§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ Clause (Saving for Over,) — (Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, an hon. and learned Member (Mr. Inder-wick) had a saving clause applying to Winchelsea, on the Paper. He Mr. Guest) would ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) if he would not consider the desirability of adding a Saving Clause in the case of the borough of Corfe Castle, after the Win-chelsea Clause? It would be satisfactory to the people of the borough if this were done. Corfe Castle was in the First Schedule.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, this point would be dealt with later on.
§ Clause 3 (Future abolition of Corporations, except as provided by new charter or by scheme under 40 & 41 Vict. c. 69).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, after the word "managed," to insert 148 the words "dealt with, leased, alienated." —(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not agree to the insertion of the words, as they would give power to make away with property altogether. It was undesirable to put these words in the Bill, as the clauses by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), which had been accepted, gave ample power to deal with' property so far as the House would wish it to be dealt with.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he had an Amendment to Schedule 2, to leave out the name of the Altrincham Corporation from the list of those to whom the Act was to apply. He had, however, consulted with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on the subject, and, as a result, he would not proceed with the Amendment.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, he had an Amendment, to leave out Clause 16, and insert a New Clause in its place. The clause he wished to strike out was as follows: —
This Act shall not be deemed to apply to the lords, bailiff, and jurats of Romney Marsh, but only to the Corporation of Romney Marsh mentioned in the First Schedule of this Act.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 11, leave out Clause 16, and insert the following-Clause:—"Whereas it appears from the Report of the Commissioners of 1876 that doubt exists as to whether the Corporations mentioned in Part II. of the First Schedule to this Act, as existing or reputed to exist in Romney Marsh, are Municipal Corporations, and it is expedient to make such provision respecting the same, as hereinafter contained. Be it therefore Enacted as follows:—
The reputed Corporation of the bailiff, jurats, and commonalty of Romney Marsh, and the reputed Corporation of the lords, bailiff, and jurats of Romney Marsh, shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, continue to exist, and to elect officers, and to hold the property vested in them, but any such Corporation shall not have or exercise any municipal rights or powers, and all property vested in such Corporation shall continue to be applicable for the purposes to which it is at present by law applicable or otherwise for the benefit of the inhabitants of the said places."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwas understood to say that no objection would 149 be taken to the Amendment, after other Amendments which came before it were disposed of.
§ MR. INDERWICKsaid, he wished to move the insertion of a New Clause.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 10, after Clause 13, to insert the following Clause:—
§ (Saving as to Winchelsea.)
§ "In the event of a charter not being granted to Winchelsea, the property of the Corporation of Winchelsea 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, management, and enjoyment, and for that purpose the Corporation of Winchelsea shall continue undissolved in like manner as if it were constituted by the said scheme, and, notwithstanding anything in this Act, Winchelsea shall continue to be entitled an ancient town of the Cinque Ports."—(Mr. Inderwick.)
§ Clause brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
§ Clause (Corporation of Romney Marsh, —(Mr. Akers-Douglas,)—brought up, nd read the first and second time, and added.
§ Clause (Saving Havering-atte-Bower,) — (Colonel Makins,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he should like now to ask whether Corfe Castle could not be put in the same position as Winchelsea? Corfe Castle had the same privileges as Winchelsea, and it ought to be allowed to keep its Charter, if not the jurisdiction and privileges granted by that Charter. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet could not see his way to granting his request.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think he could see his way to the exemption of Corfe Castle from the provisions of the Bill. The licensing jurisdiction in Corfe was in the hands of a body who were really self-elected, and it formed a great difficulty in the way of dealing with the licensing question intelligently throughout the country if they had bodies of this kind self-elected. In the case of Wareham, which the hon. Member also represented, the same state of things existed; but that was a larger place, and the inhabitants might desire to see a Corporation in it. Corfe Castle Was a very small place, and it would not 150 be possible there, he feared, to keep up a separate jurisdiction of this kind. The privileges of the Cinque Ports were different to those of Corfe Castle. Corfe Castle, no doubt, had certain maritime privileges; but, if he remembered rightly, a gentleman who was a large landowner in the neighbournood nominated the Mayor, and the Mayor and Deputy Mayor acted as magistrates.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, they could do with Corfe Castle what they had done with Winchelsea in the matter of licensing.
§ SIR CHAELES W. DILKEWinchelsea has given up its licensing powers.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, that was so, and he asked that Corfe Castle should give up its licensing powers also, and be treated in other respects similarly to Winchelsea. Let it hold the old privileges granted to it in its Charter. It seemed to him that whilst it was in the position of the Cinque Ports, Corfe Castle should have the same privileges as Winchelsea. If he might, at this stage, allude to Wareham, the inhabitants of that place had always been anxious to come under the Municipal Corporations Act; but what they felt was, that if they did they would have to have a new Corporation, which would cost them a certain sum of money. Would the right hon. Baronet assure the House that all these places would not be obliged to have a new Corporation if they did not desire it? They were not anxious to have new Charters; but if they were to be compelled to have them, would they not be given to thorn free of expense? There had been no complaint in Wareham against the way in which municipal business had been carried on. The Commissioners of 1876 reported that there was no complaint made of the Corporation. He hoped to hear that Corfe Castle would be treated in the same way as Winchelsea, and that if a new Charter was given to Wareham it would be given free of cost.
§ MR. SPEAKERDO I understand the hon. Member to move an Amendment?
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTNo, Sir.
§ MR. SPEAKERThen there is no Question before the House.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTThen I would move to leave out Wareham from the First Schedule.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes any hon. Member second the Motion?
§ An hon. MEMBER formally seconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 15, line 8, to leave out the words "Wareham, the mayor, capital burgesses, and assistants of the borough of Wareham."—(Mr. Montague Guest.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member stated that there was no complaint made as to the borough of Wareham. There had been considerable difficulty in the matter of licensing; but it was not necessary to discuss that, as the hon. Member was willing to give up the licensing jurisdiction. It would be much easier to come to a conclusion now that the licensing question had disappeared. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would carefully consider the matter with the hon. Member; and if the hon. Member could induce him to agree with him he would do what he could to meet his wishes when the Bill got into the House of Lords. To strike out these words from the Schedule, however, would not carry out the hon. Member's views.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he should not persist in his Amendment.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASwished the right hon. Baronet to tell them, on the Schedules, what boroughs would get new Charters.
§ MR. SPEAKERWe are on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wareham. Did I understand him to say that he would withdraw it?
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTYes, in consideration of what the right hon. Baronet has said I will withdraw the Amendment. Will he assure me there is some hope or probability that the new Charter will be granted to Wareham free of cost?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had not offered that, but he would consider the point. The cost of the inquiry was not charged on the borough, but the cost that the hon. Member alluded to was the actual cost of the Charter.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, he wished to refer to two answers the right hon. Baronet had given the other evening, one having reference to the places he proposed to grant new Charters to, 152 and the other—on which probably he (Mr. Akers-Douglas) had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman—relating to the granting of Chartars free of charge. From what he had since gathered, the right hon. Gentleman, he thought, had meant that the legal inquiry would be granted free of cost. Surely it would be hard on those places in the First Schedule which were to be allowed to retain their Corporations if their Charters were taken away from them by this Bill, and they were then told they must pay 100 guineas apiece for fresh ones. If it was necessary to take away municipal powers from these Corporations, fresh powers should be granted by the Bill, thus saving the fees that the Corporations would otherwise be called on to pay. Perhaps powers of the kind to which he referred could not be inserted at this stage. The right hon. Baronet might give them his views on the subject; and if it could not be done now, it might be possible later on to alter the measure in this way.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was no Question before the House on which he could speak. He did not wish to evade the point, however, and would, therefore, ask if on any formal Question he could enter into the subject raised?
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, that to give the right hon. Baronet an opportunity of replying, he would move to strike out New Romney from the Schedule.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 34, to leave out the words "New Romney."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'New Romney' stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEThat comes before Wareham, the Amendment with regard to which has been withdrawn.
§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the right hon. Baronet had already stated that the cost of the inquiry would not fall on the boroughs in many of these places. The right hon. Baronet would remember that on the concomitant Bill —the Money Bill—he had asked a question on this subject, and had been informed that there would be no objection to relieving the boroughs from this cost. It now appeared that there were two objections to the measure as it stood. The first was one he had not raised be- 153 fore, not wishing to detain the House— namely, that it would cost the country, even if it did not cost the boroughs, a certain amount of money. Any investigation that took place under the Bill would have to be paid for by the taxpayer, according to the statement of the right hon. Baronet; but a new question had now been raised as to the cost of the Charter being allowed to every borough which would have to undergo the inquiry and obtain a new Charter. There had been no direct answer given to the question which had been asked on the latter subject. It seemed hard that a great many of these boroughs—many of whom were averse to the Bill, and from a great many of whom they had heard nothing as to their opinions in regard to the Bill —should be called upon to hear an investigation, then have their old Charter changed for a new one, and be obliged to pay a fee of 100 guineas for it. It seemed to him unfair to do that; and he would ask hon. Members to remember that even if this fee was not to be paid by the Corporations themselves, a special Money Bill had been passed by the side of the present measure, which would have the effect of imposing it in the form of an extra tax on the British taxpayer.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, his hon. Friend who had just spoken was of opinion that he had not heard personally the views of the Corporations with regard to this Bill; but, as a matter of fact, he had heard very little else for some months. He could assure his hon. Friend that the costs of inquiry would be very small—they would not be so heavy as in the case of those places which desired Corporations for the first time. There would be an inquiry for fixing the number of Councillors, the boundaries, and the number of wards, the times of election and retirement, &c. There would also be an inquiry to prevent any conflict with the existing sanitary and school board authorities; and in all these respects it was desirable that a local inquiry should be held.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLremarked, that the right hon. Baronet proposed to destroy all Charters; going back for his purpose to the time of William the Conqueror, and putting the boroughs to the expense of obtaining new Charters, although the old ones would do. If that were really the in- 154 tention of the Bill, he apprehended there would be some difficulty in "another place."
§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked if the case of one of these Corporations could be met by a special Bill being brought in?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that would be the case, no doubt; but he thought it would not be hard to discover a better means of settlement.
§ MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, he thought that the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 should be followed in the present case; because, instead of providing for the abolition of the Charters of the Corporations, and then conferring upon them a fresh Charter at considerable expense, it simply altered their constitution. He was at a loss to understand why that could not be done; and he thought it would be a very hard proceeding to abolish the Charters, unless they could insure that the Corporations could get fresh ones free of expense. The Corporations concerned had no property, and they did not want new Charters. They had licensing powers, and it was to these rights that he believed the right hon. Baronet objected. He hoped some assurance would be given that the Charters would be obtainable free of cost.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was unable to add to the statements he had already made; but he trusted that from those his hon. Friend would be able clearly to understand the position of the Corporations with respect to costs.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.