| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | An Act to make better provision for Local Government in London. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 62 & 63 Vict. c. 14 |
| Introduced by | Arthur Balfour MP (Commons) |
| Territorial extent | England and Wales |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 13 July 1899 |
| Commencement | 1 November 1900[b] |
| Repealed | 1 April 1965 |
| Other legislation | |
| Amended by | London Government Act 1939 |
| Repealed by | The Local Law (Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) Order 1965 |
| Relates to | |
Status: Repealed | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
TheLondon Government Act 1899 (62 & 63 Vict. c. 14) was anact of theParliament of the United Kingdom that reformed the administration of the capital. The act divided theCounty of London into 28metropolitan boroughs, replacing the42 local authorities administering the area. The legislation also transferred a few powers from theLondon County Council to the boroughs, and removed a number of boundary anomalies. The first elections to the new boroughs were held on 1 November 1900.[1][2]
While an electedLondon County Council had been created by theLocal Government Act 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), the lower tier of local government still consisted of electivevestries anddistrict boards of works created in 1855 by theMetropolis Management Act 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), responsible for local drainage, paving, lighting, street repairs, the removal of nuisances etc.[1] In addition, there were a number of areas outside the jurisdiction of any local authority.
In 1893, aRoyal Commission on the Unification of London had been established with the purpose of making proposals on the amalgamation of theCity of London with the county. In its report in 1894, the commission recommended increasing the power of the county council over the vestries and boards, with county councillors becomingex officio members of the lower authorities, and the LCC gaining powers to frame by-laws to govern them.
In reaction to the report, the vestries sought a strengthening of the second tier of government in the capital. Charters of incorporation as amunicipal borough were sought in 1896–1897 by Paddington vestry, the parishes of the City of Westminster and in Kensington.[3]
TheLondon Municipal Society had been formed in 1894 to support the pro-Unionist Moderate candidates in London local elections. The stated policy of the Society at the 1897 vestry elections was"conferring on the local authorities of the metropolis municipal dignity and privileges".[4] In July the Society urged the Government to introduce legislation to create municipalities in London.[5]
In February 1898, a deputation attended thePrime Minister,Lord Salisbury, and presented him with a memorial calling for municipal government in London. The common seals of nineteen vestries were affixed to the document.[6] Later in the year two private bills to create boroughs in London were introduced to the Commons, one by themember of Parliament forIslington West,Thomas Lough, and the second by a group of London local authorities.
Leave to bring in the London Government Bill to theHouse of Commons was given to theLeader of the House,Arthur BalfourMP, thePresident of the Local Government Board,Henry ChaplinMP, theAttorney General,Richard WebsterMP and theSolicitor General,Sir Robert FinlayMP on 23 February 1899.[7] The bill had itsfirst reading in theHouse of Commons on 23 February 1899, presented byArthur BalfourMP.[7] The bill was given precedence over all other business for all days on which the bill was debated.[7] The bill had itssecond reading in theHouse of Commons on 25 March 1899 and was committed to acommittee of the whole house,[7] which met on 24 April 1899, 25 April 1899, 4 May 1899, 8 May 1899, 9 May 1899, 15 May 1899, 16 May 1899 and 18 May 1899 and reported on 6 June 1899, with amendments.[7] The amended bill was considered and agreed to by theHouse of Commons on 6 June 1899 and 8 June 1899, with amendments.[7] The amended bill had itsthird reading in theHouse of Commons on 13 June 1899, and passed with amendments.[7]
The amended bill had itsfirst reading in theHouse of Lords on 15 June 1899.[8] The bill had itssecond reading in theHouse of Lords on 20 June 1899 and was committed to acommittee of the whole house,[8] which met on 27 June 1899 and reported on 3 July 1899, with amendments.[8] The amended bill had itsthird reading in theHouse of Lords on 4 July 1899, with amendments.[8]
The amended bill was considered and agreed to by theHouse of Commons on 6 July 1899, with amendments.[7] The amended bill was considered and agreed to by theHouse of Lords on 7 July 1899.[8]
The bill receivedroyal assent on 13 July.[8]
The bill provided for the division of theadministrative county of London, except the City of London, intometropolitan boroughs. Each borough was to be governed by a borough council consisting of a mayor,aldermen and councillors, the total number of which was not to exceed seventy-two.
The bill did not define areas for all the boroughs, but denoted sixteen existing parishes or districts that should become boroughs:
The remaining boroughs were to be made up of combinations of existing authorities with a rateable value exceeding 500,000 pounds or with a population of between 100,000 and 400,000 inhabitants.
The parliamentary debate centred on three issues: the boundaries of the boroughs, the need for aldermen on the councils and the admission of women to the councils.
Concern was voiced in the Commons byThomas Lough andRichard Haldane (MP forHaddingtonshire in Scotland) about the fact that the boundaries of the boroughs not listed in the bill were to be fixed by boundary commissioners without parliamentary oversight. The conditions for constituting boroughs were altered with rateable value only being considered where the population was less than 100,000, allowing the commissioners to consider the creation of smaller boroughs.
Sydney Buxton (MP for Tower Hamlets, Poplar) was concerned that the upper population limit would lead to very large boroughs being formed in the east of London.
In the Lords, debate on the boundaries continued. An amendment byLord Tweedmouth to ensure that the "Tower of London, and the liberties thereof" was included in the schedule with the area of theWhitechapel District was accepted. A second, unsuccessful, amendment was tabled by the Peer to divide theWandsworth District into two boroughs: one comprising the parishes of Wandsworth and Putney; and the other Clapham, Streatham and Tooting. Lord Tweedmouth felt the area of the proposed borough was unwieldy, and his division was a natural one by means ofWandsworth Common.Lord Hawkesbury felt that the area of the parliamentary borough of Westminster was"far too large to be economically worked", and sought to divide it into two. The amendment was defeated.[9]
Edward Pickersgill, member for Bethnal Green South West moved to havealdermen removed from the borough councils. This was partly because he disagreed with aldermen on principle, but also because the creation of 400 or 500 new aldermen would"make the institution ridiculous and would accelerate its extinction". The amendment was defeated, with 140 votes for and 245 against.
Edmund Boulnois, member for Marylebone East moved an amendment to ban women from being mayors, aldermen or councillors of the new boroughs. Women had been elected members and chairmen of the existing vestries and district boards, and it followed that they could be elected to the new councils. Mr Boulnois believed that the work of the councils would be"distasteful to women" and that it would be"a pity to drag women into the turmoil of an election on political lines". He reminded members"If they allowed women to sit on these councils they would not be able to withhold from them the Parliamentary franchise and the right to sit and vote in that house." The amendment was carried with a majority of 102.[10] This was not the end of the issue, however. On 6 June at the report stage an amendment was carried allowing women to be councillors or aldermen (but not mayors) of the metropolitan boroughs.[11] This was overturned during the second reading on a motion byLord Dunraven in theHouse of Lords on 26 June.[12] The Lords amendment was accepted by the Commons on 6 July by a majority of 243 to 174.[13]
Section 1 of the act provided that "The whole of the administrative county of London, excluding the city of London, shall be divided into metropolitan boroughs".[14]
Section 2 of the act provided that "The council of each borough shall consist of a mayor, alderman, and councillors. Provided that no woman shall be eligible for any such office."[14] The chairman of the council was to have the title ofmayor. Boroughs were to be divided into wards of three councillors and aldermen at a ratio of one to every six councillors with the total number for each borough not to exceed 70. This followed the practice for theLondon County Council, rather thanmunicipal boroughs, where the ratio was one alderman for every three councillors.
Section 3 of the act set dates for the first election of councillors for 1 November 1900 and the ordinary day of election of councillors to be 1 November (or the following day if Sunday) and of mayors and aldermen for 9 November (or the following day if Sunday), with a third of the councillors going out of office each year.
Unlike the municipal boroughs which received this status by the grant of a charter of incorporation, the metropolitan boroughs had no charters, being created by act of Parliament.
Section 4 of the act transferred the powers and functions ofvestries anddistrict boards to borough councils. Section 4(1) provided that every elected vestry and district board in the county of London would cease to exist, with the powers, properties and liabilities of the abolished authorities transferring to the metropolitan boroughs.
Section 5 of the act transferred powers from theLondon County Council to borough councils.
Section 5(1) transferred a few minor powers and duties.
Section 5(2) allowed borough councils to exercise some powers concurrently with the county council within their own boundaries:
Section 5(3) allowed for the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs to transfer powers to and from each other, if both the county council and a majority of the boroughs agreed. Section 5(4) provided a similar mechanism in regard to the county council and the common council of theCity of London.
Section 6 of the act transferred additional powers and duties to borough councils.
Section 15 of the act gave "Her Majesty in Council" the power to set up London borough councils and establish boundaries. Draft orders were to be prepared by a body of commissioners and presented to both Houses of Parliament for at least 30 days during a parliamentary session. Either House could object, meaning the order could not be made.
Draft orders forBattersea,Bermondsey,Bethnal Green,Deptford,Fulham,Greenwich,Hackney,Hammersmith,Hampstead,Islington,Lambeth,Lewisham,Poplar,St. Marylebone,Shoreditch,Southwark,Stoke Newington,Wandsworth andWoolwich were laid before parliament on 13 March 1900.[15]
Section 18 of the act provided that every part of a parish in the county of London that was wholly detached from the principal part of the parish was to be annexed or divided to the borough which it adjoined. Any detached part of another county surrounded by the county of London was to be transferred to the latter county, and incorporated into a metropolitan borough, while any part of the county of London surrounded by another county was to be similarly transferred.
Notable examples of parishes affected were:
Alocal board had been formed inWoolwich parish in 1852. It was the only parish in the metropolitan area to adopt legislation forming such a body. The board had a unique constitution, with some members elected and others nominated by the superintendent of theRoyal Navy dockyard, the commanding officers of theRoyal Engineers and theRoyal Artillery, and the storekeeper of Her Majesty's Ordnance. Section 19 of the act dissolved the local board, with its powers passing to the metropolitan borough of Woolwich.
Penge was a detached part of the parish ofBattersea, several miles from its parent parish, administered by theLewisham District Board, and on the edge of the county of London as created in 1889. Section 20 of the act sought to deal with this anomaly. It allowed anOrder in Council to either incorporate the township into either of the metropolitan boroughs ofLewisham orCamberwell, or to form it into anurban district in one or other of the counties ofSurrey orKent. In the event, Penge became an urban district in Kent.
Section 21 of the act allowed forKensington Palace to be detached from the borough ofWestminster and be transferred to the borough ofKensington byOrder in Council, which was duly done. The presence of the palace with the borough led indirectly to its acquisition of "royal" status in 1901.
Section 22 of the act deemed theInner Temple andMiddle Temple to be part of theCity of London for the purposes of the act.
Section 23 of the act provided that powers and duties of vestries relating to affairs of the church remained with the vestries.
Schedule 1 of the act described the area of each of the 28 boroughs to be created but did not give them names. Where the borough consisted of a single parish, or followed the area of a parliamentary constituency then it would take its name. Section 27 of the act provided that, in other cases, an "appropriate name" was to be given to the borough by Order in Council.
Sections 8 and 9 of the act were repealed by section 207 of, and the eighth schedule to, theLondon Government Act 1939 (2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 40).
The whole act was repealed by section 5 of, and the third schedule to, theLocal Law (Greater London Council and Inner London Boroughs) Order 1965 (SI 1965/540), made under theLondon Government Act 1963 (c. 33).
