sir John „ Bray, R. „ Briant, F. „ Buxton, A. F. (M.R.) Casson, W. A. (P.) Chapman, T. „ Claremont, A. W. ,, Davies, W. „ Elcho, Lord (M.R.) Gilbert, J. D. • (P.) Glanville, H. „ Gordon, H. H. „ Harris, P. A. „ Hastings, Rev. F. „ Headlam, Rev. Stewart „ Hemphill, Capt. the Hon. FitzRoy „ Motion carried. Jay, E. A. H. (M.R.) Key, W. H. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement ., Knight, W. S. M. Lancaster, Sir William ,, Lygon, Hon. H. ,, Montgomery, R. H. „ Morrow, F. St. John „ Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Pownall, A. ,, Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. Rowe, H. Y. Sanders, W. S. (Lab.) Simmons, P. C. (M.R.) Skinner, Major C. ,, Squires, W. J. „ Sturge, C. Y. Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. (Teller) Taylor, A. T. Taylor H. R. (Lab.) Thompson, W. Whitaker (V.C.) (M.R.) Thynno, Lord Alexander ,, Vosper, P. „ White, Edward „ Motion, 36. Hunter, T. (P.) Jephson, H. L. „ Johnson, W. C. „ Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott „ McDougall, Sir John „ Mullins, W. E. Norman, R. C. (M.R.) Phillimore, R. C. (P.) Pomeroy, Ambrose „ Russell, Arthur B. (Teller) Salter, Dr. A. „ Sharp, L. „ Shepheard, A. J. ,, Smith, Edward (Teller) ., Spicer, Evan „ Ward, Henry „ Waterlow, D. S. „ Webb, Sidney „ loi; London Work for London Men. Early in 1907, the Municipal Reformers inaugurated the policy of London work for Jjondon men. Tenders were received for Ijuilding a new school at Wandsworth. The lowest tender, that of a country firm, was £17,113. This was rejected in favour of a tender of £17,121, submitted by a London firm. This was done in order to give Avork to London men. The Progressives, true to their principles of so-called " Free Trade," vainly opposed the recommendation, which was, however, carried.*' Thus a job worth over £17,000 was secured for a London firm and London workmen. (L.C.C. minutes, July 9th and 10th, 1907, pp. 129 and 189.) On November 26th, 1907, the Higlp.vays Committee reported that they had asked Messrs. Rowley Brothers, of Tottenham, who had tendered at the lowest figure for the building of a large car-shed at Hackney, if in the emplojnnent of unskilled and casual labour they would give preference as far as possiljle to men bond fide resident in the County of London. Messrs. Rowley Brothers had given the desired assurance, and it was recommended that the contract — which was for the sum of about £24,000 — should be placed witli them. On the paragraph being called by the Chairman, Mr. J. D. Gilbert (P.) protested against the Highways Committee's action. He objected to any new Protectionist principle of this kind Ijeing adojDted bj- the Council. Mr. R. C. Phlllimore (P.) moved that the recom- mendation sliould be referred back to the Committee. He regarded tlie proposal that London workmen should have a preference as a sham. -\ny workman who was * The Progressives on this occasion did not, however, carry their opposition as far as a division. 107 asked if he Avere a London man would promptly say lie was, if there Avere work to be had. ]\rr. P. A. Harris (P.) seconded the amendment. The Higliways Connnittee's j^roposal Avas tlie introduction of Tammany methods and of a thoroughly vicJOUS principle. The next thing would, he snj)posed, be " Hackney Avork for Hackney men." The proposal appealed to the baser instincts of the people of London. It Avas a rotten and AA'rong principle, and an attemj^t to bril)e AA'orking men. Mr. McKinnon Wood (P.) characterised the report of the Committee, AAdth regard to preference for unskilled London Avorkmen, as " pitiable, narrow-minded, a sham and a fraud." HoAvcA-er, he adAdsed ]\Ir. Phillimore and Mr. Harris to AvithdraAv tlieir amendment. Wlio could tell Avhether a man Avas " ho)id iide resident in the County of London ? " Mr. R. A. Robinson (M.R.) asked AAdio AA^as running away noAv. The Connnittee's pro^Dosal should be supported. It AA'as an honest attempt to do sometliing to remedy the BA'il of unemployment in London. The Hon. W. Peel (M.R.) challenged Mr. P. A. Harris or any other ProgressiA^e member to tell an audience of London AA'orkmen from a platform that to attempt to gi\'e them a slight preference in emj^loyment Avas 2>itiable, A'icious, and narroAv-minded. Mr. HoAA'ell Williams (P.) ridiculed the Committee's report. Any contractor aa'ouM ahvays employ local un- skilled men, to saA'^e tlie expense of bringing them fi'om a distance. Mr. W. W. Thomi)son (M.R.), ( diairman of the HigliAvays Committee, said tliat the idea of the CNjmmittee AA'as to giA'e Ix)ndon AV(^rk to London men, especially at this time of the year. "Are we to understand that the party opposite are out of sympatliy Avitli tlie proposal ? " he asked. " Do they tldnk it is ' pitialde ' that Ave sliould 108 do so? The dilficiilty in riOiidoii is in regard to unskilled laLour, and this is what we are trying to do something for." The opposition of the rr(\gressives arose from jealousy. Captain the Hon. F. Hemphill (P.) advised his colleagues of the Progressive party not to vote on the amendment. The whole of the Municipal Reformers present there- upon sx:)rang to their feet and demanded a " division." Mr. Phillimore and Mr. Harris, the proposer and seconder of the amendment, hastilj'' left the chamber in order to avoid being called upon to act as " tellers," and in order to force the division through, Lord Duncannon and Mr. Greenwood, Municipal Reformers, took their places. The other Pro- gressives trooped into the "Noes" lobby, Avith the result that the amendment was lost by 102 votes to 2, the Iavo latter Azotes being, necessarily, given 1)y the tAvo Municipal Reform tellers. Lord Duncannon (]\I.R.) explained that he and Mr. GreenAvood had acted as tellers because the moA'-er and seconder of the amendment had left the chamber. ^Ir. Sanders (P.) then proposed that a clause should be put in the contract stating that the firm should giA'e employment to London men oidy. Mr. Sanders' amendment Avas carried by C8 votes to 23. For the Amendment ... 52 Municii:)al Reformers. IG Progressives. Against the Amendment... 3 Municipal Reformers. 20 Progressives. The folloAving is the division list Avith reference to this amendment :— For the Amendment, 68. Barlow, C. A. M. (M.R.) Boyton, J. (M.R.) ]3eachcroft, Sir R. Mehill ., Brandon, J. „ BenD, A, Shirley .. CasseJ, F. M. „ Benn, I. Hamilton ,, Cheylesmore, Maj. Gen. Billings, G. „ Lord , 309 Clarke, H. J. (M.R.) Hunter, J. H. (M.R.) Cobb, C. S. 55 Hunter, T. (P-) Collins, E. H JessoD, C. Cooper, B. (P.) Johnstone, Hon. G. (M.R.) Crooks, W. (Teller) 51 Key, W. H. Davies, Dr. J. (M.R.) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Davies, W. (P-) Clement ,, Dawfs, J. A. •5 Knight, W. S. M. V Denny, Rev. E. 55 Lewisham, Lord Domoney, J. W. (M.R.) Lort- Williams. J. R. Dove, F. L. 51 Lygon, Hon. H. Dowton, W. L. 55 McDougall, Sir John (P.) Duncannon, Lord 55 Michelham, Lord (M.R.) Easton, E. G. 55 Montgomery, R. H. 5» Fisher, W. Hayes 55 Mullins, W. E. (P.) Gautrey, T. (P-) Murchison, C. K. (M.R.) GlanviUe, H. J. 15 Peel, Hon. W. Goff, T. C. E. (M.R.) Pomeroy, A. (P.) Goldie, Sir G. )5 Pownall, A. (M.R.) Goldsmith, F. 55 Probyn, Col. C. 15 Gooch, H. C. 55 Rowe, H. V. 59 Goodrich, A. 0. «1 Simmons, P. C. 5* Gordon, H. H. (P.) Squires, W. J. 55 Gosling, H. (Teller) 55 Stewart, W, B. 5> Gray, E. ^ (M.R.) Sturge, C. Y. 55 Guinness, Hon. Walter 55 Swinton, Capt. G. 55 Hall, F. 51 Taylor, H. R. (P-) Hastings, Rev. F. (P-) Thompson, W. W. (M.R.) Haydon, W. (M.R.) White, E. 55 Hoare, S. J. G. 55 Wild, E. E. 55 Against the Amendment^ 23. Allen, A. A. (P.) Phillimore, R.C.(Teller) (P.) Beaton, Dr. R. M 55 Russell, A. B. Buxton, A. F. (M.R.) Sharp, L. Casson, W. A. (P-) Shepheard, A. J, 55 Claremont, A. "W. ?j Smith, Edward Gilbert, J. D. 55 Smith, F. S. (Teller) Harris, P. A. 55 Spicer, Evan Headlain, Rev. Stewart „ Taylor, J, T. (M.R.) Hemphill, Capt, Hon. F Ward, Henry (P.) Jephson, H, L, 55 Williams, Howell J, )5 Johnson, W, C. 55 Wood, T. McKinnon 55 Lancaster, Sir W. (M, R.) y.Y. E. Wild (M.R.) moved and t]je Hon. H. Lygon (M.R.) seconded an amendment requiring the contractor.s to give joreference in employment to men bond fide resident in tlie County of London, instead of tying the contractors' no liands as liad been suggested by the Labour members. This amendment was carried by 52 votes to 36, and the resohition as amended then read as follows : — "' That provided that Messrs. Rowley Brothers agree to give preference in employment on casual or unskilled labour required for the work to men bond fide resident in the County of London, the tender of Messrs. Rowley Brothers, amounting to £24,078, for the erection of the Hackney tram- ways car-shed be accepted ; that the solicitor do prepare, and obtain the execution of, a contract to give effect to the tender ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed to the contract." On December 17th, 1907, the Council accepted the tender of Messrs. Holliday & Greenwood, of Brixton, for the building of a new secondary school at Clapham, at £25,919. The estimate of the Education Architect of the Council was £27,038. The Education Committee, in recommending the acceptance of Messrs. Holliday and Greenwood's tender, stated that they had asked the firm for an assurance that in the employment of unskilled labour in fulfulment of the contract they Avould, as far as possible, give preference to workmen who have for not less than six months been hond fide resident within 20 miles of Charing Cross, and that Messrs. Holliday & Greenwood, Ltd., had given the required assurance. At a meeting of tlie Council on July 13th, 1909, the Highways Committee submitted a report on the erection of the second section of the central car repairing depot and (inter alia) recommended : — (e) That, subject to Charles Wall, Limited, agreeing to give preference in employment on casual or unskilled labour required for the work to men bo)idfide resident in the County of London, the contract with Charles Wall, Limited, for the erection of the first portion of the central car repairing depot on a schedule of prices, entered into in pursuance of the resolution of November 12th, 1907 (p. 1022), be extended so as to include the erection of the second portion of the repair- ing depot, subject to a deduction of £250 from the total value of the work when measured up and valued on com- pletion ; that the solicitor do prepare, and obtain the execution of, a contract to give effect to this arrangement ; and that the seal of the Council be affixed thereto. Ill Mv. W. i\ .Idhnsoii (I*.) moved the following- ainend- nieiit :— That the words " subject to Charles Wall, Limited, jigreeing to give preference in employment on casual or un- skilled labour required for the work to men bo nn fide resident in the County of London," in lines 1 and 2, be omitted. lie said : Of course, the Council is well aware that these words carry very little meaning, and they have shown that they are aware of that fact because they persistently refuse to accept an amendment moved in the Council with the idea of making tliese words effective. They have ahvays refused to strengthen the words in any way and tliey have always refused to grant any consideration that a report should be made by the committee at the conclusion of the work as to how those undertakings have been carried out. The reason that I have i)ut this amendment on the paper to-day is the strange fact that of two reports following one another closely, one of those reports contains these words and the second rej)ort is remarkable for not having them in. Is this to he the polic}^ of the Council or is it not ? If it is to be the policy, why is it not carried out in regard to all contracts of a similar nature to this ? Why should one committee choose to insert the words in its contracts and another committee refuse to do so ? Let us at any rate be consistent. Why should the Highways Committee be enamoured of I^ondon Avork for London men, whilst the Housing Committee shows it the cold shoulder and has nothing to do with it '? The Co^^ncil should realise that it is being played with in this matter. Go to any of the tramway contracts now being carried out by the contractors who have given this undertaking and make enquiries as to where the men come from who are carrying it out, and you Avill soon ascertain this, even by the accent of the men who reply to you. Rev. F. Hastings (P.) formally seconded the amendment, Mr. A. Shirley Benn (M.R.) said : When I read this amendment of Mr. Johnson I hardly supposed that it was 112 serioiis, as I could not believe that Mr. Johnson or the Progressives objected to oar endeavouring to keep the Avork for our workmen here in London. I shoidd like to give the Council some information in regard to what the insertion of these words in our highways contracts has effected. I have got tliis undertaking from Messrs. Wall. They have a contract with us for the Bow car shed. Tliere was no sucli undertaking in that contract. But the Borough Surveyor wrote asking Messrs. Wall to em2:)loy local labour, and they said they would do so, so far as they could, except in the case of their foremen and leading men. In the case of the repairing depot it was not an undertak- ing in the contract, but .Messrs. Wall were approached and asked to do this, and they agreed to employ local labour as far as possible, and it was found that 60 per cent, of the men re- sided in the locality. In the case of the NorAvood car shed Ave inserted a clause in the contract that the contractor would, in the employment of casual or unskilled laljour required for the execution of the work, give x>refereiice to men Avho are honci fide resident within the County of London, and the contractor states that 78 per cent, of the men resided in the County of London area. Thus from 60 to 78 per cent, of local labour has been employed, and I think the Council ought to be very well satisfied that we have got such a clause in our contracts. Mr. H. Ward (P.) said : I should very nuich like to know the data upon Avhich the chairman of the committee has stated these figures. How does he knoAv that 60 or 78 per cent, of the men were resident in London, and Avliat does he mean by resident ? I imagine the Avhole informa- tion on the point is the man's own statement to the foreman of the contractor. Does he rely entirely on the truth of those statements, and Avould he accept the fact of a man living one night in a lodging house in London as a reason why he should be called hond fide resident in LondcMi ? Mr. W, Whitaker Tliompson (M.R.) said : I do not knoAV A\diether it is quite in order for the chairman of the committee to speak again, but from tlio report Avhich 113 Mr. Sliirley Benii has read lie has evidently got the best infornKition he could, since he has gone to the contractor himself. It was alleged that Londoners had not an equal chance with outsiders, and it was in consequence of those complaints that the Highways Committee thought it right to adojot this procedure. I am surprised to hear from a man like ]\Ir. AVard that yve should be expected to doubt the word of our workmen. For the first time I have heard that statements made by the workmen in the employ of our contractors are not worthy of credence. Having no reason to doubt the word of the men themselves, I am quite sure that members will realise that the establishment of our car shed down in Woolwich has been of very great use to the men in Woolwich in finding employment for them at a time when employment is very slack. Mr. W. S. Sanders (P.) said : — Mr. Thompson states that the Council has not received any complaints arising from the non-fulfdment of this clause in our contracts. He has also stated that this clause was i:)ut in in order to give equal opportunities to London men to obtain work under the Council with provincial men. As a matter of fact, the object of the clause was altogether different. It was not to give equal chances, but to give London men a very large preference. That was Avhat was desired ; but I do not lielieve that it has operated at all. If I were a man in employment and were threatened with unemployment if it got known that I lived outside the area, I should carefully conceal my place of residence. A considerable amount of work has to be done oiit of Ijondon, and it is evident that this clause is not going to satisfy the workpeople of London although it may j^lease Mr. Shirley Benn and Mr. Thomjoson. 'Sir. P. A. Harris (P.) pointed out that even with the remarkable figures of 78 per cent, there was still a large 8 114 margin, and if the clause really operated tliere ought not to be any outsiders at all. Besides no contractor would go out of his way to import labour from oiitside if he could get it inside. On a division the amendment was rejected by 20 to 58. The following is the division list in question : — For the Amendment, 26. Allen, A. A. (P.) Beaton, Dr. R. M. Benu, Sir John „ Bray, R. „ Briant, F. Claremont, A. W. Davies, W. ,, Gautrey. T Gilbert, J. D. Glanville, H. J. „ Gordon, H. H, (LP.) Harris, P. A. (Teller) (P) Hastings, Rev. F. „ Headlam, Rev, Stewart „ Hemphill, Capt, the Hon. FitzRoy (P.) Jephsou, H. L. „ Johnson, W. C. „ Lidgett, Rev. J, Scott ,, McDougall, Sir John ,, Primrose, Hon, N. J, A. ,, Russell, Arthur, B. (Teller) „ Salter, Dr. A. ,, ' Sharp, L. „ Shepheard, A. J. „ Ward, Henry ,, Webb, Sidney. ,, Against the Amendment— 58. Alexander, George (M.R.) Anstruther, H. T. Benn, A. Shirley ,, Benn, I. Hamilton „ Brandon, Jocelyn ,, Buxton, A. F. „ Cassel, F. M. „ Chapman, T. (P.) Cobb, C. S. (M.R.) Collins, E. „ Davies, Dr. J. ,, Davis, D. Dew, G. (P.) Dowton, W. L. (M.R.) Duncannon, Viscount „ Easton, E. G. Fisher, W. Hayes „ Forman, E. Baxter Goff, T. C. E. Goldie, Rt.Hon.SirGeorge „ Goldsmith, Frank (Teller) „ Gooch, 11. C. Goodrich, A. 0. Greene, W. R. Greenwood, H. J. Hall, F. Harris, H. Percy Haydon, W, Hoare, S. J. G. Hunter, T. Jackson, Cyril Jay, E. A. H. Johnstone, Hon. G. Kerry, Earl of Key, W. H. Knight, W. S. M. Lancaster, Sir William Lygon, Hon. H. Montgomery, R. H. Norman, R. C. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Pilditch, P. E. Probyn, Lt.-CoL C. E. Reynolds, W. (M.R.) (P.) (M.R.) 115 Kobinson, R. A. (M.R.) Sturge, C. Y. (M.R. Rowe, H. V. ^, Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. Salmon, Isidore ?) (Teller) „ Sanders, W. S. (See.) Thompson,W. Whitaker „ Simmons, P. C. (M.R.) Thynne, Lord Alexander ., Smith, F. S. (Soc.) Welby,Lt.-Col. A. C. E. „ Spicer, Eviin (P.) Wilson, A. (P.) Squires, W. .). (M.H.) ^\v. Frank Smith (P.) said : I aslc permission to move that t lie Avovd " skilled " be inserted in the second line of the reconunendation, in place of the word " casual," so that it will read: "agreeing to give preference in employ- ment on skilled or unskilled labour, &c." I desire to move this amendment because there should be no possible difference of opinion as to whether a skilled man or an unskilled man should have the iDreference. The fact of a man being skilled ought not to act prejudicially against him, wlien we are dealing with the question of workmen iu London. ]\lr. ( leorge Dew (P.) said : I have very much pleasure in seconding Mr. Smith's amendment, and I do trust it Avill be accepted unanimously by this Council. When you simply insert the words " casual labour," and leave out the carj)enter, the bricklayer, the plumber, the painter and the l^lasterer, I should like to know what these men have done not to be considered. Mr. E. Collins (M.R.) said : I congratulate my. friends on the Labour Bench on their desire for Protection. I also am a Protectionist, but their Protection is for the workmen in London. It is quite pathetic to listen, as we often do, to Mr. AVard and the members on the Radical side of the House advocating sending the Council's contracts out of England, and buying material from all over the world. There lies the remedy for this unemployment. The employment of which Englishmen should to-day l)e in receipt is given to the Belgians, the Germans, and people in various parts of the world, and that is supported by the gentlemen on the opposite benches, who are said to be the- 116 friends of the working man. Their policy has been to send work out of the country, and I hope this Council, whenever an opportunity occurs, will have things manufactured in this country for the benefit of the British workman. Mr. H. J. Glanville (P.) said he supjDorted the amend- ment, although he did not think very mu(;h would come of it. The Rev. Stewart Headlam (P.) said : For my own part I think it is quite ridiculous to make these restrictions at all. Personally, I do not want any of the restrictions at all, but, at any rate, if you are to have restrictions, I think you ought to have the word "skilled" for the word " casual," and therefore I should vote for that substitution, although I should vote against the whole thing. If you are to have that restriction you should accept the amend- ment. Mr. H. Gosling (P.) supported the amendment. Mr. Henry Ward (P.) said : I very much regret that I am unable to support Mr. Smith, but I am very anxious to test the sincerity of my friends opposite on this matter. They will have to vote one way or the other on this amend- ment, and I think the line they take will be a very fair test of their sincerity. The effect of putting this clause in the contract may be the very reverse of that suggested ; it may deprive your London men of work, and may give the provincial men work, because the committee iiave refused to give any definition of what " hond fide resident in the County of London " means. Mr. A. Shirley Benn (]\1.R.) said : I should like to say a word or tAvo with regard to the contract, because I think we have rather wandered from the matter before the Council. We have arranged with Messrs. Wall to recom- mend the Council to give them this order, provided they do certain tilings. We have not specified skilled labour, and those of US interested in business are fully aware of 117 the fact that when people enter into contracts they have to rely on their foremen and leading men, who are generally specially engaged by the year, and frequently for many years. On a division, there voted For the Amendment, 28. Bray, R. (P.) Briant, F. „ Cassel, F. M. (M.R.) Casson, W. A. (P.) Chapman, T. „ Davies, Dr. J. (M.R.) Davies, W. (P.) Dawes, J. A. „ Dew, G. (Teller) Dowton, W. L. (M.R.) Forman, E. Baxter „ Gautrey, T. (P.) Glanviile, H. J. Goodrich, A. O. (M.R.) Gosling, H. Hastings, Rev. F. Headlam, Rev. Stewart Johnson, W. C. Montgomery, R. H. Pilditch, P. E. Pomeroy, Ambrose Salter, Dr. A. Sanders, W. S. Shepheard, A. J. Simmons, P. C. Smith, F. S. (Teller) Webb, Sidney Wilson, A. (P.) ?) (M.R.)^ (P.) (Soc.) (P-) (M.R.) (Soc.) (P.) Agfainst the Amendment, 62. Alexander, George (M.R.) Anstruther, H. T. Beaton, Dr. R. M. (P.) Benn, A. Shirley (Teller) (M.R.) Benn, I. Hamilton „ Benn, Sir .lohn (P.) Brandon, Jocelyn (M.R.) Buxton, A. F. ,, Claremont, A. W. (P.) Clarke, H. J. (M.R.) Cobb, C. S. Collins, E. Davis, D. „ Domoney, J. W. ,, Duncannou, Viscount „ Easton, E. G. „ Fisher, C. U. Fisher, W. Hayes „ Gilberr, J. D. (P.) Goff, T. C. E. (M.R.) Goldie, Rt. Hon. Sir George (M.R.) Goldsmith, Frank „ Goocb, H. C. (M.R.) Gordon, H. H. (I.P.) Greene, W. R. (M.R.) Greenwood, H. J. „ Hall, F. Harris, F. L. „ Harris, H. Percy „ Harris, P. A. (P.) Haydon, W, (M.R.) Hemphill, Capt, the Hon. FitzRoy Hoare, S. J. G. Hunt, William Jackson, Cyril Jay, E. A. H. Jephson, H. L. Johnstone, Hon. G Kerry, Earl of Key, W. H. Lancaster, Sir William ,. Lygon, Hon. H. McDougall, Sir John (P.) Michelham, Lord (M.R.) Midleton, Viscount (P-) (M.R.) (P-) (M.R.) Mullins, W. E. (P.) Norman, R. C. (M.R.) Pee], Hon. W. R. W. 5» Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. H Robinson, R. A. JJ Rowe, H. v. Russell, Arthur B. (P.) Salmon, Isidore (M.R.) Sharp, L. (P-) 118 Spicer, Evan (P.) Squires, W. J. (Teller) (M.R.) Sturge, C. Y. „ Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. „ Thompson, W. Whitaker „ Thynne, Lord Alexander „ Ward, Henry (P.) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (M.R.) The amendment, accordingly, was rejected. Mr. T. Chapman (P.) thereupon moved a further amendment, to add the following words : — " and that at the completion of the work full report be made to the Council on the manner in which the undertaking to give preference to London labour has been carried out." L think that amendment must commend itself to both sides, and therefore I will not take up a minute of the (Council's time in speaking upon it. Mr. W. A. Casson (P.) seconded the amendment. . Mr. A. Shirley Benn (M.R.) said that on behalf of the Highways Committee he should he very glad to accept that amendment. On November oOtli, 1909, on tlie recommeii(hition of the Improvements Committee, the Council accepted the tender of Messrs. Dick, Kerr & Co., of Cannon Street, E.C., at the sum of £29,705, for the reconstruction of Doptford Creek Bridge. The Chief Engineer's estimate was £29,997. The lowest tender was £27,497, and the liigliest was £55,344. In connection with this contract the following amend- ment was moved by Mr. Simmons (M.R.), seconded })y Mr. Shirley Benn (M.R.) :— " That the words ' in employment on casual or unskilled labour to men bond-fide resident ' in lines 2 and 3 be omitted, and that the words ' when taking on workmen for the purpose of this contract, to men who are bond-fide resident or usually employed ' be substituted therefor ; and that the 119 following words be added — ' and that if the contractor shall make wilful default in giving such preference, the com- mittee shall report to the Council with a view to the contractor being placed on the list of firms from whom the Council will not accept tenders.' " After a lengthy discussion, a division was challenged, whereupon there voted : — For the Amendment, 55. Benn, A. Shirley (Teller) Benn, I. Hamilton (M.R.) Billings, G. ?i Brandon, Jocelyn Buxton, A. F. ?5 Cheylesmore, Maj.-Gen. Lord ,, Cobb, C. S. •) Cohen, N. L. 1» Coumbe, E. H. Davis, D. 55 Dawes, J. A. (P-) Domoney, J. W. Dove, F. L. (M.R.) Dowton, W. L. ?i Duncannon, Viscount »? Easton, E. G. ?5 Fisher, C. U. Goff, T. C. E. „ Goldie, Rt. Hon. Sir George „ Goldsmith, Frank ?J Gooch, H. C. )? Goodrich, A. 0. 9» Gosling, H. Gray, E. Greene, W. R. (P-) (M.R.) Greenwood, H. J. ?? Hall, F. (M.R.) Hanson, Sir Francis ., Harris, H. Percy Haydon, W. „ Hoare, S. J. G. „ Howes, Enos „ Hunt, William „ Hunter, J. H. ,, Johnstone, Hon. G. ,, Key, W. H. Lancaster, Sir William ,, Lygon, Hon. H. „ Naylor, G. K. „ Norman, R. C. „ Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Pilditch, P. E. Reynolds, W. „ Robinson, R. A. „ Rowe, H. V. Salmon, Isidore „ Simmons, P. C. (Teller) ., Skinner, Major C. „ Smith, F. S. (Soe.) Sturge, C. Y. (M.R.) Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. „ Taylor, Andrew T. „ Thompson, W. Whitaker „ Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. „ Wild, E. E. Allen, A. A. Beaton, Dr. R. M. Bray, R. B riant, F. Casson, W. A. Against the Amendment, 28. (P-) Chapman, T. Davies, W. Gautrey, T. Gilbert, J. D. Glanville, H. J. (P.) 120 Gordon, H. H. (I.P.) Mullins, W. E. (P.) Harris, P. A. (Teller) (P.) Pomeroy, Ambrose ,, Hastings, Rev. F. „ Russell, Arthur B. (Teller),, Headlam, Rev. Stewart ,, Smith, Edward (D.C.) Hemphill, Capt. the Hon Spicer, Evan FitzRoy „ Taylor, H. R. Jephson, H. L. „ Ward, Henry ., Johnson, W. C. ., Williams, Howell J. „ Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott „ Wilson, A. „ McDougall, Sir John „ The Policy of London Work for London Men Placed on a Permanent Basis. This policy of insisting on a preference being shown, to London men, in respect of London contracts, was made a permanent feature of the contracts of the Council on December 14th, 1909. At the Council's meeting held on tliis date, the General Purposes Committee reported that during the past three years the cj[uestion had arisen on many occasions as to requiring contractors for the execution of works for the Council to employ London workmen, and in several instances the Council had resolved to insert in contracts a clause requiring the contractor to give preference in employment to London men. The Committee now thought it was desirable that a standing order should be made requiring that on all work for the Council executed within the county preference should be given to London men, but that the actual terms of the clause to be inserted in contracts should be settled to meet the special conditions of each contract. They, therefore, recommended : — That the following be a standing order of the Council : In every contract involving the employment of work- men in the County of London, a clause shall be inserted to provide that, when taking on workmen for the purpose of the work to be done under the contract, the contractor shall give preference to London men, that is, men usually employed in the county, and resident within a radius of twenty miles from Charing Cross. Mr. Sinnnons (M.R.) said he thought the recommenda- tion would do a good deal 1o prevent the influx into London 121 oE unskilleel labour from the provinces, lie could not, however, accept the recommendation in its present form, because he thought the radius of twenty miles was too wide, and he objected to the omission of a penalty. He accordingly moved as an amendment : — That the words " woi'k to be done under the " in lines 3 and 4 be ooiitted, and that all words after the word " preference " in line 4 be omitted, and the following substituted therefor : " to men bond fide resident or usually employed in the county ; and that if wilful default is made in giving such preference, the name of the contractor will be placed on the list of persons and firms from whom the Council will not accept tenders. The committee having supervision of the contract shall report any such default to the Council for its decision as to the name of the contractor being placed on the list referred to." Mr. Shirley Benn (M.R.) seconded the amendment, and said there was not a single member among the ^Municipal Reformers who was not keenly anxious to hnd work for the unemployed, and he did not think there was any Progressive who would dare to oppose the amendment. His own opini(jn was that if tliere Avas a specific monetary penalty it would lead to hampering the contracts, and that the case would be fully met if the Council decided that in all cases where a contractor would not carry out the Avishes of the Council he should be placed on a l)lack list, and thereby prevented from tendering for any Avork of the Council in future. Mr. Jesson (P.), speaking as a Labour representative, said he had always regarded the question of London work for London men as a mere vote-catching device, and every Labour leader with whom he was acquainted held the same view. ]Mr. Johnson (P.) stated that the Progressives would oppose both motion and amendment, because the/ believed both to be unadulterated humbug. 122 The Hon. W. R. W. Peel, M.P. (M.R.), said tliat he believed that the proposal before the Council Avoiild do something to try to check the inroad of labour into London, arising out of the idea that work "was to be obtained there. On a division, the amendment, Avhich was regaided l)y the Chairman of the General Pa]-poses Committee as a friendly one, was carried by 03 votes to 28. Tlie division list in question was as follows : — - For the Amendment, 63. Alexander, George (M.R.) Anstruther, H. T. Benn, A. Shirley Benn, I. Hamilton Billings, G, Brandon, Jocelyn Buxton, A. F. Clarke, H. J. Cobb, C. S. Cohen, N. L. Cooper, B. (P-) Davies, Dr. J. (M.R.) Dawes, J. A. (P-) Dove, F. L. (M.R.) Dowton, W. L. Easton, E. G. Fisher, C. U. Forman, E. Baxter Goff, T. C. E. Goldie,Rt.Hon.SirGeorge ,, Gooch, H. C. )9 Goodrich, A. 0. 59 Gosling, H. (P-) Greene, W. R. (M.R.) Greenwood, H. .7. 55 Hanson, Sir Francis 55 Harris, H. Percy 55 Hay don, W. 55 Howes, P]nos 55 Hunt, William 51 Hunter, J. H. 55 Jay, E. A. H. 55 Johnstone, Hon. G. ., Key, W. H. (M.R.) Lancaster, Sir William Lygon, Hon. H. Midleton, Viscount Morrow, F. St. John Murchison, C. K. Norman, R. C. Pannell, W. H. Peel, Hon. W. R. W. Pilditch, P. E. Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. Reynolds, W. Robinson, R. A. Rowe, H. V. Salmon, Isidore Salter, Dr. A. (P.) Sanders, W. S. (Soc.) Sankey, Stuart (M.R.) Simmons, P. C. (Teller) „ Skinner, Major C. „ Smith, F. S. (Soc.) Squires, W. J. (M.R.) Sturge, C. Y. „ Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. (Teller) „ Taylor, Andrew T. „ Taylor, H. R. (P.) Thompson, W. Whilaker (M.R.) Thynne, Lord Alexander „ Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. , White, EdAvard (V.C.) „ 123 Again; 5t the Ai mendinent, 28. Beaton, Dr. R M. (P-) Hunter, T. Bray, R. Jephson, H. L. Casson, W. A. „ .Tesson, C. Chapman, T. ,^ Johnson, W. C. (Teller) Claremont, A. W. <5 Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott Davies, W. 5' McDougall, Sir John Gautrey, T. Mullins, W. E. Gilbert, J. D. ,^ Russell, Arthur B. Glanville, H. J. >» (Teller) Gordon, H. H. (LP.) Shepheard, A. J. Harris, P. A. (PO Spicer, Evan Hastings, Rev. F. Ward, Henry Headlam, Rev. Stewart ,, "Webb, Sidney Hemphill, Capt. the Williams, Howell J. Hon. F. 5 • Wilson, A. (P.) The motion, as amended, was adopted by a large majority. Work for Unemployed. The labour policy outlined above has, of course, been designed to afford the most practical form of relief to the unemployed, but tlie Municipal Reformers have not been content with tliat alone. Perhaps the most unanswerable tribute to the work put in liand by the present Council for the unemployed was that i)aid by Mr. John Burns in replying to a deputation on December loth, 1908. On this occasion Mr. Burns said : — " The Borough Councils had given employment to 3,500 men, who, but for the Borough Councils' action, would not have had work at this moment. . . . The London County Council . . . had expanded from 230 men in August last to 2,900 on January 1st on tramway work. 2,000 men were to be employed in painting and other work. . . . There are 14,385 men at work within the six public bodies I have mentioned who would not have been at work, but for the co-operation of aim and effort on the part of these bodies." •:— {Daily News, December 16th, 1908.) 124 Tho li)llo\ving- oxtnict from the Westminster Gazette of January 14th, 1009, sufficiently refutes the party- assertion of wliich tlie Progressive-Socialists were accus tomed to make use last winter, to the effect that the Municipal Reformers liad caused unemployment in London : — *' In London the work of the Central Unemployed Body has shown that, except for political purposes, the amount of unemployment in the capital is very much less than it has been in some previous years." At a meeting o[ the Council on December 22nd, 1908, Mr. Edward White (M.R.), the Chairman of the General Purposes T'ommittee, in reply to Mr. Goodrich, stated that tlie nundx'r of men employed in the Council's p(irks and open spaces, in carrying out schemes of w^ork prepared for the unemployed, was 2,483 on December 11th, 1908, and there had been a slight increase since. There were 1,352 men emjjloyed under the engineer in constructing and re- constructing tramways for the Council, and an additional 850 were employed on the same work by the chief officer of the traiaways. It was estimated that 2,900 men would ])c engaged by the engineer and 1,190 by tire chief officer in the New Year, in tramway con- structional ^\'orks on lines for which tenders have been or would be accepted by the Council during the recess. During^ the Christmas holidays there would be employed about 2,011 men in cleaning and painting the Council's schools, and 742 men were eaigaged in the Avorlc of building schools, the Avork of which was l)eing accelerated in order to provide work for the unemployed. In the New Year that number would be increased by about 878 men. There were still 920 men employed in the Works Department, and the number of workmen no^v carrying out -works l)y direct employment under the direction of the various spending committees of the Council was 245 by the education architect, -12 by the chief officer of the fire brigade, 119 by the housing manager, 110 by the chief officer of the parks, 125 8,845 by the cliief oflicers of the tramways, and 18 by the valuer. The General Purposes Committee in their Report for the year 1908-9 (see Annual Report, 1908-9, p. 25) state : — " Lack of Employment. "As in past years the Committee communicated with the other committees of the Council as to the desirableness of affording employment during the winter months for as many men as possible, with a view to lessening the amount of unemployment in London. In reporting on the matter the Committee expressed the hope that the publication of the action of the Council in this direction would not be the means of attracting to London, where employment is already 80 difficult to find, men from the provinces hoping to share in the work." On December 7th, 1909, Mr. E. White (M.R.) asked the acting Chairman of the Education Comniiftee what work it was proposed to put in hand this winter, wjtli the view of providing worlc for the unemployed. Mr. Cyril Cobb (M.R.) replied that the Chairnuni of the Committee (Mr. Cyril Jackson) hoped to bring up a full report on the subject, Avith recommendations, bi'fore the Christmas adjournment. The General Purposes Committee, in a lengthy Rej)ort dated December 13th, 1909, set forth the various Standing Orders relating to Contracts, Rates of Wages, clc (see L.C.C. Agenda, p. 24 ct scq.). In pursuance of their general policy, the Municipal Reformers are, at the present time, employing a large number of ex-soldiers in the service of the Council. According to the Report of the General Purposes Committee, dated December 13th, 1909, there were at that time in the employ of the Council no less tlian 1,705 ex-soldiers. The following tabic shows 126 tlie various departments in Avliicli these ex-soldiers ai"e now emjDloyed : — • Service or DEPARTMENr. Number ok Ex-Soldiers Asylums 462 Clerk of the Council IG 1 1 Architect Chemist ... Comptroller 8 Chief Engineer 92 Education OHicer ICO Architect (Education) 24 Fire Brigade 63 Housing ... 44 Parks 188 Public Control 21 Solicitor 3 Statistical Officer 2 Tramways '. 587 Valuer ... 7 Works 2 Stores 24 THE HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES. The Acts of Parliament. The law relating to the housing of tlie Avorking classes was formerh' embodied in tliree sets of Acts — Shaftesbur5''s Acts (enabling local autliorities to provide lodging houses for letting to the labouring classes) ; Torrens's Acts (empowering local authorities to deal Avith houses unfit for human habitation); and Cross's Acts (giving the authorities power to carry out imi)rovement schemes for unhealthy areas). Under Lord Shaftesbury's Acts scarcely" anything Avas ever done ; little Avas accomplished under Mr, Torrens's measures ; bat under the Acts i)assed AAdien Mr. (noAv Viscount) Cross Avas Home Secretary, in the late Lord Beaconsfield's ministry, many substantial improvements AA-ere instituted in London. Li 18S4, mainly at the instance of the late Lord Salisbiu'y, a Royal Commission sat to enquii'e into the Avorking of, and to suggest improvements in, these Acts. Tlie Commission directed its recommendations mainly to tAvo objects — (1) Tlie improvement of the means i)ossessed by the old Metroj^olitan Board of Works and the local bodies for dealing Avith the subject, and (2) The reform of the local authorities themselves. The following laws liave since been passed : — (Ij The Local GoATrnment Act, 1888, and the London Government Act, 1899, Avhicli created in the County Council and the Borongh Councils municipal authorities capable of dealing AA'ith the honshig problem ; 128 (2) The Housing of the Working Classes Acts, ISOU, 1900, and 1903, and the Public Health Act, 1891, which constitute the cliief measures regulating this subject. (3) The Housing and Town Planning Act. 1009, which has only just been passed. The Public Health Act consolidated and amended the sanitary laws formerly administered b}^ the A'estries and District Boards and now by the Borough Councils. Jt contains numerous provisions for the prevention of ovei- crowding and sanitary evils of all sorts, and it places the County Council in the position of tlie central health authority for certain purposes. The Housing Act, 1890, brought Avitliin a single Statute the former Acts, with many improvements. Part I. of this Act enables the County Council to clear large unhealthy areas. The Council, if satisfied by the rej^resentations of a medical officer o? health that the sanitary defects of an area cannot be remedied ot he revise than by an improvement scheme for the rearrangement and reconstruction of the streets and houses, may make a scheme for this purpose, which then has to be eon firmed 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 applicati(ni of the Council, dispense with the obligation to an extent not exceeding one-half. The compensation payable for property taken corapulsorily within an unhealthy area is limited by special provisions, Avhich forbid any allowance in respect of tlie compulsory purchase. Part li. of the Act gives the County Council and the Vestries and District Boards power to make improvement scliemes for unhealthy areas Avhich are too small to be dealt with under Part I. The schemes must be sajictioned 129 l)y tilt' 1a)C!iI ( lovcriiiiKMil Jioard, Iml need not he confirmed hy I'ailiaiuenl , unless an owner ol' any ])aii ol' an area petit idiis against a scJienie. The London County Council may (-ontributc towards vestry seliemos, and a Secretary of Stale may order the Council to contribute. The local anthoiil i(>s have extensive powei's under this part of the Act as regards the closing and demolition of dwellings unfit f'oi" luiman liabitation. Pai'l 111. made the powers of T^ord Shaftesbury's Act metropolitan instead of locah It enabled the London County Council to buy land by agreement, or compulsorily with the authority of a Secretary of State, for the purpose of erecting lodging houses, which include cottages, for the working classes, and also to conti'act for the purchase or lease of lodging houses. By tlie Ijondon Government Act, 1899, the (lovern- ment empowered the Borough Councils which were brought into existence by that Act, to adopt Part III. of the Housing Act, 1890, within their OAvn boi'oughs. By tlie Housing of the AVorking Classes Amendment Act, 1900, Parliament extended the powers of the Council,, under Part III. of the Act of 1890 so as to enable it to buy land outside, as vrell as within the county boundary. This amendment in the law is one of the utmost imj)ortance, having regard to the extraordinary developments in the means of locomotion wliich Inne specially characterised the last few years. The Act also empowered the Council to lease land acquired under Part III. to any lessee, for the l^urpose 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 for the maintenance and repair of the houses. [The Council has no power to sell land bought under Part HI. of the Act of 1890, 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.] 9 130 ]]y tlio Housin.o- of llic Working Classes Act, 1903 fintj'oducecl by Mr. Walter Loug, tlie tlieii President of the Local (lovernment Board), tlie inaxinnini term for re- payment of housing loans Avas extendctl from (JO to 80 years ; the powers of local authorities to issue loans were enlarged ; rehousing obligations on railway and other corporations were, strengtlu^ned. Fuj-ther-, greater powers were conferred by this Act upon the Local Government Board to deal with authorities refusing to carry out the law against insanitary houses and districts ; the procedure nec-cssary to obtain sanction frou) the conlral authority for an improvement scheme was simplihed ; the jjower of the local authorities to demolish insanitary houses Avas enlarged; and generally, the poAvers of municipal l)odies were extiMidcd. The Housing and Town Planning: Act, 1909. Tlir Tinier of Nov. 27, I'JOU, contains the following analysis regarding the provisions of this important measure : — " Mr. Durns's Housing and Town Planning Bill lias now passed both Houses of Parliament, and awaits the Royal Assent. The moment is opportune, therefore, to give an explanation of this measure wliich it is hoped will have far-reaching and beneficent effects on the health and well-being of the community. "County Medical Oi'■> of the Act of 1890. In that sub-section cottage is defined to include a garden of not more than half an acre, provided that the estimated annual value of i:5;5 such garden shall not exceed £:). By repcaliiij; this sub-section and extending the definition of cottage so as to include a garden of not more than an acre, the limitation on annual value is abolished, and the authority are enabled to provide larger gardens in con- nection with cottages for the working classes. Public attention has more than once been drawn to the fact that large suras of money left by philanthropic testators for housing purposes are sterilised by inaction on the part of trustees or of the Court of Chancery. Under clause of the Bill, with a view to the proper application of such moneys, and, if necessary, the expediting of legal proceedings, the Local (iovernment Board are empowered to certify any case of the kind to the Attorney-General, who can then intervene and take such steps as may be necessary in the circum- stances. " The Position ok the Local GovirRN.MEXT Board. " Among all these important new functions and powers the position of the Local Government Board as the central authority has not been overlooked, and the President has indicated that all that is necessary will be done to equip the Board with an adequate staff for the carrying out of its new duties. The Hoard already possesses extensive powers with respect to the prescription of duties of medical officers of health and other sanitary officers, the form in which their reports, &c., are to be made and recorded, and it has been intimated that these powers will be used to secure a standai'disation and uniformity of administrative methods in connection with the survey and inspection of insanitary areas. BiLSJ " Town Planning. " The provisions of the Bill relating to town planning mark a new departure in legislation in this country. Hitherto new centres of population have been allowed to grow up, and existing urban areas have been allowed to expand, without control or prevision. The result has too often been that the haphazard development of land in the vicinity of urban centres has produced slums, prevented the orderly growth of towns, and involved enormous expenditure in clearing sites, widening streets, and providing necessary open spaces. The Bill aims at securing in the future sanitary conditions, amenity, and convenience by enal)ling schemes to be made under which building land will be developed with due regard to future requirements. AYith this end in view the Local Government Board are empowered to authorise local authorities to prepare town planning schemes in connection with land likely to be used for building purposes, or to adopt any such schemes proposed by owners of land. The schemes are to have effect, however, only if approved by the Local Government Board. The Bill provides for the payment 134 of compensation to auy person whose property is injuriously affected by the making; ol a town planuine: scheme, and, on the other hand, the local authority is empowered to recover from any person whose land is increased in value by the making of the scheme a proportion of the amount of that increase." Prog:ressive Administration of the Housings Acts. Tlie following is a brief account of tlie policy pursued by the Progressives in the administration of the Housing Acts, prior to the Election in 1907, and of the result of that policy. The iMetropolitan Board of Works carried out sixteen schemes, under (h'oss's Acts, at a net cost of £1,318,935, displaced 21,207 persons, hut caused accommodation to be provided for 27,0()(i persons. (Return of Housing (Scheme, published by L.C.r., October, 1899.) The Board sold its sites to the Peabody trustees and othei's, who jjrovided the dwellings. The ( 'oiincil's policy, prior to the advent of a Municipal Reform majority, may be divided into two periods: — (1) Bkk()1!e Novembeu, 1898. The Council inherited fn)m the Metropolitan Board of Works six schemes, initiated under Lord Cross's Acts, the net coat of Avhich amounted to £278,382. It initiated (to 1898) seven schemes, under Parts I. and II. of the Mousing Act, 1890, the net cost being £509,or)(). Pi-operty in connection with these schemes, estimated id cost £283,050, 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) 13;') disclosed IIk' followiiii:;' ])arlleu]ai's us to housing schemes inherited oi" Initiatnl \)v the Comicil: — Number of persons disjjhiceil, or to be displaced. Olilitration to rehouse. 11,277 Persons for whom dwelliiif^s have been provided. Persons for whom dwellings are in course of erection. Accommo- dntion in i|\vellini,'a for which plans are being prepared Displaced 12,8:',7- To be dis- placed ;"),102-^-" 1S,U1^1I 0,812 3,088 1,350 * These figures are not given ia the Return (only the total 18,029), but they ave official. The Return also gave particulars of sites vacant for several years, in resj^ect of which the obligation to rehouse had not been discharged on 31st ]\Iarch, 1801). The total number of persons displaced was 1,841. The Return further showed that the Council had displaced 4,881 persons under improvement schemes, involving the siil)mission of a rehousing scheme to the Home Seci>>tury, wliile the number rehoused, or to be re- housed, aniiiiiiiled to .3,974. The policy of the Council as regards rehousing was thus stated by tlie Housing of the Working Classes Committee in November, 1898 : — 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 disphiced. In othei wurds, h8 Council, up to the end of 1898, Avas generally content to aim at the miiiiuium ratlier than the maximum of accommodation required by the Housing Act, and tlie result of its operations under Part 1. was that it had cleared one large slum and a few small ones, and had displaced many more people than it had rehoused. I'M] This is what tlie Ddihj .Yr^r-s Avritor says (Ri^priut, 1899, p. 57) :— Take the London County Council's record. In their various schemes thoy have turned out some 24,000 people, but Ir.ive barely built houses for 10,000. What oE the remaining 14,000 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 buildings. Sir Robert Reid, Q.C. (now Lord Chancellor), in the debate in the House of Commons on the Housing Bill, on 17th May, 1900, stated :— As the result of nine years' work of tht^ (London County Council only one-half per cent, of the over- crowded class was rehoused each year. The author of " The People of the Abyss," describing the life of the people of the East End, writes (page 58) : — " We next visited the muncipal dwellings erected by the London County Council on the site of the slums Avhere lived Arthur Morrison's ' Child of the Jago.' While the buildings housed more people than before, it was much healthier. But the dwellings were inhabited by the better class workmen and artisans. The slum people had simply drifted on to crowd other slums or form new slums." Only eleven out of 5,719 displaced at Boundary Street were rehoused in the Council's dwellings. As regards Part 111. of the Act, the Housing Committee made the following statement (L.C.C. Minutes, November, 1898) :— Apart from the rehotising of persons displaced by improvement schemes, which the Council is by Statute required to carry oiit, 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. The Committee Fiirlliei' ])()int out that the Milihank Prison site, which was purchased under Part III., was really acquired f(j]" rehousing purposes. The Progressives in the Council, therefore (with the exception of the lodging house at 137 Parker Streot, Driirv Ijune, wliicli \vas Liiilt luidor Part III.), allowed Part III. to remain a dead letter for eight years, so far as inci-easiiio- the supply of housing accommodation was concerned. (:2) Aftkh XoMvMi^in;, LSl)8. In N()vend)er, I(S1)8, the Council Formally detei'inined to turn over a new leaf. It Resolved : — (1) That in future housing accommodation should be provided for a nnmher of persons equal to that of the working classes disjDlaced under any scheme ; (2) That action should he taken under Part III. apart from rehousing, Avith tliis important proviso — '' that no charge be placed on the county rate thereby." The reason given for this change of policy Avas the deficiency of house room in London. This (k^ficiency, however, existed Avlien the Royal Commission of 188-A held their enquiry, and caused them to recommend that a trial should be given to Lord Shaftesbury's Act. It Avas als(j AA^ell ascertained by the census of 1891, Avhich disclosed the fact that 214,81:3 j^ersons lived in tenements of one room, and that 128,000 j)ersons, in families of from four to twelve persons, Avere liA'ing Avith only one room to eacli family. The ]\Iunicipal Reformers took exception to the resolutions referred to in the preceding paragraph as A'alue- less. Their vicAv Avas that schemes AA^ere Avanted, not abstract resolutions ; and, in fact, a year j)assed before the Housing (^ommittee Avere able to submit any practical proposal. Tooting^ Scheme. In Januar}^, 1900, a scheme under Part III., the first of its kind, Avas passed : — The scheme was for the purchase of 38^ acres at Tooting (Totterdown Fields), for the erection of cottages to house some 8,000 persons. It is estimated that land, roads and buiklings Avill cost £500,000, and that no charge will be entailed on the ratepayers. In March, 1900, Mr. "WaterloAv, a Progressive, AA^as appointed Chairman of the Housing Committee. i:;s The IVorbury Scheme. On Mill I )('ceinljer, I'.HJO, (,)n the recomineiidation of the Housiiio^ ( 'mnniitteo, the (\iiiiicil decided to Imy a sit& at Norl)iiry, just outside the county boundary, and tlius took a(lvanta,<4'e, for tlie first time, of the Act of 1900. The site is about 31 acres, the price £000 per acre, and it is proposed to build some 762 cottages. The rents to be charged vary from Gs. per \veek: for two rooms and small kitchen to lis. (jd. for hve rooms. The estimated annual surphis, after providing for interest on ca])ital and sinking fuhd, Avas £470. The Finance Committee, rei^orting on the above projiosal, made the folloAving remarks : — • " We understand that this scheme will be followed by other projects for the development of estates of dwellings for the working classes in other districts outside the conntj' boundary, and having regard to the Council's heavy com- mitments on capital account, we think tlie Council will agree that the total amount which should be expended for this purpose within the next few years must be, to some extent, limited. We thinlv, therefore, that the Council should carefully consider the merit of each proposal with reference to tho aim in view, viz., the relief of the over- crowding in central I^oudon." Tlie scheme, tliougli tlie Council dltl not divide upon it, met witli considerable criticism in the Council from members of botli parties. Since the capital wliich tlie Council can expend is limited, it is most important that those sites should he bought whicli can be developed to tlie advantage of overcrowded London. Ibit the Xor])ury cottages were more calculatetl to benefit (^roydoii ])eople than Londoners, and the I'cnis, plus the cost oi ti'avelling to central London, Avere ol' a nature to prove prohibitive to all but well paid ai'tisans. Serious dehiy took place in develop- ing this estate. Tlie site was |nircliased in IVbruary, lUUl, and it was not until February, I'dOb, that the first blocd; of cottages was completed, housing (J8 persons only. i6\) ]\Ir. Wateiiow (]''.)i in pi'cseiitino- the Xoi'lnn-y scheme to the C'uuncil, saiil : - " The plan was not one to honfe the poorest class. He (lid not think it possible to house that class. The Committee wanted to help those who conld help themselves." Tlie Municipal Reionn policy is to help those who- cannot help themselves to decent accommodation. White Hart Lane, Tottenham, Scheme. This scheme, initiated by the Progressives some eight years ago, was a failure, 'i'lic rents charged were higher than those prevailing in the neighbourhood, viz., Totten- ham. Very slow progress was made with the erection of dwellings. Progressive Housing: Failure. The repoi't of the Royal ( 'ommission on Ix)ndon Traffic contained some interesting references to the Hous- ing Problem as affected by locomotion.* i\.t the same time, the Report revealed the true financial aspect of L.C.C. housing schemes — from the ratejjayei's' jjoint of view^ Referring to the j^roblem of ^overcrowding, the Com- missioners in their Report state : — " 1. That the overcrowding in the metropolitan area, which is admittedly a most serious evil, is, generally speak- ing, greatest in the central area, and tends to diminish towards the circumference. " 2. That the average weekly rents for workmen's dwellings are highest in the central and most crowded districts of London, and tend to diminish towards the suburbs. The Statistical Officer of the London County Council states that, in the central area, the average weekly rent of newly-erected working-class houses is 3?. 3|d. per room, in the rest of the county, 2s. 4|d., and in "Extra London " is 28. These figures can, of course, only be regarded as approximate. " 3. That the price of land in the central districts of London makes it impossible to re-house the working-classes within those districts at rents which they can afford to pay without a heavy logs to those A\bo undertake the re-housiug. * As to this, of. article on Locomotion. 140 Also that the price of laud a few miles out is still sufficientlj' low to admit ol" re-housing, without lo?s, at rents which the tenants can afl'ord to pay. "An illustration of the loss incurred by re-hovisiug the working-classes in the central portions of London is furnished by some recent experiences of the LDndon County Council. " In connection with certain street improvements, especially the formation of the new street from Holborn to the Strand now in course of completion, the Council was required, under the authorising Act, to build workmen's dwellings in place of those that were demolished. For this purpose they bought the Bourne Estate, close to the site of the improvement. The cost price was £201,107, being the commercial value. They were obliged to write this sum down to £44,000, its value earmarked for Artisans' Housing, and to debit the balance to the cost of Street Improvements. This was necessary in order to admit of charging rents within the means of the families to be provided for. Even after this writing down, they had to charge rents of from 9s. 6d. to lis. a week for a three- roomed tenement in order to reimburse themselves for this artificially-reduced outlay. The buildings erected will accommodate 2,640 persons, and there is therefore a loss of very nearly £60 per head of the persons re-housed, and the whole of this loss falls upon the rates. "About the same time the London County Council purchased some land at Tooting, which is accessible by electric tramway, as well as by railway, in order to build workmen's dwellings. They acquired it at a price which required no writing down, and are now letting three-i'oomed cottages at Tooting at rents of from 7s. to 7s. (Id. per week; the Tooting scheme is self supporting. "The following figures will show how it is that the one scheme entails a very heavy loss, and the other entails no loss at all : — £ s. d. On the Bourne Estate, actual cost of land for three-roomed tenement ... Cost of building, &c. Total On the Tooting Estate, actual cost of land for three-i'oomed cottage Cost of building, &c. Total 454 4 307 8 () £761 12 6 28 15 234 15 263 10 Ml " The lessou to be learned from the two cases just cited is conlirmed by evpry housing scheme, -without exception, that the London County Council have undertaken : wherever tl\ey have had to provide workmen's dwellings in the central districts, there has been a heavy loss. In effect the rents are largely paid out of the rates. In the few cases where they have provided workmen's dwellings outside, the schemes have been self-supporting so far as houses have been built. " A table appended offers a comparison of the cost of re- housing schemes which have been carried out by the London County Council in central districts, in accordance with the statutory requirements to re-house ' on site,' and of hous- ing schemes voluntarily carried out by the London County Council in the suburbs for the purpose of providing dwellings. The result shows that, in the central districts the ratepaj'ers have sustained a loss of £412,683 in re- liousing 7,5.SG persons on 18 55 acres ; in the suburbs the Council liave already housed 1,TJ1 persons on 1415 acres without any loss to the rates. "This table shows practically every feature of a typical urban clearance scheme, and of a typical land purchase and constructitm scheme in the suburbs — in the one case, a great waste of public money and a still crowded population per acre ; in the other case, no loss of money at all and a population housed in healthy surroundings." Since tlie uhove Report Avas issued in -Tuh', 1905, facts ]jave eouie to ligiit wliicli show that tlie sulmrban lioiising schemes at Tottenham, 'i'ootiug, and Xorhttry under the Progressives were anything but a success. At Tottenham many lioiises Avotild not let. Tlie rents Avere too high for the overcrowded poor. .\t 'I'ooting the rooms were too small, and not suitable for workmen. At Xorbury little was done so far as building was concerned. Certainly, the Xorl)ury and Tottenham schemes were not hn- London workmen. Financial Results of Prog^ressive Policy. Since the last L.C.C. elections a whole flood of light has been thrown on the Housing jjolicy of the I'rogressives, whicli reveals disastrous linancial results and a complete failure to provide for the only class which has any claim on the municipality in the matter of housing. M2 IjOt us take, firsl of all. llu' financial results. Long iDefore the Progressives Avent out of office their own l^'inance Committee and the Local (lovernment Board Auditoj- had complained of the Avay in Avliich site values liad l)een written do^vn, and the ll(uising accounts manipulated in order to make out that the schemes were self-supporting. This Avas one of the matters, lhereff»re, which the Municipal Refoj'mcrs, on their accessicMi 1o ollice, asked Messrs. Peat and Pi.xley (the independent auditors) to inA'estigate. Their report on the subject, Avhich is dated 12th NoA'ember, 1908, is so important tliat w(> roftriut^ the salient points Ix'Ioav : — " Our investigation covers the period from 1st April, 1892, to 31st March, 1907. " (*ArrrAL 10\rE\i»m i;r,. " The total amount expended on Capital Account on Dwellings imder the Housing Acts and under the Improve- ment Acts, to !Ust March, 1907, as shewn by the published accounts, Avas £2,198,533 2s. 8d., made up tlius : — o o (Dec 'Housing Act, 1890— I'UitI Tai-t 11 LmproA'cment Acts Totals— Parts 1. and 11,1 and Ijupi'ovcnient Acts f 1 i 'JlousingAct,1890- Part 111.- Dwellings J'^statcs in course of Development Totals— Part III. Grand Totals («) EstinmtPil 'Housing" A'ahii- of Site^. Ibl Aotiial Co.-l of Site ;m(l Devploi)iiiriit . Q s. d. (a) 146,;500 () i (a) 11,110 (a) 102,578 11 £259,988 IS 10 (b) 128,610 7 {b) 161,205 8 2 289,854 15 2 £519,843 II Cost of Election of Buildings. £ s. d. 676,299 2 6 ns,;»04 7 624,154 17 10 Total Capital Outlay to 31sl March, 1!)07. £ s. d. 822,599 8 7 80,014 6 7 726,733 10 7 i ,;;69,358 6 11 I 1,629,347 5 9 r.79,3;u 1 9 579,331 1 9 707,980 8 9 161,205 8 2 869,185 16 11 1,918,C89 8 8 12,108,533 2 8 14;5 " A Sinking Fund sufficient to replaco the whole of this CaiJital Outlay within HO years is being accumulated out of Revenue or, when the Kevenue is insufficient, out of Kates ; therefore at the end of the loan period the sites and luiildings will be the property of the Council free from debt. This fund at 31st March, "11)07, amounted to £l»r),172. "Re-housingf Schemes. " UXUKK TaIMS I. AM> II. OF I HE iloUSINCi AcT OK 1890, AM) Imi'kovement Acts. " Values of Sites. " The Dwellings erected under Parts Land II. of the Act of 1890, and Improvement Acts, as before stated, are re-housing schemes, i.e., they have been compulsorily carried out under the statutory obligations contained in. these Acts. "The method adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works (the Council's i)redecessor) in dealing with these statutory obligations was to appropriate to re-housing purposes certain of the lands acquired for the Clearance scheme or Improvement, and to sell or let such land as sites to Artisans' Dwellings Companies or private persons, subject to restrictions as to the class of buildings to be erected thereon and their employment. The price obtained for such sites was credited to the account of the Clearance or Im- provement scheme, and as the price obtained for the land with the obligation to erect Workmen's Dwellings thereon was less than the commercial value of the land free from such building restrictions, the difference or Loss in Value on realisation became i)art of the cost of the Clearance or Improvement. " Instead of selling sites, the Council decided to build Workmen's Dwellings thereon and manage them, and laid down the following Standing Order: — (i.) With regard to lands acquired or appropriated by the Coun- cil for the purpose of the housing of the working chisses other than lands acquired under Part 111. of the Housing of theWorking Classes Act, 1890, the question of the desirability of such lands being sold or let for the erection of dwellings or of the Council itself erecting dwellings thereon is to be first considered by the Council. (ii.) In cases where the Council decides itself to erect dwellings in preference to selling or letting the land for that purpose — (o) The rents to be charged for the dwellings erected in connection with any specified housing scheme or area shall not exceed those rnling in the neighbourhood, and shall be so fixed that, after providing for all outgoings, interest, 144 and sinking" fund cliargeg, there sliall be no charge on the county rate in respect of the dwellings on such area or scheme, and that all such dwellings shall be so designed that tlie cost of erection maj' not exceed a sum which will enable the Council to carry out the foregoing conditions. The interest and sinking fund charges shall be calculated upon the cost of erection, plus the value of the site, subject to the obligation to build dwellings for tlie working classes upon it. (b) Before an order is given by the Council for the erec- tion of any dwellings, or to construct the foundations for such dwellings, the Finance Committee shall report to the Council on the estimated effect of the erection of such dwellings on the county rate. (iii.) In cases where the Council is compelled by statute to re-house on particular sites, and is not able to sell or let those sites for that purpose at the fair market value, the financial aspect of each such case shall be specially considered by the Council on reports by the Housing and the Finance Committees. " A separate Capital Account lias been kept for each Dwelling Scheme, and it has in each case been charged with the ' Housing Value of the Site,' as estimated by the Valuer to the Council. This ' Housing Value ' is the amount which the Valuer estimates a Company would have been willing to pay for the site with the obligation to erect Workmen's Dwellings upon it. The difference between the ' Housing ' and Commercial values of the Sites is in most cases considerable, as is shown by the following state- ment : — Valuer's Estimiite of the Coinnien-ial Value. " Housing' ' Value as sliewn ill the Printed Accounts of the Council. Difference. Percentage of Difference on Commercial Value. Housing Act, 1890— Part 1 Part II Improvement Acts £ 427,946 21,128 419,158 £ 146,301 11,110 105,629 £ 281,645 10,018 313,529 % 65-81 47-41 74-79 Totals £868.232 £263,040 £605,192 69-704 "We refer to this dill'erence, in future, as a 'writing down.' The amount by which the site is written down is charged as part of the cost of the Clearance Scheme or Improvement. " The District Auditor approved the principle involved in this ' Writing Down ' to the ' Housing ' value, and the Select Committee on the Repayment of Loans by Local Authorities also approved the principle (see their Report dated 24th June, 1902, paragraph 65). 145 " We are of opinion that as this * writing down ' of Values of Sites arises from or is incidental to the statutory olDligation to re-house under Parts I. and II. of the Act of 1890, and the Improvement Acts, it is necessarily part of the cost of the Clearance or Improvement Scheme. " While agreeing with the above principle, we feel there is the possibility of the ' writing down ' being excessive, with the result that an Improvement Scheme might be charged with too large and a re-housing Scheme too small a proportion of the Value of the Site. We suggest for the consideration of the Council that instead of the Council's Valuer ascertaining the Housing Value, it should be fixed by a Valuer independent of the Council. " In the following cases the Council did not in the fifst instance adopt the Valuer's estimate : — Difference between Valuer's Commer- " Housing " Assessment cial V'alue value as as fixed by Subsidy of Housing as Assessed " Writing assessed by voted by Value and by the down." the of the the amount Council's Council's Council. fixed by V aluer. Valuer. original Resolution of the Council. £ £ £ £ £ £ 1. Barnaby Buildings 6,110 3,235 2,875 1,432 Nil 1,443 2. Darcy Buildings 2,350 1,100 1,250 Nil Nil 1,250 3, Brightlingsea Buildings ... 4,100 3,100 1,000 Nil 397 1,397 4. Wandsworth Rd. Buildings 4,596 3,036 1,560 739 Nil 821 5. Bekesbourne Buildings ... 5,000 1,950 3,050 Nil 6,535 9,585 £22,156 12,421 9,735 2,171 6,932 14,496 " It will be seen that in Nos. 1 and 4 the Valuer's Estimate of the Housing Value was written down by about one-half ; in No, 2 the site was taken as of no value, and in Nos. 3 and 5 not only were the sites taken as being of no value, but subsidies w^ere voted. The resolutions in respect of Nos. 3 and 5 had not, at 31st March, 1907, been given effect to. In the other cases the Book-keeping entries had been made to give effect to the Council's Resolutions, but were subsequently cancelled by the Resolution of 17th December, 1907, and the original figures of the Valuer adopted. " In the above mentioned cases the Council declined to act on the valuation of its own Valuer, and the result of this procedure, had not the rescinding resolution of the 17th December, 1907, been passed, was to increase unduly in 10 ind Pixie V, 146 Report of each case the cost of the improvement, aad dimiuish unduly Messrs. Peat ti^e cost of the re-housing Scheme. This appears to show "" "'■"'"" tiiat it would be preferable to have a valuation by an inde- jiendent Valuer, on which the Council should act. " Financial iiESULxy "under Parts I. and II. and Im prove mext Acts. " The following Table shows the results of the Coiincirs re-housing schemes to 31st March, 1907 : — Under Housing Act of 1890, Part I Under Housing Act of 1890, Part II Under Improvement Acts (Deficiency) Total Net Surplus SUKI'LUS ON WOUKING. £ 14,740 2,277 s. 14 d. 8 11 17,017 15 — 1,533 9 7 10 15,484 5 9 " These results are arrived at after charging — (1) In- terest on Debt (2) Provision for equalisation of the charge for Repairs and Renewals, and (15) Sinking Fund Instal- ments for Repayment of Debt. under Pari' "Housing Schemes III. OF THE Housing Act of 18UU. "The total amount expended on Capital Account, under this heading as shown by the Published Accounts at Blst March, 1907, was :— Actual Cost of Sites and Development. Krection of Buildings. Dwelling8iuoccu-| ^.,^^,^ ^'^^l --^^^^ \ ^^ pation ......) ' Estates in course f of development « I CI, -JOS 8 2 £289,854 15 2 Total Capital Outlay to ;31st Marcli, 1907. £ s. d. 707,980 8 161, -205 8 2 £579,331 1 9 £869,185 16 11 " In these cases the question of ' Housing ' value of sites does not arise, as the actual cost of the site is charged to the Capital Account of the Dwellings or Estates in each case. 147 " When the Council decided to avail itself of the powers contained in Part III. of the Housing Act of 1890 it passed the following resolution (C. M., p. 1,459), 6th December, 1896 :— '• ' Resolved : — That apart from the re-housiog required in connection with clearance or improvement scht^mes, and provided that no charge be placed on the County Rate thereby, the Council do approve action being taken under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, with a view to the purchase of land and the erection of dwellings thereon, and also with the view of purchasing or leasing suitable houses already or hereafter to be built or provided for the purpose of supplying housing accommodation.' "Financial Rhsults under Part III. of the Act of 1890. " The result of the working up to 31st March, 1907, is a Deficiency of £60,144 19s. 4d., made up as follows : — Deflcieiicij. Dwellings in occupation ... ... £8.378 18 8 Dwellings in course of erection ... 4,426' 7 lo Estates in course of development ... 47.529 12 2 £60,334 18 8 Less Interest on Cash Balances ... 189 19 4 Total ... £60,144 19 4 We point out that in respect of this Deficiency, £56,517 7s. 3d, had been charged on the Rates up to 3l8t March, 1907. This was clearly not contemplated in the above quoted Resolution of the Council. " We are aware that the Deficiencies in respect of Dwellings in course of erection and Estates in course of development are due in the main to Debt Charges, and must be made good by a charge on the Rates — a necessity which does not appear to have been considered in the Resolution above referred to — but we specially direct attention to the Net Deficiency on working of £8,378 18s. 8d, on Dwellings in occupation. This deficiency is due to a great extent to the fact that the demand for such dwellings has not so far been equal to the original estimates of the housing require- ments on which these Dwelling schemes were undertaken. "An examination of the Annual Results for these Dwellings discloses the fact that out Of the fourteen pro- perties, only four have resulted in no charge being made 148 Report of qh ^||q Coutlty mtc, while the followina: six have shewn and Pixhy. deficiencies in working in each year from their opening : — Carrington House, Prestons Road (proportion), Hughes Fields Dwellings (proportion), (opened 1904/5), White Hart Lane, Wessex, and Norbury. These schemes were undertaken during the four years ending 31st March, 1907. Only two schemes — Green Street and Gun Street, and Millbank — have shown Surpluses each year from their opening. "The Totterdown Fields scheme, which was started in 1902/3, after showing a small Surplus for each of the three years to Slst March, 1906, resulted in a deiiciency of £1,540 lis. 2d. for the year 1906/7. We are informed that this deficiency was due to the opening of several large blocks of Dwellings on this Estate during the year, which, for a time, did not let well. '• In arriving at the total deficiency of £60,144 19s. 4d., as shown in paragraph 19, all Debt char^res ai-c included, but we have to point out that for the four years ending 31st March, 1907, the Net income from all Dwellings under Part III. was not sufficient to provide any part of the Sinking Fund Instalments for repayment of the Debt, and was short of paying interest on the Debt for the same period of four years by £5,514 18s. appears from the following statement : — lOd., as Year ending .'Ust March. Interest on Debt. Net Income. Proportion of Interest not pro- vided. Sinking- Fund lu-,taluients. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. M s. d. 1904 5,364 11 .1 5,234 4 8 130 6 5 974 18 6 1905 10,930 10 8 7,671 4 2 3,2r)9 G 6 2,007 15 11 1906 13,002 16 4 11,742 2 9 1,260 l;! 7 2,313 13 I 1907 19 312 10 1 18,447 17 9 864 12 A 3,281 15 2 £48,610 8 2 £43,095 9 4 £5,514 18 10 £8,578 2 8 " Combined Financial Resclth. " The results of the working of the varions Dwellings and Estates from their inception to 3l8t .March, 1907, after charging — Provision for the equalisation of the Annual Chai'ge for Repairs and Renewals. Interest on Debt. Sinking Fund Instalments for Repayment of Debt, are summarised as follows : — 149 Under Housing Act of 1890. Surplus. Deficiency. Parti £14,740 8 — Part II 2,277 14 11 _ Under Improvement Acts — 1,533 9 10 £17,017 15 7 £1,533 9 10 Surplus £15,484 5 9 Under Housing Act of 1890— Part HI. Dwellings in occupa- tion and in course of erection £12,615 7 2 Estates in Course of Development ... i7,529 12 2 Deficiency £60,144 19 4 Deduct Surplus as above 15,484 5 9 Net Result, a Deficiency of ... ... £44,660 13 7 " This Deficiency has been provided for as follows : — Contribution from Tram- ways Account ... £309 5 9 Contribu- tions from the Rates to 31st March,1907: Part III. £56,517 7 3 Improve- ment Acts 2,678 1 5 £59,195 8 8 Less Contri- butions in relief of the Rates to 3l8t March,1907: Part I. ... 14,393 13 3 11 SOI 15 5 tL^,017X £45,111 7 Deduct Balance in hand unappropriated as per Balance Sheet at 31st March, 1907 ... 450 7 — dOt-±^VOU J.J 1 150 " Repairs and Renewals Fund. ileportof "This Fund has been established with the view of ^^d^Pixi^v'^*^ equalising the annual charge against Revenue for Repairs ' ' and Renewals, which will naturally tend to grow heavier as the Buildings grow older. The Comptroller in his Memoran- dum on the Accounts To 31st March, 1904, stated : — " ' The sums annually charged against the various Dwellings and carried to this Account have been very carefully reviewed by the Housing Manager, and they represent, in his opinion a full and sufficient provision for further expenditure under this head.' We see no reason for doubting the sufficiency of this annual provision. " The Fund amounted at 31st IMarch, 1907, to £35,576 12s. 8d., apportioned as follows : — Part I. (Act 1890) £15,869 15 Part II. (Act 1890) 2,056 4 Improvement Acts ... ... 11,156 15 3 Part III. (Act 1890) 6,494 2 1 £35,576 12 8 £27,000 of thiswas invested in the purchase of £31,307 lis. 7d. London County Consolidated Stock, the balance, £8,576 128. 8d., being uninvested. Full particulars of the building up of this Fund are given in Schedule No. IV., page 26. "Sir Samuel Montagu Gift Find. ■■' This was a gift of £10,000 on 5th August, 1903, for the purpose of [providing certain accommodation and amenities on a portion of the White Hart Lane Estate. With Interest accumulations the Fund amounted at 31^t March, 1907, to £11,154 10s. 9d. Up to 31st March, 1907. £35 lis. had been applied to the purposes of the gift. £6,370 19s. 5d. had been invested in the purchase of £6,300 Exchequer Bonds, the balance, £4,748 Os. 4d., being uninvested. "Acquisition of 1j.\nds Fund. " In 1900 the Council obtained Parliamentary Powers for the carrying out of certain street improvements at Westminster, which involved the displacement of a large number of persons of the working classes. Land for re- housing purposes in the immediate neighbourhood being expensive the Council took power, under the Act authorising the improvements, to utilise for the purpose part of the 151 Millbank lite, acquired by the Council in December, 1902, at a cost, including development, of £4fi,689 13s. Od., and in the Council's General Powers Act ol' 1903, Sec. 6(j, it was provided that such a sum (not exceeding in the whole £50,000) as the Council should determine, should be paid by the Thames Embankment and Westminster Improvement Account to the Housing Account, Part III., in respect of the part of the site so utilised, the said sum to be applied ' towards the cost of the acquisition by the Council of other Lands for the purposes of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.' " The amount agreed upon between the Improvements Committee and the Housing Committee, and fixed by the Council, was the maximum amount of £50,000. Out of this £6,441 Is. 6d. has been applied towards reducing the cost of the Millbank site to its ' Housing ' value. The unappro- priated balance, including interest, stands at £46,689 I3s. Od., of which £44,128 lOs. 3d. was invested in the purchase of £43,700 Exchequer Bonds. The balance, £2,561 2s. 9d., being uninvested. " The effect of this transaction has been to charge the Thames Embankment and Westminster Improvement Scheme with £50,000 in respect of re-housing accommoda- tion, which sum, as will be noticed, is in excess of the cost of the whole of the Millbank site, although only one-half of the site (approximately) was used for the purposes of such Improvement. " The Council has applied to Parliament for authority to use the balance of the Fund towards the development of Estates already acquired by the Council under Part III. instead of acquiring ' other lands.' If this be sanctioned, and in the absence of any arrangement to the contrary, the Dwellings erected out of the Fund will be free frooa charges for Interest and Sinking Fund, and their working results will therefore not be comparable with the results of the other Dwellings of the Council under Part III. The Housing Committee therefore reported on this matter on the 5th February, 1908, when it was resolved that in the event of any portion of the Fund being applied as suggested, it should be made subject to a charge for interest equal to the cost of the capital moneys raised for the Thames Embank- ment and Westminster Improvement and to a Sinking Fund charge on the usual basis, and that the sums which would arise annually from the above mentioned charges against Dwellings erected out of the Fund should be applied in diminution of any charge on the rates arising, or which may have arisen, upon the Council's operations under Part III. " We are in accord with this Resolution. 152 )oit of <« The Total uninvested balance of the Funds in the 'pixie?* Viands of the Council at 31st March, 1907, for Specific Purposes was £15,885 15s. 9d., viz. : — Repairs and Renewals Fund ... £8,576 12 8 Sir Samuel Montagu Gift Fund ... 4,748 4 Acquisition of Lands Fund ... 2,561 2 9 £15,885 15 9 "NoRBuuv Brickfield. " The Norbury Estate was acquired by the Council in February, 1901, under Part III. of the Housing Act of 1890. Part of the Estate consisted of a brickfield, and one of the conditions of the purchase was that the Council should also buy the Brickmaking Plant on the Site belonging to the Vendor. We are informed that before the Site could be ntilised for Dwellings a considerable amount of levelling was necessary. The Council decided, instead of carrying out the levelling as part of the development of the Estate, to use the clay, which would otherwise have had to be removed, in manufacturing Bricks to be used in the erection of Dwellings on the Estate. The Council continued to manu- facture down to the end of the season 1906-7. "The result of the manufacture of Bricks daring the whole period to Slst March, 1907, was as follows : — Loss from the commencemen t. of operations (1900-1) to 31st March, 1906 : On working £468 16 4 Interest on Outlay .. 1,305 14 7 £1,774 10 11 Loss for the year ending 31st March, 1907 : On working £685 10 10 Interest on Outlay ... 523 14 2 £1,209 5 £2,983 15 11 " This loss, so far as it consists of Interest, has been met as follows : — By contributions from the Rates ... £1,390 8 6 By appropriation of a proportion of the Interest on Cash Balances ... 439 3 £1,829 8 9 153 "The remainder — £1,154 7s. 2d. — appeared in the Balance Sheet among the Assets at 31st March, 1907, under the head of ' Aggregate Deficiency.' The intention of the Council appears to be ultimately to charge the whole Deficiency as part of the Capital Cost of the Dwellings erected on the Estate. It is doubtful if this Loss could be properly charged on the rates, the Council apparently not having the power to work a brickfield for profit or loss. 'Before arriving at the above-mentioned deficiency of £2,983 I5s. lid. at 3l8t March, 1907, the Working Account was credited with the value of the bricks in stock, 'based on the cost of bricks to the Council if supplied by Building Contractors for use in the Cottages on the Estate,' i.e., the stock of Bricks was taken at Selling Price. It will be seen, therefore, that the cost of the Bricks manufactured by the Council exceeded the Builder's Selling Price by £2,983 15s. lid. According to the published accounts of the Council for the year 1907-8 (which are subject to audit), the stock of Bricks at 31st March, 1908, is taken at £12,097 14s. 4d., made up as follows : — Bricks set aside for immediate use (taken at cost) £3,786 19 4 Remainder at valuation of Expert ... 8,310 15 £12,097 14 4 "The Brickmaking operations partially cleared the site for building purposes ; therefore against the Deficiency mentioned above and any subsequent deficiencies may properly bo set the saving in Capital Expenditure effected by using the clay in manufacturing bricks instead of digging, loading and carting it away to shoot. The cost of the latter is estimated by the officials of the Council at £3,770, and this should be considered when arriving at the final Aggregate Loss on Brickmaking. " Central Office Establishment Charges. " It having been recognised by the Council during the year 1906-7 that the then existing method of allocating the Central Office Charges against the various services benefiting thereby, did not charge such services with a sufficient proportion, a new method of allocating these charges was adopted, which took effect from the 1st of April, 1907. The Comptroller has presented us wdth a statement showing that, supposing the new method had prevailed in former years, farther charges, amounting in the aggregate to £1,822, 154 {eportof should have been made against the Revenue up to the '^^^^®i,'\'-^^^* IJlst March, 1907. In our opinion the principle adopted in '^ py- |.]-^g j^g^ method is sound. " The Form of the Published Balance Sheet and Other Accounts. " The present form of the Balance Sheet can be improved." (The Auditors made various suggestions to effect this object.) " We sufirgest an alteration, by way of a Note, to the item of Appropriation Account in the Balance Sheet so as to show the aggregate deficiency on all Dwellings and Estates and the aggregate Contributions from the Rates. " We also suggest that the details of the Cash Balance should be shown, otherwise it does not appear that the uninvested portions of the funds for Repairs and Renewals, Acquisition of Lands, and the Sir Samuel Montagu Gift, have been entirely absorbed in making good the overdrawn balance on the Norbury Brickfield Account." Other Aspects of the Question. So nuicli for tlie linancial I'esults of the Progressive Housing policy. We will look at the matter from other points of view. It is perfectly obvious that, in spite of all the money expended, the Progressives were hardly able to touch the fringe of this great problem. The Statistical Officer of the L.C.C., in a report to the Housing Committee dated 28th October, 1908, said : — " Although, in addition to this Council, several of the metropolitan borough councils and of the local authorities outside the county area have made some provision of this kind, the total accommodation provided by public bodies during the last six years in the district covered by my enquiries has been only 23,169 rooms out of a total of 331,624 rooms. Thus, while public bodies have provided 7 pel* cent, of the accommodation, the great bulk of it, or 93 per cent., is the result of private enterprise." "It is obvious that any attempt to supply the entire need for working class accommodation by municipal building is not practicable, and that j^rivate enterprise must continue to suppl}' the bulk of the accommodation." 155 The Statistical Officer also points out that high rates, to which the Progressives appear to be so indifferent, do much to retard private building operations. The general defects of the Piogressive policy are effectively summarised in the following extracts from a lecture given at the Caxton Hall oif 26th July, 1909, by Mr. J. Lort-Williams, the present Yice-Chairnian of the L.C.C. Housing Committee. Referring to the; policy of slum clearances and re- housing, Mr. Lort-Williams said : — "In my opinion, if one has regard, as one should, to a sound financial system and to the interests of the ratepayers, it could under no circumstances have been justifiable to haye inaugurated a housing policy which was so extrava- gantly cosily. In the first place they had to pay the commercial value of the land upon which the clearance occurred, not the housing value, not the value of the site covered by rookeries, but the full commercial value of the land, situated as it was in the central zone and in a district which probably for many years had been the scene of keen commercial activity. Out of thirty-five such clearances thirty-one have been completed, which have cost over £2,000,000, and this works out at more than £50 per person displaced. Now, if you calculate at the rate of two persons per room, which we generally do in housing questions, this means about £101 per room. The average cost of erecting dwellings in respect of cleared areas amounts to £110 per room. Therefore you get for the whole operation a cost of £211 per room, or more than £105 per head, for every person turned out of those rookeries and re- housed upon the same site. That seems, in my opinion, a very heavy burden indeed to fall upon the shoulders of the long-suffering ratepayer. I fully admit that a great danger to the public health was removed by these clearances, but when one realises that for the sum of £101 per room, which w^as spent upon mere clearance alone, free housing accommodation could have been provided in the suburbs, and in some cases free rates and taxes and repairs, I maintain, without qualification, that the policy adopted was utterly mistaken Now, beyond the enormous cost there is this fact to be taken into con- sideration : the re-housing was carried out upon a com- mercial site — a site which was being held back from its natural development — its natural development was a commercial development, the time had come when a site 156 in that part of the city ought only to have been used for a commercial purpose, it was no longer suitable for the habitation of workpeople and their growing families, therefore a far-seeing policy had been adopted in those days, and re-housing had not been carried out in the vicinity of a clearance, and a rigorous control had been exercised over existing tenements. The working classes would have been forced out into the outer ring of London sooner than they have been. It may at first sight seem a somewhat cruel remedy to have adopted, but it would have been infinitely better for them in the end, and the very scarcity of houses in the centre, and the consequent insistent demands in the suburbs, would have resulted automatically in an increase in transit facilities, and railways and trams would have been extended at an earlier date than they have been in order to meet the requirements of the working classes who had been forced to live in the outlying districts at some distance from their work. But beyond the fact that the land in the central zone was fearfully expensive, the type of building which it was necessary to erect upon the land was very expensive too. The land being very dear, cottages were out of the question, because they would have occupied too much space, without affording sufficient accommodation, so to meet this difficulty, that fearful barrack-like thing which is called a block dwelling was invented, a kind of dwelling which is detested by the majority of the tenants who have to live in it. Here in these gaunt barracks, erected upon a small area of valuable land, the working classes are crowded together with their families of little children. I say crowded advisedly, because in my opinion, when you have within four walls a great number of pill-box rooms, containing many hundreds of people caged together in close proximity to each other, however perfect may be the sanitary provisions, you have almost as real a congestion, as baneful an overcrowding, and as unhealthy and evil a condition of affairs as when a number of people are crowded together into a single room. " . . . . The result was a greater congestion in the district than had existed before the clearance, for what happened was this : The poor people who had inhabited its demolished dwellings and who could not afford to pay more than 3s. or 4s. a week in rent, were driven into the neighbouring rookeries, which were already overcrowded. They could not afford the luxury of the Council's block dwellings, in which the lowest rent was f)s. 6d. a week, for a small room, and some of the tenements in which cost as much as 13s. a week ; and people who could afford these rents had therefore to be attracted from other districts to live in the block dwellings. The result was that instead of reducing the congestion in that district, it had actually been increased, and in a double 157 sense, for not only had it been increased by the introduction of a number of people from outside districts, but also by the overcrowding of the surrounding rookeries. . . . With regard to our present policy and to the immediate future, although we must admit that we are still disgraced by slum areas in our midst, I do sincerely hope that those who will have to deal with the policy of future Councils in regard to housing will hesitate before embarking upon further clearance schemes. . . . Let us enforce the present Acts more drastically than we have done in the past, and in these ways let us prevent the creation of the slum rather than clear it away when created. If a case arises in which a clearance is the only possible remedy, the site should be sold for commercial purposes, and the re-housing obligation ful- filled in the suburbs where the land is much cheaper and where the larger space which it is possible to allot to each dwelling, and the fresher and purer atmosphere, make it much healthier for the workers and their growing families to live. "In many districts round London the rent of working class dwellings, plus the fare by tram or train from and to London, is less than the rent which is charged for the block dwellings and other tenements in the central zone. It cannot therefore be argued that it is putting a workman to any disadvantage or discomfort to force him to live outside ; and I believe that the problem of slum clearance and re-housing will be solved to a very large extent by the further extension and cheapening of transit facilities by an increase in the number of workmen's trams and trains, and by the quickening of the services, which will enable a greater number of the working class to avail themselves of the opportunity to live in the outskirts, often at a considerable distance from their work." Referring to the building operations under Part III. of the Housing Act, Mr. Lort-Williams went on to say : — " Instead of going carefully to work, and buying a small estate here and there in the various outskirts of London, they [the Progressives] seemed to go suddenly mad, and acquired three or four huge estates in particular districts where there was already a large working class population. Such a policy exhibits an almost crass ignorance of the maxims which should guide us in dealing with the very difficult social problem of housing. For not only are such estates unwieldy, but lying as they do upon the outskirts of the County, they must necessarily contain within their areas large tracts of land which will not be convenient or suitable for building for very many years to come. Even under Progressive management, and building at the extravagant 158 pace which they favoured, and which has been called the ' Rake's progress,' they themselves calculated that some parrs of these estates would not be covered for 40 years. Bat these are small matters compared to the inconvenience to the workers in being compelled to live in one or two specified districts, regardless of what part of London their work happened to be in, and compared to the grave social evil and danger which might arise from a policy which separates the various classes of society so completely from one another, which accumulates large masses of the poorer workers in one or two districts cut ofl; from all intercourse with, or influence of, the better educated, and which sets up a class barrier wholly alien to our national ideas. It is to remedy these glaring evils in the Progressive policy that we are now seeking to dispose of portions of these unwieldy estates and to concentrate our energies upon other districts in need of housing accommodation. Having purchased these large estates the Progressives proceeded to develop them, and at once added to their difficulties by setting up a very high standard of build- ing. . . . Unfortunately, this standard was utterly in- consistent with the idea of building houses for the poor work- ing classes who were not provided for by private enterprise, because the cost of building was ho great that rent? have to be charged which the ordinary poor working class man can- not possibly afford. So from this point of view, if from no other, their policy was and is an abject failure. For they were compelled to recognise the fact that they were unable to provide housing accommodation according to the standard which they had set up, for the people whom they had originally intended to provide for — the people for whom private enterprise found it unprofitable to build. Now, one would have thought, that when they recognised their failure, the Progressives would have ceased to engage in municipal housing, but they did just the opposite, and herein lies the cause on which I found the second severe criticism of their policy. They persisted in face of failure in carrying out building operations under Part III., which is voluntary — purely voluntary — and covered these estates with a class of building suitable for tenants who were already fully provided for by private enterprise, at rents ranging from 6s. even to 13s. a week, which can only be afforded by an artisan earning a substantial wage, even 6s. a week being beyond the capacity of the really poor working classes, who, in my opinion, are the only people for whom a municipality is justified in providing housing. From this moment the policy of the Progressives became what to my mind is Socialism pure and simple, because they decided to enter the market with the private builder, and compete with him in the provision of housing upon the credit of the rates 159 which he assisted iu providin^^ Again and asfain you may hear Progressives upon Committee and at meetings of the Council point to the beauty and comfort and perfection of their dwellings, as compared with those erected by private enterprise, their whole idea being not to provide for the poor workers, but that all housing can be carried out more efficii-ntly by the municipality. "... Now let me for a moment deal with one of the answers which the Progressives make to these criticisms. They say, in substance, we admit what you are saying, we admit now that we are unable to provide for the very poorest classes, and we have admitted it for some years past, but what we say is this — that by providing accommoda- tion for the better class of workman, you attract him from the probably very decent house in which he has been living, and he leaves that house empty for the poorer classes to step into his place, and therefore you succeed in raising the whole community — by elevating the top you automatically raise the bottom strata. They call that the ' housing up ' argument The fallacy which underlies the whole argument is this, that it only applies when we are dealing with persons in regular employment, it does not apply to people in casual employment, and it does not apply to the lowest form of unskilled labour. These poor people have fallen off the economic wheel, they form no part of the mechanism, and their wages, for some inscrutable reason which cannot be explained by the economist, are not influenced to the same extent by the standard of life, and the result of your policy therefore is that you benefit people in regular work at regular wages, and you leave the unfortunate casual and the lowest form of unskilled labour without a home at all, because you have housed him up until you have housed him out of it alto- gether. The case therefore of the poorest worker is worse than before the municipality began to take an interest in his welfare." General Criticism. T1)c rriticisiu of the Municijxil Reform party iii^on the lloiisin;^- and Re-housing schemes of the London County Council under Progressivo rule, is as follows : — {!) The result of Progressive niisinanageinent was tixat London County CV)uncil schemes were conducted at a heavy loss to the ratepayers, with no I'eal Ijenefit to the pverertjwded pocjr. 160 (2) Owing to the manipulation of ' accounts it was difficult to sa}^ how lieavy that loss, actually, ^vas. (3) Compared with private enterprise, the London County Council liave not only houf;ed fewer i)ersons, but charged a higher rental, which the re'idly poor cannot afford 1o pay. (4) In spite of the great expenditure, of mouthy,' the Progressives failed really to touch the problem of housing the very poor and the overcrowded. The Council erected lodging liouses where the charge was 6d., and consequently defeated its own aims, which were to provide for the poorer classes wlio frequent the insanitary lodging houses where the price is 4d. (Masgow charges 3M. and 4|-cl. The Progressives did nothing for the large class between the artisan and tlie common lodging house class. MunicipaB Reform Policy. (1) To administer zealoushj and ejfectiveli) the jtou'cvs of the Housing Acts, including lliose authorisi iig flw 'purchase of sites for cottages and otlier dnxUings^ apart from clearance schemes. The duty of ^Municipal Reformers is to give full eifect to the measures already in existence. The late Lord Salisbury, speaking in tlie House of liords in 1899 upon the London Government Bill, said with reference to the power bestowed liy the Bill ii[»on the Borough Councils for buying land luider Part III. of the Housing Act for workmen's dwellings : — " The difficulty of the conditions is that the ordinary economic laws do not come into play. You are yourselves obliged constantly to destroy vast masses of poor men's dwellings, and every effort to provide an adequate su])stitute has hitherto, I am afraid, been a failure. The London County Council has undertaken part of the duty ; but it will not be only on the London County Council that thi.s duty IGl will fall — the duty of providing, I will not say of providing, but of striving to provide, adequate lodging for the vast multitudes who inhabit this city. It is one of the principal duties which these municipal bodies will have to perform." The Ivondon County (Vjuncil must do its ));ut of the duty. (2) To provide (tccontinoihilioii ainaJ to [Jnil dc^h-ojjcd binder clearance and iniproreuiciit schemes; to -s/r/rc to re-liouse as mamj a-^ [xD^sible of the actual persons displaced hij providing accoinntodalio)} hcjoi'c displacciiicnl and, otlierwixe ; and to ntnhc .'Special efforts to I'c-lioii-^c Iho.^e U'hose emplojjnienl compel-'^ ihriii lo reside in Ihe neighUonr- hood of the improvement. It is clear that to dispkice a hirge number of ])ersons, and then, perhaps years afterwards, to provide aceonimocUi- tion less tlian that destroyed, is not " ro-housing." " The net result," says T/ie Dailij News writer, in a series of articles published many years ago, and entitled " No Koom to Live" (Reprint 1X09), "of some of the Council schemes is that a district has become more overcrowded than ever. The people from the cleared slums have been driven to overcrov^d the already overcrowded smaller tenements lying around, and a better off class Of people from other districts have settled down on the cleared areas." Accommodation sliould he provided wherever j'xissiljle before displacement, and then, even if the persons disj^laced do not move into the new buildings in any numbers, others in the neighbourhood may move into them, and thus make room elsewhere for those displaced. The Council can buy sites under Part III. of the Housing Act and use them for re-housing purposes, and it has done so of late years in connection with the Holborn to Strand Improvement. Parliament has facilitated this course by tlie provision in Mr. Cliaplin's Act of 1000 as to the ke3ping of accounts of schemes carried out under t\vo parts of the Act. The special claiin u])ou tlie Council of the people displaced, whose calHng compels tliein to live in the particular neighbourhood, is manifest. 162 (,')) To promote ossihility of such mischief and promote its main oliject by co-operating with other agencies: — 1. BoRorcui Councils. — These bodies are the local health authorities, and have power to provide dwellings under Part 11 f. within their respective boroughs. The London County ( .\juncll must keep in close touch with them in order to ]»revent overlapping, and to take advantage of their local knowledge with reference to schemes affecting their boi'oughs. They might also undertake the manage- ment of dwellings erected by the Council. 2. IxursriMAi, I)wki,lix(;s Companii^s. — The C^ouncil has now piowei- to lease land, whether accpured under Part 1. or Part III. The experiment should be tried of enlisting the co-operation of these companies, hy inviting 1C4 tliem to erect and manage dwellings upon siles leased to them by the (^ouncil upon conditions securing the proper use, rejDair and maintenance of the buildings. So far as the Council was able to get sites developed in this manner, it would free capital and energy of its own lor other housing work. It would be both providing for the need and stimu- lating others to provide for it. The Council lias also the power, which might be exercised, of lending money for the purjioses of workmen's dwellings. o. Landownehs. — The Nightingale Street Scheme, 1899, is an instance of what can be done by co-operation with owners. Here the Council used its powers to acquire an insanitary area occupied by 576 persons of the working- class and handed over the property to a freeholder, on his. reimbursing the Council. The freeholder has erected dwellings for the entire number of persons disjolaced, and provided a playground. The freeholder could not get possession of the property without the Council's aid, but the result of co-operation was that a slum has been removed and healthy dwellings provided without any cost to the pul:)lic. This jorecedent should be followed in othei' cases, and, if necessary, jjowers should be sought from I'arliament to facilitate similar operations. 4. Locomotion. — Increased means of locomotion will do much to relieve the congested districts. By the appointment of the London Traffic Board (opposed by the I^rogressive Party), the first step would be taken towards the realisation of a scheme by which railway companies might undertake a land scheme, providing garden cities, and giving cheap travelling to and from Ijondon. This plan has been adopted in America with great success. The loss through cheap fares is recouped l)y the profits on the land scheme, which might provide for cheap workmen's dwellings piii'cliasable by instalments. ll".") Sale of Building^ Land. As sliowino- the policy (jf the Municipal Reformers in. connect ii 111 with this subject, tlie following delxite, which recently took place in the Council, is instructive: — On May 19tb, 11)09, the Housing of the Working Classes Committee recommended that ISO acres of the White Plart Lane estate, and 12 acres of the Norbury estate, acquired for housing of the working classes, and not being required for that purpose, could be disposed of without detriment to the development of the remainder of such estates, and that application be made to the Local Government Board for its consent to the sale of the land. Mr. Raymond Greene (M.R.), the Chairman of the Housing Committee, assured the Council that there was no intention to give up building cottages for the working classes, but that there was no longer an acute hunger in London, particularly in Tottenham, and that it was the intention of the Committee to curtail their building opera- tions where they could not be carried oa except at a loss to the ratepayers. Mr. LORT-WiLLlAMS (M.R.), the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, stated that about £1,000,000 had been written down in connection with the Council's housing schemes, and he regarded that as an osfcrich-like attempt to disguise the fact tliat the Council's tenants were to some extent dependent on charity. Mr. H. R. Taylor (P.) moved that the recommendation be referred back. Mr. D. S. WaterlOW (P.) observed that the housing of the working classes in the central districts ten years ago, when the Council purchased th'S land, was simply appalling. It was almost impossible to obtain houses, and " key-money " was being levied on poor tenants. By building in the outer districts the Council had not only set up a higher standard of living among the work- people, but they had removed that terrible pressure, with its attendant evils. But these problems cropped up about every twenty years. In fact, the suburbs were building slums now, and, therefore, if the Council retained their laadj they would be able to deal with that problem when it arose. 166 Mr. Frank Smith (Lab.) said if the Couiieil's housing policy had failed, it was because r»5 per cent, of the rents had to go in interest and sinking fund charges. They ought to have the courage to build out of the rates, and pay the income into the rate account. Mr. Sydney Webb (P.) declared that it seemed to him wanton that the Council should throw away the chance of developing these 192 acres in the interest of the people of London. The Council, after a lengthy discussion, divided, when there voted : — For the reference back ... ... ;V2 Against ... ... ... ... 56 Majority against ... ... 24 The amendment was therefore lost. Mr. Shirley Benn (M.R.) then moved to add to the recommendation of the committee the following words : — " On the understanding that a sum of money eiiuivalent to that received from any such sale shall be expended on the housing of the working classes under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890." This was accepted by the Committee, and the recom- mendation was carried. Old Oak Estate, Hammersmith. An adjourned report of the Housing of the Working Classes Committee, dated November lOtli, 1901), contains the following information regarding the Old Oak Estate, Hammersmith. The report is of interest in tliat it lays down some of the chief principles upon which the Municipal Reformers are at the present time proceeding in regard to housing : — " On 18th May, 1909 (pp. 1182-8), we reported at length on the policy which, in our opinion, should be pursued by the Council in dealing with the land acquired under Part IIL of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and the Council then decided to retain the Old Oak Estate, Hammer- smith, with a view to its development by the erection of working class dwellings. There can be little doubt that the district surrounding this estate will grow very rapidly in the near future, and we consider it desirable that arrangements 167 should now be made for building operations to be commenced as soon as possible. The estate, which was purchased from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1905 for £29,858, has been divided into two parts owing to the acquisition by the Great Western Railway Company of a strip of land for the purpose of constructing a branch line from Acton to Shepherd's Bush. The Council has received from the company in respect of the sale of this land and the damage sustained by the estate, a sum of £10,500, which, after deducting £150 for plans rendered useless by the severance of the estate, has been carried to the Consolidated Loans Fund in redemption of debt, the effect being to reduce the charge for land to be made against the dwellings account. The estate now comprises some 46 acres, and we propose that in the first instance the Council should proceed with the development of the section situated to the west of the proposed railway. This section, which is about 14 acres in extent, or rather less than one-third of the whole estate, is triangular in shape, and will be connected with the eastern section at the north-west and south-east boundaries and about midway between those points, by roads under the railway. Particulars of the scheme of development which we have provisionally approved for the western section and of the rents proposed to be charged are as follows : — Number and description of Particulars of Accommodation. Kents. Tenements. 5 shops Five rooms over shop £30 a year. 42 cottages Five rooms, scullery and bath .. 10s. a week. 27 Four rooms, boxroom, scullery and bath 10s. a week. 92 Four rooms, scullery and bath ... 5 at 10s. a week & 87 at 9s. 6d. a week. 14 Three rooms, boxroom, scullery and bath ... 8s. Gd. a week. 9 Three rooms.boxroom and scullery 8s. a week. 101 „ Three rooms and scullery 97 at 7s. a week and 4 at 5s. 6d. a week. 6 Two rooms, boxroom and scullery 4 at OS. Cd. a week and 2 at 5s. a week. 16 „ Two rooms and scullery 4s. a week. 12 flats Two rooms and scullery 3s. 9d. a week. 14 „ One room with bed recess, and pcullery 3s. 6d. a week. 338 " The rents mentioned have not been definitely fixed, but they are subject to slight adjustment at a later stage. The rents of the cottages and fiats are inclusive of rates. 168 •' In framing the present scheme we have been guideil by the policy, suggested in our report of May 18th, 1909, referred to above, of endeavouring to meet the demand for the smaller cottages which can be let at rents within the reach of those earning from 25s. to 30s. a week. We think that only a small number of the larger type of cottage, for which a rent of 10s. a week will be charged, should be erected, and that rather more than a third of the total number should be three-roomed cottages, to be let at rents ranging from 7s. to 8s. Gd. a week. We have also con- sidered the needs of the smaller families of the poorer class requiring only one or two rooms, and we propose that, as an experiment, the Council should provide a limited number of tenements of one, two or three rooms, at very low rents. The smallest type of one-roomed cottage flat with a recess for a bed, and a separate scullery and water-closet, can probably be let at a rent of ,3s. 6d. a week. As we have pointed out on previous occasions, we feel that those who require larger tenements than those now proposed, and who can afford to pay a higher rent than lOs. a week, are being provided for b}" other agencies " As regards the financial aspect of the present scheme, it is estimated that the income to be derived from rents will be sufficient to provide for all expenses of maintenance and management and to leave a balance available foi- payment of debt charges on a capital sum of £9."), .597, calculating interest at £3 12s. 6d. per cent. By utilising the balance of the Acquisition of Lands (Part III.) Fund at £3 lis. per cent, this sum will be increased to £96,493, which represents the maximum capital expenditure which may be incurred if the undertaking is to be self-supporting. The total cost of developing the section, including erection of cottages, forma- tion of roads, general development charges and all incidentals will probably not exceed £88,511. To this should be added the sum of £5,028, being the proportion of the net cost of the land applicable to this section, making a total capital outlay of £94,139. The estimated capital surplus is there- fore £2,354." London Housing^. j\[()DKitx Teni)F_:xcies. I)(Mi-iiii4' fill tliis important subject, Air. Iv Harper, the statistical ollicer to the L.C.C, issued in January, 1909, a Report o\' considerable importance. In this Report, Mr. Harper deals with the changed aspect of residential Rondon, the tcudencv to live not in the central districts, ic.y but oiilsidc till' county uvea, and the need for the County Council to stimulate among private liolders tlie erection of dwellings I'di- working people, and to obtain extended facilit it's for clicaii t I'atisit. 'I'lii' first jioiut touched on in the Report is the remarkabl(> growth ol' " l''.xtra-London." This is well illustrated in the following table, wdiich shows not only the increas(> iu th(^ population of inner and outer London since 1801, but also liow much more rapid has been tire increase in "Extra-London" since 1851 : — County op London. EXTRA-LONDOX. Increase Increase Year. Population. per cent. Population. per cent. 1801 9r)0,nio — 155,334 — 18.-. I 2,:!(]^,;54i ... 21-2 317,594 ... 19-9 1881 . . ;{,8:}0,2fl7 ... 17-4 . 930,304 ... 22-7 1891 ... 4,228,317 ... 10-4 .. 1,405,489 .. 18-2 1901 ... 4,530,541 7-3 . .. 2,044,861 ... lC-8 Adding these figures together we find that the ])opu- lation of inner and outer London in 1801 was 1,114,(5^:1, and that this increased to (J, 581, 402 in 1001, but that relatively the rate of growth was greater during the last 50 years in tlie outer districts than the inner. The increase in " I'^xtra-London " is, of course, partly due to the growth of ancient boroughs, but in the main, it is caused by the shifting of the London population outwards. In some parts of central London the population for years has been steadily declining. In others it is practically stationary. Tlie outward movement is due to the causes which attract residents to the subiirbs and those which compel them to leave the central districts. The old idea of the working man that it was better to live near his work is being dispelled. Low rents, cheap locomotion, and fresh air are drawing him to live at a distance. -\Ir. Harper quotes instances where it is, on the whole, cheaper for workmen to live outside and pay tlie additional fares for travel than to live inside the central districts. In general, the tendency, he says, represents the normal development of a lai'ge 170 town, and is probal)ly ^vholesome. But there are occasion- ally large displacements of population due to tlie clearing of areas in the central districts, and unless provision is made these result in overcrowding and in abnormal increases of rent. Apparently, then, not only is the; outward tendency natural, but it should he, if possible, extended. Jncidentally, .Mr. Harper finds that though, since the beginning of the century, there has been noticed the phenomenon of an increase of empty houses, concurrently Avith overcrowding in central districts, the explanation of this is that the empt,y houses are those of the better-to-do classes. The overcrowding is due not only to the cause already mentioned, but to others, such as the increases in rates and the pressure of rent, which is so much higher in I^ondon than the provinces. The next question dealt with in Mr. Ihirper's iieport is : Should nnmicipal action be taken ? On this the Report points out that this particular development ol* municipal enter]3rise was largely forced on the Council by Parliament, and that it proceeded under conditions which were by no means the most favouralile. However, continues the Report: — " The competition with private enterprise tlius instituted has not been unwholesome in its effects. On the other hand, it is obvious that any attempt to supply the entire need for working-class accommodation by municipal building is not practicable, and that private enterprise must continue to supply the bulk of the accommodation. At the same time the erection of municpal dwellings, in different places and at different times, has undoubtedly been useful in main- taining and improving the standards of construction and accommodation and particularly the standard of sanitary requirements." The Report affirms that there is no real danger of the operations checking those of individual builders, and, in fact, during the past six years, while public bodies have provided six per cent, of the accommodation, ninety-three per cent, has been the result of private enterprise. 171 An analysis of the provision made in the matter of work- men's dwellings seems, again to quote the words of the Eeport : "To point to the desirability of municipal buildings in the suburbs being directed mainly to the provision of smaller and lower-rented cottages and cottage-flats than those provided by the speculative builder. By this means tiie superior credit of the municipal authority would be brought in to ease financial difficulties at the crucial point." Some useful statistics are given, showing the increase of facilities for cheap transit since the Cheap Trains Act of 1883. In the matter of workmen's trains the position is this : — 1883. 1890. 1891. 1899. 190:'. 1907. Trains daily 106 257 :]9.5 608 767 1,373 Miles run 734-79 1,806-53 2,679-37 4,300-81 5,808 59 9,66442 In tlie matter of tramways the figures at the present time per day are as follows : — Total workmen's tramway cars 3,800 Mileage of ditto 16,000 L.C.C. tramway cars 2,760 Mileage of ditto 12,300 'The numlier of passengers at workmen's fares on the Ij.C.C tramways during the year 1907-8 amounted to 27,977,412, the fare in almost all cases being 'J<]. return for the wdiole length of the I'oute. The report consideD's that the railway fares will have to he cheapened and that further accommodation on both tramways and raihvays will speedily 1)(> necessary. The work of the Council recommended by tlie b'eport in the matter of workmen's dwellings is finally thus summed up : — " If by any means the provision of houses by private enterprise can be further stimulated, the scope < f municipal house building might then without danger be limited to : — " (a) The building of dwellings which should serve as^ models to private enterprise ; and " (b) The provision of accommodation for any particular class or locality which appeared to be neglected by private enterprise." 172 Progfresstve Policy and the Building^ Trade. Ill conclusion, it may fairly be stated that far from facilitating the removal of overcrowding in London, the action of the Progressive Party, whilst in power, did much towards checking private building operations, and conse- quently directly tended to diminish the supply of houses in and alxmt London. For example, in a letter to the Westininster Gazette of September 10th, IIIDC), A. N. wrote: — ". . . . it wa? diahearteniag; to tind you attributing the depression in the building trade to the expenses of the Boer war. " For at least ten years those who have opposed municipal extravagance have predicted as one o£ the inevitable results a crisis in the building trade, and now that the crisis is close on us it is attributed to some other cause. " With sincere respect for your leader writer, I should have thought that a policy which has resulted in increasing the annual burden on occupied houses by 30 per cent, in ten years could not fail to check building operations. For my part, I b3lieve the crisis will be long, severe, and almost universally felt in all boroughs where the rates have largely increased. "The trade returns, the income tax returns, the universality of employment at high wages, show that there is no want of money or of profitable enterprise in the country. The general public, particularly the middle class, are housing themselves as best they can with a single eye to avoid any increase in rates which they can ill afford, and which they almost passionately resent as a cruel and unjust imposition." The action of the present Radical-Progressive Govern- ment has ha* I, ant! is having, an even more disastrous effect upon the building trade and upon the development of London generally. ^ Tlic reasons whicli at the present time account for the serious lack of employment in the building trade are not 173 far to seek. The Budget of 1909, following upon previous attacks by the present Government upon proj)ei1y, and especially upon landed i^roperty, more than accDunts for this, as "witness the following manifesto signed !" tliis ( 'oiiuiiittee (luriuij; the time tlie I'ro^rcssiNcs \\(M'(' In cilice was a meniher of the Mnniei]>al l»(>l'(ii-ni pai'ty, .\lr. Stnart Sankey. The Mnniei])al lud'i irnierr,, whilst th(-y were in a minority, always displayed the most earnest desire to make this depai'tment of the ( 'ikukmI's wui'k an nntpiestionahle success. The Past Three Years. Now lot us see wlvdi the .\l iinieipal Relormers ha\e done durin,!;- the past three years to lni])r()ve and increase the open spaces ol' London. In the hist election cami)aign of IIHIT, the Progressives went so far as to assert that the IJeformers wouhl, il' relnrneil to jiowei-, sell or let the open spaces for Iniilding purposes, and The Dallij News even published a cartoon to give ijoint to this shameless calumny. In any case the Council has no power to sell or let the o])en spaces which are dedieate(| to the public for ever, but a^iart from that not unimpjoitant laet, the Municipal Reform i-et-ord is a sidhcient answer to su(dL unscrupulous Pro- gressive charges. On ^larch olst, 1007, the nnndier of open spaces vested in or maintained by the Coiineil was 110, and the total area .j,()3() acres. On .March -ilst, lOOU, the latest date for which com- plete figures are available, the nnnd)er Avas 113, and the total area 5,100 acies, or an inci'ease of (U acres in two years. The following are some (tf the items to the credit of the present Council : — The Council agreed to eont rilmte ^17, •">()() towards the ae(iuisition for the public of a new open space of 32| acres at Salter's Hill, West Norwo,,d. (See P.C.C. Minutes, June 18th, 11)07, p. 1295.) The charge for playing bowls in Finsbury Park, which was imposed by the Progressives in December, 190G, was IS I discontinued by the ,Muni('i|);il Roformers. Bowls may imw l)e played free of charge. (L.C.C. Minutes, June 25tli, 1007, p. 1430.) The Council has -Tanicd acltSitional facilities for games in several parks. ( )ii J iine 2r)th, l',K)7, it decided \n allow Badminton to In- [ilaycil in Battersea Park and net-hall on Claphani ('(Uninon. (Aiinulcs, p. 14o0.) ( )n -inly l-Jth, 1907, it was* decided to cxtiMid the hathing hours in Victoria Park, and to gi\c \]vw facilities for hockey in Southwark Park and N'idoria Park. (Minutes, p. 357.) Arrangements were made witli the Poyal Life Saving Society for tlie instruction of men on the parks staff in swimming and life-saving. The Council snhsecpiently decided to raise by Is. a wovk the wages of i)ark cmplniji'.'^ who pass the exannnation of the Society. (L.(\C. Minut(>s, June 25tli, 1007, p. 1 I3i>, and Feb. 18th, 1908.) The minimum wages of proficient 3rd class and 4th class foremen in the parks have been increased frnm 28s. and oOs. to 31s. and 33s. respectively, .\lthongh these foremen are skilled woi-kers the Progressives used to ■consider the lower wages sntlicient. ()n October ir>th, 1907, tli(.' ( '(Muicil agreed to contri- bute £4,500, being one-hall' of the cost, towards the acquisition for the pnhlic of an open space of three-and-a- half acres of land l)(M\v('(>n l*'airfield Poad and Old Pord Road, Bow, it being nnderstood that the remaining lialf of the purchase money Avonld b(> found by the Poplar Borongh Council and from ])rivate contributions. In February, 1908, Sir Spencer Maryon-Wllson, Pt . kindly offered to pres(Mit to the (Vnincil about \[ acres of, land adjoining the western boundaiy of Maryon Park, together with a small strip of land for h)r]ning an entrance into the park from A\'oodland Teri'ace, ])rovi(led that the Council agreed to purchas(> for C500, and .use as children's playgrounds, two ]')lots of land about 3^- acres in ext(>nt which adjoin the approach to the |)ark from Woolwich Road, 185 and to ]>r()vl(1e suitable iron foncin.i;- to tlie land Avhen taken over. The offer Avas aeeepted l)y the Council on iotli Marcli, lOOS. When iviiskiii I'ark was aei|niietl l)y the (Council in ][)()'), ])al)lic attention was directed to the- desirability of jicqnirino- for the use of the public as i)layiiig-fields about 12 acres of land adjoining the park on its south-west side. The owner ol" the land, upon l)eing approached by a local <:-onnnittee, of which the Lord Bishop of SoutliAvark Avas chairman, expressed his willingness to disj)Ose o! the land for the purpose suggested at the rate of £2,000 an acre, imd the Council on March 10th, lllOS, decided to contrilmte one half of the cost of acquisition and to maintain the ground if and when vested in the ( 'Oimcil. in February, 1007, the Building Act Committee dreAv the attention of the Parks Committee to a proposal to erect houses on the garden in West Square, v^outhwark, and, as it appeared desirable that the garden slu^uld lie preserved as an open space for the use of the public, a communication was sent to the Southwark Metropolitan Borough Council on the subject, 'fhe borough council thereupon agreed to ■contribute one-third of the cost of acquiring the land and subsequently to maintain it as an open space, and the Metropolitan Pidilic ( Jardens Association also ex^jressed its Avillingness to lay out the garden. The garden, which is slightly over half an acre in extent, is situated in a some- what congested district where facilities for recreation are limited, and the price originally asked therefor was £6,000. After protracted negotiations the oAvner agreed to accept £3,500, together with costs amounting to £74, and the Council on March 10th, 1908, decideolicy oi Mr. Glanville Avas to prevent tlu^ iicquirement of open spaces, that was not the p(ilicy of the IMnnicipal liefonn party. Public Health. The Municipal Reformers have devoted special atten- tion to all mattei's connected with the maintenance of the public liealth. The remarkable reduction in the total and infantile death rates which has taken j^lace in the last three years affords convincing proof that this most important branch of administration has not been neglected. The following are the con-ected death rates for London for the last four years : — 190;") Progressive ... 1900 ] Progressive ... 1907 Municipal Reform 1908 Municipal Reform Total death rate per 1,000 persons living. 15-9 Deaths of infants under one Tear per 1,000 births. 130 15-9 131 iry.i 110 14-5 113 181) Xo hotter tostiiiioiiy to cniciency can \)0 secured tluiu tliis decrease in the dcalli rate, fur Uad adiiiiuistratiou is c|iilckly followed li>- a rise in the draili rate. The li(\o'istrai'-( JeiieralV hN'poi-l h)r lOOS, p. xxix. of the Annual Summary, states as follows: - 1 BOROUOHS Death fates per 1,000 living. (arranged in topo- — graphical orderV 190(;. 1907. 1008. London ].')•'.) 15-3 14-5 Paddinpfton... i3-;5 14-4 13-2 Kensiugton... 1 kl» 14-8 13-9 Hammersmith 15-4 J 4-9 14-5 Fulham u--\ 13-8 12-9 Chelsea 16 2 15-5 lo-O City of West tit inster U-f) 14G 14-2 St. Mary Ir hone 159 16 15-1 Hampsiead... 10-6 10-2 9-6 St. Pan eras ... llvC) 15-7 1.5-4 Ibliugton ]:>■?, 15-3 13-7 Stoke Newington ... 12() 12-0 12-9 Hackney 13i» 14-2 13-7 Holborn V.)-l 18-7 17-6 Finbbnry 21-4 19-4 19-3 City of liOndon 19-0 18-5 19-4 Shored itch ... 20-6 21-5 18-3 Bethnal Green 19-1 17-7 17-3 Stepney 18-5 16-C. 17-1 Poplar lS-2 17-4 16-3 South wark ... l,S-9 LS-S 17-0 Bermondsey 2()-2 J8-7 19 2 Lambrth l.V.-) l;rl 13-7 Battersea 14-3 14-2 13-1 Wandsworth 13-5 13-0 12-2 Camberwell ir)-2 14-4 131 Deptford ... ... 16-9 14-8 14-5 Greenwich ... 13-8 13-0 12-9 Lewisham ... 12-r) 12-0 11-4 Woolwich ... ... 140 13-4 121 A Red Book recently issued l^y the h.C.C embodies the Annual Report of Sir Shirley Murphy, Medical Officer, of Health for the Counly of London, for the year 1008. Some idea of the high position Avliich London holds in the matter of j)idilic health is afforded hy a perusal in this 190 Report of the mortality statistics for l'.)(J7-S of the thirteen other English cities whose popnlations at the last census exceeded 200,000. In only two of these — Bristol and Leicester — was the death-rate loAver tlian in i]w metropolis. Taking the comparative mortalitj' figure lor iMigland and AVales at 1,000, the comparison Avorks out as follows: — London 98'.) Liverpool ... ... 1,398 Mao Chester 1,38H Birmingham ... ... 1,165 Leeds 1,135 Sheffield 1,162 Bristol 948 West Ham 1,009 Bradford 1,170 Newcastle-on-Tjme ... 1,172 Hull 1,128 Nottingham 1,091 Salford 1,340 Leicester 941 (See p. 8 of the Report of the Puljlie Health Com- mittee for the year 1908.) The Milk Supply. When the "^present Council came into office in 1907, there was anL.C.C. (General Powers) Bill hef ore Parliament, Avhicli contained certain clauses relative to the milk supj)ly of a liigldy controversial charactei'. As there seemed likely to l)e a good deal of opposition to those clauses, the Municipal Reformers decided to droj^ these clauses for the time being, in order to preserve the rest of the Bill. '^I'he Progressives tried to make a good deal of party capital out oi. this action at the time, so that it may be well to set forth the full reasons for the decision then ari-ived at. On .^hlrch 28th, 1907, tlie Pai'liaint'ntary Committee reported that they had had under consideration the 2:)rovisions contained in the Council's General Powers Bill of this Session, Avhich stands for second reading in the House of C^ommons on Aj^ril lltli ]iext. " Many of the powers sought in the Bill are highly c(nitr(wersial, and are opposed by a numl)er of local autliorities and other petitioners." The controversial proposals referred to wiiich 191 appeared to the C'oininittci^ to give vise to the greatest (lifhciilly wore th(^ fdliowirig : To enable the Council to ])rohibit the sale of milk from any dairy sitiiated within oi- without the county where the medical oflicer suspects that cases of infectious disease within the county occurring in more than one sanitary district are attributable to the milk supplied from such dairy. (Clause 132.) To enable the Council to take samples of milk at railway stations and elsewhere in the county with a view to prevent the sale of milk unfit for human consumption. (Clause 33.) To enable the Council's medical officer to require dairymen to furnish lists of sources of supply of milk and of their customers, with a view to prevent the spread of infectious disease. (Clause 34.) To require dairymen to notify under penalty all cases of infectious disease among their servants, &c., and to prohibit any person suffering from an infectious disease from milking any animal whose milk is intended for consumption within the county. (Clauses 35 and 36.) To enable sanitarj' authorities, with a view to prevent the spread of infectious disease, to require proprietors of laundries to furnish lists of their customers. (Clause 37.) To require that tenement houses shall be furnished with a proper and sufficient supply of water on each storey. (Clause 38.) To require the provision of accommodation for the cooking and storage of food in tenement houses on each storey. (Clause 39.) To prohibit the sorting and sifting of house refuse by hand. (Clause 40.) To apply sanitary regulations in respect of premises used for the sale, &c., of food for human consumption. (Clause 41.) To make by-laws for regulating the businesses of fried fish vendors, fish curers and marine store dealers. (Clause 42.) Ancillary provisions in connection with the clauses above-mentioned. (Clauses 43 to 48.) To enable the Metropolitan Borough Councils at their discretion to establish milk depots, and to provide and sell in their respective districts milk for the food of infants. (Clauses 49 to 51.) To enable the Council to cater for the occupants of its three existing lodging-houses and for any like lodging-houses to be erected. (Clause 64.) 192 The Coiuiuitlre went oti to state in their Re[)oit that tlio progress of the Bill in Parliament has already been retarded, and they understand that decisions with regard to the above matters should be arrived at without delay, tlie second reading already having been several times postponed. The Bill contains many important provisions of a non-controversial character, including such matters as extensions of time for the exercise of powers already acquired, and it is therefore of great importance that the Bill shoidd be passed into hnv. Tlie Committee are advised that any further postponement of the second reading stage might imperil the passage of the Bill til is Session. ^riiey are Avell aware of the importance ol" the several proposals to which they have called attention, but they feel that it is necessary that the Council should, after the newly-constituted connnittees concerned have been consvdted, have an opi^cjrtunity of discussing and coming to a decision upon the proposals. ]\Ioreover, the controversial portions of the Bill are strongly opposed on second reading by local authorities both within and without the county. The Committee think that, having regard to all the circumstances, the Council wotdd be well advised to onut from the lUll for the present Session the clauses referred to, and they reconnnend (a) that Part V. of the Council Ceneral Powers Bill, 1007 (clauses 32 to 48 inclusive), be deleted from the Bill; (b) that Part VI. of the Council's General PoAvers Bill, 1907 (clauses 49 to 51 inclusive), relating to milk depots, be deleted from the Bill ; (c) that clause 84 of the Council's General Powers Bill, 1907, with regard to catering at the (Ntuncil's lodging- houses, be deleted from the Bill. The Hon. W. R. Peel (M.R.j (the Chairman of the Pai-liamentary Committee) said that it was essential that j)arts of the Bill should be ])assed, and that it was desirable that certain higldy contrDversial chaises should be with-' drawn ; otherwise tlie passage of the Bill would be imperilled. The Session Avas advancing, the second reading of the Bill had been twice postponed, and if it AA^ere put off again the chances oT the Bill passing would be A^ery remote. 193 In tlie circumstances of the case tliei'e was nothing else to be done with this Bill but to postpone those clauses whicJi, if persisted in, would \nidoubtedly wreck it. Aftei' a considerable amount of (Hscussion tlie clauses were deleted.* Subsequent events liave shown that the Municipal Reformers are much more keen than their opponents to safeguard the purity of the milk supply. Tlie following extract from the Public Health Committee's Report for 1907-8 (p. 270) will show what was done in that yeai- : — " In order to prevent the sale within the County of London of milk contaminated with dirt or filth the Com- mittee on July 2nd, 1907, recommended the Council to promote legislation for dealing with the matter on the lines of the authority conferred by Part IV, of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1907, with respect to tuberculous milk. The Council did not, however, agree to the Committee's recommendation, but passed a resolution as follows : — ' That, in the opinion of the Council, general legis- lation affecting the whole country and more effective administration are necessary for the purpose of securing a purer and more wholesome supply uf milk, that repre- sentations to that effect be made to the President of the Local Government Board, and that it be referred to the Public Health and Parliamentary Committees to give effect to this proposal ; and that it be referred to the Public Health Committee to report in detail as to any legislation which they may consider necessary for the purpose of securing a pure and wholesome milk supply for London in particular, pending or in addition to general legislation, after conferring with or otherwise ascertaining the views of the metropolitan borough councils and the City of London.' " In due course the Public Health and Parliamentary Committees presented a joint report stating that, in reply to the Council's request that a deputation on the subject might be received by the Local Government Board, the Board had intimated that the subject of milk legislation was engaging the attention of the Government and that the Board were in * For a detailed report of this debate see London Mimieipal Notes for April, 1907, p. 290, et seq. 13 194 communication with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with regard to it, and that in these circumstances the Board did not think any useful purpose would be served by the attendance of the proposed deputation. " The Committee accordingly urged upon the Council the desirableness of promoting legislation dealing with the question of dirty milk, and on October 29th, 1907, the Council decided to make application to Parliament in the session of 1908 for authority to enable the Council to take samples of milk on arrival in London and to take the necessary measures for excluding from London milk which on examination is found to be so dirty as to be unfit for human food ; and to enable sanitary authorities in London to take samples of milk within their districts at other than railway premises and to prevent by penalties or otherwise the sale of milk which on examination is found to be so dirty as to be unfit for human food. " Article 6 of the Dairies, Cowsheds and Milkshops Order, 1885, requires every cowkeeper, dairyman or purveyor of milk to become registered by the local authority, but does not give to the local authority the option of refusing registra- tion to those persons whose premises ai'e unsuited for the sale of milk. Cowkeepers are licensed annually by the Council, and, consequently, their premises are under control in this respect. In these circumstances it appeared desirable that application should be made to Parliament in the session of 1908 for authority to enable sanitary authorities in London to remove from the register, or to refuse to register, dairymen or purveyors of milk whose premises are unsuitable for the sale of milk thereon. " As it also appeared that the matter might be dealt with by the issue by the Local Government Board of a new dairies, &c., order under the provisions of Section 28 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the Council on our recommendation approached the Local Government Board with the view of obtaining the issue of such order. . . ." The extract wliicli Ave quote belo\A' from the Report of the Public Health Committee for the year 1908-9 will sufficiently indicate what was the outcome of those proposals, and how the Government has failed to redeem its pledge to deal with the matter in a general Bill (p. 256 Annual Report, 1908-9): — " During 1907 the Council decided to make application to Parliament in the session of 1908 for authority to enable the Council to take samples of milk on arrival in London 195 and to take the necessary measures for excluding from London milk which on examination was found to be so dirty as to bo unfit for human food ; and to enable sanitary authorities in London to take samples of milk within their districts at other than railway premises and to prevent, by: penalties or otherwise, the sale of milk which on examina- tion was found to be so dirty as to be unfit for human food. Clauses to this effect were inserted in the Bill of 1908, but, on second reading of the Bill, were withdrawn in view of the assurance given by the President of the Local Government Board that a general Bill dealing with the milk supply of the country would be introduced that session. As it appeared doubtful to the Committee whether the Government would be in a position to deal at an early date with the question, they recommended the Council to promote legislation in the session of 1909, with the result that the Council agreed to promote legislation to enable it to take samples of milk at railway stations, and to enable sanitary authorities to take samples within their districts at other than railway stations and to prevent the use of milk which, on examination, was found to be so dirty as to be unfit for human food. The Council also appointed a deputation to wait upon the President of the Local Govern- ment Board, again to urge upon him the vital necessity of introducing general legislation to ensure the purity of the milk supply of London and of the country generally," Mr. John Burns having failed to introduce a Milk Bill in 1908, the L.C.C. again included in their General Powers Bill of 1909 the milk clause withdrawn in the previous year. On the second reading of this Bill on March 11th, 1909, the following discussion took place in the House of Commons on the Council's proposals : — Sir F. Channing (L.) appealed to the President of the Local Government Board to see that there was no further delay in securing a pure milk supply. This was a question of supreme national importance, which justified the central authority of any great city in taking steps to provide for the purity of their milk supply. The Hon. W. Guinness (Unionist and Alunicipal Reformer) said that it was of the greatest possible impor- tance that there should be uniformity in regard to milk legislation. There had heen an enormous mortality 196 amongst children in consequence of impnre milk. Au enormous amoimt of mortality from impiire milk was caused by the neglect of the local authorities to put into operation the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order. Under this Bill the I^ondon County Council would have power to take sanrples of milk at railway stations. Unless these samples were taken at the railway stations, it was impossible, in the majority of cases, to trace the source of supply. The County Council would not ask for additional powers if the Govern- ment would undertake to j^romote this session legislatii)n applicable to the whole country. The Rt. Hon. John Burns (L.) said it was agreed on all sides that some steps were necessary, and the only question was wlietlier action should be taken on the initiative of one authority, or whether it should be taken by the Goverumeiir for the good of tlie country as a whole. The Government had made up its mind that the state of the milk supply was so unsatisfactory that it could not be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion at the instance of local authorities, many of whom were rich enough to protect themselves, thus diverting the inferior milk to authorities which were unable to protect themselves. Complaint was made that the Government promised to introduce a Miik Bill last session, and had not done so. As the Jiouse knew, the time of the session was occupiod by another form of liquid. The Government had a Bill ready for the House— (the right hon. gentleman waved the measure in the air)— and at the proper time he would explain it. Sufhce to say that it contained provisions whicli would enable a central depart- ment in London, acting in conjunction with otlicr authorities, to deal effectively and uniformly with the problem of the supply of pure milk. He appealed tO the House not to accept the milk clauses of the London County Counoil Bill, on the ground that the Government had pledged themselves— and he now repeated that promise— to do their very best to get the Milk Bill, promised in the King's Speech, through this year. The Governmentachnitted that it \v;is necessary that such a Bill should be jaassed, because we had wow reached a stage J 1)7 wlien something must be done. The Royal Commission on 'I'libercnlosis had made reeommoiidations wliii^li ilie (Jovernmcnt could not ignore. Under these Circumstances he appealed to the House, and especially to the members of the London County Council, not to press these milk clauses, whioh might seriously jeopardise the passage of the measure as a whole. In all the circumstances, he thought the Government were wise in their decision to abandon all local and sectional legislation. If the general Milk Bill were passed, it would do away with all necessity for the milk clauses in the Bill before the House The Hon. \V, CJuinness said he thought tliat, in view t)l' the Ministerial announcement, the London County Council Avoidd he Avilling lo withdraw the milk clauses from llie Bill. Dr. Cooper (L.) observed that it u^ed to be said that tliey would not get anything while a Tory party was in power, but w-e Avere told to wait till a Liberal Government was in office. We have done so, and Avhat do we get? The Ki. lion. John Burns (L.) : A definite promise from myself, on behalf of the Government, of a general Milk Bill, to deal with the problem on national as against sectional lines. The motion ^ov the rejection of the Bill was negatived without ;i division, and the Bill was then read a second time. If this is not sufficient proof that the Radical-1'ro- gressive Government are to blame for their delay in dealing with the matter, then the folloAving statement, issued by tlie. hondon County Comicil, in defence of their Bill, ought to alford conclusive testimony : — ' " The proposals are very similar to those contained in clauses included in a Bill promoted by the London County Council last session, but a motion was passed in your honourable House instructing the committee on the Bill to strike out these clauses, the President of the Local Govern- 198 ment Board stating that the question involved was a national one, and that he intended in that session to bring in a Bill -dealing with the matter. " It is believed that the principal ground of objection to the present proposal is that the matter should be dealt with by general legislation applying to the whole country. The Council has already more than once expressed itself by resolution in favour of general legislation, and has on several occasions urged upon the Government the pressing necessity for such legislation. A representation to the President of the Local Government Board was made by the Council as far back as July 16th, 1907, but up to the present a public Bill has not been introduced." Finally, altlioiigli Mr. Bums did introduce a oeneral jMilk Supply Bill in 1909, it was abandoned long before the end of the Session in oi-der to make way fo]- the London Elections Bill, a measure designed to gerrymander tlie constituencies in the interests of the Radical-Socialist party. Thus in three successive years a Radical ( Tovernment has wholly failed to redeem its pledges, and has blocked the way in respect of public lienlth legislation. THE L.C.C. STEAMBOAT SERVICE The decisive failure and al)andonment of the Thames Steamboat service established by the London County Council is a splendid object lesson in foolish municipal trading. In the brightness of its first promise as pictured by the Progressive-Socialist Party it took the fancy of Londoners. In its sorry results it has embarrassed their successors ; aroused the righteous wrath of the ratepayei' ; and the well-merited condemnation of all common-sense men. Shortly, the Progressive picture of the glorious benefits to be derived from a municipal fleet of steamboats was this :-- A paying concern ; A cheap, fast, punctual service. ProgresslvG Forecasts. In moving the Report of the Rivers Committee in tlie London (Vjunty Council in January, 1902, Mr. (now Sir) E. Cornwall, the then Chairman of the Rivers Committee, said : " The central point was whether the service would yield the necessary £90,000 per anniim. He thought it would. Indeed, he believed that a greater success would follow the undertaking tlian even the most sanguine Councillor anticipated — that, in fact, the undertaking offered startling possibilities of success." — (Daihj News.) 1 ) tiring the proceedings before the Parliamentary Com- mittee on May 8th, 1903, Mr. Fitzgerald, K.C., representing the Council, said : " This Bill was not pi'omoted by the 200 Cou nty Council with tlie primary view of making- a profit." In answer to a question bj'^ the Cliairman, ]\lr. Fitzgerald said that what " he hoped to prove was that (he losi:^, even if lliere was a /o.s*.s- at all, u'ould he a very small one, and that tlie charge on the rat^s would he so slight ri-s to he considerable item with much sickness in my family. I did think the London County Council would have appreciated my services in a much better way, considering the good service 1 tried to render them as master, and at the present time I have to be on duty 72 hours one week and 96 hours the next week, making the time equal to seven days a week, which, I believe, is not the general terms of employment by the London County Council." In face of the above facts, the right of the Progressives to pose as model employers of labour, to which London is invariably treated at the time of fj.C'.C. Inflections, stands refuted on the statements of members of their own party. Progfressive Incompetence and Misnnanag^ennent. The SJtlpij'nHj World, of Jane r)th, 1900, in its article on " ^larine Insurance," slated : — • " The insurance of the London County Council's river fleet has been renewed for this year on terms which are a considerable advance on those paid last year. Considering the number of accidents to the fleet during the past season, the rate for the renewal is not excessive. Th"^ fleet consists of 30 steamerp, valued at £6,000 each, and the rate paid last year was 35s. per cent., this year the rate is 80s. per cent. Underwriters cover particular average, together with the full collision clause, and include protection and indem- nity risks, together with loss of life. Last year the total premium was only a trifle over £2,800, and the claims were several times this amount." Among other illustrations of the way iu which the Progressives mismanaged this service from the very com- mencement, may be mentioned that after the service was started, it was found that there were no coal hulks. A firm of shipl)rokers was hurriedly commissioned to buy two l)oats for use as coal hulks at £500 each, wit'i 5 per ceat. 212 commission and fees for inspection in addition. ( )ne boat was brought round fi'om the Mersey to tlie Tliames at -a cost of £170; the machinery in botli ludks Avas sokl for £21'-> as " scrap," and it cost £800 more to fit out the boats 'to hold coal. — (Morning Advertiser, May 1st, 190().) At Newcastle-on-Tyne, on 16th :\hu-ch, IOO(i, Mr. Archibald Hogg read a paper on tlie London County Council .steamers to the North-East Coast Institution of Shipbuiklers ■and Engineers : — " The conditions laid down by the Council, who clearly ought to have taken outside expert advice, verged (he said) on the impossible. The steamers were designed with too great a speed on the specified length of vessel and draught of water, and were consequently almost as uneconomical as it was possible to make them." Municipal Reformers g^ive the Steamboats a Last Chance. Tlie Steamboat service was certainly tlie most Impeless of all the municipar white elepliants which the Progressives bequeathed to their successors when they went out of office in Marcli, 1907. It Avas then too late in the- season to sell or lease the boats, and so the Municipal Reformers decided to give the service one more chance, to see if tlicre avus any real puT)lic demand for it. Tlie history of this final experiment is summarised in the Annual Report of the Rroceedings of the Council for 1907-8 as follows :— " After the election of the Council in March, 1007, the Committee (Highways) gave the most careful consideration to the question of the action to be taken as regards the steamboats, which had been laid up in dock during the winter of 1906-7, The Committee reported to the Council on 23rd April, 1907, as to the various alternative courses possible, setting out the estimated loss consequent on the adoption of each (see Note below), and recommended the Note. — Tfie three courses open to the Council and the loss which would be consequent on each, were as follows : — " 1.— If the service is entirely discontinued and the boats are laid up and nothing further done to thcni beyond completing the over- 213 Couocil to run a service of steamboats for about 4^ mouths during the summer of 1907. in order further to test the possibilities of working the boats in conjunction with the . Council's tramways, and for ferry and pleasure purposes. The Committee pointed out that in putting forward this proposal, it must not be taken as implying any intention that the boats should be worked after the summer of 1907. The Council adopted the Committee's recommendation and authorised them to make the necessary arrangements in the matter. " From 15th May, 1907, the steamboats ran daily every 15 minutes between Greenwich and Chelsea (Cadogan) piers, calling at all intermediate piers (except Waterloo), while a service with intervals of 30 minutes was maintained between Chelsea and Putney. Special express steamers also ran every half-hour between Greenwich and Westminster, calling at Temple and London Bridge. "The ordinary and express services between Putney and Greenwich were discontinued on 1st October, 1907, but in order that the Council might have information as to the extent to which the service was used by the public as a means of transit to and from their work as apart from pleasure trafiic, arrangements were made for a half-hourly service to be run on week-days during October, between Charing Cross and Greenwich. The boats ceased running on 31st October, 1907, and were laid up in the Surrey Commercial Docks." "The Council, on 23rd April, 1907, decided to revise ^ the scale of fares charged on the steamboats, the principal alteration being that the fare for the circular journey between Greenwich and Westminster and other embankment piers available on the outward journey by steamboat and the return journey by steamboat and tramcar, was raised to 7d. Books of tickets were also, in certain cases, issued at special rates." Abandonment of the Service. In spite of every effort to improve the facilities offered to the public, it soon became evident that the service could haul which is now in hand, the loss on boats and piers (excluding debt charges) daring the current year is estimated at about £10,500. " 2.— If no service is run and the boats are laid up and kept in such a condition that they would be fit for use if sold, the loss on boats and piers (excluding debt charges) is estimated at about £14,000. "3.— If a service is run for about 4| months, and the boats are laid up during the winter and the overhaul necessary after the summer's working is carried out, the loss on boats and piers (excluding debt charges) is estimated at about £22,000." 214 not be maintained except at a ruinous loss to the ratepayers. The considerations which led to the final abandonment are explained in the Annual Report of the Council foi* 1907-8 (p. 124, &c.), as follows: — " The Committee (Highways) gave the most careful con- sideration during the year to the steps to be taken as regards the steamboat service in future years. They submitted a report to the Council on 3rd December, 1907, as to the results of the working of the boats during the summer season, and stated, while they did not at that time feel able to place before the Council any definite proposals, they had observed that comparatively little use was made of the service above Chelsea, and they had come to the conclusion that all the necessities of any service which the Council might in the future decide to run could be met by stopping the boats at Chelsea (Cadogan ) pier. The requirements of a service of this nature could be met by 24 boats, and in the circumstances the Council agreed to the Committee's suggestion that they should be authorised to negotiate for the sale of six boats. "The Committee gave further consideration to the future of the service during January and February, 1908, and on 18th February, 1 908, .presented to the Council a detailed report as to the action which they suggested should be taken. " They pointed out that there had been a heavy deficiency on the service (including interest and repayment) each year fiince it was started, the figures being as follows — ^GSiV* Not clGficidlCV* 1905-6 fl7th June to 31st March) £50,095 16 1 1906-7 (Ist April to 2nd October) 40,373 5 9 1907-8 {15th May to Slst October) (estimated) 46,614 (including £6,000 for overhaul £137,083 1 10 for 1908). " They stated that, having very fully reviewed all the facts, they had come to the conclusion that in the face of the very heavy loss involved in the running of the boats under ♦existing conditions, steps should be taken to dispose of the boats, either by selling or chartering them, and pointed out that the loss which would fall upon the Council by adopting this course would be much less than that which would result if the service were maintained, while, in addition, the Council would be relieved of liabilities for special repairs of the boats and piers which would otherwise sooner or later have to be faced. " The Committee pointed out that the cost of laying up the boats (without taking into consideration thereduction in 215 the capital charges which would result from the sale of any of them) compared approximately as follows with the cost of running a service generally on the same lines as that of the previous summer : — Co.st of nnniiiig a seroice — Hants— Deficiency on working Debt charges £ 12,976 14,981 £ 27,957 14,118 £42,075 Pievif — Net cost of maintenance ... Debt charges ... 8,114 0,004 Net deficiency (2) Co.st of laijiiHj up boats a)id maiiitainiiirj j)ievs if service is discontinued — Bodts — Laying up, &c. 4,560 Debt charges ... 14,981 Piers — Net cost of maintenance ... .. 8,785 Debt charges G,004 19,541 14,789 Net deficiency £34,330 " The Committee further pointed out that by re- transferring to the Thames Conservancy the piers which it took over from that authority and by closing certain of its own piers, a saving would be effected of about £6,000 a year, and that, allowing for that, the saving secured by the course they suggested might be put approximately at £15,000 a year without allowing for selling any of the boats, the proceeds of which sale would reduce not only the capital charges but the cost of laying up, and that in addition a heavy contingent liability would be avoided. " The Council, after considering the report of the Committee, authorised them to open negotiations for the sale or charter of the boats. Advertisements were issued and other steps were being taken with this object at the close of the year to which this report relates." Auditors' Reports. Tlie L.C'.C steaiuljuat service was one of tlie under- takings upon which the independent auditors, Messrs. Peat and Pixley, were asked to report. Their investigations showed tliat the total amount expended on capital ace()ant 2ir> in respect of the steamboat service to March olst, 1907, was £301,080, and on that date tlie debt had been reduced to £277,550. Annexed is the auditors' summary of the results of the operations ;birino- the two years : — Loss on working. . . ... ... ... 49,500 Preliminary expenses ... ... ... 214 Interest on purchase money for piers ... 1,341 Debt charges 39,502 Parliamentary expenses... ... ... 0,500 Total £97,243 This amount has been charged on the rates, the sums provided having been as follows : — £ .s. d. Prior to Aprd 1st, ! 905 0,773 19 Year 1905-0 ... 51,205 Year 1900-7 42,283 Total to March, 1907... £100,201 19 V, The auditors, in their report, add : " The undertaking having been abandoned by the Council, the ultimate loss, on working, upkeep, realisation of assets, and interest on the debt, will, in our opinion, amount to at least £30^1,000." Tliat report, however, only brings us up to the montli of March, 1907, and the Local Government Board auditor, in dealing with the account for the year ended March, 1908, reported : — The aggregate capital expenditure on steamljoats to the 31st Mai-ch, 1908, a^uounted to £301,080. Towards the redemption of the debt created by this expencbture sums, have ])oen charged against revenue amounting to £35,300. Sales of old materials have realised £291, leaving a net debt of £205,484. 217 T\]e snms sot aside out of revenue allow for a total repayment of the del)t in 25 years. The loss on the working of the steamboat service for the year under audit was £37,847 5s. 2d., made up is follows : — I)(dlciency on revenue account :- - £ s. (1. X s. d. Boats 10,227 I'J 10 Piers n,i:^5 16,36a 4 Interest on debt ... 9,412 9 4 Redemption of debt 12,071 lo (5 £37,847 5 2 An amount of £37,669 was transferred from general county rate to the steamboats account to meet the estimated deficiency of the year. The contributions from rates since the inauguration of the service in June, 1905, to 31st March, 1908, to meet the deficiency on the steamboats revenue account amounted to £131,371. 1'liis sum, however, is £2,S-l(i i:'.>. in excess of the actual deficiencies Avhicli have arisen, and this latter sum has been carried forward to tlie credit of net revenue account of the following year. During the year the sum of £14,057 was expended on repairs, &c., to boats, including £1,551 for compensation for damage caused by the Councirs boats. Of this amount of £14,057 a sum of £8,194 was recoverable from under- "writers and others. The sum due from underwriters for compensation due to tlie Council and to third parties in respect of damage, &:c., at 31st March, 1908, amounted to £11,347. Continuing: Losses. Although the service was abandoned after the sunnner of 1907, it Avill take many years to extinguisli the lia1)ilities 218 incurred in connection therewitli. The boats have had to be sold for anything they wouhl fetch, and in the meantime they have had to be maintained in a saleable condition. At the same time, tlie piers have to l)e maintainc(h The following figures taken from the accounts of the steamboats for the year ended March, 1909 (submitted to the Council on July 20th, 1909) (Minutes, p. 232), and from the annual estimates of the Council for 1909-10 (pp. yA and 35), show what the ratepayers have had to pay in respect of this Progressive white elephant in the past two years : — 1908-9. 1909-10. £ £ Expenses of laying up the Boats (net)... 4,398 4,885 „ maintaining Piers 10,923 9,920 Debt C^liarges (Interest and Repayment) 20,953 20,610 30,274 35,415 Receipts from Piers 2,091 2,230 Net estimated Charge on County Rate... 34,183 33,185 The debt outstanding at March 31st, 1909, was £253,474. Tlie total contribution fi'om the rates up to March, 1909, was £ltj9,273. (Report of Finance Committee sub- mitted to Council, July, 20th, 1909, page 231.) It will be noticed that although there is still a large annual loss it is less than it would have been if the service had not been abandoned, and moreover it will now diminish every year until the piers are disposed of and the lost capital finally i:>aid off ; whereas if the service had continued the probability is that the annual loss would have increased. Now that the boats have been sold, the ratepayers will be saved the cost of laying them up, s(~) that the Ictss this y(^ar is likely to be l)elo\v the estimate shown above. 219 Sale of Steamboats. The greatest difficiilt}' lias been experienced in dis- posing of the fleet of Steamhoats, Avliieli affords additional proof of their genei'al unsuitaf)ilify. It was impossible to sell them hy piivate tr(>aty, and they Avere put wp to auction and withdrawn time after time because no reasonable price could be obtaineil. The negotiations and final sale are described in a report pre- sented to the Council by the Highways (Committee on July I'Otli, 1900, as follows :— "We reported on June 22nd, 1909, that in accordance with the decision of the Council of April 6th-7th, 1909, we had made arrangements for such of the Council's steamboats as had not previously been sold to be offered for sale by auction on July 13th, 1909. We now report that the remain- ing 21 steamboats were offered for sale on that date, and that as the result five of the boats were sold, namely, the p.s. " Alleyn " for £705, and the p.s. " Ben Jonson," " Brunei," "Colechurch" and " Whittington " for £500 each. The Council on June 22nd, 1909, authorised Mr. T. W. Tamplin, the auctioneer, to sell (at not less than the reserve price) any of the boats not sold at the public auction, for a period of one week from July 13th, 1909, f.r., up to and including July 20th, 1909. Under this authority two f m-ther boats have been sold, namely, the p.s. " Olaff " and the p.s. " Turner " for £500 each. At the auction on July 13th, Mr. Dalby Williams made an offer of £10,000 for the whole of the twenty-one steamboats, £7,000 to be paid in cash and £3,000 within three months. The auctioneer pointed out, however, that it was not within his power to accept any bid which did not provide for payment of the whole of the purchase money in cash. At the conclusion of the auction Mr. Dalby Williams stated that he would be prepared to purchase the whole of the boats not then sold, namely sixteen, for £5,500 cash, and he was informed by the auctioneer that this offer would be submitted. As alread.v stated, after the auction two of the boats were sold by the auctioneers. Messrs. Tamplin & Co. have since informed us that they have received an offer from Mr. Dalby Williams of £'J,000 for the remaining fourteen boats, accompanied by an assurance that if the boats were sold to him they would be run on the Thames ; there was further an undertaking to deposit a sum of £1,500 in respect of the purchase. This proposal was carefully considered and instructions were given to Messrs. Tamplin & Co. to inform Mr. Williams that his oft'cr would 220 be recommended for acceptance subject to his depositing the sum of £1,500 before 2.30 o'clock p.m. on July ir)th,1909, and to his paying the balance of the purchase money within two weeks of that date and before the boats were delivered to him, and further that the deposit money would be forfeited to the Council, if this arrangement were come to, unless the balance of the purchase money were paid to the Council within the period named. Mr. Dalby Williams' offer was received on July 14th, and he was informed of this decision on the same date. We are now informed by Messrs. Tamplin and Co, that no steps have been taken hj Mr. Dalby Williams to give effect to the arrangement referred to, and the stipulated deposit money was not paid by him. We have thought it right to report these facts." In a later report, dated July loth, 1909, the Highways Committee said : — " An offer has been received through the auctioneers- from Mr. J. I. Jacobs to purchase the remaining fourteen boats for the sum of £5,500, and the auctioneers tell us that they do not think that a more favourable offer is likely to be received. In order, therefore to carry out the instructions of the Council with regard to the disposal of the boats we feel that we have no alternative but to advise the Council to accept this offer. If this be done the total amount realised for the whole of the 30 boats will be £18,204. In view of the arrangements which will thus have been made for the disposal of the whole of the steamboats, we think that the Council would wish to be reminded shortly of the position with regard to the piers. Certain of the piers which were used in connection with the steamboat service were trans- ferred to the Council from the Thames Conservancy, while others were purchased or otherwise acquired, and are the property of the Council. "Under the agreement with the Thames Conservancy, by whish the Council acquired its piers, provision is made that in the event of the Council (a) discontinuing for a consecutive period of two years the service of steamboats, (b) discontinuing for a like consecutive period to use any one or more of the piers for the purposes of the service, or (c) disposing of the service, the piers, or such of them as the Council shall cease to use shall be re-transferred to the Con- servancy free of all costs. We are advised that, in accor- dance with these terms, the Conservancy piers, seventeen in numbei', will revert, on October 31st, 1909, to the Port of London Authority, as the successor of the Thames Con- servancy as regards the administration of the lower river. We are considering as to the arrangements to be made in 221 connection with the matter, and will, if necessary, report further with regard thereto before the date named. "There remain to be considered the piers which, as above stated, are the property of the Council. These, ten in number, are as follows : — Battersea Park, Battersea Square (dismantled), Chelsea (Carlyle) (dismantled). Charing Cross, Greenwich, Hammersmith l^ridge, Millwall, Nine Elms, Putney and Woolwich. In addition, we would point out that Hammersmith Town Pier was constructed by the Council for the purpose of the service, but was removed in 1906. Of the other piers, eight were purchased from various companies at the time of the establishment of the steamboat service. Millwall pier was built by the Council, and Hammersmith Bridge pier was previously in the possession of the Council, having been constructed and maintained in connection Y>'ith Hammersmith Bridge, which is under the control of the Council. " Woolwich pier is held on lease at a rent of £200 a year. Part of Greenwich pier is the Council's freehold property, while the remainder is held on lease from the Admiralty at a rent of £130 a year, expiring in 1917. The Council has, however, taken a reversionarj' lease from the Admiralty for 99 years from 1917 at a head rental of £-100 a year, and, in any year in which five-ninths of the net receipts from the pier exceed £400, an amount equal to siich excess. There is a provision enabling the Council to determine the reversionary lease on the discontinuance of the steamboat service. We shall give very careful consideration to the arrangements which we should advise the Council to make with regard to all these piers, and Avill report thereon to the Council at as early a date as possible. " it will be seen from the Steamboats Accounts for the year ended March 31st, 1909, which w^e are presenting on July 20th, 1909, that the capital expenditure on the piers has amounted to £85,062, of v, hich £13, .544 had been repaid by March 31st, 1909, leaving £71,r)ltS outstanding. Of this total expenditure of £8,5,062, £46,804 was in respect of the pur- chase of eight piers which will remain the property of the Council after the Conservancy piers have reverted to the Port Authority. The remaining expenditure was for reconstruction and alteration of piers generally and the construction of Hammersmith Town and Millwall piers. The total revenue derived from the whole of the piers, by way of tolls, &c., during the year ended March 31st, 1909, amounted to £2,091, while their maintenance involved an expenditure of £10,923. We recommend : — " That the provisional contracts entered into by Messrs. Tamplin & Co. for the sale to Mr. J. I. Jacobs 222 of fourteen of the Council's steamboats (p.s. Charles Lamb, Chaucer, Christopher Wren, Earl Godwin, Edmund Ironside, Fitzailwin, Gresham, Marlowe, Morris, Pepys, Raleigh, Rennie, Shakespeare, and Sloane) for £5,500 be confirmed, and that the seal of the Council be affixed to the contracts, and to bills of sale." ]n introducino- the repoi't, Mr. Shirley Benn (the UhaiiiiKin of the Highways Committee) said the Council could IK it go on paying tlie expenses of the boats in the doclvs, and if tlie}^ were to be sold lie hoped the Council would close forthwith with the offer, which the Council agreed to do. Progrressives Unrepentant. It is melancholy to have to record that throughout the whole of tJie negotiations for winding up this disastrous undertaking in accordance witli tlie express wishes of the electors, the Municipal Reformers have received no lielp whatsoever from the Progressives. Although the Pro- gressives liave had to admit the failure of their experiment, they are even more anxious than ever to waste additional sums of money on it, as the following quotations from tlieir spjeeclifs and proposals will show. Spi'aking in tlie (Jouncil on October Kith, 11M)(), Sii' John l\l(d)ougall, the Progressive Chairman of the Rivers Committee, said : — " I am extremely sorry that this boat service should not be utilised and should not be required. I should be pre- pared to run the boats free if it were possible that they would be used by persons in the winter. Under the circumstances we can only suggest that they should be stopped." {This referred to the Winter Service only.) When tlie Council dc^oided, on December 3rd, 11)07, to sell six siir|)lus boats- ~\li'. AlcKinnon Wood, 1\1.P. (P.), said he had never defendtMl tlie steand)oats as a service by which they could 90*t make money ; he liad never justified them as a crmimei-eial speculation ; but he had justified tliem on tlie ground of the puhlic interest in London. In that interest he thought the boats Avei-e "well worth tlie money given for them. A large jjart of the expense ha:d been entailed by taking oA-ei- the piers from the Thames Conservancy, and that was an exY)enditui'e they could not now avoid. kSir J. W, Benn, M.P. (P.j, said that the Progressives before Parliament and elsewhere had always declared that this steamboat service was not a commercial concern in the ordinary sense, but was for the service of [jondon. The Rev. Scott Lidgett (P.) declared tliat the Ijoats ought to be treated as parks, on wliich no commercial return was expected. When the Highways Committee recommended tlie final abandonment of the service on February 24th, 11)08, Sir John McDougall (P.) appealed to the Council not to adopt the recommendation, and moved an amendment to refei' it back. In the course of his remarks Sir John McDougall said : — " 1 have no fault to find with the ffigh- ways Committee in the way in which tliey tried to work the boats, but what I do say is, that two-tliirds of the people of London did not know tliat tlie boats were rimning." In supporting the amendment, Mr. Pomeroy (P.) said : " I consider that the Thames is a magnificent open space, and tliink that the boats should be run as a contriliution to recreation." On March 23rd, 1009, Sir John Benn, i\r.P. (P.), brought forward the folkjwing notice of motion :-- "That the Council, having on December 15th, 1908, instructed the Highways Committee to report the tenders received for the sale of the Council's steamboats, now directs the committee to bring up their report in time for the Council to be in a position to refer to the committee, as an alternative to sale, the question of a summer service during the forthcoming season." 22i Sir John McDougall (P.) seconded the motion, and ]\Ir. Gosling (Labour), in supporting it, said that they would- never i-un a steaniljoat service on tlie Thames imless it was subsidised. Before tlie Parliamentary Committee he, put that subsidy at a halfpenny rate, and he still thought it would be money well spent. In April, 1909, obviously nspired letters Ijegan to appear in the Radical Press, advocating a continuance of the service, but the folloAving extract from the EcUtorial Notes of the Westminster Gazette of May Gth, 1909, forms a sufficient comment on this bogus correspondence : — " The Thames has seldom been a profitable highway for passenger traffic since the wherryman was dispossessed by the road-maker ; though the County Council may reflect with regret upon the days — about half a century ago — when halfpenny steamers plied at a profit between a wharf, the Old Swan Pier, and the Adelphi. The public were frightened by the blowing up of one of these. No such panic to- day prevents the success of the Thames steamer. It is simply that the Thames keeps its own course, while the course of man going forth to his iabour has changed, and few of such men have time and opportunjty to travel to and fro by boat. There is no possible chance for any Thames service that is not a pleasure service." On April (Jth, 1909, Avhen the Highways Committee sid)mitted a report recommending that tenders lor the jwrchase of some of the boats be accepted, and that arrangements should be made to sell tiie others by public auction. Sir John Benn, ^l.V. (P.), moved the Ibllowing amendment : — "That all words after the word ' That ' in line one be omitted, and tlie following words substituted therefor — ' As no satisfactory' tender has been received for the purchase of the steamers, it be referred to the Highways Committee to make immediate arrangements for running a service of boats during the forthcoming season.' " In tin- coiii-sc of liis speecli, Sir .b)hii H;>nn iidinitled that "very honest and strenuous endeavours had been 225 made to get rid of the boats without success." The nineiidnieut was oi' coutso rcjoetocl. On J line 22nd, 1909, -wlien the Highways Committee reeommended tliat sueli of the CVinncil's steamboats as had not heen 2*i'eviously sohl slniuld he pnt np fur auction on -Inly lotli, 1909, and that the auctioneers slioukl be em- powered to dispose of any of the boats by private treaty at not less tlian tlie reserve price, Mr. -lolmson (P.) moved ail amendment to tlie effect tliat the sale should Ije post- ])oned for a week, in order that the boats might be used during the visit of the Fleet to the Thames, Mr. Shirley Benn (^l.R.), the Chairman of the Highways Committee, said that tlie suggestion Avas impracticable, because a new certificate would have to be obtained from Idoyd's. The steamboats were only certified to run as far down the river as Greenwich, and he understood that only two small vessels of the Naval Fleet would come up the riA'er as far as that. The amendment was defeated. At a meeting of the Council on July loth, 1909, Mr. J. D. Gilbert (P.) asked the Chairman of the Highways Committee whether an oft'er had been received from a syndicate to hire six of the Thames Steamboats for a jDcriod ©f six weeks, wdiich would have given the public a service on the river during the visit of the Fleet, and whether the offer had been refused ; also whether a Ijetter offei' was received on June 28th from the syndicate, and again refused ? Mr. A. .Shirley Benn (M.R.) replied that on April (Jth, 1909, the Council decided to sell the boats, and had any good offer been received to purchase it would have been considered ; but the committee did not consider that any satisfactory offer had been received. On June 16th a letter was received fi'om Messrs. Harrison and Davies, asking if the Council woidd consider an offer for the hire of six of the boats by a syndicate for the j)eriod of six weeks. On 15 226 enquiries loy the chief officer it Avas found that the syndicate would be prepared to pay .£')() a week for the hire of eacli hoat. The Council would, however, have heen obliged in tlie first place to obtain a new certificate from the Board of Trade, and it was ascertained that the Board of Trade would not be willing to give that certificate unless the boats underwent a thorough overhaul, wliich Avould have cost from £260 to £300 a boat. The amount Avhich Avould have been received from the syndicate for the hire of the six boats Avould have been £1,080, and the cost of the OA'Crhaul AA'ould have exceeded that sum. On June 24th Messrs. Harrison and DaA^es Avrote that tliCA- woidd Avant the boats deliA'ered to them on July 0th, or at the latest on July loth, the latter being the date on Avhicli the Council had decided to sell the boats by auction, and Messrs. Harrison and DaAaes sent their letter on tlie day after the public kncAv of the date of the sale. On Jidy 1st, Messrs. Harrison and Da vies were informed of the arrangements for the sale by the Council, and in A'iew of that fact the committee did not see their AA-ay to enter into negotiations, but he had not the slightest doubt that they Avould have considered an offer had it been made at an earlier date. Mr. J. D. Gilbert (P.) said he did not consider that ansAver satisfactory, and he moA^d the adjournment of the Council. Mr. A. Shirley Beim (M.R.) said even supposing the Council had decided to run a serAnce of boats during tlie visit of the Fleet they Avould not haA'e been able to run them beloAV GreeuAvich, and none of the Fleet Avould be stationed there. In any case the Council's trams ran to GreeuAvich cheaply and cpiickly. The motion to adjourn was defeated. On July 20th, 1900, Avhen tlie Iliglnvays Committee rec(jmmended the confirmation of j)rovisional contracts for the sale of the remainder of tlie lioats, Sir .folin Benn, M.P. (P.), moved that "the recommendation be referred 227 hack to the committee with instructions to obtain reports from tlie Chief Oihcor and the Comptroller as to tlie cost of running a below In'idge service with the 14 hoats on the basis of Avriting down the C(jst to £0, .")()() for the II hoats." In the course of liis remarks, Sir John Benn said: — " If the boats are entered in the books at the price sub- mitted to-day there is no difficuhy in making them pay." The amendment Avas defeated on a division after a debate in Avhich several Progressives advocated a con- tinuance of the serx'ice. ut the pul)lic Avere shy of steamboats and wouhl not subscribe the capital, with the result that the option to purchase the boats had to Ije extended. All the niend)ers of the House of Commons were personally invited to take shares in the enterprise, l)ut although there are 30 M.P.s who are, or have been. Progressive members of the L.C.C., only one of them (Mr. E. J. Horniman) Avas j)repared to risk his own money in steamboats. It Avas stated in the Press that the Company had been asked by a prospectiA^e subscriber if they Avould be Avilling to give an undertaking to sell the boats back to the L.C.C. at some future date, and that such an undertaking had been given. This should be enough to put ratepayers on their guard against the return to power of the Progressives. Although the shares Avere not fully subscribed, the comj^any managed to get enough money to purchase the steamboats, and Mr. Edgar Shand told a Morning Post representative, on October 21st, 1909, that the " FitzaihA'yn " and " Edmund Ironsides " Avould commence the service on Tuesday, October SOth. Mr. Shand said : — " During the week Ave shall run from London Bridge to Cherry Gardens and the Tunnel Pier, thus meeting the overwater requirements of Rermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Wapping. The boats will begin running at 7.30 in the morning and cease at about 6 p.m. On Sundays Ave shall open a little later and extend our service as far as Greenwich. The fares Avill be as folloAvs : — London Bridge to Cherry Gardens, ^d. ; Cherry Gardens to Tunnel Pier, |d. ; London Bridge to Tunnel Pier, Id. ; London Bridge to Greenwich, 3d." Mr. Shand was asked about the other twelve boats which the company has acquired. "These will be put in order," he said, " betAveen noAv and the middle of March, so as to be ready for service on l^oat Race Day. We are quite able to handle our fleet, and I may say that if the public 232 will only take up move of the shares they will enable the company to acquire more boats and extend the services to something like the old distances." As a matter of fact, the new service was inaugurated on October 28tli, 1909, hy a trij) from London Bridge to Battersea hy the steamer " J']dmund Ironsides." Questioned by a yiorninrj Post representative as to tlie policy of beginning the service at such an unfavouj-able time of tlie year one of tlie directors said that the idea was to give two of the boats a month's trial, and if they did not prove popular to discontinue the service until the spring, when the Avhole fleet of fourteen boats would be kept working. On the return of the " Edmund Ironsides " to (Jld S^^■an Pier the " Fitzailwyn " opened the public service by a trij) to the Tunnel, but the weather was most unfavourable, and the passengers numbered less than half a dozen. This private exj^eriment Avas very short lived, and on Xovember I3th, 1909, the following announcement api^eared in The Times: — " The clmirman of the City Steamboat Company announces that the steamboats which have been run on the Thames during the past fortnight as a winter service will be withdrawn, excejat on Saturdays and Sundays. On these days it has been found that the service is remunerative, and two steamers will run half-hourly from London Bridge to Greenwich, calling at intermediate piers." In conclusion, it need only be reiterated that this question of municipal trading in regard to the Thames Steamboats is still a live one, having regard to the fact that the Progressives have expressed their determination of reviving tlie service at the expense of the rates, if again returned to power in March, 1910. THE PORT OF LONDON. During the past tliree years llie long ontstandiug question of the reorganisation of the Port of .lx)ndon has heen settled by the establislnnent of the " Poi't of T^ondon Authority." This authority is now ti) cinitrol the river and docks from Teddington to Havengore Creek in Essex. The Municipal Reformers oii tlie London County Council have rendered material assistance to tlie GovernmenI in the solution of this important problem, and they have safeguarded the ratepayers against any liability for loss in connection with this great undertaking. Historical Suitimary. Bel'oi'e dealing with the hnal negotiations and the passing of the Port of J^ondon Act, it may he Avell to give a short lustorical summary of the events ]ea^ constitution of the Port Authority, the scheme in the Bill varied very materially from the Commissioners' scheme. The plan of the Government was that the authority should consist of forty members, twenty- six of whom were to be elected and fourteen nominated members. The London County Council was to appoint eight members, the City two, the Admiralty one, the Board of Trade one, the Trinity House one, and the Railway Association one. Ten were to be elected by the payers of dues of pliips, ten by the commercial community, four by the wharfingers, and two by the owners of river craft. To protect the interests of the ratepayers it was provided that, if at any time the revenues of the Board should be insuffi- cient to meet the liabilities and the interest on the port stock, the London County Council should have the right to apply to the Board of Trade to readjust the dues upon goods and ships, so that the deficiency might be made up." In the debate on the second reading Mr. Clerald Balfour stated that if the warehouses and wharves were l^ought, it would involve a loss by the new authorit}' of £400,000 or £500,000 a year ; moreover, they could notice i^urcliased for less than £1^,000,000. But this Bill never went beyond the report stage, and on .Vugust 12th, 1903, further pro- ceedings were suspended until the next session of Parlia- ment. The L.C.C. Port of London Bill, 1905. In 1905, the Ldudou County Council i^romoted a Bill under which it was proposed to hand over the administra- tion of the Port of London to a Commission, to he composed ol' 40 meniloers, 21 o\' whom would be appointed by the London County Council. On March 14th, 1905, the Council decided to proceed with this Bill, and Mr. McKinnon Wood (llie then leader of the Progressive party) said the Government must take the responsibility of rejecting it. There was nc) ground or reason why they (the Council) should wit]i(h-aA\-. They Avere merely proceeding to bring about a lefniiu wliich the 238 Government had sanctioned in general terms, and if the Government had changed their minds tlie Government must take the responsibility. After some discussion, in ^wliich it was pointed out that the Council's Bill differed very materially from the Government's proposals, a motion to drop the Bill "\va^ rejected. Speaking in opposition to the second reading of this Bill, Mr. Bonar Law, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, insisted that a sid)ject of such im- portauce should be dealt Avitli by the Government, if it was touched at all. The principle on which the County Council had proceeded was diametrically opposed to the principle which the Government adopted ; and, in his opinion, it would hardly be j)0ssible to create a more unsatisfactory body for the management of the docks than that Avhich this Bill would constitute. The payers of dues Avere the people Avho w^ould suffer if the port was managed badly, and therefore they ought to be largely represented on any commission that was formed. Their paramount claims, however, were overlooked in this measure. — Times (Siimmarij Column), April Idtli, 1905. The Bill Avas then thrown out l)y 191 to 123 votes. Debate in the Council, 1905. But tlie ProgressiA'es on the London CV)unty Council Avere still anxious to undertake the huge responsibility in- volved in the management of the port, and on November 8th, 1905, the RiA-ers Committee recommended : — " That the necessary measures be taken for promoting a Bill in the next Session of Parliament, providing for the establishment of a Port of London Commission of 40 members, of whom 24 shall be appointed by the Council, 4 by the City Corporation and Government Departments, the remaiaing 12 to be trade and shipping representatives" ; and providing that such Commission should purchase the under- takings of the three principal dock companies, take over the duties and liabilities of the Thames Conservancy and other bodies, and carry out schemes for the improvement of the portk 239 r.()rd Welby (P.) (on behalf ol", and at tlie request of, the Finance Committee) moved an amendment, Avhicli was second(Ml l)y ^NFr. Bruce (P.), that to Clause 1::^ of Recom- mendation (a) the following words be added : — " And to levy dues on goods in accordance with a schedule of maximum rates to be approved by the Board of Trade, provided that such power is only to be exercised by the I^ort Commission in the event of the revenue of the Port Fuml being insufi&cient, after providing for working expenses and any prior charges, to meet the interest on the guaranteed port stock, and the instalments payable to the sinking fund for redemption of the stock when such become payable." The Progressives, however, cared nothing for the financial aspects of the question, and on a division the amendment was rejected by 42 votes to 35. The recommendations of the Committee were carried, but the Bill did not materialise. Government Delay. Late in 1005, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman's Government came into office, but no attempt was made to introduce a Bill in the Session of 190G, although it was generally understood that an effort would be made to deal with the matter in the following year. Those interested in the port were again doomed to disappointment. Mr. Lloyd George (then President of the Board of Trade) announced, at the annual "Shipping Gazette" dinner on Novem1)er 20th, 1900, that " he had seen every interest — the Corporation of London, the Chamber of Commerce, the London County Council, and the Thames Conservancy — but had been unable to get one deputation to agree with another. After having had all the rival schemes submitted to him he had decided that he could not recommend any one to Parliament. He must take another year to make up his mind. He agreed that the question ought not to be delayed long. Those great Continental ports, Antwerp and Rotterdam, were year by year chipping off a little of the trade that ought to come to London. They were spending millions, and some of them giving sul:)sidies. He asked his hearers not to close their minds altogether against the suggestion of municipal 240 support, because it was of vital importance to London that it should retain its position as a cheap port." — The Trihuiie, November 21st, 1906. Municipal Reform Activity. Tn March, 11)U7, llic -\luiiicipal Rei'urniers were given a majority on the County Council, and tliey at once gave earnest attention to the problem of the port. On April 2ord, 1907, the Council decided, on the reconnnendation of the Rivers Committee, to address a communication to the President of the Board of Trade, urging the great importance of action being taken without delay with a view to the settlement of the question of the Port of London. Another important stej) taken by the Council was a visit of inspection to foreign ports, with regard to which the follov/ing reference appears in tlie Annual Report of the Council for 1<)07-S :— " Being impressed with the importance of taking every possible step to assist in the settlement of the question of the Port of London, the (Rivers) Committee at their own expense visited a number of the principal British and Continental ports, and have embodied the result of their inspections and enquiries in a return which compares the accommodation and system of government of these ports in relation to that of London, and gives particulars of the improvements and extensions contemplated or in progress. This return was forwarded to the Board of Trade and placed on sale, together with a report from the Committee stating the general con- clusions at which they had arrived as the result of their visits. The Committee noted the remarkable developments both in accommodation and equipment, which are taking or have recently taken place at all the ports inspected, and the fact that every effort is being made by the authorities of these ports to attract business. On the other hand, although the Royal Commission on the Port of London more than six years ago recommended large improvements in both the river and dock accommodation, very little has yet been done in this direction, and the Committee urged the importance of constituting, without delay, some authority for the port so composed as to command not only public confidence, but the confidence of the commercial and trading interests con- cerned in the port. The Committee referred especially to the excellent results obtained at Liverpool, where the port 241 was managed by a body composed of representatives of the persons interested in its shipping and trade." The Coinmittoe's Keport was presented to the Council on Xoveniher lllth, 11)07. Municipal Guarantee Avoided. In December, JOO", tlie (lovernnient gave notice ol' its intention to introduce a Bill in the following Session and entered into negotiations with the County C^ouncil on the subject of a municipal subvention and guarantee of the port stock. With regard to this proposed subvention and guarantee, the Council on ^larch ord, 1908, adopted the following recommendations of tlie Rivers Committee, as amended by the CN)uncil : — " («) That the Council does not think it necessary to make any contribution towards the improvement of the river, as it is understood that the requisite funds for that purpose can be provided by the continuance of the dues at present charged on shipping. " (b) That in view of the national interest in the Port of London, and the fact that the trade of tlie capital is a matter of imperial as well as of local concern, the Government should share with the municipality any liability involved in guaranteeing the interest on port stock requi}'ed to be raised for the acquisition of the dock companies' undertakings, and the improvement of the port and docks ; that any agreement by the Council to guarantee interest on such stock must be subject (1) to the Government being willing to share such liability ; (2) to the Council being satisfied that the interests of the ratepayers are adequately safeguarded. " (c) That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the Board of Trade in reply to their letter of December i;5th last." Viscount Midleton (M.K.), on Mawh 3rd, 1907, in moving an amendment which liad the effect of making Recommendation (h) more delinite, said :— " I desire to point out to the Council that, so far as the Finance Committee is concerned, we do not approach this subject with any party feeling, but with a strong desire to 16 242 help the Government to a satisfactory conclusion. The Council do not quite realise what its present commitments- are. The Council is already responsible for something like £70,000,000 of stock, yet we have here a proposition to increase this responsibility by £25,000,000 at one sweep. No other public body has been put into such a position. Surely it is necessary to pause, to enquire whether this increase would not depreciate the value of the Council's stock ? The London County Council would, under this Bill, have a certain amount of control, but would have to pay the whole cost. On behalf of the Finance Committee, I say that we will acknowledge the Bill, if the Government will share a portion of the loss, and we are satisfied with the terms, but I repeat that we are not in a position to guarantee the £25,000,000. Our object is to keep the door open wide for further negotiations. I contend that this question is far more a national one than a municipal one. In the case of Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and many other large Continental ports, the State have come to their assistance, and is very largely responsible for the changes effected in these ports. I quite agree that the Council should show patriotism in such a matter as this, but I do object to the Council taking upon itself an act of patriotism which the Government will not share." Mr. McKinnon Wood, the Progressive Leader, moved an amendment to refer the recommendations back for the Committee to bring up a definite proposal as to guarantee- ing the port stock, but it Avas lost — 34 Progressives voting for it and 71 Municipal Reformers against it. The Government refused to share in the guarantee, and as a result of the strong line taken by the Municij^al Reformers the Port of London Bill was introduced on purely commercial lines, with no contingent liability on ratepayers or taxpayers. Port of London Act, 1908. The Bill was introduced on April 2nd, 1908, and after much discussion and a good deal of amendment it received the Royal Assent late in December, 1908. The foUoAving is a summary of a Report by the Rivers Com- mittee of the County Council (dated December 21st, 1908),. showing the general provisions of the Act : — 24:^ The constitution of the Port Authority is as follows: — Elected members — Elected by payers of dues, wharfingers, and owners of river craft... ••• ••• ••• 17 Elected by wharfingers ... ... ... 1 Appointed members — ^" Appointed by the Admiralty ... ... ... 1 Appointed by the Board of Trade ... ... 2 Appointed by the London County Council (b^ing members of the (Jouncil) ... ... 2 Appointed by the London County Council (not being members of the Council) ... 2 Appointed by the City Corporation (^being u member of the Corporation) ... ... 1 Appointed by the City Corporation (not being a member of the Corporation) ... 1 Appointed by the Trinity House ... ... 1 — 10 28 County Council Representation. The Rivers Committee points out that the Bill as introduced provided for 14 elected members as against 18 in the Act. The number of appointed members has not been altered, but one of the three members originally pro- posed to be appointed by the County Council, being members of the Council, has been given to the City Corporation, so that the Council has four representatives instead of five. A special representative of wharfingers was given by the Government having regard to the special competition to which this class of traders might be subjected by the operations of the Port Authority. The chairman and vice- chairman may, but need not, be elected or appointed members, and the number of members will therefore be not less than 28 nor more than 30. There is, however, a provision to the effect that two at least of the members of the first Port Authority shall have had experience in dock manage- ment, and if necessary the Board of Trade may appoint one or two additional members to secure this. In order to jDrovide for the representation of labour one of the members appointed by the Board of Trade and one of those appointed by the Council, either from inside or outside its number, are to be appointed after consultation with organisations repre- sentative of labour. The Port Authority is empowered to pay salaries to the chairman, vice-chairman and chairmen of committees, or any of them. The Board of Trade may appoint the first chairman and determine his salary. The first elected members are to be appointed by the Board of Trade pending the preparation of a register of persons entitled to vote. 244 Transfer of Dock Undertakings. Section 3 of the Act provides for the transfer as from " the appointed day " to the Port Authority of the under- takings of the London and India, Surrey Commercial, and Millwall Dock Companies. The amount of Port Stock to be issued to the companies as consideration for their under- takings is as follows : — A Stock. a; London and India Docks Co. 7,978,876 Surrey Commercial Dock Co. 522,000 Millwall Dock Co 051,276 B Stock. Total. £ £ 9,893,835 17,872,711 2,388,485 2,910,485 928,504 1,579,780 £9,152,152 £13,210,824 £22,362,976 The A Port Stock, which is to be the prior stock, both as to interest and capital, will bear interest at 3 per cent., and the B Port Stock at 4 per cent. The manner in which the stocks so issued are to be substituted for the existing debenture and other stocks of the dock companies is set out in the second schedule to tl^e Act. The Port Authority •will, under section 17, take over the liability for certain mortgage debentures issued by the London and India Docks Company at a nominal amount, on 30th June, 1908, of £349,0,50. Port Stock may, by agreement, be substituted for these debentures. Transfer of Duties of the Thames Conservancy. Under section 7 the powers and duties of the Thames Con- servancy in respect of the river below Teddington are to be transferred to the Port Authority with certain modifications, the principal of which are mentioned below. The liabilities of the Conservancy in respect of the Thames Conservancy A Debenture Stock will be transferred to the Port Authority, and discharged within one year from "the appointed day," by the issue of an equal amount of A Port Stock. The amount of Thames Conservancy A Stock outstanding is £100,000 ; the sinking fund to redeem this stock amounts to about £17,500, and will become the property of the new authority. All parts of the River Medway within the jurisdiction of the conservators of that river are excluded from the control of the Port Authority. Tributaries of the Thames in the county of Middlesex below Teddington are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Port Authority in relation to pollution. It was stated on behalf of the Middle- sex County Council, before the Joint Committee on the Bill, that that Council had expended £3,000 a year, under a private Act of 1898, in dealing with the purification of the tributaries, e.g., the Brent, and eventually an amendment was, by agreement with the Board of Trade, inserted in the 245 Bill, the effect of which is to leave this duty to the Middlesex County Council as regards tributaries in Middlesex below Teddington. Provision is made for facilitating alterations of boundaries with regard to fishing-boats, fish and fishing, as between the Port of London and the Kent and Essex fisheries districts. With regard to the piers transferred in 1905 to the Council from the Thames Conservancy, and which are to revert to the Conservancy on the steamboat service being disposed of or discontinued for two years, the Port Authority will take over the rights and liabilities of the Conservancy. The Council, however, possesses other piers, and under section 5 of the A.ct the Port Authority and the Council may enter into and carry into effect agreements for or with respect to the acquisition by or transfer to the Port Authority on such terms and conditions as may be agreed, of any piers and landing places belonging to or held by the Council, together with its powers of making by-laws, appointing, levying and enforcing tolls, rates, or charges, &c. Large and important works have been executed, and wharves, jetties, &c., have been constructed on the banks of the river under licences granted from time to time by the Thames Conservancy. In view of the transfer of the powers of this body to the Port Authority a clause has been inserted giving the right of appeal to the Board of Trade against the revoca- tion or refusal by the Port Authority of any such licence. The Watermen's Company. The Port Authority takes over the powers and duties of the Watermen's Company and Court of Watermen's Company with respect to the registration and licensing of craft and boats and the licensing, government, regulation and control of lightermen and watermen. It is, however, provided that, unless otherwise determined by the Port Authority, an arrangement shall be made for the Watermen's Company to carry out the licensing of lightermen and watermen on terms to be agreed, right of appeal to the Port Authority being given if a licence is refused. Appeals against the Port Authority for refusing to register any craft or boat are to be made to the Board of Trade instead of to a court of summary jurisdiction. The Port Authority may by by-laws vary the requirements as to the qualifications of applicants for lightermen's and watermen's licences and certificates and the conditions on which such licences are to be granted or renewed, but there is an important proviso to the effect that no alteration shall be made which would authorise the grant of a licence to any person who has not been working for at least two years on a craft or boat in the Port of London. The Port Authority is given power to make by-laws dealing with the equipment of craft, and is also in granting licences for 246 craft to take into account the accommodation, sanitary arrangements, &c. Certain exemptions are made in respect of craft passing through the Port of London. Sources of Revenue. The Port Authority will receive the ordinary revenue of the Thames Conservancy (in respect of the river below Teddington), the dock companies and the Watermen's Com- pany, and will be able to obtain additional revenue from the following sources : — (1) The imposition of port dues on goods. (2) The continuance of the increased port dues on shipping now levied by the Thames Conservancy. (3) A uniform maximum rate of Is. 6d. a ton on vessels using the docks. This is the present maximum of the London and India Docks Company, and is made applicable to all the docks. (4) An increased licensing charge on barges, the present limit being removed. Port Dues on Goods. Section 13 of the Act requires the Port Authority within six months after " the appointed day " to submit to the Board of Trade a schedule of maximum port rates on goods, and provides that the Board of Trade shall embody the schedule, with or with- out modification, in a Provisional Order. If the Port Authority maizes default in submitting the schedule, the Board of Trade is itself to prepare it. It is further provided that from such day as the Boai'd of Trade may fix, not being more than 13 weeks after the Provisional Order has been con- firmed by Parliament, all goods imported from parts beyond the seas or coastwise into the Port of London or exported to parts beyond the seas or coastwise from that port shall, subject to any exemptions or rebates which may be con- tained in the Provisional Order or allowed by the Port Authority, be liable to such port rates as the Port Authority may fix, not exceeding those specified in the Provisional Order. This section contains some important provisos which were not in the Bill as introduced by the Government. The most important of these is that the Provisional Order shall exempt from rates, goods imported for transhipment only or which remain on board the ship in which they were imported for conveyance therein to another port. The exemption of goods for transhipment is a point to which the Council attached great importance, and it is satisfactory that it has been conceded. Port rates are to be charged separately from any other dues payable to the Port Authority, and are to be charged equally to all persons in respect of the 247 same descriptions of goods under the like circumstances, and the Port Authority is precluded from charging lower rates in respect of goods to be discharged in any of its docks or to be landed on the premises of, or warehoused with, the Port Authority, by reason only that the goods are to be so dis- charged, landed or warehoused. The rates embodied in the schedule are to be such that in the opinion of the Board of Trade the amount of revenue produced thereby will, with the other receipts on revenue account of the Port Authority, be sufficient to meet the expenditure of the Port Authority on revenue account, and provide a reasonable margin for contin- gencies. The Council did not succeed in its attempt to extend to two years the period during which the Port Authority is required to prepare a schedule of dues on goods. Counsel for the Board of Trade informed the Joint Com- mittee that " it was part of the bargain with the dock companies that the rates on goods should be arranged as speedily as possible so that they should have ample security." The imposition of a new charge of this kind on the trade of the port is one which should only be resorted to if it is clearly proved that other sources of revenue are inadequate. No such dues are in force at the ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam, or Hamburg, and while recognising the necessity for raising such funds as are required for the improvement of the port and docks of London, it is to be hoped that nothing will be done which will place the Port of London at a disadvantage in its competition with these and other ports. Port Dues on Shipping. The Thames Conservancy Act, 19U5, enabled the Con- servancy to double the port dues on shipping for a period of three years from 1st January, 1906, with the object of enabling them to provide a channel between Gravesend and the Nore, 30 feet deep at low water of spring tides and 1,000 feet wide. These dues are charged on all vessels, with some minor exceptions, entering or leaving the port with cargoes, so that a vessel arriving loaded and leaving loaded pays twice. They are now as follows : — On vessels trading coastwise (including all places in Europe north of Brest) Id. per ton. On vessels in the foreign trade ... IM. per ton. The revenue of the Thames Conservancy in 1907 from these shipping dues amounted to about £135,065, of which nearly £67,000 was due to the extra powers given by the Act of 1905. Section 7 of the Port of London Act makes these increased dues permanent. An effort was made on behalf of the Council to obtain a clause in the Act to the effect that if additional revenue was required by the Port 248 Authority it should not necessarily be raised by means of dues on goods, but that the Port Authority should be empowered to increase the port dues on shipping within maximum limits to be prescribed by the Board of Trade in a provisional order. This power was objected to by the Board of Trade and refused by the Joint Committee, but the clause relating to dues on goods makes it the duty of the Port Authority, if the limits therein mentioned are exceeded, to take steps to prevent the continuance of the excess, including, if necessary, an application to Parliament to provide them with further means of meeting their financial obligations. Dock Dues on Shipping. Section 14 of the Act enables the Port Authority to charge in respect of any dock the same charges as those which the London and India Docks Company are authorised to make with regard to vessels using their docks — that is, Is. 6d. a ton. The Surrey Commercial Dock Company is only entitled to charge Is. a ton, while there is no statutory maximum applicable to the Mill wall Docks. Improvement of the Port and River. The Act specifically imposes upon the Port Authority the duty of taking into consideration the state of the river and the accommodation and facilities afl:orded in the Port of London, and of taking such steps as it may consider neces- sary for the improvement thereof. The Port Authority is also empowered to construct and equip docks, quays, wharves, jetties, etc., and to acquire and carry on any under- taking affording, or intended to afford, accommodation or facilities for the loading, unloading or warehousing of goods in the Port of London. The powers transferred from the Thames Conservancy enable the Port Authority to take the necessary steps for the dredging and improvement of the river channels. Financial Position of the Port Authority. It scarcely seems necessary to say more under this head than that the evidence given on behalf of the Board of Trade was to the effect that on an average of years the net revenue derivable from the transferred undertakings of the dock com- panies would be sufficient to cover the interest charges imposed thereby on the Port Fund. It appears to have been anticipated by the Board of Trade that the other expenses of the Port Authority will be fully covered. It is assumed that the normal development of trade and the growth of business which will fiow to the port will produce sufficient revenue to meet the sinking fund obligation of the Port Authority when it accrues ten years hence ; that the revenue which 249 may be hoped to accrue from the improvement and extension of the present accommodation will be ultimately sufficient to meet thp capital charges on the additional expenditure, and that the power with which the Port Authority is armed as regards port dues on goods and other charges will place the Port Authority in a sound financial position. Miscellaneous Provisions. Casual labour. — Section 28 requires the Port Authority to take into consideration the existing methods and conditions of engagement of workmen employed in dock, riverside, and warehouse labour in connection with the Port of London, and to establish or assist in establishing or maintaining offices, waiting rooms, and employment registers, and otherwise to take such steps as they think best calculated to diminish the evils of casual employment and to promote the more coi|- venient and regular engagement of such workmen or any class thereof. Surv('i/s. — Section 39 requires the Port Authority to take into iconsideration the existing surveys of the bed and shore of the river and tidal waters within the Port of London, and if they are defective to take steps with the object of remedying the defects. Railway ratex. — Section 31 gives the Port Authority the powers of a railway company as regards through rates, and requires that the maximum rates and charges shall not exceed those contained in the Great Eastern Railway Company's schedule. Effect of dredginq. — Section 44 provides for the pro- tection of the Council's piers and other property which may be affected by dredging works, and also contains a provision that if complaint is made to the Board of Trade by the councils of not less than three riparian boroughs or urban districts who appear to the Board to be interested, that by reason of the exercise by the Port Authority of its powers of dredging the depth of water in any of the reaches of the Thames within the Port of London above Battersea Bridge has been so diminished as seriously to inconvenience navi- gation or materially to lower the surface of the water, the Board shall, if it thinks there is reasonable cause for so doing, hold a local enquiry into the matter, and submit to Parliament such reports with regard to any such enquiry, and the remedy, if any, which it recommends, as it may think fit. Appointed day. — Section 49 includes a definition of the "appointed day" as being 31st March, 1909, or such earlier or later day as the Board of Trade may appoint, with power to appoint different days for different purposes 250 Reconstttution of Thames Conservancy. Section 8, which provides for the reconstitution of the Thames Conservancy for the river above Teddington, has been substantially amended as the result of the representa- tions made by the Council and other bodies. In the Bill as introduced the new Thames Conservancy would have consisted of 17 members, 11 of whom would have been appointed by county councils or borough councils on the banks of the river. The Council was given only one representa- tive. There would have been only five members who might have been regarded as representatives of the London interest in the water supply, Avhich is so largely derived from the Thames. The Rivers Committee pointed out that it WaS of the greatest importance to London that the portion of the Thames from which so large a part of the metropolitan water supply is derived should be safe- guarded, and that it regarded with apprehension the proposal to establish a Board composed largely of representatives of riparian districts which have no direct concern in this matter, but which have a direct concern in securing outlets for the sewage of the large and increasing population on the banks of the river. Under Section 8 of the Act the number of con- servators is to be 28. The Council is given 3 representatives, the City Corporation 2, the Board of Trade 4, the Metropolitan Water Board 2, the Port Authority 1 ; the remaining 16 are representatives of county councils and districts on the banks of the river, 4 being representatives of districts inside and 12 of districts outside the area of the metropolitan water supply. Two of the members appointed by the Board of Trade are to be appointed after consultation with persons and associa- tions concerned in the use of the river as a place of recreation, and one after consultation with persons and associations concerned in barge traffic. It will be seen that the representatives of districts contained in the metropolitan water area, with the addition of independent representatives^, will now have a majority on the new Conservancy over the representatives of districts not supplied by the Metropolitan Water Board. Financial Provisions. Among the more important financial provisions may be mentioned — (1) The requirement in Section 20 that the purchase debt and the debt on money borrowed for new works other than dredging shall be discharged within 00 years by means of one or more sinking or redemption funds with a 10 years' postponement for payments into the sinking fund, and that money borrowed for other purposes shall be discharged 251 within a period of 60 years. The sinking fund charge on the purchase debt alone calculated on the 3 per cent, table ■would absorb £71,57G a year. (2) The powers given to the Board of Trade under Sec- tion 19 to make regulations as to Port Stock, and the proviso that A Port Stock or B Port Stock shall not be redeemable before the expiration of 20 years from the appointed day. (3) The requirement in Section 22 that the Port Authority shall establish a reserve fund applicable towards meeting any deficiency on revenue account, and carry thereto such surplus revenue as is available for that purpose until the fund amounts to £1,000,000. Moreover, clauses have been inserted giving power of action to the Local Government Board in ease of default by the Conservancy in performing the duties imposed upon them with respect to the preservation and maintenance of the flow and purity of the Thames and its tributaries, or the exercise of powers for preserving the rights and interests of the public in respect of the Thames and its towpaths. The Council and other authorities, if they have reasonable ground of complaint, can put the Local Government Board in motion. County Council Appointnuents On March 2nd, 1909, the General Purposes Committee recommended for appointment as rej)resentative members of tlie Council on the Port Authority Sir John McDoiigall and Islv. W. H. Pannell. As one of the two representatives not being members of the Council, they submitted the name of Mr. John Duthie, who, tliey understood, had been for many years a shipowner and merchant in the county of London, and who had acquired peculiar knowledge of the working of the whole dock system in London, and unique intimacy with the working on the river. After conference Avith five of the principal organisations representative of labour in the port they recommended for appointment as the other representative of the Council, not being a member of the Council, Mr. James Anderson, the General Secretary of the Amalgamated Stevedores' Labour Protection League. The report was adopted. As representatives of the County Council on the newly •constituted Thames Conservancy Board, whose jurisdiction 252 will not liencofortli extend below Teddington Lock, there were appointed, on the recommendation o£ the General Pnr2:)oses Committee, Mr. J. D. Gilljert, Mr. li. J. Green- wood, and Mr. Stuart Sankey. The Moral. Thns the great prol)lem of the Port of London has l)een solved for a time, at any rate, and that without involving the general ratepayers and taxpayers in any iiuancial liability. They have to thank the Municipal Reformers for this immunitv, as it is certain that there would have been a municipal guarantee of the Port Stock if the Progressives had been in a majority. Even the Royal Commission appeared to think that a municipal guarantee was indispensable, but events have shown that it was not. " The result is," to quote from an address delivered by Viscount Midleton on October 7th, 1909, " that this municipality who were to risk 2^ millions, which, if I recollect aright, was to have no dividend until everything else "was paid, remains in statu quo, receiving the advan- tage of Port of London improvements, and having its own share as it ought to in the administration of the Board. All this has been obtained without our being forced ta finance the whole business in tlie reckless manner which our predecessors proposed to do." Those who wish to study the legislation which governs this subject are advised to consult " The Port of London Act, 1908, together with The Watermen's and Lightermen's Act, 1859 ; The Thames Watermen's and Lightermen's Act, 189:; ; The Thames Conservancy Act, 1894 ; and The Tliames Cbnservancy Act, 1905, as amended by the Port of London Act, 1908. ■ Also a summary of the principal Acts affecting the chief dock companies, together with the Thames (Jonservancy by-laws, the watermen's by-laws, the by-laws of the dock companies, regulations of the Board of Trade," Sec, by C. A. Montague Barlow, LL.D., M.A., Barrister-at-Law, and W. II. Ijcese, B.A. Price 20s. (Ixjudou : liliiingham Wilson.) MAIN DRAINAGE. A notable instance (_^1; ])oav llie Progressives, when in power, neglected to cari'y ont x)rimary duties ol' the first inij^ortance to the health of London is afforded hy the scandalous delay for which they were responsible in dealing with the inadequate main drainage, system of the ]\[etropolis. On December 17th, 1889 (a few months after its con- stitution), the Ijondon County C^ouncil passed a resolution asking the Main Drainage Committee for information as to the condition of the main drainage system " with a view to the prevention of disease." On January 17tli, 1890, the Committee gave instructions to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Benjamin Baker, the well-known engineer, and to the chief engineer of the Council, to fully rei)ort upon {inter alia) : — " The provision of storm overflows, and the best means for avoidance of the floodings which have lately caused much inconvenience and injury in several low-lying districts." The Committee urged :— - "Upon the engineers the desirability of the utmost promptitude in making their report, and that they should have regard to the advisability of delivering it to the Committee, for the information of the Council, in such time that, if works of magnitude may be recommended and approved, the requisite surveys and references could be made in time for any application to Parliament, of which notice would have to be given in the latter part of this year." — {L.C.G. publication, No. 3, Fehruary^ 1891, j?^>. 3-5.) 254 Eng^ineers' Report, 1891. A year later tlie engineers presented their joint report, dated February 19tli, 1891. Tlie report referred to tlie inadequacy of the sewers : — " To the frequent flooding" complained of in the Isle of Dogs, Poplar, Hackney Wick and Westminster ; from which it will be seen that relief for this portion of the system is urgently required. The cases of flooding on the south side of the river . . . are most serious in Peckham, Dulwich and Streatham, and in some of the low-lying parts near the river."— {pp. 10, 18.) The engineers then stated :- — " It will be manifest that the most urgent present requirements are the prevention, as far as possible, of floods due to rainfall." — (p. 19.) The}' then proceeded to deal with the necessary new works required to bring the existing main drainage up to present requirements, and to xoi'ovide for future increase. The cost of the proposed works was estimated to be £920,000 for the north side of the Thames, and £1,300,000 for the south side— a total of £2,220,000 in all. Summarising the report and conclusions, they say p. 33):- " We have found on investigation that the most frequent cause of public complaint is due to the insufficient size of the main outfall sewers, which has led to floodings of the low districts, and to the frequent discharge of much crude, undiluted sewage into the Thames in the heart of the Metropolis. To remedy these immediate pressing evils/ we have proposed the construction of new intercepting sewers on both sides of the river, of sufficient size to provide for the sewage of a future population of seven millions, and also for a reasonable amount of rainfall, at a cost of about 2^ millions. We are of opinion that detailed plans should be prepared of these works, and that no time should be lost in commencing such portions of them as arc more immediately required." * Nearly 19 years have elapsed since these words were used. 255 Plans prepared. On March lOtli, 1891, the Main Drainage Committee i-ecommended that detailed plans be prepared of the proposed new sewers. On the proposal to adopt this recommendation it was agreed that the following addition should be made to the motion : — "And that the Committee be instructed to obtain a further report, which shall have special reference to (A) the separation of the rainfall from the sewage in districts where it may be practicable ; (b) the better prevention of storm overflows into the Thames and Lea ; (C) the better purifica- tion of the river." — {Minutes, 1891, ^;. 297.) With regard to (a) it may be stated that this proposal, if carried out, would cost about 20 millions sterling. Four Years' delay. Year after year grave complaints of floodings continued 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 Avorks were carried out, but the main i:)roposals of Sir Benjamin Baker and Mr. (afterwards Sir Alexander) Binnie were disregarded. On December 10th, 1895, an adjourned rejoort of the Main Drainage Committee was considered by the Council. This rej)ort began : — " We have to call the serious attention of the Council to the present state of the main drainage of London on the north side of the Thames." It then gave a brief outline of the main drainage system, and of the proposals of Sir Benjamin Baker and Sir Alexander Binnie in their joint report of February, 1801. " In reports, dated February 15th, 1894, and October 17th, 1895, the chief engineer has again called our attention to the necessity of at once undertaking the woi-ks required on the north side of the Thames. The Chief engineer, reviewing all the facts, informs US that he was more strongly impressed than ever with the necessity of 256 immediately proceeding with these works. If this is not done, he fears that the main drainage system will fall into disrepute." The Committee recommended tlie construction of an additional outfall sewer between Old I'^ord and Barking and the new intercepting sewer between Paddington and Old Ford — the two chief proposals for Xorth London contained in the report of LSOl. Prog^ressive Opposition to Reform. On the motion to adopt tlie recommendations of the Committee, an amendment was moved by "Sir. (noAV Sir John) McDougall (Progressive), seconded 1)}" ]\Ir. Idris (Progressive) (i.e., on December 10th, 1895) : — " That the general enlargement of the main drainage system is not now necessary, but that local floodings need immediate attention." This amendment was carried, Init, on the motion of Dr. Longstaff (M.R.), the follo\ving words were added : — "And that the Main Drainage Committee be instructed to bring up a report, showing in detail the results of the several works carried out by the Council, with a view to relieve the main drainage system." Sir John McDougall, in moving his amendment, contended that the new sewers woidd not he successful in preventing the floodings : — " That during the last six years the Council had spent, in connection with the rebef of the sewers in the north of London, £165,000, and there was now no need for any general enlargement of the sewerage system." Mr. bh'is, in seconding the amendment, said : — " That if they went on as they were now doing, he felt sure that every year that passed would only tend to prove the futibty of such an expenditure as they were now asked to sanction." Tlie Progi'essive opposition to the carrying out of extremely urgent main drainage works was directly 257 contrary to the opinion of tlie en^nneers, and the result Avas fliat Jjondon still continued to siil^r from lloodings. Another Four Years' Delay. llowevei', four years later, in LS'JIJ, Sir Alexander Binnie again recorniuended the execution of the proposed sewage works, north and soutli of the Thames, at an estimated . cost of nearly three million pounds. These proposals were submitted to the Coiineil (jn Decem])er 5tli, 1899, with an expression of opinion that all the sewers should be consti-ucted Avith as little delay as possible. The report of 1899 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.G.C. Jlinu/r^, 1899, />. 1,702.) After recapitulating the facts, as before set out, the report of the Committee stated, in effect, that the minor works carried out would be practically of little avail until the large Avorks were executed. Local Authorities condemn L.C.C. The Ij.C.C. Minutes for 1891) show that strong representations, urging the construction of additional relief sewers, were nmde by 25 Local Authorities (Vestries and Boards of AVorks) in the Metropolis, most of which urged the construction of the sewers recommended in I he joint report of IS91, and deputations from several of tliem appeared from time to time Ix-fore the Main l)i-ainao-e Committee of the L.C.C 17 258 Conferences of the representatives were held, and at the Padding-ton V^estry liall on Friday, October 27th, 1899, the foUowino; resoUition, rehiting to storm fioodings 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 i-ecord its surprise that, notwithstanding the strong expression of opinion by the Main Drainage Com- mittee 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.a.a Minutes, 1899, i^. 1723.) More Progrressive Opposition. Xotwitlistaiiding tlie urgency of the matter Sir John McDougall (Progressive), on December 5th, 1899, moved an amendment, seconded b}' Mr. Idris (Progressive) : — " That the Council re-affirms its resolution of the 10th December, 1895, viz., that the general enlargement of the main drainage system is not now necessary, but that local fioodings need immediate attention, and that, therefore, the recommendation be referred back to the Committee."— (L.CC. Minutes, 1899, yj. 1728.) The amendment, however, was lost, and the Council decided after eight years' delay, to execute certain works, voting £81 )(),()()(.) for tlie enlargement of the nortliern outfall seAver, and £(350,000 foi- a new outfall server between Deptl'oi-d and Crossness, a high-level sewer between Crossness and Plumstead, and otlier Avorks on the soutli sid(> ol llie I liver Tluimes. Description of the Floodingfs. !u a h'lter to The Times on ^wwq 29th, 1903, the late vSir Philip Burne-Jones, Bart., \'ividly described the sitnaticni in certain parts of Chelsea, where "the soaking 259 (lanii) Moors, tlu^ foul, stagnant sewer-steeped water lying in the areas of the little houses, presented a spectacle of desolation which it would be hard to match anywhere." Even in the space of a few days the destruction of property in (Mielsea alone was enormous, and the danger to health just as great. Xor were things any hetter on the other side oC tlie river. A few months after the pvdolication of Sir Philip Burne-Jones's letter a conference of delegates from South London borough councils was held at Southwark Town Hall, in October, 1903. The Mayor of Southwark (Mr. T. Bryan), who presided, said that in his borough the deaths from consumption numbered 500 annually, and it was out of the question to reduce that fearful rate when the subsoil of the district was rendered jierennially damp. Recently 2,000 houses were flooded with sewage, and tradesmen had large quantities of goods damaged. Mr. Atten- l)orough (Southwark) moved the apijointment of a deputation to wait ui^on the London County Council, pointing out the serious danger to the health of the inliabitants of South I_jondon 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 ^layor of Wandsworth seconded the motion, which was carried. The Mayor of Wandsworth then moved : — " That this conference advise the local councils to petition the Local Government Board to hold an enquiry into the serious neglect of the County Council to provide sufficient main drainage for London." Alderman the Rev. J. H. Anderson, in seconding the motion, said that the sewers were carrying 80 per cent, niore sewage than they were built for, and Avere serving a population 50 per cent, greater than they Avere intended to serve. He kncAV of two fcA'er hospitals that had Ijeen 260 flooded and their boiler fires extinguished, Avhile in one some of the wards were flooded and the patients had to be carried out late at night. 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." — Jlie Times, October 17th, 1903. On December 1st, 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 ])orough councils which desired to press upon the Council the inadequacy of the main drainage system for dealing 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 floodings. The delegates were informed that their representations would receive the most careful consideration of the Council. The statements made by the deputation were now reciving 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." Sanitary Experts Condemn L.C.C. On December 9th, 1903, Sir Benjamin Baker, K.C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., M.Inst.C.E., joresided 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.IL, said he was not going to deny himself the luxury of criticism. The dreadful and disgusting experience of tlie 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, before it could make up its mind. They would not escape from criticism until they had taken hold of the Avork with both hands, and until the general i)ublic found remedied the disgraceful condition imder which so many had been compelled to live for so many years. 261 Councillor F. A. Dod, Stoke Newington, moved :■— "That this meeting is of opinion that the flooding of London basements with sewage is a grave meiaace to public health, and regrets that this menace has been allowed to continue for so many years, ov^ring to the neglect of the County Council. It urges upon that body to i)roceed with the work of making main sewers to relieve London of its present insanitary state." ^[r. Loveday seconded. He said that the County Council had done nothing apparent!}" to increase the capacity of the sewers. The C^hairman said it had heen 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 tlie Sanitary Institute. Mr. Fitzmaurice and Dr. Kenwood having replied, Councillor Dod's resolution was carried as amended according to the suggestion of the Chairman. The amended resolution Avas : — "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 to proceed with all possible expedition with the completion of the necessary work of the main sewers to relieve London from its present insanitary stsite,"— (Local Government Journal^ Dec. 19tb, 1903.) Boroug^h Councils Condemn L.C.C. At a conference of Delegates from the Islington, Hackney, and Stoke Newington Borough Councils, held at Stoke Newington, on January 4th, 1001, a resolution was passed viewing " with regret the delay of the L.C.C. in giving elTect to their engineers' reports of 1891 and 1899 and in giappbng with the question." 262 At Paddington Town Hall, on January 20tli, 1901, a conference of Delegates from the Borough Councils of Fulliam, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Islington, Kensington, Marylebone, Paddington and Stoke Newington iTnanimously resolved that the conference " viewed with alarm and regret the great delay of the London County Council in giving effect to their engineers' reports of 1891 and 1899 dealing Avith the question of the main drainage of London.'" -—(Times, January 21st, 1901.) The flooding of house j)roperty in London continued right down to the tinie when the Progressives were deposed from power. During the summer of 1906, floodings took place in many parts on the occasion of every thunderstorm. At that time it was estimated that the damage to property l)y floodings in London since 1891 (when the work ought to have been undertaken by the London County Council) exc88ded the probable cost of the sewage works neoessarjf to remedy the evil. For the grave injury to ])ublic health, and the serious loss to the community caused by these filthy floods, the Progressives were solely responsible. The report of the Main Drainage Committee issued to the Council for the year ended March 31st, 1906, and numbered L.C.C. Report 10,712-12-14, 8, '06, contained on page 3 of the i-eport the folloAving paragrajDh with regard to the Avork done up to date : — " The paymentB on capital account up to March 31st, 1906, in connection with main drainage extension works and flood relief works, which, as stated on the previous page, are together estimated to cost £4,795,000, are as follows : — J900-1 1901-2 ... 1902-3 1903-4 2904-5 (including flood relief works, £1,861: 7s. lOd.) 1905-6 (including flood relief works, £60,134: 18s. 8d.) Total £3,852 18 82,783 4 120,628 3 135,179 2 9 1 10 370.641 9 2 521,185 19 11 £1,234,270 17 9' 2(;3 It will tlms he seen that hetweeii the years 1900 and 1900, the total outlay was £1,234,270 17s. 9d., wlioreas tlie estimate in connection with main (h-ainage extension Avorivs and flood relief woi'ks ai)i^roved in principle ]»y the Council on I)ecend)er 5th, 1899, was no less than £4,795,000. In other words, this work of vital importance was, after a lapse of six years, scarcely more than one-quarter on its way to completion. Why the Work was Postponed. On August 1st, 1905, the Finance Committee reported .to the Council : "The Council is already definitely committed to exceptional capital expenditure in these years, including the large outlay that will be necessary for the electrification of the Northern tramways, and we feel that it would be most desirable, in the best financial interests of the Council, that in these years large expenditure under other heads should not, if possible, be incurred. We therefore view with some concern the possibility of the requirements for main drainage being increased to the extent indicated above. It has been represented to us that the works already completed, or now in progress, will be useless until further outlay is incurred for their completion, but we feel that is equally true of any work of such magnitude, and that with every desire to see the work completed as early as possible, the Council cannot afford to disregard the financial considerations involved, " We are in communication with the Main Drainage Committee on this matter, and hope to be able to agree with them upon some scheme which we can recommend the Council to apjirove by which not more than a certain sum will be spent on main drainage works during the next three years. Meanwhile we submit the estimates in respect of the contracts which the Main Drainage Committee desire now to enter into." * Thus the urgently required main drainage schemes and flood relief works were admittedly postj)oned hecause of the general financial commitments of a spendthrift Council. We could have no clearer illustration of the fact that Progressivism does not only involve enormous expense, * For more detailed particulars on this subject, c/. L.C.C. Annual Report, 1905-6, pages 195—201. 264 but is also resj)onsible for the subordination of iinattrac-tive necessities which directly affect the liealth and well-being of the inhal)itants of London, to more showy but less important matters. " The first consideration of a Minister," said the late Benjamin Disraeli (afterwards Earl of Beaconsfield) in 1872, " should be the healtii of the people." The doctrines which Disraeli then enunciated were sneered at as " a policy of sewage," a criticism which drew from him the reply, " Well, it may be the policy of sewage to liberal Members of Parliament, but to one of the labouring multitude of England who has found fever always to be one of the inmates of his household— who has, ye&r after year, seen stricken down the children of his loins on whose sympathy and material support he has looked vi/lth hope and confidence, it is not a * policy of sewage,' but a question of life and death." History, it is often truly said, repeats itself, with the result that in the year 190() we find the Progressive party on the L.C.C. subordinating the health of the people, and what should L)e one of its most important cares, to various ^Municipal Trading schemes, which in point of importance cannot l)e compared. It is this party which, in the face of so clearly proved an indictment charging them with neglecting the j)ublic health of the community, and especially of the poorer and working classes, has the effrontery to pose at election times as " the true friend of the working num ! " The New Regime. When the Municipal Reformers came into fjower, in March, 1907, they f)rocee(led vigorously with the scheme then in hand. At the end of the first year of the new order of things, the Main Drainage Committee reported : — "Considerable progress has been made during the year in connection with the scheme of main drainage extension 265 works which was approved in principle by the Council on December 5th, 1899. This scheme, which will cost between three and fonr million pounds, comprises the undermentioned works : — North of the Thames. Barking- to Old Ford. — Two new sewers (Northern outfall sewer enlargement) and extra works at Barking, New sewer between high-level and middle-level sewers. (Middle-level sewer No. 2.) New sewer between middle-level and low-level sewers (Northern low-level sewer No. 2.) Extension of middle-level sewer to Scrubs Lane. Enlargement of the Abbey Mills pumping station. South of the Tliames. New eewer from Crossness to Deptford, including extra works at both stations. (Southern outfall sewer No. 2.) New sewer from Crossness to Catford. (Southern high- level sewer No. 2.) New sewer from Deptford to Battersea. (Southern low-level sewer No. 2.)" Flood Relief Works. At tlie same time, the Main Drainage Committee, in the course of the same report, reminded the Council that " The selieme of flood relief works, Avhich received the approval of the Council on February l(3tli, 1904, will involve additional expenditure of about £795,000, and includes the undermentioned Avorks : — North of the IVicunes. Storm relief sewer from Holloway Road to the Tower of London. Storm relief sewer along Stroud Green Road and Tollington Park (Stroud Green and Hornsey relief sewer). Extension of the Hackney Wick to Abbey Mills relief sewer. New sewer from the middle-level sewer to the Counter's Creek sewer (North Kensington relief sewer). South of the Thames. New pumping stations, and sewers in connection therewith, in or near Wandsworth and South wark (Falcon Brook 266 pumping station in connection with the Wandsworth and Battersea relief sewer, and the Shad Thames pumping station in connection with the Bermondsey and Southwark relief sewer). These works will be, in effect, a further extension of the main drainage system." Review of the Work during: 1908-9. The General Review of the work of the Main Drainage Committee for the year 1908-9 contains the following information on this subject : — "The total amount of sewage treated at the outfall works during the year was 103,519,940,158 gallons, or 3,058,255,028 gallons more than during the previous twelve months. The expenditure on maintenance account during the year was £247,103, as compared with £245,511 during the previous twelve months ; the net payments on capital account amounted to £363,917, as compared with £395,164 in the previous year. "The principal works commenced during the year, con- nected with the main drainage extension scheme, were : — (1) Thefoui'tli and fifth sections (between Trafalgar Square and Warwick Road, Kensington) of the northern low-level sewer No. 2. The work was undertaken by J. Mowlem & Co., Ltd., and the Westminster Con- struction Co., Ltd., at prices amounting in all to £257,788 12s. 6d. (2) The second and final section of the Greenwich Road branch of the southern outfall sewer No. 2. The work was undertaken by Messrs. G. Shellabear & Son, at the contract price of £22,796 6s. 3d. (3) The extension of the Abbey Mills pumping station. The tender of the Premier Gas Engine Co., Ltd., amounting to £23,558 5s. for the supply and erection of seven gas engines was accepted. " The whole scheme of main drainage extension works is estimated to cost between three and four million pounds, and the actual expenditure on capital account up to 31st March, 1909, was £2,334,287 9s. " Satisfactory progress was made with the flood relief works during the year. The new sewer in Southwark and Bermondsey and the pumping station in connection there- with at Shad Thames were brought into operation, and the second and final portion of the extension of the Hackney Wick to Abbej' Mills relief sewer from Gainsborough Road 267 to Spring Hill, Hackney, was put in hand. This latter work is being executed by Messrs. E. Bentley & Sons, of Leicester, whose contract ])rice is £6(),573 17s. 4d. The scheme of flood relief works is roughly estimated to cost £79.^,000 and the actual expenditure on capital account up to 31st March, 1909, was £320,549 8s. 6d., of which £109,282 6s. 9d. was expended in the year under review. " During the year the Council sanctioned the construction of about 69,000 feet of local sewers." Nearing Completion. The greater i)art vl tiie new uuiin drainage selieme has now been carried out, and the A\diole will be in opera- tion within a year or two. (Chief Engineer's Rej)ort, May, 1909.) In May, 1909, the Chief Engineer of the Council, Mr. Maurice Fitzmaurice, C.M.G., reported to the Main Drainage Committee : — " The new sewers already in operation (although only part of the whole scheme now in progress) have diminished to a great extent the number of discharges during rain- storms into the river Thames within the County of London. Before 1901, the storm- water discharges into the Thames were frequent, even with comparatively light rainfalls, and the first flow of rain off the streets and the deposits in sewers stirred up by the rain (both of a very objectionable character) were delivered direct into the river. Now the bulk of this water is carried to the outfalls and treated before it is discharged into the Thames, and there will be a still further improvement in this respect as soon as the complete scheme of new sewers comes into operation." Danger to St. Paul's Averted. Une of the tirst ditliculties witli wliich tiie ^Municipal Reformers had to contend in connection Avitli the new- drainage scheme was the possibility tliat the new sewer from Stepney to Trafalgar Square \voidd endanger the fabric of St. Paul's Cathedral. On May 14th, 1907, the Main ]>rainage Committee re^wrted : — " . . . In order that the Council may be in possession of all the facts of the case, we think it well to state what 268 action we had taken to ensure that the construction of the sewer shouhl not endanger the fabric of the Cathedral, " In 1904, when the route of the sewer was under con- sideration, it was foTind that the most satisfactory course which could be adopted would bring the sewer near the south side of St. Paul's Cathedral. Having regard to the importance of the building, we considered it advisable to communicate with Mr. Somers Clarke, the architect to the Dean and Chapter, on the proposal, and, at his request, three trial borings were made in the vicinity of the Cathedral for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the strata, the sites for the borings being fixed by Mr. Clarke himself. Mr. Clarke then asked whether the Council would consent to submit the plan for the construction of the sewer at this point to an independent engineer acting for the Cathedral authoritie?, and whether the works could be inspected during execution. This was agreed to, and the expense involved was borne by the Council. "As a result of the negotiations, a letter was received in May, 1905, from Mr. Somers Clarke, stating that he was authorised to say that, ' advised Ijy their engineers, Messrs. Barr}', Leslie & Co., the Chapter of St. Paul's does not regard with appi-ehension the proposed low-level sewer passing under the south side of St. Paul's Churchyard. Mr. Clarke also asked that certain suggestions made by Messrs. Barry, Leslie & Co. as to the method of constructing the sewer near the Cathedral should be adopted, and these proposals were agreed to. As we had ah-eady received a communication from the solicitor to the Cathedral authorities assuring us that Mr. Somers Clarke had full authority to settle the matter on behalf of the Dean and Chapter, we felt satisfied that no further objection would be raised. " No further communication on the subject was sent to the Council until April 2nd, 1907, when the memorial above referred to was received. When we recommended that the work should be put in band, therefore, we had every reason to believe that the Dean and Chapter had not altered their opinion in the matter, but, in order that we might be con- firmed in our assurance that no damage to the Cathedral could result from the construction of the sewer at this point, we thought it advisable to consult an independent engineer, and we therefore asked Sir Benjamin Baker to advise us in the matter. Sir Benjamin Baker reported that, provided certain ])recautions were adopted, which precautions we had already arranged to take, there would be no danger in con- structing the sewer in the manner proposed. As it appeared from the memorial, however, that the trustees of the Cathedral, after considering the report made by the Com- mittee of Architects, viewed with anxiety the proposal to 269 construct the sewer under St. Paul's Churchyard, we at once acceded to their request that the matter might be reconsidered. We have had under consideration an altei-native route by which the sewer would take a course longer than was originally proposed, at a greater distance from the Cathedral, and, as it appears that the adoption of this alternative wouhl not detract from the efficiency of the sewer, but would obviate all question of damage to the Cathedral fabric, we think that any additional expenditure which might be incurred would be justified, and Ave have therefore given instructions for the plans and specification for the construc- tion of the sewer to be amended accordinglv. . . ." Main Drainage Works, About a month before tlie Progressives went out of office, the lV)uncil (February 5th, 1907) referred to the Works Committee for' execution, the construction, at an estimated cost of £297,800, of the third section of the Northern low-level sewer, No. 2, extending from vStepney to Trafalgar Square. The Municipal Reformers, however, took an early opportunity of getting that resolution rescinded ; and on April 30th, 1907, the Council decided to invite tenders for tliis work. This was done after the Hon. W'ilHam R. Peel, M.P. (M.R.), liad pointed out that the difference l)etween the engineer's estimate and the amount at which the manager of tlie Works Department was originally prepared to do the Avork was about £20,000, and he wished to see this papei' " 2:)rorit " submitted to the test of the o];)en market. That the Council acted wisely was shown when the tenders were opened, and it was found that the lowest tender, that of John Mowleni & Co., Ltd., of Westminster, Avas £261,599, and this despite the fact that the course of the sewer had to be diverted somewhat lest the foundations of St. Paul's Cathedral should ])e endangei-ed, such diversion involving, according to the engineer's estimate, an additional expenditure of £2,000. Tlie contract was given to -IMessrs. JMowlem, Ptd., and can-icd out satisfactorily. 27.1 ( )n March 3rd, 1908, the Council accepted the tender of the Westminster Construction Company for the con- struction of the portion of the middle-level sewer, No. 2, between Quee'n's Road, Shoreditch, and Formosa Street, Packlington. That tender was £203,417, as against the Works Committee's estimate of £213,208. ]\Ii-. W. C. Jolmson (P.) moved, and Mr. Edward Smith (P.) seconded, that the recommendation of the Main Drainage Committee to that effect be referred back, with a vie\\' to the work being offered to the Works Department, l)ui the amendment was defeated by a large majority. (( )ther information about these aspects of Main Drainage ^vill be found in the Works Department Section.) London Labour. ( )n March 23rd, 1900, the Council accepted the tender of the Westminster Construction Company (£172,630) for construction of a section of the Northern low-level sewer ((xieisvenor Crescent to Warwick Road, Kensington), and a cians(' was inserted in the contract providing that preference in eiu[)loyment on casual or unskilled labour required for the work should be given to men honci fide resident in the County of London. In deciding, on October 12th, 1909, to invite tenders for the construction of a storm-water outlet to the Thames from the Falcon Brook at Battersea, the Council made a similar stipulation in regard to I^ondon labour. (See furtlier as to this subject, the Chapter entitled " 'j'lic Municipal Reformers and Labour.") STREET IMPROVEMENTS. This subject in connection with Tramways is dealt with in the Article on " Locomotion." Some day it will, ddubtless, be broiigiit home to tlie inhalHtaiits of Loiidou liow greatly the advancement of then- city has been handicaj)ped b}^ the extremist views pnt forward by the Progressives in the early days of the London (/onnty ( 'oiincil. When that day comes, it will be seen that in no respect has London suffered more than in the matter of street improvements, and in tlie failure to grapple judiciously Avith the problem of congested traffic. For congestion in regard to traffic is the inevitable curse oL' great cities Avhicli have outgrown their comnnini- catious, and which are compelled to rely upon the narrow, crooked streets of a past civilisation to meet the require- ments of to-day. Consider all that congestion in regard to traffic means, and all that it entails. It goes much further than Avhat can be remedied by^working men's trains^and tramways, for it strikes at the very root of profitable trade, employ- ment, and cheap living. For these — and London cannot exist a day without them — free and speedy communication is essential. 272 To take an hour to compass a distance whicli, but for congestion, could he easily covered in liall" the time, is waste of physical force, of motive power, and of material. It means that in the industrial race London must inevital)ly he outstripped hy her commercial rivals. It is also waste of money. It makes long- distances prohibitive ; it enhances, to an al)surd extent, the value of central sites, and it militates against that dispersal of varying industries over a wide area which, from the point of view of light and air, and of health and wealth, is to the adx'antage of all classes of the communitv. The late Metropolitan Board of Works. This body came into existence in 1855 ; its career ended in 1889. In the course of tiiose thirty odd years, besides innumeral)le small works, it carried the following impoi'tant Avorks to completion : — Shaftesbury Avenue Union Road Northiunberland Avenue Charing Cross Road Theobald's Road Gray's Inn Road High Street, Islington Clerkenwell Road South^vark Street Tooley Street Garrick Street Commercial Road High Street, Shoreditch Great Eastern Sti'eet Queen Victoria Street Marshalsca Road Last, but not least, the Board had the courage to carry out what had often been mooted, namely, the Embankments on the side (jf the Thames. These magnificent thoroughfares added three-and-a-third miles of -wide roadway to the conniRinications of London. The Board did much to ox)en up London. With tlie Board it Avas seldom a question of j^ulling down new 273 buiklings only to re-ercct tlieiii some \ru feet further back, at enormous expense — a inetliocl ol' economic waste wliicb. can benefit noljody except the buiklers. Their policy was to create new routes oC trahic, and to I urn Foul shuns into vahuibk; l'ronta,<>'es. Working with imagination, they wei'e prepared to take advantage of all M|)-l()-date reqnirements. It is only by new streets, nevei' by simple widenings, tlial it is possible to arrange the system of tubes and subways, and drainage, and innumerable wire connections which are necessities of modtu-n civilisation. Besides all these completed undertakings, the Board of Works left a goodly heritage of works in x^rogress to l)e finished l)y its successors, the L.C.C. The most notable of these was Kosebery Avenn(>. Let any man who remendjers former London imagine what its state Avould have been to-day had not these great improvements at the time been executed. The Progfressive Record. What has been the Progressive record ? 'J'hey have ruled at Spi-ing Gardens for more than half the period during which the Board of Works were in existence, and all that they have either commenced or completed is Avithin the memory of everybody. A great portion of it is still l)eliind the hoardings. This most unfortunate result is the direct outcome of the exploitation of certain i)lanks of the 1 Vogressive plat form . First and foremost of all Avas the attack on land and all property. In the early days of the (Council, " Betterment " and "Taxation oi' Ground Values" was the somewhat nel)ulous Progressive creed, and until these difficult ([uestions had been worn threatlbare, the Progressives called a halt in all inatters oT street improvements. 274 It would be impossible to descrilie tlie result better than by quoting some paragraphs in the "History of London Street Improvements," printed by order of the Council in February, 1898. Much maybe read between the lines: — "The Council accordingly resolved to postpone all new loans for permanent improvements which could be postponed without grave inconvenience, ' until Parliament should have provided that the burden of all loans for such improvements should fall upon such persons as the law should hereafter direct, all private contracts to the contrary notwithstanding.' The Improvements Committee, being of opinion that many of the proposed improvements under consideration were of pressing necessity, and were such as could not be postponed without grave inconvenience, continued to submit proposals to the Council for adoption, but all the schemes, with one or two exceptions, were referred back to the Committee. Again and again the Committee brought up to the Council various suggested improvements, and time after time the Council felt compelled, in the absence of new sources of revenue, to refrain from adopting the Committee's recommendations. Notwithstanding these serious discouragements, tlie Committee still endeavoured to diligently and faithfully discharge the duties imposed upon it." Surely the foregoing constitutes a truly damning- indictment of Progressive (!) methods. In this way l)recious years were wasted. It was the time of great building developments ; leases were falling in in many parts o£ London, notably in the most expensive areas, and chances were let slij:) which cannot come again for three generations. But tlie Progressives chose to put their politics before tlieir municij)al responsibilities, with the I'esult that few improvements were undertaken, that the congestion grew and grew, and that tlie unfortunate Council inider Progressive-Socialist domination rapidly became a well-deserved oliject of susj^icion to those Avliom it was its first duty to conciliate. 275 Great improvements can, of course, always he made by compulsory purchase, but they can be made with infinitely greater ease by friendly bargaining, and it ^vill be many years before the Council lives down the far- reaching results of the great blunder made by the Progressives at the outset. No Tramways, no Improvements. The next point to be considered is that which relates to the controversy which culminated in the Progressives laying down the rule — "No tramways, no improvements." Things might have l^een different had their desire to run omnibuses been successful ; l)ut when, after considerable waste of money, it was definitely decided against them that this form of enterprise was ultra vires, the Progressives seem to have made up their minds that they need consider nothing beyond their own tramway routes. Out of tram- ways, more especially if they could get their wide roadAvay for next to nothing— an advantage which they would indignantly refuse to any company — they hoped to be able to make a profit. Why should they do anything to assist old-established rivals ? But, from the point of view of the public, whicli travels not only in tramways, but on foot, by omnibus, cab, and carriage, who send goods and receive goods by van and cart, and whose very existence depends on free and fast locomotion, was this either fair or Avise ? The Munic'ipal Reform Party, whose policy it is to bring about an improved London, hold that the Progressive Party started on the wrong lines, wasted precious money and even more precious time, and most unnecessarily c-reated an atmosphere of jealousy and distrust. Coming into a great position Avith the unreasoning and fanatical zeal of people who thought it was their mission to reform they knew not Avhat, the Progressives picked a quarrel Avith every public body, from a Borough Council to the House of 27o Ijords. And they have done mucli to render the uUimate improvement of London both more difficult and more costly. The paramount necessity of street improvements cannot be better stated than in the words of one of the most convinced Progressives :— In a report made to the Council in July, 1892, the then Chairman of the Improvements Committee (Mr. Frederic Harrison), in advocating the construction of a new street from Holborn to the Strand, expressed the opinion that a " loss day by day of ten to fifteen minutes, in the traffic between two great thorough- fares in London, may amount to a permanent tax of a farthing in the £ on the rateable value of the County." The Municipal Reform Policy. The Municipal Reform policy is to adopt the principles which guide practical men in their private business. Large works should be carried out in succession, not simultaneously. This economises the i^owers of A^aluable officers ; it makes finance easier, and, a matter of no small importance, does not disturb all at once the trade of the City, but affords men more oj)portunities of moving into new premises. The Reformers would carry out various improvements in the order of their urgency. They believe that for a large imj^rovement a com- prehensive recoupment scheme is the best method ; Avhile, for smaller improvements, a reasonable contribution from tlie Borough Council especialh^ benefited will often, in practice, be found easier, better, and more just than a " betterment area." Li tlie next few years a good deal of street "widening will inevitably have to be carried out in connection with naiinvay extensions. The Reformers, howcA'cr, Avoidd not make the mistake of rushing forward imperfect and ill- considered schemes, still less would they force them upon 277 unwilling districts. Tliey would, on tlie contrarj^ carefully think out all proposals in conference Avith the Borough Councils, and would endeavour to carry them out in concert Avitli the hical autlKn-Jties and with due regard to local sentiment, adopting the wise policy of moving along the lines of least resistance. As stated in the Municii^al Reform Party's Manifesto, dated Decemlier 4th, 190C, " It will be their aim to improve the means of locomotSon and transport in London and its suburbs. With this object, they "will urge the immediate appointment of a Traffic Board, as recommended by the Royal C^ommission, in order tliat there may be a regular and systematic examination and control of Municipal and private schemes, leading to the gradual adoption of an Jiarmonious plan of traffic for the entire area of Greater 1/mdou." Result of Delaying^ Improvements. The two cases in wliich estimates have been preparetl of the cost of delaying works are those of the Strand widening l:)etween the churches and the Tottenham Court Road (Bozier's Court) scheme. The figures in the former case were as follows : — Estimated cost in 1889 about £400,000 „ ,, when sanctioned by Parliament in 1897 569,130 Cost of delay ... £109,130 The cost of widening Wellington Street, by setting Ixick the western side, was estimated at £34,700. The Council, on 26tli June, 1894, declined to withdraw the condition as to betterment, and the arrangement with the Duchy of Lancaster accordingly fell through. The result of this action on the part of the Progressives has been that new leases have since been granted tending greatly to 278 increase the cost of an improvement which had become inevitable. Tottenham Court Road, at Bozier's Court. In July 1891, when tlie Improvements Committee first recommended the Council to apply to Parliament for powers, the estimated cost was £50,900. In Feln-uary, 1897, when the Council's BiU was submitted to Parliament, the estimated cost was £5o,SC)0, showing an increase of nearly six per cent. Westminster Improvement Scheme. Again, in the case of the Westminster scheme, the Valuer advised the Committee that if the improvement were delayed for one year, the cost would be increased by at least £78,000. Dates when the Scheme of the Improvements Committee was opposed in the C^ouncil : — 27th June, 1899. 4th July ,, Resumed debate. 17th October, 1899. 24tli ,, ,, Resumed debate. 20th March, 1900. 24th July Statement showing the actual or estimated net cost to the Council of county improvements sanctioned and undertaken by the Council under statutory powers, the amount of contribution promised by the Council towards the cost of local improvements, and the amount of contributions paid to local or other bodies upon the com- pletion of local improvements, during each financial year from March, 1889, to March, 1909; and the estimated net 279 cost to tlie Council of county Iniprov(Miu>nts in respect of which Statutory powers are being sought. ■Js = ' •a = O m t- c^ n3»«<^<"*'^oorHoo-*(Mi::)e.oiOi-Hi^irs IC ■- 2 « «> -a ~ .S ^ till iiJl 1-H 1— 1 "■'t— ItHtHt— 1 1— It— 1 1— IT-H rH'TH 00 r-H S'^-'^Of^Or- r- -3 = iv£U'->^ajo'^ 00C0-^00O'*-+r:fM-^MOM->*M-^Ob-r-llS) L'O £0 o.S ^-g £.2 3 C^ -^ T'l CO 1-- 1-1 CI O CO CO ■» l-S T-l O -^ 00 SC •* O it^ o C0_^O_O_i-H_O^e^O^rH -l<^CO_ "^^'^J.O^t^'rH O ,-( O_(M^00 ^ fi-ftrf lo'o'oiT^QD i-TiCo i^cTcs'o CO CO — h'cTo'co' .^^gjIs-— ^S'"oR' cT c 5 -^ - 5 5r a = 2 e^ CI T-i ^H CI o CO -^ o o (M c< 00 ci ct :c CO CI 00 1—1 t~ « rjsO-^OOOOOCI^H-^CtCSlOOOOOOOX'CO 1-1 (5oo iSdoooocicooci-rieoooooot^O"* IM 0-5 « ^000(^^COC100'3^'*COOOO'^t•~'C^OOO■>* H8<^> CjlJ o o oo^^co^^L'S ci^i-H C5_o (Ci_os^i-^cr^ct^i^, "^,=^, ^,'^'i. lo o- eo''ari^'~o'o'L--^i-'S o"rH o o't-^i-H ^' — ' i-r'— 'o'cT-*" 1*" 1-1 l!t CJ 1-1 CO (M O CT ^ -^ CJ -* CD CI IT CI jT 00 irr O t— 1-1 <* irao coo o^o o ^ L- CI 1-1 1- l^ r-T T-Ti-T 00 .1 . ,^0'*OOOOOCI^^COCri-5 0000^00000 00 g-^gl ^OC0~Oi-iO«OQ0t~Oi-iC1Oi^ClOCO ~ ^ 1-^ 1^ rH ^,-,^1-1 ,- r-i i_( ^ 1-1 1-1 rH ^ -^So? 1-i I-Slo^ - lS^HOt>-OO00»-l>!^C0C5-*5Dt^lLf500'3C'O'*O CO d 00 O CI C5 LO t^ -+ 1-r CO — X CI CO O CO O 3C ic c: o -*-».« -H J* O QlLCit^-^i-IO-^O — 0»0 CI CJ-^OO CI CI l-i^-*00 C5 5 S a o S. 1-1 -^ -^ "* CO O -f 1^ O to 1^' IC 1^ CI 00 CI t^ c; c: C5 >iO o s s " a 1—1 -^ r-H d CI O IC -P CI t^ CI ^ 1— 1 CI CI CO CO 10' OD 05 c- 5 '"* 1-1 C^ 1—1 1—1 tH t-I ■<* '"^ T-T 1 g°5fc<, "12III . ^ ■!* 00 00 ==s^a^S 1—1 1-H_ ^ o .2 o>ciL-tii^oo)Coo«ooo^u50 CI c - = c 5 K-a i: >» CI C4 O O -*l OC' O 00 O O oo CO O t-J -r^ t- CI lO t- CI ISi-H-^dlCOOOi-IOO-^l^t-.l^CIO'rr^Cli-IOOClr-l Tf^ .-, l-^ irO CO O t^ O O CO ^ oo lO T-H CO CI ^ CO CO O O CO •-« LO lO OS lO CO CO '^l Iffl l-'O "* O CO C» tH Tj< O CO l>r as 1-H CO ^ t^ CI C5 TjH^-* kO 1-1 t- e^ r-( IM cs tnal net ( ounc imp sane idert Con atut i ■*! 1 Council's sanction. O -H CI CO '^ IC CO t- 00 CI' O *H CI CO -i^ 1 CO 1:^ 00 05 ■R OCiC5CiO»O^C5CSOC^OOOOOOOOOO 1 O CIO^CIC0Tfll(SC0t-»00OO-rHdC0-Tre granted. The Council ought to look at the matter from a commercial point of view. A large sum of money had been sunk in extinguishing licenses on that improvement. Mr. G. H. Radford (P.) moved that the report be referred back with instructions to rec|uire from the applicants the deposit of a substantial sum. ]\Ir. Russell S^Dokes (P.) seconded, and said it was unusual to grant a six months' option. Mr. John Burns, M.P. (P.), was oj^posed, root and branch, to the scheme. It would be no more like Paris in Ix)ndon than the Italian Exhibition at Earl's Court was like A'enice. They did not want another Cremorne Gardens in London. He objected to the best site in London being- given up to casinos and theatres. When the buildings of The Syndicate referred to here is a different one to that in the two subsequent debates reported below. 285 Greece and Rome were tlie finest, tlie nKji-als of the people Avere of the lowesf. Sir Melvill Beaclicroft (M.li.) moved the adjournment of tlie debate in the ho^De that the scheme miglit he Avith- drawn. As business men, the^' ought to wait until they got offers to Cover this land Avith Ijuildings at rack rents Avhicli ought not to be less than thi-ee times the amount of the ground rent. On business principles the scheme stood condemned. The motion to adjourn the debate Avas seccnided and lost. Mr. Piggott (P.) objected to the scheme. The Council had done much to abolish licenses, and j^et in this case pro- posed to license nearly three acres of land. The amendment to, refer back Avas carried by 77 votes to 2S. At the Aveekly meeting of the Council, held on July 'Slst, 190(3, the ImproA^ements Committee reconnnended that the seal of the Council he affixed to the agreement Avhen ready, for a lease to the Syndicate avIiIcIl liad been formed for dealing Avith the central portion of the crescent site in connection Avith the Holborn to Strand Improvement. Sir Melvill Beaclicroft (M.R.) moved that the recom- mendation be referred back. He characterised the j^roposal as extraordinary. Who are compiised in the Syndicate V he asked. Who A\^as going to pay the £55,000 that had to be deposited Avith the Council ? Was the course suggested a dignified one for a body like the (/ouncil to adoj)t ? Mr. Jeffrey (P.) seconded the reference back, giA-iiig it as his opinion that the place would be nothing less than a " boozing den." ]\Ir. Shepheard (P.) said the Syndicate's option Avould go if Avithin ten days the sum of £55,000 Avas not deposited. 286 Mr. Hubbard (the Chairman of the Improvements Committee) (P.) said the Committee had taken as much care of the drink question as they possibly coukl. The amendment Avas lost, and the recommendation approved. At the ordinary meeting of the Council, held on October 16th, 1906, the Adjourned Report of the Improve- ments Committee with regard to the Holborn to Strand Improvement, and the letting of the central portion of the crescent site, was sulunitted. This Report recommended — " That the resolutions of 20th March and 31st July, 1906, with regard to the letting to a Syndicate of the central portion of the crescent site formed in cornection with the Holborn to Strand Improvement be rescinded." Sir R. M. Beachcroft (M.R.) said : — I do not think we can quite pass this j^aragraph No. 4 in silence. The Council will remember that something like 18 months ago negotia- tions were opened Avith a Syndicate with the object of obtaining a tenant for, or of letting the central site in the Strand area. We were promised an amount of £55,000 a year. We are now told after months and months of delay that the Syndicate have failed to keep their promise, they have not paid their deposit, and the arrangement falls to the ground. On the 31st July, 1906, we were told that the Syndicate had made their preliminary arrangements, and were prepared to exchange agreements and deposit the £55,(J00 with the Council in the early part of the following month, namely August, 1906. I was then one of the sceptics. I thought that we should never see the £55,000. Mr. Hubbard said, " Oh yes, it is coming." This proceeding has been unbusinesslike from the very beginning, and it ends in a totally disreputable manner. At the last meeting of the Council before the recess there was a very strange report passed without comment alluding to the claims of a man called Browne, who claims to have an interest in the portion of the land subject to the agreement with the Syndicate. Apparently even had we been able to bring the 287 Syiulicate up to the scratch, Mr. Browne was there to stop the way. I have endeavoured in my phice, thno after time, to obtain from ^fr. Hiihl)ard the infoi-n^iation as to wlio formed the Syndicate, and we never could get any satis- factory reply. 1 hope tlie Council -will bear this in mind as an ol)ject lesson, and in tlieir haste to recover some of their lost millions, he careful not to embark on a foolish enterprise in dealing- Avith a Syndicate of whom they know nothing'. Lieut.-('()h A. liotton (MJl.) said: — Eighteen months have been wasted. The rent of this place has during that period been lost, and it might meantime have been let to some other parties. It was hung up for the benefit of this Syndicate, who, Ave now hnd, were either unable or unwilling to carry out this agreement. Mr. J. Howell Williams (P.) said : — I have some com- X)laint tf) make of the Improvements Committee with regard to this matter, because I have been told that there was another Syndicate ready at the time to take this land, and to deposit a sum of money immediately as earnest money of their bond fides at the very time the Improvements Com- mittee were negotiating for this land. In this Council I called the attention of the Chairman of the Improvements Committee to the fact that he was negotiating with some- body who would vanish into thin air. Mr. Hubbard, the Chairman of the Improvements Committee, got up and said : " Oh no, Ave liaA'e a sul^stantial man. We are certain that the thing Avill be carried through." KnoAving at the time that there Avas somebody else Avho Avould have carried the matter through, it seems to me a great pity that the Committee should haA^e clung to that phantom, A\diich has, in fact, noAv A'anishecl into thin air, and have lost the substance. It does seem to me that it is time that this Council should take the position of our luilet land in connection with the Holborn to Strand improvement into serious con- sideration. I am told in the City by builders that it is absolutely impossible to do business with this Council, 288 the moment they aj)proach them it is a matter of condition. I know of a case in which people are prepared to linild a block of offices on one of our vacant sites and they are met with impossible demands in regard to the ground-rent. They are asked for a ground-rent equal tu a sum whicli I should not like to pay for a lease of the whole block of buildings. Mr. N. W. llul)l)ard (the Chairman of the Improvements Committee) (P.) said: — What terrible offence have we com- mitted? We had an application for the land. We met, we went through the terms of the agreement, we were told there Avei'e persons behind this Syndicate with monej', and that the money would be forthcoming. We anticipated that the arrangement would go through. The A^acant land at present is 13|- acres, or rather the land we took was 13|- acres ; t wo acres of that have been used for reinstatement ; an acre of that land, also, we have let to the persons whom we had to reinstate. That makes oh acres. All that is covered with houses. We have, at present, 8| acres to deal with. With reference to Mr. Browne, at the time the Council prepared the Bill carrying out the Holborn to Strand Improvement, the premises in Wych Street were unoccupied. They were so described in the reference book which Avas submitted AA-ith the Bill. Beeching Limited took a lease of the premises under Indenture of Lease dat^d 21st NoA'ember, 1898 ; the Bill for the Improvement passed in 1899. On notice to treat being served in I90( ) upon Beechings, they sul)mitted a claim in respect of this leasehold interest as A\'ell as for other property. Upon that form of claim they Avere required to give particulars of any tenancy distinct, and the following is one of the interests given : First floors of both houses, ground floor No. 54, are in the occupation of Charles Augustus G. BroAA'ne under Indenture of Lease dated Ith November, 1899, annual rent £200. As soon as Ave received the claim, our solicitor Avrote to tlie solicitors acting for Mr. Beeching, draAving attention 289 to tlie fact that this lease Avas o'vanted subsequent lo 24tli 'lune, 1898, mentioning clause Jo of the Council's Act, Avliich deals with the cjiiestion of compensation as regards interests in land created alter tliat date. Mr. Beeching replied that the lease ^A-as granted in the due course of business. As a result of the negotiations, compensation payable to ]\Ir. Beeching was agreed, and a formal contract exchanged, setting forth the terms of Mr. Browne's lease, scA-en years fi'om 25th December, 1899, expiring at Cliristmas, 1906. The Valuer at that time gave instructions tliat no steps should be taken for acquiring the leasehold interest of Mr. Browne, and that, if ])()ssil)le, it should be allowed to run out. On 5th October, 1900, a letter was sent to the VaEuer by the soHc'.tor who was investigating Beecli- iug"s title, Stating that Browne had given six months' notice, and was entitled to have the lease renewed for any period up to 12 1 years at the same rent. On 2nd Xovem- ber, 190U, the solicitor completed the j)urchase of both interests, and in a letter of that diite to the Valuer advising of the completion, stated that the Council will collect Browne's rent from Michaelmas. This letter was referred to the Valuer's department of the L.C.C., in which the rent i-egisters are kept, and the £200 collected from Browne was entered in the register. The Comptroller in due course was advised of its collection. The Council's poAver for serving notice to treat in respect of the improvement expired on 9th August, 1901. On the 22nd June, 1901, tlie Valuer presented to the Improvements Committee a list of interests and j)roperties in respect of which notice had not been served, and, as stated in his report, this list did not include certain interests outstanding and Avhicli would lax)se shortly after the date mentioned in the Act for the comiDletion of the Avork, viz., 9th August, 1900. The lease of Mr. Browne was one of those so referred to, the option mentioned in the solicitor's letter of 5th October, 1900, having been overlooked, the terms being regarded as one that would expire at Christmas, 1906. :\lr. G. H. Radford, M.P. (P.), said :— The fact is that Avhen you deduct from the speech of the Chairman o[ the 19 290 Improvements Committee the written narrative about Beeching, and Browne, and some other people, who have nothing to do with tlie case, the Chairman of the improve- ments Committee confesses that he and hes Committee have been the victims of misplaced confidence. That is a humilating position for the Committee to be in. They now ask for leave to rescind the agreement which they have entered into, and I think we cannot do better than let them do it, and, in giving them that facility, let us give them this advice, that in dealing with our land in the future they should avoid being victims of men of straw, and of sjmdicates, of which they know nothing. The amendment Avas then by leave withdrawn, and the recommendation of the Committee was adopted. The Fulham " Inn prove merits" Scheme. "A Tragedy of Errors." The following deljate took place in the Council on May 29th, 190(3, regarding the acquisition by the Improve- ments Committee in connection Avith the Avidening of Fulham Palace Road and the High Street, Fulham, of interests in the King's Head public-house, in High Street, Fulliam. Mr. N. W. Hubbard (C*hairman of the Improvements Committee) (P.) moA'-ed the reception of the report. Mr. W. Hunt (M.R.) said ; — This strikes me as being a most extraordinary report to emanate from the ImproA^o- ments Committee. It is a A^ery clear apology to the Council for the very grave error Avhich has been made in connection Avith this matter. It Avould appear indeed from the report that the ImproA'ements Committee did not approach this matter in a businesslike spirit. In the first place, they agreed to give the leaseholder of these premises £(50,000, without submitting the question to arbitration. I kncAV the house Avell Avhich stood upon the site, and I A'-enture to say, Avithout the slightest fear of contradiction, that had it 291. been sent to arhiti-ation, the leaseliolder -wonld not have received £00,000 for the iDrojoei'ty because we see here by the report that the freeholders also liad some considerable claim nj^on the property. The Inix^rovements Committee neglected to do what wonld be I'egarded as the right and safe thing to do, namely, to stdjmit the question to arbitration as regards the freeholder. We find from the Reports tliat the freeholder received £4,000 for one-seventh part of an acre. W hat do we find in the Improvements Committee's Report? They state that it may possiljly cost some £10,000 or £12,000 to reinstate the house. Tlie freeholder gets possession of the whole of the remainder of the site ; he is given £4,000 by this Council, and consequently has £4,000 towards reinstating the house on the remainder of the land. Tlie freeholder is now in possession of hilly licensed j)remises at a cost of about £8,000. Surely these figures point to a very grave state of things, and indicate that a grave error has been committed in connection with this matter. Mr. Cyril Cobb (M.R.) said :— The Chairman of the Committee has wraj)ped this story up very cleverly, but as one reads through it, I think one can make out one or two points, without an explanation of Avhich this story is liardly intelligible. Take this question of the oljjection of Messrs. Charrington to the arrangement Avhich was proposed by the Council in connection with the widening of this I'oad. I should like to knew from the Chairman of the Improvements Committee why they were in such a hurry to patch up this deal with Messrs. Charrington ; why there was not some attempt' made for this matter to go to arbitration. I come further down the report, and I find this expression that the Council had to pay for a ]personal element of no marketable A'alue to the Council. Now, I should like some explanation of that. Surely, it cannot refer to the question of the licence ? The licence for these 292 i:)reniises Avas lield by tlie licensee, and tlie licence, I take it, is a matter of considerable market valne. Then as to the actual cost of the Avhole transaction, the estimated cost originally, I believe, was £93,000 odd. I take it that this Council ought to be in a position, with its staff of valuers, &c., to find out for what price any jDroperty, licensed or unlicensed, could be purchased. We find an estimated value of £93,000, and when we came to inquire three or four years later what it has actually cost, it seems to have cost £139,000 — a considerable advance on the original estimate. We had a very eloquent sj^eech a fortnight ago from the late Chairman of the Council, in which he endeavoured to show that this Council is by no means an extravagant liody, that it is a body which is most careful of the rate- payers' money. When the ratepayers see brought actually under their noses a case of this kind, where one-seventeenth part of an acre is bought for £64,000, that is at the rate of £1,088,000 per acre, then I think they can form an opinion themselves as to whether the London County Council is or is not an extraAagant body. Mr. ^V. AV. Bruce (P.j said : — I brought this matter up before the Finance Committee, because it appeared to me to be a matter Avliioh Avanted putting straight. The plain English of It is that for one-seventeenth of an acre we paid £64,000. We got the leasehold and trade and the licence for £(30,000, and shortly afterAvards we found that the freeholder Avas the OAvner of the licence, and AA-as aijle to sell it for about £30,000. It appears to me that Avhen it Avas found that that little bit of widening, AA'hich does nut seem to have been absolutely necessary, Avas going to cost anything lilfore plans and specifications had been approved should be decided by the Council's architect ; but the Committee proposed that disputes arising after such approval should be decided by an arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties, or, if they could not agree, to be nominated by some person to be named in the building agreement at the time when it was executed. The Council on 2t)th May, 1903, decided that the clause to be inserted in the conditions with regard to land fronting the Strand. Aldwych and Kingsway should provide that the elevations of the buildings on ttie land should be of marble, granite, Portland or other approved stone or brick, and should be of such design as the Council approved as worthy of the position. The conditions, as au. ended, provided that a lessee should erect a building of an elevation and of materials to be approved by the Council. The Council agreed to the revised building conditions on 25th June, 1907. "The Council also agreed on the same date that, until a certain number of the sites had been let and the commercial character of the thoroughfare thereby established, lesciees should be allowed to pay, for the first year a peppercorn rent, for the second 2.5 per cent., for the third 50 per cent., and for the fourth 75 per cent, of the ultimate rental. It will thus be five years before the Council comes into the enjoy- ment of the full rental of such sites, but it will sacrifice nothing of the ultimate value of the land. '•The Council had already on 24th July, 1906, conceded the principle of paying commission, but on a scale below the one customary in the profession. The Committee gathered that the leading firms considered that the scale would not repay them for actively co-operating with the Council, but that the remuneration should be fixed on a scale more nearly approaching, though in the case of the larger sites falling considerably short of, the customary professional scale. The usual commission in respect of property in the central parts of London is half a year's ground rent, but in the case of suburban property one year's ground rent is generally allowed. The Council's scale varied from one-fourth of a year's rent in the case of a letting at £500 a year to one-tenth of a year's rent in lettings of from £2,000 to £10,000 a year. The Auctioneers' Institute of the United Kingdom suggested that an equitable scale would be as follows — on lettings up to £500 a year, half a year's rent ; on lettings up to £5,000 a 300 year half a year's rent on £500 and one-fourth on the balance ; on lettings up to £10,000 a year, the last-mentioned scale up to £5,000 and one-eighth of a year's rent on the balance. " . . . In the case of lettings at a higher rent than £10,000 a year, the commission on either scale would form the subject of a special arrangement. The Council on 25th June, 1907, agreed that, in the disposal of the surplus land, any agent introducing a tenant should be paid, upon completion of the letting, commission on the amended scale, suggested by the Institute and set out above. " Generally. — The above statements refer to the action taken with regard to the surplus land from the Holborn to Strand improvement. The Council on 23rd July, 1907, agreed that the building conditions already approved, as a general form, for lettings in connection with the surplus land from the Holborn to Strand improvement should be adopted, as a general form, for lettings of all the Council's surplus lands ; that in the disposal of the Council's surplus property on building leases any agent introducing a tenant should be paid, upon completion of the letting, the scale of commission suggested by the Institute and set out above ; and that in the disposal of the Council's property for short terms any agent introducing a tenant should be paid upon completion of the letting commission at the rate of 5 per cent, on the first year's rent reserved in the case of agreements for three years or less, and 1\ per cent, on the first year's rent in tha case of terms of more than three years. The Committee stated that the circumstances with regard to surplus land other than that from the Holborn to Strand improvement did not call for a general extension of the peppercorn period, but that in particular cases they might advise the Council to grant some modification in this respect." Mr. Fisher on the Policy of the Party. As indicative further of the policy of the Municipal Reform Party in respect of tlie disposal of surplus lands, we rej)rint the following report of an interview with Mr. Hayes Fisher, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the L.C.C., which appeared in the Morning Post for May 20tli, 1009 :— " The decision of the present majority of the London County Council, to let it be known that they are willing to consider offers for the freeholds of some of their surplus lands, seems unduly to have excited the minority and their supporters. Charges of 'looting,' * selling,' ' betraying ' London, and so forth are being made. Mr. Hayes 301 Fisher yesterday discussed tlic matter with a representative of the Morning Post. " ' The sale of freeholils,' he said, ' is a very important question, and one which the Council debated up to dinner time on Tuesday night in a very fair and most commendable manner. The first great difference between the parties is as to the course to be pursued with the surplus lands in connection with two large improvements, the Holborn to Strand improvciuent and the Westminster improvement. The Progressive Party, wlien they made the Holborn to Strand improvement, bought an enormous amount of land to the right and left, which was not actually necessary for the improvement of the main thoroughfare. They bought it because they believed that by holding and developing it they would make a large profit which could be set against the cost, practically £5,000,000, of the improvement. They produced estimates to the Council which showed that the total net cost of this improvement to the London ratepayer would be £7.")0,000. " ' We understand,' continued Mr. Hayes Fisher, ' that Mr. Shaw- Lefevre (now Lord Eversley),'a prominent Radical Cabinet ]\Iinister, was mainly responsible for the erroneous and misleading calculations as to the net cost which were submitted to the Council, and which, no doubt, induced many of the Moderate party to support the proposal. It now turns out that Mr. Shaw-Lefevre and those who advised him in estimating the net cost at £750,000, only calculated that the cost of the improvement would have to include interest for something like four years, and that the amount of that interest would therefore be under half a-million. The actual cost in interest which the ratepayers have to find has amounted already to nearly a million and, presuming that the surplus lands are not let for another five years, the interest due on the purchase money will then have amounted to a million and a half. There is, of course, little chance of these lands, ol' which something like three-quarters still remain unlet, being let within five years. Indeed, it is almost certain that we must calculate the interest at two millions. Under these circumstances, seeing that the ratepayer has now to find the sum of £200,000 a year for interest alone, which is more than a penny rate, we of the Municipal Reform party have determined to let it be known that we are willing to part, at a good market price, with some of the freeholds of these surplus lands rather than face the enormous amount of compound interest which is accumulating against vis year by year. Our information is that purchasers can often be found for freeholds whereas they cannot be found for leaseholds, because they are unable to be financed by insurance and other people unless it is for freeholds. We learnt from the debate on Tuesday night that the policy of the Progressive party is to refuse to part with a foot of freehold land, and while making far more onerous conditions for the leaseholder than are visually laid down by other big landlords, to wait for an unlimited number of years for the price which they think they ought to obtain.' 302 '"But supposing you sell the freeholds, ' asked our representa- tive, * will you have any oversight over the sort of buildings to be raised ? ' "'That is an extremely important point,' Mr. Hayes Fisher replied ; ' and London vyill no doubt require to be reassured regarding it. The selling of the freeholds would not in in the least prevent us as vendors from laying down resonable conditions as to the class of building to be put up, and the material to be used. As Mr. Billings said on Tuesday night — and he is a practical auctioneer and land agent — there is still a strong prejudice in London against the County Council as a landlord. We are determined to remove this prejudice and to act upon businesslike lines.' " ' Can the Local Government Board stop you from selling the freeholds ? ' " ' No, their power to do that only refers to land bought under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act. In the matter of housing the Progressives bought certain estates, and among them Lord Carrington bought, just on the eve of an election, the White Hart Lane Estate, about 250 acres, outside London. I have visited it, and have christened it " Carrington's White Elephant," for the reason that the land is not yet ripe for building. It is too far from a tramway and the lines of communication. It is surrounded l)y Tottenham, Edmonton, and Wood Green, all containing a large working class population already decently housed. To develop this estate would cost nearly three millions, and the result would be that you would have a town of ^0,000 people, all poor, living in one congested district. Our policy is to sell the greater i^ortion of this estate, and to use the money for purchasing, from time to time, other sites, or for building, on sites which may be given to us working men's dwellings, not all together, hut in various areas, so that they will not l)e congested. If, instead of .'500 houses, you build 30 you would prevent congestion. If you put them all together you run very great danger of the whole place being deserted some day.' " Tlie Hon. W. R. Peel, M.P., the I.eader of the Municipal Reform Party on the ( 'ouncil, somewhat amplifies the foregoing statement in a letter published in the Morning Post of May 21st, 1009, as follows :— " London ratepayers will be grateful to you for allowing Mr. Hayes Fisher to explain the policy of the Municipal Reform Party regarding the sale of surplus lands. ]\lay I supplement his lucid, statement in one or two particulars ? " Fir.st, let us take the question of surplus lands under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act. The Progressives alway,'' hold it a cardinal feature of their policy that under no cir- 303 cumstances should the Council sell any freehold land that has come into their possession. My view is that in these matters policy should be dictated less by definite and binding adherence to fixed rules than by all the circumstances of the case and the needs of the ratepayers. We propose to apply for leave to the Local Govern- ment Board to sell some portion of our housing estates, but the question can only really be understood when looked at in the light of the general housing policy of the Council, which, perhaps, you will allow me roughly to sketch. " I am not speaking of our block dwellings under Part 1. of the Act or under improvement schemes, but of the four large estates, inside and outside the county, comprising 340 acres and capable of providing accommodation for 65,000 people within London and on the outskirt.s of London. Two years ago we inherited this legacy. Forty-one acres had been covered with cottages, and it was esti- mated that the development of the rest would cost £2,750,000. The Totterdown Fields Estate, which comprises 38| acres at Lower Tooting, three-quarters of a mile within the county, we propose to cover with cottages during the next two or three years. Then we come to the Old Oak Common Estate, of 46 acres, in Hammersmith. We propose to develop the whole of this at a cost of between £340,000 and £o50,000 during the next ten years. Of the Norbury Estate, 28J acres, on the London road to Croydon, half a mile beyond the boundary, 8| acres have already been covered with cottages. We are going to cover another eight acres at a cost of £60,000 during the next two or three years, and we propose to sell 12 acres of ground. In this case the accommodation is very largely taken up by people who are not Londoners at all, and in whose welfare the London ratepayer has only an indirect interest. Now I come to the last of the estates, the White Hart Lane Estate at Wood Green, 225 acres in extent, in two sections, the northern part of which is 46 acres. At present we have developed the southern portion, and have laid out 40 acres and covered 19 acres with cottages. Wc are going to develop a further 13 acres at a cost of about £83,000 during the next four years. The question is how we should deal with the remaining 180 acres. "So far, then, I have been dealing with the general scheme of housing policy as it affects the development of existing estates. Now let us examine in the light of other facts the position of the White Hart Lane Estate. In my opinion, it is unwise to establish in one place so large a working-class colony. We hear a great deal in criticism of the existing conditions, cities of tlie rich and cities of the poor, and it seems to me to be a pure piece of wantonness to set up in the North of London the same set of conditions we so vigorously condemn in London itself. Mixed populations are better in areas than homogeneous areas of poor people. If we cannot altogether prevent this segregation in London we have no possible excuse for following out the same errors in Greater London. Prom a financial 304 point of Aiew it is very questionable wlietlier it is wise for the rate- payers to invest so large a sum in one particular housing venture* The fashion, as we know, in the centre of London, is constantly altering the value of house property, but fashion is no less dominant in cottages and the smaller class of property. A new area is developed, and the mere attraction of novelty will often draw away thousands of people from other localities. Locomotion is enormously increasing our restiveness and our mobility. House property is infinitely less secure as an investment than it was, and it is quite probable that even if we lilled the estate with houses fashion and locomotion might in a few years rapidly empty them again. It may,^ perhaps always be a self-denying ordinance on the part of the London County Council to migrate its own population from London, thus diminishing its own rateable value, but we may console our- selves by thinking that the people in the areas of depletion enjoy cheaper rents or easier accommodation. But in the case of a large estate outside London it is inevitable that a great many of the inhabitants will not be Londoners and the London ratepayers should hardly be made accountable for the risks of this form of house property. London, like a prudent man of business, should scatter its investments, and it is far better that we should use our municipal influence in directing the population to other districts in London. There is no reason why we should not set up small properties in the South and North-West of London and set the tide of emigration flowing in those directions, thus possibly giving a lead to the activities of private enteriDrise. '' The Council in 1898 wisely decided that no charge ought to be placed on the county rate in respect of housing operations under Part III. of the Act. Already £55,000 for interest and sinking fund has been laid on the rates in respect of the development of these properties, and the Council has really traversed the prudent principle which it laid down eleven years ago. Moreover, dividing houses into those of a rental (including rates) of over and under 10s. a week, it is well known that private enterprise will readily sixpply houses at tlie larger rentals. There is really no necessity for the County Council to compete with private enterprise in respect of these houses. It should address itself rather to the provision of accommodation at rents ranging from 7s. to 10s. " Speaking generally, the increase of locomotion has vastly altered the housing question, and the policy of a great municipality like London should be ratlier directed to guiding the outflow of the population than to trying to fix them in particular localities by the experiment of municipal housing. '• I read with very great interest Mr. Hayes Fisher's observations on tlie question of the Holborn to Strand and Westminster improve- ments. Here again the question is one of balancing the interests of the ratepayers, who are paying the gigantic sum of £200,000 a year on interest alone. We have done our best to lease the properties, but they still hang on our hands. We altered the harsh conditions which were said to keep away applicants, and the full rents were only to be paid on a rising scale up to four years. We are told that never under any circumstances should we sell these freeholds )>ecause they will ultimately reach a big price and enrich the ratepayers of the future. But ought we not to consider the ratepayer of the present ? Here we are spending money on main drainage schemeB, education, schools, colleges, and many other things of a permanent kind from which future ratepa,yer8 will derive incalculable advantages, and has not the present ratepayer a right to say he will not be bound by a self-denying ordinance under no circumstances to sell a piece of land to recoup himself against the heavy expenditui'c which lias fallen upon him ? We were advised that if we were prepared to entertain an offer willing buyers would come forward who couUI not l)orrow monej^ on leaseholds. The great thing in these matters is sometimes to get a push forward, and it may be that the sellinu,' of one or two freeholds will do that, and then we shall find our leaseholds taken up. Supposing the Commonwealth of Australia says to us that they want a piece of land that they will buy, but will not lease, why should we prevent them from acquiring a permanent establishinent in London ? And are we to frighten all Londoners from ever venturing (Ml a future improvement because of the huge cost of this ? Or are we to keep them in the dark as to the present charges on the property so that in ten or twelve years they will complain of the burden of expense '? " The Progrressives and the Sale of L.C.C. Freehold Property. Certain members of the Progressive-Socialist. J';ut\- are at the present time engaged in representing lliat tlx^ Alunicipal Reform Party liave embarked upon an entirely new policy in deciding to sell certain j^ortions oF tIi-:^ Council's freehold property. Mr. G. M. Gomme, thf Clerk of the Council, has stated (September l^Oth, I'.X)!)) that between the years 1889 and 1003 the number of casps in which the Council's freehold interest in property has been sold Avould probably amount to about 130. Many of these, according to Mr. tiomnie — perhaps, as much as one-luilf - nfcnrred during the years 1889-91. Mr. Gomme acooni- 20 301; l^anies the information al)ore referred to with the statement set oat below : — SlATEMENT OF SuKPLUS LaNHS SoLD IIY ■JHL L.C.C. SINCK 190-'). (a) Plotfi 'nwapahJc of Independent Development. Date. Jan., 1903 June, 1903 June, 1904 Api-., 1905 1906 ... 1907 June, 1908 Apr.. 1908 May, 1908 Feb.. 1908 Situation. Strip of Land, Blaekwall Lane.. Strip, Tower Bridge Rd. Small Plot, Tower Bridge Rd. , Small Plot,East Hill,Wandsworth Plot, Tooting Graveney School Po wis St., "Woolwich Strip, Shelton St., Drury Lane .. Cambridge Rd., Interest in W^all Cambridge Rd., Lot 1, Auction Red Lion St., Small Strip Strip in Tower Bridge Rd. Total, 11 Sales. Purchaser. E. Lister T.O.Hart St.Olave's Grammar School J. V. J:. Taylor Judkins Ryl. Arsenal Co-Operative Clements, Jeakes & Co. ... Pickard J. Bishop Debenture Corporation . . . City of London Brewery... (b) For lie-instatemcnt or as part of Pa)'Hainenfar>j Obligations. Date. Maj-, 1903 Nov., 1903 June, 1904 July, 1905 Apr., 1905 Feb., 1905 1906 Situation. 190^ Tower Bridge Rd., 2 Small Plots Land North of Aldwych Plot, Catherine Street Old St., Re-sale of Frontages ... Nine Elms, Equality of Exchange \ Land in Little Wild Street Tower Bridge Rd., 2 Small Plots Land in Aldwych Land in Portsmouth St. Tower Bridge Northern Ap- proach, Equality of Exchange High St., Kensington, Plot Rotherhithe Tunnel, Land next Churchyard Red Lion St., Plot Westminster, Equality of Exchange Capland St. Land and Vaults rear of Lin- coln's Inn Fields Blaekwall Tunnel, Land in Tunnel Avenue Purchaser. S. E. Railway Duke of Bedford Clarkson Ray & Olliver Estate ... L. & S. W. Railway Wild St, Chapel Trustees S. E. Railway Lord Glenesk StrandBoard ofGuardians L. & N. W. Railway The Crown Rev. A. Knowles ... Trustees of Wesleyan Chapel Office of Works ... Lord Portman Pennington South Co. Metropolitan Gas Total, 17 Sales. £349,9: 307 (oj Fo)- Piihlut Purijoscs. Date. Situation. Parchasei'. Price. Oct., 1903 Blackstock Rd,, Lots 1-5 ReccivfM- of Police 2,'2r)(» Oct., 1903 Beu Jonson Rd Seliool Board for London l,;?2o .lulv, 1904 Blackwall Tunnel Greenwich Boi-o' Council 95(1 1907 Land, Lewisham Bridge Lewisham Boro' Council 7'.) Mare St, Cripplegate School 1,875 Land at Grays, Essex Met. Asylums Board 5,500 Feb., 1908 Cambridge Road Bethnal Green Boro' Cncl. 3ii5 Total, 7 Sales. £12,'500 (n^i Fo)- Rclirii.oHS o)' Ph'tlanthropic Purpose^. Date. Situation. Purchaser, Price. Oct., 1904 Sbai'tcsbury Avenue, Nos. 174-6, "The George" P.M., and 32, Great St. Andrew Street French Hospital ... 4,800 Apr., 1905 Battorsea Rise, Land in Auck- land St. Trustees of Welsh Chapel 1,300 Feb.. 1905 Rotherhithe Tunnel, Land Rochester Diocesan Trust 10(1 Feb., 1906 Blackwall Tunnol, Lot 22 Vavas.seur 700 1907 Rotherhithe Tunnel, Land in Rose Lane London Street Girls' Club 1,(,00 Jan., 1908 Queen Victoria St., Nos. 97-109 Salvation Army . ll(j,000 May, 1908 Cambridge Rd., "2 Plots Bagster, D 1.100 Total, 7 Sales. £119,.300 (e) Ordiiiarij Sales. Date. Situation. Purchaser. Price. 1907 Churchway, St. Pancras Connoly Bros 700 Apr., 1908 No. 150, Holborn, &c Prudential Insurance ... 14,000 Feb., 1908 Blackwall Lane, Lot 21 Trustees of Morden College 300 Feb., 1908 Kent Lodge, Hanwell Raikes 1,300 May, 1908 High Rd., Lee, Plot by Auction J. Bishop 160 Feb., 1908 No. 22, Cockspur St Sir R. Palmer 19,00(t Plot, Wandsworth Common, F.Cain 850 North Side Blackwall Tunnel, Plot A. J.Gay 850 Total, 8 Sales. £37,160 308 SuunncD'ij of Sides. A ... B ... C ... D ... E ... 11 17 7 7 Total 50 Woolwich Footway Tunnel. Tlie Improvements Committee reported, on Xovcmher lOtli, 1908, recommending that — The necessary Parliamentary authority should be sought in the session of 1909 for the construction of a footway tunnel under the River Thames to connect North and South Woolwich. The Committee had considfred four schemes, the estimated cost of which varied from £95,r)00 to £147,000. The scheme which they had adopted, estimated to cost £112,000, provided for stairways, and would allow, if necessary, the addition at a future date of a small lift at each end of the subway. Of the four schemes it was tlie cheapest by which the combination of stairways and lifts could be secured. The annual cost of the maintenance of the tunnel was estimated at £2,500, while the charges on the capital outlay on the cost of construction would amount to about £5,958 in the first year. The cost of the scheme proposed in 1904 was estimated at £145,000, while the cost of maintenance, based on the actual expense at Greenwich Tunnel, would have been about £3,500 or £4,000 a year. The reduced capital cost of this proposal was chieliy due to the omission of any scheme for tlie construction of lifts. This would enable a reduction of £1,000 or £1,500 a year to be made in the cost of maintenance. The Committee accordingly recommended that application be made to Parlia- ment in the next session for the necessary powers to construct the tunnel. Mr. W. Hayes Fisher (M.R.), the Chainiiaii ol ilie Finance (Vimmittee, moved as an amendment lo ndd to the reconnnendation the following Avords : — " And that provision be also made in the Bill to enable the Woolwich Metropolitan Borough Council, the West Ham Corporation, and the East Ham Corporation to contribute towards the cost of the tunnel." Mr. E. Collins (M.R.) seconded the amendiuent. :509 Loril I'j,( iici (M.Ii'j, the ("li;iii-man ol \\u' Inii)rove- iiKMils ( 'oininJUec, said ikhu' of the IdCal autlioiities had liitlicito hifii aske(,l to cdnli-ibute a pc-niiy loAvards any oi' the hi-id^T's (ir tuDiuls of ilic Tlianies, and he ]irotest(Hl a^^ainst the actiiiii nl tlic I''inaiic<' < "i ninnittet'. AlftM- sonie discnssldu, All'. ^\'. IIayi:,s I"'isiii.i; Avilhdrew liis aiiienfhii(>nt, and the rt'conimeiKhition (jl the ('oninnttee was I lien avi\, 1908, that Messrs. Marler and Marler, on behalf of the General Accident, Fire, and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, had offered a rent of £2,650 a year for a ninety-nine years' lease of part of Lot 4, Aldwych. The site adjoined Danes Inn House, and had an area of, approximately, 8,835 square feet, with a frontage of about 102 feet to Aldwych. The land was submitted to auction in 1903 and 1904, but no offers for the property were received. The Committee were advised that the offer was reasonable, and as the references of the proposed lessees were satisfactory, they thought that the Council should accept the offer. The Committee recom- mended : That a site in Aldwych, having an area of about 8,835 square feet, be let, on the Council's usual conditions, to the General Accident, Fire, and Life Assurance Corpora- tion, Limited, for ninety-nine years, at a rent of £2,650 a year. Lord Elc'IIu (M.K.j, the then (^'hairniaii of the lni]»rove- ments Committee, in moving" tlie adoption (>[ the report, said tlie Council Avas tailicised some time ago for' not taking a lower rent for their land. Now tliey Avere getting the ]iiiee o]-iginally askeil, and it was satisfactory also to noil that this was the first occasion on which an outside firm of estate agents had negotiated for the sale of any of the Council's land. Tlie rejiort was adopted. 310 The Aldwych Site. It was reported on November !^iid, 11)09, by tlu^ I lupiovements Committee that an offer had been received foi- a year's tenancy at £5,000 for the island site between the east and west spur streets from the Strand to Aldwych, the proposed nse being that of a traders' exhibition and ])Uice of amusement. The Committee recommended that tlie offer should be accepted, and tliat if, after the expira- tion o£ one year, the Council required possession, of a portion of the site, the rent shoiald be apportioned. Xo bars for tlie sale of intoxicants would be allowed on any ])a]"t of the site, but the tenant would be allowed to apply lor a restanrant licence, arid that all exhibitions and an\use- ments on tlie site would be first approved by the Council. [.ord Alexander Thynne (M.R.j, the Chairman of the Improvements Committee, said he uuderstood that the report was out of order, inasmuch as the name of the pro- ])osed tenant -was not disclosed therein. Under those cii'cumstancps lie wonld Avithdraw tlie report. Mr. J. CiLBERT (P.) moved the adjournment of the Council, in order, he said, to show that the Council had not Ijeen taken into confidence on this matter, because he was in a position to prove that the name of the proposed tenant ■was actually in another document, which liad lieen circulated among the members of the Conncil, namely, the list of applications lor music and dancing licences. Surely that must have been known to Lord Alexander Thynne. Mr. A. Rr.-^SELL (P.) seconded the motion for adjourn- ment. Lord Alexander Thynne (M.U.j denied that he had shown any desire or intention of not taking the Council into confidence. He was informed on the previous day for the first time that the General Purposes Committee requiretl that the name of the proposed tenant should be disclosed. He was not then in a position to submit the mime, and lie was not lunv in a position to inscjt tho uainc in a report which. ■\vas ah-eady printed, and for tlioso reasons lie witiidrew the rt^port. 'Die niolion lor adjournniciit was detValed and the rejxjrt was Avitlich'awn, it being understood that it wonld ])e l3ronght np again tlie following week with the name oi' the tenant inelnded. Sul)secpienlly the Improvements Committee definitely decided not to accept the above offei-, made on behalf of a syndicate, for tlie tenancy oI the vacant land knoAvn as the " Island site," lying between Aldwych and the Strand. Those concerned in the venture proposed to use the land for a trades exhibition and place of amusement. The history of this abortive lease w^as briefly as follows. A definite offer of £0,000 per anmim was made in April, 1909, l)ut the Council required further details of tlie scheme, and also asked that the notice to quit after the first year be reduced from six to three months. There came a hitch, however, and the offer was ultimately refused. Negotia- tions were reopened a short time afterwards by the Council itself, and in the agenda for the Council's meeting, held on November 2nd, 1909, the Improvements Committee gave details of the scheme, and recommended its acceptance bj"- the Council. The deljate reported above shows what took place on this occasion. The Improvements Committee met on the following day and decided not to let the site for the suggested scheme. This decision was communicated to ^Messrs. Richards, the estate agents concerned in the matter, iii a letter from Mr. Cromme, the clerk of the Council, who said that the committee had adopted that course after a further review of the whole of the facts. Fleet Street Widening:. The Improvements Committee, on October 26th, 1909, recommended that an expenditure on capital account, not exceeding £200,000, be approved in respect of the widening of Fleet Street. The total cost is estimated to exceed £400,000, the difiference being met by the City Corporation. The recommendation was adopted by the Council. :U2 Review of the Work during: 1908-9. The General Review of the work of this Committee f'oj- the year ended March olst, lt)01», contains the follo\ving information : — " Eight important improvements involving application to Parliament for powers have been decided upon by the Council. Perhaps the chief of these was the proposal for the construction of a tunnel for foot passengers under the Thames at Woolwich. In regard to twenty-five local improvements, the Council adopted the Committee's recommendations to make contributions towards the cost. The most important of these was the contribution of one- half, not exceeding £156,950, of the cost of widening Bishopsgate Street Without. In consideration of this contribution, the City Corporation undertook not to oppose the construction of a tramway in the road to a point near Middlesex ' Street. Moreover, the Council provisionally sanctioned applications to Parliament in respect of four other improvements, but it was subsequently found advisable not to proceed with the application to Parliament in the session of 190.S. " The net cost of the eight schemes in which the applications to Parliament were proceeded with was estimated at £366,400. Deducting from this amount the contributions required from the local authorities concerned, the estimated net cost to the Council became £281,184. The exjjenditure sanctioned by the Council during the year in respect of county improvements amounted to £305,179, and in respect of contributions to local imnrovements to £189,890 10s., making a total of £495,009 10s. The chief county improvements sanctioned durinsr the year were Wandsworth Road to East Hill (£58.589) Belvedere Road, Lambeth (£44,500), Mare Street and Upper Clapton Road (£45,590), Essex Road, Islington (£33,250), Woburn Place to Endsleigh Gardens (£30,650), Lea Bridge Road (£22,100), and Queen's Road, Deptford (£25,500). " During the year, five improvements were completed namely: (i.) Rotherhithe Tunnel, (ii.) Tower Bridge northern approach, (iii.) Nine Elms Lane, (iv.) Central Street, and (v.) Lordship Lane and London Road. *' Considerable progress has been made with the 57 improvements which are now in hand. The gross cost of these improvements, together with the five completed during th«! year, is estimated at £11,023,569, while the net COSt, ;5J3 after dcductiug the estimated amount to be received by the disposal of the surplus land, is estimated at £5,359,010. " The iinal settlement of the accounts for the Rotherhithe tunnel showed that the total amount to be paid to Messrs. Price and Reeves under tlie contract was £995,809 6s. 8d., a saving of £92,675 9s. Sd. on the contract sum. " During the year the Council accepted offers for leases of portions of its surplus lands, the total annual rent receivable in respect of such lettings being £rt,345 l.js. The Council also sold, either by agreement or in accordance with statutory obligations placed upon it, portions of its property, the amount receivable being about £.32.310. The capitalised value of the Council's ground rents on 31st December, 1908, was £7,058,676. The Council's building conditions have been modified, shortened, and simplified. The Council has agreed to pay commission to persons introducing lessees of its surplus lands. The commission varies from half a year's rent in a letting at £500 a year or less, to one-fifth in a letting at £10,000 a year. The Council has also agreed that, for the present, as an additional inducement, lessees of surplus land in Kingsway, Aldwych and the Strand, shall be allowed to pay for the first year of their lease a peppercorn, for the second, 25 per cent., for the third, 50 | or cent., and for the fourth, 75 per cent, of the ultimate rental." It ]ias not been thouglit necessary here to attempt to cata- logue tlio ^•a^ious Improvements wliich have been undertaken and (-oHipleted by the Municipal Reformers since their acces- sion to office. For this information, reference should l)e made to the Annual Reports of the proceedings of the Council for Ihe years ended 31st March, 1908 and 1909, respectively. Statistics regarding the Expenditure upon Improvements. The Annual L'istinuitcs of the L.C.C. for the year 1909-ln (p. 161) states: — *' The debt outstanding on March 31, 1909, and the debt charges for 1909-10 in respect of street improvements, tunnels and bridges, are estimated as follows : — HI 4 Street Jmprovemeuts (includ- ing Thames Embankment extension at Westminster), Tunnels and Bridges ' Approximate I debt out- standiiifr on March ;!1, mno. 9,;)19,000 Estimated Debt Chai-ffcs, 1!H)9-1(). Interest. Repayinentl Total. l;'..^,610 i 259,610 693,220. Tlie Report of ihe Jniprovements ( 'oniiiiittee for il^tli j\Iay, 1900, oontuins the annua] estimates foi- tlie year 1909-10, covering the work of this ('omrnittef. From this Report we quote as follows : — "... We append, for purposes of comparison, a statement of the estimates and actual expenditure on works, now under our control, for tlie last five years : — Year. Estimate. Actual expenditdrb. 1904-5 2,744,990 (including £551,650 for Holborn to Strand; £418,500 for Westminster improvement ; £349,000 for Rother- liithe Tunnel ; and £250,000 general provision) 1,489,:502 1905-0 1,782,445 (including £460,000 for Westminster improvement; £250,000 for Rother- hithe Tunnel; and £180,000 for Holborn to Strand) 1,051,027 190C-7 1,575,980 (including £400,000 for Rotherhithe Tunnel and £357,750 for Westminster , Improvement) 749,989 1907-8, 974,480 709,665 1908-9 717,740 :^io,9o:} ;U5 "The Council will notice that the estimates for the years 1904-7 included large sums in respect of the Holl)orn to Strand. Rotherhithe Tunnel and Westminster improv»' ments, which are now completed or practically completed. If this expenditure, which, may be regarded as abnormal, be deducted, it will be seen that the estimates, year by year, are fairly uniform. The differences between the actual and the estimated expenditure in 11)08-0 is principally due to the wholly unexpected prolongation of certain arbitrations and negotiations in connection with the Westminster improvement, for the completion of whicli substantial provision had been made in the estimates." The Rej^ort oi' the Jinprovenicnts Cuiiuiiitiee, dated 1st and 8th Decembei', lUOl), coutaius th(> i'ollowmg parti- culars regarding the cost of minor and Kical improvements in tlie iindermenti'jned vears : — Amount of Contribut ous by tiie C ouncil towards the cost of minor and loc il improvement';. ■ Financial yc-.xr. SaYictioned in each i Payments in each year year. under previous sanctions. ij a. d. £ s. d. 11)04-5 l>2,238 12 6 '.t3,;»84 u 1905-G ... ;!7,79S 10 :n,136 4 5 1906-7 ... :?0,186 10 ,S (i0,(»47 9 1 1907-8 59,4o4 10 :U>,261 12 7 1908-9 189,890 10 2:i,S25 17 5 Curreii t financial year ... Total 244,072 10 4,792 10 1 584,241 ;} 2 ': 243,647 13 7." LONDON AND THE BUDGET. With the general argiunenls against the provisions contained in the Bndget of 1909 ^ve are imt liei-e eoiieerneth Tliose "vvho wish to he supplied with iu]91,000 ; instead of £18:3,000. " Rateable value, £820,000 ; instead of £1,815,170. " On this basis the local authorities in London (including the Metropolitan Water Board) would lose £208,000 in rates - the produce of l,'.d. rate over the Administrative County. '' The Excise Duties on Beer and Spirits. " Under the Inland Revenue Act, 1890, threepence per barrel on beer and six})ence per gallon on spirits are allocated to local authorities, and by the Education Act of 1902 are earmarked for higher education. The new duties on beer and spirits must largely reduce the consumption. Mr. Hobhouse stated in Parliament that the diminution in the quantity of spirits cleared from bond during, the first five months of the financial year was 29'9 per cent, compared with thi- same period of last year. If the loss continues, the reduction in this grant to local authorities will be £203,000. London's share of the loss will be £30,000, and its grant will work out £180,000 piresent grant ; '• less 36,000 "£144,000 "Either higher education will suffer or a further call on the rates must be made. "Monopoly Value Payments. " Since the Act of 1904 monopoly value ha.s beoji charged by the magistrates on new licenses. Considerable sums have been raised in this way. In one case £7,000 was levied and paid. Under this Bill these charges are to go in future to the Exchequer and not to the local authority. But where these chai-ges have been levied, the new duty is to be diminished, otlierwiso the State would taki^ the so-called monopoly value twice over. When this is the case the local taxation account, i.e., the grants to local authodties, is to be diminished by a similar amount. " Thus not only will Mr, Lloyd George switch off from the ratepayers a source of revenue, but will actually rob 320 them of sums which huve already been raised and spent. In fact, he treats the ratepayers as if they were landlords, parsons or brewers. "Motor-Car Licenses and the Petrol Tax. " London derives a growing revenue from motor-car licenses. In 1907, when an increase in the duties was indicated and a change was made with regard to the assigned revenues, a pleds:e was given that the ratepayers should not suffer. The Finance Act of 1907 provided that the local authority should receive an amount equal to the proceeds of the duties calculated at the old rates. The use of motor-cars is, of course, rapidly increasing, and the Council looked forward to a growing revenue. But their hopes are shattered by the Budget, which limits the sums receivable from this sonri-e to the proceeds of the tax in 1908-0. •' But, agiin, the new duties on cars and petrol are to produce £635.H lo be sustained. But obviously rental values must suffei', and tlierefore rateable values ; and heavier rates most be the result. 321 "London will suffer specially from the Reversion Duty ; because London contains a greater value of property built on *J0 year leases than the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom put together ; and at the present time it has an even larger share of such leases approaching expiry. Again the ratepayers are pushed aside. If tliese taxes are charged on communal values, then surely the London ratei>ayers have a far better right to the produce than the inhabitants of Great Britain and of Ireland. But INlr. Lloyd (leorge has offered half the proceeds only to the local authorities, and now even that boon is denied. He carries the money to a Suspense Account (a most unconstitutional })roceeding), because he cannot settle the basis of distribution. Surely I did not exaggerate when I described Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons as the worst enemy the ratepayers ever had. " Meanwhile, the Loiidon Liberal members stand aside, and the Progressives on the Council are always fawning on the Chancellor, and urging us to express our gratitude for the Budget in resolution aft^r resolution. They refuse to accompany us on deputations when we lay these grievances before the Chancellor. They use all the resources of passive and active resistance to thwart our efforts for the ratepayers. Mr. Lloyd George has himself admitted that the London ratepayers have just claims against the National Exchequer, but he urges as a reason fur postponement that the question must be treated as a whole. Meanwhile, he will not even keep things as they are, but designs a Budget which is a new and cruel engine of oppression, and Progressives betray the ratepayers that they may earn the smiles of the Government." Reference should Ije made to the report of the Debate in the House of Commons on September i^Sth hist, relative t(j the allocation of Land Duties, contained in LoikIo)! Muitielpal Notes iov October, 1909, pj). '270-277. Further, we would draw attention to the valiuible speech delivered by Mr. Peel in the House (jf Commons on October 2(3th last, which is reported at length in London Mim'u'ipal Xolr>i for November, 19U9, i>p. 2'.y.\-2[)7). In conclusion, it must l)e recollected that the ellect of the Budget upon London, as described in the above article by Mr. Peel, by no means exhausts the injuries which will accrue to Londr^n as a consequence ©f tliat Budget, if put 322 into force. A measure so calculated to promote the export of British capital, and to curtail the spending j)ower of the community, will, of necessit}', detrimentally affect the capital city of the country iii a degree unsurpassed in the case of any other city in the Britisli Isles, Dr. Shadwell, in his Industrial Ejficiency, has con- clusively shown how specially prone to all such influences is the capital city, Avliich, amongst other principal features, represents the centre of trade and finance, the centre of fashion and of pleasure, the residence of the Court, and the seat of Government. " London," he well says, " is an oniniiDii gntlu'fiini tliat lias no rival."* That the effect of penal taxation such as is aimed at in the present Budget will be still further to increase the number of empty houses in the riclier parts of London and to diminish the profits of the shopkeeping classes may be foretold with certainty. Sucli has always been the residt in other countries and cities Avhere measures of excessive taxation have been enforced, and foolish indeed are the politicians who decline to learn from past experience. Tlie late John lluskin, from whose writings Socialists not infrequently quote with approval, in addressing the working classes, exj^ressly condemned the policy which apparently finds sucii favour with large numbers of them to-day. " If you could pass laws to-morrow wholly favourable to yourselves, as you might think," wrote Ruskin, "because unfavourable to your masters and to the upper classes of Society, the only result would be that the riches of the country woidd at once leave it, and you would perish in riot and f amine." t It should be the duty, therefore, of Municipal Reform candidates thrcmghout London to emphasise how injurious to the interests of the poor are the present attempts to place undue burdens upon the richer classes, and to * Industrial Eljiciencij, VoJ, J,, pp. 55-8. t 7'/m<' and Tide, p. IP. •A9'> demonstrate from tlie platform the truth of the following (licttiiu of tlie ].ocal Government lioard Inspectors :— "The idea that taxation takes from the rich to "-ive tothe poor is a pernicious falhicy, for all taxation in'the end mters down to and poisons such comfort as is possible i?Ih h/i^-J ^T'- "l^^'y taxation may inconvenience the rich, but It starves the poor." THE WORK OF THE L.C.C. COMMITTEES. The foUo^ving• short account of tlie work of the Standing and other Committees of the Council shows the variety and extent of its powers, and tlie importance of the duties wliicli the ( \iuncillors are called upon to discharge. The Asylums Committee. Taking the Committees alphabetically, the first is the Asylums Committee. The County Lunatic Asylums are managed by the Council — Han well, Colney Hatch, Horton, Cane Hill, Clay bury, Banstead, Bexley, the Manor and Long Grove Asylums, and tlie Epileptic Colony, Ewell. They are very large institutions, and are maintained by the Council. Probal)ly tlie (Amncil at the present time main- tains many patients whom the workhouses previously used to take. The Guardians are invariably glad to turn over to the Council persons who ai'e weak in intellect, in order to put the expense of their keei^ on the county rate. The Asylums Committee is a Statutory Committee, and it exercises all the statutory- powers under the Lunacy Act of 1890. The Committee has not only to build asylums, but it has to repair them, and to make provision for resident physicians, chaplains, &c. It may also contract for its lunatics to be received in any other county if it cannot house them itself. On October ll^th, 1900, the Council, on the recom- mendation of this Committee, decided to seek Parliamentary powers during 1910 to establish a receiving liouse i'or alleged lunatics, to avoid the necessity of detaining them at tlie workhouse j^ending lunacy proceedings.* The Building Act Committee. The Building Act Committee controls the administra- tion of the I^ondon Building Acts, 189-4 and 1908, except those matters relating to the naming and numbering of streets which are dealt with by the Local Government Records, and Museums Committee, and Part 111. (cubical extent and uniting of buildings) of the L.C.C. (General Powers) Act, 1908. These Acts concern the County of London and contain provisions with respect to the forma- tion and widening of streets ; lines ot building frontage ; naming and numbering of houses ; open spaces about buildings, and heights of buildings ; construction of buildings ; special and temporary buildings and Avooden structures ; dangerous and neglected structures ; dwelling houses on low-lying land ; and other matters. During the year 1908-9, 4,783 cases of dangerous structures were reported. During the previous year the number was 4,059. The Acts also provide for the ajopointment of a sui^erintend- ing architect of Metropolitan l)uildings, and of district surveyors. They further provide for the constitution of a Tribunal of Appeal, to hear and determine appeals against the decisions of the Council and of the superinten ding- architect in certain cases. Other duties include the examination of factories, with a view to requiring reason- able means of escape in case of fire ; and licensing of sky- signs. It will be seen that much tact and consideration is required in work of this character if friction Avith the public is to be avoided. The Committee also exercises the powers of the Council under the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1901 and 1907, and the London Buildings Acts (Amendment) Act, 1905, as regards the provision of means of escape in case of * For a report of this Debate, see London Miciiicipal Noles, p. 325, et seq. 327 fire from faclories and worksliops and other l)nildinf;'s. The consideration and reporting upon all questions relating to the making of by-laws under Section 2 (1) of the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907, has also been referred to this Committee. The objects vvliich the i^resent Council had in view in the amendments made to the Building Act are explained in the hallowing extract from the last Aimnal licpoi't of the Council (1908-9), p. 45 :— " With a view to removing the restrictions as to cubical extent imposed by the London Building Act, 1894, which pressed very severely on many trades and businesses in London, the Council, in 1907, inserted in the Council's General Powers Bill (1008), clauses amending Sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Act of 1.S91, so as to give the Council discretion to allow buildings to be erected of such cubical extent as might be, in its opinion, reasonable, and also with regard to the sizes of openings in party walls, the provision of fire resisting doors and the uniting of buildings. The Bill received the King's assent and came into force on August Ist; 1908. "During the year, consideration has been given to the question of further necessary amendments in the London Buildings Acts. The Council were of opinion that the Acts required amendment in several directions and that there was a pressing need for their consolidation ; but it was felt that these impoi-tant questions could not be dealt with in their entirety until some definite decision was come to with regard to the Housing and Town Planning Bill then before Parliament. There was, however, one important matter which it was thought should be dealt with in the session of Parliament of 1909, viz., the use of steel construction and reinforced concrete m buildings. This method of construc- tion was not contemplated in the Act of 1894, which provides that the walls of all buildings must be of the thickness prescribed by the first schedule of the Act, the result being that the walls of buildings mainly constructed of steel or reinforced concrete have to be of greater thickness than is necessary for stability, thus increasing the cost of construction and diminishing the floor space of the buildings. Recommendations to remove this disability were therefore submitted to and adopted by the Council, and clauses were inserted in the Council's General Powers Bill (1909) to give effect thereto." These clauses were duly passed. 328 The Education Committee. This Committee came into existence as the result of the Education (London) Act, 1003, hy whicli the L.C.C. became the local Education .Vuthorit}' for the County of London. The date of transfer under the Act was M;w 1st, 1904. The Comuiittee has control over all branches of education. The Council on July Ttli, 1908, approved a report from its General Purposes Committee, for tlie transfer of certain officers from tlie administrative staff of the Clerk of the (,^ouncil to the control of the education officer. The Council on ]\larch 9th, 1909, revised the orders of reference of the ['education Committee, with the view of delegating to them furtlier administrative joowers, and of relieving the Council of the necessity for considering certain minor matters of administration, which had previously been reported from time to time for the Council's approval. ()]^)pc)rtunity Avas then taken to include in the orders of reference certain powers of the Council with reference to the Childreu Act, 1908, dealing with the j)revention of cruelty to children and young persons, and matters relating to reformatory and industrial schools, juvenile offenders, and llic cleansing of verminous children. This subject is dealt witli in a separate article (viz., Education), to whicli reference sliould be made. The Establishment Committee. A purely domestic Committee is called the lilstablisli- ment Committee, Avhich deals with matters connected with the staff' of the Council, the maintenance of the County Hall, and so ou. Owing to the steadily growing work of the Council, and the new branches of administration undertaken by the Council, the number of the staff is continually in- creasing. The Committee has to i:)ay a great number of officials, and has the appointment of all except the chief officers and j^urely technical officers. The Repcn't of this Comniittoe foi- 1008-9 (see Ani-inal Report, p. iy?>) states : — "The number of officials at the central offices on ycarlji salaries in January, 18S1), was Itl-i, and in March, 1905, 1,12S (including certain officials taken over from the late School Board for London) ; in March, 11)07, the number was 1,275 ; in March, 190S, the number was 1,251 ; and in March, 1909, 1.267, excluding the Asyhims Committee staflE. The total number of staff' in March, 1909, at the central oflicee, including 213 assistants in the tramways department, whom it is proposed in due course to accommo- date in the new county hall, was 2,151, excluding messengers and chainmen. Five officials, one assistant school doctor and one sample-room attendant died during the year. Fifteen officials, one typist, one indexer, two assistant school doctors, two nurses, three messengers and one inspector resigned ; seven officials and one clerk of works were retired on attaining the age limit, the services of one official and one clerk of works were retained after they laad attained the age of 65 years, and one messenger was dismissed." The Finance Committee. The Finance ( 'omniittee has cliaro-e of the raising of money, the consolidated rate, the sinking fund, the super- annuation fund ; and when a loan is needed, it has to neg^iate with the Governor of the Bank of England, or some other financial authority in the City, to ra'se the necessary amount. This Committee also has to report to the Council upon all estimates of expenditure. It has to correlate expenditure and ascertain if it will fall within the estimates of the year, because one of the chief duties of the Finance Committee is to prepare the annual estimates. It does that with a certain amount of margin, a margin, say. of £500,000. The Council never draws all the money authorised in the Money Act, which is leased upon the estimates. In the Money Bill the estimates are scheduled, and the authority of Parliament is required each year for it to pass. The total expenditure of the Council under every head of service on both income and capital accounts during the year ended March .'^Ist, 1000, was £14,507,000. This 330 amount includes loans to other bodies, but excludes transfers Ijetween accounts and repayment of Jjondon C'ounty l)ills and temporary loans. For further particulars on this subject and details of the steps taken by the Municipal Reformers to strengthen the control of the Finance Committee, cf. the article, L.C.C. Finance. The Fire Brigrade Committee The Fire Brigade Committee controls, maintains and manages the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, established in 1865. The staff consists of 1,426 officers and men, including clerical and -workshop staff. There are 80 land fire stations, in addition to a large number of smaller stations ; 84 land steam fire engines, including 8 motor engines, and 9 manual engines ; 52-2- miles of hose, 77 horsed fire escajDes, and 11.") manual fire esca^Des, as well as canteen vans, amljulance vans, etc., &c. There were 323 horses, 1,325 fire alarms, and 28,765 hydrants on March 31st, 1909. The number of calls for fires or supposed fires received during the year 1908-9 was 5,299. Of these 791 proved to be calls for chimneys on fire, and 1,270 were false alarms. The remaining 3,238 were calls for fires, of which ^')\ were classed as serious, and 3,177 as slight. Of the 3,238 hres, 1,509 were put out by persons not belonging to the brigade, 1,189 were extinguished by the use of buckets, hand-pumps, first aid appliances, &c., 433 by hydrants and stand- pipes, 78 by land steam fire-engines, and -■> Ijy river fire-engines. The number of persons during tlie year who lost their lives, or whose lives were seriously endangered, by fire, that is to say, who left or were taken out of buildings by irregular means, Avas 261, of whom 1(58 were saved, and 93' lost their lives. Of these 93, ^\^\ (bed or were removed before the brigade Avas called, and of the remaining 27, 17 Avere rescued alive but succumbed 3;u afterwards. The iiuinl)ei- of persons wlio receivoil injuries at fires Avas 298. The General Purposes Committee. The lieneral Purposes ('onimitlrc is a ('onuiiittee foi-iiied of the Chairmen of the various ( 'ou)initlees, with some other members, and is a g(MUM-al sort of advisory committee. The functions of the Committee cover a very large area, as tlie Committee report not only u[»on the conduct of the administrative work of the('ouneil and of its committees and departments, hut also consiikn" and report on any matter not delegated or referrcMl to any othei' committee. They also are entitled to report on 1 1 u> policy of any nev," proposal Avhich may come hefore the Conncil. Among tlieir other duties may be mentioned the considera- tion of all cpiestions relating to the heads of the Council's departments and cpiestions arising nn(h'r tlie su]>erannna- tion fund. They also snl^mit reconunendations as to the apjDointment by the Council of representatives on other authorities, with the exception of tlie governing bodies of educational institutions. Amongst other mln'ear ended March 31st, 1909, towards the cost of local improvements amounted to £189,890 10s. Local Government, Records, and Museums Committee. The following subjects come under the consideration of this Committee : — The systems of local taxation and local government in London and matters connected with Imperial and local taxation Avhich affect London ; alterations or readjustments of county and other boundaries and of county representa- tion ; the division of Parliamentary boroughs and divisions and county electoral divisions into polling districts for the purposes of Parliamentary and County Council elections respectively ; all questions I'clating to the assessment of jn'operty for rating ; questions relating to the election of County Councillors, Cuuirdians of the Poor, and .Metro2)olitan Borough C^oimcillors ; the registration of electors; the framing of by-laAvs under the Municipal Coi-])(irations Act, 1882, and the Local Government Act, 1 888, for the good rule and government of the county ; questions affecting the relations between the Council and 334 the autlioiitit^s ol' local government areas outside the County of IvOndon ; (|uestions connected with the making of ]\v-la\vs uiuler the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907 ; and (| nest ions, not specifically referred to any other committee, arising between the Council and local, public, and other authorities, or which apY>ear to relate to London government genei'ally. The Committee issne every year a serial volume of " London Statistics," and also a " Statistical xVbstract for London." The Council has also referred the London Government Act, 1899, to the Committee, with authority to deal Avith such matters arising thereon as they may deem expedient. Ill addition tn the above-mentioned duties, the Council has referred to the Committee : — The consideration of all general questions relating to j^ublic charities and public endowments in London ; the consideration of questions relating to historic huildings and sites, monuments and subjects of antiquarian interest in London, including matters relating to the acquisition and maintenance of buildings of historic interest and works of art in London. There were also placed under the Committee's charge matters relating to tlie naming of streets and the numliering of houses. The Main Drainagre Committee. The Main Drainage Committee are entrusted with the consideration of all questions relating to, and with the con- trol of all itioperl y of the Council acquired f(jr the purposes of, the main drainage of London and the treatment and disposal of sewage. All works connected with the main drainage and sewerage of Ijondon are carried out under the direction of the Committee, to whom are sidjmitted all applications for the consent of the Council to the con- struction, abandonment, extension, or alteration of local sewei-s. On the occasion of the reconstitution of Committees in March, 1909, tlie Council decided not to re-appoint the 33:i Rivers Committee, hut to transfer to the Afaiu Draiiia.j^-e Committee the duty, previously carried out hy the Rivers Committee, o£ considering and reporting nn all questions relating to the erection and retention of Hood |)revention Avorlcs, in accordance witli the provisions of ilu^ Metropolis Management (Thames River Prevention oT Floods) ximendment Act, 1S7I), the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Rowers; Act, 1882, and Part VI. of the Rondon County Council (General Powers) Act, 1007. The total amount of sewage treated during the year RJ08-9 was 103 ;V billions of gallons, and the weight of sludge sent tf) sea was 2,58/),000 tons. The Committee has outfalls at Crossness and Barking, several pumping stations, sewage precipitation works, and sludge vessels. The Council took them over fnym the Metropolitan Board of Works. This subject is fully dealt with in the article on Main Drainage. The Parks and Open Spaces Committee. Xext there is the Parks and Oj^en Spaces Committee, which provides and maintains the parks and open spaces for Roudon, otlier than tlie Royal Parks (which are maintained from the Imperial Exchequer), and other open spaces maintained by the City Corporation and by Metropolitan Borough Councils. It maintains 113 open spaces — some of them veiy small — ranging from one-seventh of an acre (a churchyard in the East End) to areas like Hainault Forest, Ilampstead Pleath, Victoria Park, Battersea Park, Waterlow Park, or Wormwood Scrubs, the first- named of which comprises 80;"! acres. The total area now amounts to 5,100 acres. These figures represent an increase of 73) in the number of places and 2,444 in the number of acres of land acquired and maintained by the Council since it came into existence in 1889. It also provides and legulates boating, gymnasia, and games of 33G all sorts, entailing a staff of some 1,000 persons. Besides that -work, the Committee provides l^ands of music, which play in the various open spaces daily throughout the summer. The total net cost of maintaining the several l^laces under the control of the Committee dnring the year 1908-9, exclusive of boating, in resj^ect of Avhich a separate account is kept, amounted to £131,009 10s. 8d., as compared Avith £5l\()77 li^s. 8d. in the year 1889-90. The net cost of maintenance for the past year represents an average of £2;j'8 an acre. This Couimittee also administers the Wild Bird Protection Act so far as London goes, and also the Disused Burial Grounds Acts ; and see, as to this sid3Ject, the section entitled " MisccUaneous Work of the Municipal Reformers." The Parliamentary Committee. The reference fi'om the I'ouncil entrusts the Connnittee with the jjromotion of such Bills (both public and private) as the Council may resolve to introduce into Puidiament, and with the duty of considering and reporting upon all Bills (both public and private) and Provisional Orders affecting the Comity of London, and of taking sucli action in relation thereto as the Council may authorise. During the year ended March 31st, 1909, ."U meetings were held Ijy the Committee. The practice of delegating the consideration of such Bills as are considered of suihcient importance to a sub-committee has been continued, two such sub-c()mmittees having been appointed during the year 1908-9. The Parliamentary Committee is executive, and does not initiate or oppose ])rivate Bills Avithout the instruction of the Council or one of its Committees. The Public Control Committee. Tlic Public Control Committee deals Avith Acts such as the Ivxplosives Acts, Petroleum Acts, Infant Life Protection Act (now repealed and re-enacted by the Children Act, 1908), Shop Iloui's Acts, Gas Testing, Employment Agencies, Motor Cars, Coroners, tlie Jnebriates Act and tlie Ciiildren Act, 1008. Tliey maintain a laree asylum, with extensive grounds, in Surrey, for female inebriates, known as Farmfield. it is also the Executive Committee in respect of the Contagious Diseases f Animals) Acts. nV/;////.s ,A)ul Mciii^urcx Ac/.s.- A staff of 91 inspectors, <"tc., is employed in carrying out these Acts. During the year ending March 31st, 1901), the number of Aveighing appliances and machines dealt witli was 2,155,775, of Avhich ■)'>J,457 were rejected as unlit for stamping, ijewal proceedings were taken in ISO cases, and 171 convictions were obtained. Sale of Coal. — In connection with the sale of coal for the year ended March 31st, 1909, legal proceedings were taken in .■)() cases, and 31: convictions were obtained. Bread AvL — The Act relating to the sale of bread j'equires tliat all bread shall be sold by weight. Legal ]3roceedings were taken for offences against this Act in 80 cases and 7 o[ the provisions of the Act. S;Hn/.r ('ojisiiniptiov. — During the year ending March 31st, 1909, a number of infringements of the Public Health Act, 1891, were reported by the police and also by the Councirs own officers, and particulars of 400 cases of smoke nuisance -were communicated to the sanitary authorities for the districts concerned, with a view to their taking steps for the siipincssion of the nuisance. Legal proceecHngs were taken (hiring the year in 11 cases, in lo of which convictions were obtained. y'c//v)/rw//// ^lc/.s\-— During the year ending March 31st, 1909, 1,992 licences to keep petroleum were issued ; 17,417 inspections w(M-e made; 240 oil Avharves visited, and test samples tai;on ; 290 infringements of the Acts were reported ; in 11) cases legal proceedings were taken, in all of which convictions wcu'e obtained. 3/rn7.'<'/-S'. -AltliDUgli iu)l the uuirket authority lor Tjondon, the Council is authorised to prosecute and to cou- (hict enquiries and negotiations rehitivo to such existing markets and market rights as are nor the |)roperty of, or under the control ol, the CUty C'ln-poration, th(> exjx'diency of establishing new markets in or near 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 neighbourhood, supply a great want in the shape of cheap food to the poorer classes. The Public Health Committee. The Public Health Committee administers the Public Health (London) Act, 1801, looks after common lodging- houses b}^ virtue of the Common Lodging-houses Acts, 1851 and 1853, licenses slaughter-houses, and appoints various officials. This Committee is also charged with the duty of preventing tuberculous milk being brought into London. The Committee keeps an eye on sanitation as administered hy the Borough Councils, and can, and does, interfere if a Borough Council does not do its work well. If for some reason or another a Borough Cbuncil is remiss in j)i^itting in force some sanitary regulation, the County Council may remedy its remissness. The Rivers Connmittee. Now abolished. Stores and Contracts Committee. Not the least of the many reforms carried out by the Council is the recent reorganisation of the work of the Stores Department. On June 29th, 1900, the General Purposes Committee presented a report on the subject of reorganising the stores department, and recommended : — (a) That the Stores Committee be re-named the Stores and Contracts Oonunittee, and be rcconstitnt«:oard of Works (Various Powers) Act, 1S(S2, relating to the keeping open of the means of exit from such buildings. The following table shows the number and nature ol the j)remises over which the Council has control : — Licensed by the LiC6QS6Cl Description of Premises. C Music. ouncil 10 Music and r Stage Total No. of icences. No. of places. by the Lord Chamber- Patent Theatres. Total No. of places. dancing plays. lain. Art galleries 1 1 1 — — I Assembly rooms ... 1 15 1 17 15 — — 15 Dancing academies — 4 — 4 4 — — 4 Drill halls — 3 — 3 3 — — 3 Exhibitions 1 5 1 7 5 — — 5 Halls (Mission) ... 25 23 1 49 48 — — 48 Hallsiother t hau mission) 11 36 2 49 47 I — 48 Hotels 21 16 — 37 32 — — 32 Institutes 5 5 — 10 10 1* — 10 Music halls 2 52 — 54 54 — — 54 Polytechnics I 1 — 5 5 — — 5 Public-houses 18 15 — 33 32 — — 32 Restaurants 17 11 — 28 27 — — 27 Schools 2 3 — 5 5 — — 5 Skating rinks 1 2 — 3 3 — — 3 Swimming baths ... — 18 — 18 18 — — 18 Theatres — 10 10 10 38 2 50 Town halls ; 1 i 20 — 21 21 I* — 21 Totals 1 109 ; 230 1 ; 15 354 340 41 2 381 * Also licensed by the Council for music and dancing. 342 The Works Committee. The Works Depai'tiupiit, wliieli is now abolished, "was formerly iinck^r the control of the Works Committee. This subject is fully dealt with in the article entitled " The Works Department." The Small Holding^s and Allotments Committee. The Small lioldings and Allotments Ad, lUOS, which is a consolidation of all previous Acts relating to the pro- vision of small holding's and allotments, came into force on danuary 1st, 1909. Previously, under the jjrovisions of the Small Holdings Act, 1892, the Council had discretionary authority to piirchase or hire land within the county by agreement, and to sell or let such land for the purpose of small lioldings to such persons as might desire to buy or hire, and would themselves cultivate, the holdings. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, extended this authoi'ity by enabling the Council to accpiire or lure land situate within ("ir without the county, by agreement or compulsion, h)j' persons who desire to lease, and Avoidd themselves cultivate, the holdings. All schemes pre])ared under this provision, which is embodied in the new Act, must be submitted to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for approval, and, in default of action being taken by the ('ouncil, the Board may prepare and t-ai'ry out schemes at the e.\.jjense of the Council. A small holding is delined by the Act as an agricvdtural holding wdiich exceeds one acre, and either does not exceed 50 acres, or, if exceeding .lO acres, is at the date of sale oi- letting ol' an annual value foi' the pui'poses of income tax not exceeding .£50. The Act of 1908 also provides, as did the Act of 1907, that the powers coiilcrrcd on sanitary authorities by the Allotments Acts may. in London be exercised by the Council. ;u:5 The Small Holdings and Allotnicnls Conimittcc dt^als Avitli all matters under the Small Holdings and Allotinonts Act, 1907. Until that Act came into force the powers conferred on sanitary authorities l)y the Allotments Acts could only be exercised in London l)y the local sanitary authorities of Woolwich and Greenwich, and, owing to the definition of small holdings given in the Small Holdings Act, 1892, the Council was precluded from letting plots of land less than one acre in extent. In order, however, to meet the demand Avhich existed for allotments the Council adopted the method of laying out the land in small plots of about 1(3 rods each, and letting it in plots exceeding one acre in extent to resi^onsible tenants, who were under their agreements recpiired to sub-let all except 16 rods, thus providing allotments for about 500 sub-tenants. Under tliis arrangement the Council lets in 35 holdings about 54^ acres of land at Perry Rise, Catford ; Church ]Manorway, Plumstead ; West Norwood ; and Shooter's Hill Road, Charlton. A jtart of the Church Manorway estate, about 8 acres in extent, is the freehold of the Council, while the remainder of the land is held on lease. The rents charged admit of one of the plots on each holding being held rent-fi'ee hj a responsible tenant. This system of letting the holdings is unsatisfactory in some respects, and the Committee propose that the existing arrangements for letting the estates in small holdings should be discontinued, and that the land should be let in allotments direct to the cultivators. In the case of the West Norwood estate, however, the Connnittee consider that the system of letting in small holdings should 1)6 continued for the present, as the Councirs lease of this estate will expire at Ijady Day, 1910. About 35| aci-es of surplus land in West Ham, East Ham and East Greenwich has for some jears, past been let as allotments direct to cultivators. During the year 1908-9 the Council decided to utilise for allotment purposes about 2f acres of surplus land between ]\larsh Lane and Morden Wharf Road, East Green- wich, and the land has been sub-divided into 34 plots and let to suitable tenants. 844 SPECIAL COMMITTEES. The Appeal Committee. This is a sijecial coinmittoe appointed to iK^ar and to decide any appeals made under section i!ll of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, section (5 of tlie Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1890, sections 37, 41 and i.". of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, ?.nd section 5 of the Scientific Societies Act, 1843. Local Pension Committee. This is a special committee appointed to achninister the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908. The work is mainly done through sul)-committees, of which there are 13 for as many districts. The sub-committees are made up of membei's of the central committee and co-opted members. By November 2Gtli, 1 908, about 10,700 claims respect- ing Old Age Pensions had l)een adjudicated upon by the sub-connnittees and the committee ; and by December 17th, 1908, about 24,500 claims had lieen dealt with. By t lie latter date over 40,500 claims had been received by ]>ension officers in London. There remained, therefore, a very large number of claims to be considered of persons who would be entitled to pensions on January 1st, 1909, if their claims were dealt with before that date but not otherwise, as the Act contained no provision in cases dealt with after December .'Vlst, 1908, for dating back the commencement of pensions to January 1st, even where the original claim had been jiiade upwards of three months Itreviously. In order to obviate disappointment and hardship to those claimanls wlio were looking forAvard to receiving their pensions on January 1st, 1909, the ' 'ommittee on December Nth, 1908, delegated to the sub- committees plenary powers to deal Avith claims untiltlie end of the year sul)ject to the proviso that no sub- conmiittee should come to a delinite decision Avhich was inconsistent \\itli any decision arri\'e(l at \)y llie iVmnnittee. ( >\vino' t(i tliis nieasnre, and to the energy which the sub- committees and the ])ension officers threw into the work, no fewer than .">'.),() I-') claims had heen dealt withhy the end (if the year I'.IOS, and only a comparatively small f>roportion of claims math' during the quarter ended Decendjer 31st, 1008, remaintMl to !>(> adjudicated upon. Midvi^ives Act Cominittee. This is a sp(>cial conmiittee appointed to administer the Midwives Act, ll)()i\ It exercises supervision over certified nudwives, and investigates charges made against them. The numl)er of midwives with London addresses, whose names were on the roll of the Central ]\lidwives Board on .Ahirch .".Ist, 1000, was 2,690. Of these 1,598 were placed on the roll l)y virtue of holding certificates from some ti'aining institution, and 172 were enrolled as having heen in hn>in-Jide practice as midwives for at least one year at the x^assing of the Act. The number of mid- wives who, during the year 1008, gave notice of their intention in practise in the Administrative County of London was 518, while 15 notices were received from persons wlio had acted as midwives on specific occasions, and 17 notices from midwives who intended to practise for periods of less than a year. These numbers, it will be observed, constitute only a small proportion of the number of enrolled midwives ; hut it must be borne in mind that a great many women \vlio have been enrolled act as nurses and not as ndd wives. THE POOR LAW REPORT AND LONDON. (Aaiidi dates and speakers ix^juiring- infoiinalion it>lativ(> ti) the Rej^ort of tlie Koj^al Coniinission on I he Pcior Law and its effect on Lijudon should hirii t(^ the twn itamphlets pul)lished hy tlie London ^Innieijjal Soeict}', containing" verbatim ]-eports of Mr. Pliili]^ L. Lihlitch's sj^eeciies on this su]\jec1, deliA-ered res2:)ectively on .March "ilhid and May finh, 1 '.)()'.). A brief summary of tlie principal features in ihe Report of the Iloyal Commission is contained in Loiulon M u)iicip([l Notes for Mai-ch, 1909, page 127. A considerahle nund)er of speeches and other matter bearing on this subject is contained in the A-ai'ious issues of London Miinicijjtil Notes, fj'oni ■\rarcli, 1909, onwards. ijNri>E::K. Abandonment of Steamboat service Accounts, audit of municipal Acquisition of lands fund, housing Acts, Education, and religious teaching . . . „ Housing „ Port of London ... Admiralty. See Port of London. Aldwych, letting „ site Allen, Mr., amendments on feeding of children A. A'., on building trade depression... Anderson, Alderman the Rev. J. H., on sewage Appeal Committee (L.C.C.j " Appointed Day," Port of London provision Apprenticeship problem Arguments against Municipal Trading A.sjlums Committee (L.C.C.) Attenborough, Mr., on sewage floods Attendances at technical schools ... Audit of housing accounts Auditors' reports on Steamboat service Authority, Port of London ... Avery Hill, provision of greenhouse floods .. ■ins, '2\-l, 25 21.-; 56 150 3 128 ■\-.1 2(1, 309 310 29, 33 172 2.->9 344 249 42 60 325 259 39 142 215 233 186 Baker, Sir Benjamin, main drainage report .. 253, 255 „ „ ,, presides over discussion on sewage floods 260 „ ., „ on possible danger to St. Paul's Cathedral 208 Balfour, Mr. Gerald, M.P., and Municipal Trading inquiries ... 58 ,, „ „ explanation of Port of London Bill 230 Beachcroft, Sir R. Melvill, on foreign contracts 86 ,, „ „ on improvements. Progressive dis- tortion of words ... 179 „ „ ,, on Westminster improvement ... 283 ,, ,, ., " Paris in London " ... 285,286 Belfast Trade Unions' Conference, Socialistic resolution .. 64 Belgian Rails 78,89,91 Benn, Sir J. "W., on foreign contracts for tram rails ... 93, 98 „ „ and steamboats 203,223,224,227 Benn, Mr. A. Shirley, on foreign contracts 79, 82, 87, 96 „ „ on work for London men ... .. 111,116,121 „ „ motion on sale of building land 166 „ „ on Steamboats sale 222,225,226 .273, .255, Besaut, Mrs. A., ou Socialism and local machinery Betteruiont and recoupment Binnie, Sir Alexander, on main drainage .. Board of Trade and Port of London Borougli Councils and work for unemployed, Mr. J. Burns on „ „ and housing „ „ ,, main drainage Bow open space, cost of acquisition Bread Act, legal action Brixton School of Building (L.C.C.), visit and report on Brockwell Park, cost of acquisition Bruce, Air. W. W., on Pulham " improvements " scheme Brunswick Park, acquisition „ ,, loan for laying out Bryan, Mr. T. (Mayor of Southwark) on aewage floods Budget, manifestoes by building trades ,, and London ... Building Act Committee (L.C.C.) „ of non-provided schools ... trade and Progressive policy Burue-Jones, late Sir P., Bt., on Chelsea floods Burns, Right Hon. John, M.P., inquiry into municipal accounts on Right to Work Bill „ „ „ Borough Councils and unemployed ,, » „ on milk supply „ „ „ Steamboats evidence ... „ „ „ on " Paris in London " Buxton, Mr. Sydney, M.P., advocates collectivism 64 276 257 240 123 163 281 184 337 40 181 292 186 188 259 173 317 326 15 172 258 58 75 123 196 200 284 68 C. Capital expenditure, housing audit ... .. 142 Care coniiiiittees, Mr. Cyril Jackson on ... ... ... 23 " Carrington's White Elephant," Mr. Hayes Fisher's reference 302 Cane acfulnst Honialiam... ... ... ... ... ... ... 55^ Cathedral, St. Paul's, possible danger from sewer ... ... 267 Central Unemployed Body, Paiubridge failure ... 76 „ „ „ and unemployment in London ... 124 Chambers of Commerce and Municipal Trading ... ... 58 Channing, Sir P., M.P., on pure milk supply 195 Chapman, Mi-, T., on work for London men ... ... ... 118 Cheap Trains Act, 1883, effect on housing problem ... ... 171 Chelsea floods and health dangers 2.5H Chief OITlcer of Stores, standing order defining duties ... .340 Children Act, 1908 337 City Corporation and Port of London ... .. 234 City Steamboat Company, Limited, purchase of L.C.C. boats... 230 Clapham Common, improvement . . ... . . ... ... 186 Clarke, Mr. Somers, on possible clanger to St. Paul's Cathedral 268 Coal depots, municipal debate ... ... ... 74 „ sale of, legal action 337 Cobb, Mr. Cyril, on Pulham " improvements " scheme .. ... 291 Collectivism ('. Individualism, coming election issue ... ... 68 Collins, Sir W., amendment on Westminster improvement ... 283 ('ollins, Mr. K., on foreign contracts 88 „ „ „ „ work for London men .. . 115 Committees, L.C.C 325 „ Parliamentary, on Municipal Trading 56 Competition, unfair, with trading ratepayers 62 111. Congestion of traffic, consequences . ... . ... "271 Conservancy, Thames. See Port of London. Consultative Committee, report on technical schools JVJ Cooper, Alderman Ben, on foreign contracts 101 Cooper, Dr., M. P., on milk supply ... 107 Cornwall, Sir E., on steamboats " 19r),200 Cost of delajing improvements ... 277 Cross, Messrs. C. Rawley, on Budget and building trade 177 County medical ofidcers under new Act ... ... ... ... IJ50 Cousins, Mr. J. R., on Steamboat Service 20.') Dailij Express, Hon. W. R. W. Peel, M.P., on lUulget 318 Daiiy JVrio.s, on re-housing schemes 136,161 Dai/y Tc/egcap//, on Steamboats demonstration ... 227 Davies, Mr., on "Paris in London "... .. ... 284 Davis, Mr. W., on Westminster improvement scheme 282 Death rates for London, table ... ... ... 188 Debt, rates, and Municipal Trading ... ... 60 Deptford Creek bridge, tenders for ... 118 Dew, Mr. G., on work for London men ... ... ... ,. 115 Dickinson, Mr. W. H., M.P., on land nationalisation 68 Disraeli, Benjamin (Lord Beaconsfield), on public health ... 264 Divisions on feeding of school children ... ... 25 Docks. See Port of London. Dock companies, transfer of undertakings ... ... ... 244 Dod, Councillor P. A., motion on sewage floods ... 261 Dredging, Port of London rules ... ... 249 Dues and revenues. Port 246-8 " Economy has no friends," the Earl of Rosebery on 72 Education 3 „ Committee (L.C.C.) (see also Education) 328 „ „ „ on health of school children ... 35 „ (London) Act, 1903 4 El cho, Lord, on foreign contracts 87 „ „ motion on steamboat winter service ... .. 206 „ „ on Woolwich footway tunnel 309 „ „ „ Aldwych letting 309 Election addresses, Pi'ogresslve, and steamboats 203 Elections and Municipal employes 61 Electric lighting loans and local debt ... ... 72 Eltham Park, cost of acquisition ... 182 jBmp/oye.s, Municipal, and Trading ... 61 „ „ number of ... .. ... ... ... 61 „ Steamboat, and Progressives 207 Engineers' report, main drainage, 1891 ... ... 254 Establishment Committee (L.C.C.) .. ... 328 Estimates and outlay, main drainage 262 Evans, Mr. Edwin, on Budget and building trade ... ...175, 177 Excise duties, Budget 310 Expenditure on improvements, statistics 313 Ex-soldiers employed by L.C.C 125 *' Extra-London," growth of ... .•• 169 IV. Fabian Society and school children, Mr. CyrU Jackson on ... 23 „ „ formation 63 Fabian Essays on Municipal Socialism, extracts 64 Fambridge reclamation failure ... ... ... ... ... 76 I'^ederation of London Building Industries, on Brixton Building School 40 Feeding of school children 18,25 Financ-e Committee (L.C.C.) on school feeding 24 „ „ , ,, „ Norbury scheme 138 „ „ „ report on Steamboats losses ... 218 „ „ „ and Port of London 239 „ „ ,, „ main drainage expenditure ... 263 ., "^ 329 Financial provisions, Port of London 248,250 „ results of Progressive housing 141 Finsbury Park, charge for playing bowls discontinued ... 183 Fire Brigade Committee (L.C.C.) ... ... ... ... 330 Fisher, Mr. Hayes, on foreign contracts 82,99,100 „ „ „ „ loan for open spaces 188 „ „ „ ,, sale of surplus lands 300 „ „ „ ,, Woolwich footway tunnel 308 Fitzgerald, Mr., K.C., steamboats forecast 199 Fitzmaurice, Mr. M., Chief Engineer, report on new sewex'S... 267 Fleet Street widening 311 Floods and drainage ... ... ... 253 „ relief works ... ... ... .. ... 265 Foreign contracts and Municipal Reform 77 „ ports. Rivers Committee inspect 240 Formation of Socialistic organisations ... ... 63 Fulham Park, cost of addition ... ... ... ... ... 182 „ "improvements" scheme ... ... 290 Games in parks, facilities ... 184 General Purposes Committee (L.C.C.) and work for unemployed 125 „ „ „ „ Port Authority recom- mendations ... ... 251 „ „ „ „ and main drainage ... 260 331 George, Right Hon. D.'fJoyd, M.P., on Port of London ... 239 Gilbert, Mr. J. D., on work for London men .. 106 „ ,, on offers to hire and run steamboats 225, 226, 229 ,, ,, on Aldwych site 310 Gilbert, Mr. J. W., on non-provided schools and Municipal Reform ... ... . . ... ... ... 49 Glanville, Mr. 11. J., on work for London men 116 „ „ objects to loan for open spaces 188 Golder'S Hill, cost of ac(iuisition 181 „ „ improvements 186 Gomme, Mr. G. L, on L.C.C. freehold property 305 Gosling, Mr. IJ., on foreign contracts SO, 98, 100 „ „ on steamboat emploijeii 207 „ „ advocates steamboats subsidy 224 V. Government delay over Port of London Bill 239 Greene, Mr. Raymond, on sale of building land '. ... 165 (ireig, Mr. Alexander, on Brixton School of Building 41 Ground values taxation 1 <> ,. ., Progressive cry, hindrance to im- provements 273 Guarantee, Municipal, for Port stock avoided 241,252 Guinness, Hon. W., M.P., on milk supply 195, 197 Hackney Marsh, improvements 186 Hammersmith, Old Oak estate 166 Hampstead Heath, improvement 187 Hainault Forest, golf cour.so 185 „ .. lake ',][ 187 Hardie, Mr. Keir, M.P., on Municipal employes 61 „ „ „ „ „ Progressive successes 66 Harper, Mr., report on re-housing I54 „ „ „ „ modern tendencies 168 Harris, Mr. H. P., on educational administration 9 „ „ „ ,, Westminster improvement scheme .. 281 Harris, Mr. P. A., amendment on feeding of children 27 „ ., „ on work for London men 107,113 Harrison, Mr. Frederic, on traffic delays 276 Harvey, Mr. A. G. C, M.P., on effect of Education Act, 1902 ... 5 Headlam, Rev. S., on work for London men 116 Health of school children ... 34 Hemphill, Capt. the Hon. F., on foreign contracts ... 103 ,, „ ., „ „ ,, work for London men 108 „ , „ private offer to run steamboats 230 Highways Committee ( L.C.C.), on steamboats 212,214,219 ), ff ,) ... ... ... ... ... 3ol Historical summary. Port of London 233 History of progi'ess of Municipal Socialism 64 steamboat.s undertaking ... ... ... 201 " History of London Street Improvements," L.C.C., quotation 274 Hogg, Mr. Archibald, on steamboats mismanagement ... ... 212 Holborn to Strand improvement (see also "Paris in London" and Aldwychj 293 Holborn to Strand im])rovement, surplus lands 297 „ „ „ „ Mr. Hayes Fisher on ... 301 „ „ „ „ Hon. W. R. W. Peel, M.P., on 304 Holliday & Greenwood, Messrs., and work for London men ... 110 Hole, Mr. C. W., on Education Act, 1902 5 Horniman, Mr., on Westminster improvement scheme 280, 282 Housing loans and local debt ... 72 Housing of the Working Classes 127 „ „ „ „ Committee (L.C.C ), on rehousing 136 , 332 Housing, Town Planning, &e., Act, 1909, analysis 130 Hubbard, Mr. N. W, on Westminster improvement scheme ... 280 „ „ ,, „ " Paris in London " 286,288 Hunt, Mr. W., on Belgian rails 87 , „ ,. Fulham " improvements " scheme 290 Hunter, Mr. Robert, on L.C.C. and dangers from Socialism ... 67 VI. Idris, Mr., on main drainage Improvement of the Port of London and River Improvements Committee (L.C.C.) See Street Improvements „ „ „ „ , Street ... Independent Labour Party, formation „ „ „ Municipal Socialism Individualism v. Collectivism, coming election issue ... Industrial dwellings, companies and housing Infant death rates, table Infant Life Protection Act Inventions by Municipal cmpioyc.s ... " Island site " tenancy 256 248 332 271 63 65 68 163 188 337 60 311 Jack.son, Mr. Cyril, on feeding of school children 22 Jeffrey, Mr. J., on "Paris in London " ... 285 „ „ on Fulham " improvements " scheme ... ... 293 Jephson, Mr. H., on foreign contracts 96 Jesson, Mr. C, municipal coal depots motion 74 „ „ on work for London men 121 Johnson, Mr. W. C, and Roman Catholic schools, Mr. J. W. Gilbert's criticism ... ... ... 49 „ „ on foreign contracts 87 „ „ „ work for London men 111,121 „ „ „ sale of steamboats ... 225 „ „ „ motion on main drainage and Works Department ... ... 270 „ „ „ amendment on Westminster improve- ment 282 Kenwood, Dr. H. R., on sewage floods 260 Labonr-Socialist programme of 1907 Labour and Municipal Reform „ casual, and Port Authority ,, London, for drainage works Land and property, Progressive attacks, hindrance to improvements Land Xationalisation Society, object ... Landowners and housing ... ... Land taxation ... „ „ Budget Law, Mr. A. Bonar, M.P., on Port of London Bill Legislation, Port of London 73 77 249 270 273 68 164 1 320 238 252 vu. License duties, Budget 319 Lidgett, Rev. Scott, on Steamboats failure ... 223 Life-saving and swimming, instruction ... ... ... ... 184 Liverpool, excellent port management ... ... 240 Loans, electric lighting and housing, and local debt ... 72 Local authorities, indebtedness and expenditure 69 „ „ and main drainage "Jo?, 261 Local Government Board and Municipal Trading 58 „ „ „ memoranda on local indebtedness ... 09 ,, „ „ Inspectors, on taxation of rich and poor :\2i\ Local Government, Records, and Museums Committee (L.C.C.) 333 Local Pension Committee (L.C.C.) 344 Locomotion and housing ... ... ... ... 164 L.C.C. Committees, work of ... ... ... .. 325 „ employes, number ... ... ... ... 61 „ and Port of London 233 „ „ Bill, 1905 237 „ ,, ,, Appointments ... ... 251 „ Steamboat Service 199 London and the Budget 317 „ and the Poor Law Report 346 „ Elections Bill, hinders Milk Supply Bill 198 „ local debt 71 „ work for London men 106 „ „ „ „ main drainage 270 Longstaff, Dr., motion on main drainage ... . . . 256 Loreburn, Lord (Sir R. T. Reid, K.C.\ on L.C.C. housing ... 136 Lort-Williams, Mr. J., on clearances and I'e-housing ... ... 155 ,, „ sale of building land 165 Loss of rates over Holborn to Strand improvement 294 Losses on Steamboats Service 216 Lygon, Hon. H., on private offer to run steamboats 228,230 M McDougall, Sir J., Steamboats failure admitted 201, 222, 223 „ „ on main drainage 256,258 Main drainage .. 253 „ „ Committee (L.C.C.) (see Main Drainage) ... 334 Manifestoes by builders on Budget 173 Markets, regulation 339 Marriage under Socialism, Mrs. Ethel Snowden on ... . 73 Maryon Park, offer accepted 184 Medical officers, new county... ... .. ... ... ... 130 Metropolitan Board of Works housing schemes 134 „ „ „ street improvements ... .. 272 Midleton, Viscount, on Port of London Bill 241 „ „ „ „ finance 252 Midwives Act Committee (L.C.C.) 344 Mile End Road tramways, surface contact failure caused by Progressives ... 62 Milk supply 190 MiDbank Improvement Scheme, loss of rates 294 Miscellaneous work of Municipal Reform 179 Mitchell, Mr. I., on steamboat (Tiiip/oye.s ... ... ... . 210 Modern tendencies in housing 168 Monopoly value payments, Budget... ... ... ... ... 319 23 Vlll. Montagu, Sir Samuel, gift fund for housing 150 Morning Post, Mr. W. Hayes Fisher on sale of surplus lands... 300 „ Hon.W.R. W.Peel, M.P., „ „ „ ... 302 Motor licenses. Budget , ... 320 Municipal Reform and education 3,8 „ „ „ non-))rovided scliooLs 11 „ „ Municipal trading policy ... 55 „ „ and labour 77 „ „ housing policy 139,159 „ ,, miscellaneous work 179 „ „ and steamboats fiasco 212 „ „ „ Port of London 240,252 „ „ „ main drainage . ... .. ...264,269 „ „ „ street improvements 275,276 „ „ „ „ „ Mr. Hayes Fisher on surplus lands 300 „ „ „ surplus lands 296 "Municipal Reformer," interview on over-supply of teachers 18 Municipal Socialism, history of progress ... ... .. ... 64 „ trading and Socialism ... 55 „ works departments and workshops 64 N Necessitous children, feeding of 18,25 " New Age," on Education Act, 1902 6 " No tramways, no improvements " policy of Progressives ... 275 A'on-provided schools and Municipal Reform ... 11 Norbury building scheme • 138 brickfield .. ... 152 " estate, Hon. W. R. W.Peel, M.P.," on ... ..'. ... 303 Norwich Trade Unions' Conference, Socialistic resolution ... 65 Officials, Municipal, and elections 61 Old Oak estate, report 166 „ „ „ Hon. \V. K. W. Peel, M.P., on 303 Open-air schools 48 Open spaces and parks ... ... ... ... ... .. 180 Outlay and estimates, main drainage 262 Over-supply of school teachers ... ... 17 " Paris in London " fiasco 284 Parks and open spaces 180 „ „ „ „ Committee (L.C.C.) 335 Parliamentary Committee (L.C.C.) 336 „ „ „ on milk supply proposals... 190 „ inquiries on Municipal Trading 56 Part-time classes 45 Peat & Pixley, Messrs., housing audit ... 142 „ „ „ steamboats audit 215 IX. Peel, Hon. W. K. W., on foreign contracts „ work lor London men ... „ milk supply „ sewer estimates „ surplus lands „ London and the Budget . " People of the Abyss," author of, on L.C'.C. housing Petroleum Acts .. ... ... ... Petrol tax. Budget Phillimore, Mr. R. C, on work for London men ... Piggott, Mr., on " Paris in London " Pilditch, Mr. P. E., on the Poor Law Report Pledges, education, broken Pomeroy, Mr. A., and steamboats Poor Law. See Royal Commission. Port of London, The „ „ „ Bills Ports, British and foreign, inspection of ... Progress discouraged by Municipal trading Progressives' education pledges broken .. „ policy and Socialism identical „ and housing „ „ „ failure „ „ „ financial results „ policy and the building trade . . „ objection to loan for open spaces... „ steamboat forecasts and picture . . . „ „ eh^ction addresses „ Siiid steamboat em ploiji's „ „ main drainage delays „ ,, street improvements „ „ sale of L.C.C. freehold property Postmen's Park, cost of acquisition Provision of new schools ... . . Public Control Committee (L.C.C.) ... Health and Municipal Reform Act, 1891 „ „ smoke consumption „ Committee (L.C.C.) ... „ „ „ on milk supply Pure milk 8,101 .107,122 192 269 302 317 130 338 320 106 285 346 6 203, 211, 223 233 .236,242 240 61 6 63 134 139 141 172 188 199 203 207 253, 258, 263 271, 273, 293 305 181 36 336 188 128 338 339 193 190 Radford, Mr. G. H., M.P,, on " Paris in London " Railway rates under Port Authority Ratepayers pay for Municipal trading fiascoes Rates, debt, and Municipal trading „ contribution to meet steamboats losses . . . „ lost over vacant land, Holborn to Strand Reconstitution of Thames Conservancy Recoupment and betterment Re-housing, Progressive policy „ housing audit ... Reid, Sir R.T., K.C. (Lord Loreburn), on L C.C. housing Religious instruction Repairs and renewals fund, housing audit 284, 289 249 61 69 216 294 250 276 135 143 138 3 150 Report of Select Committee (1903) on Municipal trading ... 56 Revenues and dues, Port 246-8 Review of main drainage work, 1908-9 266 „ „ Improvements Committee (L.C.C.) work, 1908-9 ... 312 Right to Work Bill, 1908 74 Ritchie, late Mr, C, T. (Lord Ritchie), "established the Commune," Mrs. Besant's reference 64 Rivers Committee (L.C.C), on steamboat winter service ... 205 „ „ on Port of London 2.38,241 „ „ „ on Port of London Act ... ... 242 „ „ „ abolished. See Main Drainage Committee 334 Robinson, Mr. R. A,, on foreign contracts 84 „ „ on work for London men ... 107 „ ,, on Westminster improvement ... 283 Roman Catholic schools and Municipal Reform ... ... 49 Rosebery, the Earl of, on " economy has no friends " 72 „ „ condemns Socialist programme... ... 72 Rotton, Lieut.-Col. A, on " Paris in London " 287 Rowley Bros., Messrs,, and work for London men 100, 110 Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes ... 127 „ „ on London Traffic, on housing and locomotion 139 „ ,, on the Poor Law, Report and London ... 346 on the Port of London, 1900 233 Rumble, Mr. B. T., on Budget and building trade 176 Ruskin, Professor John, on working-class legislation 322 Ruskin Park, cost of acquisition 182,185 St. Paul's Cathedral and drainage works 267 Salaries of teachers, non-provided schools 14 „ „ Roman Catholic „ ... . ... 51 Sale of building land, L.C.C. debate 165 „ steamboats ... ... ... 219 „ surplus lands ... ... ... 297 „ coal, legal action 337 Salisbury, the late Marquess of, and the Housing Commission 127 „ „ „ „ on purchase of land for dwellings 160 Salmon, Mr., on foreign contracts 86 Salter's Hill, acquisition 183 Sanders, Mr. W. S., on Education Act, 1902 5 „ „ on foreign contracts 84,86,103 „ „ on work for London men 108, 113 Sanitary authorities and growth of rates 70 „ Institute, discussion on sewage floods 260 Sankey, Mr. Stuart, on steamboat service ... .. 201, 200 Seats for Shop Assistants xVct 3.S8 " Section A " list, Bishop of Stopney and election pledges ... 7 Sewers. See Main Drainage. Shand, Mr. Edgar, on steamboats mismanagement and new service 231,232 Shaw, Mr. G. l>ernard, on Socialism and local machinery ... 64 „ „ ,, and Progressivisiii ... ... ... 67 „ „ ,, defines Municipal trading 6(S Shadwell, Dr, A., on apprenticeship problem ... 42 „ „ on adverse influences on London 322 Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. (Lord Bversley), erroneous calculation, Holborn to Strand improvement ... ... 301 Shepheard, Mr., on " Paris in London " 285 8hip2}ing World, on steamboats mismanagement... ... ... 211 Shop Hours Acts 337 Simmons, Mr., on work for London men 118,120 Sinking funds and local debt 72 Small Holdings and Allotments Committee (L.C.C.) 342 Smith, Mr. Frank, petition for rate for feeding children ... 31 „ „ on work for London men ,. ... 115 „ „ ,, sale of building land ... 166 Smoke consumption, action 338 Snowden, Mr. Philip, M.P., on Municipal Application of Socialism 72 Snowden, ]\Irs. Ethel, on marriage under Socialism 73 Social Democratic League, formation ... 63 Hocialism ill Local (jovenimeut (W.G.'Towler) ... 55 Socialism and Municipal Trading 55 ,, identical with Progressive policy ... ... ... 63 „ Municipal, history of progress 64 „ and marriage, Mrs. Ethel Snowden on 73 Southwark, Mayor of, on sewage floods 259 Special Committees (L.C.C.) 344 Spender, Mr. H., and steamboats ... .. ... 203 Spicer, Mr. Evan, on feeding of school children 19 Spokes, Mr. Russell, on " Paris in London " 284 Springfield Park, cost of acquisition 182 Starting of non-provided schools ... ... ... ... 12 Statement of cost of county improvements and contributions 278 Statistical Officer (L.C.C), report on re-housing 154 „ „ „ „ ., modern tendencies ... 168 Statistics of improvements expenditure 313 Stead, Mr. W. T., on the L.C.C. and Socialism 67 Steamboat Service, L.C.C 199 Stenning, Mr. A, R., on Budget and building trade ... 175 Stepney, Bishop of, and education pledges ... ... .. 7 Stock, Port, issues 244 Stores, Chief Officer, standing order defining duties 340 Stores and Contracts Committee (L.C.C), reports on glassware 87, 88 , 339 Strand improvements, cost of delay ... ... ... ... 277 Straus, Mr., on Westminster improvement scheme 283 Street improvements ... ... 271 Surplus lands, disposal of 296 „ „ statement ... .'505 et seq. Surveys, Port 249 Swain & Selley, Messrs , on Budget and building trade 177 Swimming and life-saving, instruction 1H4 Table of growth of rates .. 70 „ „ increase of local debt ... .. ... ... ... 7J „ „ .surplus lands sold SOG, et seq. Tablet report of Mr. J. W. Gilbert's address on Catholic schools 49 Taxation of ground values 1,273 Teachers, over-supply 17 Technical schools 38 Xll. Tenders for main drainage 'ifiO Thames River and Thames Conservancy. See Port of London. Theatres and Music Halls Committee (L.C.C.) 341 Thompson, Mr. Whitaker, on foreign contracts 80 ,. „ on work for London men 107,112 Thynne, Lord Alexander, on Aldwych site . 310 Times, T?ie, important letters on school feeding ... ... 19,20 „ analysis of Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act ... 130 Total of local debt 71 Tottenham building scheme ... .. .. ... ... 139 „ „ „ Mr. Hayes Fisher on 302 „ Hon. W. R. W. Peel, M.P., on . 303 Tottenham Court Road improvement, cost of delay ... .. 277 Totterdown Fields building scheme ... 137 „ Hon.W. R. W. Peel,M.P.,on 303 Towler, Mr. W. G., work on Socialism and Local Government 55 Trade scholarships ... 37 Trade Unions infected by Socialism 63 ,, „ Conferences, Socialistic resolutions ... ... 64 „ ,, and Municipal Reform 77 Trading, Municipal, and Socialism 55 „ ratepayers, unfair competition 62 Traffic Board, recommended ... ... .. .. ... ... 277 „ Commission (see Royal Commission) ... ... ... 139 „ congestion, consequences . 271 " Tragedj'^ of errors ' (Fulham " improvements ") 290 Trains, cheap, effect on housing problem 171 Tramways, surface contact failure caused by Progressives ... 62 „ tenders for rails 89,91 „ effect on housing problem 171 Transfer of dock undertakings 244 Trinity House. See Port of London. Trusteeship of Municipal authorities 60 Unemployed, work for ... ... ... ... 123 Unemployment and apprenticeship schemes ... ... ... 48 U.S.A, Commission on Municipal Trading, referenee 63 Victoria Embankment Contract Syndicate and L.C.C. ... ... 280 Voluntary schools. See Non-Provided Schools. Wages of parks employes ... ... ... . 184 Wall, Messrs. C, and work for London men ... 110 Wandsworth school, work for London men ... 106 „ Mayor of, on sewage Hoods .. ... ... ... 259 Ward, Mr. H., on work for London men 112, 116 Waterlow, Mr. D. S., on Norbury scheme 139 „ „ „ sale of building land 165 Watermen's Company. See Port of London. Watts, Mr. Henry, on Budget and building trade 177 „ „ Hunter, on advance of Municipal Socialism ... 66 Webb, Mr. Sidney, on Socialist advance 66 „ „ approval of Labour Socialist programme 74 „ „ oa sale of building land 166 Weights and Measures Acts, administration 337 Welby, Col., motion on foreign contracts 8.5 Welby, Lord, steamboats failure admitted 201 „ „ motion on Port of London .. 239 „ „ on Westminster improvement sclieme 281 „ „ „ Fulham " improvements " scheme . ... 293 Welliugs, Mr. A. A., on Budget and building trade 176 Westmin-ste/' Gazette on unemployment in London ... ... 124 „ ,, letter to, on building trade depression 172 „ „ on steamboats fiasco 224 Westminster Comptroller on loss of rates over vacant land ... 294 „ improvement scheme, cost of delay 278,280 „ „ „ Mr. Hayes Fisher on ... 301 „ Hon. W. n. W. Peel, M.P., on 304 West Square, Southwark, acquisition of garden ... ... 185 White, Mr. E., on work for unemployed ... ... ... ... 124 White Hart Lane building scheme 139 „ ,, „ ,, „ Mr. Hayes Fishier on ... 302 „ „ Hon. W. R. W. Peel, M.P., on 303 Widening, Street. See Street improvements. Wild, Mr. E., on w^oi'k for London men ... . ... ... 109 Williams, Mr. Howell, on virork for Loudon men ... 107 „ „ „ „ Westminster improvement scheme . . . 281 ,, „ „ „ " Paris in London " ... ... ... 287 „ „ „ „ Holborn to Strand improvement 295 Williams, Mr. Russell, on social needs and ownership _ 68 Winter steamboat service 205,222 Wood, Mr. McKinnon, M.P., on Education Act ... 6 „ „ „ „ opposition to municipal coal depots, insincerity 74 „ on foreign contracts 83 „ on work for London men ... ... 107 „ on Steamboats failure 222 „ on Port of London Bill 237,242 Fulham " improvements " scheme 293 Woolwich footway tunnel . . ... 308 Work for unemployed 123 „ of L.C.C. Committees 325 Working Classes, Housing of the 1-'' Works Committee (L.C.C.) 342 „ Department (L.C.C.) and main drainage 269 „ departments and workshops. Municipal 64 I'lintcd by George Beriidj;e A Co., K I, Upper 'I'lianics Street, E.C. ^ B b THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped below JAN 6 1988 111 L-R -1,M2()-U!1) UNIVJi ^'ORNU i L\.>5 i\y:: . "^R JS Sj62S London 1910 mLinicipal -SQclety - London Cowity coiincil electio n, 19]0, JS 3628 1910 JS3628 1910 L 009 558 175 7 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 001 328 005 i :tjt',\>' : \ 1 n 1 k 1