In the House of Lords on Monday, on the London
County Council (Money) Bill, Lord Camperdown raised a valuable discussion on the financial policy of the Council. He criticised severely many of its undertakings, such as the tramways and the river steamer service, and complained of its neglect of the advice of its Finance Committee. Lord Avebury and Lord Goschen followed in the same strain, maintaining that its expenditure was unjustified by the necessity of the objects and conducted on wasteful principles. Lord Lansdowne pointed out how completely independent the Council was in the matter of expenditure and borrowing. What was wanted was a greater sense of responsibility in the use of the ratepayers' money. The utmost that the defenders of the Council—Lord Welby and Lord Carrington—could say was that the various enterprises had not been long enough on trial for a judgment to be formed, and that the general policy was not wasteful. The warning of Lord Lansdowne seems to us to be wholly justified. We are by no means unfriendly to the Council, and we gladly recognise the good work it has done and is doing. But when we find, as Lord Goschen pointed out, other great cities borrowing at a cheaper rate than London, we are entitled to ask the reason. Quis custodief custodes ? is a question worth asking when we see the magnitude of the task the Council has set itself, and the absence of any real check on its outlay, or indeed any real opportunity for intelligent criticism.
Previous page
