COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 30 April 1883)

HC Deb 30 April 1883 vol 278 cc1517-39 1517

§ Bill considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

MR. GLADSTONE
, said, a short time ago he proposed to run through the Orders of the Day. He now proposed that they should enter upon no opposed or contested matter; and that the present Order, to which there was no opposition, should be allowed to go forward.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
, said, it was clearly understood from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that no other Order of the Day should be proceeded with; and it was upon that understanding that several Members to his knowledge had left the House. For his own part, he thought there was a good deal of matter in this Bill that required consider- 1518 ation; and he would therefore move that Progress be reported.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Deputy Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
, said, he desired that the Bill might pass through Committee, so that it might be reprinted with the Amendments that were on the Paper, and which had been agreed to. The great majority, he might say the whole, of the Corporations were desirous that the Bill should go forward. There should be time for the Bill to be reprinted.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
rose to a point of Order. He observed that the Deputy Chairman was in the Chair, and he wished to know how he had got there? As a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker made an explanation just now in the Chair, and walked out of it before Progress had been called. He (Mr. Sidney Herbert) wished to know, as a point of Order, how he (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL) had got into the Chair?

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
The hon. Member is aware that a certain proposal has been put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with a view to fixing for the future the system on which casual Chairmen are to be appointed. Notice of opposition has been given, and the Motion has not come on; therefore, the old practice continues. When Progress was called on this Bill, at the request of the Member in charge of it, I took the Chair in the manner in which it has been usual to take it when the regular Chairman has been unable to do so. The regular Chairman is now occupied in filling the post of Deputy Speaker; therefore, I am in the Chair in accordance with the usual practice.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, he had not meant to refer to any personal matter. He had only desired to draw attention to the fact that the Deputy Speaker had left the Chair without putting the usual Question.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
The hon. Member would be quite right in the case of a Bill going into Committee for the first time; but when a Bill is already in Committee, the Speaker having left the 1519 Chair on a previous occasion, when that Bill is called on, and the Member in charge of it wants it to be proceeded with, he simply says "Progress," and the Speaker leaves and the Chairman takes the Chair.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, they were in a kind of "Comedy of Errors" just now. It was proposed to go on with this Bill; but it was a well-known Rule of the House that if a measure was opposed it could not come on after half-past 12 o'clock. There were Amendments to this Bill; and many hon. Members had left the House, believing that all the Orders would be run through, as had been proposed by the Prime Minister. It would be hard on those hon. Gentlemen to go on with the Bill in their absence. It seemed to him that the Government were taking an unfair advantage of hon. Members.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
I have already said that hon. Members who have Amendments to the clauses which will be considered to-night were aware that the Bill was coming on. There are 18 Amendments on the Paper; 14 I can accept, two will not be moved, and the other two are in charge of hon. Members who wish thorn to be considered tonight. Under the circumstances, I do not think it can fairly be said that we have taken advantage of hon. Members.

MR. MACARTNEY
Are all Members interested ready and prepared to have their Amendments discussed?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
Yes.

§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH
I had no idea that the hon. Baronet had been so successful in arranging with his adversaries. As I do not wish to impede the Business of the House, I will withdraw my Motion.

§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
wished to know whether it would not be better for them to stick to the arrangement originally proposed by the Prime Minister and accepted by the House? If they did not stick to it, this would be a precedent authorizing, in the future, alterations of arrangements which had been apparently entered into and accepted by both sides of the House. Of course, it was always possible to bring forward reasons for changing almost any arrangement entered into, and, no doubt, there 1520 was good ground, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, for departing from the agreement into which he had entered with the House. The House, however, should maintain their side of the contract, whatever might be the views of the Government on the subject. Therefore, let Progress be reported, and let them run through the Orders formally, and meet on another occasion to go on with this Bill, when even the knotty question of casual Chairmen would be settled. He was prepared to make every allowance to the Government in regard to the habit they had contracted and the right they claimed of changing their principles on the shortest possible notice; still, he thought that the House, when it had been party to an arrangement, should adhere to that arrangement and see it carried out.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Deputy Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
I would ask the attention of the hon. Gentleman to this fact. This Bill is necessary in the interests of the Corporations mentioned in it. A considerable waste of property has been going on for some time, and they are all anxious that some decision should be arrived at by the House.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he understood recently, from the Motion which had been moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that the waste of public property was not confined to these Corporations. The allegation was made against Her Majesty's Government, so that it would, perhaps, on the whole, be well to enter into this important question, generally, on a future occasion. He knew the importance attached to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Head of the Local Government Board; but, even in consequence of that importance, would it not be well for them to discuss the matter at some more reasonable hour?

§ MR. THOROLD ROGERS
The statement of the hon. Member is incorrect. The Prime Minister only said he would not proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
said, he would point out to the Committee that, owing to what the right hon. Gentleman the Head of Her Majesty's Government 1521 had said as to going through the Orders of the day pro formâ, and not taking contentious Business, a great number of Members had left the House. They had just now been informed that those who had Amendments on the Paper were present and were prepared to move them—two Amendments, it was said, were to be moved. Well, he (Viscount Folkestone) looked at the Paper, and he found four Amendments down in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and he did not see the noble Lord in his place.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
I stated that there were 18 Amendments on the Paper, 14 of which I could accept. I approve of all the Amendments of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock.

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
said, there might be some hon. Members who had left the House who might have thought it right to remain to move Amendments if they had not believed that the Bill would not be taken. It might be that the Government, by the course they had taken, had occasioned considerable opposition to the Bill.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)
reminded the Committee that his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated most distinctly that every Member who was interested in the Bill was in the House or had given him charge of his Amendments. Therefore, the undertaking of the Prime Minister had not been departed from.

§ VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE
thought most Members had understood the Prime Minister to say that he would go through the Orders pro formâ, in order that they might be read from the Table and a day fixed for their resumption. A great many Members had gone away under a misapprehension, and he felt that the Government had broken faith with the House by expressing their intention to proceed with the Business on the Paper.

§ COLONEL MAKINS
wished to appeal to the noble Lord not to persist. The Amendments on the Paper were, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had explained, Amendments which had been considered by the Members in charge of them with himself, and also by a deputation from the various corporations and constituencies concerned. He believed there was nothing of a contentious nature which 1522 would now be brought forward, and it certainly would be advantageous to many of the constituencies if the Bill could be gone through to-night. If any question should arise it could be taken on the Report. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no intention to take advantage of hon. Members who were absent.

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said, that as he had an Amendment on the Paper which the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept, he would appeal to the noble Lord to allow the Bill to be proceeded with, on the understanding that there would be an opportunity for moving Amendments subsequently.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had treated the House with the utmost fairness. Every engagement he had made he had kept most faithfully, and it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman to say so. At the same time, he could not quite accept the explanation given of what the Prime Minister had said, and he thought a fair compromise would be to go on with the Bill practically as unopposed, and then not take the other Orders.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)
said, there was no intention to take any other of the Orders.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, it was contrary to the practice to take Business which was opposed after half-past 12. To do that would be to establish an undesirable precedent. It might be desirable to go on with this Bill, but the House ought to be very cautious in establishing precedents even for the best possible object.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the hon. Member had twice spoken under a misapprehension. There was no Rule of the House against proceeding after half-past 12 with a Bill which was already in Committee. This was not an opposed Order of the Day. It had been already in Committee, four weeks ago, when it was referred with the understanding that it should proceed.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
hoped the objections to proceeding with the Bill would not be pressed. On the whole, he thought a substantial explanation had been made by the Government.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, it seemed to him to be a very great assumption on the part of the right hon. 1523 Gentleman to assume that only those Members were interested in this Bill who had placed Amendments on the Paper. There were a great many Members who were interested in the Bill who had not placed Amendments on the Paper; but now was it reasonable to expect them to wait to discuss the Bill at this hour? He had been engaged in Parliamentary duties since 12 o'clock in the day, and there were many hon. Members who, like himself, had been sitting on the Grand Committee on Trade all day, and subsequently had been in the House. To-morrow, at 12, another Grand Committee would sit, and it was not reasonable to expect Members to sit through so many hours as the Government seemed to wish. The Government not only had their own nights, but they proposed to take to-morrow; and now they wished the House to sit into the small hours. They ought not to throw an unreasonable burden on the House; and although he would not instigate his hon. Friend to go against what he might believe to be the sense of the House, he must protest against this system of taking important Bills at such an hour, when they could not properly be discussed.

§ MR. BIGGAR
rose to Order, and said, the question whether the Chairman had any right to be in the Chair had been twice raised, and, as far as he could see, it had not been decided. One of the New Rules, as he understood, provided that no Chairman of the Committee should be in the Chair unless he had been formally appointed by the House, by a special Resolution of the House to that effect. It seemed to him that if the principal Chairman had to be elected by the vote of the House, the Deputy Chairman who took his place ought also to be elected by the House.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
On the point of Order raised by the hon. Member, I have already stated that although a change in the Rule with regard to casual Chairmen has been proposed, no such change has been made, and, therefore, I took the Chair in accordance with the established practice under which I and other Members have occupied the Chair.

§ MR. BIGGAR
I know very well you said so.

§ THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
The hon. Mem- 1524 ber raised a point of Order with which I have dealt. On a Motion to report Progress the hon. Member is not in Order in discussing matters of this kind. He must confine himself to the Motion that I leave the Chair.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he thought that until the question as to the position of the Chairman had been decided, Progress should be reported. The hour was now late; this Bill was one of considerable length, and a number of Amendments were of such a nature that they would require a great deal of discussion. He objected to the principle of going through important Bills in a haphazard manner, because the general result was that a fresh Bill had to be brought in in the following Session. This was one of the proposals by which time was wasted, and which caused the deadlocks of which they had already had experience this Session. He hoped his hon. Friend would not allow the Motion to report Progress to be withdrawn.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, they were passing through all the Business of the Government in a formal mode, and at this moment what more binding pledge could be expected from the right hon. Gentleman? He could fully enter into the spirit of the appeal made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna); but he wished to insist on the real point and substance of the whole issue—namely, that an agreement had been entered into with the House; and although the Prime Minister might have regretted that engagement, he had no power to go from it, and it would be an exceedingly bad precedent for the future to allow that to be done. The hon. Member had reminded him that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill had always treated the House kindly. He did not deny that a milder-mannered Minister never bombarded Alexandria; but the question was whether, having a regular agreement with the Government, they were to allow the Government to slip out of their agreement upon their own Motion? In order to protest against that he must take advantage of the Forms of the House.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 124: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 76.)

1525

§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

§ Clause 3 (Future abolition of corporations, except as provided by new charter, or by scheme under 40 & 41 Vict. c. 69).

§ On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE (for Lord Randolph Churchill), Amendment made, in page 2, line 36, by leaving out from "scheme" to the end of the clause, and inserting, as a new paragraph— 2. Provided that until any such scheme takes effect the said property shall continue to he held, managed, and enjoyed as heretofore in like manner as if a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, in pursuance of this Act, had provided for such holding, management, and enjoyment, and for that purpose the persons managing the property shall continue in like manner as if they were a body constituted by the scheme for the administration of such property, but the legal estate in the property shall vest in the official trustees.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 4 agreed to.

§ Clause 5 (Inquiry as to places mentioned in first part of First Schedule).

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
moved, in page 3, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words "the Privy Council shall cause an inquiry to be made into the expediency of advising," and to leave out the word "to" in line 21, and insert "shall." If the Amendment were agreed to, the sub-section would then read— As soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act Her Majesty shall grant a charter extending the Municipal Corporation Acts to the several places mentioned in the first part of the First Schedule to this Act. There was a very strong feeling in most of the Corporations prizing their ancient Charters, that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) having put them in a Schedule by themselves would be to take away from them their old Charters. Was it to be understood that their old Charters would exist, and that fresh Charters would be granted, placing them under the Municipal Corporations Act?

§ Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 20, to leave out the words "the Privy Council shall cause an inquiry to he made into the expediency of advising," and to leave out the word "two" in line 21, and insert "shall."—(Mr. Sidney Herbert.)

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

1526

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he was glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilton (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had proposed this Amendment, as it enabled him to make a statement which he thought was expected by some of the Corporations as regarded their Charters. He had no doubt the statement would be satisfactory to them and to the hon. Gentleman also. To fix boundaries would be a work of great difficulty for the House to undertake, and it was the belief of all those who had carefully considered the matter that there must be an inquiry for the purpose of fixing boundaries. There was the difficulty of the School Board and Local Board districts, conflicting with the existing Corporation authority or any new one, and to grapple with the difficulty it was considered that some kind of inquiry must be held. He had consulted the Lord President of the Council, and he was able to state on behalf of the Privy Council that no real distinction would be made between what might be called the first half of the First Schedule and the second half of the First Schedule. They nevertheless proposed to grant the Charter recommended in cases where there was a desire amongst the inhabitants that a new Charter should be granted. There were some boroughs in the first part of the Schedule which did not desire it, but there were some in the second part of the Schedule which did desire it. Amongst the boroughs in the first half of the Schedule there were two where inquiries had already been held, and which by the Bill would receive their Charter at once, namely—Henley and Woodstock. An inquiry was held at Sutton Coldfield a long time ago; and as regarded Lampeter, Christ-church, Axbridge, New Romney, and Wilton, there was a strong local desire for the granting of a Charter, and he would do his best to have an inquiry held in those cases as soon as possible. As regarded Wilton he had received a Memorial signed by almost all the electors on the register, and by everybody who was in the town at the time except the actual members and officers of the present Corporation who did not like to sign the document on account of the position they occupied. The Memorial was in favour of the granting of a Charter, and he could not regard it otherwise than as representing the 1527 unanimous feeling of the town. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment for reasons he had given. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no delay should occur in making the inquiries.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken about the fixing of the boundaries. Would it be competent for any Corporation to make any proposal with regard to the extent of their boundaries?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, Corporations would have such right, and he intended to accept an Amendment which would enable Corporations even to exclude a neighbouring village or place.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, he understood Henley and Woodstock would have new Charters instantly, but under what authority?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he had stated that an inquiry had already been held in those cases since the Royal Commission reported. In the case of Woodstock the granting of the Charter which should have been made last autumn was suspended on account of a local difficulty, and in the case of Henley the boundaries were under discussion at the present moment.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
asked if he was to understand that any Corporation who applied to the Privy Council might have their cases settled without the Act at all?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the cases he had mentioned would be the places where the inquiries would be held most rapidly.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
asked if there were any boroughs entitled to receive new Charters without any Bill of this sort?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, there were not. He had spoken of a local difficulty existing at Woodstock, and that local difficulty was caused by the absense of this Bill. If a new Charter were granted to Woodstock and this Bill were not passed, there would be two Corporations co-existing in the borough; and that, of course, would be quite impossible.

MR. EVANS WILLIAMS
asked why there should be any inquiry at all? If the boroughs were put in the Schedule because they were considered fit to be reformed, and if they were willing to be 1528 reformed and brought under the Act of 1835, why should they not be allowed to come under that Act without further inquiry? one of the boroughs he represented was perfectly willing to be reformed; but it did not see why it should have a new inquiry, because it had already been inquired into by the Royal Commission of 1876, whose Be-port was the basis of this Bill.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, what he pointed out just now was that inquiries were necessary for the purpose of fixing the boundaries. It was most important there should be no conflict with the School Board boundaries or the Local Board boundaries. For instance, in the case of Henley, the old Corporation boundary ran through the middle of the town, and it was absolutely necessary to extend the boundary in order to bring in the population.

MR. EVANS WILLIAMS
asked if the Committee were to understand that the only object of the inquiry was to fix the boundaries, and not to ascertain the fitness of the borough to be reformed?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the general wish of the population must be ascertained. He had pledged himself that the Privy Council would not lay down so rigid a rule with regard to boroughs which had had a lot of old institutions as they would in the case of places applying for municipal institutions for the first time.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
asked if it was proposed to deprive existing Corporations of their old Charters? Corporations greatly valued their old Charters, and therefore he supposed the Charters would be handed over to the new Corporations under the Act. The borough he was particularly interested in (Wilton) held its Charter from the time of Henry III.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, Corporations would be granted new Charters, so that they could obtain the new powers. The old Charters would remain with them.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On the Motion of Mr. HORACE DAVEY, Amendment made, in page 3, line 23, after "Act," by inserting— and also whether it is expedient that any adjoining district not included in the existing Corporations shall be included in the places to which such charters may be granted.

1529

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
moved, in page 3, line 30, to leave out from "since" to the end of the clause, and insert "the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine." There was an inquiry at Sutton Coldfield just before the date mentioned in the Bill. It was thought better to bring the borough in without any fresh inquiry, and the Amendment was proposed with that object.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 30, leave out from "since" to the end of the clause, and insert "the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)

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

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 6 (Power to Privy Council to preserve certain courts and officers).

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—namely, in page 3, line 36, after "Parliament," to insert "or as town clerk for the purpose of the registration of parliamentary voters." The Amendment was intended to clear up the question as to the registration of freemen in Parliamentary boroughs.

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

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
also moved for the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) to insert, in page 3, line 36, at the end of the clause, as a new paragraph— (2.) Subject to the provisions of any Order of the Privy Council any person who at the passing of this Act holds an office by virtue of which he is such returning officer or town clerk as aforesaid may during the time limited for the tenure of his office continue to perform the duties of such returning officer or town clerk as aforesaid, and on the expiration of such time, or his otherwise ceasing to perform the duties, the said duties shall, so far as regards the returning officer, be performed in manner provided by the Act of the Session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-seven, intituled 'An Act to amend the Law relating to the appointment of returning officers in certain cases,' and so far as regards the town clerk shall be performed by the person in the parliamentary borough who is town clerk within the meaning of section one hundred and one of 'The Parliamentary Registration Act 1843.' 1530 This and the several following Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) were the incorporation in this Bill of the clauses on this subject which were in the Act of 1835. As to the saving of right, the noble Lord had taken the same provisions as were contained in the Act of 1835.

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

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 7 agreed to.

§ Clause 8 (Power of Charity Commissioners).

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, that in line 2 of the clause provision was made for the appointment of interim trustees and otherwise. It would be well the Committee should have some idea who the trustees would be—to whom would be given the custody of the valuable documents and so forth.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, three years were allowed for the Act to come into force, and he hoped that in the course of that time all the inquiries as to boundaries and the like would be completed. The clauses relating to interim matters were only intended to guard against possible dangers.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, that supposing by any chance the Privy Council did not grant a new Charter, what was to become of the ancient valuable Charter?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, in case a new Charter was not granted, the documents and maces would be part of the property which would not be dealt with by trustees.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)
moved, in page 4, line 34, to leave out from "scheme" to end of line 37, and insert, as a new paragraph— (2.) If any such property has after the first day of March one thousand eight hundred and eighty three, and before the date at which a charter or a scheme under this Act, or 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as the case may be, takes effect, been alienated by way of sale, mortgage, grant, lease, charge, or otherwise, and such alienation has not been made in pursuance of some covenant, contract, or agreement bonâ fide made or entered into on or before the said first day of March, or of some resolution duly entered in the Corporation books of the Corporation on or before the said first day of March, or in pursuance of any right saved by this Act, and such alienation has been 1531 made collusively and for no consideration, or for insufficient consideration, such alienation may be set aside in the like proceedings (instituted with the consent of the Charity Commissioners or of the Attorney General) and in like manner as a lease of land of a charity granted without duo consideration may be set aside: Provided, That if a charter is granted or a scheme made whereby the property is affected, the said proceedings shall be commenced within one year after the charter or scheme takes effect. Also, in page 5, line 5, at end, to insert as a fresh, paragraph.— (4.) Any Corporation or person aggrieved by an order of the Charity Commissioners under this Act may appeal to the Privy Council, and the Privy Council may, after hearing the parties, make such order as in their opinion the Charity Commissioners ought to have made; and such order shall have the same effect under this Act as if made by the Charity Commissioners.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 9 agreed to.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)
moved, in page 5, before Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:— (Reservation of rights of property and beneficial exemptions to freemen, their wives, and children.)

"(1.) Every person who now is or hereafter may be an inhabitant of any borough mentioned in any of the schedules to this Act, and also every person who has been admitted or might hereafter have been admitted a freeman or burgess of any such borough if this Act had not been passed, or who now is or hereafter may be the wife or widow or son or daughter of any freeman or burgess, or who may have espoused or may hereafter espouse the daughter or widow of any freeman or burgess, or who has been or may hereafter be bound an apprentice, shall have and enjoy and be entitled to acquire and enjoy the same share and benefit of the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and of the rents and profits thereof, and of the common lands and public stock of any such borough or any municipal or other Corporation thereof, and of any lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and any sum or sums of money, chattles, securities for money, or other personal estate, of which any person or any Corporation may be seised or possessed in whole or in part for any charitable uses or trusts, as fully and effectually, and for such time and in such manner as he or she by any statute, charter, bye-law, or custom in force at the time of passing this Act might or could have had, acquired, or enjoyed in case this Act had not been passed: Provided that—

(a.) The total amount to be divided amongst the persons whoso rights are herein reserved in this behalf shall not exceed the surplus which shall remain after payment of the interest of all lawful debts charge- 1532 able upon the real or personal estate out of which the sums so to be divided have arisen, together with the salaries of municipal officers, and all other lawful expenses which, on the first day of March one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, were defrayed out of or chargeable upon the same;

(b.) Nothing hereinbefore contained shall be construed to apply to any claim, right, or title of any burgesses or freemen, or of any person, to any discharge or exemption from any tolls or dues levied wholly or in part by or to the use or benefit of any borough or Corporation; and after the passing of this Act no person shall have or be entitled to claim thenceforward any discharge or exemption from any tolls or dues lawfully levied in whole or in part by or to the use of any Corporation, except as hereinafter is excepted;

(c.) Nevertheless, every person who, on the said first day of March, was an inhabitant, or was entitled to be admitted a freeman or burgess of any borough, mentioned in any of the Schedules to this Act, or who on the said first day of March was the wife or widow, son or daughter, of any freeman or burgess of any such borough, or who on the said first day of March was bound an apprentice, shall be entitled to have or acquire and enjoy the same discharge or exemption from any tolls or dues lawfully levied in whole or in part by or to the use of any borough or Corporation as fully and for such time and in such sort as he or she, by any statute, charter, byelaw, or custom in force on the first day of March, might or would have had, acquired, and enjoyed the same if this Act had not been passed, and no further or otherwise;

(d.) Where, by any Statute, charter, bye-law or custom in force at the time of passing this Act within any of the boroughs mentioned in any of the Schedules to this Act, any person whose rights in this behalf are herein reserved would have been liable in case this Act had not been passed to pay any fine, fee, or sum of money to any Corporation, or to any member, officer, or servant of any Corporation, in consideration of his freedom, or of his or her title to such rights as are herein reserved, no such person shall be entitled to have or claim any share or benefit in respect of the rights herein reserved as aforesaid, until he or she shall have paid the full amount of such fine, fee, or sum of money to the treasurer of such borough, elected under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1382,' or to such other person as may be appointed in that behalf by a schema under that Act or under this Act;

(e.) Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to entitle any person to any share or benefit of the rights herein reserved who shall not have first fulfilled every condition which, if this Act had not passed, would have been a condition 1533 precedent to his or her being entitled to the benefit of such rights, so far as the same is capable of being fulfilled according to the provisions of this Act, or to strengthen, confirm, or affect any claim, right, or title of any burgesses or freeman of any borough or Corporation, or of any person, to the benefit of any such rights as are hereinbefore reserved, but the same in every case may be brought in question, impeached, and set aside in like manner as if this Act had not been passed.

"(2.) From and after the passing of this Act no person shall be elected, made, or admitted a burgess or freeman of any borough mentioned in any of the Schedules to this Act by gift or purchase.

"(3.) Every scheme under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 18S2,' or this Act, shall, if need be, provide for carrying this section into effect, and for the enrolment of persons from time to time entitled under this section, and a scheme may be made for that purpose or for the purpose of managing any property to which the said persons may be for the time being entitled."

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 10 (Saving for vested interests).

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)
moved to insert, after "profit," in line 41, "or any other profit of a pecuniary value;" and, in page 6, after "rate," in lines 17 and 21, to insert "toll or due."

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 11 agreed to.

§ Clause 12 (Saving as to Cinque Ports).

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
intimated that clauses would be brought up on the Report saving the rights of the Lords of Romney Marsh. The Commissioners of 1876 were of opinion that the Municipal Corporation Acts might be applied to New Romney, but made no mention of Winchilsea. In the event of Winchilsea being included the local authorities, who were the mayor, jurats, and commonalty, would be required to give up the licensing powers they now possessed, which were extremely anomalous.

§ MR. INDERWICK
thought there would be no difficulty in that matter.

§ MR. DILLWYN
inquired when his right hon. Friend proposed to take the Report?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, it would be printed in time for Amend- 1534 ments, and he would put it down for that day week.

§ MR. PUGH
asked if the right hon. Gentleman could give any idea of the amount of compensation that would be necessary under the Act before a new Charter was granted to one of those Corporations?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the great majority of these places with Corporations had only a population of something like 2,000, and there were several with a population smaller than that.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.

§ Clause 15 (Saving for lords of Romney March).

§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
moved the omission of the words "but only to the Corporation of Romney Marsh" mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act. If it were provided that the Act should not apply to the lords, bailiffs, and jurats of Romney Marsh, these words would not be necessary; but if there were any doubt upon the matter, he would move an Amendment upon the Report.

§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "but only the Corporation of Romney Marsh."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
pointed out that there were two corporate bodies connected with Romney Marsh. The whole position of Romney Marsh was peculiar and anomalous, and there was some doubt as to whether Romney Marsh was a Municipal Corporation at all, and there would be great difficulty in providing it with a separate existence. He admitted that there was a claim for considering the two bodies separately; but they were rather liberties than boroughs, and in the capo of both of them the licensing jurisdiction was anomalous. Licences could be bought or sold, which was highly objectionable. He asked hon. Members who were interested in those places to consider whether it was not desirable to effect some compromise, and to allow the county magistrates to exercise the licensing jurisdiction, re- 1535 taining the ancient custom for other purposes?

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clauses 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

§ Clause 19 agreed to.

§ MR. LONG
moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Saving as to Laugharne and Malmesbury.) Whereas in Laugharne and Malmesbury divers of the Corporation, whether called burgesses, landholders, or any other name, have the right to occupy without rent or at low rents certain property belonging to the Corporation, and it is expedient to make provision with respect to such property, he it enacted as follows:— (1.) In the event of a charter not being granted to Laugharne or Malmesbury, the property of the Corporation of the place to which a charter is not so granted shall continue to be held, managed, and enjoyed as heretofore, in like manner as if a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, in pursuance of this Act, had provided for such holding, enjoyment, and management, and for that purpose the Corporation in the said place shall continue undissolved in like manner as if it were constituted by the said scheme. (2.) the Corporation of such place, subject to the approval of the Charity Commissioners, may sell all or any of the property of the Corporation for the best price that may be got for the same; and, after compensating or saving the rights of any person in such property, whether existing or prospective, may pay the proceeds to any public authority in the locality to be applied by such authority for the benefit of the inhabitants of the said place. (3.) The provisions of this Act and of 'the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' for saving the rights and interests of freemen and of persons who might have become freemen, shall extend to the rights and interests of persons who are or if this Act had not passed might have become landholders, assistant burgesses, or capital burgesses in Malmesbury, and for that purpose freemen of Malmesbury may continue to be elected landholders, assistant burgesses, and capital burgesses.

§ New Clause brought up, and read a first time.—(Mr. Long.)

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, that if any hon. Member had any doubt as to the necessity of the clause, he would ask him to read the evidence taken by the Royal Commission.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

1536

§ Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

§ MR. WILLIAM DAVIES
moved, after Clause 16, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Saving for Newport, Pembroke.)

§ Whereas it appears from the report of the Commissioners of 1876 that the office of mayor of Newport (Pembroke) is purely honorary, and that the Corporation has no revenue and no municipal function: be it therefore Enacted as follows:— Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent the election of the mayor of Newport (Pembroke) as heretofore, or to dissolve the Corporation of Newport (Pembroke), or deprive the lord of the manor or the burgesses of any tolls, rights of common, or other rights of a pecuniary value.

§ The hon. Member said, he understood there was no objection to the clause.

§ New Clause brought up, and read the first time.—(Mr. W. Davies.)

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, he assented to the Clause.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Clause added to the Bill.

§ COLONEL MAKINS
moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Saving for Havering atte Bower.) This Act shall not be deemed to apply to the tenants or inhabitants of the lordship or manor of Havering atte Bower.

§ Havering atte Bower was not a Corporation in any sense; but he did not wish at that late hour to dwell upon the manner in which it differed from other Corporations. With regard to jurisdictions, the magistrates of Havering atte Bower had the right of licensing, but it was a right that was very rarely exercised. No doubt, they would feel great reluctance in giving up that right, if such a sacrifice were required of them alone. But as he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that all the anomalous jurisdictions in regard to licensing possessed by these bodies were to be put an end to, he would not ask to retain for Havering atte Bower privileges which were given up by other bodies similarly situated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause, and he might point out to him that there was already in existence an Act of 1537 Parliament 13 & 14 Vict. c. 105, which; enabled the county, of which this liberty formed part, to absorb the liberty if it so desired; but the fact that the county had taken no action under the Act to absorb the liberty, proved that both parties were satisfied with the condition of things now existing. There were certain privileges now attaching to the liberty of Havering atte Bower, which were valued very much indeed; and as Havering atte Bower was neither a Corporation reformed or unreformed, it did not come naturally under the Act. As its absorption was already provided for, he moved that this clause should be added to the Bill, saving the rights of the authorities.

§ New Clause (Colonel Makins) brought up, and read the first time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
hoped his hon. Friend would not press the clause that night, if he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) undertook that further consideration should be given to the matter before the Report. The licensing powers possessed by Havering atte Bower were very curious and anomalous, and he feared that this clause would not have the effect of exempting the liberty from the operation of the Bill. The condition of Havering atte Bower was extraordinary and anomalous. There were three magistrates there, and two of them were actually nominated by a private individual, and the right of nomination had been sold before now. Although it was in excellent hands at the present moment, that might not always be the case; and it was certainly most undesirable to continue the licensing jurisdiction over a large area in the hands of three persons, of whom two were subject to the control of a private individual. He promised, if his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw the clause, that he would consider the matter before the Report.

§ COLONEL MAKINS
said he was quite prepared to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. Friend. He might mention in regard to these magistrates that the High Steward, who was one of them, was also a county magistrate, and also a licensing member, and therefore he acted in a double capacity. He quite 1538 agreed with his right hon. Friend that it was desirable to place the jurisdiction on such a footing that the state of things which had been described would no longer be possible, and with the permission of the Committee he would withdraw the clause, and communicate with his right hon. Friend, in order to arrange for another clause to be moved on the Report.

§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Schedule 1.

§ On the Motion of Sir Charles W. Dilke, Amendment made in Schedule 1, page 1 2, line 4G, by leaving out "mayor, alderman," and inserting "high steward, bailiffs."

§ MR. INDERWICK
said he had given Notice of his intention to move to leave out "mayor, jurats, and commonalty of the ancient town of Winchelsea" from the First Schedule; but he did not propose to persevere with that Amendment.

§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Schedule 2.

§ MR. BORLASE
asked for information in regard to two boroughs that were included in the Schedule as places not mentioned by the Commissioners in 1876, to which the Municipal Acts might be applied, namely—Camelford and East Looe.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
stated that Camelford possessed a population of more than 2,000, and it was an increasing place. If there was any desire for the existence of a Corporation, there was no doubt that it ought to be provided. With regard to East Looe, it had a population of about 1,400, and it was desirable that inquiries should be be made in reference it.

§ In reply to Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
stated that the case of Queen borough had already been considered. It was a place in the same category as East Looe. It was increasing rapidly, and had a good prospect of becoming a fashionable watering place, while it was already the terminus of a new route to the Continent.

§ Schedule agreed to.

§ Preamble agreed to.

1539

§ House resumed.

§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]