PART IV.

HC Deb 13 July 1888 vol 328 cc1302-49

Boundaries.

Clause 51 (Boundary of county for first election).

Amendment proposed, In page 46, line 1, leave out all after "county," to end of Clause, and insert—(2.) "For the purposes of this Act the several parishes which are named in the second column of the Sixth Schedule to this Act annexed shall be considered as forming parts of the respective counties which are respectively mentioned in the third column of the said schedule, and where any urban sanitary district is situate partly within and partly without the boundary of a county, but for which no special provision is hereby made, the district shall be deemed to be within that county which contains the largest portion of the population of the district according to the census of one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Hastings.)

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, as the Committee was aware, the Boundary Commissioners had been making investigations through the country with respect to boundaries. Their Report would shortly be made, and it would then be the duty of the Government to present it to Parliament. The adoption of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would be a manifest departure from the plan of the Bill, and he therefore hoped it would not be pressed. The intention of the Government was that those who were the most interested parties should have the practical settlement of the boundaries, and the scheme of the Commissioners would be referred to the County Council and considered by them, and the County Council would then make application to the Local Government Board, who would then proceed by means of a Provisional Order. It would be impossible for the Committee to accept any cut-and-dried scheme for rearrangement of boundaries, for which purpose they had no data whatever. He did not expect any such inconvenience as that suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member, because a Provisional Order would make provision for the number of Councillors which would be required, and that appeared to him to be the most reasonable and proper way of dealing with this question.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would in no way countenance such a proposal as this. It would be most mischievous if every Member of the House who had any question with regard to the boundary of his county should bring forward his views in the form of an Amendment to this Bill. There would be plenty of time to settle these questions when the County Council was appointed and had all the facts before them.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

said, if this Amendment were agreed to, he thought the third column of the Schedule would be rather quickly filled up. If such a proposal as this was to be accepted, he should have to ask the House to embark on the question of the boundaries of Staffordshire and Worcestershire, which he thought would be very in opportunely raised at the present moment; and, therefore, he trusted that the Government would stand firm in their opposition to the Amendment.

SIR RICHARD TEMPLE (Worcester, Evesham)

said, as he represented the particular county referred to in the Amendment, he would join in the appeal of his hon. Friend that this Amendment should be accepted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 46, line 1, after "that," insert— (a.) "This enactment shall not apply to the boundary between two administrative counties which are divisions of one entire county, and in case of those administrative counties, the boundary between the divisions, as existing for the purposes of county rate, shall be the boundary of the administrative county for which the council is elected; and.

On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, Amendment made, in page 46, line 1, after "that," insert— The wapentake of the ainsty of York (except so much as is included in the municipal borough of York as extended by 'The York Extension and Improvement Act, 1884') shall for all purposes of this Act be deemed to be part of the west riding of the county of York.

On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, Amendment made, in page 46, at end of line 6, insert— (28 and 29 Vic. c. 37.) Provided that the boundary between East Sussex and West Sussex shall be the boundary as existing for the purposes of the County of Sussex Act, 1865.

On the Motion of Mr. DUGDALE, Amendment made, in page 46, line 6, after "eighty-one," insert— Provided also, that, subject to any alterations in the county boundaries which may be made under the provisions of this Act, every portion of a county which has been transferred to another county for the purposes of the Police Acts, shall for such purposes continue to be within the county to which such portion has been so transferred.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52 (Directions for constitution of electoral divisions).

Amendment proposed, In page 46, line 28, after the word "had," to insert the words "to a proper representation both of the rural and of the urban population, and to the distribution of such population, and."—(Mr. Heneage.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, he had handed in an Amendment which he would, if in Order, prefer to see substituted for the Amendment which had just been moved. He wished to insert words from the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners issued in 1885, which expressed the same point, but in a wider way than the wording now before the Committee. The words were that, in arranging the divisions, special regard should be had to the pursuits of the population in the districts. His Amendment, if adopted, would constitute a direction to the Quarter Sessions, in making up an electoral division, to group together villages and centres of population which had the same commercial and industrial interests. For instance, in some counties they might have mining parishes which would be taken together, and in others industrial parishes would be grouped with parishes of similar interests.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St, George's)

said, that of course what the hon. Gentleman wished to carry out was the same as was proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, and he rather preferred the wording of his right hon. Friend's Amendment, which he thought would be quite sufficient to carry out the object in view.

MR. CHANNING

said, he thought his own Amendment was preferable to that of the right hon. Gentleman. The distinction merely between urban and rural population did not at all cover the point, and he therefore begged to move the alteration he had suggested.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, To leave out all the words after "to," to the end of the section, and insert "the pursuits of the population."—(Mr. Manning.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman was making a suggestion which would not have so good an effect as that proposed by the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). What they wanted was a fair representation of both rural and agricultural populations in all parts of the country; and he suggested that the words of his right hon. Friend covered all the ground intended to be secured for their representation, and he would, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment.

MR. CHANNING

said, he did not think the hon. Gentleman had grasped the point of his Amendment, which was that the distinction between the urban and rural population was really quite insufficient. It must be within the knowledge of every Member representing a county division that in many cases they would have villages, the industries of which were entirely of one kind—such as shoemaking—and again, in the same district, purely agricultural villages. The interests of those parishes were of a different type; and to say that one was urban and the other rural was simply not touching the point in question. A great many small villages in rural districts were essentially industrial. This was a point on which he had some right to insist, because it greatly affected the division of the county of Northamptonshire which he had the honour to represent. His object was that the Quarter Sessions should have instructions to group parishes together having similar interests and carrying on the same trade, and parishes which might naturally desire to be represented by men who could speak on the special points which concerned them in the management of the county. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that in the county which he represented it would make a serious difference to a great many electoral divisions if populations with the same interests and pursuits were not grouped together and represented upon the County Councils by men who understood their interests. The mere distinction as between urban and rural did not affect cases of this kind.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

said, he should have thought it would be better to proceed geographically in forming these electoral divisions. He had no objection to the words of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Channing), but he did not see how the hon. Member intended it to be worked out.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, he thought there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. He asked whether the Government would have any objection to add after the word "distribution" the words "and pursuits"; because he thought that would probably meet the views of his hon. Friend?

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Quarter Sessions would have very full power in this matter, and would, no doubt, exercise a wise discretion. He did not think it desirable that they should, in so many words, draw a distinction between different classes of the people. The wording of his right hon. Friend's Amendment appeared to him to be all that was required, and he thought the Quarter Sessions might very well be left to deal with this matter.

MR. CHANNING

said, that with regard to Quarter Sessions the right hon. Gentleman referred to the matter in a spirit with which he was afraid many hon. Members who represented county divisions would hardly agree. When the 3rd clause was before the Committee the question was discussed as to the authority who should settle the electoral divisions for the election of the County Councils; and it was contended on that, the Liberal side of the House, that they had had ample experience of the very unsatisfactory working of the Quarter Sessions in the making of polling districts. That was very much the case in the county he represented. The whole point he wished to lay before the House was that, by interposing some such words as he had suggested, they would give a sufficient and not too restrictive direction to the Quarter Sessions in carrying out this duty. By leave of the Committee he should like to withdraw his Amendment, and substitute for it the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), which would be, after "distribution" in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, to insert the words "and pursuits."

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after "distribution" in the second line to insert "and pursuits."—(Mr. Channing.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

said, it seemed to him that the arguments which had been addressed to the Committee against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) really applied with equal force to the original Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire—those arguments being to the effect that it was of no use in matters of this kind to separate persons of different pursuits. But surely the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division would separate persons of different pursuits—that was to say, would separate rural and urban populations. Now, if the Committee was going to separate them—if they were going to group urban and rural populations together—he was at a loss to see why they should not include mining populations, fishing populations, and so forth. With reference to the objection taken by the hon. Member for East Northampton in reference to the operations of the Boundary Commissioners in 1885, he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had attended the sittings of the Commissioners in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and he recollected that in their deliberations they found it exceedingly convenient not only to take cognizance of the difference between rural and urban populations, but also the difference between mining populations, fishing populations, and so forth. Now, he was not quite sure that they would be doing well here to adopt entirely the principle of grouping together populations of the same character; but if they did it to any extent at all—if they grouped, as the right hon. Gentleman asked them to group, rural populations together and urban populations together—he did not see why they should stop there, and why they should not carry that grouping to its logical consequence, and group together all those people who were of similar pursuits. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) therefore maintained that if they listened at all to the proposition of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division, which he held in effect had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, they should go further and accept the Amendment which had been last moved.

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)

said, there could be only two ways of creating these electoral districts, and one was that of grouping them, so far as they could, geographically with regard to population, but where there happened to be rural and urban populations securing so far as they could a fair representation of the two different kinds of population, and the other was that of adopting, as now proposed, a grouping of the populations of similar pursuits. He thought if the latter proposition were accepted it would land the Quarter Sessions in very great difficulties. He did not think it necessary either to attack Quarter Sessions or to defend them. As a rule, in regard to polling stations, they had done their work satisfactorily; and if the direction proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division were given to them, to his mind it would be sufficient to secure that they would divide the country into convenient electoral divisions, having regard to the circumstances of the districts. The words it was proposed to add, however, if adopted, would only complicate instead of simplifying the division.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, his difficulty was that he did not see exactly how the Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for the Sleaford Division, or the Amendment to his Amendment, were to be interpreted. The proposal was that regard should be had "to a proper representation, both of rural and of urban population, and to the distribution and pursuits of such population;" but he took it that those who would be entrusted with the making of these arrangements would have their own views of the sense in which they were to regard these factors. So far as he was concerned, he should have preferred to have seen no restriction at all laid down. He would rather leave those people to decide on consideration of all the circumstances of the case. He was not prepared to say that it was desirable always to separate the rural and the urban population. Whether or no such separation should take place should be decided by the circumstances of each case. Then, again, he would not be prepared to say that it would be desirable to separate the population according to pursuits. He had no objection to these circumstances being taken into consideration; but he thought that in interpreting the clause those who were intrusted with the work should be left to do it as they thought best, and should be left to interpret the clause according to the circumstances of each division.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he thought if the words "and pursuits" were accepted it would lead those who would be entrusted with the work of delimiting these districts into hopeless confusion. It seemed to him that when they had regard to the duties which would devolve on the District Councils, the difference between the different districts would depend rather on the density of the population than on the character of the occupation of the population. If the Committee would look at the powers to be given to the District Councils, under Clauses 47 and 48, which were now for a moment withdrawn from consideration, they would be found to be rather of a sanitary and police nature than of such a nature as to require them to be administered in accordance with the difference of the pursuits of the population. He did not think that it would be advantageous to men following the same pursuits that they should be grouped on the same lines. To his mind, grouping people of the same occupation together had not a wholesome effect. Greater width of sympathy and broadness of view was gained, he thought, more by mixing the populations following different occupations, and of different sentiments, so to speak, than of separating them according to their occupations. He was, therefore, of opinion that the gathering together of people of different pursuits in the same districts was thing rather to be sought after than avoided.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this point, seeing that some time had been devoted to its discussion, and that it was really a matter of a very simple character. It was recognized on all sides that the Amendment would pro- vide for a great deal of that which hon. Gentlemen desire to see provided for, and he would suggest that any other question which might arise, and which it might be desirable to settle, should be left for settlement to a future occasion. In any case, he trusted the Committee would not delay coming to a decision on what was really not a matter of supreme importance.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. His (Mr. Stansfeld's) view, shortly described, was this. He would rather not have the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division at all; but if it were to be accepted he should vote for the insertion in it of the words proposed by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Channing).

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, that as he was responsible for the suggestion which led to this Amendment he would point out that that was really a small matter after all. He quite agreed, therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in hoping that the Committee would not spend much time upon its discussion. He would go further and say that, if necessary, the Amendment might be withdrawn.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

said, he had heard no reasonable argument against the words originally proposed by his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Hobhouse), the insertion of which was now moved by his hon. Friend on his right (Mr. Channing) that the words "and pursuits" be inserted.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON (Devon, South Molton)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would find himself able to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). He (Viscount Lymington) himself had a Proviso further down on the Paper; but, so far as he was concerned, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division, which he understood was accepted by the Government. He trusted also that the Government, in consideration of the views expressed on that the Opposition side, would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing).

MR. RITCHIE

Yes; we will accept it—it is a very small point after all.

Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

On the Motion of Sir JOSEPH BAILEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, line 29, after the word "being," to insert the words "and to area."

On the Motion of Sir UGHTRED KAYSHUTTLEWORTH, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, line 29, after "being," to insert the words "and to evidence of any considerable change of population since such census."

Amendment proposed, In page 46, line 32, after the first "district," to insert the words "or of the combination of a county district or ward or of county districts or wards with a portion of another county district or ward."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not insert after the words "county district," in the second line of this Amendment, the words "having sufficient population to return one councillor," and whether he could not insert the words "an adjoining" before "portion of any county district?"

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words "county district" in the second line, to insert the words "having sufficient population to return one councillor."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had no objection to that, though he did not think it would be necessary. In the conduct of a Bill of this kind one was often driven to accept Amendments which made a thing appear more clear, although they were not necessary. He could not believe that the Local Authorities would deal in a different manner to that proposed.

MR. BARING (London)

said, that if the Amendment was only to apply to a district able to return one Member it would be an injustice. There might be county districts able to return 2¾ members, and an adjoining county district which might only be entitled to return 1¼ The result of this Amendment would be that one district would be en- titled to return three members while the other would only be entitled to return one. He (Mr. Baring) could not possibly consent to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

MR. C. T. DYKE ACLAND (Cornwall, Launceston)

said, he thought it would be much better if the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the words of his Amendment. It was obvious that a small piece of one county might be projecting into another, and that piece might be sufficient to return a member, and that there might be no district which could be conveniently added to it from the other county in order to jointly secure a member.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the second. "a," in order to insert "an adjoining."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Original Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, line 34, after "ward," insert— So, however, that where any such portion of a county district or ward has not a defined area for which a separate list or part of a list of voters is made under the Acts relating to the registration of electors, such portion shall, until a new register of electors is made, continue to be part of the district or ward of which it has been treated, as being part in the then current register of electors.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, the object of the next Amendment which stood in his name was to preserve, as far as possible, the parish as the unit of representation.

Amendment proposed, In page 46, line 36, at end, add the following sub-section:—"(4.) Whenever under the provisions of this section a county district is divided into two or more portions, every such portion shall, as far as possible, consist of an entire parish or township or of a combination of entire parishes or townships."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. RITCHIE

I accept the Amendment; but would submit that the hon. and learned Member should leave out the words "or township."

MR. HOBHOUSE

I presume we shall have some definition of the word parish?

MR. RITCHIE

Yes.

MR. HOBHOUSE

Then I will omit those words.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to omit the words "or township."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question, "That the words 'or township' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the sub-section, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 46, line 38, leave out from "if" to "where," in line 40; and in line 41, leave out "then as if."

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper In page 47, line 2, after "county district," to insert— Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any such last-mentioned portion from being combined with a portion of any adjoining rural sanitary district to form an electoral division for the first election. He should like to know whether that Amendment was covered by a previous Amendment moved?

MR. RITCHIE

replied in the affirmative.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 47, line 3, leave out Sub-section (5) as follows:— (5.) In the case of the county of London, the foregoing provisions shall apply as if the city of London and the parishes mentioned in Schedule A., and the districts mentioned in Schedule B., and the places mentioned in Schedule C. to the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, as amended by subsequent Acts, were county districts, with the modifications following, that is to say—

1. (a.) any place in Schedule C. may be combined with the whole or portion of any other such district; and
2. (b.) it shall not be necessary that the population of any electoral division forming the whole or part of the city of London shall be equal to the scale of population adopted for the other electoral divisions in the Metropolis."

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 53 (Determination by first county council of position of overlapping rural sanitary districts).

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he had an Amendment to this clause to the effect that if the County Council determined that a place was a separate rural county district, they might annex to it parishes of other rural districts. He did not know whether the Government would accept this proposal or not.

Amendment proposed, In page 47, line 25, to insert the words "and if they determine that the portion of such district in the county shall be a separate rural county district, they may annex to it any parish or parishes of any other rural county district situate within the county, and the parishes so annexed shall thereupon become part of such rural sanitary district."—(Mr. Honeage.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he did not think this Amendment was material, as the question had already been dealt with.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?

MR. HENEAGE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, this clause dealt with rural sanitary districts crossing the line of a county, and it provided that where that was the case the County Council should determine— Whether the portion of such district situate in their county shall be a separate rural county district, and, if not, for annexing it, or different portions of it, to some county district or county districts in their county. If a rural sanitary district crossed the boundary of a county it would touch upon the jurisdiction of another authority; but the clause was framed as though only one County Council would have jurisdiction in the matter. It might, however, be necessary to consult both the County Councils.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that was so, but the instructions were arbitrary. Where a rural sanitary district ran into two counties, each separately would form a portion of the district which was in their county, and not a separate district. The object, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, was to bring all sanitary districts within one county, and they laid down in this clause, as the right hon. Gentleman would see, an arbitrary line that a portion situate within another county should be a separate district. That being so, of course the arrangement would apply to both counties.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be desirable to amend Sub-Section 1 of the clause on Report. That clause provided as he had described; but Sub-Section 2 went on to say that a scheme, when made, should be submitted to the Local Government Board for confirmation. That assumed that the Council selected under the Act would have power to deal with a portion of a rural sanitary district not within their county, and he should like to know whether that power was given by any other part of the Bill?

MR. RITCHIE

replied in the negative. The power was given to the County Council in the 1st sub-section. They might have a rural sanitary district, half of which would be in one county and half in another. Both of those counties would frame a scheme by which that portion of the rural sanitary district situated within their county would become a rural sanitary district by itself or become attached to another rural sanitary district.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he quite understood that; but he should like to know whether on Report the right hon. Gentleman would be able to propose an Amendment by which under the circumstances contemplated by the clause County Council A would be able to propose a scheme which would prevent County Council B from doing so.

MR. RITCHIE

said, there were two questions to be considered in the matter, and first of all, the settlement of the county line. County A may think it desirable to annex their portion of a rural sanitary district to another rural sanitary district, whereas County B, if the portion of the rural sanitary district within its area was large, might think it desirable to make it a district by itself. Under the clause, Counties A and B would act quite independently of each other.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants, Petersfield)

said, he wished to know how this clause would affect the case of Islands or portions of counties wholly in the middle of other counties, and separated from their own counties? Cases of that kind existed in this country, and how would they be treated?

MR. RITCHIE

said, the noble Lord presumed that there would be a projection from one county into another.

VISCOUNT WOLMER

said, he believed that there was more than that in some cases.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said, he thought that the answer to his noble Friend was that in all these oases the islands in question already belonged to the rural Sanitary Authority within the geographical county.

MR. RITCHIE

said, county districts would be divided by the county line.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 54 (Determination by first county council of number of councillors and wards of rural districts).

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's) moved to omit the clause from the Bill.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Clause 55 (Provisional Order as respects boroughs and urban sanitary districts in the same area).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 48, line 16, after "county," insert— And if the population exceeds fifty thousand, may constitute the borough into a county borough, and make such provision as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect as respects such county borough; and the provisions of this Act respecting county boroughs shall, subject to the provisions of the order, apply.

MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

said, he rose to offer opposition to Sub-section 2; and the reason he did so was because he thought the sub-section gave special powers to the Universities which the Universities should not have. It said— Where certain members of the sanitary authority for any such urban sanitary district are appointed by a university or any colleges therein, the order may provide for the ap- pointment by such university or colleges of members on the district council. He wished to refer, in this case, more especially to the University in the town of Cambridge. The right hon. Gentle-man the President of the Local Government Board privately expressed to him that the Bill did not confer that right, except in so far as the University already had such a right to be represented on the Town Council of the borough of Cambridge. So far as that right was concerned, he (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) wished to say, that at present the University of Cambridge had no such right whatever to representation on the Town Council of the borough of Cambridge. Up to the year 1788 the Town Council of Cambridge was the sole Governing Body of the borough, but in the next year an Act of Parliament was passed, which constituted the Board of Improvement Commissioners in Cambridge a Body consisting partly of University men and partly of townsmen. What the Bill now proposed to do was this—to do away completely with what he might call the Sanitary Authority—this Board of Improvement Commissioners of Cambridge—and make the Town Council the only authority in the borough, and this Sub-section 2 of the present clause proposed to give to the University the right to be represented on that Council, not only to vote for representatives, but to have special representatives of the University on the Local Authority, because he maintained that the words of the Sub-section meant that the University might nominate University men, and vote for them, and have themselves sitting on the Town Council of the borough of Cambridge per se and qua University men. He maintained that this was special class legislation, and that there was no earthly reason why the University of Cambridge should be specially represented on the Town Council, and for this reason, that though it was true they paid their rates they had only an equal right with the other townsmen to be represented on the Council. He, therefore, put it to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board persisted in his proposal, that there was no reason or justice in giving the University of Cambridge a special class privilege of having a seat on the Town Council, where there was no other reason for doing so. It would be a serious thing if this Bill, which did not aim at creating new interests, should confer a class privilege such as this—giving a class privilege to the University as against the town. He did not mean to say that the Government were proposing to establish a hostile interest on the Town Council to that of the town itself; but the University was, at any rate, apparently a hostile interest, and it was unfair to lay down a hard and fast rule that in these instances class legislation should take place. If they gave these special privileges in the case of the University, he maintained that they would be bound in justice to grant like privileges to Gas Companies, Waterworks, and other old Corporations. They were also ratepayers possessing a largo amount of rateable property and possessing just as much right to be represented as the University. The women's College also would stand in the same category. It was not represented in the University, but it would have quite as much right, if once the thin end of the wedge was inserted, to have representation on the Town Council as the University. He should like to go through the history of the Town Council of Cambridge, as there would be found many points in it of interest as bearing upon the point at issue, but he would not detain the Committee.

Amendment proposed, "To strike out Sub-section (2)."—(Mr. Penrose FitzGerald.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause."

MR. BARING (London)

said, he did not know, and should like to hear, whether or not the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment was a member of the University of Cambridge. So far as he (Mr. Baring) was concerned, he was not concerned in the case of Cambridge, but as a graduate of Oxford he maintained, and he maintained it in the face of any hon. Member in the House who might take an opposite view, that the towns of Oxford and Cambridge existed by and for the two Universities. [Laughter.] Yes, he ventured to maintain that the towns of Oxford and Cambridge existed entirely for the Universities, and if this Amendment were pressed to a Division he should vote against it.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that really his proposal would not do that which he contemplated. There was no provision in the Bill declaring that the University should be represented on the Town Council. The condition of things at present was this; there were two Authorities in Cambridge at the present time, one the Sanitary Authority and the other the Town Council. The University was not represented on the Town Council, but it was on the Sanitary Authority. Well, it was thought undesirable that there should be two Local Authorities within the same borough having, to a large extent, the same functions to perform; and, therefore, they proposed by Clause 55, by means of a Provisional Order, to put an end to an overlapping jurisdiction, and to enable the University boroughs to exist under one government. Then they were confronted with the fact that upon one of the Local Authorities in the town of Cambridge the University was represented. The Government did not ask the House to commit itself to saying that under the new condition of things the University would also be represented on the new Governing Body. All they did was to provide that a Provisional Order might deal with the matter by allowing the University to have representatives on the Council—that the Provisional Order might say that the University might be represented on the new Governing Body. But the Committee must know perfectly well that that was a very different thing from the Committee saying that the University shall be represented on the Governing Body. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes. This matter would have to be referred again to a Committee of the House of Commons, and the House would have to express its opinion as to whether any particular interest or class should be represented on the new Body, and after the Committee had expressed its opinion the House of Commons itself would be called upon to express its opinion also on the Provisional Order. They did not say that the University should be represented on the new authority, but all they said was that there was a representative of the University on one of the two Local Bodies in Cam- bridge that the Provisional Order might provide for the continuance of that representation. It did not lay down as a necessity that the Provisional Order should provide for the continuance of that representation.

MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD

asked what was the object of the clause, and what was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the word "may"? Let them take out the sub-section altogether, and the University of Cambridge would then have an equal right to be represented as the rest of the citizens of the town. Things had very much changed since the days in which the University Statutes were passed, and at the present day out of 35 Professors in the University, 30 had electoral qualification, and out of 212 resident fellows no less than 101 had a qualification; and, as a matter of fact, many members of the University were members of the Town Council, having been elected in the ordinary way. The Town Council was anxious to have the material benefit in this indirect representation of the University, because the advice and assistance of those intellectual, learned and scientific gentlemen who belonged to the University was found of the greatest advantage; but the Town Council declined to accept this class legislation in favour of any particular Body—it protested against the University having any other than the present open and fair representation by election. He could not conceive what the difference would be to the right hon. Gentleman's Bill if the 2nd sub-section of Clause 55 were omitted. The permissive point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was not at all to the purpose. Leave the sub-section in, and there was a chance that in a moment of his unwatchfulness—[Laughter]—and he was fully prepared to admit, in answer to the laughter of hon. Gentlemen, that his moments of unwatchfulness were many, and he did not think it right that the possibility of such a power as that contained in the sub-section being granted should depend upon the want of watchfulness on his part.

MR. RITCHIE

said, be was anxious that no unnecessary time should be spent on the provision which might of itself be unnecessary. He understood, from what had fallen from hon. Members, that they felt that by passing this sub-section it would be considered that they had committed themselves to this representation of the Universities on the Town Councils. Now, as a matter of fact, he might state to the Committee that it was not at all necessary that this sub-section should be retained. It was quite within the power of any Government Office that had to promote Provisional Orders to sanction the introduction of words in a Provisional Order, and he maintained that that being so, it was wholly unnecessary to insist upon this Amendment. It would be for the Committee to whom the Provisional Order would be referred to say whether this proposal was right or wrong.

MR. STOKES (Cambridge University)

said, he hoped—as he had the honour to represent the University of Cambridge, and as his Colleague was not in the House at the present moment—he might be allowed to say a few words with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald). As the hon. Member had already mentioned, on the existing Sanitary Authority of Cambridge, which, with certain modifications, had been handed down for a considerable period, the University was largely represented. It was true that it had no representation on the Town Council, though of course members of the University might be elected to the Town Council, just as, if the University had representation on it, the Town Council might also elect persons who were not members of the University. He thought, however, that the hon. Member had rather left out of sight the fact that there were two sides to this question. Members of the University were at present under certain disqualifications. There were many members of the University, who were Fellows of Colleges, for instance, who resided not in the town, but within the walls of their Colleges, and they were absolutely excluded from having any vote whatsoever for members of the Town Council. But surely it was reasonable, when the two Boards were to be thrown into one as proposed by the Bill, that, at any rate, that question, which bristled with peculiarities and with difficulties, should be considered at greater length than it could properly be considered by that House, which had to attend to the affairs of the Empire, and not merely to those of this or that town. The proposal was merely that that difficult and peculiar question should be relegated to the calm consideration of the Local Government Board, who would doubtless have before them a scheme or schemes proposed to them for their acceptance or rejection. He said a scheme or schemes; for although it was not improbable that different schemes might be suggested to them from the University and from the town respectively, it was quite possible that, by a further conference between the University and the town, a scheme might be suggested to the Local Government Board in which both parties concurred. In fact, quite recently negotiations were carried on between representatives of the town and representatives of the University; and it appeared at one time that those two Bodies were very near coming to an agreement. Unfortunately a full discussion of the matter could not take place for lack of time, and more especially as it came on at the period of the year when, of all others, the University was most empty. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Committee would adhere to the proposition of the Government as contained in the Bill, and would retain Sub-section 2 of Clause 55.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that he had spoken under a misapprehension when he had previously told the Committee that the arrangement to which he had referred could be effected even without that sub-section; but he had since ascertained that that was not so, and that it was essential that the sub-section should be retained in the clause.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, he supported the retention of the sub-section and opposed the Amendment moving for its omission. He must congratulate the House on the few remarks they had heard from his hon. Colleague the Member for the University of Cambridge, who was an ornament to any Body on which he sat, and whose long acquaintance with this subject in its minutest details required and demanded their careful consideration. As the hon. Member knew, he (Mr. James Stuart) had been a member along with him on other occasions on the Governing Body of the University of Cambridge, and he could say this—and the hon. Member would bear him out in his assertion—that the relations of the University of Cambridge and the Colleges of that University to the town were absolutely peculiar. They might be borne out by similar relations between the University of Oxford and the town of Oxford for all that he knew, but they were entirely different to anything they had to deal with in the Bill, and they must therefore treat the matter on a different basis. They had in the University, residing in the Colleges, a large number of persons who were absolutely disfranchised by previous Acts of Parliament especially directed to the peculiar institutions of that University and its Colleges, and he took it that the object of the Amendment was that the matter should be considered, apart from other matters, by the Commission or Committee, or whoever else it was who would have to consider the Provisional Order. He did plead for that consideration being allowed, and he felt that in this matter he spoke on behalf of and in conj unction with his hon. Friend and Colleague, if he might so call him, on the other side. The relations between the University and the Town of Cambridge had been a constant subject of consideration. There could be no doubt that they were very anomalous, and that it was desirable that under this Bill there should be a unification of those relations which could not well be attained without due consideration of the peculiar circumstances involved. Therefore, if the opinion of the Chairman was that the retention of this clause was necessary for the consideration of this matter in the Provisional Order he earnestly hoped that the Committee would retain the clause, and that, too, in the interests of the town represented by the hon. Member (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) who moved the rejection of the sub-section. They must remember that there was an enormous rateable college property in the town, and that the property of' the Colleges in the town by no means had its proper place in the municipal life of that town. Though there might be members of the University who might be electors or members of the Town Council under the present condition of things, it was because they were ratepayers for other property than college property and had been elected by their brother ratepayers; but there were many men, amongst whom he himself was one, who were not qualified by the existing regulations to take any part in the management of the municipality in which so much of their property existed, and with which they had to do. He spoke not only from the point of view of his hon. Colleague opposite, but also from the point of view of one who was also as intimately interested in the circumstances of the town of Cambridge as was the hon. Gentleman who represented the town sitting on the Bench opposite. He certainly hoped that if, for the solution of this very thorny and difficult question—which was not, however, far off solution now, as he thought the hon. Gentleman opposite would admit—it was deemed necessary that this sub-section should be retained in order that the whole of the case of the University might be considered by a Select Committee as a question isolated from the rest of the Local Government Board of the country, that hon. Members would support its retention. He was not arguing for this because of any desire he had for the continuance of the peculiar circumstances of Cambridge University, but because, whatever his view might be of their desirability, those peculiar circumstances existed, and this question could not be treated on exactly similar lines to those bearing on other towns. If the clause was looked upon as necessary for the consideration of the peculiar situation of the town and University of Cambridge, he should give it his support.

MR. A. W. HALL (Oxford)

said, he had considered the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge, and he ought to say that so far as he could see there would be no desire amongst his (Mr. A. W. Hall's) constituents that this sub-section should be omitted. The Local Board of Oxford had always been working harmoniously with the University, and he hoped and trusted that they would continue to do so when the new Council was created; but, inasmuch as they had reason to suppose that the city of Oxford would have a County Council, inasmuch as it had a population of over 50,000, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, if this clause were retained, it would include the "County Council" as well as "District?" He would propose that, in line 20, the right hon. Gentleman should leave out the word "district," in order that the provision might apply to the County Council as well as to the District Council, by which alteration the case of Oxford might be met.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think that any objection could be taken to that.

MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND (York, W.R., Rotherham)

said, he was glad the hon. Member for the City of Oxford had spoken on this question in a different sense to the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge. He was quite sure that hon. Members would agree with him when he said, as a former member of the Local Government Board of Oxford, and as a University representative on the Board of Guardians, that friction between the University and the city had been largely avoided by the presence of University representatives on these Boards. It might not always be possible to have University members elected on the Boards in the ordinary way, and all persons connected with the University could not obtain representation as ordinary citizens by the ordinary processes—as married tutors living in the City, and so on. The Colleges covered an enormous area, and surely the sanitary condition of those buildings was a matter of the greatest importance to those concerned in the University. It would be seen that it must be essential to avoid, as much as possible, friction with the town authorities on these matters, and there was nothing better calculated to do that than that the University should have representatives sitting on the sanitary Boards side by side with the ordinary elective members. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would not now, by a side wind, interfere with the arrangements which must be adapted to the peculiar character and circumstances of a University town. He dared say some hon. Gentlemen of strong Liberal or Radical views would consider that, in saying this, he was going against Radical principles, but he only hoped that such Gentlemen if they did speak would do so with some real knowledge of the circumstances of the case.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not know whether it had yet been mentioned, but it was a fact that Oxford University paid one-third of the whole rates of the whole rates of the town of Oxford, and that it would have no direct vote whatever in the expenditure of those rates if this sub-section were not passed.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, the information the right hon. Gentleman just now gave them showed how exceedingly wrong he was a moment ago when, by a piece of singular mental agility, he proposed to withdraw this sub-section—

MR. RITCHIE

I did not propose to withdraw it.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to express himself in favour of withdrawing it.

MR. RITCHIE

No, no!

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had not done so. He (Mr. Conybeare) was inclined to think that this clause would meet the difficulty suggested, and, as one of those advanced Radicals and democratic Members to whom the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) had distinctly alluded, he had great pleasure in assuring the hon. Member that he was not going to take a pedantic or doctrinaire view of this question. He would, however, frankly say that he would have solved this difficulty in another way. It would, he thought, be more in accordance with Liberal views, and the question would not have been found more difficult of solution if the Government had boldly extended the municipal franchise to all the residents in the Universities, because it must be understood that there were two classes of residents in the University—those immured within the walls of the establishment, and those who were householders and had their families resident, as burgesses if they liked, in the town. The University electors in the city of Oxford were a considerable number in the present day. All persons residing outside the Colleges, he imagined, would be entitled to the municipal franchise if they wanted it. He did not see what difficulty there would be in extending those privileges or rights to other University men who happened to be living within the walls of the Colleges. If it were a question of giving preference, he should prefer that solution of the difficulty to the other. But as it was too late to press the Government for any further innovation in that direction, it appeared to him that the proposal embodied in this contested sub-section was at any rate a very harmless one, and one which certainly would not in the opinion of University men lead to friction or difficulty. He was glad that it had been made apparent that this clause would not extend solely to Cambridge. At first it looked rather as if the peculiar condition which would prevent Oxford from enjoying the privilege given in this clause was to be retained, and that the application was to be peculiar to Cambridge. He now understood that that was not so, and as one interested in Oxford and who saw that this proposal might be of great convenience to the city of Oxford, he supported the Government in contending for the retention of the subsection.

MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD

said, the hon. Member for London (Mr. Baring) had thrown out a suggestion that he (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) was not a member of the University of Cambridge. He was a member of the University, and a graduate. Then he had been taunted by an hon. Member with the statement that the University of Cambridge did not get on well with the Town Authorities of Cambridge. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; it was insinuated that the Oxford University got on well with the Local Authorities, but that Cambridge did not. The hon. Member said that there had been scarcely a hitch during a long period of years between the representatives of the University and the town. Well, there had been no hitch between the University Authorities of Cambridge and the Local Boards, but they would get some idea of what the condition of things might be if this sub-section were agreed to by imagining the elected representatives of the town in the Town Council in the midst of all the Deans and Dons of the University, in much the same position as he (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) occupied just now in that House in the midst of so many learned University Professors. It was a great pity that the two old University towns of Oxford and Cambridge could not row in one boat in the future as they had done in the past. Oxford was to have a County Council, but Cambridge was only to have a District Council. No doubt he had no right to go into that point; but he might be allowed to express the hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite and around him would support him in expressing the view that Cambridge should be dealt with in this respect in the same way as Oxford. He feared he should be in a small minority if he pressed his Amendment, therefore he must leave the defence of the interests of the town of Cambridge to the tender mercies of the introducers of this Bill, with the hope that the Radical Members of the towns of Oxford and Cambridge would use their influence with him to see that those towns were not neglected in their relations with the Universities.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

said, if the hon. Member would accept the support of, at any rate, one Radical Member, he should be happy to divide with him upon his Amendment.

MR. BARING

said, he desired to explain that the hon. Member (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) had misunderstood what had fallen from him. He had not said that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the University of Cambridge, but that he did not know whether he was a member of it or not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. A. W. HALL, the following Amendment made:—In page 48, line 20, to leave out the word "district."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56 (Consideration of alterations of boundaries by County Councils).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 48, line 25, to leave out "county," and insert "administrative county or county borough."

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he had on more than one occasion expressed satisfaction at the Boundary Clauses. He thought they were well framed, but there were one or two cases in which he would like to see Amendments made. The clause dealt with the Reports made by the Boundary Commissioners and—

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 27, leave out "the council may," and insert "to."—(Mr. Stanfield.)

Question, "That the words 'the council may' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57 (Future alterations of boundaries of county and borough, and of electoral divisions of a county).

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

, in moving to insert, after the word "county," in line 34, the words "county borough," said, he proposed the insertion of these words in order to make the clause harmonize with what had been done in Clause 56 and with some Amendments to be proposed in the clause by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.

Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 34, after the word "county," to insert the words "county borough."—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, the insertion of the words were quite unnecessary, as the hon. Gentleman would see that the words of the clause were "council of any county or borough." If they were to accept those words, they would prevent any county that was not a county borough making representations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

, in moving to insert "as the case may be," after the word "borough," in line 35, said, what he wanted to make clear was that the boundary of the borough was not to be altered except on the application of the representatives of the borough, and that in the event of any such alteration the consequential adjustment of the words should be made.

Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 35, after the word "borough," to insert the words "as the case may be."—(Mr. Woodall.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, that if they accepted the Amendment, they would preclude a borough which wanted an extension of its areas beyond the county in which it was at that time situated from making the representation.

MR. WOODALL

said, he was afraid he did not quite realize what the right hon. Gentleman urged. What he wanted particularly to know was whether a borough might act quite independently of the County Authority?

MR. RITCHIE

Certainly it can.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 48, at end of line 37, insert the following sub-sections:— (b.) "That the union of a county borough with a county is desirable; or (c.) That the union of any counties or boroughs or the division of any county is desirable; or (d.) That it is desirable to constitute any borough having a population of not less than fifty thousand into a county borough; or.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, it was enacted in this clause that whenever it was represented by the Council of any county or borough that an alteration in the number of elective councillors and electoral divisions was desirable— The Local Government Board shall cause to be made a local inquiry, and may make an order for the alteration proposed accordingly. Was it not necessary or advisable that some distinct provision should be made for the petitioning authority to be heard upon the local inquiry?

Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 1, after the word "representation," to insert the words "or for such other alteration as they may deem expedient."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, that when a local inquiry was held, any body of persons affected by the proposed alteration would, of course, have a right to make representation; besides, the alteration would be made by Provisional Order.

Question put and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, line 1, before "refuse," insert "may."—

Mr. STANSFELD

said, that what he desired was that the Local Government Board should have the power to make the alterations in default of representations, but that the Provisional Order should not have effect unless confirmed by Act of Parliament, and to carry out his desire he would move the next Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 49, at commencement of line 5, to insert the words— Provided, that in default of such representation by the council of any county or borough before the first day of November one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to cause such local inquiry to be made, and thereupon to make such order as they may deem expedient."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought that on further consideration, the right hon. Gentleman would see it was not advisable to insert these words. They had already agreed, in the commencement of Clause 57, that representation should be made by the Council of any county or borough to the Local Government Board, and that upon that representation the Local Government Board should take such action. It seemed to him it would be rather contrary to the principle of the first portion of the section if the Local Government Board were, in default of receiving any representations from the county or borough, to set to work to make the inquiry which might be necessary. By the adoption of these words they would not only be departing from what they had already agreed to, but they would be really placing an obligation upon the Local Government Board which it would be almost impossible for them to fulfil. He did not see how they could carry out such instructions as the right hon. Gentleman would give them, unless they were at once to commence what might be called a roving expedition into all the counties and county boroughs of England, with the view of seeing whether alterations were required. The principle on which they had acted was, that the question of these alterations was of such a difficult character that it could be best dealt with, at least at the commencement, by the locality. He submitted that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be contrary to that principle, and that, moreover, it would put a duty on the shoulders of the Local Government Board which it would be practically impossible for them to fulfil.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that the localities might deem it expedient not to make any representation, and then matters would come to a dead lock, un-unless Parliament provided some other power behind the County Council. He started with the proposition that it was absolutely essential for the success of the scheme of county government in the future that there should be no crossing of areas, and that the question of boundaries should be carried to its necessary and complete end. Therefore, he proposed that, after a certain time, if the Local Authorities failed to make a representation, the obligation of the Local Government Board should commence.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that no one desired that overlapping areas should be adjusted more than he did. He wished the Bill to be a real success; but he was very much afraid that even if there were not all these difficulties, if they provided some alternative mode of dealing with the question, it might be that the bodies upon whom the burden rested first of all might shirk the matter, and say—"Oh, we will not deal with the question, because, if we do not by a certain time, the Local Government Board will relieve us in the matter." He could not help thinking it was better to leave the clause as it stood, in the hope that the County Councils would endeavour to do that which was right and expedient. If it was found that the County Councils did not do what was proper, a new measure dealing with the question might be introduced.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said, that under this clause there were only two possible initiatives in the alteration of the boundaries; one was the initiative of the County Council, and the other was the initiative of the county borough. In the county of Lancashire there was a large number of Local Board districts. The Urban Authorities in these districts were quite as important bodies as Town Councils in the smaller boroughs, and, therefore, it did not seem to him altogether safe to leave representation on the subject of boundaries to the County Council or to the Borough Council. It would be right, he thought, to give power of initiative to the authorities of urban districts. If that was not done, there would not be the changes made in the electoral divisions which would be desirable from time to time, as population altered. Whilst there might be something to be said against bringing in the Local Government Board, he thought there was necessity for more than merely leaving the initiative to the County Council or county borough; it was certainly desirable that the urban districts should have the power of calling attention to the necessity of altering the boundaries.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N. W.)

said, he quite agreed with what the right hon. Baronet had just said. He hoped his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would stand by the statement he had made—that, in the first instance, he would not allow the Local Government Board to interfere with the alteration of the boundaries. The County Councils would be new Bodies, but it was supposed they would be very strong Bodies. Surely, they would know the requirements of their own nighbourhood better than the Local Government Board could possibly do. Until the localities had had time to consider the question of boundaries, it would be unwise to give the Local Government Board power of initiative.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, that no one proposed that, in the first instance, the Local Government Board should interfere. The proposal was that if a county or county borough did not do what was supposed to be its duty, the Local Government Board should have power to take the initiative and hold a local inquiry. He thought the Amendment went too far, because there might be many cases in which no alterations of boundaries might be needed at all. The words of the Amendment were imperative. What was wanted was something in the nature of the Amendment which stood lower down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), because what they all aimed at was that where there were over-lapping boundaries they should, in the interest of the simplification of local areas, be dealt with as effectively and as quickly as possible. No doubt, the Local Bodies should have the initiative in the matter, but where the Local Authorities refused or neglected to do their duty in a certain time, surely there ought to be power for the Local Government Board to see that what was necessary was done.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax should so amend his Amendment that it would read— Provided that, in default of such representation by a county or county borough before the first day of November 1889, the Local Government Board may cause such local inquiry to be made, and thereupon may make such order as they may deem expedient.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he was willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, that he had an Amendment dealing with the subject; but he was perfectly satisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, which, he thought would do all that was required.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, at commencement of line 5, insert— Provided that in default of such representation by a county or county borough before the first day of November 1889, the Local Government Board may cause such local inquiry to be made, and thereupon may make such order as they may deem expedient.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

, in moving the Amendment which stood in his name, said, the Amendment had been suggested to him by the Authorities in some of the larger towns with a view of pointing out distinctly what were the considerations the Local Government Board should have regard to in stating the boundaries of the towns. The Amendment was proposed in no way adverse to the spirit of the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 49, after the words last inserted, to insert—"In dealing with an application by any borough under this section, the Local Government Board shall be empowered to have regard to the community of local interests between the borough and the places enclosed in the proposed extension, as also to sanitary and other requirements common to each, and to the efficiency and economy of combined local government."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the words were quite unnecessary. The Local Government Board would, of course, be bound to have regard to such matters when they were dealing with an application of the kind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHE, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, line 6, after the word "borough," to insert "or unites or divides any counties or boroughs;" and in page 49, line 7, at end of line, to insert— Where such order alters the boundary of a borough, it may, as consequential upon such alteration, increase or decrease the number of the wards in the borough, and alter the boundaries of such wards, and alter the apportionment of the number of councillors among the wards, and alter the total number of councillors, and in such case, make the proportionate alteration in the number of aldermen.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, after the words last inserted, to insert— Any time after the appointed day the Local Government Board may make an order in pursuance of the section mentioned.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58 (Future constitution of new borough).

Amendment proposed, In page 49, line 10, after the word "situate," to insert the words "and shall be forwarded by such council to the Privy Council."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman took the sting out of the clause. When one came to consider how natural it would be for any districts like those governed by Local Boards to seek to be incorporated it was rather difficult to understand why they should not be permitted, as hitherto, to make direct application for the privilege of a Charter. Of course, in the event of such an application, the county would be heard as at the present time. The Justices or any other persons concerned might be heard.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, that communities would have a right to make their representation, and no Body would be able to intervene and prevent that application being made. All that was provided was that the County Council should be made aware of the fact that a district was making application for a Charter.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LEAKE (Lancashire, S.E., Radcliffe)

said, the purport of the Amendment he had now to propose was that every district of 20,000 inhabitants according to the last Census, and a rateable value of :60,000, should have, if not a right to the grant of a Charter, at any rate a very strong claim. Although he could scarcely justify, on Constitutional grounds, that such a district should have a Charter from Her Majesty on application, he thought the spirit of the proposition would be entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He suggested that his Amendment should run as follows:— Provided, that when any application for a new charter is made by any urban district having a population of twenty thousand according to the last census, and a rateable value of sixty thousand pounds, the Local Government Board shall, on proof being supplied to them that the application has been approved and directed to be made by the district council, report in favour of the application.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was sure the hon. Gentleman was hardly serious in making this suggestion. If the Local Government Board or the Privy Council were to have any jurisdiction whatever in this matter, it was useless to say that they should, under certain circumstances, do so and so. These things must be considered in their minds. A population of 20,000 might be so scattered over a large area as to make it almost absurd for them to apply for a Charter of Incorporation. He could not conceive the hon. Gentleman really desired that upon an application of this kind Her Majesty should be bound to grant a Charter of Incorporation. It was not proposed to make it any more difficult for an Urban Authority to obtain a Charter than it was at present.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 (Future alteration of county districts and parishes and wards, and future establishment of urban districts).

On the Motion of Mr. WOODALL, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, line 18, after the word "parish," to insert the words "not in a borough."

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, line 20, after "alteration," insert "or definition."

MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

said, he had an Amendment to move, which would empower the County Council to form new urban and rural districts, or, at any rate, to make it clear that they possessed that power. The Amendment would obviate the inconveniences which arose in grouping, say, two small towns into one Local Board district.

Amendment proposed, In page 49, line 27, after the word "another," to insert the words "and the formation of new urban and rural districts."—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

Agreed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, that in Sub-section 3 of this clause the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the principle of allowing the county ratepayers in a district or ward to appeal against the orders made by the County Council under the clause. He thought that a bad principle.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 60 (Additional power of Local Government Board as to unions).

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he would propose the first of a series of Amendments, the object of which was to render it compulsory instead of discretionary to carry out the object of the clause. He entertained the strongest opinion that they could not perfect their Local Government system without simplifying their areas and boundaries. No boundary line should be allowed to cross another, and he would make it the duty of the Local Government Board to see that this was not done. He did not propose to move the Amendments in the form in which they appeared on the Paper, but to modify them, in order to arrive at a compromise, and meet the views of hon. Gentlemen and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.

Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 29, before the word "the," to insert the words "it shall be the duty of."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the fact that it did not require any special direction under this Bill to enable the Local Government Board to divide the Unions. It was thought advisable to give fresh powers under the Bill in consequence of what appeared to be the view of the Boundary Commissioners. It would, he thought, be rather a strong order to say in this Bill that the Local Government Board, in addition to the power already vested in them, if they thought it desirable to alter a Union, should have it imposed on them as a duty to do so. Under this Bill they were constituting County Councils specially charged with the duty of considering the Report of the Boundary Commissioners, and alongside of that there should not exist the power—not the power, for that existed already, but the obligation—on the part of the Local Government Board of seeing that the Unions were altered. As the right hon. Gentleman knew, there was no question more difficult to deal with than the alteration of the boundaries of Unions, and he was assured that the powers given under this clause would form an admirable escape from the difficulties of the case.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he thought they would be acting very unwisely indeed if they allowed the rearrangement of overlapping Unions to be postponed sine die. The right hon. Gentleman had no occasion to force on County Councils a duty which would be distasteful to them, but he would do the County Councils a great service if he took power to settle matters when the Local Authorities failed to agree. On the part of the Quarter Sessions there had invariably been a de- sire to add to their jurisdiction, and he was perfectly satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman took this power into his hands as was proposed, he would prevent a great deal of quarelling and do a very great deal of good.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Newington, W.)

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax would not insist on the Motion. There was something more than similitude which had to be considered, and though it might be a pretty thing to see equal districts in the map, they might be inimical to the interests of the poor, and it was necessary to consider those interests.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said, nothing could be more important, as all knew, and as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board recognized, than that there should not go on in the future that overlapping of areas, which had been the source of continual confusion in local government in the past, and out of which many of the evils of local government had arisen. The question was, how best to get rid of this? It had been stated truly that the Local Government Board had now the power of dividing Unions. But there was no obligation upon the Board to do so, and the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax was simply that there should be this obligation upon the Board to divide Unions or annex a portion of one Union to another Union in the county in which that portion was situated. He hoped the Committee would go as far as this, else this would be but a halting, timid clause, and would not effect the purpose intended. There could be no harm in throwing this responsibility upon the Local Government Board and let the Committee recognize the paramount duty of now dealing with the matter.

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, so far the Committee had considered only the case of Unions overlapping counties, but he had an Amendment providing that the Local Government Board should address itself to regulating parish boundaries where they overlapped borough boundaries, Perhaps it might be convenient to consider this point at the same time. It would be observed that what he proposed was simply an enabling clause calling the attention of the Local Government Board to the duty, and requiring the Board, on the application of the Borough Authority, to do what could be done with due justice to all interests concerned to make the parish and borough boundaries coterminous.

MR. H. T. DAVENPORT (Staffordshire, Leek)

inquired what was understood by the expression in line 30, "any of these purposes?"

MR. RITCHIE

said, it referred to indoor pauperism or any of those purposes connected with indoor pauperism.

MR. H. T. DAVENPORT

asked, would there not be a difficulty in carrying out the division of the poor rate if the Union was to remain one for the purposes of indoor relief and divided for the purposes of outdoor relief? The rateable area would remain the same for the poor rate, but there would have to be a division in some way that was not clear.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Union would remain the same for rating purposes.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

asked Her Majesty's Government to consider if there was really any serious objection to this Amendment? It was a duty that must be performed within a short time. The Report of the Boundary Commission would shortly be before Parliament, and surely then it would be the duty of the Local Government Board to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. The result of this Amendment would simply be to ensure within a certain time that one of the alternatives should be carried out. He should have been sorry to support the Amendment in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax first placed it on the Paper, for it would have destroyed the most valuable power given by the clause to form contributory Unions; but this Amendment would facilitate the arrangement of county and Union boundaries, and surely the Local Government Board should not object to undertaking a duty that must sooner or later be performed.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the original basis of the Bill was the setting up of local representative institutions. The Government were proceeding by means of inquiry, so that full information should be given to these Bodies as to the position of Poor Law Unions within their area. They would have all the evidence taken by and the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, and surely the County Councils could be relied upon to deal with a matter of this kind in the best interests of the locality. He would point out to the Committee that if this Amendment were accepted, a duty would be cast upon the Local Government Board that might necessitate the Board doing things that might be contrary to the interest of the poor ratepayers. Looking at the fact that the Local Government Board had the power of dividing Unions, that they had expressed a view in favour of bringing counties and Unions into line, and pro-providing for contributory Unions, he thought the Board was doing all it could to bring about a reform he earnestly desired. But if the Board had cast upon it an obligation to do what a County Council did not think necessary, not only here but in reference to all the numerous county boroughs that were to be created, there would be set up machinery that might not be for the benefit of County Councils, ratepayers, or the administration of the Poor Law.

MR. STANSFELD

said, it was no part of the duty of County Councils to consider questions of Poor Law Unions; those matters were kept quite apart from the Councils, and the decision must be with the Local Government Board. He must press his Amendment.

MR. BARING (London)

cited an instance in the county of Essex illustrating the difficulties that arose from a Union extending over the boundaries of two counties.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Local Government Board had no power, without an Act of Parliament, to alter county boundaries, but they had the power to divide a Union situated on the border line of two counties.

MR. BARING

asked, did the power include annexation of a Union to an adjoining Union?

MR. RITCHIE

replied in the affirmative.

MR. BARING

said, he could not understand why the Board had not done that.

MR. BRUNNER

asked the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that he would look upon this arrangement for dividing Unions in two for one purpose, and combining Unions for another purpose, as a temporary arrangement, and as soon as it could be arranged he would recognize the duty of the Local Government Board to fix upon a permanent arrangement.

MR RITCHIE

said, he could conceive that it might be possible that the arrangement of one Union for indoor relief and two Unions for outdoor relief might be the best arrangement for all time. It might be so, and, indeed, it had been urged by many Poor Law reformers.

MR A. W. HALL (Oxford)

said, he confessed he did not thoroughly understand either the clause or the Amendment. Sitting at the other end of the House, he did not hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. Certainly, this divergence of area for indoor and outdoor relief required some explanation. He did not want to "see the Pope in everything," or see the workhouse policy in every proposition in regard to the Bill; but to pass a clause that would give a larger area of taxation for indoor relief than for outdoor relief would be likely to encourage the workhouse policy, as it had under the Metropolitan Poor Rate Act of 1870, increasing the amount of indoor pauperism by 69 per cent. He should like to hear what was the object and meaning of this clause. Was it to carry out this policy of what was called Poor Law reform in extending the system of indoor relief?

MR. RITCHIE

said, there was no idea of the kind. If the hon. Member would refer to the clause, he would find that it did not impose on the Local Government Board, or confer upon the Board any power of enlarging the area of existing Poor Law Unions for indoor relief, but it said that, taking the existing Poor Law Union, this might be taken as the area for indoor relief, but the Union might be divided for the purposes of outdoor relief.

MR A. W. HALL

said, that if the clause provided for narrowing the area for outdoor relief purposes, but not for indoor relief, that practically amounted to the same thing as enlarging the indoor relief area, but not for outdoor relief.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)

said, he thought his hon. Friend did not quite understand the point at issue.

MR. A. W. HALL

said, he admitted he did not.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, then it might be stated in this way—Parishes in a Union were situated on both sides of the county boundary, and for convenience the Union workhouse was built in a town in one of the counties. It was obvious that if the Union were divided, another Union workhouse would have to be built. But to save the expense of building another workhouse, and make the existing house available for either side of the boundary, the whole area would be included for indoor relief, though divided for outdoor relief.

MR. STANSFELD

said, for the benefit of the hon. Member, he might explain that the immediate object of his Amendment was, while accepting the enacting part of the clause, to make it not a matter of discretion, but a matter of duty for the Local Government Board, when a Union crossed a county boundary, to deal with it by dissolving the Union or otherwise.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

said, it seemed to be forgotten that when the Unions were formed, 50 or more years ago, the object of the eminent men who framed the areas was to include the district around each town or considerable village, and levy rates within the parishes so included for the relief of the poor inhabitants. It was impossible to change the position of a town which was the seat of Poor Law administration. The town of Hay was the convenient centre for a Union overlapping Radnor, Brecknock, and Herefordshire, and there would be no convenience from cutting the Union asunder. Nor did he see that the division of area for indoor and outdoor relief would very much affect the case, because the outdoor poor after all would have to go to where the Guardians met to represent their case to the Guardians.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the Report of the Boundary Commission would be submitted to the County Councils, and it would be their duty to take such Report into consideration, and make representations in regard to Unions situated partially within the boundary of their county.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he doubted very much, since Poor Law administration was outside the functions of the Councils, whether they would undertake duties which they would naturally say appertained to the Local Government Board. The remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) gave twofold evidence of twofold ignorance. It was not pedantry to care about the simplification of boundaries. Anyone who had any practical acquaintance with Local Government and what was necessary for administration knew that it was absolutely essential that for the exercise of proper county control all functions must be exercised within the county area. The circumstances of those seeking outdoor relief would be investigated locally.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 149: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 214.)

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 50, line 34, after "two," insert "or more"; and in line 37, after "two," insert "or more."

MR. BYRON REED (Bradford, E.)

said the Amendment he had to propose was simply in the direction of promoting uniformity, and he hoped it would be accepted.

Amendment proposed, In page 50, line 37, after the word "unions," to add the words, "Wherein any union the whole or part of any district, township, or place is within the area of a borough for municipal purposes, but is not within the union of such borough, the Local Government Board shall have full power by order, so to alter such unions, as to transfer the whole or such part of such district, township, or place out of its present union to the borough union, on such terms as to existing charges and liabilities as the Local Government Board may deem proper.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would point out that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the Local Government Board had that power now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61 (Supplemental provisions as to scheme or order).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 51,to leave out from beginning of line 1, to "for," in line 2, and insert— A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, form part of that county; in line 3, to leave out "county council"; in line 4, to leave out "save that it shall not," and insert— Provided that,—(a) Notwithstanding this enactment each of the entire counties of York and Lincoln shall continue to be one county for the said purposes, so far as it is one county at the passing of this Act; and (b) This enactment shall not affect the existing powers or privileges of any borough or city under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as respects the sheriff, justices, or coroner for the borough; but if any county borough is, at the passing of this Act, a part of any county for any of the above purposes, nothing in this Act shall prevent the same from continuing to be part of that county for that purpose; and (c) This enactment shall not.

On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, the following Amendment made to Mr. Ritchie's Amendment:—In line 3, after "Lincoln," insert "Sussex."

On the Motion of Captain SELWYN, the following Amendment made to Mr. Ritchie's Amendment:—In line 3, after "Sussex," insert "and Cambridge."

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, line 14, after "order," to insert "or by 'The County Electors Act, 1888,' or this Act;" and in line 21, after "restrictions," insert "or."

SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

said, in the absence of his right hon. Friend for the Sleaford Division of Lincolshire (Mr. Chaplin), he had to move the Amendment that stood in the name of the latter. The clause appeared to give powers of interference to a rather extravagant extent.

Amendment proposed, in page 51, line 27, to leave out "quarter sessions, justices of the peace, coroners, sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum."—(Sir Richard Paget.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he could quite understand that his hon. Friend should be somewhat alarmed by this catalogue; but it was essential, because any scheme for alteration of boundaries must deal with these questions. But he would point out that any alteration of the kind could only be made by Provisional Order, and so would require the sanction of Parliament.

SIR RICHARD PAGET

said, he was willing to take it from his right hon. Friend that this was so; but he did not find in connection with the clause this Provisional Order protection.

MR. RITCHIE

repeated his assurance that any alterations in boundaries necessitating alterations in powers and duties of Quarter Sessions must be the subject of Provisional Order, and have the sanction of Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made: In page 52, line 4, after "property," insert "debts;" and in line 6, after "boundaries," insert "of a county."

Amendment proposed, In page 52, after Sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-section;—"In all cases where the boundaries of a quarter sessions borough shall be extended by any scheme or order made in pursuance of this Act, the jurisdiction of the quarter sessions and of the justices of the borough shall be extended to the entire area of the borough as so extended; and when any quarter sessions borough which, according to the Census of 1881, contained a population of less than ten thousand, shall, by such extension, be made to include and contain a population of more than ten thousand, then such borough shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be deemed and taken to have been a borough which, according to the Census of 1881, contained a population of more than ten thousand, and the provisions of this Act with respect to boroughs containing, according to the Census of 1881, a population of less than ten thousand, shall not be taken to apply to such extended borough."—(Mr. Woodall.)

Question proposed, "That the Sub-section be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could not possibly accept the Amendment as it stood. Again, he must point out that the alteration could only be made by Provisional Order. It was essential that the Local Government Board should consider all the circumstances of the borough in applying such extension, and deal with these in a Provisional Order; and it would be quite open for the authorities of any borough, feeling themselves aggrieved, to appear before the Committee to which such Standing Order would be referred, and make such representations as they might think necessary.

MR. WOODALL

said, the explanation just given appeared to be fairly satisfactory. In the absence of the hon. Member responsible for the Amendment (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) he would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

asked whether the section applied to representations and proposals for making alterations in the electoral divisions in adjoining parishes in London?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he must express an opinion that it would not.

MR. FIRTH

said, that having raised the point, he was content to leave it for consideration.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 62 (Adjustment of property and liabilities).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 52, line 25, after second "agreement," insert— And any other agreement authorized by this Act to be made for the purpose of the adjustment of any property, debts, liabilities, or financial relations.

Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 28, after the word "property," to insert the words "and for the transfer of any duties."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, the clause dealt with financial matters, and the transfer of duties did not seem to him to appertain to the clause, which related to debts, liabilities, and things of that kind.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

explained the clause dealt with property and liabilities, and the addition was made in reference to the transfer and adjustment of financial matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 52, line 29, after "debts," to insert "duties;" line 31, after "person," insert— And that either by way of a capital sum, or of a terminable annuity for a period not exceeding that allowed by the Commissioners under this Act or the Local Government Board; line 39, after "Board," insert— Any award or order made by the Commissioners or any arbitrator under this Act, may provide for any matter for which an agreement might have provided; line 40, at beginning of line, insert— Any sum required to be paid for the purpose of adjustment, or of any award or order made by the Commissioners, or by an arbitrator under this Act, which is not payable as a capital sum, may be paid out of the county or borough fund or out of such other special fund as the council, with the approval of the Commissioners under this Act or of the Local Government Board, may direct; and in line 43, after "Act," insert— Or in the case of a borough council under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' or any local Act, and such sum may be borrowed on the security of all or any of the funds, rates, and revenues of the council, and either by the creation of stock or in any other manner in which they are for the time being authorized to borrow, and such sum may be borrowed without the consent of the Treasury or any other authority, so that it be repaid within such period as the Commissioners under this Act or the Local Government Board may sanction, by such sinking fund as is directed by 'The Local Loans Act, 1875,' or if the sum is raised by stock under a local Act, is directed by that Act.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.