Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

report of their proceedings in the execution of the Acts during the past year presented to both Houses of Parliament, conformably to section 200 of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. In the course of experience, further obstacles to the effectual working of the original Act were encountered. An important question arose between the Metropolitan Board and the vestries and district boards, as to the incidence of the debts contracted under the former sewers commissions. These were apportioned by the Metropolitan Board among the parishes and parts constituting the old sewerage districts in the ratio of the rateable value of the property within them. Some of the parishes deemed themselves aggrieved by this apportionment, which imposed upon them the cost of works, which, though executed within the same district were not within the local limits of the parish, and urged to Board to alter it. The Board acceded, and prepared a new distribution of the debts, which they embodied in an amending bill. The alterations suggested by the Board in relation to the re-distribution of these debts were, with some exceptions, rejected by the Special Committee of the House of Commons, to which the bill was referred, and, with those exceptions, the original apportionment is still in force. The powers of the Metropolitan Board for compelling prompt payment of their precepts were found insufficient. The provisions of the original Act, directing a different mode of assessment for the expenses of maintaining main sewers from that which applied to the costs of new thoroughfares, and from that which was subsequently authorized with respect to the cost of the main drainage works, were found anomalous and inconvenient. Further powers were required for the construction of accommodation and subsidiary works. The regulations respecting the breaking up of turnpike roads were unnecessarily restrictive; the provisions for preventing wrongful interference with sewers were found inadequate; and additional powers were required for compelling the submission of plans, &c., previously to the construction of sewers; for compelling overseers to enforce payment, by private parties, of the expenses of paving new streets; for imposing on the owners the cost of sewering streets newly laid out; for enforcing contributions to the cost of sewers by parties draining into them; and for abating nuisances and enforcing adequate sanitary regulations in general. It may be added that there was no appeal against the decision of the auditors of accounts; and modifications of the provisions of the original Act were needed in other respects. The

provisions to which the foregoing observations apply are pointed out in the notes to the several sections under which they arise, and the nature and scope of the amendments introduced to meet these and other requirements, and the reasons on which they are founded, are fully explained. Many of the clauses of the bill, however, underwent hasty alteration during its progress through Parliament, and new ones were introduced without its being clearly ascertained whether or not they were consistent with the general provisions of the measure. The consequence has been that several of its enactments are of an incongruous character, and their true construction may probably hereafter be attended with difficulty. But notwithstanding this, the last amending Act has, upon the whole, given to the boards and vestries considerable additional facilities for the performance of their functions. A good deal of discussion has taken place as to the mode in which the members of the Metropolitan Board are chosen, and an impression seems to be gaining ground that direct election by the ratepayers would be preferable to the indirect election by the vestries and district boards which now prevails. The Select Committee of the House of Commons on Metropolis Local Taxation, appointed in 1861, express themselves in their report to this effect. They state that whilst the evidence before them tended to show that the Metropolitan Board, as at present constituted, was fully competent to discharge its duties, greater authority would, in their opinion, attach to its deliberations if its members were elected by the ratepayers directly. Whether that view of the Committee is or is not well founded, the preponderance of opinion among those familar with the working of the Board is, that though an alteration of the mode of election might not send better men to the Board, it would, at all events, secure them greater independence of action. As regards the functions of the vestries and district boards, their periodical reports under the 198th section of the statute referred to, show the large paving and other works which have been executed, and they constitute an instructive record of sanitary activity in the construction of local sewers, the extension of house drainage, the inspection of the dwellings of the poor by their medical officers, and the removal of trade and other nuisances prejudicial to health. One great source of difficulty with which the metropolitan and other boards and vestries have still to contend, however, remains to be mentioned, and that is the means of providing funds for the extensive improvements demanded by the exigencies of metro

politan traffic. Previously to the passing of the Metropolis Management Act, public improvements had for the most part been effected by the executive government by means of parliamentary grants, or by the Corporation of London, out of its own funds, or to a great extent under powers created by special Acts of Parliament. The Metropolitan Board, unlike various municipal corporations, is not in possession of revenues derived from estates, or from tolls, dues, fees, or the like; and, the whole of the works which have hitherto been executed have been paid for out of the proceeds of direct rates upon house property (a). The Board did not cease to press their claims in this respect upon the attention of the Government and of Parliament (a), and the result has been to place at their disposal means derived from other sources for executing one of the most important of the undertakings required for the improvement of the metropolis, viz., the Thames embankment. The London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1861, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 42, after providing that those duties should, subject to the qualification expressed in the Act, be continued until the 5th July, 1872, enacted that the duties of ld. per ton on coal, culm, and cinders, and of 4s. per tun on wines, and of 8d. on coal, culm, and cinders, should, so soon as all charges on the London Bridge Approaches Fund should be satisfied, be paid to the account of the Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Fund, and be applied to the improvement of the metropolis, as might thereafter be directed by Parliament. The execution of this important undertaking has since been confided by Parliament to the Metropolitan Board, the Thames Embankment Act, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 93, empowering them to execute the necessary works, and the Commissioners of the Treasury being authorized to provide the requisite sums out of, or by charge upon, the Thames Embankment and the Metropolis Improvement Fund. This noble work will, however, be incomplete unless it be accompanied or speedily succeeded by an embankment on the south side of the river.

(a) See letter from Mr. Thwaites, chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to members of Parliament representing metropolitan constituencies, dated the 18th April, 1859, pointing out the limited resources of the Board, and the vast costs of the improvements required for the purposes of metropolitan traffic.

The boards and vestries appointed to watch over the local administration of the metropolis have large powers and commensurate responsibilities; and whilst past experience justifies the anticipation that their powers will continue to be exercised with judgment and discretion, it is earnestly to be desired that their public usefulness may be promoted by mutual confidence and increased harmony of action.

LONDON,

November 1, 1862.

« AnteriorContinuar »