LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

said the Amendment he proposed was one about which there was not much to be said. It should be remembered that this Committee of the Privy Council was an entirely new body, quite unknown to this House, as far as London was concerned; and no very great amount of confidence had been shown in it by the London constituencies, for Members on both sides of the House had presented petitions against the selection of that body. Therefore it was all the more necessary that their decisions should be laid before Parliament, and that Committee ought not to be entrusted with such important legislative powers. He very much doubted whether the Committee had thoroughly followed the distinction between schemes and Orders. He had noticed in a very important organ of public opinion a defence of the provisions of the Bill, which explained that the second sub-section of this clause enacted that, where a local inquiry was held, it would have the effect of bringing the proposal of the Committee of the Privy Council before the House. That, he was prepared to say, was not the case at all. The Amendment he proposed was one which explained itself, and its acceptance would not change the framework of this Bill, and yet it would make so much difference that, taken with the Amendments already made, it would turn them from opponents to supporters of this Bill. The worst point now left in the Bill was the serious changes which were to be made by this unknown Committee, which were not to be brought before Parliament. He wished to point out to the Leader of the House that he had drawn his Amendment in accordance with precedent, so as to avoid any constitutional difficulty, for the words he proposed had been taken from the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, and they would be found in the fourth section. He could not help thinking that many Members on both sides of the House would share the views which he had expressed upon this matter, for the Amendment he was proposing was the one thing needed to restore this Bill to a 755 form which would enable them on his side of the House to become supporters of the Bill.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

As far as the abstract merits of this Amendment, are concerned, I confess that I cannot see that it would be any great improvement in this Bill, for the House is not a tribunal which is well qualified to deal with questions of boundaries—and it never has been a good body to deal with boundaries. It is especially difficult for this House to deal with the boundaries contained in a London Bill, because they cannot be considered merely with reference to the borough itself. There is another objection, although, perhaps, it is not a very serious one, and that is that a month will be required after the Order is framed before statutory effect can be given to it; and it would be prepared so late next session that it could not lie on the Table for 30 days, and there might be some difficulty in doing what the House is extremely anxious to do—namely, to bring the Act into working order by 1st of November 1900. I confess that I should prefer leaving the Bill as it is, for it follows the analogy of previous legislation, and not bring this question of boundaries in any way before the House. At the same time, if there is any strong and earnest feeling in favour of the proposed court of review in case of any erroneous or inexpedient decision on the part of the Commissioners, if the Committee are really anxious that there should be an appeal to this House against the decision of the Commissioners, I should not offer any strenuous opposition to the proposal on behalf of the Government.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said he was very glad to 756 hear the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, for they were quite in accord with the spirit in which he had conducted this Bill from the commencement. He was bound to say that, in their effort to render these borough councils more efficient, the First Lord of the Treasury had met them very fairly. He agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean that this part of the Bill was one which was looked upon with great suspicion, for the clause proposed to place these areas in the hands of an unknown body, in whom the districts concerned had no confidence. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was ready to accept the proposal to bring these matters when decided under the purview of the House. They attached very great importance to the Amendment, and he did not think that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman had much weight. Under the circumstances, he was very glad to hear what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, because the course ho had taken would facilitate the progress of the Bill through the House, and would give greater confidence in the measure when it became law.

§ MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

, echoed the sentiments of his hon. friend in reference to the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had met them. He had no doubt that in many cases if it was felt that there was a court of revision in the House, objections would not be taken that might otherwise have been taken. Knowing as he did the views of some of the local authorities, he might say that if this Amendment was accepted their objections would almost vanish. The object of the Amendment was to give confidence to these outside the House, and he believed it would have a tendency to shorten the procedure when the Bill became an Act. They all desired that this Bill should come into operation at an early date, and he thought tin's object would be facilitated by the adoption of the proposal of his right hon. friend below the gangway, which would make the Bill more acceptable than anything else which the right hon. Gentleman could do. All through there had been an absence of party feeling, although there had been a very strong London feeling exhibited, which had been met very reasonably by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

as the representative of a very large parish which he said was to he thrown into the melting pot under this clause, thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the generous manner in which he had met their wishes, and he was quite sure the effect in the districts which were to be amalgamated would he that the suspicion which had been aroused in the minds of main of the inhabitants would, to a large extent, vanish, if they knew that this House was to he the final court of appeal.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

said that so far as he understood the Municipal Corporations Act and the procedure which was provided by it there was no provision that the Commissioners before they submitted their scheme should hold a local inquiry, and the object of this Amendment was to secure local inquires by the Commissioners before they submitted their proposals to the Privy Council. He thought it was very desirable that the views of the local people should be made known to the Commissioners before any scheme whatever was submitted to the Privy Council. He was aware that the Municipal Corporations Act provided for representations to be made by the local authorities when a draft had been settled by the Privy Council, but there was no provision for a local inquiry in the first instance.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I entirely concur with the object which the hon. Gentleman has in view in proposing this Amendment, but I think it is met by the conditional and recognised procedure of 758 the Privy Council, which gives the very fullest opportunity to every local authority or local institution by either Order or scheme to make its views heard. As I understand it, the procedure is, in the first place, that an Assistant Commissioner is sent down to the locality, who is bound to hear all the interested persons, and after he has heard them he lays their views before the Head Commissioners, who thereupon frame their provisional scheme, which is itself again publicly submitted to all the authorities, and I every opportunity is given for them to make such representations as they please before the Head Commissioners. I believe there will also be a subsequent opportunity for interested persons to be heard before the Privy Council. I do not think that this Amendment is necessary; indeed, it may be said, in a sense, to weaken the procedure already in force, and I think it is hardly necessary to press the matter further.

§ MR. STUART

asked whether the same procedure as to inquiry locally referred to an Order as well as to a scheme. Of course there was a considerable difference between an Order and a scheme, and he took it that his hon. friend desired to see that the local inquiry should apply to both cases.

§ MR. A J. BALFOUR

I will undertake that there shall be a full local inquiry in each case, and full opportunity shall be given to the local authorities to be heard.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

said that, under the circumstances, he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

contended that the expenses incurred by the Committee under this Act should not be paid out of the county fund at the disposal of the London County Council, and he accordingly moved to omit Sub-section 3.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think this Amendment is quite an unreasonable one, for there is no reason why the taxpayers at large, should pay for the work involved in these schemes and Orders. We are only by this proposal following the precedent of the Local Government Act, 1888.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

said he desired to say a word in support of the object which his hon. friend had in view. So far as precedent was concerned, it was on the side of the Amendment, for in 1887, then the Boundaries Commission was appointed, it was provided that the expenses should be paid by money provided by Parliament, and London had, of course, to pay its share of the cost. Those were surveys and inquiries precisely of the same character as those for which the London County Council was now asked to pay. He certainly thought the cost should fall not upon the County Council, but upon the national exchequer.

§ MR. LOUGH

contended that the point had not been adequately dealt with by the Government, and he considered the matter was one of great importance. The London ratepayers were a long-suffering class, and he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter.

§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

contended that as this was a matter which concerned London only, it was only right

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

pointed out that he relied upon the Act of 1887, which applied to the boundaries, and was very much nearer the present case.

§ MR. STUART

said that so far as the clause; threw the expense upon the London County Council instead of the individual boroughs, he quite agreed with it, because it relieved the poorer districts, and was in reality a matter of equalisation. He thought there was a great deal of force in the argument of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who reminded the House that in 1887 the cost was put upon the national fund, to which London contributed a very large sum, although London was excluded from the operation of the Act. He was in favour of throwing this expense upon the country generally, although he agreed that the Government had gone in the right way in throwing it upon the County Council instead of upon the individual boroughs.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The effect of carrying the Amendment will not be to throw the expense on the taxpayers. The only effect will be that the Commissioners will not get paid at all.

§ MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)

contended that the sub-sections of this clause were clearly the pivot upon I which this Bill turned. Therefore, they ought to know exactly where they were, and the local authorities should not be left in doubt as to the position which they occupied under the Bill. He submitted his Amendment with confidence, for he thought no objection could be taken to the words he suggested, for it must be for the benefit of all that the rights of all should be clearly set forth.

§ SIR E. B. FINLAY

hoped that his hon. friend would not consider it was necessary to press his Amendment, for there was nothing to be gained by inserting the words which he had proposed. Who was to determine the circumstances of each case? Clearly, it could only be determined by the Commissioners or the Committee of the Privy Council. He maintained that to say "shall, as the circumstances of the case may require" was only saying, in a longer form, what was already provided for by the words "a scheme under this Act may make provision."

§ * COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

pointed out that if the Commissioners left anything out there would still be an appeal to the Privy Council, and they would have that remedy.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

asked whether it was intended to raise the question of boundaries upon Sub-section B.

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

replied that the boundary question would be dealt with at a later stage by the whole House.

§ In reply to Mr. W. F. D. SMITH (Strand)

,

§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

said it was the intention of the Government to make the operation of Sub-section B as wide as possible.

§ MR. STUART

said there was one part of Sub-section B which he thought ought to be dealt with by some specific reference. The words of the sub-section would appear to place it within the power of the Commissioners to divide up the London School Board. No doubt that was not the intention, but he believed that this sub-section would give that power taken in conjunction with the School Board Amendment Act of 1875. He raised the question in order that it might be made clear that the School Board was not intended to be interfered with in that way.

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

That point has not been overlooked, and it may be necessary to introduce a saving clause to that effect.

§ MR. STEPHENS

thought that the parties interested in the apportionment and transfer of property and liabilities should be allowed to accommodate themselves by mutual arrangement, and he moved an Amendment with this object.

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

said he hoped his hon. friend would not press this Amendment, because they had already made provision to prevent any injustice in this respect. The Amendment was not really wanted, because the power of adjustment had been given to the body who had to prepare the scheme. If the parties ever arrived at a fair arrangement they would embody it in the scheme, and they would have power to make the adjustment if no agreement was arrived at. He hoped the hon. Member would recognise that the general words which they had already inserted in the Bill provided for the object which he had in view.

§ MR. STEPHENS

asked leave to with-draw his Amendment.

§ MR. LOUGH

said that, on behalf of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, he begged to move the next Amendment standing on the Paper.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

pointed out the object of this Amendment was already provided for.

§ MR. LOUGH

urged that this was another instance of the unfortunate system of legislation by reference. Unless the Government could point out some obvious objection, he thought it would be better that the words should be inserted in the Bill, and he supported this Amendment.

§ MR.STUART

said he wished some provision to be made for enabling the new councils to spend money upon technical education, and he should also like to know whether this Bill would affect the Technical Education Act administered by the London County Council, or the grants made to the metropolis for technical education.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I may inform the hon. Member that there is no intention to interfere with the powers of the London County Council in regard to the Technical Education Act, or with reference to the grants made to the metropolis for the purposes of technical education.

* THE CHAIRMAN

This Amendment cannot be moved here, because it would be necessary to transfer to the borough councils the power to spend this money, and it is not in order to move something for which the necessary power has not already been given Bill. The hon. Member ought to have raised this question at an earlier period of the Bill.

§ MR. STUART

said he should raise the question upon the Report stage. It was a very important point, and he could give facts to show the right hon. Gentleman how important a matter it was. Before the clause proceeded further he should like to raise it upon the clause as whole. Perhaps the Attorney-General would he able to answer the point.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

replied that this was not the right place to deal with it, although he did not believe that under the Bill as it stood the powers of the London County Council would he interfered with. With regard to the power of the new councils to spend money upon technical education, that would have to be provided for in a new clause.

§ MR. STUART

asked if there was any intention of interfering with the Technical Education Board?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Certainly not.

§ MR. STUART,

in moving the next Amendment, said a proposal might become law without coming before Parliament, but he thought that if the persons interested, or a certain proportion of the inhabitants, petitioned during a certain interval, then the scheme should not be brought before Parliament.

§ MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

said that he believed the Government were fully alive to the necessity of the Amendment he now proposed.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Government are entirely in accord with the views of the hon. Gentleman, and I will accept the Amendment, with the proviso that if further inquiries which we are making render it necessary to extend the words on the Report stage, we may extend the provisions to other cases.

§ MR. LOUGH

said he thought the Government would see, after having considered the matter, that the words he now moved to add were necessary. An Amendment had been accepted which provided that the local authorities should be heard, and that there should be an inquiry in each of the localities before the Privy Council before schemes were decided, but he did not think it was quite certain that the Amendment would cover the case of the London County Council.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not think it would be desirable to accept the Amendment. There is no provision that I 768 am aware of in this Bill by which schemes will be decided which affect the London County Council, and that being so, it would not be proper to introduce such a clause as this into the Bill. It might possibly complicate matters, and I do not see that the interest of the boroughs would be in any way safeguarded by the words now suggested.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he understood that the clause was put in to safeguard the London County Council. He did not see why that body should be put into a worse position than it at present occupied under the County Councils Act, under which it had the power, upon the incorporation of any borough, to object if they thought proper. He thought that with regard to some of the outlying districts it was possible that their views on the subject might be advantageously expressed. It was evidently intended to put the county councils in a worse position.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman will see that there is a broad distinction between the position of the London County Council under this measure and that of the provincial county councils under the Act of 1888. Where, under the Act of 1888, a new borough was constituted, something was carved out of the area under the control of the county council, and, therefore, it was quite proper that the county council should have the right to appear, but so far as I can foresee the operation of this Bill, the London County Council will in no way be affected by the sub-division of its area into these local boroughs. Whether they shall be larger or smaller is a matter which concerns themselves, but it will surely not be contended than it concerns anybody else.

§ MR. STUART

was of opinion that the Amendment might properly lie accepted; it would not give the London County Council any undue power of interfering with or preventing the operation of the clause. The Amendment, as a matter of fact, was one which would simply enable the knowledge and information of the County Council, which were very great, to be laid before the Commissioners. He thought the information which it could give would be of the greatest assistance to the Commissioners, and so long as the 769 London County Council was not in conflict with the local authorities it would be a great advantage to have their views. He thought that allowing them to have a right to appeal would lead to a valuable solution of the whole question. It would, of course, be seen that there was no want of cordiality between the County Council and the new boroughs.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No doubt the County Council is in possession of very valuable information as regards the whole of the county, but the hon. Gentleman will perceive, from the Bill that there would be a full Commission sent down to inquire into any scheme winch it was desired to adopt in any area, and it would receive information from all sources. Necessarily one of the sources of information would be the County Council. I think it would be better to follow the procedure of the Privy Council in the Act of 1888, which I think will meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.

§ SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)

was of opinion that the London County Council should have a right to appear.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think it will be necessary when we come to the next clause to introduce words giving the County Council a right to be heard when an area which has been subject to the County Council is proposed to be altered. I think that is necessary, but the best way to meet the views of my hon. friend will be to insert words in the next clause.

§ MR. LOUGH

said he had every disposition to accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought he had not recognised sufficiently the fact that the Bill did not materially alter the position of the London County Council. Most of the clauses which interfered with the County Council had either been modified or struck out. No step could be taken in any of the areas of London without affecting them. Unless words were inserted in the clause expressly admitting the County Council, the County Council would have no right to appear.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

contended that the County Council had no right to appear at every local inquiry which might 770 be held, though he admitted that in some cases they might properly claim a right of appearing; but that matter would be dealt with in the next section. He for his own part would be very sorry to see the County Council appear in every local dispute and become a partisan of one side or the other.

§ MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

said, as he understood the matter, the right hon. Gentleman contemplated that there should be full opportunity given to everybody concerned of being heard before the Commissioners or the Privy Council. If that was all the Bill contemplated, that was all that was desired; but he wished to understand clearly whether the only judicial hearing would be the hearing before the Commissioners. He thought the latter should have discretion to hear anyone they thought fit, who could throw light on the subject.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As I understand the matter, there will be a hearing before the sub-Commissioners, also before the head Commissioners, and if thought desirable—though I think this not likely—before the Privy Council itself. So there is a possibility of three hearings. By the time a hearing has taken place before the sub Commissioners and the head Commissioners it will probably not be thought necessary to go before the Privy Council, but in an extreme case it would go there. A hearing before the Privy Council will lie in the background.

§ MR. LOUGH

rose to move to omit the words "outside the City." The clause provided that every part of the administrative County of London should be in some borough or parish, but he pointed out that some parts were inside the City.

THE CHAIRMAN

So far as the hon. Member addresses his point to meet the words "outside the City," he is in order; but he is out of order in taking the point he is now taking.

§ MR. LOUGH

admitted that that was so, and unless some further Amendment 771 was made it would be impossible to carry his intention out.

§ MR A. J. BALFOUR

I am not aware, any more than my hon. friend, of any case in which it would be either necessary or desirable to cut a parish in two in the sense of leaving a portion in two borough areas. At the same time I do not think it is necessary to cut out the sub-section. Probably the Commissioners would come to the same conclusion as my hon. friend, and, indeed, the Amendments accepted will prevent any rash tendency to cut parishes asunder. On the other hand, there may be cases where it would be extremely desirable to make small adjustments, and this, if my hon. friend's Amendment is carried, will be prevented.

§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON

said he was satisfied with the explanation of the First Lord of the Treasury, and would therefore withdraw the Amendment.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he had listened attentively to what the right hon. Baronet had said, but he failed to see how the Bill would affect the question of charities in any respect. Existing rights would be preserved by the general law. He did not himself think the constitution of these boroughs would make any difference, but he was prepared to consider the matter further.

§ SIR CHARLES DILKE

said it would make a difference to the people who now received the charities if they happened to live in that quarter of the parish which was cut off, because they would be unknown to the governing body charged with the distribution.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he could not see his way to insert any general words, but if the right hon. Baronet would be kind enough to move to insert a new clause he would consider it.

§ MR. STEPHENS

said that if one part of a parish were included in the new borough, there would be no body remaining by which the charities could be administered.

§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

thought it would be very easy to provide a scheme by which the Commissioners might deal with the transfer of a portion of the charity.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said it seemed to be a matter for the trustees of the charity.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said the Government would accept the Amendment, but it must be distinctly understood that they reserved to themselves the power of making a verbal alteration on Report.

§ MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

said he could not understand why the proposal should be accepted in the case of one borough, while the Commissioners were to be left to deal with the rest of London.

§ COLONEL HUGHES

said he thought the case would be met by the insertion in the schedule of the words "including the hamlet of Knightsbridge."

§ * SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)

supported the Amendment. The County of Middlesex felt very strongly on this point, as it was a very poor county, and if the suggested part of South Hornsey were detached there would be a loss of £2,000 to the rateable value. The reason why Middlesex was so poor was because, in consequence of its contiguity to London, it had an enormous police bill to pay. When a vote of the neighbourhood was taken it was found that there was almost an unanimous opinion against the transfer. He thought the Government ought to take some means to meet the views of the people.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I can assure my hon. friends that I sympathise with the difficulties which they have laid before the House. It does unfortunately happen that whenever we attempt by legislation to deal with areas, a great deal of local feeling and dissatisfaction is inevitably aroused. I am the last person to view that feeling with satisfaction or indifference, or to refuse to do anything I can to mitigate its intensity. I think my hon. friends will themselves see, however, that to leave this extraordinary anomaly unredressed when we are dealing with the subject of London government would be quite impossible. Anyone who looks at the matter will see that a Middlesex island is stuck down in the middle of the County of London, and that it really is a matter which it is impossible to leave un-dealt with in this Bill. Now, Sir, my hon. friend has complained of the financial loss which would ensue from cutting off from Middlesex so much of its rateable value, and I agree that it may be a very serious difficulty. But I would point out that under the existing law, which would be embodied in this Act, it is possible that schemes may be made by which financial injury to Middlesex may be mitigated or altogether removed. I am informed that courts of law have held that when rateable value is thus transferred from one county to another it is within the province of those who make schemes for carrying out the necessary adjustments to adjust, among other things, such alterations of the financial burden as may prevent the loss inflicted upon the county from being so onerous as it otherwise must be. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who knows more about these questions than I can pretend to, tells me that not only is it done, but that as a matter of fact it is always done. I understand it has been laid down by a learned judge that it was the duty of the Local Government Board, or the authority concerned, to see that such redress should be made. I hope, therefore, my hon. friend will recognise the absolute necessity of carrying out this reform of boundaries. We feel that the injury to Middlesex, although it cannot be removed altogether, is really not so severe or so pressing as might be supposed.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)

ventured to intrude 776 in the discussion because in 1889 the matter, up to a certain point, came before the Royal Commission of which he was a member. If they would look at a map of the metropolis the Committee would see in a moment that what the First Lord had said was really unanswerable. They could not leave islands of Middlesex in the middle of the metropolis. Was there anything unusual in the proposal which the Government were making? The Government were only acting in strict harmony with previous legislation. With regard to the financial objections, Middlesex would, according to the principles laid down, be entitled to all the rates or liabilities they stood to lose.

§ SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND

asked whether the rateable value for which compensation was to he paid referred to the present rateable value, or to the rateable value which might accrue in the future.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

said that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had spoken of the loss that would be incurred by the district, because when it became part of a borough they would have to pay School Board rates. He contended that they ought to pay these rates, because they had the benefit of the London school board schools. If compensation were to be paid at all, it ought to be paid to the County of London for the past use of these schools.

§ MR. STEPHENS

thought that his hon. friend was quite in error. It was stated that Hornsey had built schools to accommodate children of this island district, but these schools were largely used by children from the County of London. He objected to this question being dealt with simply on a financial basis. The only reason assigned for the proposal was that the district did not look quite as it should upon the map. The First Lord of the Treasury ha said, the course of the Debate, that he was very much averse to dividing parishes. Well, South Hornsey was a little planet by itself; it was a distinct local entity. It had an urban council, a population of 10,000, and a rateable value of more than £50,000. It had a fever hospital of its own, and had put fir operation many adoptive Acts. Moreover, the inhabitants were passionately attached to their own system of local self-government. In 1894 a poll 777 was taken, when 1,667 voted against amalgamation, and 33 for it. Another poll was taken recently, when only 30 voted for amalgamation. Surely the wishes of the inhabitants expressed in so emphatic a fashion as that ought to lie respected. It was most completely equipped, most successfully managed, the rates were lower than its neighbours', and it had very little local debt. He would make a practical suggestion—to omit Sub-section 2 altogether, and allow the whole parish to come under the operation of Sub-section 3. By that means the whole case would be presented to the Privy Council, and dealt with after full inquiry and consideration, and the difficulties and inconveniences of an arbitrary decision would be avoided. The Privy Council Commissioners were sure to guide themselves by the expressed feelings of the inhabitants.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said it was an admitted amalgamation that a little portion of Middlesex should be left in the centre of the County of London. It led to great inconvenience, and it ought to be dealt with in a Bill of this sort. Hon. Gentlemen had made one point as to compensation, but that would be met in a fair and just way. The hon. Member who last spoke said that the matter had been placed before the ratepayers, who had voted against amalgamation by a large majority. He would like to know the form in which the vote was taken, for in those boundary questions they could get a vote in any way, according to the manner in which the question was drafted. He did not think the votes of 1,600 people ought to stand in the way of a reform which should have taken place many years ago.

§ MR. BIGWOOD

said the question of police had been introduced into the Debate. Now Middlesex had not a single policeman of its own; it was policed entirely by the Metropolitan Police. Every hamlet in Middlesex—where, by the way, a policeman was seldom seen—had to pay 5d. in the pound for the support of the Metropolitan Police.

§ MR. LOUGH

said there was a little peninsula of Middlesex which stretched down into the County of London, which 778 created quite as great an anomaly as the island about which they had been speaking. Clissold Park, which was very thickly populated, was partly in the County of London and partly in Middlesex, and so was Finsbury Park. The great thoroughfare of Seven Sisters Road ran for a. considerable distance through the County of London, them through this Middlesex peninsula, and then into the County of London again. Then the works of the New River Company were partly in the County of London and partly in Middlesex. If the Amendment he now proposed were adopted by the Government, a very necessary rectification of the boundaries of the County of London would lie made.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

thought that the Amendment would carry the policy of the Bill too far. Objection had been raised by his hon. friends to the absorption of a district wholly surrounded by the County of London, but they would still more object to absorption of a part not so surrounded. He could not consent to extend the provisions of the Bill in the direction pointed at by the Amendment.

§ MR. STUART

said, on the whole, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman could be made on the next sub-section, which provided that inquiry should precede absorption, whereas if the Amendment were made on this sub-section the absorption would be compulsory.

§ MR. LOUGH

said there was as much to be said for the principle of this Amendment as for the last; but if the right hon. Gentleman could consider the matter on the next sub-section, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said there was nothing to prevent the administrative County of London making proposals for the alteration of boundaries.

§ MR. STUART

said that the purpose of his next Amendment was to leave out the portion of Sub-section 3 which required that the detached portion of a parish to he annexed to the County of London must necessarily comprise the larger portion of the population. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the whole subject to the consideration of the Commissioners. There was no doubt that in that particular part of London where Hornsey met Stoke Newington there were bad boundary lines, and he thought it would be a great improvement to take in that peninsular portion after full inquiry into the circumstances of the case.

§ MR. BOUSFIELD

said he had also an Amendment of the sub-section, by which annexation of a detached part would not he contingent on any probable estimate of the population.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not think it would be fair to make the alterations in the Bill which had been suggested.

§ * SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND

said he had not yet received any answer to his question as to whether compensation was to be paid on present or prospective value.

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

said he could not answer offhand, but the matter would have full consideration.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he had no objection to the Amendment; but, as its object was simply to protect the rights of Woolwich, he would prefer to insert, after "borough," the words "consisting of or comprising Woolwich."

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

assented to this suggestion; and the proposed sub-sections, as amended, were read a second time, and agreed to.

§ MR. THORNTON (Clapham)

said he was informed that vestries had hitherto had the guardianship of the mortuaries in and around London, and there was some anxiety as to what was to be their position in the future. The Bill did not provide for the control of these buildings, and he should like to know what were the intentions of the Government with regard to them.

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

said he would suggest to his hon. friend that he should adopt more general words. It would be better to leave out, in line 39, the words "vestry or town hall," and insert "buildings which belong to any body whose powers and duties are transferred to any borough council by or under this Act." And then it would also be necessary subsequently to take out the words "of the borough in which the hall is situated."

§ MR. THORNTON

said that under the circumstances he begged to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

pointed out that Sub-section 3 provided that certain duties 781 now performed by the churchwardens in a borough should in future be performed by or under the direction of the town clerk, and he proposed to substitute for the town clerk the borough council. He did not see why those powers should be conferred on an officer of the borough council. It seemed to him that they ought rather to lie vested in the body as a whole. Attention had been drawn to the matter by various vestries, who were pretty unanimously of the opinion that the power should not be entrusted to the town clerk, but should be conferred on the borough council. He was glad to see; that several hon. Members had put down Amendments in identical terms to his.

§ Sir. R. B. FINLAY

said the attention of the Government had been drawn to the point. It was one which ho thought required consideration, but he believed it could be better dealt with elsewhere. He would be glad if the hon. Member would not press the Amendment at that stage.

§ MR. STUART

said he could not see why the question should he left over, unless, indeed, the hon. and learned Gentle-man wished to consider it in connection with the question of overseers. It did seem to him most extraordinary that these duties of churchwardens should be handed over to the town clerk, and not to the borough council. In his view they ought to get rid—in all civil procedure—of the antiquated anomaly of the churchwarden. Personally, ho would be glad to see a much more sweeping Amendment carried.

§ Silt K. B. FINLAY

said he had informed the Committee that the matter required consideration, with a view to the introduction of proper words. In the meantime, however, he was prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. CAUSTON

said he wished to point out that there was no provision in the Bill for appointing the trustees of parochial 782 charities, a duty which was now performed by the vestries. He thought that the Amendment upon the subject which stood in his name would commend itself to the Committee, and, without wasting time in discussing it, he would ask the opinion of the Government upon it.

§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

I will agree to this Amendment.

§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

said he wished to raise the question whether this covered the case of ecclesiastical charities. It might he that there were such charities affected by some local or general Act which might pass under the control of the borough council, and he wished to make the Bill clear upon the point.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he was entirely in accord with his noble friend. He did not think the Bill did affect such charities, but he should prefer that the words go in, it being understood that, if he thoughts it better to have a t definition of parochial charities, he would incorporate the words in the interpretation clause.

MR. BURDETT-COITTTS

said he had to move an Amendment providing that the, newly constituted area of Westminster should be called the "City of Westminster." He earnestly hoped that the Government would accept his Amendment, because he hold that it was consistent with the desire they had expressed to respect local traditions. He would like to assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was not intended by the Amendment to claim exceptional treatment of any kind for the now borough of Westminster. They did not claim, neither did they pretend to a right to any of the privileges which in London attached to the name of city. They did not even desire a new title the Amendment simply gave recognition to the title which the area included in the borough had possessed for over three and a half centuries. There were some 350 Acts of Parliament which referred to the area as the City of Westminster, and he thought he might well illustrate the justice of their claim to the title by quoting the fact that hon. Members themselves wore summoned to Parliament, "to meet in the City of Westminster." They only wanted to retain their ancient title, which he trusted the Government did not desire to destroy, and which, if not retained for the purposes of the new, borough, must necessarily disappear altogether, with the result that Members of Parliament would in future be summoned to meet in a place which really did not exist. He trusted it was not asking too much of the Government that this ancient and interesting title should be retained for the borough of Westminster.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My hon. friend knows that I heartily sympathise with the views he takes with regard to what is now to by called Greater Westminster. I 784 have no doubt the area is worthy of its long traditions. But my hon. friend asks me to single out the borough of Westminster, and give it a distinctive name, different from that given to all the other borough councils which this Bill proposes to establish. It appears to mo that that is asking me to take a course which would be greatly resented by the other boroughs. I have no doubt that the term "city" would be habitually and ordinarily applied to Westminster in the future as in the past; but that we should describe it in an Act of Parliament by a name different to that which we deliberately apply to the other municipalities called into existence at the same time, by the same Act, under the same provisions, and subject to the same conditions, would be an anomaly which, I think, would be not unnaturally resented by other districts which are as large in point of population as Westminster, although doubtless not so rich in historical associations. The Government do not see their way to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

suggested that it was desirable, so as to provide for the first meeting of the borough council, to make another Amendment, which he accordingly proposed.

§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he hoped that the Attorney-General would give his attention to the case of registers of parishes which were divided by the Bill, and added to other parishes.

§ Mr. BOUSFIELD

also pointed out that in some cases the Parliamentary borough might not be coterminous with the borough boundaries, and he wished know if those cases were sufficiently provided for.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said it had been pointed out it was not quite clear whether proper provision had been made for the existing members of local bodies remaining in office until the new bodies came into power. He thought it would be well to Sub-section 8, section 79, of the Local Government Act, 1894.

§ MR. COHEN

said the Amendment to this clause, which stood in his in his name, depended a great deal upon what decision the Government came to in regard to Clause 11. He would formally move it.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the words had better stand part of the clause at present. As my hon. friend observes, we have yet to deal with the postponed Clause 11, and when we do that we shall be able to see whether or not any modification is required in this clause. It is necessarily a question of drafting, and we have first to decide the question of policy.

§ MR. STUART

suggested that the same course should be adopted with respect to this clause as was taken on Clause 11. Its consideration had far better be postponed until after Clause 11 was disposed of, as otherwise they would have great difficulty in reconstructing the Amendments to it. In fact, it would lead to a waste of time.

§ MR. A.J. BALFOUR

I do not think it is necessary to postpone the consideration of the clause altogether.

§ CAPTAIN NORTON

pointed out that the whole clause was bound up with the question of overseers, and there were a great many Amendments on the Paper which certainly could not be decided until Clause 11 had been disposed of.

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

said he hoped the Committee would go on with the clause. If the hon. Member looked at it, he would see that it required very slight modification indeed, and it would be very inconvenient to postpone it.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

agreed that it was a Matter of convenience, but held that there was a great deal of force in what had fallen from his hon. friends, for undoubtedly the clause would be discussed with greater efficiency and rapidity when they knew exactly how they stood in regard to Clause 11. The sooner they decided the question of overseers the better.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have great sympathy with my hon. friend's Amendment, but it appears to me that the wording goes rather too far. I should suggest that before the word "analogous," the Words "the same or" be left out, and instead of saying "which are in addition to" if the hon. Member would consent to insert "which are an unreasonable addition to," I will accept his Amendment in that modified form.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he looked with same suspicion on this clause, and if this proposal was accepted it would give rise to a good deal of difficulty. He hoped the Government would consider the Matter and see whether their own sub-section did not meet the difficulty.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

pointed out that the word "unreasonably" would have to be decided by somebody, but as all these questions were decided by the Local Government Board, he thought the alteration was not unreasonable, and he begged to move his Amendment in the amended form.

§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said they should be very, careful not to any injustice upon any existing officer. On the other hand this Amendment was very wide, and he though they must be careful in what they did to protect the 790 ratepayers also. He thought some little modification was required in the Amendment to make it impossible for men to be given pensions when they might fairly be kept at work.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

hoped the Committee would not accept this Amendment in its amended form. He felt sure that the words went too far, and they would inflict a very great financial difficulty upon the new councils. He could not himself see why such an alteration should he made.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would look at this matter with the object of economising in local affairs. If this Bill was going to perpetuate the emoluments and dead-heads of the present parochial system, he trusted the First Lord of the Treasury would stick to the simple words of the. Bill, by which the councils might abolish any such offices without giving those officers any better terms than they got before. This was a Bill for simplifying local government, and not for quartering lot of useless gentlemen upon the rates. He hoped these officers would not be given any more advantageous terms than were given to them under the Act of 1888.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that in Sub-section 2 the Government were preferring the Act of 1894 to the Act of 1888, although the latter Act gave these officers all the requisite compensation and protection which they ought to have. He did not see why the Government should, at this point, add words which he was quite sure would lead to a very great deal of friction. When an officer was put to work for which he was unfitted, and for which he was not engaged originally, he was entitled to compensation. If this was legislation by reference, let them stick to it, and not add words which, in his opinion, would lead to a great deal of expense and unnecessary friction.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman in regard to legislation by reference. Surely there is nothing in what we have done which prevents us adding to or modifying our proposal if we think that course is desirable. The hon. Gentleman opposite (the hon. Member for Battersea) and others who have spoken seem to think that the terms offered in this Amendment, as amended, are unreasonably favourable to the officers. No doubt the Amendment is very favourable to the officers, but what I ask is, Is it unreasonably favourable? It is most important, as my hon. friend the Member for Islington pointed out, that this Bill should come into operation under conditions which will make it likely to succeed, and I cannot imagine any condition more likely to make it succeed than the feeling of the officers connected with the existing authorities that their interests have been duly considered, and that no unnecessary hardship has been inflicted upon them by the transfer of powers from the existing vestries to the new boroughs. I do not think that, as far as this Amendment goes, it will inflict any undue burden upon the ratepayer; neither do I think that it carries favour to the officials to ally absurd or extravagant extent. Let us suppose that it was in the power of the new boroughs to require an officer to perform other work, or to add to the duties which an officer had hitherto performed an unreasonable amount of new work at the same salary. Everybody would say that man was most unfairly treated, and the new borough council in order to avoid the necessity of 792 paying compensation to that officer, might so apply the torture to him as to compel him to resign. It may be said, mid with perfect justice, that the new boroughs are very unlikely thus to misuse their power; but if that be so this clause inflicts no hardship upon them, while it will do something to ease the minds of those officers who are, unfortunately, perturbed by the passage of this Bill. One cannot help feeling considerable commiseration for those officers who will be affected, and anything that can alleviate this injustice ought to be done.

§ MR.. JOHN BURNS

said the right honourable Gentleman was talking as if the whole of the officers who would be transferred and dealt with under this clause were officers who now devoted the whole of their time to the service of the ratepayers. This was not so, because a number of the officers who would he transferred were in many cases men who only gave two or three hours per day to the ratepayers' business, or probably two or three days per week. It did seem to him that the interests of the ratepayers ought to be safeguarded, and in the event of a transfer taking place, those persons who devoted only a portion of their time to the public service should not be treated as if they had devoted the whole of their time. It did seem to him unreasonably extravagant that any larger salary for slightly larger duties should he paid to these officials, who had only been in the habit of devoting a portion of their time to the duties of their office. He thought these officers were safeguarded in the most ample form in the Act of 1888. He therefore asked the Government to stick to the terms of their own clause. The right honourable Gentleman could rest assured that the word "unreasonably" would be construed by a number of clerks and assistant overseers in a very extravagant way, and he saw no reason why any of the officials transferred under this Bill should be given an opportunity of objecting to do the same or analogous duties. The word "unreasonably" would be very extravagantly interpreted, and he appealed to the right honourable Gentleman, in the interests of economy and efficiency, to remember that the London ratepayer had a right to consideration, and that these officials should not be allowed extravagant indulgences at the vest of the ratepayers.

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

said that the ratepayers were duly considered in this matter, and all that the Government desired to do was to see that justice was done all round. An officer might say that his duties were unreasonable, but unless the borough council agreed with him the matter would have to be decided under the 120th Section of the Act of 1888 by the Treasury, and he thought that those who had had any experience of the Treasury in such matters would agree with him that they were not a body who were likely to allow extravagant compensation.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

disagreed with what the right honourable Gentleman had just stated regarding the Treasury, because in the matter of emoluments, compensation for officials, and pensions somehow or another the Treasury had the knack of condoning with the permanent officials, both Imperial and local. He had no faith whatever in the assertion that the Treasury were the friends of economy.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,) Croydon

I may say as one who had something to do with the Act of 1888, that I can assure the honourable Gentleman opposite that in those cases which came within my knowledge, when an appeal was made to the Treasury, they had dealt with the matter in anything but what I have considered a liberal spirit.

§ * SIR T. G. FARDELL (Paddington, S.)

did not think that it was at all fair on the part of the honourable Member opposite to make such charges broadcast against the officers.

§ MR. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said his own experience led him to conclude that those ratepayers who treated their officers well were best served by those officials, and they retained them for a greater number of years. He had seen parishes where the officers had been changed continually because of the bad treatment they received, and such officers were continually on the look out for fresh appointments, with the result that their places were filled by men who did not possess the same local experience as those who had served the parish for a 794 long period of time. Under this Bill there was going to be a great deal of concentration, and many officials would be thrown out of employment. Although the ratepayers ought to be protected, he thought the officers concerned also deserved consideration. Local government was best served by officers who were treated well, and the ratepayers would lose nothing by this suggestion of the Government.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

asked whether or not, in the opinion of the officials of the Local Government Board, there had or had not been any hardship in this respect in past times, because that would naturally weigh with the Committee.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,) Tyrone, S.

replied that all the cases under the Act of 1888 had now been practically worked out, and none had been before him since the time he had accepted office under the Local Government Board.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

said the First Lord of the Treasury had told them that this Amendment was necessary in changing from the old system to the new. That change, however, was not greater than the change made in 1888. Some reference had been made to the question of pensions for the officer's, but that question applied quite as much in 1888 as it did now, and nothing had been said to show that any injustice had arisen under the Act of 1888. The noble Lord below him had challenged the front bench to make any statement or give any illustration showing any hardship or injustice which had been done under that Act, and there had been no response. Therefore, they were entitled to ask why should this change be made, and why should the officers not be content to rely upon that Act, which had worked perfectly well, with justice not only to the officers but also to the ratepayers, lie could not imagine anything more likely to create friction between the existing officers and the new bodies than to introduce this vague and unsatisfactory word "unreasonable." If they wanted to make mischief between the new borough councils and their officers they would do it most effectually by introducing this word

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he understood from his statement that no hardship had been inflicted on any officer under the Act of 1888?

§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that all the cases under the Act of 1888 had been worked out in the specified time, and De ease had come before, his notice since he took.

§ MR.JOHN BURNS

said he gathered from that statement that since the honourable Member had been at the Local Government Board—and he had been there nearly five years—no cases of serious hardship had occurred owing to the operation of the Act of 1888. That being so he did appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury not to institute a new departure, under which all the officials would set the machinery in motion for a more favourable consideration of their pensions by the addition of the word unreasonable. The Act of 1888 set them an excellent precedent which he hoped

§ CAPTAIN NORTON

urged the First Lord of the Treasury to stick to the Bill as it was framed, because he was perfectly satisfied that if this word unreasonable was introduced the result would be to immediately create friction between the new borough councils and the officers and the consequence would be that the officers would not be in such a good position as they were at the present time. If they relied upon what other officials in similar positions had been allowed then they would be on firm ground, but if they were going to be dealt with under a strictly new set of rules which might be interpreted in different ways by different people, he was satisfied that the officers themselves would suffer. Therefore, iii the interests of the officers the ratepayers he hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment.

§ Sir. T. G. FARDELL

trusted that the Government would accept the Amendment standing in his name, which was, as an Amendment to Colonel Hughes' Proposed Amendment, to leave out all after "but," and insert— The Borough Councils may distribute the business to be performed by the existing officers in such manner as the Councils may think just, and every existing officer shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Council".

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

asked whether the honourable Gentleman was in order in going back. He thought the matter had been disposed of by the Division.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The honourable is entitled to move the Amendment as an addition to the words already inserted.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am not quite sure that I follow the object my honourable friend has in his mind by moving an Amendment to the Amendment. If it was to be brought in at all it should have been brought in before the decision of the Committee was taken on the Amendment. I cannot imagine what power these words would give to the Borough Councils. The distribution of the business of the council is its primary right, and it will not be abused by the councils. I do not see that anything would be gained by accepting the Amendment.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

asked that some argument might be adduced by the honourable Member in favour of the 799 Amendment, as it appeared to him that an Amendment of this character required some evidence on its behalf before a decision was come to on the matter.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

explained that it was in the interest of economical and efficient administration, and to safeguard those officials who might be placed in positions which they might not be able to fill. By the union of districts into a borough there would be consolidation and sometimes reduction of staff, and officials would have a claim to compensation on the abolition of their offices, but an officer might be considered eligible for other duties, and should be encouraged to attempt to undertake them. If, however, having made the attempt, he should be found unsuited to his new position, his claim to compensation for loss of his original position should not be prejudiced. He thought if some such clause was not put into the Bill that there were a great many men who would retire upon the abolition of their present offices instead of being transferred, which might do a great deal of harm to the new Borough Councils.

§ MR. W. F. D. SMITH

in support of the Amendment, drew attention to the fact that he had information that an actual case occurred under the Local Government Act of 1888, where a gentleman whose office was abolished accepted a new post—that of the Treasurer of the Middlesex Council, and lost his position within two years after the passing of the Act, and was awarded no compensation whatever. It was quite possible that such a case might occur on the present Bill becoming law. An officer might be found unnecessary under the new condition of things, but if he honestly attempted to perform other duties which he was incapable of, he thought he was as much entitled to compensation as if he retired on the abolition of his original office.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

thought that any person who required more than five weeks to consider his position—let alone five years—was a man who merited instant dismissal. The honourable Member for the Strand seemed to think that if anybody had to suffer it should be the public as they would have the gain. But there must be no such extravagance. What was it likely to lead to? It had been suggested that the duties of six parishes 800 might be amalgamated, and one man might do the work which six had hitherto performed; but that would mean that five men would he dispossessed, and they were going to be asked to compensate them. He objected to any extravagant compensation, and characterised it as a robbery. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury not to yield one iota to the pressure which was being brought to hear upon Members of Parliament by municipal officers' organisations to an extent which, he said, had become a positive scandal. Their electoral influence was considerably exaggerated, and in so far as it was used to press improper claims the House of Commons ought to resist the pressure. He sincerely trusted that the Amendment would be rejected, as it was one of such an extravagant character that no person could possibly support it.

§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS

supported the Amendment, because he thought that some such provision as suggested should be made to meet the entirely new state of things which would be brought into existence by this Bill. He reminded the Committee that there had been no active legislation to meet such a case as this, which would necessitate the transfer of a whole class of public officials He thought that a serious injustice would result to these men if the Government did not make some provision for those who hail entered into a civil career, and who had up to now performed their duties with credit to themselves, and who would find their livelihood taken away from them by this legislation. The Amendment was drawn to meet that contingency, and he trusted it would be accepted.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

did not see what the new clause was to effect, seeing that they did not know the nature of the various Acts of Reform which had been passed. Only one instance had been brought to their attention where a grievance existed, and that was in the case of the treasurer of the Middlesex County Council. Under the old arrangement that gentleman was a highly paid official, but he was not a man who had a right to look for a pension. There was no grievance in that case, and that was the only one they had heard of. If there were ally others they ought to be brought before the attention of the Committee.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

On the whole, I confess I do not see any reason why this particular tenure of five years should be given to the officers after these new borough councils come into operation. As I understand, this proposal, formulated by my honourable friend, is unnecessary. As the Hill stands, any officer dismissed at any time after the Act comes into force through the amalgamation of duties resulting from the Act, would be clearly entitled to compensation. Therefore it is clear that the persons it is contemplated to deal with here are not persons who have been dismissed on account of the Act, but on quite other grounds. I think those persons have no right to compensation or pension by the vestries if this Act comes into force. These officers are now serving a public body which has a right to dismiss them. If they are so dismissed, I do not understand, unless there is a special contract, why they have any right to such compensation as is now the subject of the Amendment before the Committee. If by the change from a vestry into a municipality the office is abolished, we provide ample compensation. I do not quite understand why officers who have agreed to serve the vestries without this right of compensation should obtain a new and superior tenure from these boroughs, to whom their duties are transferred. Under the circumstances I do not feel that I can accept the Amendment. I believe that this Amendment is framed on the analogy of the Irish Local Government Act of last year, but that Act is not analogous to London Government. I do not think any injustice will be done.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

said he did not see how the position of these officials was to be secured without some such clause as he had proposed was accepted. What he foresaw was that if they accepted office under the new councils and afterwards they were dismissed, they would be without any compensation whatever. If the term which he had suggested was too long, there was no reason why it should not be made shorter; but it was manifestly unfair to these men, if they accepted new duties under the borough councils, and wore subsequently dismissed, they should have no compensation. It was only fair that some amount of time should be given on both sides. Six months was better than nothing at 802 all; but if the borough councils appointed these men to new offices which they were unable to fulfil they ought to be entitled to compensation for loss of their old office.

§ MR. STUART

pointed out that in almost every case the borough councils would be constituted by the same people who formed the vestries, and their officials would be the same as those who now served them. He thought it ridiculous to give them this five years' tenure.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

protested against the insinuation which had been imported into the discussion. The County Council employed a considerable number of officers and men, and the honourable Gentleman who moved the Amendment knew perfectly well that such a case as he assumed had never occurred. He challenged him to give one instance where, an election having taken place on November 9th, any man was sent suddenly about his business on November 10th because the Council wanted to economise. He appealed to the honourable Member not to press the Leader of the House further than he had already done, otherwise formidable difficulties might arise with regard to this Bill. He thought that the First Lord of the Treasury had gone as far as he could in the matter.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said the Government could not accept the Amendment, which seemed to be a rather dangerous one, as it covered more than a temporary break of service.

§ MR. STUART

said he fully endorsed the view of the Attorney-General.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

said it seemed to him that the Attorney-General had touched the spot of this particular danger. In illustration of this he mentioned the notorious case of the Clerk of West Ham, who recently held 17 offices. Within the last month they had been reduced to 14, but he believed that was still the number, and these were some of the officers the honourable and gallant Member wanted to compensate! But the honourable and gallant Member went further. Supposing an officer left the whole of his offices for 12 or 15 months and then reverted back to them, he would still count that disconnected work as continuous service. It seemed to him preposterous, and outside the "Mikado" he knew of no parallel for such a proposal. He could not understand what the honourable and gallant Member wanted the clause at all for. Supposing, for instance, the clerk of the Shoreditch local authority was transferred to Mile End. He had had, say, 25 years in Shoreditch and under the Bill five years in. Mile End. The honourable and gallant Mendier for Woolwich knew fully well that that man would claim and get 30 years' superannuation and compensation for his time and emoluments. But that was where a man properly devoted the whole of his time to the work. The honourable Member proposed that a man who field three or four offices under one body, with subordinate duties, should group the lot of them, and there would probably arise the ridiculous case of a man of 35 years of age who had had seven or eight years' service in five or six offices, walking off with a pension aggregated upon 804 those offices, whereas had he been a Civil servant he could not possibly have acquired it had he lived to 80 or 90. In the interests of the ratepayers of London he thanked the Attorney-General for the just, sane and sensible view he took of the Amendment.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

said he was prepared to modify his Amendment by inserting the words: Where service had continued without a break for more than three months.

§ MR. OLDROYD (Dewsbury)

said he did not know what the experience London was in this matter, but there was no doubt that if the Amendment were adopted it would seriously affect the position of municipal authorities throughout the country. The Attorney-General had pointed out a very fatal spot in the Amendment, but a more serious one still had not been touched upon—viz., that superannuation should be made whether the whole of the time bad been devoted to the service or not. A large number of solicitors were employed as town clerks and held other offices, the result being that they did not devote the whole of their time to their municipal engagements. Although it was a great advantage personally to the specific solicitor to have the emoluments of his office in addition to the income derivable from his profession, yet the clause would give him the further advantage, after he had received all the emoluments arising from office, of compensation in the case of the abolition of his office. That would be a great injustice to the ratepayers generally, who had to find the money, although' it might be a very convenient and pleasant thing for the solicitor. He trusted that the Government would be firm in their opposition to the clause, which would, he was sure, be opposed by the public generally, and by a large number of Members. He hoped, however, that the time of the House might be saved by the withdrawal of the proposed amendment.

§ Sin T. G. FARDELL

in moving the next amendment, said he had taken the words from the Bankruptcy Act of 1869.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said there Were two matters involved in the Amendment. The first was the omission of three lines with reference to expenses being paid out of the general rate. That, of course, had nothing to do with the Amendment he subsequently proposed to add. The honourable Member was so enamoured of legislation by reference that he was anxious to cut out the case which the Government had put in the Bill. All that the Act of 1894 provided for was that expenses incurred should he paid out of a common fund. It was by no means clear that that would entitle a borough to provide a fund for compensation for loss of office, and therefore it was necessary that a specific direction should be put in the Bill, that these expenses should he paid out of the general rate. He now came to the additional sub-section proposed by the honourable Member. He did not know what the honourable Member meant by "public employment." He thought that if a man earned his pension, after long service, he should not be discouraged from en deavouring to improve his position by earning a little more. He thought, that the enquiries which would have to be embarked upon would make the game not worth the candle. By accepting the Amendment the Committee would practically indicate that when public servants quitted the service at the age of 65, after which it was believed the present day that no one was competent to do anything, they should remain in absolute, idleness.

§ * SIR T. G. FARDELL

said that the point was whether a person in receipt of a pension of public money, whether from the Civil Service or from a local government body, should be entitled to take a second office in either the one or the 806 other without surrendering a portion of his pension in the way indicated by the Amendment. He knew that there were pensioners who had received a pension charged on the Consolidated Fund, and who were also in receipt of a second pension charged on some other public fund. He maintained that that was not right; it was most unfair to the taxpayer, and it was to meet these cases that he had drafted the Amendment.

§ MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

agreed with his honourable friend. If a man retired on a pension from one public office, he did not think he was entitled to take work in another public office. That was not the object of granting pensions.

§ LORD EDMOUND FITZMAURICE

said that the word "may" was the right word here, for if "shall" were inserted, it would compel them to go on with the case without discretion.

§ SIR T. G. FARDELL

said he rather hesitated to move any more Amendments, but he ventured to make this one and trusted he might rely upon the support, of his right honourable friend the Attorney-General.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he did not know whether his honourable friend was aware that the Government 807 had come to the conclusion that the clause was unnecessary, and they therefore proposed to withdraw it.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

asked whether the withdrawal of the clause meant that the town clerk could not appear in any cases?

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said the town clerk could appear without the clause.

§ JOHN BURNS

asked whether in a preliminary summons, say in an adulteration case, the town clerk could appear?

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said yes, he could. The words in the clause to which exception had been taken were those which said that the town clerk might appear "before any court, or in any legal proceedings." The dropping of the clause would not interfere with the usual practice by winch the town clerk was authorised to appear in the summary courts.

§ COLONEL HUGHES

was about to move an Amendment, when

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

said he had an earlier Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

said the Amendment of the honourable Member, and those of several other honourable Members, were out of order, because they sought to alter the London Equalisation of Rates Act. The Amendment of the honourable and gallant Member for Woolwich was in order, because it sought to retain that Act.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

said that if the Parishes were grouped, and the money from the equalisation of rates was paid to the new borough councils, some of the parishes so combined would receive less than they received now. He could best illustrate his point by the statement of an actual case. The parish of Plumstead received £7,300 per annum from the Equalisation of Rates Fund, and the parish 808 of Woolwich received only £800 per year. But if these two parishes were combined in the new borough, the 17,300 and the £800 would be put in one cheque to the borough council and put into a common fund, and distributed according to rateable value. The result would be a loss of £2,500 a year to Plumstead. Similar losses would be realised in the case of many districts by the combination of rich and poor parishes.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that, if he understood his honourable friend aright, his point was that the equalisation of rates was now levied and distributed according to parishes, but that under this Bill there might be, and probably would be, a certain redistribution of parishes, and that the result of that would be that the governing authority substituted for the vestries would have to deal with a somewhat different unit than now existed for the distribution of the Equalisation Rate. His honourable friend would see, he hoped, that the Bill did not materially interfere with the principle of the equalisation of rates. His object was to give the groups of parishes the funds which were given to these parishes separately. As a matter of fact, the parishes were grouped under the existing law, and the District Board had the command of all the money, and not the parishes. That was the system which they proposed to perpetuate by the Bill. It was quite true that a sanitary district might be different from that which existed, but the distribution of parishes did not alter the principle on which the equalisation of rates was based. There were in existence powers by which two parishes might be amalgamated, and if they were so amalgamated there would be some alteration in the distribution of the Equalisation of Rates Fund in the 809 combined parishes, as compared with the distribution in the parishes separate. But nobody would say that because they were combined there was therefore any disturbance of the principle of equalisation. As regarded the particular instance mentioned by his honourable and gallant friend, it was quite true that Woolwich would gain by the junction with Plumstead: but, on the other hand, it was equally true that Plumstead would also gain by the higher rating value which Woolwich enjoyed. It was quite clear that if under this Bill the richer parishes gained something by equalisation of rates, the poorer parishes gained something by enjoying a share of the higher rateable value. He hoped his honourable and gallant friend would not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

* COLONEL, HUGHES

thought there would be an alteration in the operation of the Equalisation of Rates Act, but not of the Act itself. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. BARTLEY

said that the difficulty to which the honourable Member for Woolwich referred showed how stringently the Equalisation of Rates Act worked. Instead of picking out the districts which really wanted relief, relief was given to every district whatsoever. A district got so much money because of its dense population, and that actually increased the density of the population. Instead of the Act relieving the poorer districts, it encouraged relief to districts whether they were poor or not. He thought the Equalisation of Rates Act was a bad measure, and was working badly.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

said that if any great hardship were to occur under the clause, the Commissioners would look after it.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

in moving a new sub-section, desired to revert to the question of the London School Hoard. When the point was raised earlier in the evening, he understood the Attorney-General to say that the proposed subsection giving adequate protection to the London School Board would properly Come in as a saving section at the end of 810 this clause. The London School Board had drafted the section which provided for such cases as Hornsey, and at the same time gave protection to the Board against the very general words of Clause 15.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he was prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. JAMES STUART

said that he wanted to know really what the words "earlier or" in line 12 meant. The appointed day was the day on which the members of the borough councils first selected under this Act came into office, and the old vestries would remain in office until then. He could not understand how new powers were to come into play under the Act six months before the constitution of the boroughs. He could not understand the alteration or reservation, but perhaps it would make the, Amendment more simple if he moved that "or such other day, not being more than six months earlier or later" be omitted. It seemed to him that they were introducing enormous confusion into the whole affair.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said an examination of the subsequent part of the clause would show the real object of the words, There Were certain preliminary 811 matters which would have to be got rid of under the Act, and the whole object of the clause was to enable them, if necessary, to fix a given day for such things to be done.

§ MR. STUART

said that after that explanation he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, but he thought it was due to the House they should know what those matters were.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

pointed out that the new borough registers, which were not to be published until October 1st, were to come into operation on 1st of November, and it was therefore absolutely impossible for the Privy Council to make the appointed day any earlier than 1st November. To his mind the word were entirely inoperative.

§ MR. BOUSFIELD

suggested that it was contemplated to have a different appointed day for different boroughs, whereas Section 4 appeared to provide that there should be only one appointed day.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said there were not to be different appointed days in that sense. It meant that on the appointed day in each case each vestry should cease to exist.

§ MR. BOUSFIELD

said he had been requested by the honourable Member for South Hackney to move the following amendment:—

§ * COLONEL. HUGHES

said he wished to point out that in some cases the words "County Council" were used, and in other cases "London County Council." He thought it should be made clear that 812 the London County Council was referred to, especially as there were outlying councils dealt with in the Act of 1888.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he could not accept the Amendment now, because they had adopted an Amendment which brought in adjoining areas and gave to other county councils, where a portion of their area was to be taken, the right to appear in certain limited events. His belief was that wherever the London County Council was intended, it was either specifically mentioned or the context showed that it was the London County Council. However, between now and the Report stage the Bill would be scrutinised in order to see if there was any ambiguity upon the point.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

said that on the understanding that "London" would be put in wherever it was required he would withdraw his Amendment.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

said he had another Amendment dealing with the rating of Government property. He was anxious to secure that when the words "rateable value" were in question the Government property should be included. There was £90,000 worth of Government property in Woolwich, and it was therefore important that this point should be made clear.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

sincerely trusted that the honourable Member for Woolwich would not press his Amendment. The way in which some local authorities had, for rating purposes, made a raid upon Government property was, in his opinion, disgraceful. They had followed up their attacks upon Government Departments by attacks upon police stations, police courts, and notably upon Woolwich 813 Arsenal. This policy loomed largely in the honourable Member's division, where they were making similar raids upon the County Council Pumping Station, upon the Metropolitan Asylums Board Hospitals, and upon School Board property, to an extent which was not creditable, and which did not show any regard for the public bodies which served London as a whole. He did not happen to have Woolwich Arsenal in his constituency, but he took under his protection an excellent prison at Wandsworth Common and he was glad to think that they, at any rate, had not sought to profit by the existence of that institution. He protested against the grasping habits of the vestries in laying violent hands upon the property of Government departments and central bodies. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment and let the First Lord of the Treasury, between now and the Report stage, see if he could not cut off some of the tentacles of these local bodies.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said the Amendment did not mean another sixpence in the shape of rates.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

You will sec.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he was surprised that the eagle eye of the honourable Member for Battersea had not grasped the real meaning of the Amendment. The only object was to secure that when a proposed area contained Government property worth £50,000, that amount should be included in the amount going to make up the necessary total of £500,000. It seemed to him that the Amendment was one which ought to be accepted.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)

said that at present they had two sets of burial laws. The Acts had their advantages and disadvantages, and those districts which had to provide cemeteries were left to choose which they would adopt. The consequence was that, some adopted one and some adopted the other. He contended that the inhabitants of London should be placed upon the same footing as the rest of the country, and that was what he proposed to do by the Amendment he now moved.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said his recollection was that the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, was not an adoptive Act at all. If the honourable Member would look at line 31 of the clause, it said, "the Burial Acts 1852 to 1885," and that was a comprehensive way of citing the whole series of Burial Acts. If the Act which the honourable Member alluded to was not an adoptive Act it ought not to be brought in at all.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

pointed out that, under the previous Local Government Act, Marten's Act was made available, and he contended that it should be made available under this Act. He very much doubted whether the statement of the learned Attorney-General that the words provided included Marten's Act was correct. At any rate, no harm could be done by adopting the Amendment.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that perhaps the Attorney-General would be willing to look into the matter.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

asked if he was right in assuming that the matter would be cleared up on the Report stage.

§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he did not think that there was anything to clear up. He would undertake to see whether or not it came within the series of adoptive Acts.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It will be within the recollection of the Committee that we had an animated Debate last night upon Clause 11, the result of which was that the clause was postponed until the rest of the clauses had been deal with, and that consummation had now been 815 happily arrived at. The contention was I between, I frankly admit, almost the unanimous voice of the London Members and myself as representing the views of the framers of the Bill, and it turned upon this point. They were anxious that the borough councils should be the overseers in all cases, as they now are in about fifteen cases in the metropolis. I was anxious that the question of the personal responsibility of the overseers should not be wholly merged in corporate responsibility, which would have been the result of the view of the London Members being adopted in an unmodified way. Let me state that the fact that Parliament has in successive private Acts given the powers and privileges of the overseers to these fifteen bodies is undoubtedly an argument for extending similar privileges to every one of the remaining municipalities. It is universally admitted that it is desirable that the system in London should be a uniform system, while it is obviously difficult to withdraw from bodies which have by statute already obtained certain powers, the powers which they have thus contrived to induce Parliament to give them. On the other hand, I do not think there is any serious attempt to meet the view which I venture to put forward, that in certain aspects the corporate responsibility was but a very poor substitute for individual responsibility. The responsibility of the overseers obviously deals with two quite separate sets of duties. There are the duties connected with the collection and the levying of the rates and the making of the rate. That is one set of duties entirely financial in their character, or, at any rate, principally so. There is, in addition to the duties which are financial and local in their character, the duty of making the lists of voters, which is only secondary and partially of a local character, but which is mainly of an Imperial character. It does not affect the finances of the district for which the borough council is responsible, but it does affect the Imperial rights of all voters within that area. It may be true—and I think it is in part true—that even on the financial side personal responsibility may be, in certain cases, important. My honourable friend the Member for Hastings, speaking last night as representing one of the boroughs outside the metropolis, urged upon the Government the acceptance of an Amendment making the borough councils the overseers, and he did 816 it avowedly, as representing the opinion of his constituents. In my honourable friend's constituency, I understand, there lately was a difficulty about the rating. The collector of rates absconded, and made away with rates to the amount of about £1,500. Under the existing, law the overseer was, of course, responsible, and from the overseer, as I understand the matter, no inconsiderable portion of that money was obtained. Had the law been modified, as my honourable friend desires to modify it, the whole of that money would have been lost, because the borough council would have been responsible, and the persons who would have suffered would have been the ratepayers. I quite admit that the financial part of the question is a subordinate part, although not an unimportant one. I will give another case. In one of the vestries in London I believe there was an attempt made to refuse to collect the School Board rate for the metropolis on the ground that that rate was excessive in its amount. I believe the School Board threatened legal proceedings, although, as a matter of fact, the matter never went further, but had the vestry in question behaved as I remember the Corporation of Limerick once behaved during the time of Lord Spencer's administration in 1882 or 1883, it would have been found impossible to deal with them. I can assure the honourable Gentleman opposite that it is not an easy matter to imprison a whole corporation. But I think there is a case for personal responsibility on the financial side, and although I think that the two instances I have given are of some importance, I do not think, broadly speaking, it is necessary to press them, and I am perfectly ready to give up any idea of maintaining personal, as distinguished from corporate responsibility, with regard to this question. I however, it would be desirable that there should be some responsibility retained in regard to the imperial side of the duties of the overseers, namely, that of preparing the lists of voters, and I think that probably the views of all parties might be met if we were to lay down that the corporations of the new borough councils should be the overseers for all purposes connected with the levying of the rote, but that the town clerk, the officer appointed by them, should be responsible for making the lists. That seems to me to meet the views which I ventured to express last 817 night, and which, at the same time, meets the widely and almost universally expressed opinion of the London members. I do not know that there is anything more which I need add in explanation of that view. If the House were prepared, as I hope it is prepared, to accept this as reasonable compromise, the best plan would be to accept the Amendments standing in the name of my honourable friend the Member for Wandsworth. It is a long series, but I will read the clause as it would stand amended. In addition to my honourable friend's Amendments, of course sonic proviso will have to be put at the end of the sub-section to provide that the town clerk of the borough should have the duties and powers and be subject to the liabilities of the overseers with respect to the registration of the electors within the borough. If the House will permit me, I will read the first two sections of the clause, which are practically the important sections, as they stand amended by the combined effects of my honourable friend's Amendments and the one which, on behalf of the Government, I intend to propose. These two sections will run:—

1. (1) After the appointed day the council of each borough shall have the duty and power of overseers of each parish within their borough, and shall appoint such officers as may be required to assist in the transaction of their business, and shall defray the expenses of and incidental to the performance of the duties of overseers.
2. (2) The council shall have all the powers and duties, and be subject to all the liabilities, of overseers, except as aforesaid, and any document required to be signed by overseers may be signed by the town clerk.

There are other consequential Amendments standing in the name of my honourable friend to Sub-section 5, while Subsection 4 will, of course, go out altogether. That, I think, in a general way, curries out the policy of the great body of London Members, and I think will form a model on which any future reform of the borough councils of the country on this subject may very well be formed, and in that case London would take the lead. The change appears to be very popular, and, as my right honourable friend reminds me, is not less desired in other parts of the country.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the proposal which the right honourable Gentleman had just made met the views which had been generally expressed from all 818 sides of the House. As they had stated before, they did not wish to make this question in any sense a party question, and although it did not go so far as some of them might have wished, it seemed to him to meet, substantially, the views which were expressed the other night. He understood that the right honourable Gentleman's real reason for making that distinction was that one was in imperial question and the other a local one. He was very glad to hear what fell from the right honourable Gentleman, to the effect that this proposal might lead to the extension of this system to other parts of the country. He thought that would be a very great advantage from the point of view of efficiency and economy. As far as he was concerned, it seemed to him that the right honourable Gentleman in this Amendment had met the substance of their objections.

§ MR. W. F. D. SMITH

said that far as he was concerned he was perfectly ready to accept the proposal of the Government. This was the proper course to take if they had any confidence in the new councils at all, and he thought his honourable friends would be ready to accept the suggestion of the Government.

§ MR. LOWLES

said that, as the first Amendment referred to stool in his name, perhaps the Committee would allow him to tender his thanks to the right honourable Gentleman for the statesmanlike concession he had made.

§ MR. PICKERSGILL

said that so far as he was able to follow the proposal, there was no specific reference to the preparation of the jury lists, and he thought the effect of this new proposal would be to leave the preparation of the jury lists in the hands of the borough council. He wished to know whether that was the intention.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

said the point raised by his honourable friend was a very important one, and he trusted that the First Lord of the Treasury would take cognisance of it.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The intention is that the jury lists, like the other lists, should be prepared by the town clerk, an I believe the words I have suggested carry out that intention.

§ MR. STUART

pointed out that the lists were now prepared by the overseers in virtue of an Act which vested that power in the overseers, and he thought they would find it advisable to deal with the powers of the churchwardens. What the right honourable Gentleman had done had been to go a very considerable distance towards what they wanted, and so far as he had gone he had shown a spirit of conciliation in the matter. The new system might very well be adopted in the rest of the country, and it would be a great advance in many parts of London. He should like to have seen the powers which already existed reserved, but he would not move any Amendment to disturb the unity which the right honourable Gentleman had created, and the great advance he had made in many parts of London. He should, however, like to reserve his consideration of the matter, because he was not yet quite clear whether the transference of the two duties of the overseers to the town clerk might not, in the end, duplicate the officials. No doubt the right honourable Gentleman would be as anxious as he was to avoid that duplication, and it might be necessary to introduce some sub-section which would enable the officers to be used in common for those two duties.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

was exceedingly glad that the right honourable Gentleman had done what he had done, and he identified himself with everything that had been maid about this proposal. But after all, town clerks, like overseers and members of Parliament, were only human. He wanted to know whether the First Lord of the Treasury intended that both the jury and the voters' lists, which were to be taken from the overseers to the town clerk, would be subject to review by the borough council as a whole after the lists were prepared, because he was not prepared, however virtuous and immaculate a town clerk might be, to leave the official preparation of the jury or voters' lists absolutely to the dictum of one man; and unless this was subject to the criticism and review of the council, it seemed to him that the right honourable Gentleman was simply taking from the hoard of overseers these powers and putting them into the hands of one man. If the borough council had power to review them he quite agreed, but he knew one or 820 two constituencies where the town clerk might he susceptible to outside influences.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

desired to know how far the borough council would have the control of the town clerk in regard to the preparation of the lists, for he thought it was a matter of some importance.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course the town clerk would be in the position of the assistant overseer and would be controlled by the revising barrister, and he would be personally responsible to him for any failure in carrying out his duties. He would, to this extent be responsible to the borough council for this part of his duty—if he did his work in a slipshod or slovenly or partial manner he could be turned out at the end of the year. If in this connection the work of the town clerk did not come up to the standard of efficiency which they had a right to expect, the council would unquestionably he justified in dispensing with his services.

§ MR. STUART

said the right honourable Gentleman was obviously extremely anxious to deal fairly with the matter, and he thanked him for giving them a very great deal more control than existed at present. He must say, however, that there was a great deal in what the honourable Member for Battersea said about the want of control in this matter, because although a town clerk might be a bad hand at arranging the lists he might be a good hand at something else. That was his justification for placing this matter before the Committee.

§ MR KIMBER (Wandsworth)

said the question arose as to what honourable Members opposite meant by control over the action of the town clerk in preparing the lists. If the power of the council upon this question of control was to extend to revising the names inserted in the list it would be a very serious matter. They wished to see these important duties in the hands of a statutory officer and to secure the general performance of those duties in a business-like manner. It would never do to invest in a borough council, which might become actuated and 821 governed by political sentiments, the Mower to coerce or direct an officer as to the names of the electors that he should insert or omit in the lists which under the statutory duties imposed upon him by this Bill he ought to insert or omit. He thought, from what the First Lord of the Treasury had said, that the intension was that the town clerk should be an officer appointed directly by Parliament, who would have complete control of the matter. He thought the provision proposed by the Government was a very wise one, and his view was that it would be better to accept the Amendments as they were.

§ MR. THORBURN (Peebles and Selkirk)

pointed out that the Government's proposal was based upon the system which had been adopted in Scotland, and which had worked excellently. He hoped his honourable friends opposite would accept the proposal of the Government.

§ * COLONEL HUGHES

thought they would find out that some further Amendments would be required on the Report stage. He did not know whether they meant the parochial voters or the Parliamentary voters.

§ COLONEL MILWARD (Stratford-upon-Avon)

said the Leader of the House had stated that if the town clerk did his duty in a slovenly manner he would be liable to dismissal at the end of the year. From his own experience in this matter he was not quite so sure about that.

The series of Amendments indicated in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury were put and agreed to.

SIR R. B. FINALY

said that although it was desirable that as far as possible 822 there should be uniformity as to the day, he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment, because it would throw upon the Local Government Board the duty of prescribing the date on which the precept should be issued. Moreover, the effect of the Amendment went rather beyond the scope of the measure, as it interfered with other bodies empowered in issue precepts.

§ Mr. STUART

said, of course, if the Amendment went beyond the scope of the Bill he would not discuss it, but if it were within the scope of the Bill he would urge the Solicitor-General to consider it with a view to securing uniformity in the issue of precepts by local authorities. Five authorities issued precepts——

* THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I think the honourable Member has himself shown that the Amendment would be outside the scope of the Hill, as it would affect the Acts regulating these different bodies.

§ MR. LOUGH

said that it would be vary desirable to insert a provision simplifying the form of the precepts now issued.

* THE CHAIRMAN

That would raise practically the same point which I have just ruled out of order.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

asked whether it was not possible, before the Report stage, to devise a means by which uniformity as regards precepts could be secured.

SIR R. B. FINALY

hoped that the different bodies would act together as far as possible.

§ MR. LOUGH

said the point of his Amendment was that the ratepayer should know the purpose for which he was contributing any particular rate.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The honourable Member, by inserting these words, would be affecting the Act under which the London County Council issues its precept.

§ MR. LOUGH

said he hoped that the matter would be considered before the Report stage.

§ Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON

asked if before Thursday the clause would be printed, as it would be a great convenience in discussing the schedule?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot give an absolute pledge. I believe it can be done, and if it can it will be done.

§ MR. LOUGH

said he thought the London County Council ought to be substituted for the Local Government Board in the clause.

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

said the matter was clearly one not affecting the London County Council.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It will be in the recollection of the Committee that at an early stage of our proceedings the question of audit came before us, and I pointed out that it could hardly be advantageously discussed at that period, but that I would bring up a clause at a later stage after the whole question had been considered. We have decided to adopt the suggestions offered by Members on both sides, and to fall back on the system of audit now in force in the London County Council. I do not wholly like the system of the Local Government Board, because it is essentially official in its character, and there may be times when more elasticity is desirable than it is possible or right for a Government Department to permit. The County Council system has been well tried, and it has certainly secured absolute honesty and conformity with the law. I therefore move to insert the clause I have drawn up.

§ SIR. B. FINLAY

said he had a clause to propose dealing with cases where it might be necessary to alter the wards or the number of councillors. The matter was mentioned at an earlier stage, but was reserved for consideration. What he proposed was that if the Local Government Board were satisfied that a, alteration were desirable they should make such an inquiry as they thought necessary, and make the alterations accordingly. The clause he would propose was as follows:—

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

asked why the duty of making such alterations was to be taken out of the hands of the London County Council. The only reason given was that the borough councils should not be in any way under the authority of the County Council, But it was 825 not a case of placing their under the authority of the Council. The Council had discharged the duty very well, and if it were transferred to the Local Government Board it would lead to delay and expense. This was a retrograde proposal and would not be to the advantage of the borough councils, the County Council or anybody.

§ MR. LOUGH

said the Solicitor-General had not given a single reason why the powers which had been exercised by the County Council to the greatest satisfaction in every part of London, and were also exercised by councils in the provinces, should be transferred to the Local Government Board. The principle was antagonistic to all the principles on which local government rested. The County Council had representatives front every district; London; it had the machinery; and it was admirably adapted for doing the whereas the Local Government Board had no facilities whatever. Every session they were depriving the Government Board of some of its duties. He believed the Solicitor-General had no faith in the proposal, and he hoped hon. Members on the other side of the House would oppose it.

§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said he was not prepared to deny the statement that the London County Council had performed the duty satisfactorily, but his honourable friend was quite wrong when he said that that duty was also performed by county councils in the provinces.

§ MR. LOUGH

asked whether the duty was not discharged by county councils in county boroughs.

§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said that both in county and non-county boroughs it was discharged by the Local Government Board. The boroughs had perfect faith in the Local Government. Board. The local inquiry was always admirably conducted. He was not prepared to say a 826 word against what the London County Council had done, but he dissented from the view that the county councils ever had any right to interfere in any way whatever in county or non-county boroughs.

§ MR. LOUGH

said he was not referring to the boroughs, but to the county area outside, and the argument he wished to draw was that the county councils generally throughout England discharged an analogous duty over rural areas to that discharged by the County Council in London.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

said he understood that a municipal borough had the power to arrange the wards within its own area.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The arrangement of the wards is done by a Government Department after local inquiry.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

said under the Act of 1894 the county councils had the power to re-arrange the parish and district council areas. During the last ten years the London County Council had rearranged the wards for vestry elections, and they had performed that duty fairly and impartially. Why should that duty be taken away from them and given to the Local Government Board? The best authority for this work was the County Council. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury, who had conducted this Bill with great fairness to the London County Council, not to mar the effect of the graceful concessions he had made by stripping the County Council of this power, which they had hitherto exercised in a satisfactory manner.

§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

moved the following new clause:— The council of each metropolitan borough shall within six months of the passing of this Act, at their own expense, provide and keep a supply of pure and wholesome water in all the drinking fountains and cattle troughs now belonging to the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association situate in their respective boroughs, and shall maintain and keep the same in good repair and condition. He did not desire in any way to overdo the Bill; he merely asked the Government to provide reasonable facilities for the supply of water in London.'

§ SIR R. B. FINLAY

agreed that there should be a proper supply of fine and wholesome water, but he submitted that it was hardly proper to insert in a Bill of this kind a clause dealing with such details.

§ MR. STUART

said he was so delighted to find himself at last in agreement with the honourable and gallant Gentleman on a water question - that he hoped the honourable and gallant Gentleman would divide.

§ Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he should certainly support the honourable Mem- 830 ber if he divided on the matter, because there was no doubt that the vestries who had the management of the fountains in certain parts of London had not kept them in a proper condition. He was personally interested in one of the fountains, which was erected by members of his family in commemoration of a certain event, and he was certainly ready on behalf of those who were interested in the fountain to put it in proper repair, and then hand it over to the borough council. But at present there were great difficulties with regard to this and many other fountains, because in some cases the vestries had taken them over and put them in proper condition, and in other cases had not. He thought it would be a very great advantage to the metropolis as a whole if the matter were handed over in every case to the borough council. The clause seemed to be a very proper one.

§ MR. BANBURY

said he admitted that it would not be advisable to put on. the new borough councils the management of all sorts of philanthropic institutions. This, however, was a very small matter. It was already undertaken by some of the vestries, and unless some intimation on the subject was given in the method proposed to the borough councils it would very likely escape their notice. It must, however, be remembered that the fountains were provided by private subscriptions; those private subscriptions might cease at any moment, and then would also cease a very good and useful supply of water. He hoped, under these circumstances, the Government would reconsider this very small question and accept the Amendment proposed by his honourable and gallant friend.

§ MR. LOWLES

said he thought this was a very proper and wholesome proposal. To empower local authorities to 831 keep water—sweet, pure, and clean—in the drinking troughs would encourage the provision of such troughs by kindly persons and benefit the animal world in London. The only alternative was water troughs outside public - houses. He strongly supported the Amendment.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course everybody must sympathise with the object of my honourable friend in wishing to benefit poor dumb animals. There is no dispute about that. But let honourable Members consider what they are doing if they introduce this clause. This is one of a large number of functions which it may be possible to place upon the new borough councils, and I understand that an honourable Member has already suggested cabmen's shelters as another. I think cabmen's shelters are quite as important, but it would be inexpedient to go through all the possible philanthropic duties which may be incorporated in a Bill of this description. If the House thinks it necessary to throw on the new authorities the duty of supplying water for cattle and horses, well and good; but you must clearly leave it to them to devise the method by which that is to be carried out. To transfer to their shoulders the care of cabmen's shelters and drinking troughs, in addition to the heavy responsibilities already undertaken by them, would be inexpedient, contrary to legislative practice, and could not with advantage be adopted.

§ MR. LOUGH

said he thought that the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill really misunderstood the clause. As far as he (Mr. Lough) understood it the object was not to compel the council to do anything in the matter, but to give them power to do so. He thought a certain latitude should be given to them to discharge these duties if they thought fit. The right honourable Gentleman had announced himself in favour of the principle of the clause, and he (Mr. Lough) asked the Government to adopt it. It seemed, perhaps, a small matter, but there, was a great deal in it, involving as it did the comfort both of human beings and of animals of all kinds. He 832 thought the clause might be made permissive, and in that way adopted.

§ MR. MARKS

said it was not a question of a permissive clause. To put on every borough an absolute obligation to take over the drinking troughs and fountains of the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Troughs Association would certainly be a very strong order. Moreover, the water was to be provided at the expense of the boroughs. There were some honourable Members who had had experience of the methods of the London water companies in their treatment of the wants of man who might he disposed, not unnaturally, to think that they might make some compensation for their treatment of man by supplying this water for the beasts at their own expense; and if such a proposal were made it would certainly receive support from some honourable Members who represented East End constituencies and knew something of the water question there.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS

said the proper way to secure the realisation of the humane and excellent object of the honourable and gallant Member was for all honourable Members who had any influence with water companies—and there were many who had more than he (Mr. Burns) had—to put down at their next board meeting a resolution to the effect that borough councils that applied for permission to have the fountains and troughs under their control should have such water as they required supplied free of charge. If the honourable and gallant Member for Epping and the honourable Member for Peckham would move such a resolution at the next meeting of the Wrest Middlesex or the East London Water Company it would be the best stimulus for the borough councils to discharge these duties they could possibly give them.