A A '\ 
 
 A 
 
 °i 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 lo 
 
 O ^ . « ' * J 
 
 
 
 
 ' J » o 
 
 » B • • J
 
 ■ flBBRrn^^^»r-' 
 
 London County Council Election, 
 
 1907. 
 
 FACTS AND ARGUMENTS 
 
 FOR 
 
 Municipal Reform Speakers and Candidates. 
 
 YOL. I. 
 
 1. Municipal Trading: ...... 1 
 
 2. Locomotion ..----.- 47 
 
 3. Education 124 
 
 4. iVIain Drainag:e ....... 160 
 
 5. The Piag^ue of Progi'essive iVI.P/s - - 174 
 
 6. The iVIunicipal Reform Party and the 
 
 Non-contentious Work of the Council 178 
 
 7. Powers and Duties of Central and Local 
 
 Authorities -..-.-= 197 
 
 8. The L.C.C. and the London Building: Acts 228 
 
 9. The Port of London 238 
 
 Index i 
 
 Printed by VACHER & SONS, Westminster House, Great Smith Street, S.W., and 
 
 Published by THE LONDON MUNICIPAL SOCIETY, for the Promotion of Municipal Reform, 
 
 11, Tothill Street, Westminster, S.W.— 3885.
 
 
 V, 
 MUNICIPAL TRADING. 
 
 The Municipal Reform Policy. 
 
 The following statement of policy in regard to Municipal 
 
 Trading is taken from the Municipal Reform Party's Manifesto, 
 
 dated December 4th, 1906 : — 
 
 " They will endeavour to secure the establishment of a 
 uniform system of Municipal Accounts, and an audit conducted 
 by qualified and independent auditors, as recommended by the 
 Report of the Select Committee on Municipal Trading, 1903. 
 Such auditors shall : — 
 
 '— (a) Certify that separate accounts of all trading under- 
 
 v> takings have been kept, and that every charge which each 
 
 ^ ought to bear has been duly debited ; and 
 
 2 (b) State their opinion upon the necessity of reserve 
 
 2 funds, and the adequacy of amounts set aside to meet 
 
 depreciation of plant. 
 
 " They will insist on knowing themselves, and on the public- 
 
 5 knowing, the actual cost of all trading concerns. It may, or 
 
 2 may not, be justifiable to carry on certain undertakings at a 
 
 y loss, but the ratepayers ought not to be deceived in this or in 
 
 ° any other matter." 
 
 A Joint Select Committee on Municipal Trading was 
 
 O appointed by Parliament in May, 1900, but the inquiry was 
 
 cb interrupted by the rising of Parliament, and no report on the 
 
 ^ subject was made. 
 
 Report of the Select Committee, 1903. 
 
 Another Select Committee was appoint(^d in May, 1903, 
 but, owing to the short time at their disposal, the Committee 
 confined their inquiry to the system of mvmicipal account 
 keeping and audit. 
 
 Their report, dated July 22nd, 1903, stated :— 
 
 " The Committee recommend that a uniform system of 
 audit should be applied to all the major local authorities, viz., 
 
 433376
 
 the councils of counties, cities, towns, burghs, and of urban 
 districts, and their recommendations are accordingly as follows : — 
 
 (a) The existing system of audit applicable to corpora- 
 tions, coimty councils and urban district councils in England 
 and Wales be abolished. 
 
 (b) Auditors, being members of the Institute of Char- 
 tered Accountants, or of the Incorporated Society of 
 Accountants and Auditors, should be appointed by the 
 three classes of local authorities just mentioned. 
 
 (c) In every case the appointment should be subject 
 to the approval of the Local Government Board, after hearing 
 any objections made by ratepayers, and the auditor, who 
 should hold office for a term not exceeding five years, should 
 be eligible for re-appointment, and should not be dismissed 
 by the local authority without the sanction of the Board. 
 
 (d) In the event of any disagreement between the 
 local authority and the auditor as to his remuneration, the 
 Local Government Board should have power to determine 
 the matter. 
 
 (e) The Scotch practice of appointing auditors from a 
 distance, in preference to local men, to audit the accounts 
 of small burghs should in similar cases be adopted in 
 England. 
 
 " The Committee are of opinion that it should be made clear 
 by statute or regulation that the duties of those entrusted with 
 the audit of local accounts are not confined to mere certification 
 of figures. They therefore further recommend that : — 
 
 (a) The auditor should have the right of access to all 
 such papers, books, accounts, vouchers, sanctions for loans, 
 and so forth, as are necessary for his examination and 
 certificate. 
 
 (b) He should be entitled to require from officers of 
 the authority such information and explanation as may be 
 necessary for the performance of his duties. 
 
 (c) He should certify : — 
 
 fi.) That he has found the accounts in order, or otherwise, 
 as the case may be ; 
 
 (ii.) That separate accounts of all trading undertakings 
 have been kept, and that every charge which each 
 ought to bear has been duly debited ; 
 
 (iii.) That in his opinion the accounts issued present a true 
 and correct view of the transactions and results of 
 trading (if any) for the period under investigation ; 
 
 (iv.) That due provision has been made out of revenue 
 for the repayment of loans, that all items of receipts
 
 and expenditure and all known liabilities have been 
 brought into account, and that the value of all assets 
 has in all cases been fairly stated. 
 
 " Auditors should be required to express an opinion upon 
 the necessity of reserve funds, of amounts set aside to meet- 
 depreciation and obsolescence of plant, in addition to the statu- 
 tory sinking funds, and of the adequacy of such amounts. 
 
 " The auditor should also be rec|uired to present a report 
 to the local authority. Such report should include observations 
 upon any matters as to which he has not been satisfied, or which 
 in his judgment called for special notice, particularly with regard 
 to the value of any assets taken into account. 
 
 " The local authority should forward to the Local Govern- 
 ment Board both the detailed accounts and the report of the 
 auditor made upon them. It should be the duty of the auditor 
 to report independently to the Board any case in which an 
 authority declines to carry out any recommendation made by 
 him. 
 
 " A printed copy of the accounts, with the certificate and 
 report of the auditor thereon, should be supplied by the local 
 authority to any ratepayer at a reasonable charge." 
 
 {Report on Municifol Trading, No. 270, 1903.) 
 If these recommendations become law, the proper and 
 adequate audit of the accounts of local authorities would be 
 secured, and the ratepayers would then be able to ascertain 
 the real results of the various trading undertakings carried on 
 by the local authorities. 
 
 The Chambers of Commerce have constantly urged that 
 these recommendations should be adopted. But nothing has 
 as yet been done. Mr. Gerald Balfour, whilst President of the 
 Local Government Board, promised a Departmental Committee 
 on behalf of the late Ministry, but no such Committee was in 
 fact appointed. On January 21st, 1906, Mr. John Burns, 
 President of the Local Government Board, appointed a 
 Departmental Committee to inquire into the accounts of local 
 authorities. This Committee has not up to the present time 
 reported. 
 
 The Right Hon. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bart., M.P. 
 (now Viscount St. Aldwyn), in a speech delivered at Cheltenham, 
 on December 5th, 1903, said : — 
 
 " There is in some quarters a strong feeling against what is 
 called ' municipal trading.' I do not think that anything you 
 have done here can be properly described as going beyond the 
 true functions of the municipality. But, even if it were possible, 
 
 A 2
 
 I should say that, if a municipaUty takes care that its 
 constituents, the ratepayers, have as full an opportunity of 
 knowing what it is doing as the shareholders in a well-managed 
 pubhc company, there need not be much fear as to the proper 
 administration of its affairs. It seems to me vital that in all 
 these matters the ratepayers should have periodically placed 
 before them the fullest and clearest account of the assets of their 
 several undertakings, of the profit or the loss that may be incurred 
 by any of them, of the necessary provision for the depreciation 
 of plant, and last, but by no means least, of the pro\'ision made 
 for repaying loans — not out of fresh loans — but out of rates. 
 And to secure this there must be a proper audit of municipal 
 accounts of all kinds, conducted by qualified and independent 
 auditors, who will show, to the understanding of the most un- 
 sldlled persons, precisely on what the rates are being spent and 
 what advantages they have secured." 
 
 The question of municipal trading is fully dealt with by 
 
 Major Leonard Darwin, in his work on " Municipal Trade," 
 
 published by John Murray. A summary of his conclusions is 
 
 impossible in this short article, but particular attention may be 
 
 directed to his chapter on municipal house building. For 
 
 further information on the question, see the following : — 
 
 Municipal Trading: Select Committee, 1900 ; 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 Municipal Trading Select Committee, 1903 ; evidence and 
 report. 
 
 Times articles on " Municipal Sociahsm," 1902. 
 
 Municipal Trading, Report of Conference convened by 
 London Municipal Society, May 28th, 1902. 
 
 " Municipal Trading alias Socialism," by J. Ratcliffe 
 Cousins, L.C.C. 
 
 " On Municipal and National Trading." by Lord Avebury, 
 P.C., published by Macmillan, 1906. 
 
 " Municipal Sociahsm,'" The Quarterly Review, October, 
 190C. 
 
 Arg^uments ag^ainst Municipal Trading^. 
 
 Municipal Reformers oppose municipal trading, because 
 they feel it can never prove a success unless it becomes a mono- 
 poly. A monopoly is a dangerous thing in any business and 
 commercial undertaking. Municipal Reformers, as a party, 
 are against gicat monopohes, because they hold that they are
 
 not to the interest of the community, cither individually or 
 collectively. As ratepayers, they are against municipal trading, 
 because it almost invariably results in a financial loss. 
 
 Further, it (i.) stifles private enterprise, and crushes the 
 power of initiation and invention. If a person is a mimicipal 
 employee, and has thought out an invention, he is not allowed 
 to take out a patent for it without first obtaining the permission 
 of the Committee or Council. A case of this occurred only 
 recently. A young official in the employ of the Stores Depart- 
 ment, a very able young fellow, was wishing to bring out a 
 patent chair for the schools. He asked if he might bring it 
 out as his own patent. The difficulty the Committee felt was 
 that if he took it up he would have made a profit, and they do 
 not allow an official to take part in any other business than that 
 of the Council. This instance demonstrates the difficulty. 
 Municipal trading discourages personal invention, such as is 
 encouraged in all private business undertaldngs, where men 
 are striving to improve upon existing machinery, &c. 
 
 (ii.) A second reason is that the Council is not a body 
 intended to conduct a speculative business. It may fairly be 
 urged that it is not a body to go into any kind of business what- 
 ever which is liable to be run at a loss. Also that a municipal 
 authority should not trade with the money entrusted to it, 
 because, whether County or Borough Councillors, they are in 
 both cases trustees for, and on behalf of, the public, and should 
 administer their trust in the same way as would any private 
 trustee. A solicitor who makes a loss, or an individual who 
 makes a loss in connection with a private trusteeship, are both 
 liable personally, in the event of their having gone outside the 
 terms of their trust, to make up that loss. It is quite different 
 with the Council, for it has the rates upon which to fall back. 
 It is the ratepayer who has to defray any deficit, and who has to 
 bear the whole burden imposed by fiascoes, such as the L.C.C, 
 Steamboat Service, &c. 
 
 (iii.) A third reason is that it is accompanied by grave 
 political dangers on account of the increasing number of municipal 
 employees. The L.C.C. at present employs about 35,000 per-
 
 sons, including the school teachers, who number over 15,000. 
 In the county ond borough elections their support carries in- 
 creasing weight. With such a rapid increase in the number of 
 employees there must be a large proportion of electors who 
 elect their so-called masters. This municipal trading necessarily 
 leads to the employment of a vast number of men. Mr. Keir 
 Hardie, M.P., the present leader of the Labour Party, at the 
 Annual Conference of the Municipal Employees, on May 27th, 
 1905 (according to LknjcVs News-paper of May 28th, 1905), 
 said : — 
 
 " As a Socialist he was naturally strongly in favour of 
 organisation among municipal employees, and was pleased to 
 see the marvellous progress this Association had made. In going 
 through some Parliamentary papers the other day he came across 
 one which fairly astounded him, for from it he learned that in 
 this country there were over 2,000,000 municipal employees. 
 As the total of wage-earners numbered 14,000,000, this was very 
 interesting. He had also found that in 1903, w^ien there was a 
 reduction in wages all round, the wages of municipal employees 
 had alone increased — he might say, had doubled." 
 
 (iv.) As already stated, municipal trading tends to encourage 
 monopoly. It is quite right for the L.C.C. to take charge of 
 sanitation, &c., but the management of electric supply, gas 
 works, coffee-houses, dairies, &c., &c., is far better left to private 
 enterprise. This can be shown in several ways. 
 
 In the case of the General Power Distribution Bill of 1897, 
 which had for its object the establishment of a central generating 
 station to supply electric power for manufacturing purposes 
 in a large area in the Midlands, six or seven municipalities, within 
 the proposed area of supply, opposed this Bill because they 
 owned gas works. The result was the rejection of the Bill. 
 
 Again, in regard to the Mond Gas Bill, 1901, out of twelve 
 petitioners against the Bill, by which it was proposed to supply 
 Mond Gas (a new invention) to manufacturers in a large area 
 in Staffordshire and Worcestershire, seven consisted of municipal 
 traders in gas. They did all in their power to prevent the Bill 
 going through, but eventually it succeeded in passing. 
 
 Blackpool has electric tramways, and is doing all in its 
 power to refuse licences for omnibuses. The Southend
 
 Corporation affords another case. It possesses municipal 
 
 tramways running in a very circumscribed area, though several 
 
 well-populated districts lie immediately around it. A company 
 
 comparatively recently applied for leave to run a motor omnibua 
 
 service. Leave was refused by the Corporation on the ground 
 
 that the company would compete with the tramways. The 
 
 same is the case with other towns in England, at the present 
 
 time. Not long ago the Corporation of Newcastle, on behalf 
 
 of the municipalities owning tramways, offered the strongest 
 
 opposition to the grant of powers to the North Eastern Railway 
 
 Company to run motor omnibuses. 
 
 The L.C.C. Agenda for July 31st, 1906, contained the 
 
 following notice of motion by Mr. Jephson : — 
 
 " That, having regard to the fact that rates are levied in 
 respect of tramway tracks in the County of London, and as it 
 appears inequitable that other public vehicles driven by mechani- 
 cal traction should be exempt from taxation in respect of their 
 use of public roads, particularly as the extensive use of suck 
 vehicles has had the effect of increasing the cost of maintenance 
 of roads, it be referred to the Local Government, Records and 
 Museums Committee to ronsidor and report aS tO the best 
 
 means of imposing additional taxation by a tax on motor 
 omnibuses." 
 
 This is one of the most recent attempts to stifle and destroy 
 private enterprise, because, as everyone Icnows, the motor omnibus 
 is at present only in its infancy, and improvements are rapidly 
 being made in this industry. 
 
 Other reasons against municipal trading are — (v.) that it is 
 outside the proper fimctions of a municipality ; and 
 
 (vi.) That it constitutes an unfair competition with the 
 trading ratepayers, owing to the fact that the ratepayer finds 
 himself in competition with the municipal rival, trading with 
 funds raised by rates to which he partly contributes, and with 
 cheaply borrowed money secured partly on the rateable value 
 of the property in which he himself carries on his business. 
 
 Officialism : its Cost and Danglers. 
 
 The cost of, and dangers attending, excessive officialism 
 were thus summed up in an article in The Standard of June 8th, 
 1906 :—
 
 8 
 
 " One of the most striking items of increased expenditure on 
 the part of the London County Council of late years has been 
 . in respect of what is described in their accounts as ' establish- 
 ment charges, salaries, pensions, &c.' The following figures 
 enable a comparison to be made between the expenditure in 
 respect of part of this item for the year 1889-1890, and the 
 estimates for the years 1905-6 and 1906-7. The figures for the 
 actual expenditure for the year 1905-6 are not yet forthcoming : — 
 
 L.C.C. 1889-1890. 1905-6 (est.) 1906-7 (est.) 
 
 £ £ £ 
 
 Pensions .. ,. 26,769 .. 63,435 .. 64,095 
 
 Establishment charges . 87,304 . . 227,680 . . 242,480 
 
 Increase — 1906-7 Increase per cent, 
 
 over 1889-1890. 1906-7 over 1889-1890. 
 
 £ 
 
 37,326 137 
 
 155,176 177 
 
 " Much of the expenditure under this same item is debited 
 in the accounts of the London Coimty Council under the heading 
 of ' other services,' and, consequently, is impossible to accur- 
 ately apportion, so that the above table does not disclose by 
 any means the whole expenditure. 
 
 " The last annual report, for the year 1903-4, issued by the 
 London County Council, states that the number of officials on 
 yearly salaries at the central office was, in — 
 
 January, 1889. March, 1904. 
 
 164. 561. 
 
 " The following table of persons in the employ of the London 
 County Council is taken from the same annual report (p. 327) : — 
 
 On salaries On Total expendi- 
 
 or fixed weekly ture on salaries, 
 
 fees wages. Total. wages, &c. 
 
 £ 
 During 1889 . . 1,149 . . 2,220 . . 3,369 . . 287,000 
 Year to March, 
 
 1904 .. 3,752 .. 11,410 .. 15,162 .. 1,315,319 
 
 Increase 11,793 .. £1,028,319 
 
 " To the above figures have to be added over 15,000 teachers, 
 &c., in the service of the Education Department of the London 
 County Council, whilst since 1904 other services have been 
 added to the Council's duties — as, for example, the Thames 
 steamboat service which, with accuracy somewhat startling, is 
 classified under " remunerative services." The full number 
 of employees under the control of the London County Council 
 in all probability at the present time exceeds 35,000. The total 
 number of municipal employees in London is estimated at about 
 60,000.
 
 Employees' Voting: Power. 
 
 " The electorate for municipal purposes on the register for 
 the year 1905 was 742,000. Only 45.7 per cent, of an electorate 
 of 699,000 voted in the 1904 London County Council election. 
 Generally speaking, only half, or even less of the total electorate 
 vote at London municipal elections. It is evident that 60,000 
 municipal employees can — in fact, often do — exercise a decisive 
 influence on the election of those who are to be their nominal 
 masters. It is not merely by their votes, but by their active 
 work in municipal elections that great pressure is brought to 
 bear. The dangers attaching to the creation of an official 
 bun aucracy of such vast dimensions are forcibly put forward 
 by the late John Stuart Mill in his work ' On Liberty,' in the 
 following words : — 
 
 " ' Every function superadded to those already exercised by 
 the Government, causes its influence over hopes and fears to be 
 more widely diffused, and converts, more and mor?, the active 
 and ambitious part of the public into hangers-on of the Govern- 
 ment, or of some party which aims at becoming the Govern- 
 ment. ... If the employees of all these different enterprises 
 were appointed and paid by the Government, and looked to the 
 Government for every rise in life, not sA\ the freedom of the Press, 
 and popular constitution of the legislature, would make this 
 or any other country, free, otherwise than in name. ... To 
 be admitted into the ranks of this bureaucracy, and, when ad- 
 mitted, to rise therein, would be the sole objects of ambition. 
 Under this regime, not only is the outside public ill-quaUfied, 
 for want of practical experience, to criticise or check the mode 
 of operation of the bureaucracy, but even if the accidents of 
 despotic or the natural working of popular institutions occasion- 
 ally raise to the summit a ruler, or rulers, of reforming inclina- 
 tions, no reform can be effected which is contrary to the interest 
 of the bureaucracy. Such is the melancholy condition of the 
 Russian Empire, as shown in the accounts of those who have 
 had sufficient opportunity of observation. The Czar himself 
 is powerless against the bureaucratic body.' (Mill, ' On Libertv,' 
 pp. 65-66, 1887 ed.) 
 
 " The government of London is faUing increasingly under 
 the control of the officials. The multifarious functions of the 
 central and local bodies, and the work imposed upon them by 
 the ever-increasing duties undertaken, for example, by the 
 London County Council, tend to make the elective represen- 
 tatives leave the control and the direction of the various depart- 
 ments more and more in the hands of the officials. What is 
 equally important is, that the same causes tend to exclude 
 much of the best intellect and business capacity from coming 
 forward as candidates in local elections.
 
 10 
 
 Increase of Expenditure. 
 
 " Further, the average councillor, when elected, has neither 
 the time nor the knowledge, increasingly difficult to acquire, to 
 check effectively the officials. So far as the control of education 
 under the County Council is concerned, the growth of officiahsm 
 appears, if anything, to be more rapid even than in other depart- 
 ments. 
 
 "... So far as the majority of the Progressive Party in the 
 London County Council is concerned, their ambition would 
 appear to know no limits. They still thirst for the control of 
 the London police, for the extension of their jurisdiction over the 
 City of London, and seek to achieve other equally ambitious 
 objects. Without embarking on the ' pros ' and ' cons ' attach- 
 ing to such projects, their attainment must ine\dtably bring 
 about one result, namely, to reduce still further the effective 
 super\asion exercised by the elected representatives in all branches 
 of London County Council administration, and, as a necessary 
 sequence, place the real management of the work more and 
 more under the officials. It is high time that London rate- 
 payers gave more consideration to this question. England has 
 hitherto not been addicted to any great extent to officialism. 
 In fact, history throughout bears witness to a determined hos- 
 tility on the part of Englishmen to be governed by a bureau- 
 cracy. ..." 
 
 The following is extracted from an article in The Daily 
 
 Mail of November 1st, 1906 :— 
 
 Municipalities as Traders. 
 
 " The practical difficulties in the way of the application of 
 the theory of municipal trading are insurmountable. 
 
 " I may roughly group them as follows : — 
 
 (1) Nothing but the best pays ; 
 
 (2) There are not in municipal life either the men or 
 the machinery to secure success. 
 
 " When I state that ' nothing but the best pays,' I mean 
 that unless we get the best possible value for our money we 
 sufier a loss. And the best value is exactly what we cannot get 
 if our municipalities are competitive traders. If they have 
 committed themselves to an appalling expenditure on one scheme, 
 they will shut the door on the man who comes round with another, 
 and perhaps far sounder, solution of the same problem. Sup- 
 posing we had had municipal Socialism in days when our streets 
 were lighted by oil, the municipalities would have sunk large sums 
 in a fleet of whalers and refining plant. Out of their anxiety 
 to justify that expenditure and make a profit on it they would
 
 11 
 
 have been hostile to gas. Later, if they had plunged in gas they 
 would not have been disposed to do a ' deal ' in electric light. 
 To-day they are locking; up huge sums in electric plant, and if a 
 new illuniinant giving better value for our money comes along, 
 we shall be denied the advantages of it. 
 
 " The L.C.C. have sunk millions in tramways. Are tram- 
 ways to be the last word in swift locomotion ? A tramway-car 
 goes only on lines from a deiined point to a defined point. The 
 new motor omnibus can run anywhere. And because the L.C.C. 
 have the tramways there is actually a movement on foot to 
 hamper motor omnibuses by rating them. The newer enterprise 
 is to be handicapped in order to prop up the old. 
 
 Municipal Jacks-of-ail-Trades. 
 
 " Further, by entering the field as competitors they under- 
 mine their position as trustees of public rights. A municipality 
 is frequently called upon to interpose and obtain concessions 
 for the public. The L.C.C. has waged a long crusade with rail- 
 wa}' companies. It fought over and over again in ParUaraentary 
 Committee Rooms for the Model Workmen's Fare Clause, and 
 to some extent achieved the result that the District Railway 
 will carry a workman 6| miles into London and back for 2d. ; 
 the London, Chatham and Dover 7^- miles and back for 2d. ; 
 the Metropolitan 7f miles and back for 2d. ; the North London 
 8|- miles and back for 2d. ; and the Great Eastern lOf miles and 
 back for 2d. But what has happened ? The L.C.C. own com- 
 peting tramways, and in May last the Progressive Chairman 
 of the Tramway Committee appealed to the Council to sanction 
 a revised scale of charges, which would have compelled work- 
 men to pay 1 id. for any distance over 6 miles and 3d. for a return 
 journey of any distance over 12 miles on the new lines. 
 
 " Another charge against municipal trading in practice is 
 that it is in a word unworkable. One man one trade is the key- 
 stone of business success. Municipal bodies impose upon their 
 members the necessity of being Jacks-of -all -trades. In order 
 to give present-day municipal trading a chance of success every 
 councillor must be at one and the same time (o) a highly trained 
 electrical expert ; (6) a skilful land valuer ; (c) a practical 
 engineer and builder ; {d) a tramway edition of Sir George 
 Gibb ; (e) a road maker and sewage engineer ; (/) an educational 
 expert ; (r/) a steamboat manager ; and a score of other things 
 as well. He must also know all about the market prices of 
 practically everything, and keep close touch with the develop- 
 ments in all these professions and trades. He must conduct 
 all these businesses and hold his own in rivalry with men who 
 give their whole energy and a life's training to running only one 
 of them. No man living, of course, is capable of such varied 
 proficiency, and that is why municipal trading fails.
 
 12 
 
 " Municipal councillors are not demigods of industry and 
 all the professions. In too many cases they have not even the 
 business ability of the youngest office boy. Yet we allow them 
 to hoist the signboard ' In Business — As Everything,' and foot 
 the bill. Wisdom will certainly come with empty pockets. 
 But why wait till then ? 
 
 " The increase of officials, again, is alarming and costly. 
 . . . The total number of municipal employees in London is 
 roughly estimated at 60,000." 
 
 Municipal Trading: and Socialism. 
 
 It is not sufficiently recognised that municipal trading is 
 Socialism pure and simple. The battle cry of Mr. Russell 
 Williams, the Socialist Candidate for Huddersfield, in the by- 
 election of November, 1906, may perhaps be accepted as being 
 the latest official definition of militant Socialism. It was this : 
 
 "All that is socially needed, should be socially owned." 
 
 It is interesting to trace the origin of municipal Socialism 
 and note how it originated in purely Sociahstic groups and 
 gradually permeated through the Progressive caucus until — as 
 is the case to-day — it covers the whole field of Progressive ac- 
 tivity, wiping out the old landmarks of citizen prudence. The 
 Municipal Reformers claim that Mr. McKinnon Wood, and 
 Mr. Dickinson, and their supporters stand to-day for Socialism, 
 and therefore that all moderate persons, whatever their political 
 views may be, should mass themselves against Socialism under 
 the banner of Municipal Reform-. It is a startling conclusion 
 to be forced to accept, but it is not difficult to show that it is 
 true, and that it is one which, in the interests of London govern- 
 ment, should be firmly met. 
 
 The evolution of the movement is easily traced. The germ 
 of this form of disease — this modern Sociahsm— was introduced 
 in 1884 by the formation of the Social Democratic League, and 
 the Fabian Society. The contagion spread to the Independent 
 Labour Party, born in 1893. Then the Trade Unions became 
 infected. Ultimately this pest has permeated our local governing 
 bodies through the members of these allied groups. 
 
 It is eminently desirable that this insidious plan of attack 
 should be exposed, and the country made fully aware of the
 
 13 
 
 departure of municipalities from their proper functions, and their 
 transformation into SociaUstic associations. 
 
 As long as the Socialists contented themselves with passing 
 vague resolutions, venting forcible opinions in the public parks, 
 and otherwise letting off steam, Socialism made no headway. 
 
 The mischief assumed an active, dangerous character when 
 the London County Council and other municipal bodies started 
 Works Departments, erected municipal workshops, and, instead 
 of blowing bubbles, put Socialism into bricks and mortar. 
 
 How the Plot was Worked. 
 
 History of the Progress of Municipal Socialism. 
 
 The following extracts from " Fabian Essays on Socialism " 
 
 (pp. 187, 152-3), expose the scheme : — 
 
 " At present the State machine has practically broken 
 down under the strain of spreading democracy, the work being 
 mainly local, and the machinery mainly central. Without 
 efficient local machinery the replacing of private enterprise 
 by State enterprise is out of the question." — (G. Bernard Shaw, 
 p. 187.) 
 
 " The division of the county into clearly defined areas, 
 each with an elected authority, is essential to any effective 
 scheme of organisation. It is one of the signs of the coming 
 age that in perfect unconsciousness of the nature of his Act, 
 Mr. Ritchie has established the commune. He has divided 
 England into districts ruled by County Councils, and has thus 
 created the machinery without which Socialism was impractic- 
 able." — (A. Besant, pp. 152-3.) 
 
 The next step in the campaign was to secure the working 
 of this local machinery, by electing Sociahst representatives to the 
 local authorities. 
 
 At the Trade Unions' Conference (Belfast), 1893, it was 
 determined to establish a fund to assist candidates in local and 
 Parliamentary elections, and to give financial assistance to other 
 candidates pledged to support the principle of collective owner- 
 ship and control of all the means of production and distribution. 
 
 The Independent Labour Party was about this^time consti- 
 tuted, and a further stride made. 
 
 At the Trade Unions' Conference at Norwich, in 1894, a 
 resolution was carried : " That it is essential to the maintenance
 
 u 
 
 of British industries to nationalise the land and the whole of 
 
 the means of production, distribution, and exchange." 
 
 At the International Workers' and Trades Union Congress 
 
 held in London in 1896, the following resolution was moved : — 
 
 " In view of the im_portance of losing no opportunity of 
 transferring industrial capital from private to public control, 
 and securing to as many wage-workers as possible the comparative 
 independence and permanence of employment enjoyed by public 
 servants, especially in the more democratic countries, this 
 Congress recomm.ends all workers to agitate and vote in favour 
 of : — (1) The immediate nationalisation of all mines, railways, 
 canals, telegraphs, telephones, and other national monopolies ; 
 (2) The immediate municipalisation of the supply of water, 
 gas, electric Ught ; of docks, markets, tramways, omnibus ser- 
 vices and pawnbroking ; lake and river steamboat services ; 
 and all other local monopolies ; (3) The immediate under- 
 taking by public authorities of : (a) the manufacture and 
 retailing of tobacco and bread ; of the supply of coal, milk, 
 and other universal necessaries ; and of the building of dwelUngs 
 for the workers ; {&) the manufacture and retailing of alcoholic 
 drinks." 
 
 What private enterprise, it may be asked, remains un- 
 threatened by this declaration of policy 1 
 
 To further this policy, the delegates of the Trades Unions 
 Congress were urged to come forward as candidates for election 
 to the different representative bodies, and it was stated at the 
 Congress in 1894 that, out of the delegates present, over 100 
 were members of some local or Parliamentary body. 
 
 A pamphlet issued by the Independent Labour Party 
 
 states : — 
 
 " The practicabiUty of Socialism 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 enter- 
 prise are going." 
 
 Mr. Hunter Watts, in December, 1901, in the organ of the 
 
 Social Democratic Federation, discloses the plot : — 
 
 " The capture of a few more seats on administrative bodies 
 . . . will enable us to guide the policy of a great many of these 
 bodies, for they are mainly composed of well-meaning people, 
 who have no policy of their own and are only waiting for a lead. 
 , . . The step towards Sociahsm, which we can make through
 
 15 
 
 the Municipality, the County Council, or the Board of Gu irdians, 
 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 " (1893) said :— 
 
 " By far the most important advance in Socialist opinion 
 and Sociahst work has taken place outside the professedly 
 Socialist organisations." 
 
 As an example of recent important strides in Socialism he 
 
 gives chief place to the triumphant progress in collectivism of 
 
 the London 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 significant of 
 the change of tone in London politics than is the way in which 
 the Liberal Party, as far as the Metropolis is concerned, has been 
 driven to adopt and actively to support the whole municipal 
 programme put forward by the Socialist organisations." 
 
 At the Trades Union Congress in September, 1902, the 
 
 President stated : — 
 
 " In the past Trades Unionists had only studied the indus- 
 trial side of the question. The time had now arrived for them 
 to pay more attention to the political side, and not only make 
 themselves a great industrial but a great political force in the 
 country." 
 
 Mr. J. Keir Hardie, M.P., at the City Sociahst Circle, gloating 
 
 over the Progressive successes at the L.C.C. election of 1901, 
 
 said : — 
 
 " They were proud of the work they had done in the Council ; 
 they had been to that body what the motor is to the electric 
 engine." 
 
 We have shown that municipal trading was originated by 
 
 purely Socialistic groups, was actively advocated by them, 
 
 and was insidiously engineered by them on to municipal bodies. 
 
 The feverish and frantic dehght with which the Progressives, 
 
 as a body, have developed the scheme on the London County 
 
 Council whenever opportunity offered during the last few years, 
 
 proves that, in practice at any rate, they are very effective 
 
 pioneers of Sociahsm. They may perhaps be gratified to know
 
 16 
 
 that the real character of their work is understood at any rate 
 by such shrewd observers as Mr. Bernard Shaw and Mr. 
 W. T. Stead. 
 
 Mr. Bernard Shaw has himself stated that " Municipal 
 Socialism is, in fact, really on foot among us under the name of 
 Progressivism." (See " The Common Sense of Municipal 
 Trading," by Bernard Shaw, p. 1, published 1904.) 
 
 Further, there occurs in The Review of Reviews for October, 
 1906, amongst the Notes which, 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." 
 
 What is municipal trading ? 
 
 For a definition, it is onlv necessary to again turn to the 
 writings of that well-known Socialist, Mr. Bernard Shaw, who, 
 in his work entitled " The Common Sense of Municipal Trading," 
 
 (on page 1), says : — 
 
 " Municipal trading seems a very simple matter of business. 
 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 and still 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." 
 
 Only a few days previous, namely, on October 5th, 1906, 
 Mr. Haldane, K.C., M.P., with all the weight of a Cabinet 
 Minister, had stated : — 
 
 " If, in the name of Labour, Mr. Keir Hardie or anybody 
 else brought forward abstract propositions which conflicted with 
 Liberal principles, if he wished to nationalise land or capital or 
 anything else, the Liberal Party would cross swords with him." — 
 {The Times, October 6th, 1906.) 
 
 The principles on which the claim for land nationalism 
 
 is based are practically identical with the principles upon which 
 
 municipal trading proceeds. Mr. Russell Williams has
 
 17 
 
 summarised them for us — " All that is socially needed, should 
 be socially owned." 
 
 Speaking at the principal Progressive Conference, held prior 
 to the London Borough Council elections of 1906, at the West- 
 minster Palace Hotel, London, on October 19th, 1906, Mr. 
 Sydney Buxton, M.P., the Postmaster-General, laid down 
 the general principles of the Progressive poUcy, and said : — 
 " As Progressives they had all reached this conclusion — What 
 
 was wanted in municipal government was not so-called 
 indi\'idualism, but SO-called collectivism."— (TAe Daily News, 
 October 20th, 1906.) 
 
 It may be fairly claimed, therefore, that, so far at all events 
 as London is concerned, one of the issues — if not the principal 
 issue — at the coming County Council election — lies between 
 Collectivism alias Socialism on the one hand, and Liberty and 
 IndividuaUsm on the other. 
 
 How Municipal Socialism restricts 
 
 Progress. 
 
 " Every revolution in science, every radical invention in 
 mechanical appliances, has, in the past, been opposed by some 
 form of authority, if it be only that most deceptive — but most 
 oppressive of all — public opinion. The progress of this century, 
 whether in science or in industry, could never have been achieved, 
 but for the obstinate persistence of individuals against received 
 and popular opinions. The introduction of railways and of 
 machinery generally was assailed as fiercely as later on the 
 Darwinian theory. Under the new Socialistic regime, how 
 would the man be regarded by the authorities — for you cannot 
 have the singular without the plural — who showed that the 
 labour of skilled workers might be dispensed with by some 
 radical invention ? " — (Professor Shield Nicholson in " Historical 
 Progress and Ideal Socialism," pp. 44-45.) 
 
 The above quotation illustrates a point in the municipal 
 trading controversy which is apt to be too lightly weighed. 
 The individual who now invents new methods can find capital 
 to push his invention. Under municipal Socialism, advance 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 would be impossible, as every reform or invention would be 
 opposed by those concerned. In fact, there would be no 
 stimulus to invention and discovery, much less a desire to adopt 
 new ideas. 
 
 This phase is fully borne out in the case of public or State 
 departments. These are invariably slow to progress, and the 
 progress which they do exhibit is invariably due to outside 
 pressure. What great invention ever came from a Govern- 
 ment department, or was the product of a State official ? 
 
 Many great inventors and discoverers have, as a result of 
 what their brain has produced, speedily amassed a large fortune. 
 
 To suggest, as Socialists frequently do, that the hope of 
 acquiring wealth and possessions does not act as an incentive 
 and impetus to the majority of inventors, is contrary to all 
 human experience. 
 
 " Hope springs eternal in the human breast." This 
 Socialism would kill entirely, and the vast majority of inventors 
 would never embark upon labours full of disappointment and 
 mental ennui and fatigue. 
 
 Is it seriously to be expected that the weekly allowance of 
 bread and butter, which Socialism offers, is to take the place 
 of the material possibilities at present open to the successful 
 inventor ? 
 
 Socialists in this country, as contradistinguished to the Con- 
 tinent of Europe, invariably seek to escape the logical sequence 
 of the doctrines they preach. Pure and undiluted Socialism 
 is consequently seldom advocated on public platforms in England. 
 The whole basis of Socialism rests, however, on equaUty. Whether 
 this equality is to be brought about by a levelling up, or a levelling 
 down, may for present purposes be conceded to be a matter of 
 opinion. 
 
 But if the successful inventor is to be rewarded on a scale 
 at all commensurate to his contribution to humanity, what 
 becomes of this equality ? 
 
 Again, it is contrary to all Socialistic principles that a 
 person should be able to transmit private property on his death.
 
 19 
 
 In this event any reward accorded to him would be largely 
 lessened in value, and the impetus for mental exertion corres- 
 pondingly diminished. 
 
 Miraculous changes will have to be worked in human nature 
 before the ordinary inventor comes to consider the bestowal 
 of a red ribbon by a Keir Hardie, sufficient recompense for 
 months, and often years, of hard mental toil, accompanied as 
 these are by all the inevitable disappointments which inventors 
 have to undergo. 
 
 For example, Mr. Robert Blatchford, the editor of the 
 Socialist Clarion, in his well-known book, " Merrie England " 
 (on page 62), states : — 
 
 " Under ideal Sociahsm, the scavenger and ploughman 
 would be as well paid as the doctor and the engineer." 
 
 The fact, so frequently harped on in Socialistic writings, 
 that certain great scientists have been willing to give their lives 
 to their work, and live and die in comparative poverty, in no 
 way touches what is said here previously. 
 
 " Poeta nascitur, non fit,'^ and the same is equally true of 
 other classes of intellect. 
 
 One of the inherent fallacies of Socialism is to assume 
 that all men are alike in intellect, (fee, and what is more, that 
 all do, or ever can, under any circumstances, approximate to 
 the highest intellects. Doubtless it is flattering to the ordinary 
 man in the street to be told that he has all the characteristics 
 of a Plato or a Socrates, of a Darwin or a Huxley, but it is, and 
 always will remain, untrue. 
 
 No doubt, by a course of identical training, it is possible 
 to turn out individuals trained in one and the same groove, 
 and this training may attach to them through life. 
 
 Training of such a nature is, however, antagonistic in the 
 extreme to originality, the very fount of invention. Inevitably 
 its result must be to level down the intellects of those naturally 
 brilliant. 
 
 Genius, rare enough to-day, would under Socialism become 
 infinitely more rare, and speedily non-existent. 
 
 B 2
 
 20 
 
 The matter was recently ably summed up by Mr. George 
 
 Wyndham, M.P., who, when speaking at Birmingham on 
 
 October 25th, 1906, said :— 
 
 " If they extinguished private property, they extinguished 
 private enterprise." 
 
 The Losses from Municipal Trading^. 
 
 Every possible effort has been made from time to time by 
 supporters of municipal trading to represent their concerns in 
 a favourable light. Unfortunately their system of account- 
 keeping and unbusinesslike balance sheets make the ascertain- 
 ment of the real financial position a matter of great difficulty. 
 Two inquiries have, however, been made. The one is known 
 as Sir Henry Fowler's Return (Parliamentary Paper No. 398 
 of 1902), and the other is an independent scrutiny which was 
 conducted by the well-known accountant and financial expert, 
 Mr. Holt Schooling, the result of which was contributed to the 
 Fortnightly Review for August, 1906. To deal with Sir Henry 
 Fowler's Return first, Lord Avebury, in his recently issued book 
 " On Municipal and National Trading," summarizes the return 
 on page 89. We quote the following : — 
 
 " Sir H. Fowler's well-known return purporting to show 
 the financial result of municipal trading, is a very interesting, 
 but a very misleading document. It suggests, indeed, a profit 
 of £378,000 on a capital of £100,000,000— a miserable return 
 surely on so great an investment. Moreover, the loss of Man- 
 chester on the Ship Canal is omitted. Again, as the so-called 
 profit on gas amounts to £395,000, it is evident that on the 
 other services there was a balance on the wrong side of £17,000. 
 But in the case of gas the municipalities have a monopoly, and 
 can charge what they please. They take what they choose out 
 of the pockets of the ratepayers, and call it a profit. Coming 
 to the accounts themselves, it is quite obvious that many 
 additions, and still more deductions should be made. 
 
 " The loss on baths and wash-houses, £125,000, and on 
 burial-grounds should, perhaps, in fairness be omitted. On the 
 other hand, the amount received from the tramway lines which 
 are leased must, of course, be deducted from any estimate of 
 profit on municipal trading. On the accounts, therefore, as 
 given, and with the proviso that a careful examination, such 
 as that which Mr. Row Fogo has given to the gas accounts^
 
 H 
 
 would, if applied to the other accounts, show many deductions 
 which ought to be made, the account would stand as follows : — 
 
 £ £ 
 
 Balance in favour shown in return . . 378,281 
 Add Loss written off on Baths and 
 
 Wash-houses 124,952 
 
 ,, Loss written off on Burial-grounds 63,784 
 
 
 
 
 £567,017 
 
 3du( 
 
 3t Gas Sinking Fund . . 
 
 55,816 
 
 
 51 
 
 Renewals and Additions 
 
 7,640 
 
 
 }> 
 
 Depreciation . . 
 
 11,152 
 
 
 >J 
 
 Income Tax, &c. 
 
 2,491 
 
 
 
 77,099 
 
 
 J> 
 
 Rent on Tramway Lines leased 
 
 16,240 
 
 93,339 
 
 
 
 Leaving £473,678 
 
 " This is less than ^ per cent, on the capital of over 
 
 £100,000,000, and surely no one can seriously maintain that it 
 was worth while to run the risk, and throw so heavy a burden 
 on municipalities, for so exiguous a return. But this is not all. 
 We do not know what amounts have been written off for 
 depreciation, office charges, law, &c. 
 
 " For instance, as regards the electrical ventures, involving 
 a capital of over £12,500,000, the amount written off for depre- 
 ciation is only £19,970. On water works, with a capital of 
 £57,000,000, only £27,000 is allowed ; on gas works, for a capital 
 of £24,000,000, only £80,000; on tramways, with £9,750,000, 
 only £50,000 ; on piers and harbours, with £5,400,000, onlv 
 £4,500; on markets, with £6,180,000, only £500; on baths 
 and wash-houses, with £2,000,000, nothing at all ; and on 
 working-class dwellings, with £1,253,000, nothing at all. This 
 is absurd, and if proper amounts had been allowed they would 
 have turned the supposed profit into a heavy loss. 
 
 " It is sometimes said that it is unnecessary to write off 
 much for depreciation because of the sinking fund, but when 
 we are told that the sinking fund will eventually hand the pro- 
 perty over to the municipalities free from any charge, this 
 entirely depends on whether the amount written off for depre- 
 ciation is sufficient. 
 
 " But even this is not all. In the case of London it is now 
 admitted by the County Council, and in other cases it cannot 
 be doubted, that increased amounts should have been written 
 off for clerical, office, and other charges."
 
 22 
 
 Lord Avebury's allegation as to the insufficiency of estab- 
 lishment and other charges is only too well grounded. 
 
 L.C.C. Tramways and Establishment 
 
 Charges.* 
 
 In 1905, the Central Staff and Offices of the London County 
 Council — omitting the additional burden involved in the adminis- 
 tration of the Education Act, cost £205,527. Seven years ago, 
 when the Council first took over the tramways, it was £136,718. 
 Let us take the middle year, 1902-3. Then the cost was 
 £174,671. In that year the Clerk of the Council's Department 
 cost £23,264. The tramways paid none of that, nor did they 
 pay one penny until July, 1906, when they contributed the 
 absurdly small sum of £500. Nobody can den}^ that the Clerks' 
 Department must have much to do with the tramways, especially 
 when we consider that it includes the Parliamentary branch, 
 which looks after the Council's numerous tramway Bills. 
 
 In 1902-3, the Solicitors' Department cost £15,513 ; the 
 tramways subscribed £500. The Comptroller's Department 
 cost £16,506 ; the tramways were charged £300. And so on. 
 In these seven years, while the Central Office has cost London 
 perhaps £1,200,000, the tramways have paid only £8.160 towards 
 this on revenue account. 
 
 Mr. Holt Schooling's Analysis of Municipal 
 
 Trading. 
 
 Mr. J. Holt Schooling's article in the August, 1906, number 
 of The Fortnightly Review is accompanied by several exceedingly 
 interesting diagrams and tables. Mr. Schooling fully bears out 
 the gravity of the question, to which Sir Robert Giffen called 
 attention in The Nineteenth Century only in Juno, 1906. Cer- 
 tainly, a careful perusal of the information contained in Mr. 
 Schooling's article amply corroborates Sir Robert Giffen's 
 statement that " the situation has become very serious." 
 
 * As to this, cf. also pages 74-77 of Article entitled "Locomotion," Vol. I.
 
 23 
 
 Mr. Schooling begins by stating : " Quite apart from the 
 burden upon ratepayers — and the weight of the burden is con- 
 tinually being increased — the financial recklessness of munici- 
 palities is now of such extent that it constitutes a serious 
 handicap upon the trade of the country. . . . Local taxation 
 weighs heavily, not only upon the production of merchandise, 
 but also upon the carrying of merchandise. . . . The 
 
 excessive local taxation of railways not only hampers 
 commerce, but is directly injurious to our agricultural 
 interests by preventing low freight charges." 
 
 Mr. Schooling has perforce to deal with the latest year for 
 which statistics at the time were available, viz., 1901-02. One 
 of the most unsatisfactory considerations in regard to the accounts 
 relating to the local finance of this country is that at no time 
 are statistics available for a period later than some five years 
 ago. 
 
 In an interesting diagram, giving the yearly local rates for 
 England and Wales per head of the population, Mr. Schooling 
 shows that these have increased from 16s. 2d. in the year 
 1874-75, to 28s. 6d. for the year 1901-2— a growth of no less 
 than 76 per cent. He also shows that there is a large increase 
 in the rates per £1 of property, namely, from 3s. 4d. to 5s. 4d., 
 representing a growth of 60 per cent. 
 
 Turning next to the question of local expenditure in 
 England and Wales, Mr. Schooling in a table demonstrates 
 that the average amount of local debt outstanding per head of 
 the population has increased from £3 18s. 3d. in the year 
 1874-75, to £10 10s. 7d. in the year 1901-02 ; also that there 
 has been an increase of £1 6s. 3d. per head of the population 
 between the years 1899-1900 and 1901-02 in respect of local 
 debt. 
 
 The growth of local expenditure has risen from 55 millions 
 in the year 1889-90, to 121 millions in 1901-02 {i.e., in the short 
 period of twelve years), an increase, as Mr. Schooling points 
 out, which immensely exceeds the growth of population. 
 
 In a table giving a comparison of the local expenditure of 
 England and Wales with the net national expenditure of the 
 United Kingdom, one finds that in the year 1898-99 the net 
 national expenditure of the United Kingdom {i.e., of England,
 
 24 
 
 Wales, Scotland, and Ireland) amounted to 94 millions, whilst 
 the local expenditure of England and Wales alone amounted to 
 93 millions ; or, in other words, was 99 per cent, of the net 
 national expenditure. 
 
 Another bad feature of local expenditure to which Mr. 
 Schooling draws attention is the increase in the proportion 
 annually paid out of loans. For instance, he says, in 1889-90, 
 13 per cent, was paid out of loans, but in 1901-02, 28 per cent, 
 was paid out of loans. 
 
 In referring further to the vast increase in the relation of 
 local debt to national debt, Mr. Schooling says : " Even in the 
 later war years, when the National Debt was greatly augmented, 
 we see that the local debt of England and Wales very nearly 
 kept pace with the National Debt in its relative growth. The 
 drop was merely from 47 per cent, to 46 per cent, of the National 
 Debt." 
 
 When one couples this with Sir Robert Giffin's statement in 
 
 The Nineteenth Century for June, 1906, that " while the 
 
 Imperial Government has by comparison been holding its hand 
 
 since the Boer War, repaying some portion at least of its new 
 
 indebtedness, the local authorities together have been nullifying 
 
 the effect of its measures to maintain the national credit," the 
 
 full gravity of the case must be apparent to every thinking 
 
 man. 
 
 " The future of local finance," continues Mr. Schooling, 
 " has been mortgaged to pay for the present. In the year 
 1901-02 over 18 million pounds were paid as interest on loans, 
 dividends on stock, &c., and, as already stated, 34 millions of 
 the year's expenditure were paid out of loans, the total expendi- 
 ture for the year being 121 million pounds." 
 
 " Reproductive Undertaking's." 
 
 Not the least interesting portion of this most interesting 
 article is that which deals with what are called " reproductive 
 undertakings." 
 
 According to a Parliamentary return, to which Mr. Schooling 
 refers, the number of these municipal corporations in England 
 and Wales (excluding London) carrying on one or more repro-
 
 25 
 
 ductive undertakings, is 299 out of a total of 317 corporations. 
 The number of undertakings carried on by these 299 corporations 
 amounts to no less than 1,060. The capital invested in these 
 businesses on March 31st, 1902, states Mr. Schooling, was 121 
 miUions. Of this amount, 117 millions were borrowed capital, 
 of which 16 millions have been paid off, leaving 101 millions 
 of debt upon these undertakings. TO meet this debt Of 
 101 millions, the amount in Sinking Funds, &c., at 31st 
 March, 1902, was ^ millions. 
 
 The accounts supplied by the officials of these spending 
 authorities, according to a condensed statement of Mr. Schooling, 
 show an average yearly net profit of £378,000. Upon a capital 
 
 of 121 millions, this net profit of £378,000 represents 
 6s. 3d. yearly profit per £100 of capital. The crux of the 
 
 question, Mr. Schooling rightly points out, is whether the 
 amount set aside for depreciation is sufficient or not. 
 
 This, he states, amounts to £193,000 yearly upon a capital 
 of 121 millions. In other words, he says, the amount Set 
 
 aside for depreciation is 3s. 2d. yearly per £100 of 
 capital invested. 
 
 Further, he informs us that 103 millions out of the 121 
 millions of capital are in water works, gas works, electricity 
 supply, and tramways. These, he rightly states, necessitate a 
 considerable amount for depreciation. " Certainly a 5 per cent, 
 allowance, and probably more," says Mr. Schooling. Personally, 
 we should have thought that 10 per cent, would have been by 
 no means too high a figure to have allowed. But in this group, 
 says Mr. Schooling, only £177,000 yearly is set aside for deprecia- 
 tion upon a capital of 103 millions. In other words, 3s. 5d. 
 
 per year per £100 of capital is the average amount set 
 aside for depreciation. 
 
 Surely the amount set aside for depreciation has only to 
 be stated thus as a percentage for any business man at once 
 to grasp how wholly inadequate and insufficient it is ? 
 
 Mr. Schooling then examines in detail this alleged profit, 
 
 and sums up by stating : " If we make an approximately
 
 26 
 
 adequate allowanca for depreciation, we find that these 
 1,060 reproductive undertakings are being worked at a net 
 yearly loss of 5h million pounds." 
 
 Mr. Schooling next says that he has examined the detailed 
 lists of every one of these 1,060 "reproductive undertakings," 
 as they are called, and that he finds during the four years he has 
 had them under observation " no fewer than 593 of these 
 businesses entailed a charge upon the rates to meet the net yearly 
 loss " ; " and this," he says, " despite the fact that in the 
 municipal accounts no adequate allowance has been made for 
 depreciation." 
 
 In his summary, he states : — " 593 Of these undertakings 
 
 are worked at a confessed loss, and of the remainder, 463 
 are worked at an alleged profit, shown on paper by 
 
 omitting to provide for depreciation, and four other under- 
 takings are alleged to yield neither profit nor loss." 
 
 Not the least instructive piece of information in Mr. 
 Schooling's article is that from a detailed examination of the 
 replies to the question put by the Local Government 
 Board—" What is the average annual amount set apart for 
 depreciation?" he ascertains that in only 88 out of the 
 1,060 cases of "reproductive undertakings" was any 
 amount entered upon the return. It is difficult to imagine 
 a more damning piece of evidence. Surely this should be 
 sufficient to shatter the belief of the most credulous in what 
 local authorities are pleased frequently to term " revenue- 
 producing undertakings " ? 
 
 In conclusion, Mr. Schooling says : " I maintain that the 
 results herein disclosed, based upon the returns made by 
 municipal officers, show local finance to be in an absolutely 
 unsound condition. It is an unnecessary burden upon the 
 ratepayer, and a serious drag upon the trade of our country. 
 These local spending authorities who, in England and Wales 
 alone, get rid of more than 10 millions per month of public 
 money, are, by their own statements, shown to be incompetent 
 and untrustworthy stewards,''
 
 27 
 
 In a letter to The Morning Post of August 3rd, 1906, Mr. J. 
 
 Holt Schooling writes : — 
 
 " On July 30th one of your leading articles dealt with my 
 paper ' Local Finance ' in the August Fortnightly Review. 
 Your writer asserts that it is unfair on my part to make an 
 allowance for depreciation upon the capital spent by local 
 authorities upon the plant, machinery, &c., of municipal works. 
 And your writer asserts that this is unfair because ' when any 
 municipal undertaking — e.g., a tramway — is built with borrowed 
 capital, the loan generally has to be paid off in a number of 
 years fixed with some reference to the probable life of the plant — 
 that is to say, the loan would be paid off and the plant would 
 become worthless at the same moment.' In asserting this 
 your writer begs the whole question. It happens that during 
 the last twenty-six years I have had actual experience in com- 
 puting sinking funds, and have had to advise my clients upon 
 the proper provision to be set aside in many such affairs as 
 miners' relief funds, schemes for workmen contracting out of 
 the Workmen's Compensation Act, &c. And in these matters 
 I am able to write from inside and practical knowledge of the 
 things I discuss. . . , Speaking from actual knowledge, I say 
 that your writer is wholly mistaken in his words quoted by me. 
 These tramway debts will not be paid off within the average 
 life of a tramway plant, and the result will be that the plant 
 will be worn out before the debt is paid off. And that is why, 
 if local finance was soundly administered, a yearly allowance 
 for depreciation of plant should be made. This fallacy repeated 
 by your writer is based upon insufficient knowledge. It is an 
 injurious fallacy, because the persons who repeat it honestly 
 believe that a sinking fund is a sort of magic process that causes 
 to be unnecessary any allowances for the inevitable wear and 
 tear of the plant and machinery of a tramway system." 
 
 In a letter published in The Contemporary Review for October, 
 
 1906, Mr. Schooling enters into a detailed explanation why, 
 
 in municipal trading, a proper allowance for depreciation is 
 
 necessary. This letter is set out in full on page 72 of the 
 
 Article on " Locomotion," Vol. I. 
 
 The Cost of Municipal Trading'. 
 
 Municipal indebtedness has risen, and is rising by leaps 
 and bounds. The last complete returns yet available are for 
 the year 1903-04. There is grave reason to believe, however, 
 that the increase in the two subsequent years has been main- 
 tained at an even higher rate.
 
 28 
 
 Local Loans. Eng^land and Wales. 
 
 The following are the outstanding loans of local authorities 
 for England and Wales at the end of each of the undermentioned 
 years : — 
 
 Purposes. 
 
 England and Wales. 
 
 1889-1890. 
 
 1902-1903. 
 
 1903-1904. 
 
 Baths, cemeteries, 
 electricity supply, 
 gas works, harbours, 
 piers, docks and 
 quays, light rail- 
 ways, markets, tram- 
 ways, and water- 
 works 
 
 Other purposes 
 
 £ 
 
 93,716,973 
 104,954,339 
 
 £ 
 
 175,395,698 
 195,211,795 
 
 £ 
 
 187,100,454 
 206,781,692 
 
 Total outstanding 
 loans 
 
 198,671,312 
 
 370,607,493 
 
 393,882,146 
 
 Note. — The above statements are compiled from the returns 
 issued by the Local Government Board. 
 
 [Extracted from the Statistical Abstract for the United 
 Kingdom, pages 48 and 49, 1891 to 1905. (Cd. 3092.)J 
 
 Rates compared with Reproductive Debt 
 and Assessable Value. 
 
 Statement showing the average rates (excluding the Poor 
 
 Kate) levied in seventy-eight boroughs in England and Wales 
 
 in the year 1903, arranged according to reproductive debt and 
 
 assessable value. 
 
 Number Average rates in 
 
 Proportion of reproductive debt of the £ (excluding 
 
 to assessable value. Towns. Poor Eate). 
 
 Under 50 per cent. . . . . . . 11 . . 5s. 2d. 
 
 Between 50 per cent, and 100 per cent. 16 . . 5s. 5d. 
 
 Between 100 per cent, and 200 per cent. 25 . . 5s. 8d. 
 
 Over 200 per cent 26 . . 6s. Od. 
 
 78 
 (From a table published by the Industrial Freedom League.)
 
 31) 
 
 The Debt of London. 
 
 Turning to London alone, the Finance Committee of the 
 London County Council, in their report for July 18th and 25th> 
 1906, state that a return has been prepared giving the total debt 
 of London, &c., for the year 1904-05. 
 
 " The debt of the Metropolitan Water Board," state the 
 Finance Committee, " now appears as a part of the debt of 
 London, and is responsible for an increase of £37,476,522 in the 
 debt outstanding, this amount being London's rateable propor- 
 tion of the total net debt of the Water Board, which on 31st 
 March, 1905, amounted to £45,943,557. 
 
 " The return shows that the total net debt Of London Olt 
 31st March, 1905, was £103,237,454, of which £48,297,619, 
 or 468 per cent, was in respect of tramways, worl(men's 
 dwellings, water supply, electric lighting, and certain other 
 
 revenue producing services, the annual charges for which are, 
 for the most part, met out of the revenue from such services. 
 
 The total annual charge for the year 1904-05 for interest 
 and repayment in respect of the total net debt amounted 
 
 to £5,296,816, of which £3,882,408 was met out of the rates, 
 and the balance, £1,414,408, or 26*7 per cent.,* from the earnings 
 of revenue producing services. 
 
 " The total net debt, excluding the debt of the Metropolitan 
 Water Board, has increased by £4,522,406, or 7J per cent., as 
 compared with an increase of £3,306,425, or 5*7 per cent., in 
 the previous year. Of the total increase, £2,916,606, or 64J 
 per cent., was in respect of the remunerative undertakings. 
 The percentage of the total net debt to rateable value has 
 increased in the year from 153'53 to 254*30, or, excluding the 
 debt of the Water Board, to 163-09. 
 
 " The total charge on the rates has increased by £240,022, or 
 6*6 per cent., as compared with an increase of £243,024, or 
 7"1 per cent., in the previous year. The equivalent rate in the £ 
 of the charge has increased from Is. 9'74d. to Is. 10"90d," — 
 (L.C.C. Agenda for July 31st, 1906, page 3.) 
 
 Sir Henry Fovi^ler on Municipal Expenditure. 
 
 " The Et. Hon. Sir Henry Fowler, Chancellor of the Duchjr 
 of Lancaster, speaking at the Mayoral banquet at Wolver- 
 hampton on November 9th, said the great moving factor in 
 
 * It will be observed from the above that whereas "revenue 
 producing services " were responsible for 46"8 per cent, (or, nearly one- 
 half) of the total net debt, these services only furnished 26'7 per cent, 
 (or. just over one-quarter) of the amount allocated towards interest and 
 re-payment.
 
 30 
 
 the recent turnover in connection with the London Borough 
 elections was the question of the rates of the MetropoHs. A 
 great many of the changes which had taken place in many of 
 the larger cities of the Empire wore attributable to the same 
 
 cause, and sooner or later there would have to be a limit 
 
 to municipal expenditure."— TAe Morning Post, November 
 10th, 1906. 
 
 Lord Rosebery on Economy. 
 
 Lord Rosebery, in his recently published monograph on the 
 late Lord Randolph Churchill, says : " It is a great disappoint- 
 ment in connection with our new or renewed democratic bodies, 
 parliamentary and municipal, that economy has no friends." 
 
 The Effects of Municipal Extravag^ance. 
 
 Mr. Dixon Henry Davies, in an address * delivered at the 
 
 meeting of the Incorporated Law Society, at Manchester, on 
 
 October 10th, 1906, said :— 
 
 " Disastrous as has been their meddling in electrical affairs, 
 it is a question whether in the department of finance the local 
 authorities have not managed to accomplish even more mischief 
 still. The expenditure of the local administration in 1889 was 
 55 millions as compared with 74 millions, the then amount of 
 the net national expenditure. 
 
 " In 1901-02 the local expenditure had risen to 121 millions, 
 exceeding by 28 millions what one may call the normal national 
 expenditure, excluding, that is, the increase subsequent to the 
 South African War outlay. Thirty years ago the debt of the 
 local administration of Great Britain was less than 100 millions. 
 In 1903-04 (the latest year of the returns) it had risen to 
 £469,231,417. In England and Wales the local debt has more 
 than quadrupled in the last thirty years. About half this debt 
 was incurred for purposes supposed to be reproductive and 
 advocated on the pretence that they would yield a profit to the 
 relief of the rates. How far these speculations have been 
 justified may be judged from the way in which the rates have 
 moved. In the last thirteen years the rates and taxes paid by 
 the railway companies (not including income tax and Govern- 
 ment duty) have more than doubled. 
 
 " The famous French economist, M. Leroy Beaulieu, 
 recently wrote : ' Local loans in England often total 40 millions 
 in one year, whereas in France it is rare for half that sum to be 
 
 * This address has been re-published by the London Municipal 
 Society.
 
 31 
 
 raised. This enormous and colossal borrowing by locali- 
 ties in Great Britain fills us with amazement in France, 
 and seems to us to be the weak point in British finance. 
 
 Undoubtedly England has benetited from the money spent on 
 the educational system, the hygienic conditions have improved, 
 but it seems impossible to account for the fantastical growth 
 of local expenditure without allowing for some exaggeration and 
 waste. The policy adopted in many towns of systematically 
 municipalising services of common interest is the point which 
 astonishes us most. There is no doubt that in these days extra- 
 vagance is more to be feared in municipal than in national 
 finance.' 
 
 " M. Beaulieu uses the right expression ; municipal 
 extravagance is to be feared. It is feared, and the alarm 
 keeps the stock markets and the money market in a continual 
 state of depression. How could it be otherwise ? There is 
 hardly a town of any size whose Finance Committee is not 
 waiting to take advantage of any rift in the financial clouds in 
 order to place a cool million or two of Corporation stock. They 
 are bound to do so. The operations which the authorities have 
 so light-heartedly entered upon involve financial difficulties of 
 the largest and most persistent character. Take tramways 
 alone. It has been calculated that to equip this country with 
 electric tramways on the same scale as the United States would 
 require an immediate expenditure of eighty millions, and a 
 progressive capital outlay of millions per annum on the top of 
 that would be necessary to keep the system up to date. Modern 
 municipalists won't hear of any tramways in private hands. 
 Have they considered what this means in financial commit- 
 ment ? Of course pressure is bound to be put upon the authori- 
 ties to keep our towns as well supplied with transport facilities 
 as other civilised communities, and, as a consequence, their 
 financial necessities are bound to continue to hang like a pall 
 over the markets. 
 
 Effects resulting^ from excessive Municipal 
 
 Borrowing:. 
 
 " Not only is the price of gilt-edged securities lowered, 
 but the price of money is raised by this limitless municipal 
 borrowing. Finding it impossible to place their stocks, the 
 Corporations are now making Bill issues.* That is to say, 
 they are calling upon the banking commuility to encash their 
 bare acceptances on the expectation, which is entirely problem- 
 atic, that they will be able at the maturity of the Bills to sell 
 their stocks and so retire their acceptances. 
 
 * For an example of this, c/. L. C. C. Finance, Part I, Vol. II.
 
 32 
 
 " This seems to be a thoroughly unsound device. The 
 difference between the municipal bill and the ordinary mercantile 
 bill is that the mercantile bill has its origin in a transaction 
 such as a contract of sale which is reasonably certain to put the 
 drawer in funds to the amount of the bill before its maturity. 
 The raison d^etre of the municipal bill is a permanent expenditure 
 the only proper resource for which (viz., the funded debt of the 
 town) is at the time unmarketable. The renewal of the Corpora- 
 tion bill is almost as certain a result of its issue as is the dis- 
 charge of the mercantile bill by payment in due course. It 
 follows that while the mercantile bill effects a husbanding of 
 the currency resources of the country by avoiding their employ- 
 ment where the transaction carries evidence on the face of its 
 sufficient credit basis, the Corporation bill has an opposite 
 effect, denuding the banks of their deposits and locking up 
 what should be floating cash in unrealisable assets. In fact, 
 the bill is used, not for floating over a temporary occasion, but 
 to put off the meeting of a permanent liability. 
 
 A Deterrent to Private Enterprise. 
 
 " What chance has the trader of getting reasonable 
 banking facilities when he is placed in competition with 
 the Corporation of his own town, which thinks nothing of 
 taking up two or three millions at a time on short notice ? 
 He suffers in two ways. The Corporation both diminishes 
 the supply of ready cash by absorbing it in permanent expendi- 
 ture, and also competes with the trader for what is left. The 
 consequence to trade must be disastrous. If the merchant does 
 not get credit the mill does not get the order. If the merchant 
 has to pay dear for his credit he has to pay the manufacturer 
 
 cheap for his goods. The result IS a reduced demand for 
 labour or a demand at reduced wages. 
 
 " The effect on the stock market is similar. What chance 
 has a railway company of floating a debenture issue at a reason- 
 able price when it finds itself in the market in competition with 
 a hundred local authorities, who are ready to pay anything up 
 to 4 per cent, upon funded local loans, which are by statute 
 made admissible for trustee investment regardless of the degree 
 of indebtedness of the town upon whose credit they purport to 
 be issued ? There is not a railway company in the country 
 that is not putting off the execution of promising schemes on 
 account of the cost of raising capital. 
 
 " The chief sufferers by these contractions of enterprise 
 
 are of course the working class for whose interests the local 
 authorities profess so much sympathy. Their actions beUe 
 
 their professions. By making money dearer the local
 
 33 
 
 administration has necessarily made employment scarcer and 
 labour cheaper. 
 
 " It has inflicted vast losses on everybody who is dependent 
 on credit, including the Imperial Government. Instead of 
 promoting the greatest good of the greatest number, it has 
 sedulously promoted the greatest good of the money-lender. 
 
 " This financial mismanagement has, moreover, had another 
 indirect, but not the less disastrous effect. It has gone a long 
 way to deprive British enterprise of one of its vital and preser- 
 vative forces, viz., the adventure and trained judgment of the 
 capitalist. What need for the investor to run a commercial 
 risk when there is a plethora of rate-guaranteed securities which 
 call for no inquiry into the merits of the scheme for which the 
 money is being raised, for whether it succeeds or not the interest 
 is assured, being charged upon the whole of the assessable pro- 
 perty of an English borough ? The function of the capitalist 
 is lowered. He is relieved of responsibility, and consequently 
 of the necessity for bold and shrewd adventure. What wonder 
 that it is more and more difficult to get the right kind of capitalist 
 to lend to home enterprises that invaluable influence and 
 guidance which is impelled and supported by a large personal 
 backing ? 
 
 " The question remains, amidst all this financial disad- 
 vantage — Is there any compensating gain "? Who is a penny 
 the better for all this limitless engagement of public credit, 
 and all this diversion of resources, personal and pecuniary, from 
 commercial channels ? The answer is simple. Nobody is 
 advantaged except the officials who direct the municipal con- 
 cerns, and the relatively small number of favoured workmen 
 who are fortunate enough to secure employment in them. 
 
 The Manipulation of Municipal Accounts. 
 
 " Of course the municipal accounts are made to look as 
 though the trading committees were earning a profit, but 
 everybody knows that it is a mere sham. The authorities 
 being monopolists can extort what they choose for the public 
 services and call it a profit, but in many cases the profit is pro- 
 duced by the simple process of manipulating the figures — part 
 of the cost of preparing the streets for a tramway is charged 
 to the improvement account, the land for the municipal houses 
 is charged to the housing account at less than its cost, and so 
 forth. The circumstance that the Electric Supply Authority 
 happens also to be the Lighting Authority also affords local 
 bodies an opportunity for gymnastics in accountancy. 
 
 " A flagrant instance of this ostrich-like self-deception 
 is furnished bv the electrical accounts of the authorities. These
 
 34 
 
 for 190 municipal undertakings exhibit an expenditure of 
 £27,000,000, on which a profit is shown of £339,000 for the 
 twelve months. But examination reveals that on this vast 
 
 amount of electrical stock, only 1 per Cent, is allowed for 
 
 depreciation — depreciation of plant, the bulk of which, accord- 
 ing to a recent report of a House of Commons Committee ought 
 by rights to be scrapped at once as incurably antiquated. 
 Obviously it is a gross misrepresentation to deduct only 1 per 
 cent, for depreciation, and then claim a profit on the face of 
 the account. The simple fact is that a large proportion of the 
 vast sums which the authorities are locking up in these trading 
 concerns represent not merely an unproductive investment but 
 a waste of capital. In a word, the local administration is engaged 
 in dissipating the resources of the country and stifling its 
 industries." 
 
 How Municipal Trading: Accounts are 
 Manipulated. 
 
 The Evening News, in an article entitled " ' Cooking ' 
 
 Accounts to Cover Heavy Losses," on October 29th, 1906, 
 
 contains some strilring instances of failure attending municipal 
 
 trading. The article says : — 
 
 " A prominent plank in the Progressive Socialist platform 
 is municipal trading. The real object of it is to introduce 
 Socialism. The plea advanced, however, in support of muni- 
 cipal trading is that a cheaper and better service is given by 
 municipal enterprise as compared with private enterprise. 
 With regard to public electric lighting in London, municipal 
 effort has proved to be a disastrous failure. 
 
 " Sixteen London boroughs have gone into the highly specu- 
 lative trade of supplying electric light. The capital invested 
 now stands at about 4J millions. 
 
 " Up to March 31st, 1905, in three cases an aggregate sum 
 of £18,392 had been paid over to the relief of the rates, and in 
 seven cases calls had been made on the rates to the extent of 
 £56,227. 
 
 " The difficulty of arriving at the exact financial results of 
 any municipal trading concern is obvious to the most casual 
 observer of municipal methods of finance. A private firm or 
 company cannot evade its debts by getting anybody else to pay 
 them. A municipal electric undertaking can, and does, do so 
 in many cases. 
 
 " First, it often gets part of its clerical work done for 
 nothing by the borough council staff. This the ratepayer has to
 
 35 
 
 bear. Then municipal concerns charge very heavily for public 
 lighting. They are, in fact, good customers to themselves. 
 
 " They have one price for the private consumer, and an 
 inflated price for the ratepayers as a body. Islington electric 
 light works, for instance, charges more per unit for street lighting 
 than it does for private consumption. 
 
 " It is, perhaps, not so much that a higher charge per unit 
 is often made for electric street lighting, as that by an extrava- 
 gant system many more lamps are used than is necessary. It 
 is a notorious fact that municipal electric lighting is grossly 
 wasteful in its methods. 
 
 " Grouping the various boroughs into comparative tables, 
 we can tell whether municipal electric lighting is wasteful or 
 not. 
 
 " In the following table the boroughs having municipal 
 electric works are starred thus*. 
 
 
 
 Cost of 
 
 
 Borough. 
 
 Street 
 
 PubHc 
 
 Cost per 
 
 
 mileage. 
 
 lighting. 
 
 mile. 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 *IsUngton 
 
 124 
 
 32,170 
 
 259 
 
 *Hackney 
 
 104 
 
 16,215 
 
 156 
 
 Wandsworth 
 
 176 
 
 17,681 
 
 100 
 
 Lambeth . . 
 
 1481 
 
 13,573 
 
 91 
 
 Camberwell 
 
 1301 
 
 11,752 
 
 90 
 
 Lewisham 
 
 108 
 
 7,809 
 
 72 
 
 "The result given by this group shows that municipal 
 electricity results in street lighting at a cost of £207 10s. 
 per mile ; as against a cost of £88 5s. per mile in boroughs 
 where no municipal concern is fattening on the rates. 
 
 " IsUngton particularly is in a deplorable plight. In reply 
 to a recent question by Mr. Councillor Saint in the Council, it 
 was admitted that in the past quarter — 
 
 100 miles of roads were Hghted by gas costing.. £4,077 
 20 miles of roads were hghted by municipal 
 
 electricity costing . . . . . . . . £5,245 
 
 That gives pubHc company's gas at £40 a mile, the municipal 
 electricity at £262 a mile, or more than 6^ times as much. 
 
 " St. Pancras, Stepney, Battersea, and Bermondsey all 
 possess municipal electric works. These boroughs cover a total 
 of 326J miles of roads, which they light at an aggregate cost of 
 £63,064, and at an average cost per mile of £186 15s. 
 
 " This figure is extravagant enough in all conscience as it 
 is, but what it would total were adequate depreciation and
 
 36 
 
 establishment charges added the jugglers of municipal accounta 
 alone can tell us. 
 
 
 
 
 Cost per 
 
 Borough. 
 
 Mileage. 
 
 Cost. 
 
 mile. 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 *Poplar 
 
 651 
 
 12,702 
 
 192 
 
 *Southwark . . 
 
 65 
 
 11,398 
 
 175 
 
 Bethnal Green 
 
 40 
 
 4,797 
 
 120 
 
 Deptford 
 
 52 
 
 3,847 
 
 74 
 
 This table shows that municipal trading boroughs da 
 their woric at an average cost per mile of £183 10s., while 
 non-trading boroughs do it at a cost of £97 per mile. 
 
 Cost per Cost per 
 
 Borough. 
 
 Mileage. 
 
 Light. 
 
 £ 
 11,658 
 
 mile 
 
 £ 
 
 204 
 
 *Hampstead 
 
 57 
 
 *St. Marylebone 
 
 60 
 
 11,924 
 
 198 
 
 *Fulham 
 
 56 
 
 10,858 
 
 194 
 
 Paddington . . 
 
 591 
 
 10,472 
 
 176 
 
 *Hammersmith 
 
 55 
 
 8,374 
 
 152 
 
 Greenwich . . 
 
 58 
 
 4,616 
 
 79 
 
 This group gives the result that municipal enterprise lights at 
 an average of £187 per mile. 
 
 " Non-trading boroughs do the work at £127 10s. per mile. 
 
 " Of course, it is true that gas costs about one-third mors 
 in North London than it does on the south side of the Thames, 
 but even that cannot account for the extraordinary difference 
 between efficient gas lighting of our streets and the same service 
 by municipal electricity. 
 
 " Why should the ratepayers be mulcted in enormous 
 expense for street lighting in order that a ' profit ' may be shown 
 on the municipal electric undertaking ? 
 
 The municipal depreciation fund is very small— it only 
 totals £108,313 upon an outstanding capital of nearly four 
 and a half millions. 
 
 " Many London borough electricity works are practically 
 obsolete. They have spent huge sums of money and have no 
 assets to show for it. ... " 
 
 Municipal Trading: and the Relief of Rates ! 
 
 The Progressive organ, The Municipal Journal, in its issue 
 of November 16th, 1906, published a return under the headline.
 
 37 
 
 " Municipal Trading Relieves Rates.' 
 by Mr. Carter, of Preston. 
 
 The return is compiled 
 
 Examination shows that the so-called relief of rates is not 
 necessarily derived from municipal trading, but includes rents 
 of estates which have come into the hands of the Corporations 
 at various times, and various other sources of income which are 
 quite outside the sphere of municipal trading. The Progressives, 
 however, conveniently lump all the money not directly derived 
 from rates and describe it as profits on municipal undertakings. 
 
 Curiously enough, some towns, on the showing of the very 
 return with which we are dealing, are at one and the same time 
 subsidising trading undertakings out of the rates, and receiving 
 reUef from so-called rents and profits. The following are a few 
 examples : — 
 
 Rates in aid Relief from 
 of municipal profits and 
 
 Ashton-under-Lyne 
 
 Bacup 
 
 Blackburn 
 
 Bootle 
 
 Bristol 
 
 Swansea 
 
 Wakefield 
 
 Wolverhampton 
 
 These are but a few examples, but they show the absurdity 
 of the arguments which the Progressives deduce from their 
 carefully selected list of towns. 
 
 The following table shows the total rates levied in 1901-2 
 (as shown in the Progressive Municipal Year Book) and for the 
 
 trading. 
 
 rent 
 
 (Trams.) 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 d. 
 
 U 
 
 51 
 
 (Water.) 
 
 
 1 101 
 
 4 
 
 (Trams") 
 
 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 (Water.) 
 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 (Docks.) 
 
 
 9 
 
 31 
 
 (Water.) 
 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 (Water.) 
 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 (Artisans' DwelUngs.) 
 
 
 4i 
 
 4 
 
 433-^76
 
 38 
 
 current year in the towns where, according to the returns before 
 
 us, the greatest profits are made from municipal trading : — 
 
 Supposed 
 
 
 
 Rates levied 
 
 
 profits and 
 
 1901-2. 1906-7. 
 
 rents equal 
 
 
 
 to rate of 
 
 s. d. s. 
 
 d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 London (average) 
 
 . 6 91 (1905-6) 7 
 
 6 
 
 
 Ashton-under-Lyne 
 
 . 6 31 8 
 
 51 
 
 51 
 
 Brighouse 
 
 
 .78 8 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 Bradford 
 
 
 .72 9 
 
 
 
 3f 
 
 Dewsbury 
 
 
 . 7 11 9 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 East Ham 
 
 
 .88 9 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 HaUfax . . 
 
 
 .76 9 
 
 4 
 
 91 
 
 Leeds 
 
 
 .73 8 
 
 101 
 
 81 
 
 Middlesbrough . 
 
 
 .81 9 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 Norwich . . 
 
 
 .86 9 
 
 5 
 
 21 
 
 Preston . . 
 
 
 . 7 10 8 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 West Ham 
 
 
 .98 10 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 If these are the best examples that the Municipal Journal 
 can produce to show how rates are reduced by municipal trading, 
 it is difficult to believe that Londoners will be induced thereby 
 to embark on any further experiments in that direction. If 
 the profits are genuine and not mere paper figures, and if they 
 relieve the rates, how is it that rates have risen to such an alarming 
 extent ? 
 
 L.C.C. Working: Class DwelSing^s' Accounts. 
 
 The Finance Committee, in their report dated 18th July, 
 
 1906, state :— 
 
 " Working Class Dwellings. 
 
 " Under this head the district auditor calls attention to the 
 departure from the practice hitherto followed of charging to the 
 dwellings account in the case of dwellings erected for the 
 rehousing of persons displaced under Improvement Acts a sum 
 in respect of the valuation of the site as earmarked for dwellings, 
 according to the estimate of the Council's valuer. The auditor 
 says that this course, which has been hitherto followed, 
 has always appeared to him to be reasonable, but in the year 
 1904-5, there were three cases in which the Council charged 
 as the value of the site, sums less than the valuer's estimates, 
 
 and he gives particulars of these three cases in his report. He states 
 that he has passed the accounts as submitted to him, but trusts 
 ' that the Council will give instructions for transfers representing 
 fall housing values to be made between the different accounts,
 
 39 
 
 as it would appear tliat the dwellings' capital accounts have 
 been considerably undercharged.' . . . On 22nd July, 1902, 
 we reported upon the case of the Ropemaker's Fields site, one 
 of the three cases referred to by the auditor, on which Brightling- 
 sea Buildings have now been erected to rehouse persons 
 displaced by the Rotherhithe tunnel works. We pointed out 
 that this SitG was scheduled to the Rotherhithe Tunnel 
 Act for rehousing purposes, and COSt abOUt £12,000 tO 
 
 acquire, and that the valuer had placed its value 
 for housing purposes at £1,000. The Housing of the 
 Working Classes Committee, however, estimated that, even 
 if the site were taken to be as of no value, they could not build 
 dwellings upon it without showing a deficiency, and they asked 
 that the dwellings scheme shouM be subsidised by a payment 
 out of the Rotherhithe tunnel capital account of the amount 
 of this estimated deficiency, viz., £397. . . . The Council 
 
 decided on 29th July, 1902, that the value of the land 
 should be taken at nil, and that a capital subsidy should be 
 made of £397. 
 
 "The Housing of the Working Classes Committee now 
 
 point out that in spite of the fact that these dwellings 
 are built in the most economical manner possible, they leave, 
 even with the subsidy in question, an annual lOSS tO the 
 
 Council. ... In another case, . . . \az.. that of 
 
 Bekesbourne Buildings, on the London Street, RatcUff, 
 site, also in connection with the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the 
 
 Council decided to adopt the views put forward by the 
 Housing of the Working Classes Committee that the value 
 of the land in this case should be taken at nil, and that, 
 in addition, the dwellings account should be credited with 
 
 a capital sum of £6,535, that being the sum estimated by 
 the Housing Committee to be required to preserve equilibrium, 
 
 notwithstanding that the valuer's estimate of the value of the 
 site for housing purposes was £3,050."— (L.C.C. Minutes, 
 pages 291 and 292.) 
 
 Municipal v. Private Enterprise. 
 
 A striking instance of the sa\dng frequently resulting from 
 having recourse to private enterprise, is to be met with in the 
 report of the Asylums Committee for June 19th, 1906 (C/. L.C.C. 
 Agenda, June 2Uh, page 99). 
 
 In this report the Committee state : 
 
 " Clayhury Asylum. — Supply of Gas, Coke, and Tar. 
 
 We have decided to discontinue the manufacture of gas
 
 40 
 
 at Claybury i^sylum, and have accepted the offer of the Ilford 
 Cras Company to supply gas to the Asylum at the following 
 rates : — 
 
 s. 
 
 / when the ordinary \ 
 At 2s. 6id. per 1,000 cubic feet >ellmg price to the 
 
 ( 
 
 IS 
 
 At2s. 5id. „ „ .. „ „ 3 
 
 At 2s. 4id. „ „ . . „ „ 2 10 
 
 At2s.4d. „ „ .. „ » 2 8 
 
 At2s. 3Ad. „ „ .. „ „ 2 6 
 
 " These terms have been agreed upon a basis of a minimum 
 consumption of 3,500,000 cubic feet a year. The Gas Company 
 will lay the necessary piping from their main to the Asylum 
 gasholder. 
 
 " We have also accepted the Company's offer to supply to 
 the Asylum (as required) coke at 10s. 6d. per chaldron, i.e., 
 17s. 6d. per ton, and tar at 5s. per barrel of 40 gallons, i.e., l|d. 
 per gallon. The agreement for the supply of coke and tar will 
 be entered into for seven years. 
 
 " The average cost of manufacture of gas at the 
 Asylum gas works for the five years ended 31st March, 
 1905, has averaged 2s. Il^d. per 1,000 cubic feet, 
 
 allowance being made for the value of the coke and tar produced. 
 The capital charges on the gas works buildings and plant, work 
 out at 4id. per 1,000 cubic feet, so that the total COSt Of 
 
 production is 3s. 4d. per 1,000 cubic feet. This is higher 
 than the highest rate at which the Company have offered 
 
 to supply gas, and we understand that the Company are 
 adopting new methods of manufacture which render the prospect 
 of a reduction in the price of their gas by no means remote. . . ." 
 
 The Food Supplying^ Companies and Hig^h 
 
 Rates. 
 
 Mr. George Edwards, on November 5th, 1906, in presiding 
 
 at' the meeting of the Aerated Bread Company, said : — 
 
 "... Regarding the increase in rates and taxes, he was 
 afraid they could not expect 'to get any relief until the Borough 
 Councils gave up municipal trading. If it were not so serious 
 the situation in which the commercial classes were compelled 
 to find a great portion of the money to enable their municipal 
 masters to speculate in tramways, electric lighting, and otRer 
 enterprises, would be like a scene from a comic opera. For
 
 41 
 
 electric lighting the company dealt with several Borough Councils 
 and several electric lighting companies, and he fOUnd that 
 
 their light cost them 116 per cent, more from the borough 
 councils than that supplied to them by private com- 
 panies. . . ."—The Monitny Post, November 6th, 1900. 
 
 How Municipal Ventures are Subsidised. 
 
 At the ordinary half-yearly general meeting of the Gas Light 
 and Coke Company, held at the Company's offices, Westminster, 
 on August 3rd, 1906, Mr. Corbet Woodall (the Governor), in the 
 course of his address, said: "In nearly 1,000 cases in our 
 district gas lighting on modern lines has entirely displaced 
 electricity ; in more than 1,000 other cases electricity has been 
 largely superseded by gas. In all these instances the consumer 
 — whether private undertaking or public authority — has had 
 no interest in the sale either of gas or electricity. Where, 
 however, municipal authorities have committed themselves to 
 trading in electricity, the tale is a different one. Whereas such 
 important bodies as the Office of Works, the City Corporation, 
 the City of Westminster, and the London County Council (none 
 of whom have embarked on the sale of either gas or electricity) 
 give careful and impartial consideration to the claim of the rival 
 illuminants, basing their judgment upon comparative cost and 
 efficiency — choosing electricity for some purposes and gas for 
 others — the Company find that local authorities owning electricity 
 supply undertakings are guided by other considerations. As 
 an example, one Borough Council asked this Company and their 
 own electricity committee for quotations for improving the 
 lighting of an important street. We submitted a scheme which 
 would have made that thoroughfare one of the best lighted 
 in the kingdom. The lighting committee of the borough, after 
 very carefully considering the matter, reported that they had 
 come to the conclusion that, ' as the incandescent gas system 
 is hghted from double the number of points, and the lights 
 are so much nearer the pavement, the lighting of the street 
 will be more easily diffused and much more effective by this 
 system than by electricityr Apart from these considerations, 
 the cost to the borough for gas will be considerably less. The 
 committee therefore recommend that the Council adopt the 
 scheme and tender of the Gas Light and Coke Company.' 
 
 When the matter came before the Borough Council, however, 
 the recommendation was rejected, and the job given to the Elec- 
 tricity Committee, on the ground that ' loyalty' to the Borough's 
 own undertaking must outweigh every other consideration. 
 
 The circumstance that the Company is a large ratepayer in the 
 borough, and would have contributed an appreciable sum in 
 rates on the gas consumed for street lighting, adds piquancy
 
 42 
 
 to this illustration of municipal trading in practice. This is 
 only one case out of many of a similar kind. Service of inferior 
 value is accepted at much greater cost ; and we not only lose 
 the business which should be ours, but have to pay, in common 
 with the general public, increased rates in consequence. This 
 is not an occasion on which to discuss the general question of 
 municipal trading, but we are justified in protesting against 
 the unfair treatment meted to us by metropolitan authorities 
 owning electric undertakings." 
 
 The Standard, in an article on July 12th, 1906, says : — 
 
 " In Southwark the charge for public lighting in 1904-5 
 was £3,579, and deducting £641 for maintenance of lamps, 
 £2,938, or 2"52d. per unit. A company offered to supply current 
 at l|d. per unit, or a saving of £1,192. As the Borough Council 
 took no action, the Company sent the correspondence to the 
 Local Government Board, and stated that it was heavily rated 
 in respect of its undertakings, whilst the Borough Council was 
 actually competing with it at the expense of the rates. The 
 Company's undertaking, representing a capital expenditure of 
 £39,160, was called upon to pay the borough rates amounting 
 to £265, while the electrical undertaking of the Borough Council, 
 with a capital expenditure of £82,727, was only charged with 
 rates to the extent of £283. The Company notice that the sum 
 of £800 spent in opposition to Electric Power Bills last Session, 
 instead of being debited to the electric supply undertaking, was 
 charged to the general rate. In Bermondsey the charge for 
 pubUc Ughting in the year 1904-5 was £4,747, or, less renewals 
 and repairs, £3,503, making the rate for current 3d. per unit. 
 The Company offered to supply at l|d. per unit, or a saving of 
 £1,751. The Electricity Committee decUned the ofier. The 
 Company accordingly sent the correspondence to the Local 
 Government Board, and stated that on their capital expenditure 
 of £39,949 they were called upon to pay borough rates in 
 Bermondsey and Rotherhithe amounting to £341 in the year 1905, 
 while the electric undertaking of the Borough Council, with a 
 capital expenditure of £105,556, was only charged with rates 
 to the extent of £414. No sum was debited to the electric lighting 
 accounts for law and Parliamentary charges, the whole of which 
 expenditure was transferred to the general rate account." 
 
 Reasons ag^ainst Municipal Trading^. 
 
 Some of the chief reasons against municipal trading were 
 
 well summed up in a leading article in The Morning Post for 
 
 July 30th, 1906 :— 
 
 " It is in the nature of things that municipal trading, like 
 all other municipal action, should tend to be less efficient than
 
 43 
 
 private action. The rare spirits who can really give to public 
 affairs the same unflagging interest and intelligence that they 
 would to their own are not enough to go round ; they are lost 
 in the mass of three hundred thousand average members of local 
 governing bodies. Municipal action is forced upon society in 
 certain cases by the absence of private enterprise — as in the case 
 of roads and drains — by the dread of private monopoly, or by the 
 imperative need for controlling special industries, such as 
 slaughtering cattle, in the defence of public health. But the 
 suppression of private enterprise should always be the last 
 resource — after regulation has failed." 
 
 Lord Wemyss on Municipal Trading^. 
 
 In the House of Lords on July 16th, 1906, on the third 
 
 reading of the London County Council General Powers Bill, 
 
 the Earl of Wemyss said : — 
 
 " I am old enough to recollect the day when every town was 
 lighted, not by gas, but by oil. Suppose in those days you had 
 had municipal authorities of the same ambitious character as 
 the County Council. They would have had a fleet of whalers, 
 and would have brought their blubber here and made their own 
 oil. Then came gas, and now electricity, and the cost of substi- 
 tuting these different supplies would have been saddled upon the 
 shoulders of the ratepayers. 
 
 " We are now perfectly satisfied with electric light, but the 
 Marquess of Ripon. the leader of the Opposition, hit the right 
 nail on the head when he said the other day that there is no 
 limit to invention. What will happen ? Some unknown 
 illuminant may be introduced, and the electrical plant may 
 become so much dead weight round the necks of the London 
 ratepayers. I therefore venture to think that, in the interests 
 of progress, of free trade, of private trade, and of the London 
 ratepayer, this municipal trading ought not to be allowed. 
 What does this trading mean ? You have now at the head of 
 the Local Government Board Mr. John Burns. What is Mr. 
 Burns's view of municipal trading ? Why, that everything 
 in the shape of production and distribution should be in the 
 hands of a labour-governed State. Therefore, I hold that 
 every step in this direction is a step in the direction of State 
 omnipotence. During a discussion some years ago at the 
 Society of Arts, I put this question to Mr. Burns : — 
 
 " ' Do you or do you not, mean that all the instruments of 
 production are to be in the hands of a labour-governed State ? ' 
 
 " Mr. Burns simply bowed his head, and said ' Yes.' There- 
 fore, whatever you do in this direction is leading to this end.
 
 44 
 
 " How does this question of municipal trading affect national 
 progress ? You are always in the infancy of invention. You 
 have progressed hitherto in this way. Science discovers and 
 invents, and public enterprise has taken up the invention and 
 speculated upon it. But if, when the invention succeeds, it 
 is to be seized by the State, progress will be stopped, because 
 if this is generally done, no one will take up inventions. . . 
 You want an audit of the accounts of these corporations, and 
 there ought to have been in the original Act a limit to their 
 rating power. Instead of having their hands in everybody's 
 pockets they ought to have been limited as to the rate they should 
 be entitled to raise. If that had been done, instead of the rivalry 
 which now exists as to which of them should have the biggest 
 concerns, the rivalry would be as to which could do the most 
 with the money at their disposal." — (Extracted from the 
 Authorised Debates, cols. 1,260 and 1,261.) 
 
 Municipal Opposition to Private Enterprise. 
 
 Monopolies are always impediments to progress. In many 
 
 instances, municipal trading ventures are in the nature of 
 
 monopolies. We find, then, that when a Council has obtained 
 
 powers and invested money it jealously watches rivals. Monopoly 
 
 of course can fix its own price, the presence of rivals tends 
 
 dangerously to decrease the prospects of municipal trading. 
 
 It is, therefore, not difficult to find instances where municipalities 
 
 have attempted to safeguard their own ventures by acting 
 
 oppressively towards rival concerns. An illustration of this 
 
 is to be found in the case of Newcastle. In 1905 the North 
 
 Eastern Railway Company sought powers to run motor omnibuses, 
 
 but the Corporation of Newcastle itself owned tramways, and 
 
 therefore offered a strong opposition to the proposition. The 
 
 Committee of the House of Commons granted the powers under 
 
 certain restrictions, but the Council sought to prevent the Railway 
 
 Company from taking up passengers en route. The Council 
 
 wished to monopolise the traffic, and were anxious to exclude all 
 
 competitors. Mr. Bonar Law, the then Parliamentary Secretary 
 
 of the Board of Trade, opposed the Council's restrictive 
 
 amendment and said in the House of Commons : 
 
 " It was beginning to be a question whether the House 
 should direct the municipalities, or whether the mimicipalities 
 should control the House."
 
 45 
 
 In the Parliamentary Session of 1901 there were several 
 Electric Power Bills in Committee ; amongst them were the 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Bill, and the Nottingham and Derby- 
 Bill. The proposals put forward in these private Bills were for 
 the generating of electricity on a huge scale, with stations, care- 
 fully selected for economy in working, at the coal-pit' head. 
 In this way, it would have been possible to supply electricity 
 at cheaper rates than municipalities situated at a distance 
 from the coal-pit could possibly do. Had municipalities been 
 influenced by the desire to secure for their ratepayers electricity 
 at the cheapest rates, they would have supported these Power 
 Bills. Instead of this, they strenuously opposed them for the 
 only reason that they were themselves anxious to undertake 
 the supply. 
 
 Another illustration of the interference of municipalities 
 with private enterprise is furnished in the case of Blackpool. 
 When the Blackpool Corporation bought up the tramways, 
 they refused any longer to issue licences for omnibuses. 
 
 Detailed references to the failure of municipal trading 
 in the various services of the London County Council will be found 
 under the appropriate heads. See articles on " Locomotion," 
 "L.C.C. Steamboat Service," "Housing," &c. Reference should 
 also be made to L.C.C. Finance, Part II. 
 
 Trade Union Strikers and Municipal 
 
 Pressure. 
 
 " An important principle," says The Morning Post of 
 October 9th, 1906, " is involved in the strike of painters and 
 coachbuilders at the extensive works of the Brush Electrical 
 Engineering Company at Loughborough, and the outcome is 
 being watched with great interest by the owners of similar 
 undertakings all over the country. The principle which is 
 sought to be enforced by the Trades Unions concerned is that 
 the rates of wages paid in London, Manchester, and the largest 
 towns for workmen of the highest skill shall also prevail in 
 the case of less expert workmen in small provincial towns. In 
 other words, it means that great firms who, at the cost of several 
 hundreds of thousands of pounds, have removed into the country 
 where their workmen can secure comfortable cottages of six 
 rooms at 5s. per week, where they can get a garden allotment,
 
 46 
 
 and where they have to pay no railway or tramway fares to 
 reach their work, and where they can get all their meals at home, 
 are to have no consideration of any kind in return. . . . 
 
 " These and similar appeals were unavaiHng, and not only 
 are the painters and body-builders out on strike, but coercion 
 is being applied in a new way, so as if possible to interfere 
 with the employment of the workmen in other departments. 
 Every municipality with whom the company is doing 
 business is being strenuously urged to cease giving orders 
 for Loughborough cars and to cancel orders already placed. 
 This has already been done by the corporations of 
 
 Manchester and Sheffield under the fair wage clause in the 
 general conditions of the contracts, although the Company 
 claims to be paying rates above those which prevail in the 
 Leicestershire districts. . . . The works are closely watched 
 by pickets, and men coming to take the place of those on strike 
 are either sent away or hooted by hostile crowds of women and 
 children in the streets."
 
 LOCOMOTION. 
 
 The adequate provision, and proper regulation and control 
 of cheap and effective public locomotion, are matters of vital 
 concern to all great urban communities. Nowhere in the 
 world are they more important than in London, with 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 health of the inhabitants of the 
 Metropolis, and particularly of those who belong to the industrial 
 working classes, are involved in the manner in which this great 
 traffic problem is solved. 
 
 The Progressives of the London County Council have 
 endeavoured to claim for themselves a monopoly 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 have represented the Municipal Reform party as 
 indifferent to the subject, or actively hostile to the extension 
 of the tramway system. This is entirely untrue. The 
 Progressives have as little right to arrogate to themselves the 
 credit for all recent improvements in Metropolitan passenger 
 transport as they have to suggest that such improvements have 
 been impeded or delayed by their opponents. 
 
 The Municipal Reform Policy in regard 
 to Tramways and Traffic. 
 
 The following statement of the policy of the Party in regard 
 to tramways and traffic is taken from the Municipal Reform 
 Manifesto dated December 4th, 1906.
 
 48 
 
 The Municipal Reform Party "will feel bound to continue 
 the policy which ha3 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 an 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 be, as they profess, 
 anxious to place better facilities in the way of working class 
 travellers ; but they are obviously quite as anxious to secure a 
 large increase of municipal management and direct employment 
 by the County Council. 
 
 The Tramway Policy of the Progressive 
 and Moderate Parties. 
 
 It is a common thing for the Progressive Party to commend 
 th?ir cause to-day by reference to the history of their Tramway 
 policy in the past. That history is to a large degree legendary. 
 They are too fond of claiming 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 
 have been responsible. 
 
 In spite of Progressive statements to the contrary, the need 
 of efficient, rapid, and cheap methods of transit in London has 
 always been fully recognised by the Moderate Party. The 
 latter have been keenly alive 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.
 
 49 
 
 The Tramways Act, 1870. 
 
 By the Tramways Act of 1870, passed under the Adminis- 
 tration 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 Loudon. 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 paid by the local authority for goodwill, but only 
 the value of the rolling stock, permanent way, &c., are computed 
 in the price.* When private enterprise is charged with lack of 
 progress in regard to tramways, the blame should be rightly 
 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. 
 
 Prog^ressive Lease of Tramway Lines, 1891. 
 
 That was the position of affairs in 1891, when 4| 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 Therefore, when 
 Progressives condemn the system of leasing tramways to com- 
 panies, the fact should be emphasised that the Progressive 
 Party were the first to institute the practice in London. 
 
 ♦See Section 43 of the Act of 1870, f L.C.C. Minutes, 1891, p. 1059. 
 
 D
 
 50 
 
 The Position regsirding the Northern 
 
 Lines, 1892. 
 
 In 1892, 19 miles, out of a total of 35| miles, of the 
 North Metropolitan Tramways became purchasable. Those 
 19 miles of purchasable lines were not consecutive, but were 
 split up into sections and inextricably interwoven with the 
 rest of the system. The whole tramway system of London 
 was not laid down at once. Parts of the lines 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 tramways 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 which 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 lines would become 
 purchasable : — 
 
 Years 1898. 
 
 1900. 
 
 1903. 
 
 1905. 
 
 1906. 
 
 1908. 
 
 i9oa. 
 
 1910 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Mis. 
 
 Mis. 
 
 Mis. 
 
 Mis. 
 
 Mis. 
 
 Mis. 
 
 Mis. 
 
 London Street . . 1-84 
 
 •90 
 
 ■61 
 
 •11 
 
 1-95 
 
 2^S7 
 
 •50 
 
 — 
 
 North Metropolitan 12-88 
 
 — 
 
 •63 
 
 •75 
 
 1^63 
 
 b25 
 
 •50 
 
 •63 
 
 " Taking the London Street Company's line first, the 
 Caledonian Road line becomes purchasable in 1898 ; that in 
 Prince of Wales Road, &c., in 1900 ; that in Pentonville Road 
 in 1903 ; the doubling of one portion of the Fortress 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 lines 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 Pentonville 
 Road, in 1909.
 
 51 
 
 " The North Metropolitan Company's lines in Grove Road 
 (part of), Canonbury Road, New North Road (part of), Shoreditch, 
 Cazenove Street, Whitechapel High Street (part of), Whitechapel 
 Road, Mile End Road, Bow Road, Dalston Road, Graham 
 Road, Holloway 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 Clerkenwell Road in 1906 ; in 
 Leman Street and Dock Street in 1909 ; and in Stamford Hill 
 and Seven Sisters Road (part of) in 1910." — {L.C.C. Minutes, 
 19th May, 1896, p. 555.) 
 
 So that it will be seen that the position was extremely 
 complicated. 
 
 A deadlock ensued. The Company refused to sell the 
 whole system, of which the L.C.C. could not secure total 
 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 Tramway Company to the Council. That 
 was a wise proposal. 
 
 Upon that, the North Metropolitan Tramways Company 
 wrote to the Council to ask whether 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 
 Metropolitan Tramways Co.) of the whole of those lines, and 
 also of that portion of the undertaking of the London Street 
 Company already purchased by the Council, and leased to 
 that Company." 
 
 On the 23rd of June, 1896, the Finance Committee reported 
 "... that the proposed purchase by agreement of the whole 
 of the lines is the more advantageous to the Council, because 
 of the larger rent accruing in the earlier years, and of the 
 saving of upwards of £100,000 in the purchase money." {See- 
 page 705, L.C.C. Minutes, 1896.)
 
 ^o 
 
 On the 20th of October, 1896, the Tramways Committee 
 reported that they had considered "... what would be the 
 best course for the Council, as representing the public, to pursue 
 with regard to the whole 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 afterwards 
 lease ; (Company's offer). 
 
 (b) 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 acquisition 
 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 follows by the Comptroller : — 
 
 Total Eelief to Debt Estimated Value 
 p Rates during outstanding, of Tramway 
 the 14 years to Midsummer, Property, Mid- 
 1910. 1910. summer, 1910. 
 
 A. North Metropolitan 
 
 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.) 
 
 The Committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that it 
 was best, in the interests of the travelling public, the rate- 
 payer, and the employes, — " That an arrangement should now 
 be entered into with the two companies for the purchase of 
 their lines and depots, and for leasing them to the North 
 Metropolitan Company for a comparatively short term. By 
 that means all disputes and litigation between these two com- 
 panies and the Council will cease ; the lines of the two companies 
 will be amalgamated and placed under one management ; new
 
 53 
 
 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 in 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, with 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 lines. 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. 
 
 Advantag:es accruing^ from the Lease 
 
 of 1895. 
 
 Under this lease, the public 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 the traveUing public 
 and the tramway employes, these conditions were embodied 
 in the lease : — 
 
 (1) The Company are not to raise the fares on Sundays 
 and Bank Holidays. 
 
 (2) The Company are to run workmen's cars between 
 3 and 8 a.m., wherever 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. Those terms 
 were better than the 5 per cent, secured by the Progressives 
 under their lease in 1892. 
 
 Then with 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 lines.
 
 54 
 
 (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 down 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 for renewals or reconstruction 
 of the lines, which they are to keep in good condition, 
 to the satisfaction of the Council. 
 
 Therefore, the lease safeguarded the interests of the rate- 
 payers, the employes, and the travelling public. As a result 
 the fares have been reduced, passengers are carried much longer 
 distances ; omnibuses on the routes reduced their fares and gave 
 their passengers the same benefits as those given by the tram- 
 ways. Other advantages were the avoidance of costly litigation 
 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 
 so far have been as follows : — 
 
 Profits from the Northern System. 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 1894-5 . 
 
 
 
 . 1,121 
 
 
 1895-6 . 
 
 
 
 . 2,659 
 
 
 1896-7 . 
 
 
 
 
 2,098 
 
 1897-8 . 
 
 
 
 '. 69,526 
 
 
 1898-9 . 
 
 
 
 
 14,781 
 
 1899-00 , 
 1900-01 , 
 
 
 
 . 66,315 
 . 40,152 
 
 
 
 
 16,879 
 
 1901-2 . 
 
 
 
 . 39,156 
 
 
 1902-3 . 
 
 
 
 . 37,794 
 
 
 1903-4 . 
 
 
 
 . 27,657 
 
 
 1904-5 . 
 
 
 
 . 22,836 
 
 
 1905-6 . 
 
 
 
 . 24,514 
 
 
 ofit (after 
 
 deducting de; 
 
 icits) . 
 
 £314,851 
 
 
 {Extracted from th^ L.C.C. Tramway Accounts.) 
 
 Notwithstanding the excellent results obtained for the 
 ratepayers, the Progressives were not satisfied.
 
 65 
 
 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 roUing 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 desirabihty 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 1910). In fact, during the first ten years after 
 electrification it was estimated 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 Progres- 
 sives make the statement that the lines were, or could have been, 
 first bought, and then were 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. 
 
 The second Progressive " story," 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."
 
 56 
 
 Power to Electrify under the Northern 
 
 Lease. 
 
 The clause in the lease regarding electrification is as 
 follows : — 
 
 " (k.) Not to use, except with the 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 lay 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 th3 lease, tha 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 
 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 Company 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
 
 57 
 
 or other buildings which may have to be disposed of as 
 unsuitable for use in connection with the altered mods 
 of traction or otherwise. 
 
 (b) The Company shall pay an additional rent equal 
 to 6| 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 7h per cent, per annum 
 upon the cost of the necessary fixed machinery, if provided 
 by the Council. 
 
 (c) The Company shall also pay to the Council 80 per 
 cent, of the net revenue of the whole of its undertaking 
 inside and outside the county, after deduction of (?) the 
 rents payable to the Council under the Clauses a and b, 
 {?'/) 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 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 
 the transactions of the Company." 
 
 (See page 1446, L.C.C. Minutes, 1896.) 
 
 Progressive Misrepresentation reg^arding: 
 
 the Lease. 
 
 The Progressive Council never tried to enforce that clause 
 and to compel the Company to electrify. Duiing the discus- 
 sion 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 Company would be able to claim very heavy com- 
 pensation for disturbance. That was a bold statement. Sir 
 Melvill Beachcroft* challenged the truth of Mr. Benn's state- 
 ment, and quoted the opinion of counsel (Mr., now the Right 
 Hon., R. B. Haldane, K.C., M.P.), which had been sought by 
 the L.C.C, and which was to the effect that the Council could 
 proceed, under the lease, to electrify the Northern system 
 without any claim for compensation for disturbance being 
 maintainable against the Council. 
 
 * Cf. " London Municipal Notes," June. 1905, pages 164 and 165.
 
 58 
 
 As a matter of fact, what occurred as regards that electri- 
 fication 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 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. 
 
 Prog^ressive 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 antici- 
 pation of the passage of the Bill of 1900 ? The transformation 
 from horse to electric traction might have been begun, in 
 North London, five 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 electrification. 
 The Highways Committee, however, dalhed 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 has throughout been, and is 
 still, to play off the Northern horse trams against the Southern 
 electric lines 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 contradiction, 
 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, and is still condemned to horse traction for some 
 years. The Municipal Reform Party have been the true 
 Progressives, while the Progressives have been the stumbling 
 block to improvement.
 
 59 
 
 The Southern Tramway System. 
 
 It is necessary next to examine the state of affairs with regard 
 to the Southern system. There are, under the L.C.C., 52 miles 
 of tramways, 30^ of which are electric, and 21^ still worked 
 by means of horse traction. 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 are, now, both owned and worked by the L.C.C. 
 The advantages that have accrued to the public in South London, 
 are much the same as those gained at an earlier date in North 
 London. The fares have been reduced, and, as Sir J. W. Benn 
 put it in his evidence before the Select Committee on Municipal 
 Trading, 1900, the first step the L.C.C. took wath regard to the 
 Southern lines was to bring the conditions of the workers as 
 regards wages and hours of labour up to the wages and hours 
 of labour which prevailed on the Northern system, where the 
 employes got the best conditions of labour of any tramway 
 employes in the United Kingdom. Since that statement, in 
 South London the L.C.C. have made further concessions. Those 
 concessions have been largely used for political purposes. For 
 example, at the Parliamentary election in South London in 1900, 
 a leaflet w^as issued on behalf of Mr. (now Sir) J. Williams Benn, 
 Chairman of the Highways Committee, the then Parliamentary 
 candidate for Bermondsey, stating : " Vote for Benn, who fought 
 for, and secured, the ten hours' day, one day's rest in seven, 
 and better wages for the Tramway Men." Notwithstanding the 
 fact that these particular concessions were given Unanimously 
 by the Council, Sir J. W. Benn, for political purposes, 
 claimed practically the w^hole of the credit. The incident 
 illustrates the danger of municipal enterprise. It is a sore 
 temptation to Councillors to make use of promises and favours 
 to municipal workmen in order to secure for themselves votes, 
 
 Financial Results of the Southern Systenn. 
 
 It is next necessary to examine the financial results as regards 
 the Southern system. Two years after purchase, the L.C.C.
 
 60 
 
 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 reconstruction the estimates 
 
 for a considerable part of the lines were exceeded by no less than 
 
 50 per cent. 
 
 The following are the profits which have accrued from the 
 
 South London Tramways : — 
 
 In 1899-1900 £54,847* profit. 
 
 1900-01 
 1901-02 
 1902-03 
 1903-04 
 1904-05 
 1906-07 
 
 or a total profit, deducting deficits, of £87,609. 
 
 {Extracted from the L.C.C. Tramway Accounts.) 
 This alleged profit compares with £258,424 profit on the Northern 
 system during the same period. Nearly the whole of the profits 
 to the rates (viz., £293,000), so freely advertised hy Progressives, 
 have come from the Northern lines. Of course, the losses 
 on the South may, in part, be attributed to reconstruction, but 
 not wholly so. They are mainly due to the cost of electrification 
 largely exceeding the estimates, and to blunders due to the 
 Progressives in the course of reconstruction. 
 
 14,326 
 9,062 
 
 2,251 deficit. 
 8,284 
 
 7,055 profit. 
 2,319 
 
 Of 
 
 Tramway Profits in relief of Rates. 
 
 The profits applied to relief of the rates by the L.C.C. from 
 tramway balances, are as follows :^ 
 
 £49,000 
 
 1898-99 
 
 
 
 • • 
 
 • o*^ J. t^ . v^ ■_' »_' 
 
 1899-1900 
 
 
 
 
 '. 110,592 
 
 1900-01 
 
 
 
 
 . 69,000 
 
 ■ 1901-02 
 
 
 
 
 . 45,000 
 
 1902-03 
 
 
 
 
 . 20,000 
 
 1903-04 
 
 
 
 
 . nil. 
 
 1904-05 
 
 
 
 
 . nil. 
 
 1905-06 
 
 
 
 
 . nil. 
 
 1906-07 
 
 
 
 
 nil. 
 
 •E 
 
 ifteeu m 
 
 onths' w( 
 
 jrking. 

 
 61 
 
 The following table gives the total results of the Northern 
 and Southern systems : — 
 
 Table Showing Financial Results of the London County 
 Council Tramways from April 1st, 1894, to March 31st, 
 1906. 
 
 {Compiled from the L.C.C. Tramway Accounts.) 
 
 
 
 
 Year' 
 
 s Results. 
 
 
 
 
 Carried Balance 
 
 
 Balance 
 
 Suri)lus ( + ), or. Deficiency ( 
 
 — ). 
 
 Total 
 
 to Carried 
 
 
 Brought 
 Forward. 
 
 
 
 .A,_ 
 
 
 
 neluding 
 balances. 
 
 Relief 
 ofRate. 
 
 For- 
 ward. 
 
 Year. 
 
 South. 
 
 North. 
 
 General. 
 
 
 Total. ; 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 1894-5 . 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 + 1,121 
 
 — 
 
 + 
 
 1,121 
 
 1,121 
 
 — 
 
 1,121 
 
 1895-6 . 
 
 1,121 
 
 — 
 
 + 2,659 
 
 — 
 
 + 
 
 2,659 
 
 3,780 
 
 — 
 
 3,780 
 
 1896-7 . 
 
 3,780 
 
 — 
 
 — 2,098 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 2,098 
 
 1.682 
 
 — 
 
 1,682 
 
 1897-8 . 
 
 1,682 
 
 — 
 
 + 69.526 
 
 — 
 
 + 
 
 69,526 
 
 71,208 
 
 49,000 
 
 22,208 
 
 1898-9 . 
 
 22,208 
 
 5,592* 
 
 —14,781 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 9,189 
 
 13,019 
 
 — 
 
 13,019 
 
 1899-00. 
 
 13,019 +54,847t 
 
 + 66,315 
 
 — 1,915 
 
 + 119,247 
 
 132,266 
 
 110,592 
 
 21,674 
 
 1900-1 . 
 
 21,674 +14,326 
 
 + 40.152 
 
 — 6,936 
 
 + 
 
 47,542 
 
 69,216 
 
 69,000 
 
 216 
 
 1901-2 . 
 
 216 + 
 
 9,062 
 
 + 39,156 
 
 — 3,252 
 
 + 
 
 44,966 
 
 45,182 
 
 45.000 
 
 182 
 
 1902-3 . 
 
 182 — 
 
 2,251 
 
 + 37,794 
 
 — 5,856 
 
 + 
 
 29,687 
 
 29,869 
 
 20,000 
 
 9,869 
 
 1903-4 . 
 
 9.869 — 
 
 8.283 
 
 + 27,657 
 
 —10,678 
 
 + 
 
 8,696 
 
 18,565 
 
 — 
 
 18,565 
 
 1904-5 . 
 
 18,565 + 
 
 7.055 
 
 + 22,836 
 
 —18,467 
 
 + 
 
 11,424 
 
 29,989 
 
 — 
 
 29.989 
 
 1905-6 . 
 
 29,989 + 
 
 2,319 
 
 + 24,514 
 
 —25.573 
 
 + 
 
 1.261 
 
 31,249 
 
 — 
 
 31.249 
 
 * Proportion of profits of Company's working from April 10th, 1897, to December 31st, 
 1898. 
 
 t Includes three months to March 31st, 1899. 
 
 In the light of the actual financial results, it is interesting 
 to recall the Progressive prophecies of the " princely " profits 
 in relief of the rates, which were to be obtained from the Southern 
 lines. 
 
 Unfulfilled Prog^ressive 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 is 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 Progressive 
 
 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 six years ago. In this connection 
 
 it is worth noting that in The Daily Chronicle of February 21st, 
 
 1901, an article appeared by Mr. J. W. Benn on " What the
 
 62 
 
 L.C.C. has done." " Cheap and efficient Tramways for 
 Londoners," and the " prophecies " of profits and other 
 " statements " in that article correspond closely with 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 
 still remains unfulfilled, is as follows : — 
 
 "... If the Progressives are returned, a maximum 
 
 charge of a penny any distance, will certainly be 
 
 the next step in the Council's tramway poHcy, and that 
 
 without interfering in any way with the system of halfpenny 
 
 fares or the profits to the ratepayer." 
 
 That is a promise made six years ago. It has never as yet 
 been carried out. 
 
 The duty which lies before the Municipal Reform Party 
 in the approaching election, is to contrast " Progressive " 
 predictions of profits with actual results ; to point out to the 
 ratepayers of London that they have in the past accorded support 
 to the Progressive Party on what events have now proved to 
 be false statements ; and to ask the electors whether they can 
 honestly continue to vote for a Party which has so grossly 
 deceived them in the past. 
 
 L.C.C. 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 grave controversy which is raging as to whether the 
 L.C.C. tramway accounts do include all the expenditure on 
 account of tramway work undertaken by the Council. The 
 sum of £87,609, representing the total profits from the Southern 
 lines is, of course, taken from the official accounts. There is.
 
 I 
 
 63 
 
 however, no doubt but that, like other municipal undertakings, 
 the L.C.C. tramways are not charged with all the expenditure 
 they ought, and would have, to bear, if run entirely as a separate 
 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 tramways with a sufficient 
 sum on account of the services of other Departments. 
 
 Tramway Street Widenings.* 
 
 First, as to the question of street widenings for tramway 
 purposes. As a rule, when a private company wishes to con- 
 struct 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, as they can veto any proposal of a tramway 
 companv. Local authorities not only make private companies 
 pay the whole cost of street improvements, but very often 
 impose upon them other onerous conditions. 
 
 Sir J. Clifton Robinson, the Managing Director of the 
 London United Tramways Company, in giving evidence before 
 the Traffic Commission, made the following statement concerning 
 the sums his company had had to pay in respect of street improve- 
 ments, &c., in Greater London : — 
 
 [c.f. 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," 
 
 * Note.— For further information on this subject ; c.f. " The Tramway- 
 Scandal " — "How the Progressives reckon Profits"; pubUshed by the 
 London Municipal Society.
 
 64 
 
 The Middlesex County Council and the 
 cost of Street Widen ing^s. 
 
 Every 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. 
 
 The L.C.C. and Street Widenings. 
 
 What is the method adopted by the L.C.C. ? Generally, 
 when a scheme for the widening of a street for tramway pur- 
 poses is recommended by the Highways or Improvement 
 Committees, they usually — not always — split the cost into 
 three parts — one-third is to be paid by the local Borough 
 Council, one-third is 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 : — 
 
 " The Council does not appear to have had before it any 
 data when fixing these proportions, which seem to be of a some- 
 what arbitrary character." 
 
 Giving evidence before the TraflEic 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
 
 65 
 
 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 not even one-third has been so charged. 
 
 It is urged, with some force, that where in a mediaeval 
 town the streets are very narrow, and street widenings woiild 
 be advantageous, not only to the tram lines but to the general 
 traflS-C, then there is a justification for charging part of the 
 cost of the street widening to the rates. But where, as in London, 
 most of the street widenings are in connection with compara- 
 tively modern streets, which, but for the tramways, would 
 never have been widened, and which are sufficient for general 
 traffic, then the tramway undertaking ought to bear the whole 
 cost. 
 
 It is difficult to find out how much has been or will be spent 
 on street widenings, which ought to be charged to the tram- 
 ways account, but which has been or will be charged to the 
 London ratepayers. 
 
 To obtain this information. Captain G. S. Swinton (Moderate), 
 on January 23rd, 1906, secured the passage of a resolution by the 
 L.C.C., " That it be an instruction to the Finance Committee 
 to bring up at the earliest possible moment a return showing : — 
 
 " (1) The net cost (both estimated and actual where 
 the work has been completed, and estimated only where 
 it has not been completed) of every street widening carried 
 out or authorised by the Council along the route of any 
 tramway existing or sanctioned by the Council ; 
 
 " (2) The net cost, in each separate case, of re-paving 
 and other works, or arrangements consequential to the 
 construction of the tramway ; and 
 
 " (3) The portion, in each separate case, of the cost 
 under (1) and under (2) which has been, or is proposed 
 to be, charged to (a) the local authority, (6) the Council's 
 improvement account, (c) the Council tramways account ; 
 
 £
 
 66 
 
 " (4) The amount which has been charged year by 
 year against the tramways account in respect of the services 
 of each branch of the Council's central staff." — {L.C.C. 
 Minutes, 1906, p. 90.) 
 
 Insufficient Charg^es for Street Widening^s. 
 
 Here, for example, is one instance of a street widening for 
 tramway purposes which proves beyond dispute that the 
 L.C.C. tramways accounts are false. St. John Street, 
 Clerkenwell, widening was specifically stated to be for 
 " tramway purposes." The Council were told by the 
 Improvements Committee that half the cost of the property, 
 and the whole cost of the paving, &c., would be charged 
 against the tramways account. On that information, the 
 Council sanctioned the scheme. An Act was passed in 1900 
 authorising the Council to carry out the widening. What 
 happened ? In October, 1901, according to the annual report 
 of the Improvements Committee, the Council resolved " to 
 relieve the tramways account for the present from the liability 
 to pay half the cost of the acquisition of property and the 
 whole cost of paving, &c. But the liability is to be revived 
 if the proposed tramway is a source of profit." Imagine any 
 private undertaking being conducted on such lines ? Picture, 
 for example, a private tramway company undertaking to widen 
 a street at their own cost, and then saying, " Oh, we will relieve 
 the tramway from its liability, which shall be borne by the 
 ratepayers. If the tramway is profitable, we will pay for it ; 
 if not, we will charge it to the rates." Having got the scheme 
 sanctioned on the distinct statement that half the cost is to 
 be charged to the tramways account, has the L.C.C. the legal 
 right to vary the incidence of the cost ? It is interesting to 
 note that the Finance Committee of the L.C.C. do not expect a 
 profit on the Northern lines for some years. So the prospect 
 of the liability being re-imposed on the tramways is very 
 remote. The broad fact to be observed is that here there is 
 
 a barefaced manipulation of the accounts. It is this sort 
 
 of " book-keeping," which makes the public rightly demand a 
 professional audit of L.C.C. accounts.
 
 67 
 
 Report of the Local Government Board 
 
 Auditor. 
 
 The Report of the Local Government Board Auditor on 
 the L.C.C. Accounts for the year ending March 31st, 1905, dated 
 April 4th, 1906, states that " Up to March 31st, 1905, sums 
 amounting in the aggregate to £89,305 have been charged to 
 the tramways account in respect of expenditure on street widen- 
 ings in connection with tramways. I find that up to that date 
 the Council had decided in 23 cases of street improvements 
 that the tramways account should bear a proportion of the 
 cost, and in one case the whole of the cost. The total sum 
 estimated to be chargeable to the tramways account in these 
 cases is £377,260. The proportions vary, but are for the 
 most part one-third of the net cost of the improvement. The 
 Council does not appear to have had before it any data when 
 fixing these proportions, which seem to be of a somewhat arbi- 
 trary character. I understand that several Committees of the 
 Council have under their consideration the matter of the incidence 
 of the cost of street widenings in connection with tramway 
 schemes, and I propose, therefore, to defer any remarks I may 
 have to make on the method in which the expenditure is divided 
 between the improvements and tramways accounts." — {L.C.C. 
 Agenda No. 42, p. 4, July 24, 1906. Statements accompanying 
 Committee'' s Reports.) 
 
 Therefore, from the Auditor's Report, it seems probable 
 that a million of money has been charged to the ratepayers 
 which ought to have been charged to the capital expenditure 
 account of the tramways. Those are points which, in dis- 
 cussing the manipulation of accounts by the Progressive Party, 
 ought to be put clearly before the public. There is no class of 
 the community that does not wish its municipal finance to be 
 honestly conducted. The ratepayers of London, being share- 
 holders, willing or unwilling, in these municipal tramways, have 
 a right to a full and honest statement of accounts. It is for 
 the Municipal Reform Party to demand true financial state- 
 ments. 
 
 E 2
 
 68 
 
 Return as to Chargfes for Street 
 Improvements, 1906. 
 
 This return in regard to Street Improvements, dated 
 October 10th, 1906, though asked for by Captain Swinton 
 on January 23rd, 1906, was not, in fact, issued until October 16th, 
 1906, i.e., after a lapse of nearly nine months. 
 
 The actual return does not, in fact, adhere to the terms 
 of the original resolution, and it is impossible, within the scope 
 of the present book, to enter into an examination of the various 
 items dealt with in that return. 
 
 The return has been ably dealt with ' by Captain Swinton 
 in his speech in the Council on October 16th, 1906, republished 
 by the Society as a pamphlet — " The Tramway Scandal — How 
 the Progressives reckon Profits." ' 
 
 The return amply justifies Captain Swinton's statement 
 on that occasion : — " I say deliberately, after careful study, 
 that London is owed at least half a million." 
 
 Lord Welby, in the House of Lords, on July 9th, 1906, on 
 the second reading of the L.C.C. (Money) Bill, further stated : — 
 " With regard to the next point — the division of the cost of 
 widening streets between the tramways undertaking and the 
 improvements account — I may say that this matter has received 
 and is receiving the attention of the Council. The Charging Of 
 one-third in the manner in which it has been carried out up 
 to the present has not been thought a just or right division, 
 
 and the Finance Committee are now engaged with the other 
 committees concerned in endeavouring to lay down principles 
 by which the partition will be made in a more satisfactory 
 manner." 
 
 Tramway Depreciation Charg^es. 
 
 The next point to be considered is the question of deprecia- 
 tion. In some years, nothing whatever has been allowed for 
 depreciation on the South London lines. The following table, 
 extracted from the L.C.C. Tramways Accounts, shows the 
 amount of the debt outstanding at the end of each year in
 
 69 
 
 respect of the Southern Tramways, and the sum set aside each 
 
 year for renewals : — 
 
 Debt outstanding at 
 
 
 
 the end of year.* Depreciation Fund. 
 
 1899-1900 . 
 
 £864,548 
 
 £7,308 
 
 1900-1 
 
 854,733 
 
 7,000 
 
 1901-2 
 
 828,910 
 
 9,000 
 
 1902-3 
 
 1,411,420 
 
 11,000 
 
 1903-4 
 
 1,983,514 
 
 nothing 
 
 1904-5 
 
 2,415,329 
 
 35,000 
 
 1905-6 
 
 2,768,636 
 
 35,000 
 
 Total . 
 
 £2,768,636 
 
 . £104,308 
 
 The L.C.C. annual estimates for 1906-7 are prefaced by 
 a memorandum, signed by Lord Welby (Chairman of the 
 Finance Committee) and by Mr. Haward (Comptroller of the 
 Council). It is stated on page 7 of those estimates that " the 
 sum to be set aside for future renewals is calculated at Id. per 
 car mile on the car mileage estimated to be run. For the 
 three years during which cars have already been worked by 
 electric traction the surplus on working has not been sufficient 
 to enable the full produce of Id. per car mile to be set aside for 
 future renewals, and about £45,000 is still required to bring 
 the provision up to this standard." 
 
 The Finance Committee state that they " are in communi- 
 cation with the Highways Committee as to the sufficiency of 
 the renewals fund, with a view to the submission to the Council 
 at an early date of a full report on the subject." Mr. Haward 
 (Comptroller of the L.C.C.) stated in 1906, before the Earl of 
 Camperdown's Committee in the House of Lords, in answer 
 to a question why the L.C.C. had not allowed a larger sum for 
 depreciation, that the tramways could not afford to do so. 
 
 Speaking in the Council on October 23rd, 1906, Mr. A. F. 
 Buxton (Moderate) dealt with this question of Depreciation 
 Charges, and analysed generally the alleged profits on the tramways. 
 
 In his speech, Mr. Buxton said : — 
 
 " I should Hke to touch specially on this much-discussed 
 Kenewals Reser ve Fund. Mr. McKinnon Wood seems to think 
 [* Page 43, L.C.C. Tramway Accounts to March 31st 1906, No. 968.]
 
 70 
 
 that it is hardly necessary in the early days of a concern to have 
 the renewals account kept up to its full limits. Apart from 
 one's own individual opinion, he does not agree with what has 
 fallen from Lord Welby, and what is reported by the Comp- 
 troller of tlie Council. Lord Welby has shown to us that the 
 £35,000 which was charged in favour of Renewals Fund last 
 year was considerably less even than a penny a mile run ; about 
 £15,000 short. 
 
 " One penny a mile would represent over £50,000, and the 
 actual amount was £35,000, so that there is a material difference. 
 " Apart from that, we have the Comptroller's opinion showing 
 that the amount credited to the Renewals Fund for the last 
 few years is short by £44,700. This is a report dated last 
 March, so that there is no doubt that this much-vaunted 
 £3,000 which Sir John Benn has alluded to is nothing to make 
 much about. It is distinctly short by at least £44,700. There 
 is, here, a very serious omission in our accounts. 
 
 "... In the accounts this year, there is a revenue of £2,319 
 and £25,256, and on the other side is a charge on the revenue 
 account of £25,573, and the Aldwych line £742, making shortly 
 a net profit of £1,260. I do not want to make too much of a 
 small figure. But if to that we charge the renewals account, 
 as it should be charged, with over Id. a mile, then we get a 
 different story. Supposing it was brought out at over £50,000, 
 this net profit would be turned into a net loss of nearly £14,000 
 to begin with.* But £25,256 of profit has again to be deducted, 
 because we are told that one of the wickednesses of this Council 
 is the lease of the Northern Tramways. The Northern Trams 
 brought in last year a net profit of £25,256, so that if we deduct 
 an amount, which apparently we ought never to have received, 
 from what we have been told by the other party, there would 
 have been a loss of £39,256, instead of a profit of £1,260. This 
 very serious loss represents as a fact what Sir John Benn has 
 spoken of as a gold mine. 
 
 * Note. — This figure is arrived at by deducting from the £.50,000, 
 which should have been charged for Renewals, the sum of £35,000, which 
 is the amount acltinlly so charged (i.e., £15,000). 'i'his debit amount of 
 £15,000 has to be deducted from the above credit of £1,200, giving a net 
 loss of £13,740.
 
 71 
 
 "... Sir Edwin Cornwall, wnen we were discussing the 
 Estimates last year, said that a syndicate would give us twenty 
 or fifty millions for our tramway system. It struck me as a very 
 large margin at the time. He did not tell us how he arrived 
 at the figures. The truth is, both Sir John Benn and Sir 
 Edwin Cornwall have beem caught entirely by the glamour 
 of big figures, and having lost their way, they now do not know 
 where they are. The statements which are made, are too much 
 like the terms of a very hopeful prospectus, which in most well- 
 ordered households goes straight into the waste-paper basket." 
 
 Comparison of Glasg^ovt^ and London 
 Depreciation Allowances. 
 
 It is interesting to compare the allowance for depreciation 
 made by the L.C.C., with that made by the Glasgow Corporation 
 Tramways : — 
 
 GLASGOW. 
 
 Year ending 
 May 3l3t. 
 
 Capital 
 Expenditure. 
 
 Car Mileage 
 ran. 
 
 Depreciation 
 and Special 
 Depreciation 
 
 {not including 
 General 
 
 Reserve Fund). 
 
 Average per 
 Car Mile. 
 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 
 £2,129,512 
 
 2,107,880 
 2,763,382 
 
 14,008,750 
 16,291,082 
 17,943,595 
 18,886,910 
 
 £192,555 
 200,447 
 221,792 
 189,886 
 
 2-44d. 
 3-Old. 
 2-96d. 
 2-41d. 
 
 LONDON. 
 
 Year ending 
 
 Capital 
 
 Car Mileage ran. 
 
 Depreciation. 
 
 Average per 
 
 March 31st. 
 
 Expenditure. 
 
 (6) Horse. 
 
 Reserve Fund. 
 
 C;ir Mile. 
 
 1903 
 
 £1,533,380 
 
 (b) 10,110,940 
 
 £11,000 
 
 0-26d. 
 
 1904 
 
 
 {a) 4,469,576 ( 
 
 Nil. 
 
 
 
 
 {b) 7,066,958 f 
 
 
 1905 
 
 2,623,692 
 
 (a) 10,931,396 ( 
 (6) 3,150,001 1 
 
 35,000 
 
 0-76d. 
 
 1906 
 
 
 (a) 12,164,292 
 
 35,000 
 
 0-69d.
 
 72 
 
 The Necessity for Effective Depreciation 
 
 Funds. 
 
 In The Contemporary Review for November, 1906, Mr. J. 
 Holt Schooling, the well-known statistician, explains why, in 
 municipal trading, a proper allowance for depreciation is neces- 
 sary. 
 
 In this letter, Mr. Schooling says : — 
 
 "... Why ought municipalities that engage in what are 
 called ' Reproductive Undertakings ' to create a depreciation 
 fund, in addition to spending money yearly upon such repairs 
 and renewals of plant, machinery, &c., as are absolutely neces- 
 sary ■? That is the question before me. 
 
 " Many sincere persons, in addition to Mr. Morgan-Browne, 
 say, in effect, that no such depreciation fund is necessary, 
 because the whole debt upon these undertakings will be paid 
 off during the working lifetime of this or that undertaking. 
 
 " That, briefly, is the reply given to my question by the 
 supporters of our local spending authorities. 
 
 " But the municipahties of Glasgow and of a few other 
 towns do make an adequate depreciation fund. 
 
 " I am quite aware that, as a matter of theoretical municipal 
 finance, such debt is supposed to be paid off during the working 
 lifetime of this or that undertaking. And if municipal financial 
 practice coincided with municipal financial theory, Mr. Morgan- 
 Browne and his municipal friends would be correct. 
 
 " In the report of the Select Committee on ' Eepayment of 
 Loans by Local Authorities,' Blue Book 239 of 1902, there is the 
 e\ddence of Mr. Noel T. Kershaw, Assistant Secretary of the 
 Local Government Board. He states : ' Cases are frequently 
 occurring in which the works cease to be of use before they 
 are worn out ' (page 2). And Mr. Kershaw handed in a list of 
 29 such cases that came to his notice during 30 consecutive days 
 at the Local Government Board. This list is printed on pages 392 
 and 393 of the Blue Book. In all such cases of failure of works 
 the failure took place before the period of debt-repayment had 
 expired. 
 
 " That is my point. I state that municipal financial theory 
 and municipal financial practice do not coincide, and that as 
 a rule the debt will not be paid off during the working lifetime 
 of this or that undertaking. It happens that during the last
 
 73 
 
 26 years I have acquired the habit of forming opinions upon the 
 matters of finance that have been sent for my examination, 
 after investigation of the actual data, in place of taking for 
 granted that financial theory and financia] practice coincide. 
 And during the long course of this work I have had actually 
 to compute sinking funds, and I have had to advise my clients 
 as to the proper amount to be set aside in many such affairs 
 as miners' relief funds, schemes for workmen contracting out 
 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, &c 
 
 "Let me take for an example the tramways Of the 
 
 London County Council. In theory, it is supposed that 
 
 the debt incurred upon these tramways will be paid off during 
 the working lifetime of the tramways, and no adequate 
 depreciation fund is being created. But actual investigation 
 of the tramway account throughout the whole period of its 
 existence shows me that, at the present rate of debt redemption, 
 the tramway debt will not be discharged until after 40 years. 
 
 " I presume that even Mr. Morgan-Browne would not claim 
 that the working lifetime of a tramway is anything like so long 
 as 40 years. 
 
 " Owing to the large divergence between municipal financial 
 theory and municipal financial practice, we begin to see that 
 the formation of a depreciation fund is necessary. 
 
 " When the tramways get older, much larger amounts than 
 are at present necessary will have to be spent yearly upon repairs, 
 and especially upon renewals. And when more years have 
 passed, a wholesale renewal of tramway plant wiU be necessary, 
 long before the debt is paid ofE. 
 
 " In the absence of an adequate depreciation fund, all this 
 heavy future cost for repairs and renewals will eat up the 
 tramway receipts (already drawn upon for debt charges, and 
 for absolutely necessary repairs and renewals), and will entail 
 a charge upon the rates for these heavy repairs and renewals. 
 
 By sound finance, a depreciation fund ought to be formed 
 in the first year of a tramway's life. During the 
 
 earlier years the amount put into the depreciation fund 
 would be in excess of the amount taken out of the depreciation 
 fund to pay for such small repairs as might be necessary. 
 During the later years the amount put yearly into the depre- 
 ciation fund would be inadequate to pay each year's cost of 
 repairs and renewals. But this would not matter, because 
 the accumulations of the depreciation fund would, in the later 
 years, be available to pay the then heavy cost of repairs and 
 
 renewals. This sound principle of finance is that used
 
 74 
 
 1o compute the yearly premiums to be paid by a man who 
 assures his life, or who assures for sicltness pay. The 
 
 yearly premium does not vary during the same man's Ufetime. 
 In the earUer years, this man pays each year niore than is 
 entailed by the cost each year of the risk against which he 
 assures. But in the later years the man pays less per year as 
 premium than is entailed by the yearly cost of the risk. And 
 the premium accumulations of past years make up the deficiencies. 
 " That is an exact explanation based upon sound finance 
 of why a depreciation fund is necessary. . . ." 
 
 Repayment of Capital Expenditure. 
 
 Another point which requires examination in connection 
 with L.C.C. tramways is that of repayment of capital expen- 
 diture. The Progressive Party, like all municipal traders, 
 talk about paying off capital expenditure on tramways, and 
 giving the ratepayers of London, " a glorious heritage " free 
 of debt. But long before the L.C.C. has paid off its debt, the 
 tramways will be obsolete. In the case of many municipal 
 undertakings the rate of repayment of capital expenditure 
 since their establishment has been so small that, unless the 
 rate is accelerated, the undertakings will not be free from debt 
 for hundreds of years. Of course, the fact is that capital 
 expenditure on an undertaking never ceases. It is necessary 
 continually to " scrap " obsolete machinery, &c., long before 
 the capital expenditure on it has been repaid. Greenwich 
 generating station for the L.C.C. tramways, on which half a 
 million of money has been spent, is to a large extent obsolete, 
 though but recently completed. An electrical expert recently 
 stated that the L.C.C. have already spent half a million, and 
 propose to spend another half a million of money on that 
 generating station. This gentleman, a leading engineer, is 
 prepared to erect a generating station of equal capacity for a 
 quarter of the sum to be expended by the L.C.C. 
 
 insufficiency of Establishment Charges. 
 
 As to the third item— the establishment charges. It is 
 admitted by the L.C.C, not only with regard to their tram-
 
 75 
 
 ways, but in the case of other municipal undertakings, that 
 enough has not been charged for the services of the central 
 staff. Though they have a tramways department, that depart- 
 ment has the advantage of the advice and work of the Council's 
 principal officers — the Clerk of the Council, Valuer, Architect, 
 Engineer, and the whole of their respective staffs. Therefore 
 there ought to be some method of ascertaining what is the value 
 of those services, and a sum ought to be charged against the 
 tramways account in respect thereof. A report on this subject 
 was presented by the Finance Committee to the Council on 
 July 3rd, 1906.* That report was an absolute confession 
 that in the past sufficient had not been charged to the tramways, 
 and other undertakings, for establishment services, and that 
 in the future they would try and arrive at some sufficient 
 standard of charge to be made against the different under- 
 takings. 
 
 In this report, the Finance Committee [inter alia) 
 -stated : — 
 
 "W? think, however, that the time has arrived for 
 the Council to make regulations providing for a more 
 complete apportionment of the charges in question to the 
 various accounts set out in the above list. . . ." 
 
 The same report further added : — 
 
 " It would be inconvenient to make these regulations 
 
 fetrOSpective, except in so far as they are already in force, and 
 we propose, therefore, that they shall be brought fully into 
 operation on 1st April, 1907." 
 
 An L.C.C. Eeturn, dated October 10th, 1906, shows {inter 
 ■alia) the amounts charged each year against the tramways 
 accounts in respect of the services of each branch of the Council's 
 central staff, other than the Tramways Department. 
 
 See as to this, " London Municipal Notes," July, 190G, pages 39 to 49.
 
 From this return, 
 of tht Return : — 
 
 the following table is taken (page 14) 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 Si. 
 
 CO 
 
 5> 
 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 SB 
 
 11 
 
 £ 
 181 
 
 41 
 
 18 
 
 5,452 
 
 11,731 
 
 10,757 
 
 12,286 
 
 40,466 
 
 ii 
 
 £ 
 175 
 
 700 
 
 700 
 
 700 
 
 800 
 
 845 
 
 1,250 
 
 2,990 
 
 © 
 to 
 
 rH 
 
 oo" 
 
 J 
 
 
 51 
 
 ^1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 I 
 
 n 
 
 ^1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 Department 
 of the 
 Clerk of 
 the Council. 
 
 
 =^11111111 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 >8 
 
 =^1 1 1 1 1 1 1 § 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 o 
 in 
 
 
 
 (M rH 00 00 C5 <H 
 
 (35 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 1^ 
 
 •"1 1 1 I 1 i 1 i 
 
 lO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 It 
 
 ^ C3 
 
 1-1 in in in 
 
 O CO to 00 
 
 trt 1 1 1 1 to in t- ■>* 
 1 1 1 1 TjT (o th •* 
 
 to 
 -* 
 
 o" 
 
 IN 
 
 Capital Revenue Capital Revenue 
 account, account, account, account. 
 
 1 
 
 ='^1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 1 
 
 Engineer's 
 Department. 
 
 C5 « O CO O 
 
 lO O CO CO 
 
 III lO o l> 
 
 in 
 
 to • 
 
 i-t 
 
 =^1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 i 
 
 in 
 
 □Q . 
 
 =^1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 pics 
 
 inooooinoo 
 trtt~ o o o o -1" o ■* 
 
 CO eo CO CO CO to t^ 
 
 o 
 to 
 
 Solicitor's 
 Department. 
 
 II 
 11 
 
 1 
 '''1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 1^ 
 
 oooooooo 
 
 t*)0 o o o o O in o 
 r-(-<»>-*-<)<inin5DO_^ 
 
 o 
 in 
 
 CO* 
 
 
 
 1899 .. 
 
 (3 months) 
 1899—1900 
 
 1900—1901 
 
 1901—1902 
 
 1902—1903 
 
 1903—1904 
 
 1904—1905 
 
 1905—1906 
 
 , 
 
 <D 
 
 ^«o_ 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 s 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 (I 
 
 
 s 
 
 _2 
 
 "5 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 P. 
 o
 
 77 
 
 For the year 1905-6, the L.C.C. Central Staff and Offices, 
 without education, cost £205,527. Seven years ago, when the 
 L.C.C. first took over the tramways, it was £136,718. For the 
 year, 1902-3, the cost was £174,671. In that year the 
 Clerk of the Council's Department cost £23,264. The tramways 
 paid none of that, nor did they pay one penny until July, 1906, 
 when, after this return was in print, the palpable absurdity 
 of such an arrangement caused £500 to be charged against them. 
 It is impossible to deny that the Clerk's Department must 
 have much to do with the tramways, especially when we consider 
 that it includes the Parliamentary branch which looks after 
 the Council's numerous tramway Bills. 
 
 In that year, 1902-3, the Solicitor's Department cost 
 £15,513 ; the tramways subscribed £500. The Comptroller's 
 Department cost £16,506; the tramways were charged £300, 
 And so on. In these seven years, while the Central Office has 
 cost London upwards of £1,200,000, the tramways have paid 
 only £8,160 towards this on revenue account. 
 
 It is manifest, therefore, that the L.C.C. Tramway Accounts 
 have been subsidised to a very large extent in respect of establish- 
 ment charges ; and until the proper porportion of these establish- 
 ment charges has been debited against the tramway accounts, 
 it is childish to describe them as " Revenue Producing Under- 
 takings," or to allege that they impose no charge upon the 
 ratepayers. 
 
 L.C.C. Tramway Fares. 
 
 One of the favourite Progressive allegations is to the effect 
 that the fares granted on their tramways far eclipse those 
 obtainable from companies, or by other means of locomotion. 
 
 The whole subject came up for debate at the Council on 
 May 29tli, 1906, on a proposal of the Highways Committee 
 that workmen's fares on certain new lines should be at a higher 
 rate than in the past. 
 
 The debate led to several important statements, and notably 
 to a speech by Mr. G. Dew, Progressive Councillor for South
 
 78 
 
 Islington, who moved an amendment to the effect that the 
 
 workmen's fares on these new Hnes should be the same as on 
 
 the existing tramways. 
 
 In support of his amendment, Mr. Dew said : — 
 
 " My reason for moving this amendment is that I see no 
 reason why we should depart from the policy which this Council 
 has consistently laid down, not only for itself, but a poUcy 
 which it has also pursued in dealing with London Eailway 
 Companies and others who carry passengers. 
 
 ". . . I want this Council to be consistent. I want to know 
 what position we shall be in, in the future, when we are facing 
 these various companies constructing railways, new railways 
 in London, when we go before them to try to get what we term 
 our Model Workmen's Fares Clause in their Bills. What we 
 are not prepared to do ourselves, we certainly have no justi- 
 fication in point of argument to ask other people to do. 
 
 "... I would like to remind the Council of the evidence 
 we recently gave through our Parliamentary Committee before 
 a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which specially 
 sat to consider this question of workmen's fares. We then laid 
 down what we considered to be our Model Clause. We said 
 that railway companies, tube railways, and the general 
 railway companies in all new departures, or in new legis- 
 lation brought in by the Government, should be placed under 
 the obligation to grant workmen's fares at the following scale : 
 10 miles, single journey, for Id. ; return journey of 20 miles, 
 2d. ; 15 miles were laid down under the scale at 3d. the return ; 
 and 20 miles, return journey, at 4d. This evidence we gavs 
 dehberately before a Committee of the House of Commons. 
 . . . The same kind of evidence we put before every railway 
 committee, and tried to get put in every railway Bill passed 
 through Parhament for several years past. 
 
 " Captain Hemphill will understand that in continuing 
 to give these cheap fares he will only be doing what many 
 private railway companies, and even tramway companies, are 
 already doing. On the Great Eastern Railway, a railway 
 which cost a great deal of money to construct, you can travel 
 10| miles into London and lOf miles back, making 21^ miles, 
 return journey, for a charge of 2d. a day. The North London 
 Railway, by obligation placed upon them, carry passengers a 
 distance of 8^ miles to and fro, 16| miles per day, for 2d. the 
 return journey. The Metropolitan Railway carry people 7| 
 miles, single distance, or double that distance, at 2d. return. 
 The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, carry people right 
 from Victoria Station to Snow Hill, a distance of 7| miles, 
 14| miles, at 2d. a day ; a railway running through the very
 
 79 
 
 district in which Captain Hemphill has his tramways running: 
 in competition ; the District Railway, 6h miles, the retura 
 journey 2d. a day. 
 
 " I wish now to refer to some tramways that run very near 
 London, and compare them with the Council's tramways. 
 These tramways, to which I refer, run inside the County of 
 London. What we want Captain Hemphill to do in regard 
 to this extension of traiiuvays is nothing more than the 
 London United Tramways are already doing. I do not 
 
 know whether he is aware that you can travel on the London 
 United Tramways from Hampton Court to Richmond, a distance 
 of about 7 miles, for Id. single, and 2d. return journey ; that 
 is the workmen's fare on that route. From Southall to 
 Shepherd's Bush, which is 7 miles, 14 miles return, is 2d. the 
 return journey. Under my amendment we put no greater 
 hardship upon the Chairman of the Highways Committee than 
 that which is already granted by tramways serving the other 
 districts of London. You can travel from Hounslow to Ham- 
 mersmith, a distance of 7| miles into London and 7| miles back, 
 for 2d. the return journey. You can go from Twickenham to 
 Shepherd's Bush, a distance of 7J miles, again for 2d. the return 
 journey. The London United Tramways take people from 
 Hounslow to Shepherd's Bush, a distance of 8 miles, or 16 miles 
 the return journey, for 2d. a day. . . ." 
 
 On the same occasion, Mr. D. S. Waterlow, M.P. (Pro- 
 gressive), said : — " . . . the existing workmen's fares for the 
 six or seven miles do not pay the working expenses." . . "I 
 say that our whole Progressive policy is bound up with making 
 these trams pay their way." 
 
 Mr. A. J. Shepheard (Progressive) also stated : — " We are 
 told on the authority of the Committee that they are carrying, 
 even at the 12 miles, six miles each way, each passenger at a 
 dead loss." 
 
 Whilst Captain the Hon. Fitzroy Hemphill (Chairman of 
 the Highways Committee) (Progressive), in the course of the 
 same debate, said : — " At the present moment the workmen's 
 cars are earning 6Jd. per car mile, the cost of running them is 
 7fd. per car mile, therefore there is a loss of Id. per car mile." 
 
 It would appear, therefore, from the above that the L.C.C. 
 at present are running these workmen's trams at a considerable 
 loss, and notwithstanding are unable to offer any better terms 
 than many private tramway and other companies.
 
 80 
 
 Private Companies and Reduced Fares. 
 
 Some striking examples are forthcoming at the present 
 time of the reductions in fares, and other advantages, which are 
 now being granted in London by private companies in conse- 
 quence of increased competition, due to the opening of new- 
 tube railways, &c., and the more varied means of locomotion 
 whicii now exist in most parts of Greater London. 
 
 For example, The Daily Mail of December 7th, 1906, says : — 
 
 " On and after December 15th, combined tickets for tram- 
 way and railway travel may be obtained from conductors, or at 
 the booking offices of — 
 
 The London United Electric Tramways, 
 
 The Brompton, Piccadilly and King's Cross Eailway, 
 
 The District Railway. 
 
 " An agreement which made the new scheme possible was 
 signed this week by the several companies concerned, and its 
 first operation will coincide with the opening of the new ' tube ' 
 railway running from Finsbury Park in the north, by way of 
 King's Cross, Holborn, and Piccadilly, to Hammersmith, in the 
 west. 
 
 " It will be noted that neither the Central London ' tube 
 nor the London County Council tramways are included in the 
 reform. The Central London Company have refused to enter 
 into any combination with the tramways, and the County 
 Council have not assisted in bringing about this great convenience 
 to the London pubUc. 
 
 " Sir Clifton Robinson explained to a Daihj Mail repre- 
 sentative on December 6th, how the change has been brought 
 about. He stated that he had suggested it when, in 1902, the 
 great fight between the tramways and the railways took place 
 before Lord Windsor's joint committee. 
 
 " ' I had resolved to bring about the system of interchange 
 of traffic by through tickets as soon as a fitting opportunity 
 offered itself. I thought that the time had come with the open- 
 ing of the new ' tube ' from Hammersinith to Finsbury Park. 
 It involved a great deal of trouble, the companies not seeing how 
 they could get over the difficulties caused by their numerous 
 stations, enormous traffic, and sectional fares. After three 
 months' hard work given to the proper adjustment and elabora- 
 tion of the scheme I was able to brush away all the existing 
 difficulties and to put forward a new idea altogether, free from 
 complications, simplicity itself, and absolutely devoid of any 
 additional labour on passengers or officials of the railway or 
 conductors.'
 
 81 
 
 " His secret lay in the new tickets. . . . 
 
 " There are three sets of tickets, one each for the Hampton 
 Court, the Hounslow, and the Uxbridge routes. Each is in 
 duplicate, but one side is for the conductor to retain and has 
 ' Not available ' printed across it and folds behind the half we 
 show. 
 
 " The method of using is simple. A passenger entering 
 the car, say at Hounslow Heath, tells the conductor he wishes 
 to go to Finsbury Park on the new ' tube,' or to St. Mary's, 
 Whitechapel, on the District. The conductor punches a hole 
 through the folded ticket at the Hounslow Heath section, and 
 another at the bottom, either on the left for Finsbury Park, or 
 on the right for Whitechapel. He then collects fourpence for 
 the tram fare, and either fourpence or threepence for the railway 
 fare making either eightpence for Finsbury Park or sevenpence for 
 Whitechapel. The passenger is then given his half of the ticket 
 and the transaction is over so far as he is concerned. Meanwhile, 
 the conductor retains his portion, which has been punched 
 simultaneously in the same places. The passenger then goes 
 to his destination without further trouble about tickets, changing 
 to the railway either at Hammersmith or Hounslow Town. 
 Correspondingly on the railway he would at Finsbury Park on 
 asking for a combined ticket for Hounslow Heath receive a rail- 
 way ticket on paying eightpence, which he would exchange 
 for a tramway ticket on taking his seat in the car. 
 
 " The Uxbridge passenger may with one ticket travel by 
 tramway and railway by this system twenty miles for ninepence 
 to Finsbury Park. 
 
 " A reduction of fares will not be the least of the advantages 
 of the interchange system. The fare between Hampton Court 
 and Hammersmith is reduced one penny, and for through traffic 
 on the Piccadilly and Brompton hne the zone system is intro- 
 duced, so that the fares are : — 
 
 Hammersmith to Earl's Court . . - . Id. 
 
 Hammersmith to Holborn . . . . 2d. 
 
 Hammersmith to King's Cross . . . . 3d. 
 
 Hammersmith to Finsbury Park . . 4d. 
 
 " Similarly on the District : — 
 
 Hammersmith to Earl's Court . . . . Id. 
 
 Hammersmith to Temple , , . . 2d. 
 
 Hammersmith to Whitechapel . . . . 3d. 
 
 " The scheme is made possible by Sir Clifton Robinson 
 grouping together fares of the same value."
 
 82 
 
 The Progressives and the treatment of the 
 
 Tramway Employees. 
 
 Justice, the weekly organ of the Social Democrats, under 
 date July 28th, 1906, published a long article dealing with 
 
 this subject. 
 
 " How should a municipality pay and treat its men ? " 
 first asks the writer, to which his answer is : " Evidently such a 
 body should give the lead in the payment of wages and in the 
 treatment of its men. How does the London County Council ? 
 Without a doubt, in the most hypocritical and capitalistic way." 
 
 The writer then goes on to deal with the alleged action of 
 the London County Council in regard to its tramway employees. 
 The first grievance referred to is the treatment of the spare 
 men. " It will frequently happen," states the writer of this 
 article, " that a spare man will, under the present arrange- 
 ments, only get about three or four days work in a week. As 
 he starts with 4s. 9d. per day, this means 14s. 3d., or 19s. some- 
 times, as compared with 37s. 6d. received by the top-rate man, 
 who puts in six days per week." 
 
 The next matter treated of is the " gradations in the pay 
 of these tramway employees. As to this we are told : " No 
 one who knows anything of the strain upon the men will pretend 
 that 6s. 3d. is too much for either a conductor or a driver, nor 
 will anyone cognisant of the facts say the Council cannot afford, 
 and well afford, the payment given. It COmeS then tO this, 
 
 that the great County Council is a gigantic sweater, 
 malcing base pretence at the time of election, but 
 
 carrying out the action and the spirit of the ordinary 
 capitalist." 
 
 In concluding his remarks on the " grievances of the spare 
 men," the writer says : " It is not from lack of knowledge 
 that the Council permits the sparemen's grievance to remain. 
 
 Appeals have been made time after time. The grievances 
 remain unredressed, and London boasts her Progressive 
 Councillors." 
 
 The next grievance alluded to is that of fines. "A 
 ridiculously overpaid official still has it in his power to fine men 
 for missing time and for showing up late," says the writer.
 
 83 
 
 The next allegation brought under consideration is : " In 
 terference with trade unionism." As to this the writer asserts : 
 " Before the Council took over the tramways, the tramway 
 company were distinctly antagonistic to trade combination. 
 The old animosity still remains." " I wish you wouldn't belong 
 to the Union," said an official to a regulator, " Mr. so-and-so 
 doesn't like it." 
 
 Various allegations are next made as to what is termed 
 the " petty tyranny that obtains " on the part of some of the 
 leading officials towards the ordinary employees. In this con- 
 nection, the statement is put forward that : " Plainly the 
 position is such to-day, that the men are afraid to speak lest 
 someone should see them. Never in the worst days of the 
 old company was there such a feeling of bitterness amongst 
 the ticket-inspectors and regulators." 
 
 Instances of what are described as " blackguardism in 
 the yards " are next set out. The writer concludes his remarks 
 on this subject with the words : " And as this happens under 
 a Puritanic County Council, one rather laughs at the smug 
 hypocrisy of Councillors who allow such things to be." 
 
 What is described as the " strange methods of payment " 
 in the " yards " elicits the remark " That the County Council 
 
 sweats labour, and that most Of its members Ought to be 
 opposed by every trade unionist in London. Surely the 
 
 London County Council, regardless of persons employed, 
 
 should at least pay trade union rates of wages." 
 
 The next complaint is, as to the utter indifference of the 
 
 Council and its members towards these employees. 
 
 " Quite in harmony with their general line of action," 
 continues the article, " was the charging their workers ordinary 
 fares to and from their work." 
 
 As to this, we are told : " In the days of the old company 
 such things were not tolerated, and it was for the London 
 'bounty Council to begin the mean business of charging car 
 cleaners for their rides to and from home. It is true the thing 
 has been recently put right, but only after a lot of working 
 and appealing on the part of the men's Union." 
 
 " Another meanness of the Council," the writer next 
 
 F 2
 
 84 
 
 / 
 
 observes : " is seen in its idea of superannuation." As to 
 this, he states : " Every person receiving a big salary, or 
 employed in the office, is put on the superannuation list, but 
 men outside are not regarded as other than temporary men." 
 
 The allegation throughout is that, while practically nothing 
 
 is too good for the higher paid officials ; the treatment is very 
 
 different so far as the minor employees are concerned. 
 
 " Yet while the poorly paid worker is treated with asperity, 
 the well-paid official receives caresses galore. He may make 
 mistakes, but these may mean promotion." 
 
 The indictment contained in this article concludes with 
 
 the words : " It is time for the workers of London to play a 
 
 part in Council matters : to elect those who are fearless and 
 
 true, and to attack this piece of hypocrisy which exists for the 
 
 enriching of well-paid officialdom and its friends." 
 
 Rates of Pay, &c., of Trannway Employees. 
 
 The following table shows the rates of pay, hours of work, 
 &c., of the Northern Metropolitan Tramway Company's and 
 L.C.C. tramway employees. (Extracted from the Council's 
 Minutes of July 24th, 1906, p. 373, &c.) 
 
 North Metropolitan Tramway Company. 
 
 L.C.C. ' 
 
 Iramways. 
 
 Description of 
 Work. 
 
 No. of 
 Men. 
 
 Hours 
 
 per 
 
 Week. 
 
 Average 
 
 Pay per 
 
 Week. 
 
 Average 
 
 Pay pel 
 
 Hour. 
 
 No. of 
 Men. 
 
 Hours 
 
 per 
 
 Week. 
 
 Average 
 
 Pav per 
 
 Week. 
 
 Average 
 
 Pay per 
 
 Hour. 
 
 Drivers 
 
 717 
 
 70 
 
 8. d. 
 41 10 
 
 d. 
 
 837 
 
 60 
 
 8. d. 
 37 S 
 
 d. 
 
 Conductors . . 
 
 718 
 
 70 
 
 41 10 
 
 7i 
 
 838 
 
 60 
 
 37 8 
 
 7i 
 
 Horsekeepers 
 
 570 
 
 63 
 
 27 10 
 
 5i 
 
 634 
 
 60 
 
 26 
 
 5i 
 
 Track Cleaners 
 
 35 
 
 62 
 
 27 6 
 
 51 
 
 37 
 
 60 
 
 25 
 
 5 
 
 Washers 
 
 71 
 
 63 
 
 27 8 
 
 5i 
 
 83 
 
 60 
 
 25 
 
 5 
 
 Other Employees, 
 Various . . 
 
 349 
 
 64 
 
 35 6 
 
 6i 
 
 401 
 
 59 
 
 35 5 
 
 7J 
 
 Total and Average . . 
 
 2,460 
 
 67i 
 
 37 3 
 
 6} 
 
 2,830 
 
 60 
 
 34 3 
 
 7 
 
 Total weekly wages, North Metropolitan Tramway Company 
 £4,569. 
 Total weekly wages, L.C.C. Tramways = £4,864. 
 
 Note. — 370 Extra men employed by Council involve an extra payment 
 of £295 per week, which works out at 168. per week for each extra man.
 
 85 
 
 The necessity for a proper Audit. 
 
 Note. — As to this subject, c.f. further, Article on L.C.C. 
 Finance, Part I., Vol. II. 
 
 In this connection the Municipal Reform Party is bound, 
 in the public interest, to work for the carrying out of the recom- 
 mendations of the Select Committee on Municipal Trading, 1903, 
 viz., to secure the establishment of a uniform system of municipal 
 accounts and an audit conducted by qualified and independent 
 auditors, as recommended by the report of that Committee. 
 Such auditors shall : — 
 
 (a) Certify that separate accounts of all trading under- 
 takings have been kept, and that every charge which each 
 ought to bear has been duly debited ; and 
 
 (b) Express an opinion upon the necessity of reserve 
 funds, and the adequacy of amounts set aside to meet 
 depreciation and obsolescence of plant. 
 
 The Select Committee on Municipal Trading were not 
 satisfied, nor are the people of London satisfied, with the present 
 system of auditing, not only ordinary municipal accounts, 
 but the accounts of municipal undertakings. One of the duties 
 of the Municipal Reform Party is to impress on the ratepayers 
 the great need for a proper audit. In June, 1906, in the case of 
 the Wood Green Urban District Council, after the Local Govern- 
 ment audit had taken place, a deficit of £5,000 was found by a 
 professional accountant who had been called in to investigate 
 the accounts. At a meeting of the Urban District Council on 
 June 27th, 1906, the Chairman (Mr. J. T. Davies) made a public 
 statement regarding the matter, and (according to The Hornsey 
 and Finsbury Park Journal of June 29th, 1906) said : " The 
 Local Government Board Auditor told him that he did not 
 trouble himself how the accounts were kept so long as the entries 
 were accurate, and every item properly vouched, and the pay- 
 ments authorised by the District Council. That was how the 
 erroneous accounts were passed by the Local Government 
 Board Auditor."
 
 86 
 
 Prog^ressive Extravag^ance. 
 
 It is, of course, very desirable that we should have extensions 
 
 of tramways, but we do not want an excessive number of 
 
 unprofitable extensions. The business must pay its way. It 
 
 is necessary to remember that it is the London ratepayers' 
 
 money which is invested, and the tramways should be run on 
 
 sound financial lines. In June, 1905, a report was brought 
 
 up by the Highways Committee recommending the extension 
 
 and re-construction of 17 miles of tramways, in regard to which 
 
 the Finance Committee reported that there would be an annual 
 
 deficit of £13,000. Mr. (now Sir) A. M. Torrance, Eadical 
 
 Member for Central Glasgow, ex-Chairman of the L.C.C., and a 
 
 Progressive stalwart, in a speech at the Council on June 6th, 
 
 1905, said, in referring to these proposals : — 
 
 " If ever there was a case of Rake's Progress, it seems to 
 me, without respect of party it is the position of the London 
 County Council at the present moment. The commitments 
 of the Council are appalling. The financial position of the Council 
 is one that I look upon with certain grave doubt as to what 
 is to be done in the future. . . Mr. Hardy makes a great deal 
 of South London and yet South London is remarkably well off 
 compared with the North of London, which has no electric 
 communication whatever. Speaking for the North of London, 
 and speaking as a business man, too, I am prepared to wait a 
 little while even for electric cars in the North of London. I 
 do not think the position of the London County Council at the 
 present moment is fairly understood by most of the members 
 themselves. In the near future, when the rates are going up, 
 then the pinch will come, and the outcry will be heard. I have 
 no fault whatever to find with the desire to see these trams 
 carried out by-and-bye. The only fault I find is with the racehorse 
 speed of my friend the chairman of the Highways Committee 
 and his Committee ; with him they are going rather too quickly 
 and taking no heed to the warnings given them by the Finance 
 Committee. I wish the Finance Committee had more control 
 over the finances of the Council than they appear to have now. 
 At the present moment every Committee is recommending 
 something extraordinary, and the Finance Committee somehow 
 have to find the money. I appeal to the Council, I move no 
 amendment. I do not expect on a question like this I should 
 get ten followers. But I have my own opinion as to the Council's 
 parlous position, because of the extravagant commitments 
 under which it has placed itself. I look upon this proposal as 
 just another step in the wrong direction of going too fast."
 
 87 
 
 Annual Report on the L.C.C. Tramways, 
 
 1905-6. 
 
 The following particulars are taken from the L.C.C. tramways 
 account for the year ended 31st March, 1906 : — 
 
 In regard to the Southern System, the net capital expen- 
 diture in respect of the whole of these tramways amounted on 
 March 31st, 1906, to £3,070,828, of which £293,491 has been 
 repaid out of revenue, the amount of the outstanding debt on 
 that date being £2,777,337. During the year 1905-6, the 
 net expenditure on capital account amounted to £374,582. 
 This amount includes £49,825 for the purchase of the under- 
 taking of the Woolwich and South-East London Tramways 
 Company, a large proportion of the remainder being in con- 
 nection with the reconstruction for electric traction of certain 
 sections of the tramways. 
 
 The total receipts from the undertaking during the year, 
 and the working expenses, were as follows : — 
 
 Total receipts . . 
 
 Working expenses 
 
 Making the gross surplus on working 
 
 Debt charges, amounting to £174,863, and a provision 
 of £8,000 for income tax, have been set against the sum of 
 £220,454 above referred to, and a sum of £35,000 has been 
 transferred to the renewals reserve fund, teaving a net SUrplUS 
 of £2,319 to be carried to the appropriation account. This 
 compares with a net surplus of £7,054 in 1904-5, when the 
 same amount was set aside for renewals and other special charges 
 were made. 
 
 The total receipts have been £100,114 more than in 1904-5, 
 notwithstanding the fact that the reconstruction of the Catford, 
 Battersea, and a portion of the Woolwich lines for electric 
 traction was commenced during the year, thereby reducing 
 to some extent the receipts from these lines. 
 
 The total amount of the renewals reserve fund established 
 in connection with the undertaking was, at the beginning of 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 782,210 5 
 
 2 
 
 561,755 17 
 
 2 
 
 220,454 8 
 

 
 88 
 
 the year 1905-6, £66,207. Dividends on investments and 
 interest on the bank balance of the fund, amounted during 
 the year to £2,076, and, as indicated above, a further sum of 
 £35,000* has been added to the fund during the year. The fund 
 has not been drawn upon during the year, and the balance 
 carried forward to the current year is £103,683. 
 
 " No comparison of working expenses," states the report^ 
 " can be made with those of former years owing to the different 
 circumstances obtaining. It may be stated, however, that the 
 total operating expenses for electric traction were £407,557, 
 or 8'04d. per car mile run, including £1,875 for special charges. 
 The total expenses in connection with horse traction amounted 
 to £154,198, or 10-83d. per car mile run including £829." 
 
 During the year 1905-6 several further sections of electric 
 lines were opened for traffic, including the extension of the 
 Tooting lines to Tooting Broadway, and the New Cross to 
 Lewisham tramways, while new car services on various portions 
 of the system have been instituted. 
 
 As regards the Northern System, the report contains the 
 following information : — 
 
 The Northern tramways system consists of a total of about 
 50| street miles of line. Nearly the whole of these lines (48^ 
 miles) were up to March 31st, 1906, leased to, and worked by, 
 the North Metropolitan Tramways Company by horse traction. 
 
 The total capital expenditure up to March 31st, 1906, in 
 respect of the Northern system, amounted to £1,118,166. The 
 
 * As regards electric traction, the number of car miles run is stated in 
 this same report at 12,164,292. The amount for depreciation at Id. per 
 car mile run would, on this mileage, work out at £50,684 ; whilst, as stated 
 above, the amount added to the renewals reserve fund during the year 
 was £35,000. 
 
 Lord Wei by, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, in his annual 
 statement for the financial year 1906-7, said : " The Finance Committee 
 are inclined to think that a penny per car mile j'un is not quite sufficient " ; 
 whilst the Royal Commission on London Traffic, in their report, stated : 
 " If the tramways are operated by the municipalities concerned, we think 
 that they should be worked on sound financial principles, ivith ample 
 provision for depreciation and repayment of capital or discharge of debt." 
 
 The amount therefore set aside towards the lenewals reserve fund 
 would, on Lord Welby's own showing, appear to be wholly insufficient. 
 
 Under these circumstances, what becomes of the alleged net surplus 
 on the Southern system of £2,31!) ?
 
 89 
 
 net amount expended out of capital account during the year 
 was £151,408. The amount of the outstanding debt was, on 
 March 31st, 1906, £983,282 ; repayments of capital amounting 
 in all to £134,883 having been made out of revenue. 
 
 As regards the lines not worked by the Council, the receipts 
 for the year 1905-6, by way of rent, &c., were £61,740 from 
 the North Metropolitan Tramways Company, which, added to 
 the amounts derived from sundry small leases, give a total of 
 £62,411. The expenditure during the year, mostly for doubling 
 short lengths of tramways, assessment appeals, and rent draw- 
 backs, amounted to £1,458, leaving the net receipts £60,952. 
 Out of this sum, debt charges amounting to £35,659 have been 
 paid, so that the surplus revenue carried to appropriation 
 account is £25,256, as compared with £22,836 in 1904-5. 
 
 Under the heading " General," the report states : — 
 
 Capital expenditure, amounting on March 31st, 1906, to 
 £544,018, had been incurred in respect of the provision of 
 generating stations and on the authorised tramways and street 
 widenings from Putney to Harlesden. The net amount ex- 
 pended for these purposes during the year 1905-6 was £237,078. 
 
 As regards tramway street improvements, in pursuance of 
 various resolutions of the Council apportioning the cost of 
 street improvements, capital expenditure of £85,399, £29,505, 
 and £38,100, making a total of £153,004, has, according to the 
 report, up to March 31st, 1906, been charged to the Southern 
 tramways system, the Northern system, and the general accounts 
 respectively, in respect of the cost of street improvements in 
 connection with tramways. Most of these street improvements 
 are not yet completed. 
 
 In regard to appropriation of surplus revenue, the report 
 states : — 
 
 The surplus balance of the appropriation account on 
 April 1st, 1905, was £29,988, and the surplus revenue of £2,319 
 and £25,256 on the Southern and Northern systems respectively 
 for the year 1905-6 increased this amount on March 31st, 1906, 
 to a total of £57,565, From this figure, however, must be 
 deducted the deficiency of £742 on the working of the Aldwych
 
 90 
 
 to Islington tramways, and £25,573 expended on the general 
 account respectively. The net surplus balance on March Slst, 
 1906, amounted, therefore, to £31,249. 
 
 [Extracted from the L.C.C. Agenda for July 31st, 1906, 
 J). 146, et seq.) 
 
 Trarttway Estimates for the year 1906-7. 
 
 On May 8th, 1906, Lord Welby, Chairman of the Finance 
 Committee, in presenting the estimates of receipts and expenses 
 for the financial year 1906-7, said : — 
 
 " I now come to a very interesting subject, our tramways. 
 
 " On 1st April last, we took over the Northern tramways. 
 We wish to electrify 50 miles on the south, and we shall electrify 
 50 miles besides on the north, 
 
 £ £ 
 
 The Southern system has already 
 
 cost us 3,141,319 
 
 We require to complete the South 
 
 about 1,000,000 
 
 4,141,319 
 
 4,595,469 
 
 The Northern system has cost us 1,095,469 
 We require to complete it say 3,500,000 
 
 Carried forward 8,736,788 
 
 The generating station at Green- 
 wich has already cost us . . £390,080 
 And we require to complete it . . 500,000 
 
 890,080 
 
 Sundry expenditure already in- 
 curred, not yet charged to either 
 system because it is not yet 
 revenue producing, amounts to . . 191,166 
 
 New lines authorised will cost . . . . 1,100,000 
 
 Making a total actual and esti- 
 mated expenditure on autho- 
 rised tramways . . 10,918,034 
 
 Or say .. £11,000,000 
 
 " The total debt already incurred up to 31st March last 
 was £4,818,034. In the comparatively short period during 
 which we have been owners of the tramways, we have paid off 
 no less than one-eighth of the debt incurred up to the present
 
 91 
 
 for tramways— £607,231. But we still need £6,000,000 more 
 to complete the work of electrification. The Finance Com 
 mittee agree with the Highways Committee that it is desirable 
 to complete this work as soon as possible ; but the Council 
 would do well to bear this heavy charge in mind, and not enter- 
 tain fresh schemes for expenditure, however desirable, until 
 we have met the largest part of this expenditure. As it has been 
 expressed to me, cannot the Council give its stock a little rest ? 
 
 " I am glad to say that last year on the South the receipts 
 exceeded the estimates by £57,000, whilst the expenditure 
 increased by £24,000. We are, therefore, £33,000 better off 
 at the end of the year than Mr. Allen Baker and his Committee 
 had estimated. In consequence of this improvement the Com- 
 mittee, instead of paying £15,000 were able to pay £35,000 to 
 the reserve fund. 
 
 For 1905-6 there is a surplus on the Southern £ 
 
 system of . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,165 
 
 The surplus on the Northern system is . . . . 23,593 
 
 Total surplus 
 On the other hand, there is a deficiency on the 
 general account of 
 
 Net surplus . . 
 
 27,758 
 
 24,735 
 
 3,023 
 
 " Thus, after putting aside sinking fund on the debt, 
 appropriating £35,000 to the reserve fund and paying off 
 £8,973 of debt on a temporary station, we close 1905-6 prac- 
 tically in equilibrium. 
 
 " In ] 906-7, we have taken over the North, and what was 
 a surplus on the North is, during the period of re-construction, 
 turned into a deficit, but we expect from the South a surplus 
 of income over expenditure of £51,063 after providing £62,500 
 for renewals. This will cover the Northern deficiency and will 
 leave a slight sum over. 
 
 " The renewals fund is a matter of very great interest. 
 The Finance Committee have laid it down as their policy, and 
 I believe on that point they are in agreement with the Highways 
 Committee, to make the renewals fund equal to a penny per 
 
 car mile run. The Finance Connmittee are inclined to think 
 that a penny per car mile run is not quite sufficient. We have 
 
 the subject under consideration. I believe I am right in 
 
 stating that, on the basis of a penny per car mile run, we 
 want abj^ut £40,000 or £50,000 in order to make the reserve 
 
 fund adequate up to date. The Council will be satisfied that 
 what I have just been saying represents a most satisfactory 
 account of the trams^ays," /
 
 92 
 
 Report of the London Traffic Commission. 
 
 Note. — This subject is dealt with in greater detail on 
 pages 106 to 123 infra. 
 
 The Report of the Royal Commission appointed on February 
 10th, 1903, to inquire into and report upon the means of 
 locomotion and transport in London, was issued on July 17th, 
 1905, as a Blue Book (Cd. 2597 of 1905). The most important 
 recommendation of the Commission is that a tribunal, with 
 limited and special powers, should be created. 
 
 The Traffic Authority. 
 
 " At first sight," the report states, " it might appear 
 that the general control of measures affecting locomotion and 
 transport in London, as well as power to carry them out, should 
 be given to some existing local authority, or to a local authority 
 to be created for the purpose ; but we are satisfied that any 
 such proposal is impracticable under present conditions. It 
 
 would be impossible to confer the necessary powers, with 
 
 jurisdiction over the whole of ' Greater London,' which extends 
 
 into five adjoining counties, on the London County Council or 
 any other existing local authority or body, and the creation 
 
 of a new authority, empowered to deal finally with all questions 
 of London Locomotion, would involve intolerable interference 
 with the existing local authorities, and give rise to endless 
 friction. As an authority authorised to raise and expend public 
 money, it would necessarily be composed of representatives 
 of the districts included in its jurisdiction, and would conse- 
 quently be so large as to be unsuited for the direct exercise 
 of executive and administrative functions. For practical 
 purposes its authority would require to be delegated to a very 
 great extent, except as to matters of great magnitude and 
 importance or involving questions of principle, to a much 
 smaller and specially selected body. For these reasons it appears 
 impossible to bestow upon any existing authority, or any 
 combination of existing authorities, the power of controlling 
 locomotion and transport and carrying out the necessary works 
 over the entire area of ' Greater London.' Nor would it be 
 possible to entrust such powers to a new and elected authority 
 without an interference with existing institutions, so violent 
 as to amount almost to a municipal revolution, and we are 
 unable to recommend the placing of such powers in the hands 
 of any nominated body. That would be, in effect, to supersede 
 municipal self-government, and to confe^J upon an unrepre-
 
 93 
 
 sentative body the right to spend the money of the ratepayers ; 
 it would not be tolerated even it if were otherwise desirable. 
 
 " It seems to follow that the only course remaining is to 
 establish a central body, hraited in its powers and duties, so 
 as to avoid interference with the functions of existing local 
 authorities. It is necessary to define clearly the powers and 
 duties which should belong to such central body before deter- 
 mining its constitution." 
 
 Powers and Duties of the proposed Traffic 
 
 Board. 
 
 The report then proceeds to set out the powers and duties 
 of the proposed Traffic Board. It should make a yearly report 
 to Parliament on locomotion, transport and traffic in Greater 
 London ; examine private Bills, report thereon for the infor- 
 mation of ParHament, and make suggestions for the improve- 
 ment of Bills, and settle clauses for the protection of pubhc 
 or private interests. The Board should also prepare schemes, 
 investigate certain problems, and make by-laws and regu- 
 lations, 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 traffic. 
 
 The list of duties to be performed by the Board are by no 
 means exhaustive, but the Commissioners feel that in pro- 
 posing a measure which is, in many respects, of a novel character, 
 it would be most inexpedient to attempt to stereotype its 
 features at the outset. The Board should grow and be developed 
 as further experience and changing circumstances may show 
 to be necessary. 
 
 Constitution of the Traffic Board. 
 
 As to the constitution of the Traffic Board the report states 
 
 that — 
 
 " What is required for such purposes as we contemplate 
 is a small number of specially qualified persons, selected solely 
 on the ground of their competence, and holding office for a
 
 94 
 
 considerable period subject always to good behaviour. Our views 
 on this subject will be most conveniently explained by setting 
 out what we consider should be the actual constitution of such 
 a body. We ar >, of opinion that the Board should consist of 
 a chairman and not more than four nor less than two other 
 members ; and we prefer that there should be not more than 
 three members in all, if it is found that they can satisfactorily 
 discharge, the duties assigned to them. No member of the 
 Board should engage in any business or have any interests 
 which might conflict, or appear to conflict, with the proper dis- 
 charge of his official duties ; nor should he be a member of 
 any local authority in London or have any occupation which 
 would limit the time which he could devote to the work of the 
 Board. As efficiency is indispensable, the members of the 
 Board should be specially selected by your Majesty's Govern- 
 ment, and be paid such salaries as are sufficient to secure 
 thoroughly competent men. It has been suggested that one 
 member should be a lawyer by profession, and another an 
 engineer, but the Board could take legal and expert advice 
 when necessary ; and we prefer that the choice of your Majesty's 
 Government should be unfettered by statutory restrictions. 
 What appears to us to be really essential is that the members 
 of the Board should be capable men of business, energetic, 
 impartial, and able to devote, if necessary, their whole time 
 to the work of the Board. 
 
 " (213.) It is very desirable that the Board should be in 
 touch and work in harmony with the chief municipal authori- 
 ties of London, and on that account we should be glad if it 
 had been practicable for one member of the Board to be nomi- 
 nated by the London County Council and one by th Corporation 
 of the City of London ; but this course seems to us inexpedient 
 in view of' all the circumstances of the case. It is impossible that 
 all the county and other local authorities of ' Greater London ' 
 should be represented on the Board, and the objection has 
 been raised that the authorities who were represented would 
 be thereby given undue influence, to the prejudice of the other 
 authorities whose interests might be conflicting. We are, 
 therefore, driven to the conclusion that it will be best for all 
 the members of the Board, including the chairman, to be 
 appointed by your Majesty's Government ; and we recommend 
 that this course be followed. The first members of the Board 
 should be named in the Act providing for its constitution and 
 prescribing its functions. 
 
 " (214.) The Board 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 m. ans for 
 facilitating locomotion and transport, in and around London,
 
 95 
 
 using its influence in the direction of conciliation ; encouraging 
 and assisting all attempts at co-operative action ; and being 
 ready to act as arbitrator in cases of disagreement between the 
 public authorities, companies and other person 5 above referred 
 to. It should be given such a staff as experience may show to 
 be necessary for the proper discharge of its duties. 
 
 "(215.) The cost of the Board, with that of it; estabUsh- 
 ment, must be considerable, but fees could be charged in con- 
 nection with its duties, though we do not recommend that 
 this should be done to such an extent as to in.'rease the existing 
 burdens on promoters. The cost of the Board, in excess of the 
 fees levied in connection with it, should be levied rateably from 
 the local areas within its jurisdiction." 
 
 Summary of the Commissioners' 
 Conclusions. 
 
 Summarising their conclusions, the Commissioners state : — 
 
 " It is imperatively necessary, in the interests of public 
 health and public convenience, and for the prompt transaction 
 of business, as well as to render decent housing possible, that 
 the means of locomotion and transport in London and its 
 adjacent districts should be improved : they are seriously 
 defective, and the demands and needs of the public are annually 
 increasing. 
 
 " The main obstacle to such improvement is the narrowness 
 of the streets, which were not laid out in accordance with any 
 general plan. The arterial roads leading out of London largely 
 suffer from the same defects. A comprehensive plan for the 
 improvement of streets and main roads should be prepared and 
 carried out continuously, as financial considerations will allow. 
 We have suggested some improvements : many more might be 
 suggested, but the difficulty is one of money, and progress must 
 be gradual. 
 
 " Building laws and regulations, in regard to width, are 
 required to preserve gardens and forecourts in existing streets, 
 with a view to future widening, so as to ensure a sufficient 
 breadth for new streets, and to make certain that, on property 
 hereafter laid out for building, ample space shall be reserved 
 for through as well as local traffic. 
 
 " Increased modern means of locomotion and transport are 
 much needed, both to facilitate movement within the central 
 area and to facilitate access to and from and within the suburbs 
 for those who work in London and live outside. Electric tram- 
 ways and railways are necessary for both these purposes ; tram- 
 ways mostly for the former, and railways mostly for the latter, 
 with inter-connection between the two.
 
 96 
 
 " The tramways system of London is disconnected and 
 insuflficient : it should be largely extended, and the portions of 
 the tramway system that are now isolated should be linked 
 together, through communication being provided from east to 
 west, and from north to south. 
 
 " We believe that much could be done in tramway develop- 
 ment without having recourse, at any rate in the first instance, 
 to great and costly street improvements, but, as such improve- 
 ments are unavoidable, in any case, the preference should be 
 given to those which will facilitate the extension of the tramway 
 system. 
 
 " The absolute ' veto ' over the construction of tramways 
 possessed by local and street authorities should be abolished 
 throughout the area of ' Greater London,' but with a preferential 
 right to county councils, and the Corporation of the City of 
 London, to construct tramways within their districts, if they 
 are prepared to do so. 
 
 " Tramways should run through from side to side of London 
 so far as possible, and termini, in the streets and central districts, 
 should be avoided. 
 
 " 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 
 attention to the importance that urban railways, traversing 
 London from 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 thus 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 pro- 
 viding 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
 
 97 
 
 stations, and rising to the surface when t'ne op.m 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 heavy 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 com- 
 pelled, to put on additional trains, local authorities might be 
 empowered, if the necessity is urgent, 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 the railway, by means of voluntary 
 agreement with the owner of such land. 
 
 " As no practicable improvement of the streets, that can 
 be carried out for many years, will completely remove the con- 
 gestion of street traffic, special attention should be given to : — 
 
 " (1) Improved regulations for traffic. 
 
 " (2) The avoidance of certain oversights or defects in 
 the construction and maintenance of the streets ; the 
 removal of fixed obstructions from them in. certain cases ; 
 and the control, in the future, of the erection of such 
 obstructions. 
 
 " (3) The introduction of a system for minimising the 
 evils caused by the breaking up of the streets by persons 
 and companies having statutory authority to do so. 
 
 " (4) Regulation of the use of the streets by coster- 
 mongers and itinerant vendors. 
 
 " (5) The removal of special obstructions to traffic. 
 
 " A comprehensive plan for the improvement and construc- 
 tion of main roads leading out of London should be prepared, 
 and arrangements made for carrying out such plan, and for the 
 proper maintenance of the roads when constructed. 
 
 G
 
 98 
 
 " Improved building laws are required for application to 
 districts not yet built over, and, possibly, it may be found 
 expedient, in special cases, to prepare ' building plans ' for 
 particular areas. The law affecting traffic and prescribing 
 the respective functions and powers of the municipal, local and 
 other authorities in ' Greater London,'" should be simplified and 
 consolidated. 
 
 " A Traffic Board should be appointed with jurisdiction over 
 ' Greater London,' constituted as explained in Part III. of this 
 report, and authorised and required to discharge the duties 
 therein set forth." 
 
 Recomnriendatlons not yet carried into 
 
 effect. 
 
 It was the intention of the late Unionist Government, had 
 it not been for the General Election, to have introduced in the 
 first Session of Parhament for 1906, a Bill creating a Traffic 
 Board for London in accordance with the recommendation of 
 the Royal Commission. 
 
 This announcement was made in the course of a corres-' 
 pondence which passed between Sir Henry Oakley, Chairman 
 of the Central London Railway, and Sir Francis Hopwood, 
 Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade. 
 
 Sir Francis Hopwood, in a letter dated November 13th, 
 
 1905, wrote as follows : — 
 
 " In reply to your note of to-day's date I am authorised by 
 Lord Salisbury to inform you that H.M. Government have sanc- 
 tioned the preparation of a Bill relating to London traffic, and 
 involving the establishment of a Traffic Board, as recommended 
 by the Royal Commission. 
 
 " It is impossible to say what effect (if any) the introduction 
 of the Bill would have upon the decisions of Parliamentary 
 committees appointed to deal with railway and other private 
 Bills touching the traffic interests of London, but Lord Sahsbury 
 thinks it is only fair that notice should be given of the intention 
 of the Government to introduce such a Bill, in order that, in 
 the light of this informati(>n, promoters may determine what 
 course they think it right to adopt as to proceeding with their 
 proposals during the coming Session." — {The Times, November 
 14th, 1905.) 
 
 Up to the present time, the new Government have mani- 
 fested no intention of dealing with this most important, and
 
 99 
 
 most urgent, question ; and which daily becomes more complex 
 and more difficult of solution. The following, however, affords 
 some indication of the present Government's views on the subject. 
 
 Mr. John Burns and London Traffic. '■ 
 
 One of the recommendations of the London Traffic Com- 
 mission, as previously stated, was to the effect that a special 
 advisory board should be constituted to regulate and control 
 London traffic. Mr. John Burns, President of the Local Govern- 
 ment Board, in an article in The Pall Mall Magazine for June, 
 1906, in deaUng with this recommendation, wrote : — " There 
 is only one fault in the report, but one that is never likely 
 to be stereotyped in administrative and supervisory fact ; and 
 that is, the recommendation to institute an Advisory Board. 
 Such a body already exists ; its headquarters are at Spring 
 Gardens, its achievements are seen around in the five hundred 
 road and street improvements it has carried out in eighteen 
 years." 
 
 It would be difficult to conceive a greater violation 
 of justice than to make the L.C.C. the authority for the regu- 
 lation of London traffic. There is grave reason for doubting 
 whether they, deeply interested as they are in tramways, would 
 use their powers justly towards other forms of locomotion. The 
 L.C.C. blocked and defeated the first proposal to build the 
 Twopenny Tube. The Progressives are constantly opposing 
 and delaying schemes for providing cheap, fast means of travel- 
 hng for the people of London. That opposition is not by any 
 means dictated by pure motives of public interest, but is animated 
 largely by a desire to protect their tramways against competition. 
 The Progressives on the L.C.C. naturally want to avoid any 
 competition with their tramways. For this reason, they are not 
 in a position to impartially undertake the control and regula- 
 tion of the traffic of London. Possibly the L.C.C. would have 
 been the best authority to have undertaken that duty, were it 
 not for the fact that they are so deeply involved in tramway 
 enterprises. 
 
 G 2
 
 100 
 
 The Overbridg^e Tramways' Question. 
 
 As to the question of the Overbridge Tramways. The 
 attitude of the Moderate Party at the London County Council 
 is best defined in the words of Mr. J. Allen Baker, M.P. (the 
 then Progressive Chairman of the Highways Committee of 
 the L.C.C.). In a pamphlet recently issued by the London 
 Liberal Federation, entitled " The Lords v. London — The Over- 
 bridge Trams." Mr. Baker states that the action of the House 
 of Lords in 1905, in rejecting the L.C.C. scheme was : — 
 
 " (4) In opposition to the united wishes of both Pro- 
 gressives and Moderates on the London County Council " 
 (page 6). ■ 
 
 The Council and the Local Veto. 
 
 The County Council is the tramway authority for the whole 
 of the County of London, since the Metropolitan Boroughs 
 have no powers with regard to public locomotion. But under 
 the Standing Orders of the two Houses of Parhament, while 
 I he County Council is able to prevent any tramway project 
 of a private company from being brought before the legislature, 
 the Borough Councils can, if they please, exercise a similar 
 veto against any Tramway Bill of the County Council. The 
 arrangement has its inconveniences, and there is much to be 
 said for constituting a tribunal or board to which all projects 
 for public locomotion in the Metropolitan area, whether con- 
 cerned with tube railways, subways, or tramways, should be 
 submitted. Such a body might be able to deal with the problem 
 of London passenger transport as a whole, to bring the adminis- 
 trative county into close touch with the outer areas, and to 
 apply general and systematic treatment throughout the entire 
 region. 
 
 This is one of the questions specially included in the 
 reference to the Royal Commission on London Locomotion, 
 appointed by His Majesty's Government in the Session of 1903. 
 Much valuable evidence has been laid before the Commission 
 by the engineer, the architect, the valuer, and other officials of 
 the Council. The views of the Progressive majority have been 
 stated to the Commissioners by Mr. Dickinson and Mr. (now
 
 101 
 
 Sir J. W.) Benn. While they do not object to a tribunal, which 
 might supervise other forms of locomotion, these gentlemen 
 insist that the tramway rights of the Spring Gardens authority 
 must be sacred. Their veto against the private companies 
 must remain untouched, but, on the other hand, the veto of 
 the Boroughs is to be removed. Mr. Benn was subjected to a 
 somewhat severe cross-examination by several of the Com- 
 missioners on this point. But he decUned to budge from his 
 position, which is part of the Progressive municipal creed. The 
 London County Council is to be autocratic and omnipotent 
 where tramways are concerned. 
 
 The Metropolitan Borough Councils are, however, naturally 
 disinclined to abandon their veto on tramway legislation, unless 
 their interests are efficiently safeguarded in other ways — as 
 they might be by the proposed tribunal or standing commission. 
 After all, it is through their streets that the tramways must 
 run, and their constituents are closely affected, both as ratepayers 
 and frontagers. A new tramway, or the electrification of an 
 old one, usually involves street widenings. The London County 
 Council refuses to pay the whole cost of these works, even when 
 they are required solely for tramway purposes. On the plea 
 that they are local improvements (though the locality may not 
 want them), they demand a contribution of one-third of the 
 cost from the local authority. The result has been a series of 
 undignified squabbles, in which each party, no doubt, tries to 
 " squeeze " the other. But the Borough Council is at a great 
 disadvantage in these negotiations, and without the veto would 
 be almost powerless. It can only protect itself against a demand 
 that is extortionate by refusing to consent to the introduction 
 of a Tramway Bill, unless the promoters will meet it fairly. 
 The method is clumsy ; but it should not be given up, unless 
 there is some security that the County Council will not be per- 
 mitted to carry out its projects without due regard to local 
 rights and sentiment, or to lighten its own swollen budget bv 
 throwing upon particular districts expenditure which ought to 
 be distributed over the whole of the Metropolitan area.
 
 102 
 
 Other Forms of Locomotion. 
 
 It must not be forgotten, as we have said, that while tram- 
 ways are exceedingly valuable, they are not the only means of 
 public locomotion in London ; other faciUties are being, and 
 should be, further developed, and the Moderates of the County 
 Council, unlike the Progressives, have no desire to use municipal 
 resources to crush or enfeeble private enterprise. 
 
 Tube Railways. 
 
 During the past few years underground railways running 
 in deep-level tunnels have been established in Glasgow, and 
 have enjoyed a large and increasing measure of popularity. 
 After the success of the Central London Railway, many other 
 schemes were conceived by various companies. Many of these 
 competing and conflicting schemes were authorised before the 
 importance of the whole subject was reahsed. It is to be 
 regretted that the Council did not make serious representations 
 to Parliament and the Government at an earlier stage. 
 
 However, in the Session of 1902, various Bills, then before 
 Parliament, were ordered to be submitted to a Joint Committee, 
 so as to ascertain whether they could not be dealt with on 
 uniform and systematic principles. The question was too large 
 to be disposed of in a single Session. Several of the more 
 doubtful schemes were condemned by the Joint Committee, 
 while some of the others were amalgamated. 
 
 At the present time most of these tube railways in London 
 are either already open or nearing completion. 
 
 Unquestionably, so soon as the remainder are open for 
 public traffic, locomotion in London will be facilitated to a very 
 large extent, and much more rapid means will be in existence 
 than has ever hitherto been the case. 
 
 In this particular method of locomotion, London, it may 
 fairly be contended, will shortly be second to no other city in' 
 the world. 
 
 Sub^vaySa 
 
 An alternative to the deep-level " tube " railway is the 
 " shallow tunnel," or underground tram subway, immediately
 
 103 
 
 beneath the surface of the roadway. This system is being, or 
 has been, adopted in Boston, New York, Paris, Buda-Pesth, 
 and other cities. It has the advantage of dispensing with lifts, 
 since the station can be reached by a short flight of steps from 
 the street pavements, and it can take the ordinary tramway 
 rolling-stock and connect directly with the surface cars. The 
 subways can also carry all electric wires, drain pipes, water 
 mains, &c., so that the necessity for constantly opening up the 
 surface of the roadway would be avoided. The Coimty Council, 
 prior to 1904, decided to carry the Northern tramways from the 
 present terminus in Theobald's Road, by a subway through 
 Southampton Row and the new Kingsway, under the Strand, 
 to a point near Waterloo Bridge, with the idea" of eventually 
 connecting with the Southern system, whenever Parliament 
 should allow a tramway to be laid along the Victoria Embank- 
 ment and across Waterloo Bridge. 
 
 This shallow tube tramway has since been opened during 
 the course of the present year (February 24th, 1906), and at 
 the present time tramways are being laid along the Embankment, 
 which, according to a report of the Highways Committee, dated 
 July 12th and 19th, 1906, it is hoped " may be in operation, if 
 possible, before the end of the present year."* 
 
 The cost, and the practical difficulties of dealing with 
 private subsoil rights, make it extremely difficult to construct 
 many of these subways under existing thoroughfares ; but 
 provision should be made for them in planning out new streets, 
 and particularly in forming those wide arterial roads from the 
 central districts to the suburbs, which would pro\ade the most 
 effectual permanent relief for the traffic congestion of the 
 Metropolis. Broad, radiating avenues, with their surface free 
 for motors, omnibuses, cabs, waggons, carts and bicycles, and 
 with fast subway trams underground, would do more than 
 anything else to solve the problems of congestion, locomotion, 
 and the housing of the working classes. A comprehensive 
 
 * Note. — The Highways Committee iu their report dated December 6th, 
 1906, state that the construction of the tramways over Westminster Bridge 
 and along the Victoria Embankment has now been completed, and that it is 
 hoped that the lines will be worked by December I5th, 1906.
 
 104 
 
 process of " Hausmannization " of London is, perhaps, no 
 longer possible ; but the Council might have done more in the 
 way of drawing broad roads, with valuable new frontages, 
 through back streets and slum property, instead of spending 
 enormous sums on partial and inadequate widenings of over- 
 crowded main thoroughfares. They might have adopted the 
 policy which, in the past, created Oxford Street and Regent 
 Street, Portland Place, Victoria Street, Westminster, and 
 Shaftesbury Avenue. The Council has hardly attempted any- 
 thing of the kind on a large scale, with the sohtary exception 
 of the ambitious reconstruction between the Strand and Holborn. 
 In this respect the much-decried Metropolitan Board of Works 
 exhibited more originality and a truer conception of the needs 
 of London than its successors. 
 
 Omnibuses. 
 
 The Pi*ogressives have hardly concealed their hostility to 
 the omnibuses. It is their openly expressed aspiration that 
 their tramways may " run the 'buses off the streets," pending 
 which consummation they would be very glad to go into the 
 omnibus business themselves, with the ratepayers' money 
 behind them. The Municipal Reformers, on the other hand, 
 recognise that the omnibus companies have given Londoners 
 an excellent public service, as well managed and convenient as 
 anything to be found anywhere. They do not consider that 
 there is any necessary rivalry between the two methods of 
 conveyance. The electric tramways will be of the utmost value 
 in transporting passengers over comparatively long distances at 
 a rapid pace ; but for short journeys, with frequent stoppages, 
 the omnibuses will still be required. And as the horses are 
 gradually superseded by electric or petroleum motors, the 'buses 
 will be more easily handled ; they will be able to carry a larger 
 number of persons on each car at reduced fares ; and they will 
 continue to be a most useful element in London locomotion, 
 if allowed fair play and not stifled by administrative restric- 
 tions.
 
 105 
 
 For these reasons the Municipal Reformers do not rogret 
 that the Progressive attempts to run County Council omnibuses 
 have been defeated. 
 
 When the lines of the Southern Tramway Companies were 
 purchased, the Council took over from these companies certain 
 " feeder " omnibuses, used to carry passengers across Westminster 
 and Waterloo Bridges. But they also bought new vehicles 
 and proceeded to run a regular line of London County Council 
 omnibuses along the Strand, The omnibus proprietors brought 
 an action to decide whether the Council was not exceeding its 
 powers. On April 6th, 1900, judgment was given to the eSect 
 that the action of the Council was ultra vires, and that it had 
 no legal power to run omnibuses. Here the matter might well 
 have rested. But the Highways Committee insisted on wasting 
 the ratepayers' money on a series of appeals, combined with 
 ineffectual attempts to gain authority from Parliament for their 
 omnibus enterprises. 
 
 The omnibus proprietors sent a most influential deputation 
 to the Highways Committee and offered, if the Council would 
 abandon its application to Parliament, to take over the Council's 
 omnibuses, to run them without any increase of fares, and to 
 provide an adequate service over the various bridges. The 
 Moderates strongly urged that this offer should be accepted and 
 further expense be avoided. 
 
 The Council, however, at the instance of the Progressive 
 Highways Committee, decided to go on with the litigation. 
 The case reached the House of Lords in the summer of 1903, 
 and final judgment was given against the Council, who were 
 ordered to discontinue the service. 
 
 Thus, at a great and needless cost, it has been demonstrated 
 that this particiilar kind of municipal trading is illegal, and 
 that the Council will not be allowed to supersede private com- 
 panies, against whom no complaint of inefficiency has been 
 made, and who have at stake a large capital usefully employed 
 for the general benefit of the community. The whole trans- 
 action — against which at every stage the Moderates strongly 
 protested — is another example of the misguided ambition of the 
 Progressives to enlarge the functions of the Council beyond the 
 ample limits assigned to them by the legislature. 
 
 So far as the highway of the Thames and the steamboats 
 are concerned, this subject is dealt with elsewhere in the article 
 entitled " The L.C.C. Steamboat Service."
 
 lOG 
 
 Motor Omnibuses. 
 
 As regards the motor 'buses in and about London, these 
 have already done a considerable amount towards expediting 
 locomotion in London, and have also resulted in a considerable 
 reduction in fares, and these probably in the near future will be 
 still further reduced. 
 
 The pubUc should recognise that this is a comparatively 
 new invention, and that a certain time must necessarily elapse 
 before they can attain any considerable degree of perfection. 
 
 Meantime, it is surely to the advantage of Londoners that 
 this industry should not be in any way harassed, but be given 
 every opportunity of improvement. 
 
 In addition to the petrol 'bus, it is claimed by many experts, 
 that the steam 'bus has a considerable future before it, and that 
 steam 'buses have already, in many cases, reached such perfec- 
 tion that there is an entire absence of smoke, and that conse- 
 quently they will in the near future be able to do much towards 
 quickening the means of locomotion in the streets. 
 
 Appendix Dealini: with tine London Traffic 
 
 Problem. 
 
 Owing to the importance of this subject, it has been thought 
 advisable to deal with it in greater detail. 
 
 As to this subject, c.f. also pages 92 to 99 supra. 
 
 A Review 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 always 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 deaUng with the problem 
 of locomotion on a predetermined plan. The haphazard methods 
 of the past sorely hamper the efforts made by the present genera- 
 tion to solve the problem, and in a city of the magnitude of 
 London, with its millions of population, this difficulty becomes,
 
 107 
 
 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 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 February 10th, 
 1903, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the 
 matter. The Commissioners to whom the task was entrusted 
 were : Sir David M. Balfour (Chairman), Earl Cawdor, Viscount 
 Cobham, Lord Ribblesdale, Sir Joseph Dimsdale, Bart., Sir 
 John Dickson-Poynder, B^rt., Sir Robert Reid (now Lord 
 Chancellor), Sir John Wolfe-Barry (Chairman of the Advisory 
 Board), Sir Francis Hopwood, Sir George Bartley, C. S. Murdoch,, 
 Esq., Felix Schuster, Esq. (now Sir), and George S. Gibb, Esq. 
 (now Sir). 
 
 The scope of the Commission was plainly indicated in the 
 orders, which were as follows : — 
 
 " Whereas we have deemed it expedient that 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 effectual for the improvement of the same by the 
 development and inter-connexion of railways and tunnels on, 
 or below, the surface ; by increasing the facilities for other 
 forms of mechanical locomotion ; by better provision 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 referred, 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, Buda Pesth, Prague, Cologne,.
 
 108 
 
 Dresden, Berlin, Brussels, and Paris, and prepared 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 Sir Benjamin 
 Baker, Past President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and 
 Mr. W. B. Parsons, M.Inst.C.E., Chief Engineer to the Board of 
 Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners of the City of New 
 York, were also secured. 
 
 Being thoroughly representative, and exceptionally quali- 
 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 Admir- 
 alty. 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 
 Commissioners. 
 
 Sir G. S. Gibb signed the report, subject to a note written 
 by him. 
 
 The Report. 
 
 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 difficulty in the 
 way of improving the means of locomotion, and also gives a 
 brief account of measures adopted in the past for facihtating 
 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, tramways, 
 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
 
 109 
 
 ■follows a summary of the conclusions, and the reports of indi- 
 vidual Commissioners who dissent wholly or partlv from the 
 majority. 
 
 The Mag^nitude 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 (the L.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 in 1931 it will be about 11 millions. 
 
 London itself is 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 showed 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 faciUties would assist towards 
 that end), it is the duty of the public authorities to render all 
 assistance in their power. The enormous increase in the number 
 of persons travelling can be seen from the following figures : 
 In the year 1881, the number of passengers carried by local rail 
 ways, by tramways, and by the two principal omnibus com- 
 panies was 269,662,649 ; whilst the corresponding figure in 
 1901 was 847,212,335. The Advisory Board of Engineers 
 estimated that for ths year ending June 30th, 1904, the total 
 number of passengers carried by local railways, omnibuses, and 
 tramways, amounted to 1,164,000,000.
 
 110 
 
 Importance of Facilitating: Locomotion. 
 
 Paragraph 10 of the report says : — 
 
 " The figures we have just given, taken in connection with 
 the present conditions of congestion of traffic in so many of the 
 streets of London ; the difficulties which persons residing in the 
 suburbs experience in moving to and from their daily work ; 
 the overcrowding of houses in the central area ; and the impossi- 
 biUty 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 railways have been 
 constructed without full consideration of the wants of London, 
 and the antagonism between the London County Council and 
 private promoters has been detrimental to pubhc interests. 
 
 Speaking at the opening of the new tube railway, which 
 runs from Finsbury Park to Hammersmith, on December 15th, 
 1906, Mr. Lloyd George, (the 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 muni- 
 cipal 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 success of this great 
 country depended." 
 
 Recommendations of the Commission. 
 
 The Commission dealt with the problem in a comprehensive 
 manner, and the recommendations which emanated from it 
 would, if carried out, have far-reaching effects. These recom-
 
 Ill 
 
 mendations 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 were embodied in a separate 
 volume. They suggested that new streets and widened streets 
 should be laid out according to a fixed 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 recommendations 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 with by the Commissioners, and on an estimated expendi- 
 ture of 30 millions, 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 of less magnitude " which 
 may be within available resources," should not be retarded 
 in the expectation of its early accomplishment. 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).
 
 112 
 
 Widening of Bayswater, Hammersmith, Fulham, and King's 
 Roads. 
 
 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 within 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 tramways of the L.C.C., and in some cases join the London 
 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 
 lines outside the City ; four lines from the west would penetrate
 
 113 
 
 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 
 lin'! 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 Commis- 
 sioners : — 
 
 " We recommend : — 
 
 " A large extension of tramways in London and the 
 suburbs ; that immediate attention be given to providing 
 through 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, 
 toe report says : — 
 
 " 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 profit should be 
 derived from the tramways for the benefit of the municipality, 
 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 for 
 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 expedi- 
 ency of the working of large tramway systems by municipalities 
 be specially investigated." 
 
 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 
 tramways within their districts, if they are prepared to do so." 
 They considered " that instead of a ' veto,' it would be sufficient 
 
 H
 
 lU 
 
 that local and road authorities should have a locus standi to 
 appear before the proposed Traffic Board and Parliament in 
 opposition to any tramway scheme within their districts." 
 
 Railways. 
 
 The Commissioners think that when the " tube " railways, 
 already authorised, have been completed, with the addition of 
 a line from Victoria to Marble Arch, the most pressing require- 
 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 facilities. 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 notwith- 
 standing the difficulties imposed by high cost of construction 
 (£500,000 to £1,000,000 per mile) we think— and this appUes 
 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 attention 
 to the importance that urban railways, traversing London 
 from 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
 
 115 
 
 fast and for stopping trains, and thus 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 providing 
 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 assist- 
 ance in view of the fact that re-housing within the central area 
 involves a heavy 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 com- 
 pelled, to put on additional trains, local authorities might be 
 empowered, if the necessity is urgent, 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 the 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 Com- 
 mission 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 London 
 County Council or any other existing local authority or body. 
 The establishment of a central body is advocated, and as it is 
 
 H 2
 
 116 
 
 impossible to have aipon it the representatives of all the authori- 
 ties 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 public or private interests. 
 The Board should also prepare schemes, investigate certain 
 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 traffic. 
 
 It should keep in touch with all the local and other authori- 
 ties in " Greater London," and maintain a friendly attitude 
 towards them and towards all companies and persons that 
 work railways, tramways, or other means for facihtating loco- 
 motion 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.
 
 117 
 
 Progrressive 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 of in- 
 calculable value to the inhabitants of the Metropolis. The 
 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 
 were 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. There are 
 those who at present direct, to a great extent, the government 
 of London, who place Party advantage before the welfare of the 
 people. The report of the Royal Commission struck a heavy 
 blow at the Progressive party — a party which, for years, has been 
 scheming to get the entire control of London government into the 
 hands of one body, namely, the London County Council. To satisfy 
 its ambition the Progressive party has sought to secure the control 
 of travelling facilities in order to prevent competition with its 
 hmited service of trams. That party seeks to become the 
 Traffic Authority for London. The report of the Royal Com- 
 mission 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 a Traffic Board such as the 
 one that has been outlined. 
 
 In view of the attitude adopted by the Progressives, it is 
 incumbent on those who, first and foremost, seek the welfare 
 of London and its inhabitants, to put before the people of 
 London the injury which would inevitably fall upon them if the 
 Progressive policy were to prevail.
 
 118 
 
 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 spectacles to 
 be seen in London is an unemployed " procession." Undoubtedly 
 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 fellows, 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. £200,000 
 is to be granted from the national funds during the current year, 
 thousands of pounds were raised during the winter of 1905 by 
 pubUc subscription, and municipal authorities readily voted 
 sums of money for the purpose of carrying out work on which 
 the " out-of-works " could be employed. In the face of this 
 unemployment, one would have supposed that whenever anything 
 of a practical nature was suggested, those who had the local 
 government of London in their control would have grasped it at 
 once. But not so in London. It is well known that five or 
 six years ago there were numerous schemes brought forward 
 for the provision of electric railways and cheap electric power in 
 and around London. Many millions of pounds would have been 
 
 invested in these undertakings, and vast numbers of workmen 
 would have been kept in steady employment for years 
 
 had they been carried out. These schemes were hung up. 
 The question of a Royal Commission on London Traffic was in 
 the air, and when it was appointed Parliament refused to sanction 
 any schemes until the report of that Commission was issued. 
 The report is now issued. The people of London know the 
 recommendations. They are grand in their conception. Rail- 
 ways and tramways radiating in every direction, street improve- 
 ments on a very large scale, a vast impetus given to all the
 
 119 
 
 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 working 
 men would be diminished to a large extent if the Pro- 
 gressive party now in power at Spring Gardens forced 
 upon the notice of the Government the enormous advantages 
 that would accrue to the working men of London if the recom- 
 mendations of the Royal Commission were to be adopted and 
 the Traffic Board became an accompHshed fact. In 1905 the 
 number of people making fresh applications to the eleven 
 Borough Council Labour Bureaux in London, and the Salvation 
 Army Labour Bureau for employment, amounted to 50,461. 
 Of these, work was found for 18,573. Surely it is not too much 
 to suppose that steady work would be found for a much larger 
 number if the Traffic Board was constituted and its projected 
 works were put in hand. Who then blocks the way ? Surely 
 the Progressive party will not have the audacity during the 
 forthcoming election to again pose as the " Friend of the Working 
 Man." The working man, who wants honest work and not 
 municipal charity in the shape of work that is made simply for 
 the sake of providing employment, must support the party that is 
 pledged to assist in forming the Traffic Board, and expel from 
 office the party which, for the sake of serving its own selfish 
 ends, is willing to sink the welfare of London, and to leave the 
 unemployed in their present state of misery. 
 
 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 population in 
 towns such as Edmonton, Walthamstow, and Leyton. It is 
 not expected that railway companies will construct fines where 
 there is not a sufficient population to make the undertaking pay, 
 but the Commission suggests that " ^here a new railway is pro- 
 posed to be made, which would have the effect of opening out a
 
 120 
 
 district for building purposes, a railway company might be 
 authorised to purchase, under proper safeguards, land likely to 
 be increased in value by the construction of the railway, by means 
 of voluntary agreement with the owner of such land." 
 
 " Many places suitable for building are not accessible by 
 railway," and the report goes on to say that " there has been a 
 great aggregation of the working classes in those districts which 
 bave been opened out, especially in the east and north-east 
 of London, where the Great Eastern Kailway 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 " over- 
 crowding " 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 sur- 
 rounding 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 rapid 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 compara- 
 tively 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 limited in their choice of residence ; they crowd to 
 places where they can get facilities 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. 
 
 For the year ending March 31st, 1905, the L.C.C. had 
 provided for the people of London 5,929 tenements, comprising 
 15,096 rooms, i.e., on an average less than three rooms per 
 tenement. The average rent charged for these is 2s. lid. per 
 room. Private enterprise has provided 12,641 tenements.
 
 121 
 
 comprising 113,147 rooms, at an average rental of 2s. 4d. per 
 room. 
 
 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. The following extract from the report of the Commission 
 shows how the housing figures are at present manipulated, and 
 gives an insight into the futility of attempting to solve the 
 housing problem in London itself. 
 
 " 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 improve- 
 ments. 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 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." 
 
 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, would be to a considerable 
 extent remedied if decent housing were provided in outlying 
 districts, served by efficient means of transit. In 1901 (according 
 to page 157 of London Statistics, Vol. 16), 16 per cent, of the 
 population of London were living in overcrowded tenements, 
 the percentage aggregating as high as 33.2 in Stepney and 35.2 
 in Finsbury. Despite this, and despite the extraordinary pro- 
 mises usually displayed towards the poor by the Progressives, 
 they steadfastly refuse to take the steps necessary to put into 
 force the recommendations brought forward by the Roya 
 Commission.
 
 •122 
 
 Its Bearing: on Trade. 
 
 The benefits that would accrue to London as a commercia 
 city if such improvements were to be made in the means of loco- 
 motion within its borders, are too self-evident to require empha- 
 sising. The delays caused by congestion of traffic would be 
 remedied, if not eradicated, and commercial enterprises would 
 benefit largely from the financial saving consequent upon the 
 saving in time resulting from improvements in locomotion. To 
 the business man, an improvement in London locomotion is 
 yearly becoming more necessary. 
 
 Conclusions. 
 
 The report of the Royal Commission evoked much interest, 
 though probably owing to the complexity of the subject not so 
 much as it should have done. The enormous issues involved 
 attracted considerable attention, and the suggestions embodied, 
 in the report were received, for the most part, with general 
 approval. It is generally conceded that there must be a Traffic 
 
 Board for London, and the Progressives, actuated solely by 
 a " dog-in-the-manger " policy, deny London the advantages 
 which the establishment of such a body would confer 
 
 upon them, simply because the L.C.C. is not the authority 
 recommended for London traffic. 
 
 When the people of London thoroughly grasp the conse- 
 quences resulting from the action of the Progressives, they 
 will see how essential it is in their own interests that that party 
 should be deprived of its present majority on the L.C.C. 
 
 Among these consequences may be reckoned the fact that 
 a large amount of work is withheld from London ; improved 
 housing for the overcrowded poor and the working classes 
 seriously impeded ; and that as a further consequence the health 
 of the poorer classes is detrimentally affected. 
 
 As contrasted with the policy of the Progressive party, the 
 
 policy of the Municipal Reform party — as set out in the Manifesto 
 
 dated December 4th, 1906 — is : — 
 
 " 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
 
 123 
 
 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 an harmonious plan 
 of traffic for the entire area of Greater London." 
 
 In the face of these two policies, regarding one of the most 
 
 important of London's questions at the present time, can any 
 
 thinking man or woman have any doubt as to which party 
 
 his interests inevitably cause him to support?
 
 124 
 
 EDUCATION. 
 
 Note. — It has not been thought necessary to deal here with 
 what is known as the religious difficulty, owing to the 
 fact that this subject has already been so frequently 
 dealt with in current pamphlets, and students of L.C.C. 
 policy are already fully acquainted with this subject. 
 
 Secondary and Technical Education are not dealt with here. 
 These matters are largely non-controversial, and the attitude 
 of the Moderates has, in a word, been to secure for London the 
 best possible advantages of this nature at a fair and reasonable 
 cost. 
 
 The Municipal Reform Party and 
 Education. 
 
 The following statement of policy in regard to the subject 
 of Education is taken from the Municipal Reform Party's 
 Manifesto, dated December 4th, 1906. 
 
 "Tlie Education Acts and Religrious 
 
 Teaching^. 
 
 " No graver issue is involved in this election than that which 
 will determine for the next three years in what manner the 
 Education Acts shall be administered, and what kind of reUgious 
 teaching (if any) shall be given to London's children. 
 
 " The Progressive policy is dominated by three ideas, viz., 
 hostility to Voluntary schools where definite denominational 
 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 Officialdom, destruc- 
 tive of local effort and sympathy. 
 
 " The policy of the Municipal Reformers will be directed, 
 on the other hand, to secure open public administration of the 
 Education Acts, encouragement to local managers who have
 
 125 
 
 both knowledge and desire to promote educational efficiency, 
 by delegating to them work which they can well do without in- 
 terfering 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 qualifica- 
 tions and equal services, wherever found. Encouragement 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 the regular school life of the child." 
 
 The Education (London) Act, 1903, gave to the Metropolis the 
 
 'J 
 
 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 
 London School Board ceased to exist, and the London County 
 Counci) became the single Central Authority charged with 
 supervising and co-ordinating education of all classes, from 
 the kindergarten to the college. 
 
 Broken Progfressive Pledgfcs. 
 
 Between the passing of the Act of 1903 and its coping 
 into force, a fresh election of members to the London County 
 Council took place in March, 1904. Supporters of the Voluntary, 
 or, as they are now called, " Non-provided" Schools, took steps 
 to secure pledges from the candidates with 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 new Council in 1904, 
 97 had pledged themselves in this direction, and the electors 
 were assured by Progressive leaders that the Non-provided 
 Schools would be rightly treated. Amongst others, Mr. McKinnon 
 Wood, the leader of the Radical Progressive Party on the 
 Council, laid down the official programme of that party with 
 regard to the administration of the Education Act. He is 
 reported in The Times of December 22nd, 1903, as having
 
 126 
 
 spoken as follows : — " What they could do, what they would 
 do, was 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 the children." 
 
 The Bishop of Stepney, writing to The Times on March 3rd, 
 1904, dealt with the candidates for the then impending L.C.C. 
 elections, and stated that pledges had been demanded from 
 all the candidates with a view to the administration of the 
 Education Act in a spirit of justice and impartiality to all 
 classes of schools. The Bishop wrote : — " 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 the 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 : — 
 
 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. 
 
 Finsbury, 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. Whelen. 
 
 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. 
 
 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. Steadman. 
 
 Strand.— J. S. Hyder, Rev. A. W. Oxford. 
 
 Walworth. — Rev. A. W. Jephson, R. Spokes. 
 
 Wandsworth. — R. Tweedie-Smith, E. Pascoe W^illiams. 
 
 In spite, however, of the pledges given to the Bishop of 
 Stepney's Electoral Committee, many of the gentlemen whose 
 names appear in this list have lost no opportunity of injuring 
 the Non-provided Schools in London. 
 
 After the 190-i elections, the attitude of the Progressives was 
 no longer disguised. The Progressive London County Council 
 has been from the date of its election to the present time an 
 engine of malignant injury to Voluntary Schools.
 
 128 
 
 Under the Act, the L.C.C. had the power to co-opt expert 
 educationists who were not members of the L.C.C. The Com- 
 mittee consisted of 48 members ; of these 38 were members of the 
 L.C.C, five of the others were women, in accordance with the 
 provisions under the Act of ParUament, and only five of them were 
 drawn from outside. Their attitude towards the Managers of 
 schools was repressive ; in fact, the Progressives throughout 
 never intended to give the Act of 1903 a fair chance. 
 
 If they had taken the opportunity which the Act of Parlia- 
 ment gave them of allowing Managers power to deal with detail 
 matters, they would have saved the Committee and Sub- 
 Committees from a vast amount of detail work. They declined 
 to allow groups of Managers in the Boroughs to do anything. 
 In fact, the L.C.C. in effect said, " If any Managers of two or 
 three schools in any Borough desire to work together, we will 
 prevent them." If they had allowed these Managers to work 
 together, they would have obtained increased experience from 
 their knowledge of the different schools of the Borough — they 
 would have been able to improve themselves from an educa- 
 tional point of view, and many energetic Managers could have 
 qualified for positions on the Central Authority. They did 
 not desire that, however, and consequently gave the Managers 
 of groups of schools as little power as possible. That is a point 
 which should appeal to those who know anything about education 
 in London. 
 
 Just as they would not trust outside educationists, so they 
 did not even trust their own Committee, but contented them- 
 selves with giving to it a minimum of delegated powers. The 
 result has been that the work of education has been blocked 
 for the last three years by the discussion in the Council of petty 
 details which should properly have been dealt with in Committee. 
 
 However, presumably in view of the approaching elections, 
 the Progressives have in the last few weeks made a new move, 
 and now purpose giving much fuller powers to the Education 
 Committee. Curiously enough, too, the Committee, which up 
 to the present has worked in secret, is now to have its doors 
 opened to the Press and public.
 
 129 
 
 Treatment of the Voluntary School 
 
 Teachers. 
 
 The first question was that of teachers' salaries. The 
 L.C.C. decided they would have a new scale of teachers' salaries, 
 and of course the number of teachers in the Provided Schools 
 is much larger than of those in the Non-provided Schools. 
 When they went to work to revise the teachers' salaries through- 
 out London, the Board School teachers got the advantage. 
 The L.C.C. professed to equalise the salaries, but the teachers 
 in the Voluntary Schools were not treated with the equality 
 which they had a right to expect. A Birmingham teacher 
 coming to a London School was often treated in a better way 
 than the London Voluntary School teacher. 
 
 On account of shortness of funds, it is true that the teachers 
 in Voluntary Schools were working at low salaries. All honour 
 to them ! What they were receiving was taken as the basis, 
 and not what they were worth. They were working for a 
 great deal less than their qualifications entitled them to. If 
 they had been treated as outside teachers, they would have 
 come in at very much better salaries than under the scale 
 which was applied to them. Teachers who had been working 
 at £30, £40, or £50 a year in the old Voluntary Schools, instead 
 of their salaries being increased to £90, £100, or £110, like teachers 
 from Birmingham with the same qualifications, were told, 
 " You have been working for £30, or whatever the sum might 
 be ; we will raise you £10, and you ought to be very thankful." 
 They were raised £10, and then told that they could go on until they 
 got up to the salary standard of a London Board School teacher. 
 The Birmingham teachers were denominational teachers all the 
 same, but they came in at a different salary from those who 
 had been working amid the heat and burden of London. 
 
 Starving Out the Non-Provided Schools. 
 
 The Progressives manifested their hostility to the Voluntary 
 Schools immediately on election. 
 
 The next move was to abolish the fees in 179 schools, 
 against the wish of both the parents and the Managers. Li 
 
 I
 
 130 
 
 this way some £26,000 a year was lost, part to the schools, 
 and part to the ratepayers. Seeing that the Managers 
 looked to this fund for the part maintenance of their fabric, the 
 injury was a grave one. 
 
 A heavier weapon of attack was found in the clause of the 
 new Act, in which the Managers were obliged at their own cost 
 to keep the school-house in good repair, and to make such 
 alterations and improvements as may be reasonably required 
 by the Local Education Authority. 
 
 The Progressives defined the word " reasonable " by fixing 
 an oppressively high standard of requirements, and by con- 
 demning the schools that failed to pass the test. 
 
 In November, 1904, the Architect to the L.C.C. issued 
 the first instalment of his report. It related to 29 Voluntary 
 Schools. The report dealt with repairs and alterations which 
 were said to be urgent. Some of the repairs related to sanitary 
 matters, and delay in putting them right would jeopardise the 
 health of the scholars. This fact had no weight, however, with 
 the Progressives, and Mr. McKinnon Wood, their leader, secured 
 the sending back of the report to the Committee. His desire 
 was to wait for the complete report on the whole of the 438 
 schools. And this was done. 
 
 He wished to present to the ratepayers what he described as 
 " one great picture " of the condition of the Voluntary Schools. 
 
 The result of these tactics was that the complete report 
 was not issued until May 30th, 1905. Of 438 schools inspected, 
 92 were condemned, 21 were stated to be partially unsuitable, 
 and 261 were alleged to require slight alterations. Were the 
 alleged unsuitable schools to be closed, accommodation would 
 have had to be provided for 68,824 children at a capital cost 
 of nearly one million and a half, and at an annual expense to 
 the ratepayers of London of £224,000 a year. 
 
 Cowper-Teinple Teaching' alone to be 
 
 endOAved. 
 
 In the Council on May 22nd, 1906, the following Recom- 
 mendation : — " (a) That the principle of the Education (England
 
 131 
 
 and Wales) Bill, 1906, so far as that principle provides for the 
 public control of public money and for the freeing of teachers 
 in all Public Elementary Schools from creed tests, be approved," 
 was moved. 
 
 To this Mr. Bray (P.), seconded by Mr. Sidney Webb (P.), 
 moved the following Amendment : — That the following words be 
 inserted after the first word " That " in line 1 — " in the opinion of 
 the Council it is inequitable to provide at the expense of public 
 funds for the giving of one particular form of religious instruction, 
 but that," or, in other words, that it was unjust that Cowper- 
 Temple religious teaching alone should be endowed out of the 
 rates. 
 
 The Amendment was put to the vote. The Council having 
 divided, there voted : — 
 
 For the Amendment — 42. 
 
 Anstruther, H. T. 
 
 . . 
 
 .. (M) 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Bailey, W. .. 
 
 . . 
 
 ' • )j 
 
 Marylebone, West. 
 
 Barnes, E. 
 
 . , 
 
 • • )> 
 
 St. Pancras, East. 
 
 Beachcroft, Sir R. 
 
 MelviU 
 
 • • >> 
 
 Paddington, North. 
 
 Bell, Sir William J 
 
 r. 
 
 • • )) 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Bliss, Sir H. W. 
 
 . . 
 
 • • >5 
 
 Holborn. 
 
 Brandon, Jocelyn 
 
 • • 
 
 • • J> 
 
 Hammersmith. 
 
 Bray, R. (Teller) 
 
 . . 
 
 .. (P) 
 
 Camberwell, North. 
 
 Chambers, F. 
 
 . , 
 
 • • )» 
 
 Woolwich. 
 
 Cobb, C. S. .. 
 
 . . 
 
 .. (M) 
 
 Fulham. 
 
 Collins, E. .. 
 
 , . 
 
 • • )> 
 
 Hammersmith. 
 
 Col vile, Lt.-Col. C. 
 
 F. 
 
 • • )» 
 
 Kensington, South. 
 
 Cooper, B. 
 
 . . 
 
 .. (P) 
 
 Bow and Bromley. 
 
 Elcho, Lord . . 
 
 . • 
 
 .. (M) 
 
 Strand. 
 
 Forman, E. B. 
 
 . . 
 
 • • ?) 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Gaskell, T. P. 
 
 . . 
 
 • • ?J 
 
 Clapham. 
 
 Gastrell, Major W. 
 
 Houghton ,, 
 
 St. Pancras, South. 
 
 Glanville, H. J. 
 
 . . 
 
 .. (P) 
 
 Rotherhithe. 
 
 Gordon, H. H. 
 
 . . 
 
 (Independent) Whitechapel. 
 
 Greenwood, H. J. 
 
 . . 
 
 .. (M) 
 
 St. George's, Hanover Square 
 
 Hanhart, N. . . 
 
 . . 
 
 ' • )> 
 
 Hampstead, 
 
 Harben, H. A. 
 
 
 • • >» 
 
 Paddington, South. 
 
 1 2
 
 132 
 
 Harris, H. P. 
 Harvey, T. E. 
 Hunt, W. 
 Jesson, C. 
 Johnson, W. C. 
 Jones, Rev. L. J. 
 Lancaster, W. J. 
 Leigh, Lord . . 
 Leon, A. L. . . 
 Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. 
 Robinson, R. A. 
 Rotton, •Lt.-Col. A. 
 Salter, Dr. A. 
 Sankey, Stuart 
 Sturge, C. Y... 
 Taylor, H. R. 
 Taylor, John T. 
 Thompson, W. W. 
 Webb, Sidney [Teller) 
 Williams, Jabez 
 
 (M) Paddington, South. 
 (P) Finsbury, East. 
 (M) Wandsworth. 
 (P) Walworth. 
 
 ,, Whitechapel. 
 
 ,, Woolwich. 
 (M) Wandsworth. 
 
 ,, St. George's, Hanover Square. 
 (P) Limehouse. 
 (M) Strand. 
 
 ,, Kensington, South. 
 
 ,, Clapham. 
 (P) Bermondsey. 
 (M) City of London. 
 
 ,, Westminster. 
 (P) Camberwell, North. 
 (M) Hampstead. 
 
 ,, Alderman. 
 (P) Deptford. 
 (M) Lambeth, North. 
 
 M. 
 
 Allen, A. A. . 
 Bay ley, E. . 
 Beaton, Dr. R 
 Branch, J. 
 Briant, F. 
 Browne, E. 
 Bruce, W. W. 
 Buxton, A. F. 
 Clarke, C. Goddard 
 Cleland, J. W. 
 Davies, W. 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 Dickinson, W. H. 
 Gautrey, T. .. 
 Gilbert, J. D. [T tiler) 
 Goodman, W. 
 
 Against the Amendment — 52. 
 
 (P) Bermondsey, 
 
 ,, West Southwark. 
 
 ,, St. Pancras, North. 
 
 ,, Bethnal Green, South-West. 
 
 ,, Lambeth, North. 
 
 ,, Hackney, South. 
 
 ,, Bow and Bromlev. 
 
 (M) Alderman. 
 
 (P) Peckhara. 
 
 ,, Lewisham. 
 
 „ Battersea. 
 
 ,, Walworth. 
 
 ,, Alderman. 
 
 ,, Dulwich. 
 
 ,, West Newington. 
 
 ,, Islington, West.
 
 13.". 
 
 Hardy, G. A. 
 
 Hemphill, Capt. the Hon 
 
 Fitzroy 
 Hubbard, N. W. 
 Hunter, T. .. 
 JefEery, J. 
 Jephson, H. . . 
 Lampard, G. . . 
 McDougall, Sir John 
 Mowatt, Sir Francis 
 MuUins, W. E. 
 Parkinson, W. C. 
 Pomeroy, A. . . 
 Pope, W. 
 Radford, G. H. 
 Russell, Arthur B. 
 Sears, J. E. . . 
 Sharp, L. 
 Shepheard, A. J. 
 Shrubsall, G. . . 
 Smith, Alfred 
 Smith, Edward 
 Smith, J. 
 Strong, R. 
 Thomas, A. A. 
 Torrance, Sir A. M, 
 Verney, F. W. 
 Ward, H. 
 
 Warmington, F. W. 
 Waterlow, D. S. 
 Welby, Lord . . 
 West, Rt. Hon. Sir Algernon E 
 White, E. 
 Wiles, T. {Teller) 
 Williams, Howell J. 
 Wood, T. McKinnon 
 Yates, W. B. 
 
 (P) Dulwich. 
 
 Finsbury, Central. 
 
 Norwood. ■; 
 
 West Southwark, 
 
 Chelsea. 
 
 Kensington, North. 
 
 Hackney, North. 
 
 Poplar. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Islington, North. 
 
 Rotherhithe. 
 
 Kensington, North. 
 
 Islington, West. 
 
 Finsbury, Central. , 
 
 Hackney, North. 
 
 Brixton. 
 
 Hackney, Central. 
 
 Norwood. 
 
 Hackney, South. 
 
 Bethnal Green, North-East. 
 
 St. George's-in-the-East. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Islington, East. 
 
 Islington, East. 
 
 Peckham. 
 
 Hoxton. 
 
 Greenwich. 
 
 St. Pancras, North. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Alderman. 
 (M) Alderman. 
 
 (P) Bethnal Green, South-West. 
 „ Islington, South. 
 „ Hackney, Central. 
 „ Alderman. 
 
 The Amendment was declared to be lost.
 
 134 
 
 Non-Provided Teach inif v. L.C.C. Teaching:. 
 
 There is one portion of the report which came as a surprise 
 to the Progressives. It deals with the character of the education 
 given in the Voluntary Schools. The report states : " The 
 Inspectors, who have been engaged upon the survey of Non- 
 provided Schools, have without exception been much impressed 
 by the teaching given in them. ... In a large number of 
 schools, teachers of very low qualifications appear to possess 
 in a remarkable degree the power of imparting information 
 very successfully ... in spite, however, of the unsatisfactory 
 conditions in which the majority of the teachers have been 
 working, the teaching was reported as being 'unsatisfactory' 
 in only 9 per cent, of the schools." 
 
 The same satisfactory verdict cannot, it seems, be given 
 with regard to the L.C.C. Schools. Mr. Tom John, the President 
 of the National Union of Teachers, writing in the Schoolmaster 
 for March, 1906, said : — " London service was once the pride 
 and prize of the profession. Three out of four young teachers 
 sought service in London in the first place, and only retired 
 to the provinces when they failed to secure appointments in 
 London or when they were promoted to provincial headships 
 from London assistant-teacherships. But what do we find 
 now ? Class after class taught by teachers not on the per- 
 manent stafi, many the failures of the profession, men who 
 have drifted to London from all parts of the world, many who 
 cannot teach, many who cannot maintain order, some who are 
 undesirable acquaintances, and all only employed because none 
 better can be obtained under the present conditions of service. 
 London must change its conditions, or it will become the sink 
 of incapability. The degradation of the London service began 
 in the last days of the old School Board, and has increased 
 under the rule of the London County Council." The causes 
 of the falling off are, says Mr. John, to be found in " the harassing 
 of the inspectors, the interference of officials, the unsympathetic 
 attitude of the Education Committee, and, when the cost of 
 living is considered, the comparatively poor salaries paid to 
 the teachers."
 
 135 
 
 This line of objection to L.C.C. methods is confirmed by 
 Canon Jephson, a Progressive who resigned his seat on the 
 Council for Walworth as a protest, shortly after May, 1906. 
 In a letter to Mr. Gilbert, dated April 30th, 1906, Canon Jephson 
 summarised his objections as follows* : — 
 
 (1) The destruction of sympathetic management of the 
 schools, and the substitution of mechanical and official 
 control. 
 
 (2) The domination of the officials on the Council. 
 
 (3) The interference of the Finance Committee in edu- 
 cational matters not bearing on Finance. 
 
 The "British Weekly's" Condemnation of 
 the Progressive Party. 
 
 The British Weekly, one of the leading Nonconformist 
 organs, in an article on September 27th, 1906,+ says : — " Mr. 
 Silvester Home in the British Congregationalist says that a 
 strong and disquieting rumour is about to the effect that the 
 London Education Authority has decided to levy the rate as 
 before for denominational teaching. He utters a timely note 
 of warning as to the consequences of such a suicidal policy. 
 
 The majority in the London County Council have profoundly 
 disappointed those who sent them into power by their 
 policy on the Education question. They have shrouded their 
 proceedings in secrecy so far as they could, and what has 
 emerged into notice has been, as a rule, disappointing. 
 
 What aggravates the indignation is that some well-known 
 Nonconformists have been largely responsible for the proceedings. 
 The majority have also preferred to retain the administration 
 of the Education Act in their own hands, although it is obvious 
 to all who know the situation that the vast task of supervising 
 the education of London ought to be in the hands of a body 
 
 delegated for the purpose. As things are, we are under 
 
 the rule of a bureaucracy. Mr. Silvester Home points 
 out that if the denominational rate is levied by the Progressives 
 they will be wrecked at the next election. ' Nonconformists 
 
 * For Canon Jephson's letters cf. '• London Municipal Notes," May, 
 1906, pages 508—511. 
 
 t Note. — This article was written prior to the House of Lords' decision 
 on December 21st, 1006, reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal in 
 the West Riding case.
 
 13G 
 
 were never more tremendously in earnest. Years of humiliation 
 have not reconciled them to the new Church rate ; and no argu- 
 ment or ignominy has convinced them either of its justice or its 
 wisdom. It is now certain that hundreds of thousands of pounds 
 have been exacted from the ratepayers without sanction of law. 
 Scores of good men and women have been sent to prison for 
 observing the letter of the law. It may be impossible, as they 
 now tell us, to claim compensation, but at least we are agreed 
 that the shame and misery of the situation must cease.' 
 
 It has for some time been our conviction that the 
 Progressives in the London County Council have been too 
 long in power. Their policy has been of late tyrannical, 
 extravagant, and illiberal in the highest degree. We should 
 view with the utmost satisfaction their complete defeat. 
 
 We know that many of our readers take a different view ; but 
 if this last outrage proceeds, they too will be convinced, and 
 the men who have betrayed the first principles of Nonconformity 
 and of Liberalism will be driven out of public life." 
 
 In a further article on November 8th, 1906, entitled, 
 " Nothing is here for Tears," The British Weekly stated : — 
 
 "... No one will deny that the Council never stood 
 so low as it stands to-day in the general opinion. 
 
 "... We are very sorry to write harshly about men who at 
 one time did splendid service. When it is plain that they have 
 been false to fundamental Liberal principles, it is a true kind- 
 ness to send them into private life. ThOSe WhO VOted for 
 
 the secrecy of the Educational Committee ought to have 
 no vote from any Liberal or Progressive elector. London 
 
 is full of public-spirited Liberals who are Progressive in fact as well 
 as in name, and if they come forward they will be enthusiastically 
 supported. But to succeed they must be faithful to the three 
 great Liberal watchwords, Economy, Efficiency, and Publicity." 
 
 Pro^^ressive Advocacy for an 'ad hoc* 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Indeed it is significant that the Progressives themselves 
 seem to be anxious to unyoke the County Council from the 
 portion of educational responsibility. The London Progressive 
 Educational Council, of which Lord Stanley of Alderley is 
 President, Earl Beauchamp Treasurer, and Dr. Clifford Vice-
 
 137 
 
 President, have issued a manifesto which appeared in The Morning 
 Post of July 25tli, 1906. The manifesto is, in brief, an appeal 
 for "the re-creation of a separate Educational Authority for 
 London, directly elected for the purpose, without disqualification 
 of candidates on the ground of sex, residence, or ratepaying." 
 
 Dr. Macnamara, M.P., speaking at North Camberwell on 
 July 21st, 1906, said : — " London must have again a directly- 
 elected Board of Education." 
 
 The Municipal Reform view is that the County Council is 
 fully able to discharge its educational duties, if it delegates to 
 a committee the business which committees ordinarily, and 
 should rightly, transact. 
 
 The Question of Cost. 
 
 The vital importance of securing an election of a new 
 Council that will deal fairly with Non-provided Schools is made 
 clear when it is realised what the number of schools is that 
 would be closed if the Progressives were allowed to carry out 
 in completeness their campaign of sectarianism. The following 
 table is given on page 56 of the Annual Report of the Proceedings 
 of the Council for 1905-6 :— 
 
 Position on 31st March, 1900. 
 
 Schools where 
 
 requirements 
 
 have been 
 
 made. 
 
 Schools 
 
 declared 
 
 to be 
 
 unsuitable. 
 
 Totals. 
 
 {(i) Schools closed or to be closed . . 
 
 (b) Requirements carried out to the 
 
 -satisfaction of the Council . . 
 
 (c) Requirements in process of being 
 
 carried out 
 
 (d) Requirements under considera- 
 
 tion by Council and Managers 
 
 (e) Plans prepared before the survey 
 (/) Plans for reconstruction of un- 
 suitable schools approved by 
 Council 
 
 ((/} Plans or proposals for reconstruc- 
 tion of unsuitable schools sub- 
 mitted by Managers and under 
 consideration 
 
 Totals 
 
 9 
 13 
 
 •238 
 4 
 
 37 
 
 1 
 13 
 
 46 
 13 
 
 87 
 
 •238 
 5 
 
 13 
 57 
 
 351 
 
 108 
 
 459 
 
 In cases where a school has been declared to be partly suitable and 
 partly unsuitable, it has been, for the purposes of this summary, treated as 
 two schools.
 
 138 
 
 In 1905-06, the average attendance in London County 
 Council Schools was 495,901. During the same year, the average 
 attendance in Non-provided Schools was 165,163. The net 
 cost per child for day schools, excluding the aid grant, was in 
 L.C.C. Schools £3 5s. 3d., while in Voluntary Schools it was only 
 £1 9s. 9d. It is significant that although the average gross cost 
 per child in Non-provided Schools for the year 1905-6 was 
 £2 19s. 3d., during the year 1904-5 it was £2 9s. 3d. The increase 
 is attempted to be justified on the score of salaries of teachers, 
 fuel, light and cleaning, and instruction in handicraft. 
 
 The following table will further explain the increase : — 
 
 
 L.C.C. 
 
 L.C.C. 
 
 Voluntary 
 
 Voluntary 
 
 
 Schools. 
 
 Schools. 
 
 Schools. 
 
 Schools. 
 
 
 1905. 
 
 1906. 
 
 1905. 
 
 1906. 
 
 
 £ 8. d. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Gross cost per child 
 
 4 15 9 
 
 4 16 5 
 
 2 9 3 
 
 2 19 3 
 
 Income per child (excluding 
 
 
 
 
 
 aid grant) 
 
 1 11 1 
 
 1 11 2 
 
 14 3* 
 
 1 9 6 
 
 
 £3 4 8 
 
 £3 5 3 
 
 £1 15 
 
 £19 9 
 
 Income per child for all 
 
 
 
 
 
 schools (including aid 
 
 
 
 
 
 grant) . . 
 
 £1 14 4 
 
 in 1905 
 
 £1 18 5 
 
 in 1906. 
 
 Net cost (excluding aid 
 
 
 
 
 
 grant) . . 
 
 3 4 8 
 
 3 5 3 
 
 1 15 
 
 1 9 9 
 
 Net cost for all schools (in- 
 
 
 
 
 
 cluding aid grant) 
 
 £2 9 5 
 
 in 1905. 
 
 £2 8 5 
 
 in 1906. 
 
 * The income of 14s. 3d. per child in Voluntary Schools in 1905 is 
 misleading. The L.C.C. took over the Xon-provided Schools in May. 1904, 
 and the 14s. 3d. is largely made up of the proportion only of a year's grant 
 from the Imperial Exchequer, i.e., from May to December. 
 
 Of course the vital figure is the one showing gross cost. 
 The increasing grants made in rehef do not affect the question 
 of extravagant expenditure. Thus we see that the gross cost 
 per child has risen in L.C.C. Schools from £4 15s. 9d. in 1905 
 to £4 16s. 5d. in 1906, and in Non-provided Schools under L.C.C. 
 management, from £2 9s. 3d. in 1905 to £2 19s. 3d. in 1906. 
 
 Lord Welby on the Cost of Education. 
 
 The cost of education under the L.C.C. has steadily increased. 
 Lord Welby, the Progressive Chairman of the Finance Com- 
 mittee, in making his annual financial statement for the year
 
 139 
 
 1905-6, at the Council on May 16th, 1905, uttered a warning : — 
 " They (the Council) must turn, he feared, with some anxiety from 
 the financial record of their ordinary administration to their esti- 
 mate for education. They all desired to support heartily Sir W. 
 Collins and the Education Committee in their efforts to promote 
 the cause of education. But in prosecuting counsels of perfection, 
 must not some regard be paid to the expenditure involved, to 
 the legitimate interests of the ratepayer ? Reasonable prudence 
 in co-ordinating and graduating the schemes of experts might 
 prevent a conflict with the ratepayers. If such a conflict were 
 precipitated, far from promoting, might it not possibly end in 
 retarding the progress of education to a degree they would all 
 deplore ? Ten years ago (1895-6) the education rate was lUd. 
 in the £. In 1903-4, the last complete year for which the School 
 Board was responsible, it rose to 15-18d. The rate for 1904-5, 
 levied partly by the late School Board and partly by this Council, 
 was 16d., and this year, the first full year for which the Council 
 is responsible, it was to be raised by 2d. to 18d. ; and the esti- 
 mates of 1905-6, moreover, only provided the initial expenditure 
 on schemes which involved a heavy further expenditure in 
 years to come. (The estimated total cost of some of the recent 
 proposals as to scholarships, teachers' salaries, &c., was £636,000, 
 of which £127,000 was estimated to fall on 1905-6.) There at 
 once was a further 3d. on the rates to which the Council would 
 be committed. Further schemes were, he understood, under 
 consideration. With those figures and those prospects before 
 them, he would ask whether the time had not come when the 
 Council should lay down for its own guidance a financial policy 
 in the matter of education ? Did it contemplate no limit on the 
 progress of this expenditure ? But, if it admitted the principle 
 of a limit, ought it not to lay down some rule to guide the 
 Education Committee in the preparation and co-ordinatiou of 
 their proposals, and for that purpose ought it not to defer giving 
 further sanction until the Education Committee could give it 
 a forecast of the extensions and expenditure which they con- 
 sidered desirable ? "
 
 40 
 
 The growth of expenditure referred to by Lord Welby is 
 illustrated by the following table : — 
 
 Y 
 
 ear. 
 
 1894-5 
 1897-8 
 1899-0 
 1903-4 
 1904-5 
 1905-6 
 1906-7 
 
 Rate. 
 
 d. 
 10-45 
 12-36 
 13-37 
 15-18 
 16-0 
 18-0 
 19-0 (est.) 
 
 Expenditure. 
 
 £ 
 2,171,000 
 2,509,000 
 2,954,000 
 . 3,261,000 
 3,967,000* 
 4,836,000 
 
 Average 
 
 gross cost 
 
 per child. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 14 11 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 13 
 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 3 
 9t 
 
 The following is taken from Lord Welby's Budget Speech 
 for the financial year 1906-7, delivered on May 8th, 1906 : — 
 
 Education £ 
 
 " We estimated the education receipts for 1905-6 
 
 at 4,777,68^ 
 
 We estimate them for the current year at . . 5,138,999 
 
 Increase .. .. .. 361,310 
 
 We estimated education expenditure, including 
 
 the charge of education debt, at . . . . 4,836,094 
 
 We estimate it for the current year at .. 5,178,132 
 
 Increase . . . . . . 342,038- 
 
 " This increase of expenditure will be met, first of all, 
 by the increase due to the quinquennial valuation in the 
 produce of the rate ; that amounts to £137,285. In addition 
 to that. Id. added to the rates produces £181,157. These 
 two sums together approach £320,000, the balance being 
 made up out of the ordinary receipts for education. Here 
 for one moment I may remind the Council that they in- 
 herited from the School Board an education rate of ]5d. 
 
 in the £. 1n three years it has been increased by the CounciF 
 by 4(1. It is now 19d., and that by no means expresses the 
 limit to which the education expenditure is tending. If I 
 
 might say one word, surely it is worth the Council's while, 
 when it is considering education, at all events to try to 
 practise economy in such matters as expensive sites nnd 
 decorated buildings." 
 
 * Elementary and Higher Education, 
 t E.C.C. Schools.
 
 141 
 
 Prog^ressive Condemnation. 
 
 On May 15th. 1906, the following speech was made in the 
 
 Council : — 
 
 Mr. Gautrey (P.), the Chairman of the Educational Accounts 
 Sub-Committee, submitted what, in his opinion, were the salient 
 features of the Education estimates. He said that the gross 
 expenditure is estimated at £5,178,132, and net £3,481,123 
 (from rates), showing increases of £342,038 and £299,170 
 respectively. The expenditure on higher education now reached 
 £854,334 (net £512,141), showing an increase of £102,203 (net 
 £99,734). In this expenditure the middle classes, he said, 
 are at last getting some return on their contributions to rates 
 and taxes, as those who sent their children to Secondary Schools 
 paid only about one-half the actual cost in the term fees, the 
 remainder coming from London County Council grants. 
 Government grants, and endowments. The Education rate now 
 reaches Is. 7d. in the £, an increase of Id. for the year, and of 
 4d. since the London County Council took over education on 
 May 1st, 1904. The increase is due, of course, in the first 
 instance, to the taking over of the Non-provided Schools, but is 
 also largely due to the rapid development of the scholarship 
 schemes and the establishment of new Secondary Schools, and 
 grants to existing Secondary Schools not under the London 
 County Council control. Every one who knew the progress 
 being made anticipated a larger increase than Id. Fortunately 
 
 the new quinquennial assessment came to the rescue, 
 otherwise the increase would have been nearly 2d. 
 
 Of the total of Is. 7d., Is. 4Jd. is for elementary and 2id. for 
 higher education, the cost of which is growing nearly three 
 times as fast as that of elementary education. The scholarships 
 scheme is mainly responsible, as it now costs £213,390 from the 
 rates. The net cost of the Non-provided Schools is £267,091. 
 with an average attendance of 157,739, or about £1 14s. per 
 child, which is much 'lower than for the Council's schools, 
 because the Council has not materially raised the very low 
 salaries paid to the teachers in these schools when they were 
 taken over. , . . One question calling for very serious con- 
 sideration is the large increase in the cost of administration. 
 In the last year of the School Board this was approximately 
 £200,000, including enforcement of school attendance. It is 
 now approximately £300,000, an increase in four years of nearly 
 50 per cent. That this is excessive is shown by the fact that 
 the general expenditure on education has increased less than 
 
 one-half as rapidly. It arises from the multiplication of 
 inspectors, advisers, and other highly paid officials. . . . 
 
 So serious did he consider the increasing administrative 
 charges that he advocated the appointment of a Special Com-
 
 142 
 
 mittee to go into the whole question of whether a considerable 
 saving both in time and money could not be effected by the 
 abolition of the dual system of the Clerk's and Executive 
 
 Departments. At present the administrative machinery is 
 fearfully and wonderfully made, but is extravagantly 
 costly and exceedingly slow in action. 
 
 The Increase in Officialism. 
 
 The Education Committee now holds sway over 988 schools 
 in London. On assuming office, it at once introduced an elabo- 
 rate scheme of organisation, the chief feature of which was the 
 creation of highly-paid officials. The first proposal made was 
 to appoint three chief officials, termed respectively an educa- 
 tional adviser, an executive officer, and a chief clerk. These 
 officials were appointed at salaries of £1,500, £1,000, and £800 
 per annum respectively. None of these existed under the old 
 School Board, except, perhaps, the chief clerk, who occupied 
 the post formerly held by the Clerk to the Board. Next came 
 the proposal to appoint, and then the appointment of, a chief 
 inspector at a salary of £800. This official was also deemed to 
 be unnecessary under the London School Board. More posts 
 were soon created, and the educational adviser was provided 
 with an assistant education adviser at a salary of £600. The 
 executive officer was also provided with an assistant at a salary of 
 £600. But the executive officer did not stop there. Several of the 
 old officials of the London School Board were put under him, and 
 called principal assistants^ and with a few added from outside, 
 he was soon supplied with eight assistants, and shortly after 
 obtained three more, who entered the service as senior assistants 
 to the executive officer. Additions were also made to the Chief 
 Inspector's Department. The London School Board and the 
 Technical Education Board had been contented with 22 inspec- 
 tors, but the new authority soon increased that number to 31. 
 
 The Education Committee appointed four divisional in- 
 spectors. In addition, it created offices for four new district 
 inspectors, and four new assistant inspectors. Besides the 31 
 inspectors already referred to, there are also drawing inspectors, 
 physical drill inspectors, manual training inspectors, needlework 
 inspectors, &c. In all, the inspectors in the service of the L.C.C.
 
 143 
 
 amount to a small army. The appointment of these new officials 
 was an unnecessary waste of money if, as their name implies, 
 they were appointed as inspectors, for the schools were already 
 supervised by a body of Government inspectors. These latter 
 officials supervise both Elementary and Secondary Education, 
 and if they deem it necessary they present to the Board of 
 Education a report on each school. These reports are in turn 
 submitted to the L.C.C., and thus the employment of a staff 
 of officials to do the same work is to a large extent an unnecessary 
 and an expensive duplication. 
 
 The inspectoral staff of the London School Board in 1903 
 cost £10,000. In 1906, it is estimated that the cost of the L.C.C. 
 inspectoral staff will be £20,000, an increase in three years of 
 £10,000, and all this for work largely done by another body. 
 
 The Cost of Abolishing: the Voluntary 
 
 Schools. 
 
 It will be seen from the above that the increase in cost is 
 gradual and unbroken. Attempts have been made by Pro- 
 gressives to escape the blame for this increased expenditure 
 by asserting that it has been necessitated owing to their con- 
 trolling the Non-provided Schools. The Progressives, however, 
 omit to mention that there is an annual grant from the Imperial 
 Exchequer on account of the Voluntary Schools of £250,000. 
 For reasons of their own, the Council only allocated £66,000 as 
 the proportion due to the Voluntary Schools. It should be 
 pointed out that over 200,000 children are being educated in 
 these Non-provided Schools. The Progressive policy is clearly 
 to exterminate the Voluntary Schools ; they have already con- 
 demned many of them, and view with hostility those that still 
 remain. 
 
 Recent Treatment of the Voluntary Schools 
 by the Prog^ressives. 
 
 At the meeting of the Council held on November 27th, 
 1906, an unsuccessful attempt was made by Mr. W. Whittaker 
 Thompson (M.) to induce the Council to mitigate somewhat the 
 severity of the measures which the Education Committee pro-
 
 U4 
 
 posed should be taken in regard to certain Non-provided Scliools. 
 The Committee recommended that seven schools, the managers 
 of which, it was reported, had taken no steps, or practically 
 none, with a view to the remodelling of the premises, be not 
 maintained by the Council after January 6th, 1907, and that 
 another be not maintained after February 28th, 1907. Mr. 
 Thompson, while not contending that these schools should not 
 be closed, moved an amendment to the effect that if within nine 
 months the requirements of the Council had been carried out, 
 the right of the Managers to claim maintenance should not be 
 prejudiced. He pointed out that the delay of the Council of six 
 months in making its requisitions upon the Managers of Voluntary 
 Schools had had the result that when they were made the Educa- 
 tion Bill loomed up and the difficulty of raising the money for the 
 improvement of the premises became acute. The amendment 
 was seconded by Lieutenant-Colonel Kotton (M.), but lost on a 
 show of hands, and the recommendations of the Committee were 
 then adopted. The schools concerned are : The St. Mark's N. 
 (C.E.) School, East Kennington ; the Wandsworth Road (Com- 
 mercial) School, Wandsworth Road; the St. Matthew's (C.E.) 
 School, Upper Clapton ; the Benevolent Society of St. Patrick's 
 School, Stamford Street ; the St. Thomas's N. (C.E.) (Infants') 
 School, Portman Square ; the Our Lady (R.C.) School, Kentish 
 Town ; the St. Peter's and St. Edward's (R.C.) School, Bucking- 
 ham Gate ; the St. Mary Magdalene's (C.E.) (Infants') School, 
 Cirencester Street. 
 
 The Cost to the Ratepayers. 
 
 Londoners would do well to remember the words of Mr. 
 Sidney Webb (Progressive), Chairman of the Technical Educa- 
 tion Board of the L.C.C. from 1893 to 1898, and again in 1901-2, 
 taken from his work, " London Education," published in 1904 
 (pages 206-7) :— 
 
 " There are those who advise the electors to refuse to the 
 Voluntary Schools any support from the rates, when in a few 
 years' time this becomes necessary ; and who are willing to see 
 them close their doors if their present subscribers will not keep 
 them efficient. Whether or not this would be fair, it is a 
 more matter of financial administration to point out that 
 
 it would be ruinous to the London ratepayer ... to
 
 U5 
 
 build " provided " schools for 200,000 more children would 
 cost the London ratepayers over £5,000,000. It would be 
 simply impossible for the London County Council to add 
 £5,000,000 to its already heavy capital commitments 
 within the next few years." 
 
 The attitude of the Progressives with regard to the Voluntary 
 
 Schools is insincere. They exaggerate the cost, and seek to 
 
 place the burden of their extravagant expenditure on education 
 
 generally on the Voluntary Schools. Mr. Shepheard (Progressive), 
 
 the present Chairman of the Education Committee, speaking in 
 
 the Council on May 23rd, 1905, as Vice-Chairman of the Education 
 
 Committee, actually made the statement that : — 
 
 " If they could throw off this incubus of the Voluntary 
 Schools they could reduce their rates." 
 
 It will be seen that before the Voluntary Schools were con- 
 trolled by the L.C.C., the cost of the Board Schools steadily 
 rose while under the School Board, and has been steadily rising 
 since. The expense to which the ratepayer has been put over 
 Voluntary Schools is in a very large degree due to the maliciously 
 unnecessary requirements insisted upon by the L.C.C. Education 
 Committee with a view to crushing the Voluntary Schools 
 out of existence for political and sectarian purposes. 
 
 Bad Administraticn. 
 
 A large portion of this steadily mounting expenditure is 
 
 also due to the large sum lavished upon administration. Dr. 
 
 Macnamara, M.P., himself an old School Board teacher, speaking 
 
 in the House of Commons on July 23rd, 1906, said : — 
 
 " The destruction of the London School Board was an 
 extraordinary leap in the dark, and the work had become hope- 
 lessly bureaucratiscd. The administration of the London S?hool 
 Board for the year ending 1904 amounted to £124,000, and at 
 the close of the present year the official administration would 
 amount to £300,000." (c./. Official Eeports, Col. 823.) 
 
 The Education Committee has an army of officials, and 
 thero is not only much economy that might be made, but at the 
 same time greater efficiency might be secured. The organisation 
 is hopelessly bad. 
 
 The chief ground of complaint against the L.C.C. as Educa- 
 tional Authority is that it has got to too large an extent into 
 
 K
 
 146 
 
 the hands of officials and is maladministered. The official 
 
 report for the year ending March, 1906, issued on October 12th, 
 
 1906, gives the following facts : — 
 
 " The average roll of the Public Elementary Schools was 
 three-quarters of a million. The staff of teachers in the services 
 of the Council numbered about 20,000, 17,000 of whom were 
 engaged in Public Elementary Schools, receiving salaries 
 amounting to over £2,000,000 per annum. The staff employed 
 in the administration of education work numbered over 500, 
 and in addition there were about 400 engaged as attendance 
 officers, while there were about 600 bodies of Managers appointed 
 for the purpose of supervising the detailed work of the schools." 
 
 A Striking- Indictment. 
 
 The .Morning Post of November 2nd, 1906, in an inspired 
 
 article which has not been challenged, gives striking revelations 
 
 of maladministration. Here are some extracts : — 
 
 " The teachers have complained and complain continually 
 that they get no sympathetic treatment at the hands of the 
 Council or the stafE, and that it is impossible to penetrate to 
 anyone in authority in order to discuss the problems which 
 they have to face. The staff complain that they are overworked 
 and harassed by internal friction and external interference, and 
 the Councillors themselves protest angrily that they cannot get 
 into touch with what is going on in London education. Last, 
 but not least, the ratepayers are becoming indignant at an 
 administration which taxes the funds administered more Ihan 
 6 per cent.— 1 per cent, more than did the old School Board, 
 and 11 per cent, more than the Technical Education Board, 
 tho two bodies whose work is now performed by the Education 
 Committee of the Council. 
 
 " The General Purposes Committee put forward an entirely 
 new scheme of reference to the Education Committee, the effect 
 of which, if adopted, will be to make the Education Committee, 
 instead of an advisory body, the real Education Authority for 
 London ; reserving only for the decision of the Council questions 
 of policy, the establishment of new principles, and the transfer 
 of Non-provided Schools. This is the very scheme which the 
 Progressive party rejected with contumely in the early part 
 of 1904, an action which has resulted in the blocking of the 
 Council's work ever since that time by the discussion of petty 
 details of educational administration which should have been 
 dealt with in Committee. . . . 
 
 " The teachers' complaint that they can get at no one in 
 authority is a just one ; but they do wrong to blame the officers
 
 u; 
 
 of the Council. There is no one in authority. There are 
 committees and sub-committees, a democratic hierarchy whose 
 head is lost — sometimes in more senses than one — in the Council 
 Chamber at Spring Gardens. There is a bureaucratic hierarchy 
 whose head is the Clerk to the Council, and there is an executive 
 hierarchy whose head is the executive officer, but whose policy 
 is that adopted by the Education Committee after consultation 
 with the educational adviser. Everything is done in triplicate 
 with enormous friction and expense ; but this is the least of 
 the resulting evils. The only official channel of communication 
 between the Committee and the executive staff is through the 
 Committee clerks. A subordinate clerk, acting with the nominal 
 authority of his sub-committee, can put the whole cumbrous 
 machinery of the Education Office in motion, not always profit- 
 ably. Otherwise the chief officers and other officials of the 
 Council are securely tied up with red tape, and all the scissors 
 are in the Clerks' Department. . . ." 
 
 " The clerks, too, form the only official channel of com- 
 munication with outside bodies. Negotiations, recommended 
 and begun by the educational experts in the Executive Depart- 
 ment, must be handed over to lay clerks for revision and 
 completion, a process always attended with waste of time, often 
 with considerable friction, and not in every case with advantage 
 to the best interests of the Council or of education. The Board 
 of Education itself cannot officially direct or communicate with 
 the experts in the Council's service except through the inter- 
 vention of this separate department, and it may perfectly well 
 be the case — it is more likely to be so under the new scheme 
 than under the old — that while the Education Committee are 
 substantially in sympathy with the views of the Board of Educa- 
 tion on some vexed cjuestion of detailed administration, the 
 Clerks' Department is inspired from the Council Chamber with 
 the views of a faction opposed to the policy of Mr. Birrell and 
 Mr. Morant. 
 
 The Scheme before the Council. 
 
 " So far from remedying this state of affairs, the scheme now 
 before the Council proposes, while increasing the powers of the 
 Education Committee in many respects, to take the whole clerical 
 staff out of its control ; and not the clerical staff only, but all 
 clerks in the Executive Department, would seem to be excluded 
 from Clause 7 of the scheme. It is unnecessary to point out 
 how this further division of authority must paralyse the working 
 of the department. Apparently every officer directly connected 
 with the work of the Committee will be entirely exempt from 
 its control. But while any further centralisation of the 
 clerical bureaucracy at Spring Gardens should be strongly 
 
 K 2
 
 148 
 
 resisted, it must be confessed that the true evil is not in the 
 Clerks' Department. The system alone is to blame. Where 
 there are a number of departments doing the same work, where 
 every sub-committee is attended by a number of officials repre- 
 senting their conflicting ideas, there must be conflicts of juris- 
 diction. The only way to make the office workable at all is 
 by a strict adherence to rule and routine. Under the various 
 guidance of three or more principal officers such a system, 
 wasteful as it is, is the only one possible. 
 
 A Paramount Head Wanted. 
 
 " This is the evil which requires the first remedy in the 
 treatment of London educational administration, and the 
 present proposals, so far as they touch it at all, can only aggra- 
 vate the trouble. What is wanted is a paramount head over 
 the whole educational staff, expert in educational matters and 
 responsible only to the Committee and its chairman, as a per- 
 manent secretary in the Civil Service to his political chief. This 
 officer should be the link between the Education Committee, 
 the Board of Education, and the official staff, without the inter- 
 vention of any outside department. All educational clerks 
 should be answerable to him alone. This is the organisation 
 which has worked admirably in nearly all the counties of England 
 for the last three years, it is the system almost universally 
 adopted in America, and it is one which was tried and found 
 excellent in London in the days of the old Technical Education 
 Board. It is the only system by which clerks, inspectors, and 
 executive assistants can be made to pull together and real 
 democratic control secured." 
 
 The Reig^n of Officialisni. 
 
 In a leading article dealing with the subject of the above 
 
 article. The Morning Post of the same date says : — 
 
 " London is at this moment the scene of a conflict analogous 
 to that wiiich has been carried on for two years in Russia between 
 bureaucracy and the spirit of freedom. The subject-matter of 
 the dispute is the Secondary Schools. The bureaucracy is formed 
 of the officials of the Education Committee of the London County 
 Council ; the men who wish to maintain a reasonable freedom are 
 the head masters of the Secondary Schools. The victory of the 
 bureaucracy would mean the end of good education in London. 
 The Education Act of 1902, and the Education (London) Act of 
 1903, empower the Council to take such steps as seem to them 
 desirable after consultation with the Board of Education to 
 supply or aid the supply of education other than elementary. 
 The County Council interprets this to mean that it is to take
 
 149 
 
 absolute control of all the Secondary Schools in London, and to 
 administer them from its central office through its own executive 
 officers, with the slightest possible regard either for the governing 
 bodies of the schools or for the head masters, each of whom is 
 to be regarded as the direct subordinate of the executive officers 
 of the Council Committee. 
 
 " We have before us regulations is-;ued by the County 
 Council governing grants to Secondary Schools. By these regu- 
 lations the Council claims a control over the governing bodies 
 in the appointment of head masters, and lays down rules by 
 which governing bodies are to be guided in the appointment and 
 dismissal of assistant masters. All schools receiving grants are 
 to be at all times open to the inspectors of the County Council. 
 Some of these regulations are sound enough in principle. The 
 body which makes a grant is entitled to inspect, or at least to 
 have access to the reports of qualified inspectors. The Board 
 of Education inspects the Secondary Schools, and it might have 
 been thought that if the Board of Education employed com- 
 petent inspectors the County Council might be satisfied with 
 their reports. If there must be two sets of inspectors some 
 arrangement ought to be made to secure their working in harmony, 
 yet it constantly happens that a school is visited on the same 
 day unexpectedly both by an inspector from the Board of 
 Education and by one from the County Council. The County 
 Council inspectors are either peculiar persons or have received 
 peculiar instructions. It is no uncommon practice for a County 
 Council inspector to enter a class-room without having com- 
 municated with the head master, and on the spot, of his own 
 authority, to rebuke the teacher for his methods and to order 
 him to alter his course. This is an interference in the function 
 of a head master which, if it is permitted, is tantamount to the 
 abolition of that office. No inspector who was an educated 
 man and competent to inspect a school would ever permit him- 
 self by word or act to derogate from the authority either of the 
 teacher or of the head master, and if the County Council approves 
 of such conduct it shows itself unacquainted with the real nature 
 of education, which is a moral process aiming at the formation 
 of a good character in the pupils. . . . The idea of the County 
 Council appears to be that the head master is a cipher, that the 
 children of the schools are to be disciplined by its clerks acting 
 in its central office, and that the head master, though his position 
 requires him to maintain the discipline of his school as well as 
 its standard of scholarship, is to be in every respect the mechanical 
 subordinate of its own clerks. . . . The executive officer calls 
 upon head masters to report to him in detail upon the absences 
 of certain pupils, and the same executive officer deliberately 
 attempts to overthrow the authority of all head masters by 
 himself receiving complaints from pupils, and requiring head
 
 150 
 
 masters to account to him for these complaints. These are all 
 specimens of treatment to which no self-respecting head master 
 would submit, and the only possible inference is either that the 
 Education Committee of the County Council does not know what 
 its executive officer is doing or that it deliberately proposes to 
 make the position of head master of a London Secondary School 
 impossible for any man of high character and intelligence. 
 
 " The bureaucratic system in any form is absolutely incom- 
 patible with education. . . . True education is a humanising 
 process, and cannot by any possibility be carried on mechanically. 
 The vital force in education is the educator, who, so long as the 
 pupil is a child, must be at once teacher and master. He must 
 have authority in order that the children may be disciplined. 
 He must have knowledge and method in order that they may 
 be instructed. But both in discipline and in instruction the 
 efficacious power is always and in all cases the personaHty of the 
 teacher. ... A good system will therefore give to the head 
 master the utmost possible freedom. Its main effort will be to 
 secure as head masters men of the very highest type of character, 
 intelligence, and learning. It is the glory of the English Public 
 School system that its great schools have had so remarkable a 
 supply of strong personalities as their heads. To this is due the 
 fact . , . that it is to the English Public Schools at the present 
 moment that both Germany and France are looking for inspira- 
 tion as to how their own great schools may be made to produce 
 better results in the formation of character among the pupils. 
 This great trait in the Public Schools has been wonderfully 
 caught by the Secondary Schools of London, which have a 
 body of head masters remarkable not merely for their scientific 
 and literary attainments, but also for their high level of character 
 and for the lofty standard they have set before themselves. 
 
 The County Council seems to aim at setting over these 
 men a drill-master in the shape of its own executive 
 officer. The design is monstrous and intolerable." 
 
 Mr. Thomas (Progressive), speaking in the Council on 
 
 May 15th, 1906, said :— 
 
 " The plan seemed to be to duplicate the officials in every 
 department. He had never been on the Sub-Committee where 
 there had not been more officials than members present. The 
 additional staff of the Clerk of the Council ran away with £56,750. 
 There appeared to have been no corresponding increase in the 
 efficiency of the schools as a consequence of this increased 
 expenditure on officials. Indeed, the constant worry had had an 
 unsettUng influence on the teaching staff, and Canon Jephson 
 had resigned his seat as a protest against the domination of 
 the officials of the Council. The whole matter required serious 
 consideration, and he thought a special committee should be ap- 
 pointed to enquire into it."
 
 151 
 
 The West Riding: Judgrment and the L.C.C. 
 
 The West Riding Judgment of the Court of Appeal gave 
 the L.C.C. Progressives a further opportunity, at which they at 
 once snatched, of displaying unveiled hostility to the Non- 
 provided Schools. It will be remembered that the matter at issue 
 was simply this : Is a payment by an Educational Authority for 
 denominational education a legal payment ? The King's Bench 
 Division decided in the affirmative. The Appeal Court reversed 
 the King's Bench decision. Taking the Appeal Court judgment 
 as it stood, it went no further than this. It decided that, while 
 no Educational Authority is compelled to pay for religious 
 teaching, there was not in the judgment a shadow of an 
 indication that Education Authorities were not at liberty to make 
 these payments if they chose so to do. 
 
 This was the position on October 9th, 1906, when the 
 matter came before the Council.* Meanwhile the Education 
 Committee had taken the opinion of Sir Robert Finlay, K.C. 
 In spite of his advice, that the Council should continue the prac- 
 tice which had hitherto been followed until the case had been 
 heard in the House of Lords or the matter had been dealt with 
 by fresh legislation, the Progressive leader, Mr. McKinnon 
 Wood, M.P., moved the following resolution : — 
 
 " That all words after the word ' That ' in line 1 be 
 omitted, and that the following words be substituted there- 
 for : — ' inasmuch as, in view of the decision of the Court 
 of Appeal, the Council has no power to defray the expenses 
 of denominational religious instruction in Non-provided 
 Schools, the recommendation of the Committee be referred 
 back with instructions to report forthwith to the Council 
 what steps should be taken to provide that no payment 
 shall be made for such instruction, due care being taken 
 to prevent hardship to the teachers in those schools ; and 
 that authority be given to the Education Committee to enter 
 into the necessary communications with the Board of 
 Education.' " 
 
 The amendment was put to the vote, and, the Council 
 having divided, there voted : — 
 
 * For a full report of this debate cf. "The L.C.C. and the West 
 Riding Judgment," obtainable from the London Municipal Society.
 
 152 
 
 For the Amendment — 72. 
 
 Allen, A. A. . . 
 
 Bayley, E. 
 
 Beaton, Dr. R. M. . . 
 
 Benn, Sir John 
 
 Bray, R. 
 
 Briant, F. 
 
 Bruce, W. W. 
 
 Chambers, F. 
 
 Clarke, G. Goddard 
 
 Cleland, J. W. 
 
 Collins, S. 
 
 Collins, Sir William J. 
 
 Cooper, B. 
 
 Cornwall, Sir Edwin 
 
 Crooks, W. 
 
 Davies, T. 
 
 Davies, W. 
 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 
 Dew, Gr. 
 
 Dickinson, W. H. 
 
 Dolman, F. . . 
 
 Gautrey, T. . . 
 
 Gilbert, J. T, {Teller) 
 
 Glanville, H. J. 
 
 Goodman, W. 
 
 Gosling, H. . . 
 
 Hardy, G. A. 
 
 Harvey, T. E. 
 
 Hemphill, Capt. The Hon. 
 
 Fitzroy 
 Hubbard, N. W. .. 
 Hunter, T. 
 Jeffrey, J. 
 Jesson, C. 
 Jones, Rev. L, J. 
 Lampard, G. . . 
 
 . (P) Bermondsey. 
 
 „ West South wark. 
 
 „ St. Pancras, North. 
 
 „ Kennington. 
 
 ,, Camberwell, North. 
 
 „ Lambeth, North. 
 
 „ Bow and Bromley. 
 
 . ,, Woolwich. 
 
 ,, Peckham. 
 
 „ Lewisham. 
 
 ,, Kennington. 
 
 „ St. Pancras, West. 
 
 ,, Bow and Bromley. 
 
 ,, Bethnal Green, North-East. 
 
 ,, Poplar. 
 
 ,, Fulham. 
 
 ,, Battersea. 
 
 ,, Walworth. 
 
 ,, Islington, South. 
 
 ,, Alderman. 
 
 ,, Brixton. 
 
 ,, Dulwich. 
 
 „ West Newington. 
 
 ,, Rotherhithe. 
 
 ,, Islington, West. 
 
 ,, St, George's-in-the-East. 
 
 „ Dulwich. 
 
 „ Finsbury, East. 
 
 Finsbury, Central. 
 
 Norwood. 
 
 West Southwark. 
 
 Chelsea. 
 
 Walworth. 
 
 Woolwich. 
 
 Hackney, North.
 
 153 
 
 Leon, A. L. . . 
 
 Lewis, J. 
 
 Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott 
 
 McDougall, Sir John 
 
 Mitchell, Isaac 
 
 Monkswell, Lord 
 
 Mullins, W. E. 
 
 Napier, Dr. T. B. 
 
 Parkinson, W, C. 
 
 Phillimore, R. C. 
 
 Piggott, John 
 
 Pomeroy, Ambrose 
 
 Russell, Arthur B. 
 
 Salter, Dr. A. 
 
 Sandhurst, Lord 
 
 Sears, J. E. . . 
 
 Sharp, L. 
 
 Shepheard, A. J. 
 
 Shrubsall, G. 
 
 Smith, Alfred 
 
 Smith, Edward 
 
 Smith, J. 
 
 Strong, R. 
 
 Taylor, H. R. 
 
 Torrance, Sir Andrew M. 
 
 Verney, F. W. 
 
 Wallas, G. 
 
 Ward, H. (V.C.) 
 
 Warmington, F. W. 
 
 Warren, G. J. 
 
 Waterlow, D. S. 
 
 Welby, Lord . . 
 
 West, Rt. Hon. Sir Algernon 
 
 Wiles, T. {Teller) .. 
 
 Williams, Howell J. 
 
 Wood, T. McKinnon 
 
 Yates, W. B 
 
 (P) 
 >> 
 
 5> 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 Limehouse. 
 
 Marylebone, West. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Poplar. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Haggerston. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Islington, North. 
 
 Islington, North. 
 
 Deptford. 
 
 West Newington. 
 
 Rotherhithe. 
 
 Finsbury, Central. 
 
 Bermondsey. 
 
 City of London. 
 
 Hackney, North. 
 
 Brixton. 
 
 Hackney, Central. 
 
 Norwood. 
 
 Hackney, South. 
 
 Bethnal Green, North-East. 
 
 St. George's-in-the-East. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Camberwell, North. 
 
 Islington, East. 
 
 Peckham. 
 
 Hoxton. 
 
 Hoxton. 
 
 Greenwich. 
 
 Mile End. 
 
 St. Pancras, North. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Bethnal Green, South- West, 
 
 Islington, South. 
 
 Hackney, Central. 
 
 Alderman.
 
 154 
 
 Against the Amendment. — 31. 
 
 Alliston, F. P. 
 Anstruther, H. T. . . 
 
 Bailey, W 
 
 Barnes, E. 
 
 Beachcroft, Sir R. Melvill 
 Bliss, Sir Henry W. 
 Brooke-Hitching, Sir Thomas 
 
 H 
 
 Cobb, C. S 
 
 Collins, E 
 
 Colvile, Lt.-Col. C. F. 
 Forman, E. B. (D.C.) 
 Gaskell, T. P. 
 
 Gastrell, Major W. Houghton 
 Goldsmith, F. 
 Goodrich, A. 0. 
 Gordon, H. H. 
 Greenwood, H. J. 
 Guinness, Hon. Rupert 
 Harris, H. P. [Teller) 
 Johnson, W. C. 
 Lancaster, W. J. 
 Probyn, Lt.-Col. C. .. 
 Robinson, R. A. 
 Rotton, Lt.-Col. A. . . 
 Sankey, Stuart 
 Sturge, C. Y. 
 
 Swinton, Capt. G. S. C. [Tell 
 Taylor, John T. 
 Thompson, W. W. .. 
 
 White, E 
 
 Williams, Jabez 
 
 (M) City of London. 
 ,, Alderman. 
 ,, Marylebone, West. 
 ,, St. Pancras, East. 
 ,, Paddington, North. 
 ,, Holborn. 
 
 ,, City of London. 
 
 ,, Fulham. 
 
 ,, Hammersmith. 
 
 ,, Kensington, North. 
 
 ,, Alderman. 
 
 ,, Clapham. 
 
 ,, St. Pancras, South. 
 
 „ St. Pancras, South. 
 
 ,, Stepney. 
 (Ind) Whitcchapel. 
 (M) St. George's, Hanover Square. 
 
 ,, City of London. 
 
 ,, Paddington, South. 
 (P) Whitechapel. 
 (M) Wandsworth. 
 
 ,, Strand, 
 
 ,, Kensington, South. 
 
 ,, Clapham. 
 
 ,, City of London. 
 
 „ Westminster. 
 ■) ,, Holborn. 
 
 ,, Hampstead. 
 
 „ Alderman. 
 
 ,, Alderman. 
 
 ,, Lambeth, North. 
 
 The amendment was declared carried. 
 
 The Education Committee, in 
 October 31st, 1906, stated : — 
 
 their Repor dated
 
 155 
 
 " 1.— The Council on October 9th, 1906, resolvedfas 
 follows : — 
 
 " That, inasmuch as, in view of the decision of the 
 Court of Appeal, the Council has no power to defray the 
 expenses of denominational religious instruction in Non- 
 provided Schools, the recommendation of the Committee 
 be referred back, with instructions to report forthwith to 
 the Council what steps should be taken to provide that 
 no payment shall be made for such instruction, due care 
 being taken to prevent hardship to the teachers in those 
 schools ; and that authority be given to the Education 
 Committee to enter into the necessary communications 
 with the Board of Education." 
 
 " Our General Purposes Sub-Committee, after carefully 
 considering what steps should be taken to meet the require- 
 ments of the Council, and acting on the advice of the solicitor,, 
 the executive officer, and the educational adviser, submitted 
 to us the following scheme, which they were of opinion would 
 comply, as far as possible, with the Council's instruction : — 
 
 " On and after 1st day of February, 1907, and until 
 further notice, the Council will continue to defray the salaries 
 of teachers in Non-provided Schools in accordance with the 
 existing scale, so long as the undermentioned conditions are 
 complied with : — 
 
 " (1) The teachers shall attend during the whole of the 
 school hours. 
 
 " (2) The teachers shall, during the whole of the school 
 hours, be engaged solely in secular teaching, or in other 
 secular work in connection with the school, in accordance 
 with directions to be given from time to time to the 
 Managers : Provided that in any case in which the Managers 
 of a Non-provided School have agreed with the Council to 
 pay to the Council, monthly in advance, such portion of 
 the salary of any teacher employed by such Managers as 
 is in the opinion of the Council payable to such teacher in 
 respect of the giving of denominational religious instruction 
 by such teacher, and such Managers are not in default in 
 any payment under such agreement, the Managers may 
 require such teacher to give denominational religious in- 
 struction." 
 
 " We have not, however, in any way dealt with the fore- 
 going scheme in view of the fact that in our opinion since the 
 resolution of the Council was passed, the position of affairs 
 has been materially altered, the Government having decided 
 to prosecute the appeal to the House of Lords with a view to 
 a final decision being arrived at on the law as quickly as possible.
 
 15G 
 
 " We therefore consider that it would be premature to take 
 any immediate steps in the matter, and we recommend : — 
 
 "That no action be taken with reference to the 
 
 resolution of 9th October, 1906, in the matter of Kex V. 
 the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 
 
 until the appeal to the House of Lords has been 
 decided." * 
 
 This recommendation came before the Council on 
 November 6th, 1906, and was agreed to. 
 
 This, however, in no way takes from the fact that the 
 Progressive Party joyfully seized the opportunity, for the 
 time being afforded, of withdrawing from the Voluntary Schools 
 all assistance for religious teaching, and contemptuously 
 spurned the advice of Sir Robert Finlay, to the effect that the 
 Council should continue the practice which had hitherto been 
 iollowed until the case had been heard in the House of Lords or 
 the matter had been dealt with by fresh legislation. 
 
 The voting and speeches of the Progressive Party on this 
 ■occasion afford yet one more instance of their determined hostility 
 towards denominational teaching of all kinds, and go to further 
 show the hollowness of the promises they made in regard to 
 the Voluntary Schools on the occasion of the last County Council 
 •elections. 
 
 Dr. Clifford and the Progressive Party. 
 
 According to The British Weekly of November 8th, 1906, 
 it was to Dr. Clifford and " to the Nonconformist vote that 
 they " (the Progressives) " owed their places " on the Council. 
 
 It is well that the public should be fully apprized of the 
 fact that Dr. Clifford's real goal is the Disestablishment of the 
 English Church, and that nothing less would in any way satisfy 
 him or his followers, amongst whom may be numbered the 
 vast majority of the Progressive Party on the L.C.C. The 
 Education agitation was founded and is maintained by them 
 merely to further their attacks on the Established Church. It 
 
 * On December 21st, 1906, the House of Lords in this caso unani- 
 mously reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and reaffirmed 
 the decision of the King's Bench Division.
 
 15; 
 
 is therefore desirable to direct public attention to the fact that 
 Dr. Clifford is the President of a Society maintained for this 
 express object, and, as shown by the following statement, only 
 recently was presiding at a meeting called for this express pur- 
 pose. 
 
 " A special Disestablishment Conference of the Liberation 
 Society took place on November 6th, 1906," states The Daily 
 Neivs of November 7th, 1906, " at the Whitehall Rooms, London, 
 Dr. Clifford presiding. Others present included Mr. Compton 
 Rickett, M.P., Mr. P. W. Wilson, M.P., Mr. Massie, M.P., Mr. 
 Maddison, M.P., and Mr. Hastings Duncan, M.P. 
 
 " The Chairman (Dr. Clifford) intimated that they had met 
 to inaugurate their winter work — the work was extensive and 
 the opportunity was grand. Their Society never had a louder 
 or more imperative call than at present to undertake the task 
 which it had set itself, or a finer opportunity to render service 
 to real religion, thorough education, hberty, and progress. The 
 strife and struggle through which they were passing were not a 
 waste of energy or time, but a real contribution to the drilling 
 of the nation in the apprehension of the principles of the Libera- 
 tion Society. The House of Lords had demonstrated to the 
 
 nation that there is but one solution of the education 
 problem, and that is the disestablishment and disendowment 
 
 of the Anglican Church. He beheved that the object of the 
 bishops was to wreck the Education Bill. By securing dis- 
 establishment and disendowment of the Church there would be 
 obtained a demand from the people that the bishops should be 
 expelled from the House of Lords. The education of the people 
 had been going on during the controversy. The resolutions 
 referred to the way in which Romanism was spreading. There 
 was no help for Low Churchmen in ParUament through the 
 bishops. The only way in which it was possible for Romanism 
 to be scotched and stopped in its progress in this country was 
 the way the Liberation Society propounded — that of speedy 
 and thoroughgoing DiestabUshment ; and he appealed for 
 increased financial support for the Society." 
 
 Underfed Schoolchildren. 
 
 This matter is still in the experimental stage. On July 11th, 
 1905, the Education Committee presented a Report, and as a 
 result it was decided that the food cooked in cookery centres 
 be utilised as far as possible in arranging for dinners at the 
 following L.C.C. Schools, the expenditure incurred to be recovered
 
 158 
 
 from parents or charitable funds : Dulwich Hamlet (Dulwich) ; 
 Ackmar Road (Fulham) ; Old Woolwich Road (Greenwich) ; 
 Columbia Road (Bethnal Green) ; and Buckingham Street 
 School (Islington). 
 
 The view the Municipal Reformers take upon this subject 
 is this. The underfeeding must certainly be remedied, but 
 wherever possible the cost must be recovered from the parents. 
 Furthermore, resort should not be had to school-feeding indis- 
 criminately, but only in cases where it is urgently required. 
 
 Some idea of the cost may be gathered from the following 
 reply to a question made by the President of the Board of 
 Education in the House of Commons on March 19th, 1906 : — 
 
 " The cost of the food for giving a meal to every child in 
 public elementary schools in London on every occasion when 
 the school is open would be, at Id. per child, about £596,000 
 per annum, which is equivalent to a rate of 3Jd. in the £ ; if 
 the food cost 2d. a head, the figures would be £1,192,000, equiva- 
 lent to a 7d. rate in the £. These figures take no account of the 
 heavy expenditure on the provision and serving of the meals, 
 including, not improbably, special buildings. Of this expenditure 
 I can give no estimate." 
 
 The Education (Provision of Meals) Bill passed its third 
 reading in the House of Commons on December 13th, 1906. 
 
 The Daily Graphic, in a leading article on December 14th, 
 1906, says : — 
 
 " The Education (Provision of Meals) Bill, which passed 
 its final stages in the House of Commons last night, has a direct 
 bearing on the coming County Council elections. Under the 
 Bill every local education authority will have the power to build 
 kitchens and dining rooms for the purpose of supplying meals, 
 not to a handful of necessitous children, but to all the children 
 attending public elementary schools. 
 
 " In the elementary schools of London there are on the rolls 
 about 750,000 children, and there is nothing to prevent the 
 London County Council, as the education authority for London, 
 from providing kitchens and dining rooms and preparing meals 
 for all these children. Such a prospect would in any case be 
 appalling, but it is made even more serious by the fact that the 
 Bill does not even require the Council to charge a sufficient sum 
 to cover the cost of the meal. An amendment raising this point 
 was moved in the House of Commons last night, but rejected on
 
 159 
 
 a division by an overwhelming majority. Thus a new vista 
 of almost endless expense is opened for the London ratepayer. 
 Yet the Bill which contains these serious consequences has always 
 been represented as a modest measure for bringing relief to 
 starving children. In reality it is a stage in the Socialist cam- 
 paign that is being so cleverly conducted by the Independent 
 Labour Party with the aid of the Liberal majority in the House 
 of Commons. The avowed object of the Socialists is to secure 
 State maintenance of all school children. The natural responsi- 
 biUties of the parent are to be transferred to the ratepayer, 
 and the London County Council is empowered by this Bill to 
 become a potent instrument for that transference."
 
 160 
 
 MAIN DRAINAGE 
 FLOODINGS. 
 
 A notable instance of how the Progressives have neglected 
 to carry out primary duties of the first importance to the health 
 of London is afforded by the scandalous delay in dealing with 
 the inadequate main drainage system of the Metropolis, ex- 
 tending now over a period of seventeen years. 
 
 On December 17th, 1889 (a few months after its consti- 
 tution), the Council 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 17th, 1890, the Committee gave instructions to 
 Mr. (now Sir) Benjamin Baker, the well-known engineer, and 
 to the chief engineer of the Council, to fully report upon {inter 
 alia) : — 
 
 " The provision of storm overflows, and the best means for 
 avoidance of the floodings which have lately caused much incon- 
 venience and injury in several low-lying districts." 
 
 The Committee urged : — 
 
 " Upon the engineers the desirability of the utmost prompti- 
 tude in making their report, and that they should have regard 
 to the advisability of dehvering it to the Committee, for the 
 information of the Council, in such time that, if works of magni- 
 tude may be recommended and approved, the requisite surveys 
 and references could be made in time for any apphcation to 
 ParHament, of which notice would have to be given in the latter 
 part of this year." — {L.C.C. publication, No. 3, Fehnmry, 1891, 
 pp. 3-5.) 
 
 Eng^ineers' Report, 1891. 
 
 A year later the engineers presented their joint report, 
 
 dated February 19th, 1891. The report referred to the 
 
 inadequacy of the sewers : — 
 
 " To the frequent flooding complained of in the Isle of 
 Dogs, Poplar, Hackney Wick, and Westminster ; from which
 
 161 
 
 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 vStreatham, 
 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 require- 
 ments are the prevention, as far as possible, of floods due to 
 rainfall."— (/). 19.) 
 
 They then proceeded to deal with the necessary new works 
 
 required to bring the existing main drainage up to present 
 
 requirements, and to provide for future increase. 
 
 " The cost of the proposed works will be approximately as 
 follows : — 
 
 " Approximate Estimate cost of the Proposed Works for 
 
 IMPROVING THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF MaIN DrAINAGE ON 
 
 THE North and South sides of the Thames. 
 
 " Works on the North side of the Thames. 
 
 £ £ 
 
 New outfall sewer. Old Ford to Barking 620,000 
 
 New intercepting sewer, Paddington to 
 
 Old Ford 245,000 
 
 Separation of Isle of Dogs and Hackney . j 
 
 branches, including pumping en- 
 gines . . . . . . . . . . 55,000 
 
 Total of works on the North side of the 
 
 Thames 920,000 
 
 " Works on the South side of the Thames. 
 
 New low -level sewer and branches, from 
 
 Deptford to Crossness . . . . 427,000 
 
 New high-level gravitation sewer, Dul- 
 wich and Crossness . . . . 784,000 
 
 Engines and buildings at Crossness . . 89,000 
 
 Total for works on the South side of the 
 
 Thames . . 1,300,000 
 
 Total for both sides 2,220,000" 
 
 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 
 
 * Nearly 16 years have elapsed since these words were used.
 
 162 
 
 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 
 are more immediately required." 
 
 Plans prepared. 
 
 On March 10th, 1891, the Main Drainage Committee 
 
 recommended that detailed plans be prepared of the proposed 
 
 new sewers. On the proposal to adopt this recommendation 
 
 it 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 over-flows into 
 the Thames and Lea ; (c) the better purification of the river." 
 —{Minutes, 1891, p. 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 works were carried out, 
 
 but the main proposals of Sir Benjamin Baker and Mr. (now 
 
 Sir Alexander) Binnie were disregarded. On December 10th, 
 
 1895, an adjourned report of the Main Drainage Committee was 
 
 considered by the Council. This report 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 the proposals of Sir Benjamin Baker and Mr. Binnie in 
 
 their joint report of February, 1891. 
 
 " In reports, dated February 15tl), 1891, and October 17th, 
 1895, the chief engineer has again called our attention to the 
 necessity of at once undertaking the works required on the
 
 103 
 
 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 immediately proceeding with 
 these works. If this is not done, he fears that the main 
 drainage system will fall into disrepute." 
 
 The Committee recommended the construction of an 
 
 additional outfall sewer between Old Ford and Barking, and 
 
 the new intercepting sewer between Paddington and Old Ford 
 
 — the two chief proposals for North London contained in the 
 
 report of 1891. 
 
 Prog^ressive Opposition to Reform. 
 
 On the motion to adopt the recommendations of the 
 
 Committee, an amendment was moved by Mr. (now Sir John) 
 
 McDougall (Progressive), seconded by Mr. Idris (Progressive) 
 
 {i.e., on December 10th, 1895) :— 
 
 " That the general enlargement of the main drainage 
 system is not now necessary, but that local fioodings need 
 immediate attention." 
 
 This amendment was carried, but, on the motion of Dr. 
 
 LongstafE (Moderate), the following 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." 
 
 Mr. McDougall, in moving his amendment, contended that 
 
 the new sewers would not be successful in preventing the 
 
 fioodings : — 
 
 " That during the last six years the Council had spent, in 
 connection with, the relief of the sewers in the north of London, 
 
 £165,000, and there was now no need for any general enlarge- 
 ment of the sewerage system." 
 
 Mr. Idris, 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 
 futility of such an expenditure as they were now asked to 
 sanction." 
 
 This Progressive opposition to the carrpng out of extremely 
 
 urgent main drainage works was directly contrary to the opinion 
 
 of the engineers, and the result was that London still continued 
 
 to suffer from fioodings.
 
 164 
 
 Another Four Years' Delay. 
 
 However, four years later, in 1899, Sir Alexander Binnie, 
 the eminent engineer, again recommended the execution of 
 the proposed sewage works, north and south of the Thames, 
 
 at an estimated cost of nearly three million pounds. 
 
 These proposals were submitted to the Council on December 5th, 
 
 1899, with an expression of opinion that all the sewers should 
 
 be constructed with 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 
 dweUing houses and other buildings with storm waters and 
 
 sewage. The duty of poviding 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 thi$ 
 work is effectually done is, and must be, a matter of the 
 utmost concern to the public."— (L. (7.(7. Minutes, 1899, p. 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 works 
 
 were executed. i 
 
 Local Authorities condemn L.C.C. 
 
 The L.C.C. Minutes for 1899, state:— 
 
 " Strong representations, urging the construction of additional 
 relief sewers, have been made by the following authorities : — 
 
 Battersea 
 
 Bermondsey 
 
 Camberwell 
 
 Chelsea 
 
 Fulham 
 
 Hackney 
 
 Hammersmith 
 
 Holborn 
 
 Kensington 
 
 Lee 
 
 Limehouse 
 
 Newington 
 
 Paddington 
 
 Plumstead 
 
 Poplar 
 
 St. George, 
 
 Hanover 
 
 St. Luke's 
 
 St. James, Westminster 
 St. Margaret and St. 
 John, Westminster 
 St. Martin-in-the- 
 
 Fields 
 St. Marylebone 
 St. Olave's 
 Whitechapel 
 
 Square 
 Islington St. George-the-Martyr 
 
 " Most of these authorities urge the construction of the sewers 
 recommended in the joint report of 1891, and deputations from
 
 165 
 
 •several of them have, from time to time, appeared before us. 
 We may also state, for the information of the Council, that 
 some time ago a conference of the representatives of the Vestry 
 of Hackney, Vestry of Paddington, Poplar District Board, Vestry 
 of Stoke Newington, Vestry of Islington, and the Hornsey and 
 South Hornsey District Councils, was held to discuss the serious 
 condition of affairs arising from the insufficiency of the main 
 sewers, and a deputation subsequently attended before us in 
 support of a memorial urging that additional works, recom- 
 mended as a remedy in the joint report of Sir Benjamin Baker 
 and Sir Alexander Binnie, should be proceeded with without 
 further delay, and that all minor works, which would tend to 
 lessen local floodings and improve the flow of the high-level 
 sewer, should be at once carried out. A further conference 
 of the leading parishes on the north side of the Thames was held 
 at the Paddington Vestry Hall on Friday, 27th October last, 
 when the following resolution, relating to storm floodings and the 
 attitude of the Council in the matter, was passed : — 
 
 " That this conference, comprising representatives of the 
 leading parishes on the north side of the Thames, hereby places on 
 record its surprise that, notwithstanding the strong expression of 
 opinion by the Main Drainage Committee of the London County 
 Council and its responsible officers, and the repeated representa- 
 tions 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.aC. Minutes, 1899, p. 1,723.) 
 
 More Prog:ressive Opposition. 
 
 Notwithstanding the urgency of the matter, Mr. (now Sir 
 John) McDougall (Progressive), on December 5th, 1899, moved 
 an amendment, seconded by 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 
 floodings need immediate attention, and that, therefore, 
 the recommendation be referred back to the Committee."— 
 {L.C.C. Minutes, 1899, p. 1,728.) 
 
 The amendment, however, was lost, and the Council decided, 
 after eight years' delay, to execute certain works.
 
 166 
 
 " The sums voted by the Council in respect of the enlarge- 
 ment of the Northern outfall sewer are as follows : — 
 
 Two sewers between the Abbey Mills pump- 
 ing station and the Barking outfall, inclusive of 
 incidental works at the latter station . . . . £600,000 
 
 Two sewers between the Abbey Mills 
 pumping station and Old Ford " . . . . 200,000 
 
 £800,000 " 
 
 On the south side of the Thames the Council decided to 
 construct a new outfall sewer between Deptford pumping station 
 and the Crossness outfall, and a high-level sewer between Cross- 
 ness and Plumstead railway station, besides various other 
 works. The sums voted by the Council in respect of this work 
 amounted to £650,000. 
 
 Description of the Flooding^s. 
 
 On June 29th, 1903, The Times contained a letter from 
 
 Sir Philip Burne-Jones, Bart., on the inadequate drainage in 
 
 London. After briefly stating the inaction of the London 
 
 County Council, the letter proceeds :— 
 
 " I need not enlarge, Sir, upon what this flooding involves. 
 Hundreds of houses are inundated with a flood of filthy black 
 water, thick with mud and sewage, which forces its way up 
 through gullies and manholes and any apertures connecting 
 the houses with the drains. In the Case Of well-to-do people 
 
 this causes huge inconvenience and much expense ; where 
 their humbler neighbours are concerned, the effect is 
 distressing and disastrous in the extreme. I have this morning 
 
 visited several basements in the poorer quarters of this neigh- 
 bourhood ; and the sights which I have seen might well stimulate 
 the London County Council to immediate and productive action 
 of some sort, if it were only to provide additional relays of work- 
 men, and so hasten the completion of the new pumping station 
 in Lot's Road. The community would, I think, be willing to 
 dispense with the bands in the parks (for a few Sundays) as a 
 contribution to any extra expenses incurred. The SOaking 
 
 damp floors, the 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. 
 
 In one case, the fireplace itself was bulging out of its brick 
 setting, having been loosened by the water. A very little 
 
 imagination will picture the indescribable details of discomfort
 
 167 
 
 and misery which would be caused by the sudden immersion 
 of one's living room in several feet of reeking sewage 
 water. During the past few days the destruction of property 
 in this parish has been enormous ; the danger to health 
 is just as great. I have stated the bare facts, trusting 
 tliat you, Sir, will give them pubhcity, and that by so doing 
 the London County Council (who are primarily responsible for 
 this indescribable misery) may be moved to do something more 
 than talk and pass resolutions. Do not let them waste more 
 time, even in defending themselves, but let them act ; and even 
 thus late in the day, after being in possession of the facts for 
 14 years without moving in the matter, let them devise a 
 practical remedy for the evil at their doors, and thus justify 
 their stewardship to the long-suffering ratepayers of the 
 MetropoUs." 
 
 The flooding of houses by sewage has greatly increased 
 in the last few years. On October 17th, 1903, The Times con- 
 tained the following : — 
 
 " The Flooding in South London. — At the Southwark 
 Town Hall, a conference of delegates from the South London 
 borough councils was held on Thursday, to consider the subject 
 of the periodical flooding of houses and business premises. The 
 Mayor of Southwark (Mr. T. Bryan), who presided, said that the 
 question affected all the boroughs in South London, and it was 
 a serious menace to the health of the people. In Southwark, 
 for instance, the deaths from consumption numbered 500 annually, 
 and it was out of the question to reduce that fearful rate when 
 the subsoil of the district was rendered perennially damp. 
 
 Recently 2,000 houses were flooded with sewage, and trades- 
 men had large quantities of goods damaged. Mr. Attenborough 
 
 (Southwark) moved the appointment of a deputation to wait 
 upon the London County Council, pointing out the serious 
 danger to the health of the inhabitants of South London boroughs 
 likely to arise from the periodical flooding of their premises with 
 sewage, and to urge upon the Council the necessity of taking 
 effective steps to deal with the question at the earliest possible 
 date. The Mayor of Wandsworth seconded the motion. Lieu- 
 tenant-Colonel W. Kent Lemon (Greenwich) advocated recourse 
 to the Law Courts for a mandamus compelling the County 
 Council to remedy the matter. The motion was carried. The 
 Mavor of Wandsworth then moved : — ' That this conference 
 advise the local councils to petition the Local Government 
 Board to hold an inquiry into the serious neglect of the County 
 Council to provide sufficient main drainage for London.' Alder- 
 man the Rev. J. N. Anderson, in seconding the motion, said that 
 the sewers were carrying 80 per cent, more sewage than they 
 were built for, and were serving a population 50 per cent, greater
 
 168 
 
 than they were intended to serve. He knew of two fever hos- 
 pitals that had been flooded and their boiler fires extinguished, 
 while in one some of the wards were flooded and the patients 
 had to be carried out late at night. At present five wards in the 
 hospital were not safe to be used. Eventually an amendment 
 was carried agreeing to leave the question of an appeal to the 
 Local Government Board until after the conference had waited 
 upon the County Council." 
 
 On December 1st, 1903, the General Purposes Committee 
 reported to the Council that : — 
 
 " Jointly with the Main Drainage Committee, they had 
 received a deputation from South London borough councils 
 which desired to press upon the Council the inadequacy of the 
 main drainage system for deaUng with storm water on the 
 south side of the Thames, and urged that such steps as might be 
 necessary should be taken to prevent a recurrence of 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 receiving the 
 consideration of the Main Drainage Committee, who had for a 
 considerable time been devoting their attention to the question 
 of the means to be taken for the improvement of the main 
 drainage system in the direction indicated by the deputation." 
 
 The report was received. 
 
 Sanitary Experts Condemn L.C.C. 
 
 On December 9th, 1903, Sir Benjamin Baker, K.C.M.G., 
 LL.D., F.R.S., M.Inst.C.E., presided at a discussion held at the 
 Sanitary Institute, Parkes Museum, on " The Flooding of 
 Basements in London by Sewage." 
 
 "Dr. H. R. Kenwood, M.B., D.P.H., said he was not going 
 to deny himself the luxury of criticism. The dreadful and 
 
 disgusting experience of the present year would have been 
 spared if the County Council had acted before. It had 
 required ten years, two reports, a mandamus, and threats 
 to bring the Council before the Courts of Law, before it could 
 
 make up its mind. Fourteen years ago the County Council 
 had this before them for eight months, and instructed the Main 
 Drainage Committee to secure the services of an eminent civil 
 engineer. Fourteen months afterwards (1891) Sir Benjamin 
 Baker and Sir Alexander Binnie recommended new outfall 
 sewers. Nothing was done for four and a-half years, when the 
 Main Drainage Committee recommended that the work be carried
 
 169 
 
 ■out. Two years afterwards, in response to a deputation, the 
 engineer to the County Council was again instructed to report. 
 This he did, and fifteen months afterwards work was recom- 
 mended at a cost of one and a-half millions. At a conference of 
 the leading boroughs on the north side of the Thames, six months 
 afterwards, a resolution was passed placing on record surprise 
 that, notwithstanding repeated reports that the existing sewer 
 accommodation of the Metropohs was entirely inadequate, no 
 attempt should be made to abate the nuisance. In December, 
 1899, the County Council approved the report of the Main 
 Drainage Committee, pronounced eight years previously 
 to be of so urgent a character, but Mr. McDougall, as in 1895, 
 moved an amendment that the scheme was not now necessary. 
 The failure of the Council to deal promptly with the question 
 endangered health by the flooding of dwellings, and led to 
 a large amount of avoidable pollution. In their own borough 
 
 they were not under the impression that complaints were made 
 in all instances, and on making a house-to-house inspection had 
 been struck with the very large number of cases where basements 
 had been flooded, and the people had made no complaint, recognising 
 
 the hopelessness of doing so. Wash-houses and underground 
 bakehouses and cellars had been inundated, and carpets and 
 goods were injured or spoiled, and deposit left over and under 
 
 'floors, endangering health. They must all fully recognise 
 the excellent work of the County Council, but found it difficult 
 to realise why this work had so long been shelved, when other 
 schemes had been dealt with. He would have preferred to have 
 seen this great sanitary improvement carried out in precedence 
 to many matters dealt with, such as the housing scheme, which 
 furnished so modest a result, having regard to its costliness. 
 The County Council, as a body, had only during the last few 
 years fully recognised the importance of the work. Under 
 
 great pressure they made a display of being desirous of doing 
 something by calling for successive reports. They would 
 
 not escape from criticism until they had taken hold of the work 
 with both hands, and until the general pubhc found remedied 
 the disgraceful condition under which so many had been com- 
 pelled to live for so many years. 
 
 " Mr. Councillor F. A. Dod, Stoke Newington, referred to the 
 report presented to the London County Council in 1891. He 
 said that body was responsible for the present state of things, 
 and moved the following resolution : — ' That this meeting 
 is of opinion that the flooding of London basements with sewage 
 is a grave menace to public health, and regrets that this menace 
 has been allowed to contmue for so many years, 'owing to the 
 neglect of the County Council. It urges upon that body to 
 proceed with the work of making main sewers to reheve London 
 of its present insanitary state."
 
 170 
 
 " Mr. Loveday seconded. He said that the County Council 
 had done nothing apparently to increase the capacity of the 
 
 sewers. 
 
 " The Chairman said it had been proved that a large measure 
 must be carried out. It would not in the least hurt the County 
 Council, if they had behind them the pressure of the Sanitary 
 Institute. 
 
 '■' Mr. Fitzmaurice and Dr. Kenwood having replied, Councillor 
 Dod's resolution was carried as amended according to the sugges- 
 tion of the Chairman. The amended resolution was : — 
 
 ' That this meeting is of opinion that the flooding of London 
 basements with sewage is a great menace to public health, and 
 regrets that this menace has been allowed to continue for so 
 many years. It requests the Council of the Institute to urge 
 the London County Council to proceed with all possible 
 expedition with the completion of the necessary work of the 
 main sewers to relieve London from its present insanitary 
 
 state.' " — Local Government Journal, December lUth, 1903. 
 
 Borougfh 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, 1904, a resolution was passed viewing " with 
 regret the delay of the L.C.C. in giving effect to their Engineers' 
 Reports of 1891 and 1899 and in grappUng with the question." 
 
 At Paddington Town Hall, on January 20th, 1904, a confer- 
 ence of delegates from ;the Borough Councils of Fulham, 
 Hammersmith, Hampstead, Islington, Kensington, Maryle- 
 bone, Paddington and Stoke Newington, unanimously resolved 
 that the conference " viewed with alarm and regret the great 
 delay of the London County Council in giving effect to their 
 engineers' reports of 1891 and 1899 deaUng with the question 
 of the main drainage of London." — Times, January 21st, 1904. 
 
 The flooding of house property in London has continued 
 , right down to the present time. During the summer of 1906, 
 floodings took place in many parts on the occasion of every 
 thunderstorm. 
 
 It is estimated that the damage to property by floodings 
 in London since 1891 (when the work ought to have been under-
 
 171 
 
 taken by the London ^County Council) exceeds the probable 
 cost of the sewerage works necessary to remedy the evil. 
 
 For the grave injury to public health, and the serious loss 
 to the community caused by these filthy floods, the Progressives 
 are solely responsible. 
 
 The Present Position. 
 
 The report of the Main Drainage Committee issued to the 
 Council for the year ending March 31st, 1906, and numbered 
 L.C.C. Eeport 10,712-12-14, 8, '06, contains on page 3 of the 
 report the following paragraph with regard to the work done 
 up to date : — 
 
 " The payments 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 :— 
 
 1900-1 £3,852 18 
 
 1901-2 82,783 4 9 
 
 1902-3 .. .. 120,628 3 1 
 
 1903-4 135,179 2 10 
 
 1904-5 (includincr flood relief works, 
 
 £1,861 : 7s. lOd.) 370,641 9 2 
 
 1905-6 (including flood relief works, 
 
 £60,134: 18s. 8d.) [521,185 19 11 
 
 Total £1,234,270 17 9 " 
 
 It will thus be seen that between the years 1900 and 1906, 
 the total outlay has been £1,234,270 17s. 9d., whereas the estimate 
 in connection with main drainage extension works and flood 
 relief works approved in principle by the Council on December 5th, 
 1899, is no less than £4,795,000. It will thus be clear 
 that this urgent work is scarcely more than a quarter on its way 
 to completion. This after a lapse of six years. The reason 
 for this is to be found in the L.C.C. Minutes for August 1st, 
 1905, as stated on page 933 in the report of the Finance Com- 
 mittee. The following is an extract from that report : — 
 
 " The Council is already definitely committed to exceptional 
 capital expenditure in these years, including the large outlay
 
 172 
 
 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 considera- 
 tions involved. 
 
 " We are in communication with the Main Drainage Com- 
 mittee on this matter, and hope to be able to agree with them 
 upon some scheme which we can recommend the Council to 
 
 approve 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 
 rehef works have been admittedly postponed because 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, but is also responsible 
 for the subordination of unattractive necessities to more showy 
 but less important luxuries. 
 
 " The first consideration of a minister," said the late Mr. 
 DisraeU in 1872, " should be the health of the people." The 
 doctrines which Disraeli then enunciated were sneered at as 
 " a poUcy of sewage," a criticism which drew from him the reply, 
 " Well, it may the policy of sewage to Liberal Members of Parlia- 
 ment, but to one of the labouring multitude of England who 
 has found fever always to be one of the inmates of his house- 
 hold—who has, year after year, seen stricken down the children 
 of his loins on whose sympathy and material support he has 
 looked with 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, and to-day we 
 have the Progressive party on the L.C.C. subordinating the health 
 of the people, and what should be one of its most important 
 
 * For more detailed particulars on tliis subject, c.f. L.C.C. Annual 
 Report, 1905-G, pages 1!)5— 201.
 
 173 
 
 cares, to the various semi-Socialistic Municipal Trading schemes, 
 the results of which are in most cases to impose a heavy financial 
 burden upon the ratepayer of London. 
 
 It is this party which, in the face of so clearly proved an 
 indictment charging them with neglecting the public 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 man ! "
 
 174 
 
 THE PLAGUE 
 OF PROGRESSIVE M.P.'S. 
 
 "What is the cause of the defects we have at this 
 moment ? The cause at the present moment is that we have 
 a large number of members of Parliament, who are also 
 
 members of this Council."— (Mr. E. C. Phillimore, Progressive 
 member for Deptford, speaking at the Council on October 23rd, 
 1906.) 
 
 The British Weekly, one of the leading Nonconformist 
 organs, in an article on November 8th, 1906, entitled " Nothing 
 is here for Tears," says : — 
 
 " Efficiency. — Efficiency is a true Liberal watchword, and 
 
 the Progressives have sinned deeply against efficiency. 
 
 We need not just now adduce such instances as the Fulham 
 scandal. Perhaps the Poplar evidence did more than anything 
 to rouse the popular indignation. But we say that, apart from 
 specific instances and the waste of money, the Progressives trans- 
 gressed the first principles of efficiency by assuming to them- 
 selves work which no body of men can satisfactorily discharge. 
 Their honesty is above suspicion. Their business ability is, 
 
 perhaps, fair, and nothing more. There are Very few of them 
 whom the ratepayers would trust to invest their little 
 
 savings ; but there are also men of great business ability and 
 signal devotion to the public weal. But everyone knows that 
 in order satisfactorily to handle huge sums of money, and par- 
 ticularly in order to invest satisfactorily the money necessary 
 for public works, we need men who can afford to give the time 
 that is essential to detail. No member of the London County 
 Council ought to have any other public work. If his duties 
 on the Council are discharged satisfactorily, he will have no 
 leisure for anything but his own private business, and very little for 
 
 that. But we have had of late the utterly scandalous
 
 175 
 
 spectacle of men combining their County Council work with 
 a place in the House of Commons. The wave ot Liberal 
 
 revival has brought County Councillors into the House, and of 
 
 this we do not complain. What we Complain of is that they 
 do not abandon their work on the County Council, since it 
 will not be contended by any human being that it is 
 possible to fill the two positions satisfactorily. 
 
 " But there is more to say than this. One would have 
 imagined that the London County Council had enough to do. 
 One would at least have imagined that a place in the London 
 County Council as it used to be and in the House of Commons 
 was enough for anyone. But the Progressives have added 
 to their work the charge of the education of London ! This 
 in itself is a stupendous task, and at first it was confidently 
 expected that the Progressives would represent to the House 
 that they could not take it up. But it was taken, greedily taken. 
 
 and, of course, it has been mismanaged. The result has 
 been that both the education of London and the municipal 
 affairs of London are now administered by an army of 
 officials." 
 
 It will, no doubt, always be desirable that there should 
 be some London County Councillors in the House of Commons. 
 It is convenient that the Member who is in charge of the 
 Council's Private Bills in the House of Commons shall be 
 himself a Councillor. And, for similar reasons, it is well that 
 the views of each party on the Council should have their 
 authoritative exponents in the House. But, with these 
 limited exceptions, the broad proposition is true that the fewer 
 Councillors who have seats in the House the better for the 
 Council and the efficient conduct of its business, and unques- 
 tionably these few should represent Metropohtan, and not 
 Provincial, divisions. 
 
 How does the Progressive Party conform to these obviously 
 sound principles ? It is difficult to realise that at this moment 
 29 Progressive Councillors are Members of the House of 
 Commons, and of these, 12 sit for Provincial constituencies, 
 and have constituents whose interests, political and local, ar.' 
 wholly diverse from those of their County Council elector.^. 
 
 It is interesting to examine the list. One Progressive is 
 member for a dockyard town in the West of England, on:- 
 sits for a Welsh Countv, one for a seaside pleasure town on
 
 176 
 
 the South Coast, one for an inland watering-place, two represent 
 English Agricultural Divisions, two Home Counties, one a 
 Northern seaport, and, grossest anomaly of all, the great City 
 of Glasgow in three of its Divisions has actually entrusted its 
 representation to Progressive London Councillors. 
 
 Could there be a more glaring and indefensible example 
 of the undertaking of dual and conflicting responsibilities than 
 is afforded by this audacious attempt of Mr. Cleland, Sir A. M. 
 Torrance, and Mr. McKinnon Wood, to serve both Glasgow and 
 London ? If they are to discharge adequately their duties as- 
 M.P.'s, they must give their time and thought, not only to Public 
 Bills peculiar to Scotland and Scotch pubHc questions which 
 are distinct from current English problems, but also to all 
 the local and municipal topics which concern a bustling com- 
 mercial community. And they must keep in touch with 
 eager populations 400 miles away from London. It is phvsi- 
 cally and mentally impossible for the same men to be grasping 
 and absorbing these Scotch problems and interests, and dis- 
 charging the large and complex administrative work of a 
 London County Councillor. Nor does the scandal end here ; 
 it must further be remembered that all these 29 Parliamen- 
 tarians are returned to the House of Commons as strict Partv 
 poUticians, pledged to obey the Eadical whips and to follow 
 the Party leaders. What a sorry farce it is for them at the 
 same time to pose as Municipal Progressives, and to pretend 
 that their motto is the plausible but wholly delusive catch 
 phrase " Progress, not Politics " ! 
 
 The following is a List of the 29 Progressive Members of 
 the L.C.C. who have seats in the House of Commons : — 
 
 Parliamentary 
 Constituency. 
 
 Christchurch 
 
 E. Finsbury 
 
 Devonport . . 
 
 Deptford 
 
 Middlesex, Enfield , 
 
 Battersea . . 
 
 Name op 
 Councillor. 
 
 A. A. Allen 
 
 J. A. Baker 
 
 Sir J. W. Benn 
 
 C. W. Bowerman 
 
 J. Branch 
 
 Rt. Hon. J. Burns 
 
 L.C.C. 
 
 Constituency. 
 
 Bermondsey. 
 
 E. Finsbury. 
 
 Kennington. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 S.W. Bethnal Green. 
 
 Battersea.
 
 I I 
 
 C. G. Clarke 
 
 J. W. Cleland .. 
 S. Collins . . 
 
 Sir W. J. Collins .. 
 
 SirE. A. Cornwall. 
 
 W. Crooks 
 
 T. Davies 
 
 W. H. Dickinson , . 
 
 G. A. Hardy 
 
 E. J. Horniraan . . 
 T. H. W. Idris .. 
 R. S. Jackson 
 
 T. B. Napier 
 
 G. H. Radford .. 
 
 J. E. Sears 
 
 W. C. Steadman . . 
 
 B. S. Straus 
 
 J. Stuart . . 
 
 Sir A. M. Torrance 
 
 F. W. Verney 
 
 D. S. Waterlow . . 
 
 T. Wiles . . 
 
 T. McKinnon Wood 
 
 Ciimberwell, Peck- 
 ham. 
 
 Glasgow, Bridgeton. 
 
 Lambeth, Kenning- 
 
 ton. 
 
 W. St. Pancras 
 
 N.E. Bethnal Green 
 
 Woolwich . . 
 
 Fulham 
 
 N. St. Pancras 
 
 N.W. Suffolk 
 
 Chelsea 
 
 Flint District 
 
 Greenwich . . 
 
 N.E. Kent . . 
 
 E. Islington 
 
 Cheltenham 
 
 Central Finsbury 
 
 Tower Hamlets, Mile 
 End. 
 
 Sunderland 
 
 Central Glasgow 
 
 N. Bucks . . 
 
 N. Islington 
 
 S. St. Pancras 
 
 Glasgow, St. RoUox 
 
 Peckham. 
 
 Lewisham. 
 Kennington. 
 
 W. St. Pancras. 
 
 N.E. Bethnal Greeu. 
 
 Poplar. 
 
 Fulham. 
 
 Alderman. 
 
 Dulwich. 
 
 Chelsea. 
 
 E. St. Pancras. 
 
 Greenwich. 
 
 N. Islington. 
 
 W. Islington. 
 
 N. Hackney. 
 
 Stepney. 
 
 Mile End. 
 
 Haggerston, 
 
 E. Islington. 
 
 Peckham. 
 
 N. St. Pancras. 
 
 S.W. Bethnal Green.. 
 
 Central Hackney. 
 
 M
 
 178 
 
 THE MUNICIPAL REFORM 
 PARTY AND THE NON- 
 CONTENTIOUS WORK 
 OF THE COUNCIL. 
 
 It is a favourite device of Progressive speakers to expatiate 
 upon the details of the ordinary administrative work of one 
 •of the wholly non-contentious departments of the Council ; 
 to dilate upon the importance of this work, and upon the careful 
 and conscientious way in which it is executed ; and then to 
 take all the credit of it to the Progressive Party. For example, 
 they say, look how well the County Council Parks are managed ; 
 see how our inspectors are checking the use of false weights 
 and measures ; observe how many prizes and certificates the 
 Technical Education Board is distributing to your children : 
 therefore vote for the Progressive candidates. 
 
 The Municipal Reform Policy. 
 
 In this connection, the following paragraph from the Muni- 
 cipal Reform Manifesto, dated December 4th, 1906, defines the 
 attitude of the Municipal Reform Party in regard to General 
 
 Policy : — 
 
 " Matters like the provision of an efficient Fire Brigade, 
 Parks, Open Spaces, and Main Drainage have never been in issue 
 between the Parties, and will, of course, claim the vigilant 
 attention of the Municipal Reformers. Nor will they be found 
 wanting in zeal in regard to the effective administration of 
 the important laws with regard to public health, weights and 
 measures, food inspection, and asylums.
 
 179 
 
 " But while these are common ground to both Parties, 
 we confidently appeal to London ratepayers not to trust any 
 longer the Progressive Party, with its wild and visionary 
 Socialistic schemes adding burden upon burden to the over- 
 weighted ratepayer. We appeal to them to place their confidence 
 in the new Party of Municipal Reformers, who, if. on account 
 of the enormous commitments of the Progressive Partv, are 
 unable to reduce the present rates, will, at all events, "call a 
 halt to future expenditure of a reckless and unremunerative 
 character, will avoid Socialistic and municipal trading experi- 
 ments, and give their time and energies to the detailed work of 
 sober and common-sense administration of the vast powers 
 entrusted to them for the good of the Capital of the Empire." 
 
 Proirressive Electioneering^. 
 
 In reality there can be no more misleading chain of reasoning 
 than that indicated above, and which is invariably put forward 
 by the Progressive Party at election times ; there can be no 
 conclusion less justified by the facts. 
 
 Let us examine the history of the parks and open spaces 
 now vested in the Council, and see how their management is 
 actually carried on. 
 
 As regards the acquisition of new parks and open spaces, 
 all Parties and all individuals on the Council have been equally 
 zealous. But of the whole area, amounting to some 5,000 acres, 
 which is now in the hands of the Council, it must be remem- 
 bered that considerably more than half that acreage had been 
 acquired by the old MetropoUtan Board of Works, and was 
 transferred from it to the County Council. 
 
 For example, the Annual Report of the Council for the 
 
 year ended March 31st, 1906, states (page 202) :— 
 
 . " Number and area of places maintained, by the Council. 
 
 " On March 31st, 1906, the number of parks, gardens, and 
 open spaces vested in or maintained by the Council was 109, 
 the total area being 4,959 acres. These figures represent an 
 increase of 69 in the number of places and 2,303 in the number 
 of acres of land acquired and maintained by the Council since 
 it came into existence in 1889." 
 
 It must also be remembered that as regards the cost of 
 
 the acquisition of new open spaces, the Council only makes a 
 
 contribution to the total purchase price. In many instances, 
 
 M 2
 
 180 
 
 large sums have also been supplied by local bodies and by indi- 
 vidual benefactors. 
 
 fi^ Thus, in the case of Brockwell Park, the cost of the 
 acquisition was in all about £120,000. Towards this the 
 County Council contributed £61,000, the Charity Commissioners 
 gave £25,000, the Lambeth Vestry £20,000, the Camberwell 
 Vestry £6,000, the Newington Vestry £5,000, the Ecclesiastical 
 Commissioners £500, and private donors the remainder. 
 
 In the case of the Postmen's Park, the cost of acquisition 
 WHS about £12,000. To this the Postmaster-General gave 
 £5,000, City Parochial Foundation £1,000, City Commissioners 
 of' Sewers £2.500, public subscriptions £1,800, Metropolitan 
 Public Gardens Association £500, the City Corporation £500, 
 and the County Council £500. 
 
 In the case of one of the most beautiful of the gardens 
 that have been of recent years obtained for London's use, viz., 
 Golder's Hill, the total cost of acquisition was about £41,000. 
 Towards this the London County Council gave £12,000, while 
 amongst other bodies the Hampstead Vestry gave £10,000, 
 the Marvlebone and St. Pancras Vestries £1,000 each. North 
 St. Pancras £1,000, the City Parochial Charities £1,000, and 
 some £14,000 was collected from private subscribers. 
 
 In the case of Eltham Park. 4U acres, the Council voted 
 £4,675 ; the Woolwich Borough Council contributing one- 
 half of the purchase-money and costs. 
 
 Fulham Park.— The Council contributed £12,000 towards 
 the cost (estimated at £16,957 10s.) of embanking and laying 
 out 8J- acres of land, known as Fielder's Meadow, which had 
 been "presented by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the 
 Council of the MetropoHtan Borough of Fulham, for addition 
 to Fulham Park. The London County Council had previously 
 contributed £17,500 towards the cost of other portions of this 
 park. The total cost of the park amounted to £52,202 10s. ; 
 the Council's contribution is £29,500, but in agreeing to make 
 this large contribution the Council had in mind the fact that 
 the Borough Council will bear in perpetuity the cost of main- 
 taining the park. 
 
 Kuskin Park. Denmark Hill (24 acres).— The Council on 
 April nth, 1905, on the recommendation of the Parks Committee, 
 decided to contribute £25,000 towards the purchase of this 
 propertv. The purchase-money was £48.000, towards which 
 the Camberwell Metropolitan Borough Council promised to 
 contribute £10,000, the Lambeth Metropolitan Borough Council 
 £5,000, and the Southwark Metropolitan Borough Council 
 £2,500, the balance being obtained from private sources.
 
 181 
 
 Springfield Park, Clapton. — This park, consisting of 
 32^ acres, was acquired in September, 1904, at a cost of £40,000, 
 towards which sum the Council contributed £20,000, and the 
 Councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs of Hackney, Stoke 
 Newington, and Bethnal Green £15,000, £1,000, and £250 
 respectively. 
 
 It is true that the subsequent maintenance of nearly all 
 these parks and gardens is borne by the County Council, and that 
 they are managed by it. They are managed by and through 
 its Parks Committee. This Committee has always remained 
 untainted by Party spirit. Councillors of all shades of political 
 opinion have harmoniously co-operated upon it. Its chairmen 
 have been chosen equally from either side. Its present chairman 
 is Mr. Stuart Sankey, a member of the Moderate Party. On 
 the Council as a whole, whenever any question has arisen as to 
 the acquisition of a new open space, or as to the improvement 
 or management of an existing one, the Moderates have ever 
 displayed the most earnest desire to make this department 
 of the Council's work an unquestionable success. 
 
 With regard to the carrying out of the provisions of the 
 Weights and Measures Acts, even an electioneering Progressive 
 can hardly pretend that his Party are entitled to any peculiar 
 credit in this respect. Every Councillor is anxious to give 
 effect to the beneficial provisions of the several Acts dealing 
 with this subject, all of which were passed in Conservative 
 and Unionist Parliaments, at the instance of Conservative and 
 Unionist Ministers. 
 
 With regard to the uncontroversial branches of the Council's 
 work, the true view, then, is this : The many useful powers of this 
 kind which the Council exercises have, with hardly an exception, 
 been the outcome of Conservative and Unionist legislation. 
 The Municipal Reform Party wish to see the Council make use 
 of these powers with zeal and vigilance. They ask their repre- 
 sentatives on the Council to devote their time and energies to 
 the efficient discharge of these — their proper duties — and not 
 to waste them in futile attempts at impracticable legislation, or 
 in the pursuit of Socialistic schemes. 
 
 It is to the Municipal Reformers, therefore, that the electors
 
 182 
 
 can most confidently look for a careful and zealous execution 
 of the administrative functions of the Council, and all electors 
 who wish to see the existing laws well administered, and who 
 are. anxious that the Council, through them, should strive to 
 make London a beautiful, convenient, and healthy city, must 
 support the Municipal Reform in preference to the Progressive 
 candidates. 
 
 The CounciTs Committees. 
 
 The following short account of the work of the Standing 
 and other Committees of the Council shows the variety and 
 extent of its powers, and the importance of the duties in the 
 efficient discharge of which the Moderate Partv have always 
 taken a prominent part : — 
 
 The Asylums Committee. 
 
 Taking the Committees alphabetically, the first is the 
 Asylums Committee. The County Lunatic Asylums are managed 
 by the Council— Hanwell, Colney Hatch, Cane Hill, Claybury, 
 Banstead, and Bexley. They are very large institutions, and 
 are maintained by the Council. liUnacy is increasing so much 
 in London that it is necessary to build one asylum every four 
 years, or rather oftener. Probably the Council at the present 
 time maintains many patients whom the workhouses used to 
 take before. The Guardians are invariably glad to turn over 
 to the Council persons who are weak in intellect, in order to 
 put the expense of their keep 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 Com- 
 mittee has not only to build asylums, but it has to repair them, 
 and make provision for resident physicians, chaplains, &c. It 
 mav also contract for its lunatics to be received in any other 
 county if it cannot house them itself. 
 
 The Bridi^es Committee (now abolished). 
 
 The Bridges Committee was abolished in March, 1906, and its 
 work delegated in part to the Highways Committee, and in part
 
 183 
 
 to the Rivers Committee (cf. pp. 186 and 194 ^n/ra). Its ref .Tence 
 was to the maintenance of the bridges that cross the Thames, ten 
 in number. The City bridges are not under the control of the 
 County Council. Blackfriars, and the bridges east of Blackfriars, 
 are not under the County Council, but the bridges to the west 
 are, and also bridges across the Lee, the Wandle, and over 
 canals. And not only bridges over the Thames, but ways under 
 the Thames, such as the Blackwall and Greenwich Tunnels, also 
 the free ferry at Woolwich. In addition, this Committee main- 
 tained the Victoria, Albert, and Chelsea Embankments. There 
 was also the exercise of powers under the Thames Prevention 
 of Floods Management Act, looking after wharf-walls, and 
 other matters. 
 
 The Building: Act Committee. 
 
 The Building Act Committee controls the administration 
 of the London Building Act, 1894, a control very obnoxious to 
 Londoners. This Act concerns the County of London and con- 
 solidates and amends the law relating to streets and buildings in 
 London. It contains provisions with respect to the formation and 
 widening of streets ; Unes of building frontage ; naming and 
 numbering of houses ; open spaces about buildings, and heights of 
 buildings ; construction of buildings ; special and temporary 
 buildings and wooden structures ; dangerous and neglected 
 structures ; dwelling houses on low-lying land ; and other matters. 
 The Act also provides for the appointment of a superintending 
 architect of Metropolitan buildings, and of district surveyors. 
 It also provides for the constitution of a tribunal of appeal, 
 to hear and determine appeals against the decisions of the 
 Council and of the superintending architect in certain cases. 
 Other duties include the examination of factories, with a view 
 to requiring reasonable means of escape in case of fire ; and 
 licensing of sky-signs. It might be an excellent Act to apply 
 if we were rebuilding London, but it is very irksome of appli- 
 cation, especially in the City, where the houses are greatly 
 congested, lanes narrow, and space extremely valuable, certain 
 sections of the Act of 1894 do not, however, apply to the City.
 
 184 
 
 The Committee also exercises the powers of the Council 
 under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, and the London 
 Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1905, as regards the provision 
 of means of escape in case of fire from factories and workshops 
 and other buildings. 
 
 The last Building (Amendment) Bill of 1905 went a great 
 deal too far, and after spending a great deal of money in Par- 
 liament, and a great deal of time in the Council, the Bill was 
 all withdrawn except the part which related to fire, viz., Part VII. 
 The administration of the Building Acts mainly has to do with 
 frontages, and with such matters as dangerous structures, the 
 storing of timber, the prevention of obstructions in streets, 
 the appointment of district surveyors, means of escape from 
 fire, and similar matters. 
 
 The Education Committee. 
 
 This Committee came into existence as the result of the 
 Education (London) Act, 1903, by which the L.C.C. became the 
 local Education Authority for the County of London. The 
 date of transfer under the Act was May 1st, 1904. 
 
 The Committee has control over all branches of education. 
 
 This subject is dealt with in a separate article (viz.. Educa- 
 tion), to which reference should be made. 
 
 The Establishment Committee. 
 
 A purely domestic Committee is called the Establishment 
 Committee, which deals with matters connected with the staff 
 of the Council, the maintenance of the County Hall, and so on. 
 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 increasing. The Com- 
 mittee has to pay a great number of officials, and has the 
 appointment of all except the Chief Officers and purely technical 
 officers.
 
 185 
 
 The Finance Committee. 
 
 The Finance Committee has charge of the raising of money, 
 the consohdated rate, the sinking fund, the superannuation 
 fund ; and when a loan is needed, it has to negotiate with the 
 Governor of the Bank of England, or some other financial 
 authority in the City, to raise the necessary amount. This 
 Committee also has to report to the Council upon all schemes 
 which amount to over £5,000. 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 based 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 31st, 1906, was £U, 722,500. This amount includes 
 loans to other bodies, but excludes transfers between accounts 
 and repayment of London County Bills. 
 
 For further particulars on this subject, cj. the article, 
 L.C.C. Finance, Part I. 
 
 The Fire Brig^ade Committee. 
 
 The Fire Brigade Committee controls, maintains, and 
 manages the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, established in 1865. 
 The staff consists of 1,382 officers and men. There are 77 land 
 fire stations, in addition to a large number of smaller stations ; 
 81 land steam fire engines, including 3 motor engines and 12 
 manual engines ; 48 miles of hose, 73 horsed fire escapes, and 
 112 manual fire escapes. There were 316 horses, 1,177 fiie 
 alarms, and over 28,000 hydrants at the end of the year 1905, 
 
 The number of calls for fires or supposed fires received 
 during the year 1905 was 5,676. Of these 1,285 proved to be 
 calls for chimneys on fire, and 880 were false alarms. The 
 remaining 3,511 were calls for fires, of which 64 were classed as
 
 186 
 
 serious, and 3,447 as slight. Of the 3,511 fires, 1,297 were put 
 
 out by persons not belonging to the brigade, 1,568 were 
 
 extinguished by the use of buckets, hand-pumps, first aid 
 
 appliances, &c., 519 by hydrants and stand-pipes, 91 by land 
 
 steam fire-engines, and 2 by river fire-engines. 
 
 The "Morning Post" of January 2nd, 1907, states:— 
 " During 1906 there were 3,271 fires in London, as compared with 
 3,511 in the previous year. A painful feature is the remarkable 
 number of cases in which children lost their lives." 
 
 The General Purposes Committee. 
 
 The General Purposes Committee is a Committee formed 
 of the Chairmen of the various Committees, with some other 
 members, and is a general sort of advisory committee. Any 
 new projects come before them. They also have the appoint- 
 ment of members of the Council to certain statutory bodies 
 like the Thames Conservancy and the Water Board, to which 
 the Council sends representatives. It also administers the 
 Council's Superannuation and Provident Funds. 
 
 In addition, the Committee reports upon the methods of 
 the administrative work of the Council ; makes suggestions 
 as to the Standing Orders and the work of the various com- 
 mittees ; and reports to the Council on questions affecting 
 the appointment, pay, duties, &c., of the chief officials. New 
 duties delegated to the Council by Act of Parliament, or by 
 order of any Government department, are considered and 
 reported upon by this Committee. 
 
 The Higfhways Committee. 
 
 The Highways Committee does not administer highways 
 generally. The only roads which the Council has are the Thames 
 Embankment road, and some roads through the Council's 
 parks. The Borough Councils maintain the streets. The 
 chief reference to the Highways Committee is the tramways. 
 The Council has electrified the South London tramways, and 
 is in the course of electrifying the North London tramways. This 
 subject is dealt with fully in the article entitled " Locomotion."
 
 187 
 
 As regards all Tramways worked by the Council itself, 
 which are called The London County Council Tramways, the 
 Committee are authorised (a) to purchase horses and stores and 
 other articles required, and to enter into contracts, and to 
 order the seal of the Council to be affixed thereto ; (b) to act, 
 generally, on behalf of the Council in all matters regarding 
 the undertaking ; and (c) to incur such expenditure as may be 
 necessary in connection with the maintenance and working 
 of the undertaking. The Committee report from time to time 
 what has been done under this authority ; but have no power 
 to incur expenditure on capital account without the express 
 sanction of the Council. 
 
 This Committee is at present seeking to supply electricity 
 in bulk, not only to London County, but to a very much larger 
 area, a gigantic undertaking for which special commercial 
 aptitude is the first essential. This subject is dealt with in 
 the article entitled " The L.C.C. and the Supply of Electricity." 
 
 The Housing: of the Working Classes 
 
 Connmittee. 
 
 The Housing Committee administers the Housing of the 
 Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1903, including Parts L and XL 
 under the Act of 1890, which relate to the clearance of unhealthy 
 areas. The Council has the control, maintenance, and manage- 
 ment of these houses. Under Part IIL, it has built model 
 lodgiftg-houses of its own, and provided working-class dwellmgs. 
 It has to provide statistics of the people who are displaced to 
 the Local Government Board. 
 
 This subject is dealt with fully in the article entitled " The 
 Housing of the Working Classes." 
 
 The innprovennents Comnnittee. 
 
 The Improvements Committee are charged with the con- 
 sideration of all questions relating to Street Improvements in 
 the County of London, and the carrying out of all street improve- 
 ments authorised by Parliament. 
 
 The Committee has to do with schemes such as the Holborn 
 to Strand improvement. It, also, has to enter into negotiations
 
 188 
 
 with local authorities. If an improvement is wanted in the 
 City or in a borough, the Council through this Committee has 
 to negotiate, for which purpose they say, if they consider it is 
 a county improvement, " We will make it, but what will you 
 contribute ? We will contribute one-third or some other pro- 
 portion." The improvement is either made or not made, 
 according to the reply. What has been done very much of 
 late is that the Committee have said to the local authority, "Will 
 you allow tramways down your street ? " For instance, in 
 Tottenham Court Road, the local authority said,, " No, 
 we do not want a tramway ; this street is not suitable for tram- 
 ways." Whereupon the Council retorted, " Then we cannot give 
 you any improvement ; if you will not have a tramway down 
 your street, we will not improve the street." That is what 
 was said to Kensington in regard to Silver Street. There is 
 no tramway on the Bayswater Road, and there is no tramway 
 on the Hammersmith Road, and yet the Council wanted to 
 make Kensington promise that they would consent to allow 
 a tramway up Silver Street to connect two main roads, on 
 neither of which was there a tramway. Kensington said they 
 did not want a tramway, as it would lower the rateable value 
 of the houses in the neighbourhood by one-half. 
 
 After an improvement is made, there are surplus lands to 
 sell or lease for the purpose of recoupment, to which the Improve- 
 ments Committee has to attend. Licensed houses are always 
 extinguished, whatever the cost, although this might be effected 
 under the Licensing Act, 1904, without any cost to the rates. 
 
 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 
 which affect London ; alterations or readjustments of county 
 and other boundaries and of county representation ; the division 
 of Parliamentary boroughs and divisions and county electoral 
 divisions into polling districts for the purposes of ParHamentary
 
 180 
 
 and County Council elections respectively ; all questions relating 
 to the assessment of property for rating ; questions relating to 
 the election of County Councillors, Guardians of the Poor, and 
 Metropolitan Borough Councillors ; the registration of electors ; 
 the framing of by-laws under the Municipal Corporations Act, 
 1882, and the Local Government Act, 1888, for the good rule 
 and government of the county ; questions affecting the relations 
 between the Council and the authorities of local government 
 areas outside the County of London ; and questions, not speci- 
 fically referred to any other committee, arising between the 
 Council and local, public, and other authorities, or which appear 
 to relate to London government generally. 
 
 The Committee issue every year a serial volume of " London 
 Statistics," and also a " Statistical Abstract for London." 
 The Council has also referred the London Government Act, 
 1899, to the Committee, with authority to deal with such matters 
 arising thereon as they may deem expedient. 
 
 In addition to the above-mentioned duties, the Council has 
 referred to the Committee : — The consideration of all general 
 questions relating to public charities and public endowments 
 in London ; the consideration of questions relating to historic 
 buildings 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 the naming of streets and the 
 numbering of houses 
 
 The Main Drainag^e Committee. 
 
 The Committee are entrusted with the consideration of all 
 questions relating to, and with the control of, all property of 
 the Council acquired for 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 London are 
 carried out under the direction of the Committee, to whom are 
 submitted all applications for the consent of the Council to the 
 construction, abandonment, extension, or alteration of local 
 sewers.
 
 190 
 
 The Coinniittee also prepare the schedules and obtain 
 tenders for coal and coke supplied to the several offices, schools, 
 works, &c., under the control of the Council, with the exception 
 of the lunatic asylums and the Greenwich electricity generating 
 station, and consider all questions relating to such supply. 
 
 The total amount of sewage treated during the year 
 1905-6 was nearly 95 billions of gallons, and the weight of 
 sludge sent to sea was 2,566,000 tons. 
 
 The Committee has outfalls at Crossness and Barking, 
 several pumping stations, sewage precipitation works, and 
 sludge vessels. The Council took them over from the Metro- 
 poUtan Board of Works. 
 
 This subject is fully dealt with in the article on Main 
 Drainage, Vol. I. 
 
 The Parks and Open Spaces Committee. 
 
 Next there is the Parks and Open Spaces Committee, 
 which provides and maintains the parks and open spaces for 
 London, other than the Koyal Parks, which are maintained 
 from the Imperial Exchequer, and other open spaces main- 
 tained by the City Corporation and by Metropohtan Borough 
 Councils. It maintains 1 10 open spaces — some of them very 
 small — ranging from one-seventh of an acre (a churchyard in 
 the East End) to areas hke Hainault Forest, Hampstead Heath, 
 Victoria Park, Battersea Park, Waterlow Park, or Wormwood 
 Scrubbs, the first-named of which comprises 800 acres. The 
 total area now amounts to 4,959 acres. These figures represent 
 an increase of 69 in the number of places and 2,303 in the number 
 of acres of land acquired and maintained by the Council since 
 it came into existence in 1889. It also provides and regulates 
 boating, gymnasia, and games of all sorts, entailing a staff 
 of some 1,100 persons. Besides that work, the Committee 
 provides bands of music, which play in the various open spaces 
 <laily throughout the summer. The total cost of maintenance 
 of parks and open spaces is about £118,000 a year. This Com- 
 mittee also administers the Wild Bird Protection Act so fur 
 as London goes, and also the Disused Burial Grounds Act.
 
 191 
 
 The Parliamentary^ Committee. 
 
 The reference from the Council entrusts the Committee 
 with the promotion of such Bills (both pubHc and private) as 
 the Council may resolve to introduce into Parliament, and with 
 the duty of considering and reporting upon all Bills (both public 
 and private) and Provisional Orders affecting the County of 
 London, and of taking such action in relation thereto as the 
 Council may authorise. 
 
 The Parliamentary business administered by the Parlia- 
 mentary Committee costs a great deal of money, because the 
 Council persistently opposes everybody's Bills. 
 
 For instance, if the London and North Western Railway 
 wants to make a branch railway in the Lake District, the Council 
 opposes it because it affords a lever for urging the further 
 provision of workmen's trains. AVorkmen's trains, of course, 
 do not pay the company, and it really is blackmail on the 
 company's shareholders' when forced to provide a service which 
 does not pay, as the price of the L.C.C. not opposing certain 
 perfectly innocuous powers to which they do not object in the 
 least. The Parliamentary Committee is executive, and does 
 not initiate or oppose private Bills without the instruction of 
 the Council or one of its Committees. 
 
 The Public Control Committee. 
 
 The Pubhc Control Committee deals with Act« sucli as 
 the Explosives Acts, Petroleum Acts, Infant Life Protection 
 Act, Shop Hours Acts, Gas Testing, Employment Agencies, 
 Motor Cars, Coroners, and the Inebriates Act. They maintain 
 a large asylum, with extensive grounds, in Surrey, for female 
 inebriates. It is also the Executive Committee in respect of 
 the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. 
 
 Weights and Measures Acts. — A stafi of 93 inspectors, &c., 
 is employed in carrying out these Acts. During the year ending 
 March 31st, 1906, the number of weighing apphances and 
 machines dealt with was 2,189,991, of which 3-48,329 were 
 rejected as unfit for stamping. The total number of offences
 
 192 
 
 specially reported was 593. Legal proceedings were taken in 
 186 cases, and 170 convictions were obtained. 
 
 Sale of Coal. — In connection with the sale of coal for the 
 year ended March 31st, 1906, 530 offences were discovered. 
 In 26 cases legal proceedings were taken, in 25 of which convic- 
 tions were obtained. 
 
 Bread Act. — The Act relating to the sale of bread requires 
 that all bread shall be sold by weight ; 96 offences have been 
 reported by the inspectors during the year ending March 31st^ 
 1906 ; 16 persons were cautioned in writing by the Council, and 
 80 prosecuted. Convictions were obtained in 77 cases. 
 
 Infant Life Protection Act, 1897. — During the year ended 
 March 31st, 1906, the Council's women inspectors paid 3,504 
 visits to 388 houses, and 1,167 infants came under inspection. 
 
 The Council also has certain statutory powers under the 
 Employment of Children Act, 1903. 
 
 The Shop Hours Act, 1904, of which Lord Avebury was 
 the author. — The Council has appointed six male inspectors 
 and three women inspectors under the Shop Hours Acts, and 
 the result of their work during the year ended March 31st, 1906, 
 was as follows : — 
 
 Premises visited. 
 
 Nature of infringements. 
 
 a « » g 
 
 s Do.a w -a 
 
 <*-! C fl 1; ^t .. OJ 
 
 Premises where 
 
 infringements 
 
 were 
 
 discovered. 
 
 E.xcess hours only. 1 ^'"'T^^Zl'''"^ 
 
 no notice. o m 
 
 1 C a-, 
 
 
 lira 
 
 -go " 
 
 80 hours 
 
 and 
 under. 
 
 Over 80 
 hours. 
 
 80 hours 
 
 and 
 under. 
 
 Over 80 
 hours. 
 
 Notice 
 exhibit 
 
 109,999 
 
 20,653 
 
 6,966 
 
 j 
 155 55 
 
 1 
 200 41 6,515 
 
 There were 250 more irregularities discovered than in 
 the previous year. Cautions in writing were sent in 425 cases, 
 and legal proceedings were instituted in 34 cases, in 29 of which 
 convictions were obtained. 
 
 Seats for Shop Assistants Act, 1899. — During the year ending 
 March 31st, 1906, there were 13,755 shops affected, by the Seats
 
 193 
 
 for Shop Assistants Act ; and 35,690 females were found to be 
 employed in these shops. At 13,566 premises sufficient seating 
 accommodation had been provided, but at the remaining 189 
 this was found not to be the case. It was not found necessary 
 in any instance to take legal proceedings, but many cautions 
 in writing were sent, and these were always successful in securing 
 observance of the provisions of the Act. 
 
 Smoke Consumption. — During the year ending March 31st, 
 1906, a. number of infringements of the Pubhc Health Act, 1891, 
 were reported by the police and also by the Council's own 
 officers, and particulars of 554 cases of smoke nuisance were 
 communicated to the sanitary authorities for the districts con- 
 cerned, with a view to their taking steps for the suppression 
 of the nuisance. 
 
 In a number of cases summonses were taken out by the 
 sanitary authorities, and the Council's officers gave evidence in 
 support of the proceedings. In some cases orders were obtained 
 for the abatement of the nuisance, and in others penalties 
 were inflicted by the magistrates. So far as the Council was 
 able to ascertain, legal proceedings were taken during the year 
 in 49 cases, in 47 of which convictions were obtained. 
 
 Petroleum Acts. — During the year ending March 31st, 1906, 
 1,513 hcenses to keep petroleum were issued ; 14,821 inspections 
 were made ; 275 oil wharves visited, and test samples taken ; 
 109 infringements of the Acts were reported ; in 10 cases legal 
 proceedings were taken, in 8 of which convictions were obtained. 
 
 Markets. — Although not the market authority for London, 
 the Council is authorised to prosecute and to conduct inquiries 
 and negotiations relative to such existing markets and market 
 rights as are not the property of, or under the control of, the 
 City Corporation, the expediency 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. 
 
 N
 
 194 
 
 The Public Health Committee. 
 
 The Public Health Committee administers the Pubhc 
 Health (London) Act, 1891, looks after common lodging-houses 
 by virtue of the Common Lodging-houses Acts, 1851 and 1853, 
 licenses slaughter-houses, and appoints various officials. The 
 Public Health Committee keeps an eye on sanitation as adminis- 
 tered by 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 Council is remiss in putting in 
 force some sanitary regulation, the County Council may remedy 
 its remissness. 
 
 The Rivers Committee. 
 
 This Committee consists of six representatives of the 
 Council on the Thames Conservancy Board, and two represen- 
 tatives on the Lee Conservancy Board, and seven other members 
 added to the two Boards by the Council. 
 
 The Committee has to advise the Council upon matters 
 affecting the administration of the Port of London, the sanitary 
 condition of the Thames, and the service of stfeamboats estab- 
 lished by the Council upon that river. The Committee has 
 control of all piers, land, buildings, machinery, steamboats, and 
 other property of the Council acquired for the purposes of the 
 steamboat service. There are also matters arising out of the 
 conservancy of the river Lee, especially as to the discharge of 
 sewage into the river, and the quantity of water which flows 
 from the river into the Thames. All questions relating to the 
 Dock Companies Acts are also included in the reference to the 
 Committee. 
 
 The Council also decided on March 13th. 1906. that the 
 Bridges Committee should not be re-appointed, and that certain 
 work under the control of that Committee should be transferred 
 to the Kivers Committee. The work transferred includes all 
 questions relating to the maintenance of the free ferry across 
 the Thames at Woolwich, and the powers of the Council under 
 the Metropolis Management (Thames River Prevention of 
 Floods) Amendment Act, 1879, with the supervision of all
 
 195 
 
 wharf walls and other works constructed under the provisions 
 of that Act. 
 
 The L.C.C. Steamboat Service is dealt with in a special 
 article under this title. 
 
 The Stores Committee. 
 
 This Committee prepares the schedules and considers 
 tenders for all goods (except coal and office stationery) supplied 
 to the Council. The various departments estimate annually 
 the quantity and description of stores needed. These are then 
 classified, and tenders invited. The Committee carefully con- 
 siders the tenders received, and recommends the most favourable 
 to the Council for acceptance. 
 
 Theatres and Music Hails Committee. 
 
 The duties of this Committee, which also sits from time 
 to time as the Licensing Committee, are (a) to hear all applica- 
 tions for the licensing of places for music or music and dancing 
 within the County of London, and also for the licensing for stage 
 plays of places within the County but outside the jurisdiction 
 of the Lord Chamberlain, and to report thereon to the Council ; 
 (b) To consider and report to the Council upon all questions 
 arising out of or connected with the Metropolis Management 
 and Building Acts Amendment Act, 1878, relating to theatres, 
 music halls, and other places of pubhc entertainment ; and 
 the Section of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) 
 Act, 1882, relating to the keeping open of the means of exit 
 irom such buildings. 
 
 There have been extravagances on the part of Progressive 
 members in regard to the character of entertainments, but on 
 the whole the control of the music halls and theatres has been 
 good, especially with regard to the regulations against fire, and 
 -aboHtion of drinks in the auditorium.
 
 196 
 
 The Works Committee. 
 
 The Works Department is under the control of the Works 
 Committee. 
 
 This subject is fully dealt with in the article entitled " The 
 Works Department," so far as it is possible to obtain infor- 
 mation in regard to a Committee which is exclusively formed 
 of Progressive members of the Council, and to which the 
 Moderates have been denied access. 
 
 The functions of the Committee are set out on page 19 of 
 that article.
 
 197 
 
 POWERS AND DUTIES OF 
 CENTRAL AND LOCAL 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Prog:ressive Plot to Destroy Local 
 Government. 
 
 For the past 17 years, the Progressive Party on the L.C.C. 
 has done its utmost, by a course of the most reckless expendi- 
 ture, to wreck the prosperity of London. 
 
 The squandering of the money of the people by the 
 Progressives generally, on the various local authorities, has caused 
 the average total rate in London to rise by over 2s. 3d. in the £ 
 since 1890, i.e., from os. 2id. in 1890 to 7s. 6d. in 1906, and has 
 compelled large employers of labour to take their works out 
 of London, and, at the same time, has prevented other manu- 
 facturers from erecting works within the London rateable area. 
 In this way the Progressive Party has done much towards 
 reducing employment for the working classes, and must be 
 rightly held responsible for much of the present lack of employ- 
 ment in London. 
 
 To complete the " wrecking " policy, the Progressives once 
 more come forward with a plan by which they hope to get the 
 whole of the government of London into the hands of the 
 Progressive majority on the L.C.C. They propose to destroy 
 the Borough Councils and, in practice, to abolish local govern- 
 ment altogether. This they propose to do under the plausible 
 pretext of facilitating a large extension in the equahsation of 
 rates. 
 
 The wrecking of the Borough Councils, as intended by 
 the Progressive Party, would be a standing disgrace to all 
 citizens who believe in the rights of .self-government^
 
 198 
 
 If the Progressives are returned to power, and they are 
 successful in their attempt to destroy local control of local 
 affairs, the people of London can look forward with certainty 
 to a further large increase in the rates, which under Progressive 
 rule are already far too heavy. Progressivism and extrava- 
 gance, as experience has clearly demonstrated, go hand in hand. 
 On the ground of economical administration, if for no other 
 reason, the ratepayers ought to put an end to Progressive rule. 
 
 The L.C.C, rate has risen by 4kl. in the £ since that body 
 came into existence, i.e., from 12|d. in 1889-90 to 17d. in 
 1906-7, and this despite the very large increase in assessments, 
 coupled with the enormous increase in the debt of London. 
 Since the L.C.C. took over the Education of London, in 1904, 
 the Education rate has risen by 4d. in the £, according to Lord 
 Welby (c./. L.C.C. Finance, Part I., Vol. II. of Handbook). 
 
 AVhat, then, but similar increases can the people of London 
 expect if the Borough Councils, with their present Municipal 
 Reform majorities, are abolished ? 
 
 The abolition of the Borough Councils would mean the 
 neglect of local wants and the centralisation of London govern- 
 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 rule of paid officials. 
 Unless the ratepayers at the coming L.C.C. elections 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 instrumental in placing London 
 under the absolute control of a bureaucracy. 
 
 Report of the Royal Commission, 1894. 
 
 A Royal Commission was appointed by the Radical 
 Government 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 
 the opinion suggested by the course of previous inquiries and
 
 199 
 
 of legislation— or, in other words, by the historic development 
 of the Metropolis — that the government 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 iiuMnber of the system " (para. 22). 
 
 This double aspect of unity and separability having been 
 accorded general acceptance, " any controversy that remains," 
 said the Report, " turns upon the partition of powers between 
 this central and these local bodies." 
 
 The principle laid down 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 Government 
 in the measure passed in 1899. 
 
 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 Government. . . . But the 
 County Council of London, even if it were composed entirely 
 of archangels, would be 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 miUions of people. And therefore it is absolutely 
 necessary, and it was always intended, that, while the County
 
 200 
 
 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 
 wish, have the right to apply for, and the right 
 to receive, the same municipal privileges as we enjoy. 
 
 I am quite certain that until they get them the health and the 
 comfort and the enjoyment of the people of London will not be 
 properly cared for." — The Times, November 24:th, 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 ha\'ing recourse 
 to Parliament in each particular case " (para. 107). In 
 developing this principle the Commissioners thought that 
 " everything should be done to maintain the strength, authority, 
 and dignity of the local bodies of London." 
 
 The London Government Act, 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 machinery 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 compiled 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
 
 201 
 
 for nearly 100 vestries and other boards, naming as " areas 
 which are to be boroughs " 15 whole parishes and 13 composite 
 areas. 
 
 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, property, and liability of each existing 
 yestry and district board are transferred to the Council of the 
 borough comprising the area within the jurisdiction of such 
 yestry and district board, the Borough Councils succeeding such 
 yestries 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 sW-signs and of street 
 obstructions, and as to registering dairymen ; and the Borough 
 Councils obtain jurisdiction as to the demolition of buildings 
 erected and proceedings 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 stop up streets taken over 
 from the vestries does not require the sanction of the County 
 Covmcil. The Borough Councils also have wide powers under 
 the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. A most important 
 power is that of promoting and opposing Bills in ParHament 
 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:
 
 202 
 
 " The Local Government Board may, if they think fit, on the 
 appHcation of the London County Council and of the majority 
 of the Borough Covmcils, 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 Rate. The 
 Progressives called this great measure 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 
 London, but throughout the whole of England and Wales, and 
 who subsequently extended ' it to Ireland, in 1898. London 
 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 pressure,, 
 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 elements about vestrydom 
 w 111 eh have led local government in London to be misunderstood 
 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 fauk to find with the Bill. ... As a whole,. 
 the Bill is one of great moment to the inhabitants of the-
 
 s the iidininistrative powers and duties of the I;.C.C. and the Metropolitan 
 
 1UCATlt".N-\L SjiJiVUES. 
 
 TkA.NSIT and ExCHANriK SjillVKES. 
 
 SlI'I'I.V SliUVlCES. 
 
 :ation (iiifliidini^ *iiidus- 
 al and reforinatory 
 lools, and care of defec- 
 c (liildren). 
 
 Jnian Museum. 
 
 eristy of I^ondou (a[)- 
 intineiit of two nieiiibers 
 iScnatc). 
 
 intuiont lo bodies of 
 nagers of public elcnien- 
 y schools. 
 
 c libraries, art galleries, 
 I museums — Provision. 
 
 ♦Bridges — Provision, niainlenan e, 
 and regulation. 
 
 Ferry — Provision and working of 
 \\'t)olwieh Ferry. 
 
 Steamboats upon 'I'liamcs — Pro- 
 vision and working. 
 
 Streets — *lmprovements, nomencla- 
 ture — embankments, &c. 
 
 Traffic — Motor ears registration and 
 regulation, &e. 
 
 *Tramways and light railways — 
 Making and working where statu- 
 tory authority has Ijeen obtained. 
 
 Tunnels — Tluimes tunnels — Making 
 and maintaining \\here statutory 
 authority has been obtained. 
 
 ♦Bridges (minor) — Provision, main- 
 tenaui^e, and regulation. 
 
 ♦Streets — Making, paving, cleansing, 
 lighting, &c. 
 
 ♦Streets — Minor improvements. 
 
 ♦Tramwavs veto. 
 
 Flcciricily — Supply to 
 small sjjecitied areas 
 and ♦meter testing. 
 
 ♦Gas and gas meter test- 
 ing. 
 
 Water — Some powers of 
 control. 
 
 ♦Electricity supply (if 
 authorised). 
 
 fee, and its linancial powers in connection with the Exchequer Contribution Account, 
 
 .\ .-}
 
 The following table, extracted from " London Statistic) 
 
 ' volume 16, 1U05-6, published by the Statistical Department of the I..C.C., page G. shows 
 
 Borough Councils respectively : — 
 
 administrative powers and duties of the fi.C.r. and the Metropolitan 
 
 Hkaltii Skrvicbs. 
 
 Hegilative Servh t~. 
 
 I'HOTKCTivE Services. 
 
 Umdon Cuunhj CouncU (a) 
 
 •Indicates u service 
 which if admiiiis- 
 KTcduithiii thi^City, 
 l>y the City of 
 Ixiudon C'i>t'jK)i'atioii. 
 
 C'ottnciti'. 
 
 •Indicates c service 
 uhich is adminis- 
 tetcd within the City, 
 l»y Ihr City 1)1 
 LdU'luii CuipuiuliijJi. 
 
 *£jma)l dwellingH acc{ui- 
 sitioQ. 
 
 Small boldingn. 
 Kmigiation assistance. 
 
 Laltoiir huieaiix — Ks- 
 (ublishmcnt and 
 working. 
 
 'Small dwellingH acqiii- 
 eition. 
 
 * Clearance of insanitary arca» and 
 housing of the working ulatises. 
 
 *Di*^easp8 of animals — Prevention of 
 Rpread of. 
 
 Drainage (main), and regulation of 
 [ local drainage in the county. 
 
 •Iii/ant life protection. 
 
 Lodging houses control. 
 •Lunatics and iiiebiiatcii — Care u(. 
 
 Midwivcs regulation. 
 
 •UUt'nsive 
 dairies, 
 
 trades, nuisances, and 
 tc. — liv-law.s. 
 
 "I'urks and oyifn sjmces — I'lovi'-iwu 
 and maintenance. 
 
 •Hakehoiisc)* iusiH'ction. 
 
 "Unths and wash-houses — l'iovi>iuu 
 and management. 
 
 •JJurials — Provision for. 
 
 •Clearance of small insanitary lucns, 
 oloi:ing of overcrow dcd and in- 
 sanitary bouses, and housiug i>u 
 a small scale. 
 
 ^UairyuieD registration. 
 
 •Drainage (local) uud iniblic con- 
 veniences. 
 
 •Atedieut oJlicer and sanitary in- 
 siwctoia — AjiiKjiutnienl and j»ay- 
 
 •Offeusive trades, nnisitnccs, and 
 dairies, &c. — Control. 
 
 sparks and open spaces {small) — 
 Provisiou and maintenance. 
 
 *Kefu80 removal and disposal. 
 
 * Workshops — Control as to sauita- 
 tion and overcrowding. 
 
 •Good rule and government — Bv - 
 laws. 
 
 •Labour regulation (employment of 
 children, shop hours, and seats 
 for assistants). 
 
 Licensing of theatres and music 
 halls and race-course:^. 
 
 Ixtniis to local authorities— iSauction 
 uud advance. 
 
 Streets and buildings (Kenernl build- 
 ing regulations, £c.). 
 
 •Trade regulation ([>etrok-uni and 
 other explosive!', weights and 
 iiioasiires, &c.). 
 
 Wild birds prutertion. 
 
 •Food and Drugs Acts — Administra- 
 tion. 
 
 •Good r'ilt) and government — By- 
 laws. 
 
 •Smoke nuisance prevention, 
 
 •Streets and buildings (licensing of 
 wooden structure^-, regulation of 
 sky signs, house deuioTitiun, tim- 
 ber stacking. &c.). 
 
 Crime (payment of costs of 
 criminal prosecutions and 
 Quarter Sessions). 
 
 Fire (Fire Brigade and factory 
 iusiieotion). 
 
 Flooils (Thames floods pre- 
 vention). 
 
 •Jjuiueats (appointment and 
 payment of^ corouvnt, pro- 
 vision of courts, &<".). 
 
 •Mortuaries and post-mortem 
 rooma — Provision. 
 
 Education (including •indua- 
 trial aud reformatory 
 schools, and care of defec- 
 tive children). 
 
 Homimau Museum. 
 
 Univeristy of London {ap- 
 pointment of two members 
 to Senate). 
 
 •Appointment to bodies of 
 maiiac;ers of public elemen- 
 tary schools. 
 
 •Public libraries, art galleries, 
 and museums — Provision. 
 
 •Bridges — Provision, mainteuani^f, 
 and regulation. 
 
 Ferry — Pi-ovisiou aud working of 
 Woolwich I'Vrry. 
 
 Steamboats n pon Thames— Pro ■ 
 vision and workinji. 
 
 Streets — ♦Improvomentu, nomuuclu- 
 tu re— embankments, &v, 
 
 Ti-alHc — Motor cars registration ond 
 regulation, &c. 
 
 •Tramways and light railways- 
 Making and working where statu- 
 tory authority ban been obtained. 
 
 Tuimels —Thames tunnels — Making 
 niul maintuinmg where ntatutory 
 authoritv has becu obtained. 
 
 •Bridges I 
 teuaucc 
 
 ninor) — Provij'i;iu, 
 and regulation. 
 
 •Stroets — Making, paving, cleansing, 
 lighting, &c. 
 
 •Streets — Minor improvements. 
 
 •Tiamwavs veto. 
 
 Sci'1'i.v StiiMi ; 
 
 Electricity — Supply to 
 smsll sjiocilipd arcat 
 and 'met«r testing. 
 
 •Gfts and gas meter test- 
 ing. 
 
 Water — Some powers of 
 control. 
 
 •Electricity supply (ifl 
 authorinod). * 
 
 (A) Xlic powcih o( llic Luudou CuiUilv Co 
 
 ict lorlli above c.vludc its gcncrul oiyiiiuMij;.' I.uu<lun tio\iTiiiiu-nt pimers in cuuucction with cIccIil 
 
 County Uraule, aud Eijualiaatioa Fuud. 
 
 and i(^ liiiani 
 
 J po 
 
 mcctiuii with llir I'ixclionicr LVmlnl
 
 203 
 
 Metropolis. It is not an heroic measure, and may not seem to be 
 of such great importance as some of the far-stretching poUtical 
 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."— T//^' Tiwen. .June 2lst, 
 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 County Council has already such an 
 immense amount of work to do that it is most expedient that 
 no further burden of work should be cast upon its members 
 which could be as well done by the local authorities. 
 
 In fact, the Royal Commission which investigated the 
 conditions of London government, expressly reported, in 1894, to 
 that effect. Whilst retaining central duties or those common 
 to the whole of the Metropolis, such as main drainage, fire brigade, 
 parks. &c.. to the County Council, the Commissioners went 
 on to sov 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 
 bv the Borough Councils, and vestrymen by mayor, aldermen 
 and councillors, that new and further duties should be given 
 to them. Xo 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
 
 204 
 
 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 which authority should undertake certain work ha? 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 will thus be seen, from the foregoing table, how wide a 
 field of work there is both for the central and local governing 
 authorities of this great city. 
 
 The Prog:ressive Policy.— Captain Hemphill 
 on Enlarg^ed Powers for the L.C.C. 
 
 In the Daily Chronicle of July 31st, 1906, Captain the Hon. 
 
 F. Hemphill, L.C.C., the Progressive Chairman of the Highways 
 
 Committee, and one of the leaders of that Party, outlined " a 
 
 bold scheme." To quote the words of the article : — 
 
 " There seems to be two 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 equaUse 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 be- 
 comes 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.
 
 205 
 
 " TliP precise area,"' says Captain Hemphill, " is a little 
 difficult to fix," but Greater London is suitable. " This area 
 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 
 692'8-l 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 bv the 72 bodies which it would supersede within 
 the Countv of Londoh, and of those bodies whose place it would 
 take in Outer London. A Council of this size and importance 
 would have many powers entrusted to it which the Houses of 
 ParUament now exercise. If legislative powers in local affairs 
 are to be granted to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the London 
 area, in view of its population 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 Countv 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 \'iew its much 
 larger extent and probable increase of population, would be 
 a fair proportion. Then twenty members from outside might 
 be elected bv 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 number up 
 to 320. The number might be increased to 350, as the area of 
 Outer London became more densely populated. 
 
 " Branches 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 
 areas for local administration should not be too large, and would
 
 206 
 
 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 electorate, 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 large local powers might be delegated 
 to them, and could safely be entrusted to them, their decisions 
 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 London 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. Loudon 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. From these comes the 
 demand of company promoters and financiers to lease every 
 department of municipal work that they luay 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." 
 
 Mr. Sidney Webb, L.C.C., on the Revolution 
 
 in Local Government. 
 
 " Mr. Sidney Webb, who is generally credited with an 
 acquaintance with the inner workings of the mind of the Cabinet 
 with regard to London local government," says The Monu)i(j 
 Post of October 8th, 1906, "lecturing on October 7th, 1906, 
 at the Hatcham Liberal Club on ' The Coming Revolution in 
 London Government,' advocated the extension of the boun- 
 daries 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 
 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 carrying 
 on of the business of the port of London, and London traffic. 
 
 He mentioned, too, the necessity for centralising the adminis- 
 tration of the hospitals. With the larger central body there
 
 207 
 
 would liave to a.o a larp;e scheme of devolution to local bodies, 
 and to bodies appointed with large powers to deal with special 
 subjects — but the central body must be the creature of tlie 
 electors of the larger London, 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 had led people in other parts of London to the 
 conclusion that they could not trust them with 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 wrongly, had achieved a reputation for not managing 
 their affairs a? 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, 
 London'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, 
 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 rehef should be outdoor or indoor being 
 left to the local body." 
 
 Objections to the Prog^ressive Policy. 
 
 The Report of the Royal Commission on the Amalgtimatiou 
 of the City and County of London, as already shown, decisively 
 pronounced against the policy of one huge municipality for all 
 London. " Unification " was rejected by the people of London 
 at the L.C.C. election in March, 1895. 
 
 Ever since 1855, when the Metropolitan Board of Works was
 
 208 
 
 established, the principle has been adopted that there should be 
 strong local authorities as well as a central body for the pur- 
 poses of London government. Numerous Commissions and 
 Committees have supported that plan. 
 
 By the London Government Act, 1888, Parliament, with 
 the common assent of all parties, declared the Metropolitan 
 area to be more aldn to an urban county than one vast coherent 
 town, to be a province rather than a city. The plan of govern- 
 ment adopted was a central County Council for purposes common 
 to the whole of London, and which could not be better performed 
 by the local bodies. In addition, it was agreed that there 
 should be established powerful local authorities, and that the 
 City of London, retaining its ancient and efficient Corporation, 
 should continue to exercise all such powers as ought not, on 
 the ground of administrative expediency, to be transferred to 
 the central body. 
 
 The London Government Act of 1899, the provisions of 
 which are summarised above, established the City and Borough 
 Councils, and completed the system of London government. 
 
 These two Acts were both based on the essential and domi- 
 nating factor in the system of London administration, that there 
 should be local as well as central authorities. This principle 
 of duality has always existed since 1855, when a Royal Com- 
 mission reported against London being governed by one huge 
 municipality, because there would be lacking the two first 
 conditions of good municipal government — minute knowledge 
 of local needs and community of interests. All legislation for 
 the past fifty years has followed these same lines, and the local 
 spirit thus developed has produced a large advance in municipal 
 life ahd work. 
 
 The establishment of the Borough Councils in 1899 carried 
 the suggestions of the Royal Commission of 1894 into effect. 
 
 While it is not possible to deal fully with the unwieldy and 
 
 ambitious scheme put forward by Capt. Hemphill, and reported 
 
 above, these further points may be noted, viz : — 
 
 (1) The L.C.C. is already overburdened with work. It 
 is at present proposed by the Progressives to relieve it of its 
 educational duties. Members are complaining that the work
 
 •209 
 
 entails too much sacrifice of time and thought for able business 
 men to become councillors. 
 
 (2) Any sHght administrative chaos which exists can be 
 abolished by a simple Act, without having recourse to the 
 destruction of the Borough Councils, which perform nearly 
 all the public health work of London efficiently and economic- 
 ally. The rise in the local Borough Council and Guardians' 
 average rates in the past 16 years has been only Ifd. in the £. 
 The central rates (L.C.C., &c.) have risen 2s. 2d. in the £ in 
 the same period, viz., 1890 — 1906. 
 
 (3) The Borough Councils might well undertake the duties 
 of the Poor Law Guardians, and other reforms of Poor Law- 
 administration might be effected. The Report of the Royal 
 Commission on Poor Law Administration, which is now inquiring 
 into this question, will, perhaps, deal with this point. 
 
 (4) The outside areas (Outer London) can well manage 
 their own affairs by joint boards of management in the case 
 •of main drainage. Another large common service, i.e., water 
 supply, is already managed by the Metropolitan Water Board. 
 
 Mr. Asquith on Local Government. 
 
 Mr. Asquith, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 speaking as Home Secretary before the County Council elections 
 of 1895, said : " We propose to extend " to the new local bodies 
 *' that large common corporate life which brings with it the 
 dignity of responsibility " ; and " we propose to give to them 
 the stimulus of more attractive titles, and of conspicuous position, 
 that will create a more fruitful field for the best energies and 
 the best efforts of the best men of the localities." 
 
 Effect has been given to the above views of Mr. Asquith .by 
 the Unionist London Government Act of 1899. This, the 
 present Radical Progressive Party are now seeking once again 
 to destroy, with a view to obtaining what one of their leaders 
 has described as " a thorough grip on London." 
 
 Lord Rosebery on Local Spirit. 
 
 Speaking at Clerkenwell on June 14th, 1895, Lord Rosebery 
 
 said : — 
 
 " Although we believe that London should be one, we believe 
 that unity will be best attained and strengthened by maintaining 
 local spirit, by encouraging local spirit, and by developing local 
 
 .spirit. We desire to see London united, but not a unit." 
 
 o
 
 210 
 
 The late Lord Salisbury's Views. 
 
 The opinion of the late Lord Sahsbury upon the question 
 of London government, though expressed so long ago as 
 November 22nd, 1883, is still well deserving of serious con- 
 sideration : — 
 
 " The question is not between self-government and no self- 
 government," said Lord Salisbury, " but whether you are to 
 have a vast heterogeneous ill-compacted area, or whether each 
 community is to have the privilege of governing itself. . . . 
 The Metropolis is an enormous aggregation of human beings, 
 and no municipality in the country can be cited as a guide for 
 its future organisation." . . . After caUing attention to the 
 pecuhar growth of London's various communities. Lord Salis- 
 bury went on to state : " What will be the effect of putting 
 them all under one municipality ? There seems to be an idea 
 that you make municipal power in proportion as you make a 
 large municipality. The truth is the other way. If you do 
 make it large, you in proportion diminish its power of doing 
 business. . . . There is no doubt that, assuming the most 
 entire patriotism, and the most complete abnegation of self, 
 and the most absolute determination to do its duty on the part 
 of this immense municipality, if the members of it are numerous, 
 their debates must in proportion be lengthy, and the amount 
 of business transacted must be small. When you rely, as you 
 must rely in the main, on unpaid labour, it is a great mistake to 
 tax it with too vast an area of duty. Men who have other 
 occupations can only devote a certain portion of their leisure 
 to the performance of these public duties. Give them a small 
 amount to do, and they will do it well. Give them an excessive 
 amount to do, and they will delegate it to their professional 
 advisers. I know their abihty and integrity, but I have observed 
 that they are animated by the enthusiasm of their profession, 
 and that their government is not the most economical which 
 it is possible for human wisdom to devise. Professional advisers, 
 when they advise, are admirable advisers, but when they govern 
 they are apt to forget that the constable must not be outrun. 
 The real point, however, is to avoid being misled, as we so often 
 are in the present day, by the mere glamour of imagination. 
 There is a kind of luxury in upsetting a Corporation which has 
 lasted for 800 years. There is a luxury in setting up the biggest 
 Corporation over the biggest city that has ever been made. 
 But we must guard against these intellectual delusions, and I 
 beheve that London will be better and more efficiently governed 
 if moderate areas of government are selected than if these 
 dreams of great legislative changes are realised."
 
 211 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain on Municipal 
 Government. 
 
 No one is better qualified to speak with authority on the 
 question of municipal government than Mr. Chamberlain, whose 
 experience for so many years as Councillor, Alderman, and 
 Mayor of Birmingham renders him thoroughly acquainted 
 with the subject in all its practical details. In the New Review 
 for June, 1894, there appeared an article by Mr. Chamberlain 
 entitled " Municipal Government : Past, Present, and Future," 
 in which he discussed the growth and increasing importance 
 of our municipal institutions. 
 
 After pointing out the evils that have corrupted and 
 destroyed municipal life in the great American cities, Mr. 
 Chamberlain discussed the means by which a similar deteriora- 
 tion is to be averted in this country. An undue growth of 
 officialdom is a great danger to be avoided. In an honest 
 and well-ordered municipality " the influence of the unpaid 
 member ought to be a constant and an animating force." Suchi 
 a member must take an active personal part in the carrying out 
 of his duties : — 
 
 " It is clear that these duties cannot be satisfactorily per- 
 formed if the area of responsibility is indefinitely enlarged. 
 Already, the work of a conscientious member of a council in a 
 large town exacts from him the devotion of one or two days in 
 the week to his public duties. The Mayor who enters thoroughly 
 into his work is as fully occupied as a Prime Minister, and can 
 attend to no other occupation during his term of office. It 
 may well be doubted whether the enlargement of municipal 
 boundaries, which is constantly going on, has not proceeded 
 far enough. A population of half a million is practically the 
 largest number that can be governed from one centre with the 
 individual attention and constant assiduity that have contri- 
 buted so much to the usefulness and popularity of corporate 
 work. Many observers friendly to the work, and careful of 
 the reputation of the London County Council, regret that the 
 establishment of a central authority did not follow, rather than 
 precede, the creation of local councils dealing with more moderate 
 areas, and fear that the possible outcome may be, when the 
 first flush of public interest has passed away, the permanent 
 institution of a great centralised bureaucratic administration, 
 jealous of its authority, wedded to its own methods, and 
 gradually losing touch with the people for whose benefit it exists. 
 
 o2
 
 212 
 
 Decentralisation is one of the secrets of successful local govern- 
 ment, and it is an empty name in connection with a local 
 authority which professes to look after the health, the comfort, 
 and the domestic arrangements of nearly five millions of people." 
 
 For the above, as well as for other reasons, the Municipal 
 
 Reform Party is strongly opposed to the vesting of ultra-despotic 
 
 powers in the London County Council in regard to London. 
 
 The History of the Question. 
 
 The following quotations are made from a lecture delivered 
 
 by Mr. Percy Harris, L.C.C., the then leader of the Moderate 
 
 Party, at the London Municipal Society's Offices on June 20th, 
 
 1906, entitled " London Government — Past and Present.'' 
 
 " I am going to quote to you from Mr. Dickinson, M.P., 
 L.C.C., who is the political leader of the London Radicals. 
 In his policy, propounded in 1905, Mr. Dickinson said : ' London 
 claims to enter on the right long ago accorded to all great cities 
 — the right of speaking with one voice through one representa- 
 tive body.' Then in the debate on the Equalisation of Rates 
 Report, in May, 1906, Mr. Dickinson deplored the establish- 
 ment of the Borough Councils upon lines which Progressives 
 did not approve, and which made unification more difficult.* 
 
 " Now, it is certain that if the Progressives are returned 
 to power at the next election, and if the Radical Govern- 
 ment remains in power, the old cry for the creation of a single 
 municipality to govern London will be again raised. That is 
 a pohcy which I think it is our duty to expose, and to tackle 
 at the earhest possible moment. 
 
 " Perhaps you will allow me to give you a short sketch 
 of the history of this question of London government. The 
 
 * The following is the speech to which Mr. Harris here refers. 
 
 Speaking in the Council on May 8th, 1906, Mr. W. H. Dickinson, M.P. 
 (P.), said : " Now we had a speech from my friend Mr. Harris — one of 
 his usual able but simply cntical and destructive speeches that we so 
 often hear from him. He commented, as he was entitled to comment, 
 upon the fact that the Equalisation of Rates Act was one which emanated 
 from the I>iberal Government in 1894, but I would like to remind him of 
 this : At that time the Equalisation of Rates Act of 1894 was only in- 
 tended to be a skeleton ; it was a temporary measure, and was certainly 
 })art and parcel of a great scheme of reform that we had at that moment 
 in our minds, and that we hoped to carry out for the benefit of London. 
 Unfortunately, the political meteorology of 1894 made it impossible for 
 the Liberal Party in power to carry out a greater scheme for the reform 
 of London government, and, therefore, we have now been delayed ten 
 years, with one exception, imfortunately (in 1899), when the Borough 
 Councils were established upon lines which we, as every one knows, did 
 not approve. The question of imification was made all the more difficult 
 by that action of Parliament."
 
 213 
 
 Radical idea of London government was contained in Sir William 
 Hanourt's Bill ot" 1884-. That Bill proposed to create one single 
 municipality for London. It was to be composed of 240 
 members ; it was to absorb the City Corporation, and to have 
 all the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Vestries, 
 and District Boards, and other then existing local bodies. Local 
 bodies were to be re-created, but they were to have no original 
 powers, only such as the municipality might be pleased gra-ciously 
 to grant them. It is obvious that that was a measure of com- 
 plete centralisation. It was a proposal which did not commend 
 itself to London, and had to be withdrawn. 
 
 " In 1888, the Conservative policy for London government 
 was propounded. That policy was to establish a central 
 body for affairs common to the whole of London, and local 
 bodies for local affairs. That is a policy which undoubtedly 
 received the approval of London, and has, in point of fact, 
 now been carried into effect. It happened, unfortunately, in 
 1888, that the Unionist Government did not feel able to deal 
 with both the central and local administrations in one Bill, 
 therefore they created the London County Council as the 
 central body, expressly leaving the reform of the local 
 bodies to be dealt with by subsequent legislation. That 
 was rather unfortunate, because it gave the Progressive 
 Party the opportunity of trying to upset the Unionist policy. 
 Accordingly the Progressives started' on the plan of cam- 
 paign of trying to establish the London County Council as 
 the single omnipotent municipality, as originally proposed by 
 Sir William Harcourt's Bill. The first step in the plan was 
 to absorb the City Corporation, because the City Corporation, 
 of course, was a considerable stumbling block in the way of 
 any measure of that kind. After absorbing the City Cor- 
 poration, it would be comparatively easy to deal with the weak 
 Vestries and District Boards. Accordingly a Royal Com- 
 mission was appointed by the Radical Government ' to consider 
 the proper conditions under which the amalgamation of the 
 City and County of London could be effected, and to make 
 specific and practical proposals for the purpose.' 
 
 " The Moderates challenged that proposal. 
 
 " Then the London Municipal Society was started, which 
 had as the first object in its programme to extend and com- 
 plete the policy for the reform of London government initiated 
 by the LTnionist Ministry of 1886-1892, in the creation of a 
 London County by the establishment of District Councils or 
 Corporations, and their endowment with adequate authority. 
 
 " I think it must be admitted that the Moderate policy 
 was completely successful. The Royal Commission, which had 
 been engineered by the Progressives, hoisted them. There 
 never was such a case of a political engineer being hoist
 
 214 
 
 ■with his own petard, because the whole object of the Royal 
 Commission was to enable the London County Council to 
 become the omnipotent authority. But the Royal Com- 
 mission, while making proposals for absorbing the City, as 
 they were ordered to do, reported that ' everything possible 
 should be done to maintain the strength, authority, and dignity 
 of the local bodies,' who were to be entrusted with ' every duty 
 they could conveniently discharge.' That practically blew the 
 Progressive bubble to fragments, and the Progressive policy 
 was undoubtedly condemned at the County Council elections 
 of 1895. . . . The Parliamentary election of 1895 finally dis- 
 posed of the Progressive policy, and the London Government 
 Bill of 1899 set up the Borough Councils and endowed them 
 with considerable powers. 
 
 " It is quite true, as Mr. Dickinson said, that the estab- 
 lishment of the Borough Councils has made unification in the 
 Progressive sense more difficult, but it has not made it im- 
 possible, and T feel there are many signs that the old policy 
 is reviving, and that we shall see again a deliberate attempt to 
 try and make the London County Council the autocrat of the 
 Metropolis. I think I see how it is hoped to bring that policy 
 about. You may remember that an attempt was made to 
 prevent the establishment of the Borough Councils by sug- 
 gesting that that meant doing away with the system of equah- 
 sation. It was said that what was really proposed was to make 
 cities of the rich and towns of the poor, and it was only when 
 the London Government Bill was introduced that it was seen 
 it was quite possible to establish Borough Councils without 
 interfering with equahsation, and without making cities of the 
 rich and towns of the poor. 
 
 " I am convinced that the plan is to try to use equalisation 
 as a bribe to get the Borough Councils practically to surrender 
 their independence. The way the matter would be put to 
 them is this : The Progressives will say to the Metropolitan 
 Borough Councils, ' We propose to offer you complete equalisa- 
 tion — that is to say, we will let you, the Borough Councils, 
 charge all your expenditure upon the County Fund.' It is a 
 very considerable bribe. It is not proposing they shall give 
 up their birthright for a mess of pottage, but for a considerable 
 amount of gold. ' We will put the whole of your expenditure 
 upon the County Fund,' will be the offer. ' But,' they will go 
 on to say, ' it is not possible, or reasonable, that the Borough 
 Councils should spend what they like, and charge it on the 
 County Fund ; you will have to put the control of your expendi- 
 ture in the hands of the London County Council.' 
 
 f 4 " The Finance Committee of the London County Council 
 let the cat out of the bag when they suggested it might be 
 necessary for the Borough Councils to submit their proposals
 
 215 
 
 for expenditure to the London County Council before they 
 carried them out. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that 
 under any scheme of that kind the Borough Councils would 
 be simply in leading-strings to the London County Council ; 
 they would not be independent bodies in the very least. 
 Gradually, in that way, you get to the ideal which has been 
 in the minds of Radicals ever since 1884, of having a single 
 municipality absolutely supreme in London. 
 
 " Perhaps some of you may have wondered why the report 
 that came before the Council lately on the Equalisation of 
 Rates was withdrawn, or rather, was referred back. It was 
 a proposal to put three-quarters of the expenditure of the 
 Borough Councils upon the County rate. If it had come forward 
 a year ago, I am quite certain it would have been carried in 
 the Council with acclamation, but now the Progressives have 
 other schemes in hand, and other ambitions. They do not 
 intend to give any equalisation, unless accompanied with such 
 provision as will secure that all the power passes into the hands 
 of the London County Council." 
 
 The Position of District Surveyors. 
 
 A point of controversy has long been smouldering respecting 
 the position of District Surveyors. At present they are 
 appointed by the London County Council, under Section 139 of 
 the London Building Act, 1894, and their duties are to report as 
 to new, or alterations of existing, buildings, &c., in their 
 district, and to carry out the duties imposed by the Building 
 Act. 
 
 Many of the Borough Councils think this work could be 
 done as efficiently and at less cost by their own Surveyors, 
 who have now to inspect the buildings for sanitary and health 
 requirements, but have no power as regards the structure, 
 while the District Surveyors have little or no powers on 
 sanitary matters. Such division of work seems to be absurd, 
 and gives unnecessary trouble to builders and owners, who 
 have to give the notices to two authorities instead of one, and 
 delay and extra expense often result therefrom. In the muni- 
 cipahties of the country no such trouble arises ; the Corpora- 
 tion is the authority for all purposes, and no trouble is experi- 
 enced in carrying out the duties by the Borough Surveyor. 
 
 It has been stated by the Progressives that the Borough
 
 216 
 
 Surveyors are not competent to carry out the work required ! 
 But this is emphatically denied, and the fees payable by the 
 owners or builders would enable the local authorities to engage 
 men of the best quahcfiations and experience. 
 
 Several minor powers have already been transferred from 
 the County to the Borough Councils, and if the duties of the 
 District Surveyors were also so transferred, it would give con- 
 siderable satisfaction to the local authorities, and would, at 
 the same time, relieve the central authority of a great deal of 
 work. But the Progressives will not trust the Borough Coun- 
 cillors, either with that or any other duty they can help, and 
 so the distrust is kept up so long as the present Progressive 
 majority continues to reign. 
 
 The Municipal Reform policy is to entrust the Borough 
 Councils with all such powers of a local character as they can 
 best carry out ; the Progressive poUcy apparently is to distrust 
 the local authorities, to sneer at their capacity, and to exalt 
 the County Council to a far greater extent than was intended 
 by Parliament when it passed the Acts under which both 
 authorities were constituted. 
 
 Ambitious Desigrns of the Progressives. 
 
 The following extracts from a debate* which took place in 
 the Council on October 23rd, 1906, disclose some of the present 
 ambitious designs of the Progressive Party on the London 
 County Council. 
 
 The attitude of the Progressive and Moderate Parties 
 respectivelv in regard to the projected vast increase in the 
 powers of the L.C.C., is sufficiently demonstrated in the speeches 
 of members of the two parties quoted below. 
 
 The debate is also of interest owing to the trenchant criti- 
 cism which certain independent members of the Progressive 
 Party levelled against the leaders of that Party. 
 
 At the Ordinary Meeting of the Council, held on October 23rd, 
 1906, the Report of the General Purposes Committee, with 
 
 * This debate is reported in full in the " London MunieipalNotes " for 
 November, 19U6, pages 338— 3() 2.
 
 21' 
 
 r(>gard to the proposed increase in the number of members of 
 the Conncil, was submitted. , 
 
 On Recommendation 1 (a), " That in the opinion of the 
 Council the time has arrived when the number of members of 
 the Council should be increased, and that the Governmment be 
 approached with a view to effect being given to this proposal 
 during the autumn Session of Parliament." 
 
 Mr. H. Percy Harris (M.) said : There is a simple audacity 
 about this report which betrays, I think, the artistic hand of 
 Mr. McKinnon Wood, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee 
 which prepared this report. This report contains proposals of 
 very great importance. There is a proposal to enlarge this 
 Council, bv about half of its present membership, to increase, 
 in fact, the number of members from 137 to 200. There is, 
 also, a proposal to effect a very large redistribution of electoral 
 power in London. 
 
 Some persons would have thought it desirable to support 
 these important proposals by argument, to have adduced some 
 reasons why they should be adopted. Not so, says Mr. 
 McKinnon Wood, and his colleague, Mr. Gilbert. They know 
 perfectly well that there are occasions when nothing can be 
 conveniently said, and on which it is best to accordingly say 
 nothing. Mr. Wood knows perfectly well that if he had sub- 
 mitted any scheduled proposal of new constituencies, it would 
 ha^■e served to show what a number of inequalities and anomalies 
 are involved in the proposals that he has put forward. There- 
 fore, he tells us nothing as to the new constituencies. The 
 report says nothing in respect of this very important proposal, 
 but the last sentence of the report is amusing. In the last 
 sentence of the report, Mr. Wood says : — 
 
 '' We are advised that the Bill would be very short, and 
 we believe it would be practically non-contentious in principle." 
 
 I think it must be admitted that a proposal of such impor- 
 tance as to increase the membership of this Council by nearly 
 one-half, and to redistribute the electoral power in London, 
 are proposals which do deserve some justification. 
 
 I quite agree that the work of this Council has become 
 very heavy., perhaps I may say excessively heavy ; but I doubt 
 the wisdom of rushing into the suggested remedy of increasing 
 largely the membership of this Council. 
 
 I am not one of those who believe that there is no limit to 
 the powers and duties which a single public body can efficiently 
 discharge. There are two matters to which I attach the very 
 greatest importance. One is that this Council should have a 
 complete and strong grip and control over all its work. I can- 
 not help thinking that the Council has deteriorated in that
 
 218 
 
 respect in recent years, and for a very simple reason. I hap- 
 pen to be one of those whose duty it has been to follow a great 
 many branches of this Council's work. I find it has become 
 exceedingly difficult to get any grip or knowledge of the work 
 so as to be able to give an intelligent vote in this Council. 
 The other point to which I attach great importance is the 
 desirability of having ample public discussion of the subjects 
 with which the Council has to deal. I have seen over and 
 over again the schemes of the majority of this Council modified 
 materially by the fact that they had to submit to public dis- 
 cussion in this Council. I cannot help thinking in recent 
 years, perhaps it is partly due to the educational work, owing 
 to the folly of insisting on all educational details being brought 
 before this Council, that public discussion has undoubtedly 
 suffered. I do not think that an increase in the membership 
 of this Council will provide more time for public discussion. 
 We can scarcely give to public discussion more than one day 
 a week. Nor will this proposed increase in members secure a 
 better control of the Coimcil's work, because I am convinced 
 that the increase of membership will be used as a justification 
 for embarking upon other work which will make it more and 
 more difficult for the Council as a whole to have a grip of the 
 subjects with which it has to deal. 
 
 The first motive — the ostensible motive for increasing our 
 present numbers — is undoubtedly the increase of work which 
 has been either thrust upon this Council, or which this Council 
 has sought for itself. I quite agree that there is force in that 
 contention, though I think before it is proposed that the Council 
 should be increased in order that it may deal with educational 
 work, the Council should, at any rate, wait and see what powers 
 it is possible to delegate to the Education Committee, and have 
 some experience of the working of that experiment. 
 
 There seems to me to be unavowed motives behind 
 this proposal. I cannot help thinking the unaVOWed motive 
 
 is that passion for power, which is a chronic complaint 
 
 of the Progressive Party. I find evidence of that in their 
 action in regard to education. We know that it was pro- 
 posed to place education upon this Council. The Progressive 
 Council said they wished to be excused. That observation went 
 unheeded, and now I observe a passionate desire on the part of 
 the Progressive Party to retain education for the Council. 
 The Council has suffered for a long time from suppressed 
 
 megalomania. It has not been able to fully gratify its pas- 
 sion. We realise how this Council has proposed to embark 
 upon an enormous scheme for the supply of electricity in bulk. 
 We know in what a reckless manner they are prepared to spend 
 money upon street improvements. Not only improvements, 
 but tramways also are to be undertaken without any regard
 
 •219 
 
 to the financial credit, or the financial position of the Council. 
 Then, again, I gathered from the discussion that took pla'^-e on 
 the question of Equalisation, that tflis CouncM haS in its mind 
 
 to become responsible for the finance of all the Borough 
 Councils. The Borough Councils, I gather, are to be reduced 
 
 to a subordinate position, and the Council is to be responsible 
 for the expenditure of all those authorities. Surely that is 
 going to mean an enormous amount of work and responsibility 
 for this Council. The great danger, it seems to me, is that 
 the Council should become an unwieldy and overgrown body. 
 
 If the Council is to embark upon a large number of new 
 trading enterprises, to take upon itself the responsibility of the 
 expenditure of the Borough Councils, and to extend its sphere 
 in many other directions, then the question will have to be 
 seriously considered whether the Council ought not to be relieved 
 of a certain amount of its work. I have argued the ques- 
 tion so far solely on the merits of the proposed increase of the 
 Council ; but much more serious is the method by which the 
 proposed increase is to be obtained. We are to have, as I 
 understand, a temporary Reform Bill. This Bill is a Bill which 
 might eradicate, I admit, certain glaring inequalities of repre- 
 sentation. While it might eradicate glaring inequalities, it 
 would leave behind many serious inequalities, and it would 
 create new inequahties. We are in a great difficulty in dis- 
 cussing this matter, because the Committee have presented 
 no Schedule of new constituencies. 
 
 I do not think there is any case, or any urgent need, for 
 the increased membership of the Council as to justify the pro- 
 posal at this time. 
 
 I beg to move the amendment of which I have given 
 you notice, and which is in the following words : — 
 
 " That all words after the word ' Council ' in line one 
 be omitted, and that the following words be substituted 
 therefor : ' No proposal for increasing the membership of 
 the Council should be put forward without adequate 
 examination of all the considerations involved, and that 
 the need for a revision of the representation of the rate- 
 payers upon the Council should be met by a measure which 
 would remove existing inequalities throughout the county, 
 and not by some temporary, partial, and hastily-proposed 
 scheme.' " 
 
 Mr. H. T. Anstruther (M.), in seconding Mr. Harris's amend- 
 ment, said : It does seem to me that we have the right to call 
 upon those who are responsible for a full explanation of the 
 reasons which cause this hurried scheme to be brought forward, 
 and at such short notice. We should like also to ask what 
 the cost of this scheme will be, because I apprehend that the
 
 220 
 
 enlargement of the number of members will mean an enlarged 
 expenditure from the point of view of the return of expenses 
 when the election of the London County Council comes round, 
 
 and also that it Will require a large increase in the staff of this 
 Council. 
 
 It seems to me that the remedy lies rather in some 
 system by which the work is delegated to Committees, and, 
 if possible, to a lessening of the duplication and triplication of 
 powers. In conclusion, let me remind you that an increase in 
 membership will inevitably lead to an increase in loquacity ; 
 the hours of attendance for everyone of us will be increased, 
 our duties will be enlarged, and the burden thrown upon the 
 staff is bound to be very largely increased. 
 
 Mr. J. D, Gilbert (Chairman of the General Purposes Com- 
 mittee) (P.) said : I think Mr. Harris rather gave his case 
 away for objecting to the increase of the members of the Council, 
 when he said he was one of those who believed that there was a 
 limit to the power of this Council. Speaking for those on this 
 side of the House, we do not take the same view as Mr. Harris. 
 
 We are not of opinion that there should be a limit to the 
 powers of the London Council. 
 
 As regards the duties which we have taken over since the 
 Council was established, I should like to mention some of the 
 duties which the Council now has to do which in the first year 
 of its existence it did not have to do. We have taken over the 
 whole of the tramways north and south of London, and we are 
 electrifying them, and more trams will be added year by year. 
 Then the number of improvements has been greatly added 
 to during the recent years of the Council's existence. There 
 is the question of Housing. In the early days of the Council 
 we had no housing schemes to carry out ; now we have a great 
 many housing schemes, which entail a great deal of detail 
 Committee work. Then there is the Building Act, and a good 
 many other Acts, giving to your Building Act Committee cer- 
 tain powers in respect of factory questions, fire questions, &c. 
 There is also the administration of the Public Health Acts. 
 Parks have increased. There is motor-car registration given 
 over to the Council during recent years, the control and regu- 
 lation of shop hours, employment agencies, and various other 
 matters. 
 
 Mr, C. S. Cobb (M.) : And steamboats. 
 
 Mr. Gilbert : Yes, sir, the steamboats are an additional 
 work. Then, there is another matter which has also greatly 
 increased the work of the Council of recent years. I refer ta 
 the representation on outside bodies. We have now repre- 
 sentatives on the Thames Conservancy, on the Lee Conser- 
 vancy, on the Water Board, and on the Lee Valley Drainage
 
 » 
 
 ■22] 
 
 Commission. We have also representatives on the Underfed 
 School Children's Committee, on the Central Unemployed Fund, 
 and also on the Teachers' and Staff Education and Super- 
 annuation Committee. All these extra duties have increased 
 the work for members of this Council, and I do not think we 
 are unfair in asking that the number of the members of this 
 Council should be increased. Some of us, and I join issue 
 with Mr. Harris, are hopeful that this Council's powers will 
 be further increased in the future. We are not ashamed to 
 say that we hope that Parliament will give us control of the 
 electric bulk supply of London. That is the view of the 
 majority of this Council ; and if we are tO havC the COntrol 
 
 of the bulk electricity supply of London, that is another work 
 for which we shall require a good deal of extra members. 
 
 There is another question — the reform of the Port of London. 
 
 Mr. H. J. Glanville (P.) said : I have listened attentively 
 to the remarks of Mr. Gilbert as to why the membership of 
 this Council should be increased. So far as I can see, nearly 
 all of those reasons would have applied with equal force a year 
 ago. If that be so, I ask why at the last moment is this sug- 
 gestion made ? Would it not have been more appropriate 
 that this suggestion should have been made in the spring or 
 summer of this year, so that the matter could have been dealt 
 with in a proper manner instead of in this hurried way ? 
 
 We are to have a scheme of redistribution of seats based 
 on the population of 1901, when, in the outlying portions of the 
 whole of the Metropohs, particularly in the South, the popula- 
 tion has, since 1901, been going up by leaps and bounds, while 
 it has been getting less and less in the centre and Eastern 
 portions. On these grounds I am strongly opposed to the 
 recommendation of the Committee. It seems like a gerry- 
 mandering method of dealing with an increase in the number 
 of the seats. 
 
 Lieut.-Col. C. F. Colvile (M.) said : Would it not be well 
 to consider first whether it would not be better to make use of 
 the material that you already have, rather than make use 
 of new, and increase your material ? For instance, I waS 
 
 proposed as a member of the Works Committee, but I was 
 
 not elected. I am a busy man, but I am prepared to place all 
 Wednesdays at the disposal of the London County Council 
 
 for committee purposes. I have been 12 months a member 
 of the Council, but I am not a member of any committee. 
 
 Why not, then, make use of the material you have before 
 you ask for more members, and say you have not got enough ? 
 You talk about the magnitude of the work, but whose fault is 
 that ? It is owing to the fact that the London County Council 
 insists on undertaking work for which, as a body, it is not quali-
 
 222 
 
 fied. We are not surprised to hear people in the street ask 
 what does L.C.C. mean ? and be given the answer that it means 
 the London County Cormorant. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. G. H. Kadford, M.P. (P.), said : The motive in this 
 report of the General Purposes Committee is to be found in the 
 unhappy subject of Education. But for the Education Act 
 of 1902, we should never have had this report. The fact is 
 that the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee knows 
 
 this, that the public in London have been rendered indignant 
 by the fact that the Progressive Party in this Council have 
 closed the doors of the Education Committee to the Press. 
 
 Since the attention of London has in this matter been 
 directed to the work of the Education Committee as the Educa- 
 tion Authority, the people of London have found out that the 
 present administration of Education is not all that could be 
 desired, and the people of London have looked back wuth 
 longing to the old days of the School Board, when we had mem- 
 bers dealing with Education who knew the business, who knew 
 the children, and who knew the whole subject, and made it 
 their hfe's work. Mr. Gilbert knows he has to face the election 
 next March, and this report is brought up in order to say to the 
 people of London who remain Progressive, and who are jibbing 
 at present at the conduct of Education by this Council, that it 
 is not necessary to abolish the Education Committee and set 
 up an improved School Board, but that if you adopt this alter- 
 native of increasing the number of the Council, and delegating 
 the powers to the Education Committee, the mischief, of which 
 you have so justly complained, will be rectified. That is the 
 true history of the motive of this report. 
 
 Mr. E. C. Phillimore (P.) said : It appears to me that 
 little or no administrative advantage will result from the pro- 
 posal. But this will result from it. In the view of the man 
 in the street it will be an admission that you have entirely 
 failed to maintain the usefulness of this Council. The admission 
 that we shall make is that with our present number of members, 
 we are incapable of doing the work Parhament has put on us. 
 
 What is the cause of the defects we have at this moment? 
 The cause at the present moment is that we have a large 
 number of members of Parliament, who are also members of 
 
 this Council. What administrative advantages will be gained by 
 this proposal ? We shall have, no doubt, more talk. It seems 
 to me extremely likely that the larger the Council, the longer 
 will be the debates. I do not believe we shall have better work. 
 
 I believe the increase in the members of this Council will 
 increase the number of officials who will have to attend to 
 
 these members. 
 
 What I beheve we ought to do is not to increase the
 
 223 
 
 number of members, but to try to get those members we have 
 at present into greater personal touch with the work that has 
 to be done.' I think that if our Chairmen could in some way be 
 enabled to give more time to the work of their Committees, if 
 these Committees could be rendered smaller, and if the members 
 of the Committees were less apt to oppose reports on frivolous 
 pretexts, this Council would be better able to do its work. 
 I feel it is my duty to oppose this proposal, because I 
 
 consider it ill-considered, retrograde, and utterly opposed 
 to the principles of sound administration. In 
 
 conclusion, I put this to Mr. Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert says he 
 is prepared to consider an indefinite increase in our work, or 
 he used some such words. There I am with him, but does he 
 propose with every increase of our work to increase the number 
 of our members ? In that case, if we had ten times the work, 
 we shall have 2,000 members. 
 
 Mr. F. Dolman (Chairman of the Local Government and 
 Records Committee) (P.) said : The Bill of Sir William 
 Harcourt in 1884 proposed a municipal authority for London 
 composed of a membership of no less than 242, and therefore I 
 think that the proposal of a membership of 200 is not in excess 
 of the probable requirements, if it is in excess of the immediate 
 requirements of municipal work in London, having regard to the 
 inevitable development of the powers of the central authority. I 
 hope that this will be an issue of the London County Council election, 
 and that the electors of London will have an opportunity of 
 giving a decided answer to this question. They have now had 
 a number of years of the administration of a central municipal 
 
 authoritv. I believe that the whole moral of the work that 
 has been done by the London County Council is that rather 
 than have an indefinite multiplicity of public authorities in 
 London, we should rather, in preference, aim at the ideal of 
 having a representative body for the whole of London, 
 controlling the whole of the municipal affairs of London. 
 
 Sir R. M. Beachcroft (M.) said: The Moderate Party 
 have from the first moment the 1903 Act was passed, 
 impressed and urged on the Council to at once take 
 advantage of the enabling powers given by the Act to 
 delegate our functions, except those in regard to financial 
 control, to an Education Committee properly constituted. It 
 has pressed the Council to act with regard to the Education 
 Committee in the manner suggested, and authorised, by the 
 Act of 1903, and has also suggested that women should have 
 their fair share of the work of that Committee. I am told that 
 Mr. Wood next week will bring up a recommendation which 
 partly aims at that suggestion. Surely, if that suggestion is 
 carried out, there should be no hurry for this appeal to his 
 Majesty's Government to increase our members to 200.
 
 224 
 
 Mr. T. P. Gaskell (M.) said : It seems to me the point 
 which we ought specially to discuss is whether this proposal 
 of the General Purposes Committee is necessary or not. In order 
 to arrive at a decision as to whether the Council is overworked 
 or not, I have made an analysis of the attendances of the 
 Council during the past year, excluding the members of the 
 Council who sit on the dai's. Taking an average of 134 
 members, I find that there has been an attendance at the 
 Council meetings of 4,058, at Committee meetings 7,266, and 
 at Sub-Committee meetings 7,742. That gives an average 
 per member of 30 for Council meetings, 54 for Committee 
 meetings, and 58 for Sub-Committee meetings. If we take 
 an average of 4J hours for each Council meeting — I think that 
 is httle enough — and 2J hours for each Committee meeting, and 
 IJ hours for each Sub-Committee, I find that on the average 
 each member has given 135 hours to the Council meetings, 
 135' hours to the Committee meetings, and 87 hours to the 
 Sub-Committee meetings, making a total of 357 hours in the 
 year. 
 
 We work 34 weeks out of the 52, practically 8 months 
 out of the 12. Therefore, on the average, every member of 
 this Council has during the past year worked 10| hours each 
 week. I ask you to consider whether lOJ hours per week is 
 too much to expect from the members, who have the honour 
 to represent constituencies on this Council. I think it is a very 
 moderate amount of time indeed. I cannot see the necessity, 
 if that is the total amount of time which members give to the 
 work of this Council, to increase the numbers. 
 
 Mr. T. McKinnon Wood, M.P. (the Leader of the Progressive 
 Party), said : What the General Purposes Committee have 
 said, is : — 
 
 " Independently of and apart from the question 
 whether the educational work of the Council would be 
 advanced by an enlarged Education Committee, we think 
 that there will be a consensus of opinion that the magnitude 
 of the work of the Council, and the ever-increasing demands 
 made upon members, are adequate and sufficient reasons 
 why the membership should be increased." 
 
 That is the one argument, Mr. Chairman. We have no 
 other argument to put forward. Surely the time to take up 
 a matter like this is the time when you are starting a new 
 Council, when new work is coming upon you, when you are feeUng 
 the pressure of work that is coming upon you, and w^hen you 
 hope that new work will be committed to your charge ? 
 
 I am not one of those who think that the sphere of this 
 Council is to be limited by its present scope. The Council has 
 a perfectly simple issue b?fore it. Having got these two addi-
 
 ^tb 
 
 tional thing.-*, increased and inrreasing municipal work, and 
 the concerns of the new department of education, which formarly 
 was not upon our shoulders, surely it is a reasonable thing to 
 go to the Government and ask that the new Council should be 
 increased in numbers '{ 
 
 Mr. R. A. Robinson (the Leader of the Moderate Party) 
 said : This is a partial and hastily-prepared scheme. It is 
 not for me to attempt to fathom the reasons which have led 
 to this, but I do say that 137 members should be perfectly able 
 to cope with the work of the Council, if we do it in a budness- 
 like way. 
 
 The first thing to do is to pass educational matters on to 
 the Edu(;ation Committee, leaving it open to the Press and 
 the public, and not to compel them to bring up every trumpery 
 recommendation, as, for example, the salary of a charwoman, 
 before this Council. The Council should retain in its own 
 hands the financial control and questions of policy. Let us 
 do what every other County Council already does — delegate to 
 the Education Committee powers for dealing with education. 
 If we did that, we should be free of the great incubus that we 
 find week by week on this agenda. 
 
 If the addition of new members means encouragement 
 for this Council to seek larger fresh powers, I contend that such 
 will not commend itself to the people of London. Are we going to 
 take on a job Uke the control of the Port of London, and, as 
 Mr. Gilbert airily says, manage it by a Committee of this Council ? 
 Are we going to undertake the supply of electricity in bulk over 
 an area of 450 square miles, at an expense of 10 to 20 millions ? 
 Then, indeed, you may want more members on this Council. 
 Against such a policy I protest. I think this is not the authority 
 to undertake such works. Our plain duty is to govern and 
 control, and not to undertake the work ourselves. 
 
 On (1a) Recommendation (a) in paragraph No. 1 of 
 report being put to the vote, there appeared : — 
 
 the 
 
 All?n, A. A. 
 Bay ley, E. 
 Beaton, Dr. R. M. 
 Benn, Sir John 
 Bray, R. 
 Briant, F. 
 Browne, E. 
 Bruc , W. W. 
 Chamber -s F. 
 Clarke, C. Goddard 
 
 For the Motion, 65. 
 
 (P.) Cleland, J. AV. 
 
 Cooper, B. 
 
 Davi s, T. 
 Davie , W. 
 Dawes, J. A. 
 Dolman, F, 
 Gilbert, J. D. {Idler) 
 Gosling, H. 
 Hardy, G. A. 
 Harvey, T. E. .. 
 
 (P-)
 
 226 
 
 Hemphill, Capt. the 
 
 
 Sandhurst, Lord 
 
 . (I'.) 
 
 Hon. Fitzroy 
 
 .(P.) 
 
 Sharp, L. 
 
 
 Hubbard, N. W. 
 
 
 Shepheard, A. J. 
 
 
 Hunter, T. 
 
 
 Shrubsall, G. .. 
 
 
 Jephson, H. 
 
 
 Smith, Alfred . . 
 
 
 Jesson, C. 
 
 
 Smith, Edward 
 
 
 Johnson, W. C. 
 
 
 Smith, J. 
 
 
 Jones, Rev. L. J. 
 
 
 Straus, B. S. .. 
 
 
 Lampard, G. . . 
 
 
 Strong, R. 
 
 
 Leon, A. L. 
 
 
 Taylor, H. R. . . 
 
 
 Lewis, J. 
 
 
 Torrance, Sir Andrew 1 
 
 
 Lidgett, Rev. J. Scott. 
 
 
 Wallas, G. 
 
 
 McDougall, Sir John 
 
 
 Ward, H. 
 
 
 [Teller) 
 
 
 Warmington, F. W. 
 
 
 Mitchell, Isaac . . 
 
 
 Warren, G. J. . . 
 
 
 Monkswell, Lord 
 
 
 Waterlow, D. S. 
 
 
 Mowatt, Right Hon. Sir 
 
 Webb, Sidney . . 
 
 
 Francis 
 
 
 Welby, Lord 
 
 
 Mulling W. E. 
 
 
 West, Right Hon. Si 
 
 r 
 
 Napier, T. B. . . 
 
 
 Algernon E. . . 
 
 
 Parkinson, W. C. 
 
 1 
 
 Wiles, T. 
 
 
 Piggot, John 
 
 
 Williams, Howell J. 
 
 
 Pomeroy, Ambrose 
 
 
 Wood, T. McKinnon . 
 
 
 Rus ell, Arthur B. 
 
 
 Yates, W. B. .. 
 
 
 Sand rs, W. S. 
 
 
 
 
 Against the 
 
 Motion, 40. 
 
 
 AUiston, F. P 
 
 (M.) 
 
 Greensyood, H. J. 
 
 • (M.) 
 
 Anstruther, H. T. {Teller 
 
 ) „ 
 
 Guinness, Hon. Rupert ,, 
 
 Bailey, W. 
 
 J? 
 
 Hanhart, N. . . 
 
 55 
 
 Barnes, E. 
 
 )) 
 
 Harris, H. P. {Tdler) . 
 
 55 
 
 Beachcroft, Sir R. Mel 
 
 
 Hunt, W. 
 
 5) 
 
 vill 
 
 >> 
 
 Jeffrey, J. 
 
 • (P.) 
 
 Bell, Sir WiUiam J. . 
 
 55 
 
 Lancaster, W. J. 
 
 . (M.) 
 
 BHs.^ Sir Henry W. . 
 
 55 
 
 Phillimore, R. C. 
 
 • (P.) 
 
 Brandon, Jocelyn 
 
 55 
 
 Probvn, Lt.-Col. C. 
 
 . (M.) 
 
 Buxton, A. F. . . 
 
 55 
 
 Radford, G. H. 
 
 . (P.) 
 
 Cobb, C. S. 
 
 5) 
 
 Robinson, R. A. 
 
 . (M.) 
 
 Collins, E. 
 
 55 
 
 Rotton, Lt.-Col. A. . 
 
 !3 
 
 Colvile, Lt.-Col. C. F. . 
 
 ,t 
 
 Salter, Dr. A. . . 
 
 • (P.) 
 
 Forman, E. B. (D.C.). 
 
 55 
 
 Sankey, Stuart 
 
 . (M.) 
 
 Gaskell, T. P. .. 
 
 55 
 
 Stanley, Hon. Arthur . 
 
 • (P.) 
 
 Gastrell, Major W. 
 
 
 Sturge, C. Y. .. 
 
 . (M.) 
 
 Houghton 
 
 55 
 
 Swinton, Capt. G. S. C 
 
 
 Glanville, H. J. 
 
 (P.) 
 
 Taylor, J. T. . . 
 
 
 Goldsmith, F. .. 
 
 (M.) 
 
 Thompson, W. W. 
 
 
 Goodrich, A. 0. 
 
 5 > 
 
 White, E. 
 
 
 Gordon, H. H. 
 
 (I.) 
 
 Williams, Jabez 
 
 
 The motion was accordingly agreed to.
 
 227 
 
 In conclusion, there is , ood ground at the present time for 
 saying that the Progressive ideal of London government seems 
 to be one gigantic central body — a glorification of the County 
 Council — which shall deal alike with the affairs of Stepney 
 and Westminster, of Hampstead and Camberwell. This policy 
 is in direct conflict with the Royal Commission reports, and is 
 obviously opposed to the first essentials of municipal govern- 
 ment. Local interest in local afEairs is keen in provincial cities 
 and towns, while in the Metropolis the great difficulty has always 
 been to attract the services of business men to the adminis- 
 tration of their respective districts. The London Government 
 Act, 1899, is accompUshing a great deal in this direction, as 
 may be seen from the list of those who have been the mayors, 
 aldermen, and councillors of the various London Boroughs since 
 the Unionist Government abolished v.strydom in the adminis- 
 tration of the Metropolis. It behoves accordingly the Municipal 
 Reform Party to clearly indicate to the electors of London 
 the dangers likely to accrue if Progressive ambition is permitted 
 to acquire all that it now seeks to control. 
 
 I 2
 
 228 
 
 THE L.C.C. AND THE 
 LONDON BUILDING ACTS, 
 
 The Building Act Committee of the L.C.C. administers the 
 Building Acts of 1894, 1898, and 1905, and exercises the Coun- 
 cil's powers under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, s 
 regards the provision of means of escape in case of fire from 
 factories and workshops and other buildings. It consists of 
 15 members, meets once a week, and deals usually at each meeting 
 with from 200 to 300 applications for exemption from, or 
 relaxation of, the Building Laws. This huge amount of work 
 has to be hurried through, and for the most part is in the hands 
 of the Council's officials. 
 
 The Moderate Party have always advocated the policy of 
 transferring to the Borough Councils all administrative duties 
 under the Building Acts which could be efficiently discharged 
 by the local authorities. 
 
 This is in accordance with the principle laid down by the 
 Royal Commission in 1894, that " no duties should be thrown 
 upon the Central Body that can be equally well performed by 
 the local authorities " (paragraph 106 of the Report). This 
 policy, however, does not recommend itself to the Progressive 
 majority, who look upon the Borough Councils with jealousy 
 and distrust, and flatly refuse even to consider the advisability 
 of delegating some of their minor powers to the local authorities.
 
 229 
 
 London Building: Acts (Amendment) Act, 
 
 1905. 
 
 The Bill of 1905 was promoted by the L.C.C. to amend 
 the law relating to buildings in London, and was of a most 
 elaborate, sweeping, and controversial character. The London 
 Building Act of 1894 consisted of 218 sections and four schedules, 
 and was passed after considerable inquiry and discussion. The 
 Bill introduced in 1905 consisted of 184 clauses and three 
 schedules, so that within the short space of eleven years after 
 the passing of the principal Act it was proposed to amend it 
 in such a way that, if the whole Bill passed into law, the amending 
 sections would have been almost equal in number to those of 
 the principal Act. The law relating to the erection of buildings 
 and the formation of streets in London is in a very comphcated 
 state, and is distributed over a number of statutes besides the 
 Building Acts. The consoUdation and amendment of the 
 various Acts is certainly necessary. If the whole of the original 
 Bill of 1905 had become law, the word " chaotic " would very 
 inadequately have described the state of affairs which would 
 undoubtedly have ensued. The leaders of the Moderate Party 
 on the L.C.C. urged that so complicated a matter as the Building 
 Laws should be referred to a Koyal Commission consisting of 
 men of technical and expert knowledge. 
 
 The Bill itself contained some highly objectionable amend- 
 ments. Known as the " Confiscation Bill," it threatened 
 seriously to interfere with the rights of owners of property in 
 London. If, for instance, the proposed restrictions had become 
 law, an owner rebuilding his premises in a street less than 
 40 feet wide {e.g., Throgmorton Street) would practically have 
 been prevented from increasing the height of his buildings or 
 from re-erecting them to the same height as his neighbours. 
 
 The Bill empowered the Council to take land for improve- 
 ments or new streets without having to obtain Parhamentary 
 sanction ; it attacked the Tribunal of Appeal — one of the safe- 
 guards provided by the London Building Act, 1894 ; and it
 
 230 
 
 contained a large number of other provisions which enabled 
 the L.C.C. to take people's property without giving them 
 adequate compensation. 
 
 In the words of a Moderate member of the Council, " the 
 Bill would have improved London off the face of the earth." 
 
 The Bill, however, aroused so much opposition that eventu- 
 ally it was withdrawn, with the exception of Part VIII., which 
 related to protection against risks from fire. 
 
 Let it not be imagined that the Progressives have abandoned 
 their " Confiscation Bill." They have again instructed the Building 
 Act Committee to draft a new Bill on the same lines, and, with 
 the assistance of their friends in the House of Commons, they 
 are likely to force it through Parliament during the Session 
 of 1907. 
 
 With regard to Part VIII. of the original Bill, the Council 
 was successful, and with a few slight amendments it became 
 law under the title of — 
 
 The London Building: Acts (Amendment) 
 
 Act, 1905. 
 
 The drastic character of the provisions of this Act were 
 hardly reahsed until it actually came into force. The Act will 
 affect Qearly all buildings in the County of London, and will 
 put owners and occupiers of houses and shops to a considerable, 
 and, in many cases, unnecessary expense. 
 
 Little objection can be taken to those sections which require 
 the provision of access to the roof of buildings, or to those which 
 require sufficient means of escape to be pro\aded in the case 
 sf new buildings. But from January 1st, 1907, all existing 
 buildings having any storey more than 50 feet from the groimd 
 level, or which are occupied or inhabited by more than twenty 
 people, will have to be provided with such means of escape 
 as the L.C.C. may require (additional staircases, doors, &c.). 
 
 There is one clause in particular, which seems most un- 
 reasonable and unnecessary, and which is inflicting great hard-
 
 231 
 
 ship on the owners and occupiers of one-storeyed shops. Under 
 Section 10 of the Act of 1905, shops projecting 7 feet or more 
 from the main building are required to have a roof of fire- 
 resisting material ; not only that, but the fire -resisting material 
 must be 5 inches thick, and any ventilating cowl or lantern 
 hght must be removed not less than 6 feet from the main front 
 of the building, and must be carried up on its three inner sides 
 in fire-resisting materials. The clause is retrospective, and 
 applies to the many hundreds of small one-storeyed shops, the 
 owners and occupiers of which can very ill afford to spend from 
 £50 to £100 on the alterations required by the Act. 
 
 Meetings of protest have been held in St. Pancras, IsUngton, 
 and in other parts of the Metropolis. (Sir William ColUns, M.P., 
 L.C.C. [Progressive], took the chair at one of the meetings.) It 
 was stated that the clauses were unnecessary, as hardly any lives 
 had been lost owing to fires taking place in projecting shops 
 
 (the average being only two deaths a year in the last 
 twelve years throughout the whole country), and that the 
 
 owners and occupiers were asked to pay an enormous price 
 for theoretical fire prevention. 
 
 Deputations were sent to the L C.C. Building Act Com- 
 mittee asking them to grant exemptions to existing shops where, 
 possible (which under the Act the Committee have power to 
 do), but the Progressive majority refuses to come to the assist- 
 ance of the owners and occupiers of these small shops. 
 
 Another effect of the panic-drafted Act of 1905 is a great in- 
 crease in the staff of the Architect's Department, which, although 
 only part of the Act has come into force, is already costing the 
 ratepayer an additional £3,000 a year. The Architect's Depart- 
 ment is continually increasing. In the annual estimates, the 
 salaries list amounts to the huge total of £57,603 16s. a year 
 (see Annual Estimates, 1906-7, p. 120) ; and it must be remem- 
 bered that this does not include the Architect's (Education) 
 Department, which comes to another £23,516 13s. a year (see 
 Annual Estimates, 1906-7, p. 89).
 
 232 
 
 There is good ground for saying that the Act of 1905 has 
 cost the ratepayers of London from £14,000 to £15,000. This 
 is mainly due to the fact that the Act has been badly drafted, 
 and the Council now finds that it has to pay large fees to the 
 District Surveyors (who receive in some cases two or three 
 fees from the L.C.C. for the same piece of work, besides the 
 fee which they are entitled to receive from the builder) ; e.g. 
 the District Surveyor receives a fee from the Council for notifying 
 non-compliance with a certain section, a second fee for super- 
 vising work, and a third fee for informing the architect that the 
 work has been completed. 
 
 Analysis of the London Building: Acts 
 (Amendment) Act, 1905. 
 
 The Builder, the journal of the trade, in its issue of 
 November 18th, 1905, analyses the provisions of the Act of 
 1905 at some length, and says : — 
 
 " The importance of this Act, which received the Royal 
 Assent in August, 1905, is not to be measured by the number 
 of its effective sections. When we come to deduct from the 
 forty-three sections of the new Act those fifteen sections which 
 deal with exemptions, the nine sections which have to do with 
 definitions and other Acts, and the ten sections concerned with 
 machinery, penalties, and procedure, there are left but nine 
 sections which directly affect buildings in the County of London. 
 
 These nine sections, however, are so wide-reaching, and 
 will probably involve so much structural alteration to 
 existing buildings, besides having an important influence on 
 the construction and arrangements of new buildings, that it 
 behoves all who are interested in land and houses in London, 
 even as occupiers only, to take note of the provisions of this Act 
 which comes into operation, with certain exceptions, on 
 January 1st, 1906. . . ." 
 
 " Existing Buildings Affected on January 1st, 1907. 
 
 " These are the following : — 
 
 " V. Existing high buildings — i.e., a building which has any 
 storey whose floor surface is more than 50 feet above the foot- 
 way.
 
 233 
 
 " VI. Existing twenty-person buildings — i.e., a ' building 
 in which sleeping acH-oiiimodation is provided for more than 
 twenty persons or which is occupied by more than twenty 
 persons, or in which more than twenty persons are employed.' 
 
 " It is to be noted that any existing dwelling-house occupied 
 as such by not more than one family is excepted from the 
 Classes V. and VI. 
 
 " In regard to these Classes V. and VI., powers are given 
 to the London County Council to require the owner to provide 
 such means of escape therefrom in case of fire ' as can be reason- 
 ably required under the circumstances of the case.' 
 
 " When the Bill was before Parliament there was a great 
 deal of opposition to this clause, it being contended, among 
 other things, by the opposers that the powers given to the 
 London County Council were too wide ; the promoters, on the 
 other hand, submitted that the London County Council had 
 exercised their similar powers, with regard to existing factories 
 and workshops, in a reasonable manner. In the result Parha- 
 ment has determined that the owner shall have a right of appeal 
 to the Tribunal of Appeal in case he is advised that the requi- 
 sitions of the Council are unreasonable or excessive. It is to 
 be noted that, even though no structural alteration be made 
 in a building, certain changes of user {e.g. the termination of 
 an occupancy of a building by, say, nineteen persons, and the 
 new^ occupancy of the building by, say, twenty-one persons) are 
 deemed to be a conversion of a bi;ilding, and notice of such 
 conversion must be given by the ' owner or occupier ' to the 
 District Surveyor." 
 
 The Costly Effects of the Act of 1905. 
 
 Mr. A. Maryon Watson, in the April, 1906, issue of The 
 Nineteenth Century Magazine, in an article entitled " The New 
 Fire-Protection for London," deals fully with the Act of 1905. 
 
 By the kind permission of the Editor of The Nineteenth 
 
 Century, w-e are permitted to republish the following extracts 
 
 from this article : — 
 
 " On the score of height alone, therefore, it will be evident 
 that Parliament has by the new Act sanctioned interference 
 with a very large number of buildings which were outside the 
 scope of the Act of 1894. It should, moreover, be borne in 
 mind that among the 60 feet high buildings it was only the 
 more recent buildings — i.e., those built since January 1st, 1895 
 — which were touched by the old Act ; whilst now, under the new 
 Act, the hmit of height is lowered to 50 feet, and on and after 
 January 1st, 1907, the operation of the Act comes into force 
 with regard to existing buildings, as well as new buildings. . . ."
 
 234 
 
 " But it is not only high buildings which are under the new- 
 Act required to be provided with a certificate from the Council 
 that the means of escape are sufficient in case of fire ; the section 
 applies also to every ' twenty-person ' building — i.e., ' a building 
 in which sleeping accommodation is provided for more than 
 twenty persons, or which is occupied or constructed, or adapted 
 to be occupied by more than twenty persons, or in which more 
 than twenty persons are employed, or which is constructed or 
 adapted for the employment therein of more than twenty 
 persons (Section 7, Subsection 1 (b), London Building Acts 
 (Amendment) Act, 1905). . . ." 
 
 " Projecting shops, both new and existing, next come in 
 for treatment under the new rules. 
 
 " Everyone knows those buildings which, standing back 
 some distance from the road, and having shops built out in front 
 on the forecourts, may be seen in many streets in London, such 
 as Hampstead Road, Hackney Road, Caledonian Road, and 
 City Road. Captain Hamilton estimates that there are 7,741 
 such in London. . . ." 
 
 " To sum up, then. On January 1st, 1906, there will, in 
 the first place, be 7,700 and odd illegal London shops, the owners 
 of which may be called upon to expend a sum variously estimated 
 at from £450,000 to £750,000 and odd ; secondly, there will be 
 an unknown number of houses of more than 30 feet in height, 
 the owners of which may be called upon to expend from £5 to 
 £10 on each house in providing statutory means of access to the 
 roofs ; thirdly, there will be an increased expenditure immedi- 
 ately required to make all buildings in process of construction 
 comply with the provisions of the new Act ; and, lastly, the 
 owners of high buildings and twenty-person buildings should 
 be preparing to meet the rules for existing buildings, which will 
 be affected on January 1st, 1907. The outlay under this head 
 has been estimated at from £500 to £600 for each building." 
 
 It will be gathered from the above that this Act of 1905 
 is of far-reaching consequence to everyone who is interested in 
 house property, in that it will involve the expenditure of a very 
 considerable sum on structural alterations. The Act does not 
 apply merely to new buildings to be built, but also affects 
 existing buildings. No doubt householders are to a certain 
 extent protected from officious interference and exacting 
 demands from County Council officials in that they are, when 
 dissatisfied with County Council requirements, permitted to 
 go to the Tribunal of Appeal. Such a course, however, means
 
 235 
 
 worry and very considerable expense, and on the whole, although 
 everyone will admit that wise provision should be made to 
 secure life, it seems as if in some of the provisions this Act is 
 hysterical, and considerably exceeds the necessities of the case. 
 That it will involve, in many instances, considerable hardship, 
 and in all cases a heavy financial outlay, is beyond doubt. 
 
 Report of the Building^ Act Committee, 
 
 1905-6. 
 
 The Building Act Committee's Report, contained in the 
 Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Council for the year 
 ended March 31st, 1906 (pages 33-34) {inter alia), stated :— 
 
 " London Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 1905. 
 
 " On December 13th, 1904. a Bill to amend the provisions 
 of the London Building Acts, 1894 and 1898, was approved by 
 the Council, and was introduced into Parliament in the Session 
 of 1905. The Bill met with considerable opposition, and on 
 March 14th, 1905, by an arrangement between the Members of 
 Parliament in charge of the Bill, and those in charge of the City 
 of London (Escape from Fire) Bill, it was agreed to drop all 
 parts of the Council's Bill with the exception of Part VIIL 
 (Means of Escape from Fire, &c.), which then passed the second 
 reading without opposition. The Bill received the Royal Assent 
 on August 11th, 1905, as the London Building Acts (Amendment) 
 Act, 1905. The Act. which came into operation with certain 
 exceptions on January 1st, 1906, places upon the Council the 
 duty of securing the provision and maintenance of proper means 
 of escape in case of fire from certain classes of buildings within 
 the County. 
 
 " Sections 7 and 9 of the Act require the provision of means 
 of escape from storeys, the upper surface of the floors whereof 
 are at a greater height than 50 feet above the street, and from 
 buildings occupied or adapted to be occupied bv more than 
 twenty persons, or in which more than twenty persons are 
 or can be employed, or in which there is sleeping accommodation 
 for more than twenty persons. Section 7 deals with new build- 
 ings, and Section 9, which does not come into operation until 
 January 1st, 1907, is retrospective, and deals with existing 
 buildings. Dwelling-houses occupied as such by not more than 
 one family are exempt from the provisions of these sections.
 
 236 
 
 " Section 10 deals with shops projecting for a distance of 
 7 feet or more beyond the main fronts of buildings, and requires 
 that the roofs of such shops shall be constructed of fire-resisting 
 materials not less than 5 inches thick. The section also regu- 
 lates the openings which may be made through such roofs. 
 
 " Section 12 requires the provision of proper means of access 
 to the roofs of buildings coming within the scope of Section 10, 
 and from all other buildings having more than two storeys 
 above the ground storey, or exceeding 30 feet in height, except 
 dwelling-houses occupied as such by not more than two families. 
 Both Sections 10 and 12 apply to existing as well as to new 
 buildings. 
 
 " Section 11 contains rules for the arrangement of living 
 rooms over premises used for the storage of inflammable liquid, 
 and Section 13 provides that no person shall, without consent, 
 convert a building, or permit a building to be converted in 
 such manner that such building, when so converted, will not 
 be in conformity with the provisions of the Act. 
 
 " Section 14 enacts that all means of escape must be main- 
 tained in good condition and repair, and m efhcient working 
 order, and must not be obstructed or rendered less commodious. 
 
 " Section 22 provides that owners of property may appeal 
 against the decisions of the Council under Sections 7, 9, 10, 11, 
 12 and 13 of the Act. Such appeals will be heard by the 
 Tribunal of Appeal, constituted under the London Building 
 Act, 1894. 
 
 "For the three months ended March 31st, 1906, 3,254 
 notifications were received from District Surveyors of buildings 
 coming within the scope of Sections 10 and 12 (projecting shops 
 and access to roofs). In order to avoid any possible misimder- 
 standing as to the requirements of the Act, the Committee 
 directed that the attention of owners should be drawn to the 
 provisions of these sections, and that an intimation should be 
 given that, if there were reasonable grounds for asking for 
 exemption from any of the provisions of the sections, appli- 
 cation should be made to the Council accordingly, as the Council 
 has power to sanction exemptions where it is reasonable to do 
 so. 
 
 " Instructions were also given for the occupiers of the 
 buildings to be informed of the requirements of the sections, 
 and that the duty of complying with the provisions rests with 
 the owners.
 
 237 
 
 " The first of the cointnunications referred to wore issued 
 on March 27th, 1906, and by March 31st 498 had be^n despatched, 
 and twelve appUcations had been received for exemption. 
 
 " Under Section 7 (new high and twenty-person buildings) 
 62 applications were approved, and four refused. 
 
 " Although Section 9 (existing high and twenty-person 
 buildings) does not corns into operation until January 1st, 
 1907, 29 appUcations were received from owners who wished 
 to bring their buildings into conformity ; 21 of these were 
 dealt with, 14 being approved and seven refused. 
 
 " Three applications were received in respect of buildings 
 in which inflammable liquid was stored (Section 11). 
 
 " London Building Acts Amendment. 
 
 " The greater part of the London Building Acts (Amendment) 
 Bill, 1905, having been withdrawn before the second reading, 
 as stated above, the Council instructed the Committee to send 
 copies of the Bill to the Corporation of the City of London, the 
 Councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs, and the various profes- 
 sional and other authorities concerned, and to invite their obser- 
 vations with a view to the introduction in 1906 of a further Bill. 
 Owing to unavoidable delays this was impossible, but the 
 Committee 'have devoted a considerable amount of time to 
 the consideration of the Bill of 1905, and the observations 
 submitted by the various public and other authorities thereon 
 
 in order that a new Bill may be submitted to Parliament 
 at an early date." 
 
 There is no doubt that the Building Legislation in regard 
 to London is not perfect, and that it ought to be amended. 
 This, however, ought not to be done by a body of amateurs, 
 but ought to be referred to a Royal Commission or a Committee 
 of Experts. The Architect and the Committee wish to do away 
 with the Tribunal of Appeal, and suggest various alternatives. 
 They object to the Tribunal because it often reverses their own 
 decisions, but it is obviously absurd for the Court of first instance 
 {i.e., the L.C.C. Building Committee) to consider the reconstitution 
 of the Court of Appeal. The Council, as in everything else, 
 wishes to be supreme.
 
 238 
 
 THE PORT OF LONDON. 
 
 L.C.C. Deputation, 1900. 
 
 In the early part of 1900 the question of the administra- 
 tion and accommodation of the docks in the Port of London 
 came under pubHc discussion, in consequence of Bills intro- 
 duced by the Dock Companies. The late Mr. Eitchie (afterwards 
 Lord Ritchie), the then President of the Board of Trade, received, 
 amongst other deputations, a deputation on March 15th, 1900, 
 from the London County Council, to urge the necessity of an 
 inquiry being instituted into the whole subject. 
 
 The deputation was composed of members of both parties* 
 and urged that owing to so many authorities having control 
 over the river, docks, wharves, &c., much confusion was created, 
 and numerous interests overlapped, with a result disastrous to 
 the best interests of the port. The charges were higher than 
 elsewhere, and large ships were unable to come to the port 
 from various causes. The question had not been investigated 
 since 1799, and in the meantime numerous other seaports had 
 greatly increased their dock accommodation, and many foreign 
 ports were now ahead of London in shipping facilities. No 
 definite proposals were put forward by the County Council, the 
 case being confined to one for an inquiry. 
 
 Mr. Ritchie, in reply, said the matter was of vital importance 
 to the well-being of London. He thought the remarks made 
 justified an inquiry being held, and that the Dock Companies 
 would also agree to the proposal. He hoped it might be possible 
 to arrange for a full inquiry into the whole subject, and he assured 
 the deputation the matter should have his earnest consideration.
 
 239 
 
 Appointment of a Royal Comnnission, 
 
 1900. 
 
 The result was that the late Unionist Government in June, 
 1900, appointed a Koyal Commission with the following refer- 
 ence :— 
 
 " To inquire into : — 
 
 " The present administration of the Port of London 
 
 and the water approaches thereto ; 
 
 " The adequacy of the accommodation provided for 
 vessels and the loading and unloading thereof ; 
 
 " The system of charge for such accommodation ; 
 
 " The arrangements for warehousing dutiable goods ; 
 
 " And to report whether any change or improvement, 
 in regard to any of the above matters, is necessary for the 
 promotion of the trade of the port and the pubhc interest." 
 
 The Commission issued its report in June, 1902. 
 
 Report of the Royal Commission, 1902. 
 
 The report dealt with the present administration of the 
 port, and the water approaches thereto ; the accommodation 
 provided for vessels, and the loading and unloading thereof ; 
 the system of charge for such accommodation ; and the arrange- 
 ments for warehousing dutiable goods. 
 
 The Commissioners found, as a fact, that the river channels 
 and the docks were inadequate to meet the increased size of 
 steamers ; that the tendency of all main ocean traffic was for 
 cargoes to be carried in very large steamers ; and that the 
 ports affording accommodation for the large ships would attract 
 the trade from other ports, in spite of custom and tradition. 
 This particularly applied to exported goods, and might probably 
 account for the insignificant increase in the export trade of 
 London during the last twenty years. The apparent danger 
 was that ports like Rotterdam might usurp London's position as 
 a distributor of oversea traffic, and might even re-export to 
 London itself in smaller vessels. This would mean the loss to 
 the Port of London of shipping dues, and the labour and charges 
 for handling the goods thus transhipped, The Commissioners 
 came to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to get
 
 240 
 
 1 members 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 •*■ 
 
 ( 
 
 2 
 
 
 rid of the present chaos of authorities by the formation of a single 
 
 port authority. 
 
 The Commissioners recommended that : — 
 
 " (1) The port authority should consist of about forty 
 persons, partly nominated and partly elected. 
 
 " (2) On the assumption that the London County Council 
 and the City Corporation accept the financial responsibilities 
 which we have recommended, the nominated members should 
 be appointed by the following bodies : — 
 
 (a) By the London County Council 
 
 (b) By the City Corporation 
 
 (c) By the Admiralty . . 
 
 (d) By the Board of Trade 
 
 (e) By the Trinity House 
 
 (f) By the Kent County Council 
 
 (g) By the Essex County Council 
 
 (h) By the London Chamber of Commerce 
 
 (i) By the Governors of the Bank of 
 England from among persons belonging to 
 the mercantile community of London . . 5 ,, 
 
 " (3) The elected members should be elected by difEerent 
 groups of voters, viz. : — 
 
 (j) By the oversea (or ocean) trading 
 shipowners 
 
 (k) By the short-sea trading shipowners 
 
 (l) By the wharfingers and owners of 
 private warehouses on the river . . . . 3 ,, 
 
 (m) By owners of lighters, barges and 
 river craft, including river passenger 
 steamers . . . . . . . . . . 2 „ 
 
 (n) By railway companies connecting 
 with the docks 2 „ " 
 
 The Commissioners also recommended the constitution of a 
 statutory committee for the management of the docks and 
 works of dock improvement, which should consist of members 
 appointed by the port authority, with power to co-opt some 
 experts. 
 
 The financial responsibilities of the London County Council 
 and the City Corporation (above referred to) were : — 
 
 " (1) That the London County Council and the City Cor- 
 poration, in proportions to be agreed, should provide the capital 
 
 5 members. 
 2
 
 241 
 
 estimated at 2^ millions, needful for the deepening, widening 
 and improving of the river channels. 
 
 " (2) Should guarantee the payment of the interest upon, 
 the stock to be created by the port authority. 
 
 " It was proposed that the port authority should have 
 power to purchase the undertakings of the dock companies, 
 and for this purpose should create a port stock, bearing interest 
 at a rate guaranteed, as above explained. This stock would 
 be issued to each company as a consideration for the value of 
 its undertaking. 
 
 " In addition to the stock so raised, the Commissioners 
 suggested that the authority should issue an additional port 
 stock for the 4J millions, which was proposed to be expended 
 on improvements and extensions of the docks, and which, they 
 thought, might fairly be expected to be a productive outlay." 
 
 The Commissioners were further of opinion " that the port 
 
 authority should be empowered : — 
 
 " (1) To retain the powers now possessed by the Thames 
 Conservancy of levying dues upon ships which enter the port. 
 
 " (2) To levy, subject to the statutory maximum, dock 
 tonnage dues upon all ships which enter the docks, and to fix 
 charges upon goods landed in the docks other than those dealt 
 with on overside conditions. 
 
 " (3) To levy annual licensing dues upon barges. 
 
 " (4) To impose dues upon import goods entering the port, 
 except goods for transhipment, subject to maxima for different 
 classes," 
 
 The Commissioners also stated that, subject to due safe- 
 guards, the port authority should have some general powers to 
 adopt other modes of raising revenue. 
 
 " The Commissioners recommend that all the powers and 
 property of the Thames Conservancy in connection with the 
 river below Teddington should be vested in the new authority, 
 at and from the date to be appointed for the commencement of 
 operations under the constituting Act. The powers of the 
 Trinity House, so far as they relate to the area of the Port of 
 London, as defined by the constituting Act, should also be 
 transferred at the same date. All the powers of the Water- 
 men's Company connected with the licensing and control of 
 watermen and lightermen, and the regulation of lighters and 
 other craft, should also be transferred to the new authority." 
 
 The report also recommended the consolidation of all the 
 public docks in the hands of the port authority, and proposed 
 that the authority should have power to purchase the docks, 
 with the exception of the Limehouse Dock, which is practically 
 
 Q
 
 242 
 
 tte riibuth of a canal, and the Poplar and other railway docks, 
 which fall into a category different from that of the large public 
 docks. 
 
 The Commissioners stated that the reasons for entrusting 
 the. authority " with the control of the river and the docks do 
 not apply with the same force to the case of the warehouses. 
 The requirements of the port in this respect appear to have 
 bee!n sufficiently met by private capital and enterprise." In 
 addition, they stated their object to be not to unnecessarily 
 burden the new authority. Anticipating the difficulty,' in 
 some cases, of separating the warehouses and quays, however, 
 they recommended that the port authority should have power 
 to purchase the warehouses of the dock companies. In addition, 
 they stated, " We think, however, that, in the peculiar circum- 
 stances of the Port of London, and in view of the division of trade 
 between the docks and the riverside traders, it may be found 
 to be inexpedient that the new authority should carry on, per- 
 manently, the business of warehousing. We are of opinion, 
 therefore, that the authority, after taking over the warehouses, 
 should," subject to conditions, " sell or lease such of them as 
 would not be usefully employed in the enlargement of the quays 
 or transit sheds." This would give the port authority the 
 necessary elasticity in the mode of dealing with the warehouses. 
 The Commissioners further recommended that the Port of 
 London, for all purposes of the new authority, should be defined 
 as extending from Teddington Lock, as being the present tidal 
 limit, to a line drawn from Havengore Creek, in Essex, to 
 Warden Point, in the Isle of Sheppey, in Kent. This line is 
 about two nautical miles further east ^han the present frontier 
 of the Thames Conservancy for dredging purposes, and corres- 
 ponds with the present actual eastward limit of the Customs 
 port, and with that of the Thames Conservancy, for collecting 
 port dues. The southward limit of the port should be the 
 southern line specified in the second schedule of the Thames 
 Conservancy Act, 1894, so far as it applies to the area west of 
 the line from Havengore Creek to Warden Point, thus excluding 
 the Medway. 
 
 The Commissioners considered that power might be given 
 to the Board of Trade to extend by Provisional Order from time 
 to time, for the special purpose of dredging, buoying, or lighting, 
 the powers of the port authority as far as the line between 
 Harwich Naze and the North Foreland, defined in the second 
 schedule to the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, and referred 
 to in the second section of that Act. 
 
 The Port of London Bill, 1903. 
 
 On April 6th, 1903, a Port of London Bill was introduced 
 " To establish a Commission for the administration of the
 
 243 
 
 Port of London, and for transferring to the Commission the 
 undertakings of certain dock companies and certain powers 
 and duties of the Conservators of the River Thames and the 
 Watermen's Company, and for other purposes connected there- 
 with." 
 
 Mr. Gerald Balfour, the then President of the Board of 
 
 Trade, in moving for leave to introduce the Bill, explained 
 
 that :— 
 
 " Tt was an outcome of the recommendations of the Royal 
 Commission, but in some unimportant particulars it did not 
 follow those recommendations. It was not proposed to include 
 the powers and duties of the Trinity House among the functions 
 to be transferred to the new authority. The advice of the 
 Commissioners as to the purchase of the docks had been taken ; 
 but the Government did not see their way to place the new- 
 authority under the obligation of disposing as soon as possible 
 of the dock companies' warehouses. The authority would be 
 at hberty either to dispose of the warehouses or to retain them. 
 The financial proposals in the Bill differed in two respects from 
 the recommendations of the Commissioners. The Commis- 
 missioners suggested that a municipal guarantee should be 
 given jointly by the London County Council and the City 
 Corporation ; but it had been decided that it should be given 
 by the London County Council alone. Then the Bill provided 
 that the debentures of the dock companies should be com- 
 pulsorily redeemable. 
 
 " With regard to the constitution of the port authority, 
 the scheme in the Bill varied very materially from the Com- 
 missioners' 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 ships, ten by the 
 commercial community, four by the wharfingers, and two by 
 the owners of river craft. To protect the interests of the rate- 
 payers it was provided that, if at any time the revenues of the 
 Board should be insufficient 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." 
 
 On the second reading of the Bill, Sir F. Dixon Hartland, 
 M.P., moved its rejection. Mr. D. Morgan seconded the 
 
 Q 2
 
 244 
 
 amendment. Mr. Buxton, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Vicary Gibbs, 
 Mr. Lyttelton, and Mr. Bryce expressed general approval of the 
 proposals in the Bill. Mr. Gerald Balfour stated that if the 
 warehouses and wharves were bought, it would involve a loss 
 by the new authority of £400,000 or £500,000 a year ; moreover, 
 they could not be purchased for less than £13,000,000. The 
 Board of Trade would be prepared to consider any proposals 
 which the wharfingers would bring forward in Committee. He 
 showed that there was no probability of any call being made 
 on the rates, and pointed out that the present income from 
 the port left a large margin of safety. After further debate, 
 in which Sir J. Dimsdale urged that a larger share of represen- 
 tation should be given to the London County Council, the 
 amendment was withdrawn, and the Bill was read a second time 
 and referred to a Joint Committee. In the middle of July, 1903, 
 the Bill was reported with amendments, and on August 12th, 
 1903, on the motion of Mr. A. J. Balfour, the then Prime 
 Minister, further proceedings were suspended until the next 
 session of Parliament. 
 
 The L.C.C. Port of London Bill, 1905. 
 
 In 1905, the London County Council promoted a Bill under 
 which it was proposed to hand over the administration of the 
 Port of London to a Commission, to be composed of 40 members, 
 24 of whom would be appointed by the London County Council. 
 
 On March 14th, 1905, the Council decided to proceed with 
 their Port of London Bill. 
 
 Mr. McKinnon Wood (the leader of the Progressive 
 party), sj^eaking in the Council on that occasion, said the 
 Government must take the responsibility of rejecting the 
 Bill. There was no ground or reason why they (the Council) 
 should withdraw. They were merely proceeding to bring 
 about a reform which the Government had sanctioned in 
 general terms, and if the Government had changed their 
 minds the Government must take the responsibility. 
 
 After some discussion, in which it was pointed out that 
 the Council's Bill differed very materially from the Government's 
 proposals, a motion to drop the Bill was rejected.
 
 245 
 
 In the House of Commons, on April 13th, 1905, speaking 
 in opposition to the second reading of this Bill, Mr. Bonar Law, 
 the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who 
 advised the House, on behalf of the Board of Trade, to reject 
 the Bill, insisted that a subject of such importance should be 
 dealt with by the Government, if it was touched at all. The 
 principle on which the County Council had proceeded was dia- 
 metrically opposed to the principle which the Government 
 adopted ; and, in his opinion, it would hardly be possible to 
 create a more unsatisfactory body for the management of the 
 docks than that which this Bill would constitute. The payers 
 of dues were the people who would 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 {Summary 
 Column), April 14th, 1905. 
 
 The Bill was then thrown out by 191 to 123 votes. 
 
 Debate in the Council, 1905. 
 
 On November 8th, 1905, a report from the Rivers Com- 
 mittee was considered by the Council. The Committee recom- 
 mended : — 
 
 " That the necessary measures be taken for promoting a 
 Bill in the next Session of Parliament, providing for the establish- 
 ment 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 remaining 12 to be trade and 
 shipping representatives " ; and providing that such Com- 
 mission should purchase the undertakings 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 port. 
 
 Sir T. Brooke-Hitching (M.) moved an amendment that 
 the report should be referred back to the Committee in order 
 that, before the Council committed itself to the principle of 
 purchase, expert opinion might be taken on the question of 
 the practicability of deepening the river by means of dredging, 
 or the alternative plan of obtaining permanent deep v/ater 
 by means of the erection of a barrage with ship locks at Gravesend. 
 
 Mr. Brandon (M.) seconded the amendment.
 
 246 
 
 Mr. Bruce (P.) opposed the amendment on the ground that 
 a barrage would destroy the Port of London. Any slackening 
 of the river's flow would result in the sandbanks below Gravesend 
 expanding and filling up the existing channel. 
 
 The amendment was rejected. ; 
 
 Mr. H. P. Harris (M.) moved an amendment that the repre- 
 sentation of the Council on the Commission should be 15, and 
 not 24 members. 
 
 The Earl of Malmesbury (M.) seconded the amendment, 
 which was rejected on a show of hands. 
 
 Lord Welby (P.) (on behalf of, and at the request of, tbe 
 Finance Committee) moved an amendment, which was seconded 
 by Mr. Bruce (P.), that to Clause 12 of Recommendation (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, pro- 
 vided that such power is only to be exercised by the Port Com- 
 mission in the event of the revenue of the Port Fund being 
 insufficient, 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." 
 
 On a division the amendment was rejected by 42 votes to 35. 
 
 The recommendations of the Committee were then carried. 
 
 The Present Government's Intentions. 
 
 As shown by the following, it is now evidently the intention 
 of the present Government not to legislate in regard to the 
 Port of London before 1908. 
 
 " Mr. Lloyd George (the President of the Board of Trade) 
 made the important announcement at the annual Shipping 
 Gazette dinner, held on November 20th, 1906, at the Trocadero 
 Restaurant in London, that he does not propose to proceed 
 with a Port of London scheme for another year. 
 
 Mr. Lloyd George said 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 ougiit not to be delayed long. Those great
 
 247- 
 
 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 subsidies. 
 He asked his hearers not to close their minds altogether against 
 the suggestion of municipal support, because it was of vital 
 importance to London that it should retain its position as a 
 cheap port."— T^e Tribune, November 21st, 1906. 
 
 Views of the Chamber of Connmerce. 
 
 " In view of the fact that a Port of London Bill is expected 
 to be produced by the Government next year,* the Chamber of 
 Commerce has been considering what representations it shall 
 make to the President of the Board of Trade as to the lines on 
 which the measure shall proceed, and a special general meeting 
 of the members was held at the Cannon Street Hotel, on Novem- 
 ber 13th, 1906, for the purpose. Mr. T. F. Blackwell occupied 
 the chair. Among others present were Sir Fortescue Flannery, 
 Sir A. Rollit, Sir Roper Parkington, Sir G. Livesey, Mr. Rowland 
 Alston, Mr. Frank I)ebenham, and Mr. Kenric B. Murray 
 (secretary). 
 
 " In opening the proceedings Mr. Blackwell said that the 
 Chamber had been considering the subject of the Port of London 
 almost continuously for the last six years and had urged the 
 appointment of a Port Trust. The Council had drawn up a 
 resolution which would be submitted to the meeting, the object 
 of the Chamber being to secure the good and the progress of the 
 trade of the port. 
 
 " Mr. Kenric Murray having read a memorandum on the 
 history of the subject during the last six years, 
 " Sir A. Rollit moved :— 
 
 " ' That in the opinion of the Council the President of the 
 Board of Trade should be informed, in reply to his request, 
 that from the commercial point of view the purchase of the 
 docks is regarded as inexpedient ; also that the imposition 
 of heavy dues on goods is opposed to the general feeling and 
 action of the Chamber ; but, subject as above, the Council 
 confirm its previous resolutions in favour of the constitution 
 of a representative Port Authority for London, with adequate 
 powers and financial resources, the latter of which should 
 be aided by guarantees and contributions from both the 
 State and municipal authorities.' 
 In doing so, he said that the Council might have acted on its 
 own responsibility, but in so important a matter it had preferred 
 to summon a meeting of the members. The Chamber of Com- 
 merce adhered in the main to its previous proposals, but it had 
 in some respects altered its views. 
 
 * This meeting took place before Mr. Lloyd George's announcement
 
 248 
 
 " An element of previous proposals had been the purchase of 
 the docks and warehouses, but after consulting the traders, the 
 Council were of opinion that compulsory purchase under a 
 statute was inadvisable. The existing docks were not equipped, 
 and had not the depth required for a really modern port, and 
 to acquire them under the Lands Clauses Act would mean 
 heavy compensation, and would be a burden, not a benefit, to 
 the port. While the Council objected to increased dues, it 
 was bound to be practical, and if the port was to be improved 
 the Port Authority must have the means to do its work, therefore 
 the resolution indicated that to some extent dues might be 
 levied, but he was against heavy dues. He thought this was 
 pre-eminently a case in which the great public bodies should 
 take interest and financial responsibility, for without municipal 
 and State support, the Port Authority could not borrow money 
 cheaply. The Thames belonged not merely to London, but to 
 the whole Kingdom, and the County Council, the Corporation, 
 the municipalities should take their part by guarantee or other- 
 wise in the great work. 
 
 " Mr. L. A. Martin seconded the resolution. 
 
 Amendment, moved and negatived. 
 
 " Mr. Innes Rogers moved as an amendment : — 
 
 '" That a central authority for the control of the Port of 
 London is unnecessary unless that authority purchase and 
 manage the docks.' 
 He contended that the resolution was indefinite. It was a 
 truism to say that it was inexpedient to purchase the docks, 
 but nothing could be done without that purchase. Everyone, 
 including the Council, had been persuaded of that, yet now 
 they were reversing that decision. It really was a case of 
 unreasoning panic, and there would be no heavy burden. The 
 deepening of the river was no good without docks, and a public 
 body could scarcely build new docks in opposition to those now 
 existing. They represented not only waterside manufacturers 
 and short-sea traders, but the whole of London, and they must 
 not shirk their responsibilities. 
 
 " Mr. J. C. Pillman seconded the amendment, declaring the 
 original resolution to be a most milk-and-watery production. 
 He praised Mr. Gerald Balfour's Bill, and hoped the present 
 Government would adopt it in some form, as it had been well 
 discussed. 
 
 " Mr. David Howard, as a riverside manufacturer,- said that 
 if they were to be. taxed for the benefit of the merchants of 
 London they would have to give up and take their works abroad. 
 When it became evident that a fabulous price would have to be 
 paid for the docks, thus making London a dearer port than 
 ever, he changed his view as to their acquisition.
 
 249 
 
 " Mr. Frank Debenham suggested the introduction of the 
 word ' compulsory ' before the word ' purchase ' in the resolution, 
 and this was agreed to. 
 
 " Sir G. Livesey declared that the docks were largely obsolete, 
 and he hoped no State or municipal money would be used to 
 buy them. He certainly wanted no representation of the County 
 Council on the Port Authority. To introduce county councillors 
 in a business affair would, in his belief, be fatal to it. 
 
 " Several other speeches having been made, the amendment 
 was negatived on a show of hands, but when the chairman 
 proceeded to put the resolution several gentlemen pro'^ested, 
 one on the ground that no merchant had been heard, another 
 because the shipping interest had not been invited to express 
 its views, while a third declared he had an amendment to pro- 
 pose. There were cries of ' adjourn,' and the chairman called 
 for a show of hands as to an adjournment, when 33 votes were 
 recorded for the adjournment and only 17 against. The 
 proceedings were therefore adjourned." — The Morning Post, 
 November 14th, 1906. 
 
 L.C.C. Annual Report, 1906. 
 
 The Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Council for 
 the year ended March 31st, 1906 (pages 258 to 260) states : — 
 
 " Administration of tlie Port of London. 
 
 " The Council has long been impressed with the necessity 
 of effecting reforms in the administration of the Port of London 
 and improvements in its accommodation, and it has again and 
 again urged the danger of the existing conditions and the 
 necessity for a comprehensive scheme of improvement, 
 
 " It was after strong representations had been made by 
 the Council to the Government in the earl}^ part of 1900, that 
 the Royal Commission of the Port of London was appointed, 
 and the report which they made in June, 1902, after exhaustive 
 inquiries, conclusively justified the attitude of the Council. 
 
 " It is not here necessary to refer in detail to the recom- 
 mendations of the Royal Commission, as they have already 
 been so fully discussed in previous annual reports, as well as 
 in reports made by the Committee to the Council during recent 
 years {vide Council Minutes, July 15th, 1902, pp. 1073-1080, 
 May 19th, 1903, pp. 733-807, November 8th, 1904, pp. 2558- 
 2568). It is sufficient to say that the Commission recommended 
 the creation of a central public authority for the administration 
 of the port and docks in place of the numerous authorities which 
 now have divided jurisdiction thereover, and that the Com-
 
 250 
 
 mission advised that the Council should contribute £2,500,000 
 for deepening the channel of the river, and should guarantee 
 the interest on the port stock required to be raised for the pur- 
 chase of the undertakings of the London and India, Surrey- 
 Commercial and Millwall Dock Companies, and for the extension 
 and improvement of the dock accommodation. 
 
 " The facts stated in the report of the Royal Commission, 
 and the conclusions at which they had unanimously arrived, 
 profoundly excited public opinion, and the Government in the 
 Session of 1903 introduced a Bill based mainly on the recom- 
 mendations of the Commission. This Bill was given a pro- 
 minent position in the legislative programme of the Government, 
 and passed its second reading in the House of Commons without 
 a division. It was referred to a Joint Select Committee of 
 both Houses of Parliament, presided over by Viscount Cross, 
 which, after an inquiry extending over 14 days, passed it with 
 certain amendments. The Council, feeling the subject to be 
 one of vital concern to the interests of London, did not hesitate 
 to express its willingness to undertake, subject to proper safe- 
 guards, the large financial responsibilities proposed to be placed 
 upon it, and its views were put in evidence before the Joint 
 Committee. No further progress was, however, made with the 
 Bill in the Session of 1903, but a resolution was passed by the 
 House of Commons suspending proceedings upon it until the 
 Session of 1904. At the commencement of that Session the 
 Government expressed their hope of proceeding with the Bill, 
 but the Session passed without any further progress being made 
 with it. In these circumstances the Council, being impressed 
 with the urgency of the matter, decided itself to introduce a 
 Bill in the following Session, and based its provisions largely 
 upon those of the Govermnent Bill in the form in which it was 
 proposed to be finally amended by the Government. The 
 Council's Bill was not, however, allowed by the Government 
 to pass its second reading, one of the arguments used by Mr. 
 Bonar Law in asking the House of Commons to reject it, being 
 that the subject dealt with was too large to be treated in a private 
 Bill. This argument, if valid, shows that the subject is one which 
 should be dealt with by the Government, and emphasises the 
 importance of effective steps being taken in the matter. 
 
 " It is true that, by the Thames Conservancy Act of 1905, 
 the Thames Conservancy Board have obtained authority from 
 Parliament to deepen the river from the Nore to Gravesend 
 so as to provide a channel 30 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide, but 
 this is only a comparatively small section of the improvements 
 recommended by the Royal Commission, and it is doubtful 
 whether the carrying out of this dredging work will prove any 
 very great benefit to the port so long as no steps are taken to 
 extend and improve the existing dock accommodation which 
 the Royal Commission pronounced to be inadequate to meet
 
 251 
 
 the increased and increasing demands of modern commerce. 
 In fact, deepening the river as far as Gravesend without carrying 
 out the other improvements of the river, docks, and dock entrances, 
 which are a necessary corollary, may result in greater congestion 
 at or near the entrances to the 'docks. 
 
 " In order to provide funds for the dredging of this channel 
 the Thames Conservancy have been authorised by the Act to 
 double their dues on shipping during the next three years, and 
 it is impossible to say at this stage what effect this may have 
 upon the volume of shipping entering the port, especially as 
 no further facilities are required to be provided for the rapid 
 discharge of the vessels. It will be remembered that the Royal 
 Commission specially referred to the delays experienced under 
 the present conditions, and emphasised the urgent necessity for 
 such improvements as would enable vessels to be more quickly 
 discharged. 
 
 " It is significant that at a time when no effective steps have 
 been taken to secure the reforms which are urgently needed 
 in the interests of London and its Port, the authorities of other 
 ports which enter more or less into competition with London 
 are proposing to expend large sums of money in their 
 improvement. 
 
 " Valuable information on this subject is contained in a 
 report by the statistical officer, a copy of which was sent to 
 each member of the Council, in November, 1905. Particulars 
 were given in this report as to the proposal to make a large 
 extension of the Port of Antwerp northward {i.e., seawards) of 
 the existing quays and docks. It was proposed by this scheme 
 to construct a locked basin across a bend of the river with a 
 series of docks extending from it on the right, and also to make 
 a new channel for the river about five miles long parallel with 
 the new basin. The carr}'ing out of this scheme would greatly 
 increase the accommodation of the Port of Antwerp, the length 
 of the existing river quays being 3J miles, while the length 
 available for the new quays would be about 8| miles. The 
 length of the quays of the existing docks (including some then in 
 course of construction) was 9*9 miles. The quayage of the new 
 docks to be constructed under this scheme would be 28'8 miles. 
 The estimated cost of the construction of the dock canal and 
 the new river channel, which was to be carried out by the 
 Belgian Government, was stated in the British Consul's report 
 to be £7,500,000. The cost of the nine great docks and of the 
 dry docks, which were apparently to be constructed by the muni- 
 cipaUty out of moneys advanced by the Government, would be 
 a very large additional amount. The carrying out of a scheme of 
 this nature would of course extend over a number of years, and 
 its progress would no doubt be regulated by the requirements 
 of the increased shipping of the port.
 
 252 
 
 " The report further stated that very extensive improve- 
 ments had recently been, and were being, carried out at the 
 Port of Hamburg. Although between 1882 and 1888 the port 
 was completely reconstructed at a cost of about £6,000,000, 
 heavy expenditure had since been incurred, both in providing 
 inew docks and in deepening the channel of the river. In 1902 
 a new large dock was completed, and in 1903 two further docks 
 — these last two costing about £1,600,000. In 1902 a new large 
 ■dock at Cuxhaven, an outport of Hamburg, was also completed. 
 In the work of dredging, Hamburg spends a large sum annually, 
 and it was pointed out in the report that it also appeared that 
 the town, in co-operation with the Government of Prussia, was 
 about to undertake an extensive scheme for improving the 
 course of the Elbe below Hamburg so as to provide for the 
 largest class of vessels. 
 
 " As regards the Poit of Rotterdam the statistical ofl&cer 
 reported that extensive works of improvement had from time 
 to time been made, with the result that there was between the 
 sea and Rotterdam, a distance of 18 miles, a navigable channel 
 at least 1,000 feet wide, and, except for one comparatively 
 small portion which was being dredged, 29 feet deep at low 
 water. Other works, including the construction of a large dock, 
 were in course of construction, and it was understood that further 
 dock extensions were contemplated. 
 
 " Attention was called in the report to the fact that large 
 sums had already been spent in providing dock accommodation 
 at Bremerhaven, which is situated at the mouth of the Weser, 
 Bremen being 70 miles higher up the river, and that an agreement 
 had been concluded between the State of Bremen and the 
 North German Lloyd Steamship Company for the extension of 
 the dock and wharfage accommodation of the port at an esti- 
 mated cost of about £2,300,000. 
 
 " As regards the improvement of British ports, to which 
 the report also referred, the largest scheme was that propounded 
 for Liverpool. In July, 1905, the Mersey Docks and Harbour 
 Board decided to apply in the next Session of ParHament for 
 authority to carry out a large scheme of dock extension at a 
 cost which, it was stated, would amount to £4,027,500. The 
 new docks are to have a depth of 40 ft. of water on the sills, and 
 one of them will provide accommodation for vessels 1,000 feet 
 long. This board has in the last fifteen years expended on 
 capital account £8,489,717, of which £5,614,790 was expended in 
 the last six years. In the same fifteen years, the capital expendi- 
 ture on the Port of London by the London dock companies and 
 the Thames Conservancy has not exceeded £2,500,000. In 
 addition to the money which the Mersey docks and Harbour 
 Board is seeking authority to raise for constructing the new 
 docks, it has unexhausted borrowing powers amounting to 
 £2,277,707.
 
 253 
 
 j" The Bristol Corporation is proceeding steadily with the 
 improvement of its port, and it was stated in the report that 
 its capital expenditura during the last fifteen years had amounted 
 to £1,925,748, of which £1,400,235 had been expended in the last 
 six years. In this connection it should be born'i in mind that 
 the shipping of Bristol is less than one-eighth of that of London. 
 
 " At Southampton a new graving dock capable of accommo- 
 dating vessels 250 feet longer than any now afloat was opened 
 in November, 1905, and considerable works are in progress at Dover. 
 
 " The subjoined table, compiled from statistics contained 
 in the report, shows the number and tonnage of shipping with 
 cargoes and in ballast which entered the ports of London, 
 Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Liverpool, Bristol, Southampton 
 and Dover in the years 1899-1904 : — 
 
 
 London. 
 
 Antwerp, t 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 1899 .. 
 
 1900 .. 
 
 1901 .. 
 
 1902 .. 
 
 1903 .. 
 
 1904 .. 
 
 26,226 
 25,814 
 26,421 
 26,810 
 27,359 
 27,098 
 
 15,388,228 
 15,553,001 
 15,952,453 
 16,298,412 
 17,075,313 
 17,073,852 
 
 5,420 
 5,244 
 5,209 
 5,607 
 5,761 
 5,852 
 
 6,842,163* 
 6,691,791* 
 7,510.938* 
 8,427,779* 
 9,131,831* 
 9,400,335* 
 
 
 
 Rottei 
 
 •dam.f 
 
 Hamburg.! 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 1899 .. 
 
 1900 .. 
 
 1901 .. 
 
 1902 .. 
 
 1903 .. 
 
 1904 .. 
 
 6.890 
 7,268 
 6.881 
 6,755 
 7,499 
 7.692 
 
 6.323,072 
 
 6.326.901:1: 
 
 6,382,934 
 
 6, .546,473 
 
 7,626.263 
 
 7.657,707 
 
 13,312 
 13,102 
 
 12,847 
 13,284 
 14.028 
 14,859 
 
 7,765,950 
 8,037,514 
 8,383,365 
 8,727.294 
 9,155.926 
 9,611,732 
 
 * Since January 1st, 1884, the net registered tonnage of Belgian ships 
 has been calculated by Moorsom's system, under which the actual space 
 occupied by the machinery is deducted from the gross tonnage of the 
 ship, whereas in England a deduction of 32 per cent, is made for engine-room 
 space. This is generally understood to be too large, and it has been esti- 
 mated that as a result Belgian tonnages are about 10 per cent, higher than 
 they would be if measured by the English system. 
 
 ■j" Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Hamburg have in addition a large trade 
 by canal. For example, the number of boats (laden and empty) which 
 entered the port of Antwerp by canal was in 1902, 32,120; and in 1903, 
 33,940. The tonnage of such boats was in 1902, 5,705,731 ; and in 1903, 
 6,319,626. 
 
 + In 1900 there was an alteration in the method of ascertaining the net 
 tonnage of certain vessels, which resulted in reducing the total tonnage.
 
 254 
 
 Year. 
 
 1899 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 
 Liverpool. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 Bristol. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 20,197 
 20,300 
 20,100 
 19,853 
 19,906 
 20,526 
 
 9,468,115 
 
 9,315.674 
 
 9,704.160 
 
 10,178,956 
 
 10,991,939 
 
 11,083,856 
 
 8,786 
 
 8,279 
 
 8.,332 
 
 10,347 
 
 10.787 
 
 12,671 
 
 1,556,089 
 1.441,341 
 1,566,112 
 1,715,796 
 1,792,685 
 1,911,516 
 
 
 Southampton. 
 
 Dover. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Tonnage. 
 
 1899 .. 
 
 1900 .. 
 
 1901 .. 
 
 1902 .. 
 
 1903 .. 
 1903 .. 
 
 11,796 
 12,235 
 12,444 
 13,203 
 
 12,888 
 13,099 
 
 2,784,013 
 2,805,098 
 2.892.346 
 3.062.670 
 3.317.908 
 3,621,099 
 
 4.171 
 
 3,898 
 4,268 
 4,138 
 4,125 
 4.171 
 
 1,147,859 
 1,139,171 
 1,144,713 
 1,184,644 
 1.140,684 
 1,960,451 
 
 " It i.s, however, somewhat difficult to compare the ports 
 of London and Antwerp in this respect, owing to the fact, as 
 stated below, that the British and Belgian systems of measure- 
 ment of registered tonnage are not similar. At Antwerp also 
 there is a large canal traffic which may, however, to some extent 
 be regarded as comparable with the coastwise shipping of 
 London, but, even taking the total shipping of London (and 
 excluding the canal traffic of Antwerp) it will be seen that the 
 increase in the shipping of Antwerp in six years, 1899-1904, 
 is 67 per cent, in excess of the increase in the total shipping 
 of London, which much more than allows for any difference 
 between the Belgian and English tonnage measurement. 
 
 " The Committee drew the attention of the Council on 
 November 21st, 1905, to the facts referred to in the preceding 
 paragraphs, and pointed out that, notwithstanding the fact 
 that the large improvements and extensions referred to were in 
 contemplation or in course of being carried out at other ports, 
 there seemed no probability under the present conditions of any 
 adequate steps being taken to carry out the improvements 
 required in the interests of the Port of London ; further, that 
 it was quite clear that the London dock companies were in no 
 better position to meet the requirements of the situation than 
 they were when the report of the Eoyal Commission was issued. 
 The Council, as the Committee also pointed out, had been
 
 255 
 
 actuated in its policy of urging the creation of a properly consti ■ 
 tuted public authority by the consideration that the volume 
 of manufactures in London and the adjacent districts was 
 greater than in any other manufacturing town in the United 
 Kingdom, and that a vast population was engaged in its indus- 
 tries, which to a large extent depended upon the importation 
 of foreign material and goods. The prosperity of the port 
 being therefore of vital importance to London and the large 
 communities which surround it, the Committee expressed the 
 fear that, unless effective steps were taken to remedy the con- 
 ditions referred to by the Royal Commission, London would 
 lose its pre-eminence both as regards manufactures and shipping. 
 On the other hand, the improvement of the port would mean 
 increase of employment, and could not fail to be of great and 
 lasting benefit to the community. 
 
 " As a result of the consideration of the Committee's report, 
 the Council, on November 28th, 1905, passed the following 
 resolution : — 
 
 " That this Council regrets that, owing to the action 
 of the Government, no great reform of the Port of London 
 has been carried out during the present Parhament, and 
 again emphasises its opinion that in the general interest of 
 London it is of urgent importance that an immediate reform 
 of the control of the Port of London should take place. 
 
 " As the Council is aware, the late Government resigned in 
 
 December, 1905, and the Committee have since then been 
 carefully considering what further action it should recom- 
 mend the Council to take with regard to the administration 
 of the Port." 
 
 Printed & Published by Vacher & Sons, Great Smith Street, S.W. — 3885
 
 XNOEX. 
 
 Accounts, tramway . . 
 
 Ad hoc authority, Progressive advocacy.. 
 
 Administration of the Port of London . . 
 
 Administrative powers and duties, table 
 
 Advantages of tramway lease, 1895 
 
 Advisory Board of Engineers, on street improvements 
 
 Aerated Bread Company and high rates 
 
 Anstruther, IVIr. H. T., on enlarged L.C.C. 
 
 Antwerp, extensions of port 
 
 Architect's department, increase . . 
 
 ,, report on voluntary schools . . 
 
 Asquith, the Right Hon. H. H., K.C., M.P., on local go 
 
 ment 
 Asylums Committee 
 
 „ „ on Claybury Asylum supplies 
 
 Audit, necessity for a proper . . . . . . . . 
 
 Auditor {L.G.B.).—See Mr. T. Barclay Cockerton. 
 Authorities, central and local, powers and duties 
 Avebury, Lord, on Sir H. Fowler's return 
 
 62, 
 
 vern- 
 
 68, 77 
 136 
 249 
 202 
 53 
 111 
 40 
 219 
 251 
 231 
 130 
 
 209 
 
 182 
 
 39 
 
 85 
 
 197 
 20 
 
 Baker, Sir Benjamin, report on floodings 
 
 ,, „ ,, presides over Sanitary Institute meeting 
 
 Baker, Mr. J. Allen, M.P., on over bridge tramways . . 
 Balfour, Right Hon. Gerald, M.P., and municipal trading 
 
 „ „ „ „ on Port of London Bill 
 
 Beachcroft, Sir R. M., on electrification 
 
 „ ,, ,, enlarged L.C.C. 
 
 Beacons field. Lord, on health of the people 
 Belfast, Ti-ades Unions' Conference 
 Benn, Sir J. W., M.P., on electrification 
 
 „ „ election leaflet . . 
 
 „ ,, article by 
 
 Binnie, Sir A., report on main drainage 
 Blackpool tramways 
 
 Black well, Mr. T. F., on Port of London 
 Blatchford, Mr. R., on wages and Socialism 
 Board, Traffic. — See Traffic Commission. 
 Boroughs, cost of lighting 
 Borough Councils. — See Authorities. 
 Bray, Mr., resolution on rehgious instruction 
 Bread Act, offences 
 
 160 
 
 168 
 
 100 
 
 3 
 
 243, 244 
 
 57 
 
 223 
 
 172 
 
 13 
 
 57 
 
 59 
 
 61 
 
 162, 164 
 
 6, 45 
 
 247 
 
 19 
 
 35 
 
 131 
 192
 
 11. 
 
 Bremerhaven, extension of port . . 
 
 Bridges Committee . . 
 
 Bristol, extension of port . . 
 
 "British Weekly," on M.P.'s and L.C.C members .. 
 
 ,, „ condemnation of Progressive educational 
 
 policy 
 
 Brockwell Park 
 
 Broken Progressive pledges. Education . . 
 
 Brooke-Hitching, Sir T. H., on Port of London Bill. 1905 
 
 Bruce, Mr., on Port of London Bill 
 
 Brush Electrical Engineering Company, strike 
 
 " Builder, The," on Building Act, 1905 
 
 Building Act Committee 
 
 „ „ „ report on Act of 1905 
 
 Building Acts, London and L.C.C. 
 Burns, Right Hon. J., M.P., and the Earl of Wemyss and 
 
 March 
 
 ,, ,, and traffic 
 
 Burne- Jones, Sir P., on floodings . . 
 Buxton, Mr. A. P., on depreciation charges 
 Buxton, the Right Hon. Sydney C, M.P., on collectivism 
 
 252 
 182 
 253 
 174 
 
 135 
 180 
 125 
 245 
 246 
 45 
 232 
 183 
 235 
 228 
 
 43 
 99 
 166 
 09 
 17 
 
 Carter, Mr. (of Preston), municipal trading return 
 Chamber of Commerce, London, and Port of London . . 
 Chamberlain, Right Hon. J., M.P., on London government 
 
 ,, „ ,, municipal „ 
 
 Claybury Asylum, report on supplies 
 Clifford, Dr. J., and Progressive party . . 
 Cockerton, Mr. T. Barclay, on street widenings 
 ,, ,. ., report on ,, 
 
 Col vile. Col. C. F., on enlarged L.C.C 
 
 Comparison of Glasgow and London depreciation allowances . . 
 Committees of L.C.C, description . . 
 
 "Confiscation Bill " 
 
 "Contemporary Review," Mr. J. Holt Schooling on 
 
 depreciation 
 "Cooking" accounts. — See "Evening News." 
 Cornwall, Sir E., on syndicate and tramway system, quoted . . 
 Cost of education 
 
 „ abolishing voluntary schools 
 CoAvper-Temple teaching 
 
 37 
 247 
 199 
 211 
 
 39 
 156 
 
 64 
 
 66 
 221 
 
 71 
 182 
 229 
 
 70 
 137 
 143 
 130 
 
 "Daily Graphic," on Education (Provision of Meals) Bill 
 " Daily Mail," on municipal tradmg 
 ,, .. on reduced fares . . 
 
 Darwin, Major L., work 
 
 158 
 10 
 
 80 
 4
 
 Ul. 
 
 Davies, Mr. I). K., on municipal extravagance . . 
 Davies, Mr. J. T., on L.CJ.B. and Wood (Jreen audit 
 Debates (L.C.C.) on enlarged powers of L.C.C. . . 
 
 Port of London Bill, 1905 
 Debt of London 
 Depreciation charges, tramway 
 
 ,, ,, Glasgow and London compared 
 
 Deputation, L.C.C, on Port of London . . 
 Dew, Mr. C, on tramway fares . . 
 Dickinson, Mr. W. H"., ^I.P., on land ownership 
 
 „ „ on cost of street widenings 
 
 „ „ quoted by Mr. H. P. Harris 
 
 Disestablishment, Dr. CUfford's goal . . . . 
 
 District surveyors, position 
 
 ,, fees 
 
 Divisions (L.C.C), Mr. Bray's amendment on religious 
 
 instruction 
 „ „ Mr. McKinnon Wood's resolution on West 
 
 Riding judgment 
 ,, ,, enlarged L.C.C 
 
 Docks, purchase of. — See Port of London. 
 Dod, Councillor F. A., resolution on main drainage 
 Dolman, Mr. P., on enlarged L.C.C. 
 
 80 
 
 85 
 
 216 
 
 245 
 
 29 
 
 68 
 
 71 
 
 238 
 
 77 
 
 10 
 
 64 
 
 212 
 
 157 
 
 215 
 
 232 
 
 131 
 
 152 
 225 
 
 169 
 223 
 
 Economy, the Karl of Rosebery on 
 Education . . 
 
 Religious teaching and Acts . . 
 
 Education (London) Act, 1903 
 
 Broken Progressive pledges . . 
 
 Non-provided v. L.C.C. teaching . . ' 
 
 Nonconformist condemnation of L.C.C. 
 
 Progressives and oA hoc authority . . 
 
 Question of cost . . 
 
 Progi'essive condemnation of policy. . 
 
 Increase of officialism . . 
 
 Bad administration 
 
 Paramoimt head wanted 
 
 West Riding judgment 
 
 Provision of meals 
 Education Committee 
 
 ,, ,, report on West Riding judgment 
 
 „ ,, ,, „ imderfed childien 
 
 (Provision of Meals) Bill, 1906 
 Edwards, Mr. George, A.B.C. and high rates 
 Eltham Park 
 
 Employees' votes, municipal trading 
 Employees, tramway 
 Employment of Children Act, 1903 
 Engineer's report on floodings 
 
 30 
 124 
 124 
 125 
 125 
 134 
 135 
 136 
 137 
 141 
 142 
 145 
 148 
 151 
 158 
 184 
 154 
 157 
 158 
 
 40 
 
 180 
 
 9 
 
 82 
 192 
 160
 
 IV. 
 
 Establishment charges and tramways 
 „ „ insufficiency 
 
 Estabhshment Committee . . 
 
 Estimate cost of main drainage works 
 
 Estimates, tramway 1906-7 
 
 " Evening News," on " cooking " accounts 
 
 22 
 
 74 
 76 
 184 
 161, 171 
 90 
 34 
 
 " Fabian Essays on Socialism," quoted . . . . . . . . 13 
 
 Fabian Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
 
 Fares, tramway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 
 
 „ ,, reduced . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 
 
 Finlay, Sir R., K.C., opinion on West Riding judgment 151, 156 
 
 Finance Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 
 
 „ „ report on dwellings . . . . . . . . 38 
 
 „ „ report on purchase of tramway lines . . 51, 55 
 
 ,, ,, on depreciation charges . . . . . . 69 
 
 „ ,, „ establishment ,, . . . . . . 75 
 
 „ „ ,, cost of main drainage . . . . . . 171 
 
 Fire Brigade Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 
 
 Floodings. — See Main Drainage. 
 
 Food supplying companies and rates . . . . . . . . 40 
 
 "Fortnightly Review," Mr. Holt Schooling's analysis.. .. 22 
 
 Fowler, the Right Hon. Sir H. H., municipal trading return 20 
 
 „ „ ,, on municipal expenditure 29 
 
 Fulham Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 
 
 Gaskell, Mr. T. P., on enlarged L.C.C 
 
 Gas Light and Coke Company and municipal ventures 
 Gautrey, Mr., on education estimates 
 
 General Power Distribution Bill, 1897, and municipalities 
 General Purposes Committee 
 
 ,, ,, ,, report on main drainage 
 
 Giffen, Sir Robert, on Imperial and local finance 
 
 Gilbert, Mr. J. D., on enlarged L.C.C 
 
 Glanville, Mr. H. J., on enlarged L.C.C. . . 
 
 Glasgow and London depreciation charges, compared . . 
 
 Golder's Hill 
 
 Gomme, Mr. G. L., evidence on street widenings 
 
 224 
 41 
 
 141 
 6 
 
 186 
 
 168 
 22, 24 
 
 220 
 
 221 
 71 
 
 180 
 64 
 
 H 
 
 Haldane, Right. Hon. R.B., K.C., M.P., on nationalisation 16 
 
 „ „ „ „ opinion on electri- 57 
 
 fication . . 
 
 Hamburg, extension of port . . . . , 252
 
 Hardie, Mr. J. Keir, M.P., on municipal employees 
 
 L.C.C. election, 1901 
 Hai-ris, Mr. H. P., lecture on London government 
 „ „ on enlarged L.C'.C. . . 
 
 „ ,, motion on Port of London Bill 
 
 Hatcham Liberal Club, Mr. S. Webb's lecture 
 Haward, Mr., on depreciation charges . . 
 Hemphill, Capt. the Hon. F., on tramway fares 
 
 ,, ,, on enlarged powers for L.C.C. 
 
 Hicks-Beach, 8ir M.—See St. Aldwyn, Viscount. 
 Highways Committee 
 
 „ ,, delay over electrification 
 
 Hopwood, Sir Francis, on Traffic Board 
 Home, Rev. Silvester, on L.C.C. educational policy 
 Housing, Traffic Commission 
 Housing of the Working Classes Committee 
 
 „ ,, „ ,, report on .•accounts 
 
 Howard, Mr. David, on Port of London 
 Huddersfield by-election 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 212 
 
 217 
 
 246 
 
 206 
 
 69 
 
 79 
 
 204 
 
 1S6 
 
 58 
 
 98 
 
 1.35 
 
 119 
 
 187 
 
 39 
 
 248 
 
 12 
 
 I 
 
 Idris, Mr. , on main drainage 
 
 Improvements Committee . . 
 
 Independent Labour Party 
 
 Industrial Freedom League, rates, debt., &c., table 
 
 Infant Life Protection Act, 1897 
 
 International Workers, &c.. Congress 
 
 Islington, cost of lighting . . 
 
 163 
 
 187 
 
 13, 14 
 
 28 
 
 192 
 
 14 
 
 35 
 
 •Jacks-of -all-trades, municipal .. .. .. .. .. H 
 
 Jephson, Canon, objections to L.C.C. educational methods 135, 150 
 
 ,, Mr., motion on taxation of motor omnibuses . . 7 
 
 -John, Mr. Tom, on teaching profession . . . . . . . . 134 
 
 " Justice," on tramway employees . . . . . . . . 82 
 
 Kenwood, Dr. H. R., on main drainage . . 
 
 Kershaw, Mr. N. T., on depreciation of works 
 
 Kimberley, late Earl of, on London Government Act, 1899 
 
 168 
 
 72 
 
 202 
 
 Land Xationalisation Society, conference 
 Law, Mr. A. Bonar, ]\I.P.. on House of Commons and munici 
 
 palities . . 
 Port of London Bill, 1905 
 Leroy-Beaulieu, M., economist, on local loans 
 
 16 
 
 44 
 
 245 
 
 30
 
 Tl. 
 
 Liberation Society, disestablishment conference 
 Lighting, cost of, London boroughs 
 " The Standard "on . . 
 Liverpool, dock extension . . 
 Livesey. Sir C4eorge. on Port of London 
 Lloyd-George, the Right Hon. D., M.P., on 
 
 municipal and 
 private enterprise 
 on Port of London 
 
 Local authorities and main drainage 
 „ loans . . 
 
 „ veto on locomotion schemes 
 „■ Government, &c.. Committee 
 Locomotion . . 
 
 Tramway lease . . . . . . . . . . 189L 
 
 Advantages of tramway lease, 1895 
 Electrification . . 
 Tramway financial results 
 Auditor's report (L.G.B.) 
 Depreciation charges, tramway 
 Repayment of capital expenditure . . 
 Tramway employees . . 
 Annual report on tramways, 1905-6 
 Tramway estimates, 1906-7 . . 
 Traffic Commission 
 
 „ ,. review of recommendations 
 
 Local veto 
 Progressive opposition to traffic recommendations 
 
 »' London," on Act of 1899 
 
 L.C.C. debate on Port of London Bill, 1905 
 „ (General Powers) Bill, 1906 
 ,, and -London Building Acts . .' 
 
 Port of London Bill, 1905 
 ,. resolution on Port of London 
 „ services and expenditure, " The Standard " on 
 London Building Acts Amendment Act, 1905 . . 
 London Government Act. 1899 . . 
 
 Acts 
 
 London Street Tramways Company. — See Locomotion 
 Longstaff, Dr., motion on main drainage 
 
 49 ; 1896, 
 
 157 
 
 35 
 
 42 
 
 252 
 
 249 
 
 110 
 246 
 164 
 
 28 
 
 100 
 
 188 
 
 47 
 
 53 
 
 53 
 
 58 
 
 61 
 
 66 
 
 68 
 
 74 
 
 82 
 
 87 
 
 90 
 
 92 
 
 106 
 
 100 
 
 117 
 
 202 
 
 245 
 
 43 
 
 228 
 
 245 
 
 255 
 
 7 
 
 229 
 
 200 
 
 208 
 
 163 
 
 M 
 
 Macnamara, Dr.. M.P., on educational authority 
 ,, L.S.B. administration 
 
 McDougall, Sir John, motions on main drainage 
 Main Drainage — Floodings 
 
 Delays 
 
 Progressives oppose reform . . 
 
 Local authorities and Borough Councils condemn 
 
 South London delegates, conference 
 Sanitary Institute discussion 
 Condemnation of Progi-essive policy 
 
 
 137 
 
 
 145 
 
 163. 
 
 165 
 
 , , 
 
 160 
 
 162. 
 
 164 
 
 163, 
 
 165 
 
 LC.C. 
 
 
 164. 
 
 170 
 
 
 167 
 
 
 168 
 
 .'. 
 
 172
 
 Vll. 
 
 Main Drainage Committee 
 
 ,, ,, ,, reports . . . . IfiO. 
 
 Manipulation of munieipal accounts 
 
 ,. ,. street wiclenings 
 
 Maintenance of Borough Councils, reasons for . . 
 
 Markets 
 
 " Megalomania, suppressed.' L.C.C. 
 
 Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, dock extension 
 
 Middlesex County Council and street widenings 
 
 Mill, John Stuart, on bureaucracy 
 
 Mond Gas Bill, 1901, and municipalities . . 
 
 " Morning Post," Mr. J. Holt Schooling's letter 
 
 „ ,, reasons against municipal trading 
 
 „ ,, on strikers and municipal pressures 
 
 „ ,, indictment of L.C.C. educational policy 
 
 ,, „ on reign of officialism . . 
 
 ,, on London fires 
 Motor omnibuses 
 
 motion for tax on 
 " Municipal Journal," on municipal trading and rates 
 Municipal reform, locomotion policy 
 ,, traffic jjolicy . . 
 „ „ education policy 
 
 „ ,, view of underfeeding 
 
 ,, ,, local government policy 
 
 Municipal Reform party and non -contentious work 
 MuNICIP.iL Tr.\ding 
 
 Municipal Reform policy, manifesto 
 Select Committees 
 Arguments against 
 Officialism ; cost and dangers 
 Employees" voting power 
 Increase of expenditure 
 Municipal jacks-of-all-trades . . 
 Socialism . . . . . . . . • 
 
 Progress retarded 
 
 Losses 
 
 Mr. J. Holt Schooling's analysis 
 
 Cost 
 
 Debt of London 
 
 Effects of extravagance 
 
 Effects of excessive borrowing 
 
 Deten'ent to private enterprise 
 
 Manipulation of accounts 
 
 Relief of rates . . . . . . , . 
 
 Dwellings accounts 
 Municipal v. private enterprise 
 Subsidy of mimicipal ventures 
 " Morning Post," reasons against 
 Opposition to private enterprise 
 Strikers and municipal pressure 
 
 124, 
 
 180 
 
 162. 171 
 
 33, 34 
 
 66 
 
 203 
 
 193 
 
 218 
 
 252 
 
 64 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 27 
 
 42- 
 
 45 
 
 146 
 
 148 
 
 186- 
 
 10f> 
 
 36. 
 
 47 
 
 122 
 
 137 
 
 158 
 
 216 
 
 178. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 1(> 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 17 
 
 2a 
 
 22 
 
 27 
 
 29 
 
 30 
 
 31 
 
 32 
 
 33 
 
 36 
 
 38 
 
 39 
 
 41 
 
 42 
 
 44 
 
 45
 
 Till. 
 
 N 
 
 Newcastle Corporation and tramways 
 
 Nicholson, Professor Shield, on revolution and invention 
 
 " Nineteenth Century," Sir R. Giffen's article 
 
 „ ,, article on Building Act, 1905 
 
 Non -contentious work and Municipal Reform Party . . 
 Non-provided Schools.— 5ee Education. 
 
 North Metropolitan Tramways Company. — See Locomotion. 
 Northern tramway lines. — See Locomotion. 
 Norwich, Trade Unions' Conference 
 
 7, 44 
 
 17 
 
 22, 24 
 
 233 
 
 178 
 
 13 
 
 Officialism and municipal trading 
 ,, increase, education 
 „ reign of . . 
 
 Omnibuses 
 
 Over- bridge tramways 
 
 142 
 148 
 104 
 lt)0 
 
 Paramount educational head wanted . . . . . . . . 148 
 
 Parks and open spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 
 
 „ Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 
 
 Parliamentary Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 
 
 Petroleum Acts 193 
 
 Phillimore, Mr. R. C, on M.P."s and L.C.C. members . . 174 
 
 enlarged L.C.C 222 
 
 Pillman, Mr. J. C on ^ort of London 248 
 
 Plague of Progressive M.P.'s .. .. .. .. .. 174 
 
 PoBT OP London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 
 
 L.C.C. deputation 238 
 
 Royal Commission and report . . . . . . . . 239 
 
 Bill, 1903 242 
 
 L.C.C. Bill, 1905 244 
 
 L.C.C. debate 245 
 
 Present Government's intentions . . . . . . . . 246 
 
 London Chamber of Commerce views . . . . . . 247 
 
 L.C.C. Annual Report . . 249 
 
 ,, ,, ,, resolution . . . . . . . . 255 
 
 Shipping statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 
 
 Postmen's park . . . . . - . . . . . . . . 180 
 
 Power to electrify under Northern lease, clause . . . . . . 56 
 
 Powers and Duties of Local and Central Authorities . . 197 
 
 Progi-ess retarded by municipal Socialism . . . . . . 17 
 
 Progi'essive locomotion policy . . . . . . . . . . 48 
 
 „ misrepresentation and delay, electrification . . 57, 58 
 
 „ opposition to the traffic recommendations .. 117
 
 IX. 
 
 >» 
 
 Progressive pledges broken, Education . . 
 ,, M.P.'s, plague of 
 
 electioneering . . 
 
 plot to destroy local government 
 „ tramway promises unfulfilled 
 
 „ and tramway employees 
 
 „ ,, ad hoc authority.. 
 
 „ ,, voluntary schools 
 
 „ Profits from Northern system 
 
 „ ,, ,, Southern ,, 
 
 „ „ tramway, in relief of rates 
 
 Protests against Building Act, 1905 
 
 Public Control Committee . . 
 ,, Health Committee . . 
 
 Purchase of Northern tramways lease, 1905 
 
 125 
 
 174 
 
 179 
 
 197 
 
 61 
 
 82 
 
 136 
 
 143 
 
 54 
 
 60 
 
 60 
 
 231 
 
 191 
 
 194 
 
 55 
 
 Radford, Mr. G. H., on enlarged L.C.C. 222 
 
 Radical ajjproval of London Government Act, 1899 . . . . 202 
 
 Railways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 
 
 " Rake's Progress," Sir A. M. Torrance on 86 
 
 Rates, rise of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 
 
 ,, repi'oductive debt, and assessable value, table.. .. 28 
 
 ,, relief of, and municipal trading . . . . . . . . 36 
 
 ,, and tramway profits . . . . . . . . . . 60 
 
 '• Reproductive imdertakings," Mr. J. Holt Schooling on . . 24 
 
 Return as to street improvements charges . . . . . . 67 
 
 Ritchie, late Lord, on Port of London . . . . . . . . 238 
 
 Rivers Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 
 
 „ ,, report on Port of London Bill . . . . 245 
 
 Robinson, Sir J. Clifton, evidence on street improvements . . 63 
 
 ,, „ on reduction of fares . . . . 80 
 
 Mr. R. A., on enlarged L.C.C 225 
 
 Rogers, Mr. Innes, on Port of London . . . . . . . . 248 
 
 Rollit, Sir A., motion on Port of London . . . . . . 247 
 
 Rosebery, the Earl of, on economy . . . . . . . . 30 
 
 „ ,, „ local spirit . . . . . . . . 209 
 
 Rotterdam, extensions of port . . . . . . . . . . 252 
 
 Royal Commission on amalgamation, 1894 . . . . . . 198 
 
 ,, ,, „ Port of London, and report . . . . 239 
 
 R'uskin Park 180 
 
 St. Aldwyn, Viscount, on municipal trading . . 
 Sale of coal, offences 
 
 Salisbury, late Marquess of, on London government 
 Sanitary Institute, discussion on flooding 
 
 3 
 192 
 210 
 168
 
 X. 
 
 Schooling, Mr. J. Holt, analysis . . 
 
 letter to " Morning Post " 
 ,, ,, on depreciation charges 
 
 Scottish M.P.'s as L.C. Councillors 
 Seats for Shop Assistants Act, 1899 
 Select Committees on municipal trading 
 Shaw, Mr. Bernard, on municipal Socialism 
 Shepheard, Mr. A. J., on tramway fares 
 
 ,, ,, „ voluntary schools " incubu 
 
 Shipping statistics . . 
 
 Shop Hours Act, 1904 
 
 Smoke consumption, offences 
 
 Social Democratic League and Federation 
 
 Socialism and municijial trading . . 
 
 ,, movement and organisations . . 
 
 ,, underfed children 
 Southend Corporation and tramways 
 Southern tramway lines. — See Locomotion. 
 South London floodings 
 Southwark, details of floodings 
 Springfield Park 
 " Standard, The," on officialism . . 
 
 „ public hghting 
 Statistical Abstract, local loans . . 
 Stead, Mr. W. T., on municipal Sociahsm 
 Stepney, Bishop of, and Progi-essive candidates, education 
 Stores Committee 
 Street widenings 
 Subways 
 Swinton, Captain G. S., resolution on street widenings 
 
 „ „ statement on tramway " profits 
 
 22 
 
 27 
 
 72 
 
 176 
 
 192 
 
 1 
 
 13, 16 
 
 79 
 
 145 
 
 253 
 
 192 
 
 193 
 
 12, 14 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 159 
 
 6 
 
 167 
 
 167 
 
 181 
 
 7 
 
 42 
 
 28 
 
 16 
 
 126 
 
 195 
 
 63 
 
 102 
 
 65 
 
 68 
 
 Table of tramway mileage 
 
 ,, establishment charges 
 
 ,, pay of tramway employees 
 
 ,, administrative powers and duties 
 Teachers' salaries 
 
 Theatres and Music Halls Committee 
 Thomas, Mr., on education officials 
 
 Thompson, Mr. W. Whittaker, voluntary schools amendment 
 " Times, The," account of South London tloodings . . 
 Torrance, Sir A. M., on " Rake's Progress " 
 Towns, various, municipal trading and rates, lists 
 Trade Union strikers and municipal pressure 
 Trades Unions' conferences. — See Municipal Trading, Socialism 
 Traffic Board 
 Traffic Commission, report 
 
 „ ,, review of re; ommendations 
 
 Tramway lease, 1891 
 
 1896 
 
 50 
 
 76 
 
 84 
 
 202 
 
 129 
 
 195 
 
 150 
 
 143 
 
 167 
 
 86 
 
 37, 38 
 
 45 
 
 48 
 92 
 106 
 49 
 53
 
 Tramway profits in relief of rates 
 Tramways and establisliment charges . . 
 
 Act, 1870 
 
 ,, advisory Board of Engineers, on 
 
 Tube railways 
 
 60 
 
 22 
 
 49 
 
 112 
 
 102 
 
 U 
 
 Underfed school cliildren . . 
 Unemployed, Traffic Commission . 
 Unification. — See Authorities. 
 
 157 
 
 lis 
 
 Voluntary schools. — See Education. 
 
 W 
 
 Water Board, debt 29 
 
 Waterlow, Mr. D. S., M.P., on tramway fares.. .. .. 79 
 
 Watson, Mr. A. MaT-yon, on new fire protection, 1905 . . . . 233 
 
 Watts, Mr. Hunter, Socialistic policy . . . . . . . . 14 
 
 Webb, Mr. Sidney, on municipal socialism . . . . . . 15 
 
 „ „ ,, voluntary schools and rates . . . . 144 
 
 ,, ,, ,, revolution in local government .. 206 
 
 Weights and Measures Acts, administration . . . . 181, 191 
 
 Welby, Lord, on depreciation charges . . . . . . . . 69 
 
 „ „ tramway estimates . . . . . . . . 90 
 
 „ ,, on cost of education . . . . . . 138, 140 
 
 „ ,, motion on Port of London Bill . . . . 246 
 
 Wemyss and March, the Earl of, on municipal trading . . . . 43 
 
 West Riding judgment and L.C.C. .. .. .. .. 151 
 
 Williams, Mr. Russell, on social ownership . . . . . . 12 
 
 Wood, Mr. T. McKinnon, M.P., on cost of street widenings 64 
 
 „ „ „ „ Education Act . . . . 125 
 
 „ „ „ and architect's report on 
 
 schools 130 
 
 „ „ „ motion on West Riding 
 
 judgment . . . . 151 
 
 „ „ „ on enlarged L.C.C. . . . . 224 
 
 „ Port of London Bill, 1905 244 
 
 Woodall, Mr. Corbet, on gas and electricity . . . . . . 41 
 
 Wood Green Urban District Council, deficit . . . . . . 85 
 
 Working class dwellings accounts . . . . . . . . 38 
 
 Works Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 
 
 Wyndham, the Right Hon. George, M.P., on property and 
 
 enterprise . . . . . . . . , . , . , , 20
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 1 1" 
 
 AT 
 
 1 r-o ArJCFT.KS ^
 
 JS London llunicip&l 
 
 3628 Society. - 
 
 1^U7 London Cuuiilv -^ 
 
 L84 coancil election, 
 
 v.l — rBQi— 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 520 652 9 
 
 JS 
 
 3628 
 
 1907 
 
 L84 
 v.l