It was resolved inter alia to seek: The unification of London, by the removal of the division of the jurisdiction between city and county, which now hampers every reform, but especially the great questions of the public services, such as water, gas, markets &c.[7]The Liberal Party gained control of parliament at the general election in July of that year, and in February 1893 the Government announced that a royal commission would be appointed to formulate a scheme for the unification of London.
[8] The President of the Local Government Board, H. H. Fowler, told the Commons that the commission was to have five members, of which one each were to represent the views of the city and the county council respectively.
[11] The terms of reference were: ..to consider the proper conditions under which the amalgamation of the City and County of London can be effected, and to make specific and practical proposals for that purpose.
[11]The commission's quorum was set at three members, and it was given full power to call witnesses and examine books, documents, registers and records.
The main objection was that the terms of reference suggested a fait accompli, with the commission being given the duty of devising a method of amalgamating City and county, not whether this should go ahead.
[15] Following the receipt of a letter from the President of the Local Government Board the City agreed to resume tendering evidence in December on the understanding that the terms of reference could be modified.
The Common Council wrote an open letter to The Times explaining their actions: firstly the assurances given by the President of the Local Government Board regarding the terms of reference of the commission had not been honoured; and secondly the commission was refusing to hear their evidence regarding the position, powers and duties of the vestries and other local authorities outside the City.
There was general agreement among the witnesses called by the commission that a two-tier structure was needed, consisting of a "central body" and a number of "local authorities".
The commissioners identified four questions that needed to be answered in order to carry out the reorganisation:[4] The main part of the report was accordingly divided into four sections, with detailed proposals on each of these issues.
These included being the sanitary authority for the Port of London, management of metropolitan markets, and the maintenance of Epping Forest and other open spaces.
In addition the new corporation would gain powers over numerous administrative functions in the "old city", including bridges, street improvements, water supply and weights and measures.
From these trusts and properties the new corporation was to pay an annual sum to the local authority for the old City for the upkeep of the Freemen's Orphan School, almshouses and other charitable institutions, along with donations to hospitals in the area.
The lord mayor would continue to enjoy the existing rights and privileges, and it would be lawful for the corporation to vote a sum to meet the costs of the office.
The lord mayor and corporation were to retain the right of special access to the Sovereign, and to present petitions to the House of Commons.
[4] The existing system of granting or succeeding to the freedom of the city was to be ended, with the privilege being in future a purely honorary title awarded by the council.
A number of witnesses had suggested that the councillors elected to the London-wide corporation should also be ex officio members of the local councils for the same areas as they represented.
[4] Reaction to the commissioners' proposals was sharply divided, largely on party lines, with Liberals very much in favour and Conservatives strongly opposed.
The meeting was addressed by three London members of parliament, James Stuart, Edward Pickersgill and Dadabhai Naoroji and a resolution was passed strongly approving the report.
The "mammoth municipality" so created would be remote from its citizens, and the councillors were unlikely "to sympathize with the wishes of their fellow-men solely and mainly on the grounds of drainage and water supply".
While he admitted of the need of a central body for some purposes, he spoke in favour of establishing a number of "municipalities of suitable size" which would encourage "local patriotism".
He alleged that it was not representative of London, as only about forty percent of the electorate participated in elections, and those who did vote were not likely to be a "quiet, sober respectable citizens" but "people with strong feelings... cranks and crotcheteers".
This resulted in the county council consisting of a "very large contingent of the intense portion of mankind... moved by their special, limited, fanatical views, or by their partisan or class antipathies".
They agreed on the principles set out in the report that a central body should be formed for certain London-wide matters and a number of smaller local authorities below it.
They differed, however, on the distribution of powers, wishing the lower tier to consist of "strong and authoritative district councils or corporations", with no duties to de done by the central body that could not be done at the local level.
Courteney was described as "a philosophical and occasionally unpractical chairman", Holt and Smith were dismissed as "two gentlemen whose experiences were avowedly to provincial administration" while Farrer was an "amiable nobleman and advowed advocate of the LCC".
[24] The committee felt that, if they had acted properly, the commissioners would have been "bound to report in favour of a scheme for the government of London based on the establishment in the Metropolis of a number of separate municipalities."
Of the other two "Radicals" one was in fact a member of Salisbury's own political grouping and a dogged critic of the government, while the other was one of the country's most distinguished civil servants.
He gave a speech at the opening of Clerkenwell Town Hall in June 1895 where he declared that those who opposed unification were facing an "irresistible movement"... "not a matter of party clamour, but a natural force", To continue to maintain "two Londons" would be a "civil war".
In November 1895 the majority Progressive Party on the council promoted a motion seeking the transfer of powers from the city to the county.
[28] The Times, in an opinion piece, believed that the bill "had probably brought to its last stage the long controversy as to the form of government best suited to the needs of London."