View report page

55
asking their support. The Bill was opposed,
but in consequence of a consultation between Mr.
Sandeman, Mr. Baxter, Mr. J. W. Benn, M.P.,
Mr. Boyce, the Solicitor of the Local Government
Board, and Mr. Naoroji, M.P., it was agreed that
opposition to the second reading of the Bill should
be withdrawn, that the Bill should be referred to a
Hybrid Committee, and that the County Council,
whose petition had not been lodged in time, should
be allowed to petition.
The Bill came before a Committee of the
House of Commons on the 15th June, and was
passed; the Counsel for the Local Government
Board stating that the question of compensation
was one which it would be the duty of the Local
Government Board to consider hereafter. Mr.
Sandeman, in conversation with the solicitor of the
Local Government Board subsequently, elicited
from him that, as the balance against the Vestry
was made up of amounts already paid for out of the
rates, no account would be taken of same in adjusting
the liabilities, and the Vestry therefore thought
it necessary to appear before a Committee of the
House of Lords, to endeavour to get a compensation
clause inserted in the Bill.
The Bill came before a Committee of the House
of Lords on Thursday and Friday, the 13th and
14th July, the London County Council also opposing,
and the Middlesex County Council appearing
in opposition to any addition being made to the
Bill which might have the effect of adding to the
burden of the County of Middlesex; the result being
that the Committee decided that the preamble was
not proved. At the conclusion of the case, Mr.
Sandeman and the Vestry Clerk had an interview
with Mr. Costelloe, L.C.C., and officials of the Engineer's
and Solicitor's departments of the County