Metropolitan Board of Works

Metropolitan Board of Works
Type
Type	Board of works
Houses	Unicameral
Term limits	Three years[1]
History
Founded	1 January 1856
Disbanded	March 1889
Preceded by	Metropolitan Buildings Office Metropolitan Commission of Sewers
Succeeded by	London County Council, the (District of the) Metropolis being renamed the County of London
Leadership
Chairman	John Thwaites (1855–1870) James Macnaghten Hogg (1870–1889)
Structure
Seats	1 chairman 45 members (1855–1885) 59 members (1885–1889)[1]
Committees	Parks and Open Spaces Works and General Purposes
Length of term	Three years, with one third of board appointed every year
Elections
Voting system	Indirect election
Meeting place
Spring Gardens (1859–1889)

The Metropolitan Board of Works (MBW) was the upper tier of local government for London between 1856 and 1889, primarily responsible for upgrading infrastructure. It also had a parks and open spaces committee which set aside and opened up several landmark parks. The metropolis, which the board served, included substantial parts of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent throughout the 33 years leading up to the advent of county councils. This urban zone lay around the medieval-sized City of London but plans to enact a similar body in 1837 failed. Parliament finally passed the Metropolis Management Act 1855 which dissolved a short-lived building office and a sewers commission and made the Board effective as of December that year. The board endured until it was succeeded by London County Council, as its directly elected, direct successor, in March 1889.

Its principal responsibility was to provide infrastructure to cope with the rapid growth of the metropolis, which it accomplished with varying degrees of success. The MBW was co-opted from boards, districts of vestries who were elected by their ratepayers rather than directly elected, but which during its period were separated into civil parishes removing many residual Church of England ties. It was accountable to Parliament but not to a particular ministry to supervise accounts. This democratic deficit vexed journal critics and rate-paying Londoners, especially having grown in budget and been seen as a reliable contract source when some of its members and staff engaged in embezzlement, bribery and breach of fiduciary duty (unfair contract procurement and mismanagement). However the national proliferation of such a tier of government on its demise recognised the advantages of economies of scale in uniting districts in procuring, improving and maintaining energy, street lighting, fire fighting, sanitation, and transport in the same way as large, well-funded, democratic, ministerially and accounting-regulated Municipal Corporations had widely done since 1835.