COUNTY COUNCILS.

HC Deb 09 July 1888 vol 328 cc745-838

Financial Relations between Exchequer and County, and Contributions by County for Indoor Paupers.

Clause 21 (Grant to County Council of portion of probate duty).

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

said, the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper raised an important question in providing that should the Probate Duty grant be distributed among the counties— So far as such sums will provide for the payments hereinafter directed to be made to the guardians of poor law unions in aid of the costs incurred for indoor paupers, and the remainder of the said sums shall be distributed among the said counties in proportion to their rateable value. He ventured to think, however, that the question raised by the Amendment had already been practically decided by the House; and, although he still maintained his opinion that the decision was an unfortunate one, he did not think he would be justified in wasting the time of the Committee by raising the point again in another form. He therefore did not propose to move the Amendment.

MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

in rising for the purpose of moving, in line 28, after the word "pauperism," to insert the words "save in the county of London," said, the object of the Amendment was to secure that London should be treated separately from other counties. London was to be a county in itself, but its circumstances were entirely different from those of the rest of England. In the first place, the administration of the Poor Law in London was altogether different from that of the rest of the country, In London it was absolutely necessary that indoor pauperism should be the principle mainly resorted to.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that before entering into the merits of the question it was desirable that the hon. Member should explain how his proposal was to work. Without some explanation the Amendment would be absolutely unintelligible.

MR. FULLER

said, that if the Committee consented to pass the Amendment, he would then be prepared to move a further Amendment to the effect that London, as a county, should receive one-seventh of the £1,800,000 which it was proposed to distribute, and he was now prepared to give his reasons to the Committee. London at the present moment had a population which amounted to one-seventh of that of the whole of England.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

rose to a point of Order. A number of suggestions analogous to that made by the hon. Member had been made at the beginning of the consideration of the Bill. All of them related to that part of the Bill in which the clauses in reference to London came in.

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

said, that upon the point of Order he might remind the Committee that they had already decided that the Probate Duty was to be distributed in accordance with the amount of indoor pauperism. He would, therefore, submit that it would be absolutely impracticable to exclude one county from the operation of this particular decision of the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that, no doubt, the matter was one of extreme difficulty. As he understood the hon. Member, he wished to reserve one-seventh of the duty for London. That, however, should be done by a separate clause at the end of the Bill.

MR. FULLER

said, he must leave it to the Chairman to decide the question of Order; but it seemed to him that London could be treated differently, and ought to be treated differently, from the rest of the country. London, as the Bill now stood, would receive a very large proportion of this sum of £1,800,000. The country districts were much poorer than London. Taking even the question of rateable value or Inhabited House Duty, which was certainly a test of wealth, it would be found that the House Duty in London averaged per house no less than 30s., whereas in the country districts it averaged no more than 4s.. 6d. per house; therefore, he maintained, with all due deference, that those who were connected with the country districts felt that an undue advantage would be given to London in the division of this money unless some such Amendment as his were adopted. If he were allowed to move his Amendment, he should do so simply on the ground that, so far, those who represented the country had had no chance of explaining the very poor condition in which the country districts were, as compared with London, and how much more they deserved a greater portion of this grant than the Metropolis. He must, however, leave it to the Chairman to decide whether or not he was in Order in raising this point.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he felt that the subject was one of great difficulty. It would be extremely difficult to deal with the matter in the way in which the hon. Member proposed to approach it, and he did not think it could be done properly in an Amendment of this kind.

MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

asked, whether he could bring up the case of Wales on this Amendment, as he had examined the figures, and they were glaringly unfavourable to the Principality

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that very much the same difficulty arose in the case of Wales as in the case of London. The whole sum to be apportioned was understood to include Wales, and he did not see how the Committee could disturb the rule which had been laid down.

MR. FULLER

said, it appeared to him that it was perfectly feasible to consider the peculiar position in which London stood, and not contrary to the provisions of the Bill, so far as they had gone. He thought the Committee were entitled to deal with one county first if it were considered necessary, and then deal with the rest.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, that he had also intended to move an Amendment upon this point, but he understood from the Chairman's ruling that it would be out of Order. He trusted the Chairman would allow the sense of the Committee to be taken on some Amendment whether outdoor as well as indoor pauperism should be taken into account. He certainly thought they ought to be allowed to go into the figures. There was a strong feeling in the House that, as the Bill now stood, there would be the greatest inequality and injustice in the treatment of different parts of the Kingdom, and that point had hardly yet been realized by the Committee, and had not been discussed at all.

SIR, WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, that upon this particular point it was important that they should know how the matter stood. He was not aware that anything which had been passed as yet would preclude the Committee from adding "outdoor pauperism" as another element in the distribution of the Duty. Everybody admitted that the Committee had already included indoor pauperism as an element, and the question now raised was whether they might not add another element—outdoor pauperism. The case of the Government was this—the object of the grant was to relieve districts according to their pauperism, but pauperism included outdoor as well as indoor pauperism. At one time, no doubt, there was a strong feeling in favour of the system of indoor pauperism as against that of outdoor relief. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had on Friday offered to move would take away the inducement to Guardians to drive the people into the workhouse in future. As a matter of fact, what it meant was to stereotype an advantage in favour of those districts which had given the preference to indoor as against outdoor relief.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must point out that the right hon. Gentleman was not speaking to the point of Order, but was entering into the merits of the question.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he would ask whether it was not competent to add to the Bill, as it now stood, the words "outdoor pauperism," so as to make the distribution depend on the standard which should include both elements of pauperism? His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Winterbotham) proposed to add words to include outdoor pauperism, and he ventured to submit that nothing which had already been done was inconsistent with that proposal.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it was, of course, no part of the duty of the Chair to examine the merits of proposals; but the Committee had on Tuesday decided that indoor pauperism should at least be one of the elements of distribution, and had further decided that it should be the only element of pauperism. The whole of the discussion on Tuesday turned on the advantage that would be given to those who adopted the method of indoor relief, and the decision was that indoor relief was to be the standard of pauperism.

MR. FULLER

said, that that did not stand in the way of his Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

No; but it did in conjunction with the further reasons he had given. He did not think that he could accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.

MR. RITCHIE

then moved to leave out the words— During the financial year next preceding the financial year in which the sums were collected, and the indoor pauperism of a county shall, in order to insert the following words:— And such distribution shall, during the five local financial years beginning on the appointed day, be in proportion to the average number of indoor paupers during the financial year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March next before the passing of this Act, and after the end of the said five years shall, unless Parliament otherwise determine, continue to be in accordance with the same proportion. The average number of indoor paupers of a county.

Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 28, to leave out the words "during the financial year next preceding the financial year in which the sums were collected, and the indoor pauperism of the county shall."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that this was the proper time to point out the effect of the Amendment. He fully admitted that it would, to a great degree, meet the objection as to the tendency in future of the measure to induce Guardians to prefer sending people to the workhouse instead of giving outdoor relief, a practice which was now admitted by the Government to be objectionable. He desired, however, to point out that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be altogether ineffectual in securing that object. The right hon. Gentleman was going to stereotype the standard of pauperism in connection with the distribution of the fund. He might just as well have given a money sum for each Union in the Schedule. He would suggest it worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether upon the higher stage of the Bill he could not do this. As the matter now stood great inequalities would be created in every district. Where outdoor relief had prevailed the district which had resorted to it would be placed at a great disadvantage, so that he imagined the greater number of the agricultural districts in the country would lose very largely and receive an unduly small portion of the grant. Now, what was the object of the grant? It was to relieve the poverty of the districts. That had been so stated by the Government. Then, why should they only take one class of pauperism. By taking both classes, those who received indoor relief and those who received outdoor relief, they would relieve the poverty of the whole of the districts. There might be circumstances which would induce one plan to be adopted instead of the other, and this provision of the Bill would give an unfair advantage to those who confined themselves exclusively to indoor relief, while it would place an unfair disadvantage upon those who practised outdoor relief. It would greatly increase the inequalities of the relief given. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there were inequalities, and this proposal would only stereotype them. He might point out many circumstances which would create great dissatisfaction in various districts in reference to the inequality of the distribution. The objection which had been taken in regard to Wales as compared with London had been pointed out the other day, and he would not refer to it again at any length except to say the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had defended it as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman said it was true that London would gain enormously from the proposed grant, but then it would lose largely upon the grants in aid. The loss, however, of the grants in aid would be counter-balanced by the police grant, and he did not think they could sever the two questions altogether. It would never be found, if they left the control of the police with the Central Government, that the Local Government would consent to pay the whole of the cost; therefore, assuming that the Local Authorities bore the whole of the contribution in London, that would only form an argument in favour of the contention that there ought to be an Imperial grant for those purposes. He hoped that if not now, at any rate at a later stage of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would make some provision whereby greater equality and fairness in the distribution of the grant would be secured.

MR. RITCHIE

said, it was hardly correct for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government might have left out these words and put the amount which each Union was to receive in the Schedule, because the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that the amount of the Probate Duty would vary from year to year. It was, therefore, impossible to fix a sum to be given in relief of the poor rate. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that the object which the Government had in making this proposal was to give relief to the charges for the poor in the various districts; but the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government was that the Government had taken the basis of indoor pauperism, whereas the right hon. Gentleman wished to introduce outdoor pauperism into the arrangements. So far as he knew, there had been no representation from any responsible Body, or any recommendation from any Commission or Committee, to the effect that there should be a contribution towards outdoor relief. There had, however, been a very large number of recommendations from Committees and Commissions in favour of giving some relief from a particular kind of property towards indoor pauperism. The recommendation had always been in the direction of indoor pauperism. He was very far from saying that in all cases outdoor pauperism had been unduly or lavishly given; but the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him when he said that all reformers had striven against the tendency which had existed in some parts of the country towards lavish expenditure in the shape of outdoor relief. The right hon. Gentleman would also acknowledge that nothing would be more improper and more destructive to the independence of the poor themselves than the lavish distribution of outdoor relief. If they were to give the distribution of the grant to London on the basis of outdoor relief, they might be giving a premium to what had been regarded as a reckless expenditure of the ratepayers' money.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, his only wish was that in taking a standard from the past it should include both elements of pauperism.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that he maintained, on the contrary, that there were parts of the country where there had been a reckless and lavish expenditure of the ratepayers' money, to the great injury of the people of the locality, and if they were to distribute the grant on any basis of outdoor relief, they would be giving a premium to such reckless expenditure. Everyone would admit that so far as the distribution was concerned, it was a far safer basis to take indoor pauperism than to take outdoor pauperism. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that no undertaking with regard to raising the question at a later stage was required from the Government. Opportunities would arise on the later stages of the Bill to raise the question again. For instance, there would be an opportunity on the Report stage, and he thought it would be unwise for the Committee to raise it now. It had formed one of the elements of all the discussions which had taken place in reference to the Bill; and, therefore, he was afraid that it was impossible for the Government to make any proposal to the Committee by which the question would be raised again.

SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

said, that in the remarks he proposed to make he would keep himself strictly within the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He thought it was exceedingly important, now that the distribution of the Probate Duty was to be stereotyped, that one or two facts should be clearly laid before the country before the distribution was stereotyped, and whether a vote was taken upon the question or not. It must be remembered that this provision was to be for all future time. There were two main reasons for choosing the test of indoor pauperism. The first was the administrative reason about which everybody was agreed. The other was that it gave a fair distribution of the Probate Duty with reference to the sacrifices which the different localities made in the shape of the grants they used to receive. He proposed to confine himself to the latter point alone. He would first take two counties—Northumberland and Norfolk Northumberland and Norfolk both sacrificed the same sum of money, that was to say, £37,000 or £38,000. Norfolk was to receive in Probate Duty £30,000, and Northumberland £19,000. Was it seriously intended that this monstrous injustice was to last for ever? He would now take the county, and put it against two others. He would take the county of Sussex. He observed that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had been supporting the Government in the patriotic way in which he always defended the interests of Sussex. Now Sussex sacrificed £48,000 a-year; but there were two counties—namely, Herefordshire and Nottinghamshire, which would sacrifice exactly the same amount. Sussex would get £36,000 a-year, while Herefordshire and Notts together would only gain £23,000. Was this injustice to remain till the end of time? He would next take the counties of Berks and Dorset. Nobody would deny that Dorset was a poor county as counties went. Berks would sacrifice £22,000, and Dorset £19,000, or nearly the same sum. Berks would get £16,000 and Dorset £9,000. Was that injustice to remain to the end of time? He thought he had said enough to show to the Committee the inequalities that were to be stereotyped. But he would say one word in the justification which had been given for those inequalities—namely, the immense sacrifices of grant which London would make. London would sacrifice £600,000, and would get £500,000; but that was better than any other county. Wales would sacrifice £95,000 of grant, and would get £51,000. Now, what earthly reason was there, or what combination of reasons, why London should get five-sixths of what it sacrificed under a single head of Probate Duty, while Wales got only one-half, and why should this continue to the end of time? He did not wish to press the matter further, because he considered that is was impossible to answer these figures.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, that since he had read the Amendment which had been put down by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he had felt somewhat uncomfortable in regard to it. He had the honour of being the Chairman of the worst Union in the worst district in the whole of England and Wales in regard to outdoor pauperism. Unions were called bad Unions with reference to outdoor relief. They were blamed by what was called the official mind, by Poor Law Inspectors, and Poor Law auditors, in regard to the amount of their outdoor relief; but Unions ought not to be blamed wholesale for giving outdoor relief. There were circumstances which made it neces- sary, wise, and discreet to give outdoor relief where an adjoining Union would not do so. For instance, the workhouse might be full, and the district might be a growing one, with an increasing number of poor. The Guardians might not desire to build and increase their debt, and thus they were encouraged to give the poor some slight relief outside, and not to drive them into the workhouse. He trusted that the Government, before they came to the Report stage, would reconsider the matter, and agree to omit the words "indoor pauperism." The clause would then run in this way— The sum so paid shall be distributed among the several counties in England in proportion to the pauperism of the county. He did not think that if an Amendment of that nature were made any injury would be inflicted upon the Bill, while they would undoubtedly get rid of the hardship.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) had spoken of Dorset as a poor county; but what his right hon. Friend had stated in regard to distribution applied still more strongly to Wales, which was certainly the poorest part of the United Kingdom. At present Wales obtained from grants-in-aid £95,000 According to the proposed distribution of the Probate Duties she would obtain only £51,000. But if the apportionment were established on the basis of outdoor as well as indoor pauperism she would obtain £140,000, and if on the basis of population £288,000. The difference between these large sums and the paltry dole which she received, even taking into consideration her share of the transfer of the Licensing Duties, was so startling that he trusted the Government would reconsider the position of Wales before the Report stage of the Bill. If they did not, he, or one of his Colleagues from the Principality, would feel bound to raise it by an Amendment on Report.

MR. ELTON (Somerset, Wellington)

said, that, however much he might desire to support the principle suggested by the Government, he preferred that which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Derby, who had clearly shown that indoor pauperism had ceased to represent the pauperism of the country; but yet it was taken by the Government as the standard of pauperism. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that no demand had ever been made in respect of outdoor pauperism. However, that was very easy to understand. In all these matters they had to push along as they could, to go by steps, and get what they could. If they had started by demanding a contribution towards outdoor pauperism, it is quite certain that they would not have got very far. He represented the district where outdoor pauperism existed to a large extent; but, nevertheless, it did not deserve the stigma which the right hon. Gentleman's expression attached to it, for it could by no means be assumed to be profligate.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that he had never said that. What he did say was that it was well known that in some parts of the country such a state of things did prevail; but he did not pretend to specify any particular districts.

MR. ELTON

said, it would be assumed by ordinary persons dealing with the subject that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the great majority of those places which practised outdoor relief administered their duties improperly. In considering the matter, he hoped it would be felt that there were circumstances which had rendered it advantageous to give outdoor relief in preference to indoor.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that before the discussion went further, he wished to point out the extreme irregularity of it. They were discussing a proposal which was not to be carried into effect now, but which might be considered on the Report stage of the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, it was not an unusual thing to question the Government upon a proposal as to whether they would give an undertaking to reconsider a particular matter on the Report.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the proposal at present before the Committee was that for five years the proposal now made should not be changed unless Parliament arrived at a different conclusion. He had no hesitation in saying that he believed the original proposal of the Government to be the best. At the same time, they had given way, to a certain extent, on account of the genuine fear expressed on both sides of the House that their plan would not be satisfactory. They were extremely anxious to consult the wishes of both sides of the House, and, therefore, they had given way. No doubt the system proposed to be introduced was one which was open to many of the objections which had been raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen as to the anomalies and inequalities it would create. It was perfectly certain, however, that the other proposal to include outdoor relief as well as indoor relief had led to even greater anomalies and inequalities. He was sorry that he could not give an undertaking on the part of the Government that they would reconsider their proposal. It was quite open for Parliament to reconsider it at the end of five years, and it would be open to hon. Members to discuss the question again upon the Report stage of the Bill. He could not give any undertaking in the matter.

MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

said, the suggestion which had been made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was worthy of attention—namely, that the question should be reconsidered on the Report. He would strongly urge upon the Government the propriety of coming to an arrangement of that kind, so that the House, at all events, might reconsider the basis of this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that he felt convinced if they combined indoor and outdoor pauperism they would lead the way to still greater anomalies and inequalities. Now he ventured to distrust that statement altogether. So far as the Principality of Wales was concerned, the anomaly would not be by any means so great if they included outdoor relief. He had drawn up a few figures to show what the condition of Wales was. The Principality had a population of 1,570,000, or about one-sixteenth of the Kingdom. He quite admitted that they were to get a sum of £38,000 from the Licensing Duties; but when they came to deal with the Imperial grant from the Probate Duty of £1,800,000, they found that the whole of the Principality was only to receive £51,000 a-year. Out of the entire arrangement by which £4,500,000 of the Imperial money was to be allo cated, Wales would only draw, directly and indirectly, a sum of £208,000. He would venture to urge two points in connection with the matter. In a great part of Wales the people were extremely poor. They had no charitable endowments, but had to provide for everything out of their own resources, and it was a monstrous thing that they were to be fined in this manner for the privilege of getting Local Government. The basis of population had been proposed and rejected; but if they were to combine a system under which the grant would be distributed on the combined basis of indoor and outdoor relief, although Wales would even then not get what she ought to have, she would get £140,000 a-year instead of the £51,000 which she would get under the present arrangement. The Welsh people would never be satisfied to receive £51,000 a-year only for five years. They wished to approach the consideration of the subject in a spirit of equity, and the desire to see that every part of the Kingdom, so far as was possible, should get its fair proportion of the grant. They wanted to get rid of the system of unfairness by which up to the present time various localities had been defrauded of their rights. There could be no question about it, because it was clear on the face of it that up to the present moment Wales had not had her fair share of assistance from the Imperial Exchequer. He had no intention of anticipating the discussion which would take place on the Report stage; but sooner or later the question must be reconsidered with the view of including outdoor relief in the standard of pauperism. The fundamental principle of the Government proposal was altogether wrong, and he maintained that by a system of jugglery the distribution of the Imperial grants towards Local Government would be most unfair and unjust.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

said, there was one point to which he wished to call attention, if there was to be a fresh discussion of the subject upon the Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had spoken as if the amount of the grant to be given from the Probate Duty to the various counties would be stereotyped for a longer period, for five years certain. It might be taken as certain that there would be much opposition from localities interested to any re-opening of the question which would reduce their receipts, and, judging from the experience of this Session, it was not a subject which any Government would be in any hurry to take up again. But if Parliament did not deal with the matter again for a considerable period, the present proposal would be likely to produce absolutely opposite effects in different districts according to the changes of the population. In some it would induce the Authorities to force people into the workhouse, while in others it would induce the authorities to give an unduly large amount of outdoor relief. The character of the population was changing every year. According to the census returns of 1881, though the general increase was 14 per cent. there were 13 counties whose population had diminished, and 9 more which were practically stationary, the increase having been less than 2 per cent. His own county was one of them, and the increase there was entirely due to the growth of Plymouth, Devonport, Torquay, and places of that description. There had been an absolute decrease in the Union in which he lived of about 12½ per cent. What would be the effect, then, of this proposal upon Poor Law administration? The rural Unions would have a fixed sum given to them, and with a diminishing population, they would be able to indulge in liberal, if not lavish, outdoor relief. At the same time, the urban Unions, whose grant would likewise be fixed, would have a growing population, and in order to make the grant go as far as possible, they would be tempted to press the workhouse test rather further than was desirable. There was a time when outdoor relief was very freely given indeed in this country, and when the poor rates reached as much as £1 a-head in certain counties, and he supposed the labouring population were never in a more miserable condition. If hon. Members would look into the details it would be found that where outdoor relief was most freely given the wages were almost always lowest. It was well known that wages were highest in the Northern Counties, and he supposed there was no county in England in which the wages were lower than in Dorsetshire; and outdoor relief in Dorsetshire was 39 per 1000, as against 20 per 1000 in the Northern districts. It was not a ques- tion between the wealthy ratepayers and the poor. It was invariably found that rates pressed most severely on the poorest section of ratepayers, who were not in a position much superior to those who were actually on the rates. Personally, he should like to see the number of small freeholders in the counties increase; but if there was to be a large extension of the system of outdoor relief, they would infallibly be rated out of their holdings as fast as they were put into them.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he was one of those who strongly supported the proposal in the Bill as it was first drafted, because he was satisfied that it was a sound and a wise system of administering the grant. He was afraid that in country districts relief was granted upon a system which had the effect of cutting down the wages of the poorest classes, so that they might be kept within the district in the winter and put into the humblest form of labour, such as market gardens, &c., at low wages during other periods of the year. He was afraid that the Government, by bringing forward an Amendment designed to please all sides of the House, had got into the usual difficulty of such a course. Hon. Members had now obtained a pledge in regard to indoor pauperism, and they were now trying to get another step, and to put in outdoor pauperism as well as a basis of dividing the grant. He hoped the Government would not entertain the proposal which had been made to them, but that they would stick to the principle they had already adopted. The Government had adopted this proposal, which, in his judgment, was not so good as their original one; but, at any rate, he hoped they would not proceed further in the direction indicated by the Amendment.

MR. STUART RENDEL (Montgomeryshire)

said, he thought the Government might not be indisposed to hear one more argument based upon figures which demonstrated the case of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow had stated the case very briefly. If they compared the population of England and Wales, it was about 18 to 1, but the ratio of pauperism was 14 to 1, of wealth a gross rental 23 to 1, and of area only 7 to 1. The value of real property in Wales was about £3 9s. per head of the population, while in England it was £5. Income Tax in England amounted to £15 17s. per head; while in Wales it was £12 only, and in Cardiganshire it was only £8. Therefore, there was a difference in regard to the wealth of the two countries which was of the highest possible significance. There was another consideration which was also of great importance—namely, the absolute want of charitable endowments of any kind in Wales. The average charitable endowments of the English counties was about £55,575, whereas in the 11 counties of Wales, exclusive of Denbighshire, which had over £6,000, the total sum for the whole averaged only £1,674. The county of Glamorganshire, which in population was able to compare with an English county, seeing that it had 500,000 people, had no larger endowment than £1,920, compared with an average endowment in England from all the counties of £55,575, even including such counties as Rutland. This was a matter which entered largely into the question of the relative means of the two countries to sustain their poor. There was already a grievous anomaly and inequality, and it was impossible that the House of Commons could inflict such a further injustice upon Wales as was involved in the proposal of the Government. He challenged any Conservative Member in Wales to dispute his figures or the deductions he drew from them. If the proposed arrangement were carried out, it would deprive Wales of something like £50,000 a-year, to which it was by mere parity of treatment entitled; whereas the proper course would be to increase the ratio of grant to the Principality by taking population and area and charitable distribution into account, and not mere rateable valuation.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the rate proposed by the Bill for Wales was quite as much as that proposed for any other part of the Kingdom. He had not been able to go into the figures, but if that proposal now made was adopted, he believed that Wales would gain far more per £1 than any other part of the Kingdom.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

said, that that was probably true, but even if it were so the rateable value of every county in Wales was very small compared with that of the English counties. Wales was a very poor country, and the population was large in proportion to the rateable value of property. If they took the population into account Wales ought to get £40,000 more than what she now got. In the same way, if they took outdoor pauperism and added it to the indoor pauperism, Wales would be entitled to an addition of £37,000 a-year. All these things tended to show that the proposal of the Government dealt very hardly with the poorer parts of the country, and especially with Wales. He denied altogether the suggestion of the Government that their proposal was favourable towards the poorer parts of the country. On the contrary, he believed that the proposal was most unjust to Wales.

SIR JOSEPH BAILEY (Hereford)

said, that the proposal had been received with the greatest possible discontent amongst the supporters of the Government. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No, no!" but, unfortunately, the proposal was accepted by the Government at a time when the County Members were attending Quarter Sessions. It was under such circumstances that the Committee came to a decision to divide the grant according to the amount of indoor pauperism, and they were now asked to stereotype that matter virtually for all time or until Parliament made some new arrangement. That was a proposition which he did not believe any Member of the House, except the Government, or except, perhaps, the Metropolitan Members, would consider a fair proposition. He was sorry to trouble the House any more with the ever-recurring question of Wales and the adjoining counties. The pauperism of Herefordshire was larger than it was in London. The expenditure in poor rates was a little over 2s. per head, as against 1s. 10¾d. When, however, they came to deal with indoor pauperism the expenditure was very much less. How was it possible for anyone representing any part of Hereford or Wales to discharge his duty to his constituents, and, at the same time, willingly accept such a proposal on the part of the Government? The reason why London spent so much in indoor pauperism and other parts of the country so little was that London up to this time had drawn money from what was practically public funds to the extent of 5d. per head per day as a contribution towards the cost of indoor pauperism. Therefore, it had been to the interest of the Metropolitan parishes to increase the indoor pauperism in comparison with the outdoor pauperism. If the Bill had remained as it was originally drawn it would have been far more favourable to the rural districts than it was now. The injustice would have been far less. But the mode of conducting Poor Law relief was now to be stereotyped for ever. He did not see how the House was to accept the proposal of the Government, and he hoped that his right hon. Friend would promise that it should be re-considered on Report. If that promise were not made he was afraid the Government would find themselves placed in a position of considerable difficulty.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had already pointed out that the Committee, having decided that the distribution was to take place according to indoor pauperism, they were only now discussing in reality the modification which was suggested in the course of the debate the other night as a means of getting rid of the inducement which some hon. Gentlemen thought Guardians would have under the original proposition to force people into the workhouse. That was the real question they were dealing with now—namely, whether some means could be adopted to prevent that result. He ventured to say that when he made the present proposal it was favourably received by both sides of the House. He would recommend the Committee, therefore, to allow the Government to insert a clause which they proposed, in order to meet the wishes of hon. Gentleman. Of course, it would be the duty of the Government to consider all the suggestions that might be made to them, and it required no assurance on his part that they would consider them; but he was not in a position to give any pledge. The Government were now proposing an Amendment with the view of modifying the original proposal in order to meet the objections which had been raised to it—that it would drive people into the workhouse, and that was really the only matter that they were now discussing. The whole matter would, of course, come up again on the Report.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, he thought the Government ought to consider how the case would be best met. He strongly objected to any proposal which would lead to laxity in giving outdoor relief. Indoor and outdoor relief should be placed on such a footing that, in dealing with the poor, the only thing considered should be which was best in each case as it came before the Guardians. Everyone who had worked among the poor would agree that it was a most disastrous thing to provide them with excessive outdoor relief. The Government were now giving a large concession in the relief of local taxation; but it had been shown by past experience that such concessions were not always beneficial to the ratepayers, and had impoverished the taxpayers, because the amounts granted from the Imperial Exchequer had been wasted. In London there had been a great improvement in the administration of relief; but that was not so in a great many parts of the country. On the contrary, there had been a tendency to go back to the old principle, which had nearly ruined this country in 1834. When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke of the danger of lowering wages by extending the system of outdoor relief, some hon. Member said "No, no!" Now, he maintained that outdoor relief did tend to lower wages. The indoor relief had, on the whole, been admirably conducted; but outdoor relief had been given unwisely. Of course, there was a great temptation to give outdoor relief in the case of women and families. It struck him as very curious that in Liverpool, where the drain on male labour was not greater than in other parts of Lancashire, there should have been this strange anomaly that a number of women who, with families, were able to do well in manufacturing districts, were hanging about the place lowering wages. He had represented to the Guardians that they were acting in a wrong principle in giving outdoor relief to families who could find work elsewhere; they ought not to allow those persons to hang on in Liverpool while they were able to obtain labour elsewhere. He had engaged, at his own expense, a gentleman of ability to visit the manufacturing districts and to find out what prospect there was of securing employment for this class of person. The Guardians went through the numerous cases they had on their list, and in every case where a woman cane before them who was suit- able for employment in the manufacturing districts they refused outdoor relief. The consequence was that in two or three years they migrated something like 1,000 persons, many of whom were in danger of becoming prostitutes, and sent them into manufacturing districts. Not 10 per cent ever returned, and a most striking proof of the soundness of the system was to be found in the fact that two or three years after he heard complaints among the Guardians that it was difficult to get women to come as charwomen, though they got 2s. to 2s. 6d. a-day and their food. He would advise the Guardians to take a very decided objection to give relief to people who were idling their time away instead of working. Wherever that principle was adopted they were able to secure a spirit of independence among the poor, and to put down idleness and the practice of living upon rates wrung from people very little better off than the paupers them-selves. He hoped that they would divide the £1,800,000 partly by the outdoor relief calculation and partly by some other method. For his own part, he did not believe that any single method would work out in an altogether satisfactory way, and he would suggest that the Government should try to find out some method which would correct the inequalities which must exist if they took indoor pauperism alone as the test. He admitted that inequalities would exist, and the Government must admit it also. He was afraid, however, that whatever test they took there would still be inequalities in connection with some parts of the Kingdom.

MR. SWETENHAM (Carnarvon, &c.)

said, he desired to say a few words in corroboration of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Rathbone). He was sure that the Committee felt that there was no one who understood this question better than the hon. Member, and that no one had given greater consideration to it. The reason for his (Mr. Swetenham's) rising was that, as far as he could understand, the Principality of Wales would be inequitably dealt with in regard to the Probate Duty to be transferred. It was exceedingly difficult to follow the figures which had been given, and to say how they would eventually work out. He had been very much struck by the observations made last week by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler); because on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman it appeared to him that the effect of the Government proposal would be absolutely deplorable in respect of Wales; and accordingly he had gone into the Lobby against the proposal made by the Government, in the hope that something would be done by which, at any rate, Wales would not be unfairly treated, as he apprehended it would be if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were not agreed to. At the same time, he agreed with every word that had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone). It was impossible, he thought, for anyone who had sat on a Board of Guardians not to endorse every syllable he had uttered. It would be found that where there was a strong determination and mind on the part of the Board of Guardians to carry out the spirit of the Poor Law, and where the Poor Law was strictly administered, as a general rule, there was less pauperism throughout the Union than there was when there was a lax system of administration, and outdoor relief was much resorted to. He could speak on that subject, because he happened to reside in an Union which was acknowledged to be one of the best regulated Unions in the country, and he was quite certain that he was correct in saying that the wages were higher there than in most country districts, and not only were wages higher there, but there was absolutely less pauperism in that Union than in any other Union in which there were corresponding attendant circumstances. He had also in his mind two other Unions in Wales which it would be invidious to refer to by name. In those Unions outdoor relief was administered. The result of that lax administration was that in the Unions in question there was a greater amount of pauperism than in the Union in which he resided; and he was perfectly certain that the amount paid for rates was very much larger than it was in his Union—in fact, it was very ruinous indeed. Therefore, he said that every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire deserved the most serious attention at the hands of the Committee. At the same time, he could not be satisfied that Wales, as the Government proposal now stood, would receive its proper share of the amount to be allocated in the shape of the Probate Duty. It was not for him to make any further suggestions; but his object in rising was to express a hope that a more equitable arrangement would be arrived at with regard to the Principality of Wales, because he understood that the Committee had decided, and that rightly, that outdoor pauperism was not to be made the basis of distribution. He hoped, however, that the rule of indoor relief would not be made a hard and fast one, because he was convinced that its effect upon Wales would be most serious; and he trusted that before the Bill passed into law the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would take the matter into his serious consideration between the present time and Report, in order to see if he could adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire, or meet the difficulty in some other way. He ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would give the Committee his assistance; and he believed that every just man would feel that before the Bill became law the poor districts of the country, such as those of Wales, ought to receive prompt consideration, and that the measure itself stood in need of amendment in the manner suggested.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he thought the Committee was in a position of some difficulty on account of having technically decided a certain thing. But he would point out that the two discussions which had taken place on the subject had proceeded on two different lines, and altogether on two separate issues. It was now laid down that they had adopted not only mainly, but exclusively, this element of indoor pauperism as the basis of distribution of the Probate Duty. As he understood the debate which took place last Tuesday upon the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth), the question at issue was that the basis of distribution should be population. Certainly, on Friday afternoon, the whole discussion was with regard to London, and then only the financial question, their objections being on that occasion that London, which was well able to bear its own burdens, ought not to have any share in the Probate Duty beyond what fairly fell to it on the principle on which the grant was to be distributed to other parts of the country. They were now being pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to consider the question on the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the opportunity which would then be afforded with very great confidence; but he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would like to know when that stage would be reached. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had not led them to expect that that stage was at all near. If they had the prospect that the House would be permitted to have a full discussion of the question on Report, they might look forward to it with a certain amount of confidence; but he was afraid that the Report stages of Bills of that kind were usually reached when the Government were perfect masters of the situation and when the decision of the Government was practically embodied in the Bill. He wished to impress upon the Committeee that this matter should be threshed out now. He might be technically out of Order; but in a short time the Chairman would have to move "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and then there would be an opportunity of moving its rejection. No one had ever said that outdoor pauperism should be made the basis of distribution in future, and he quite agreed that nothing could be more absurd. Each county in England spent a certain amount of money on pauperism, both indoor and outdoor, and the Probate Duty was to be apportioned according to the amount of pauperism in the several counties; the Government then divided the amount, and said that the apportionment should take place entirely in respect of indoor pauperism. He regretted that pauperism was to be made the testing figure on which the calculation was to be based. The moment they proceeded to divide the grant among the various counties on the basis of pauperism, as proposed by the Government, the most startling ano- malies became apparent. London only spent 21 per cent of its poor rates on outdoor pauperism. He thought that if the whole amount spent on indoor pauperism and outdoor pauperism in the country were taken—namely, £4,000,000, they might, upon that basis, arrive at a very fair distribution. He was bound to admit that the boroughs would prosper very much under that arrangement. Borough Members were quite satisfied with the Government proposal—it was for county Members and for the Representatives of Wales to protest against the arrangement.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he ventured to hope that the Committee would not longer continue the discussion of this question. He knew how very important and interesting it was; but it was, no doubt, out of Order, and with regard to the opposition suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," he would point out that if the clause were struck out there would be no grant at all. He could hardly think that the Committee would come to a conclusion of that kind. He said again that the Government believed that their original proposal was the best which, under the circumstances, they could make. They had proposed to modify their proposal in the direction pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee; they had listened carefully and continuously to all that had been said on both sides that evening, and he now repeated that it would be the duty of the Government to bear in mind all that had been said to-day, with a view to reconsidering the question before the Report stage. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they had no desire to prejudice the decision to which the Committee might come by referring to any mere Government majority; but he hoped the Committee would accept the proposal as it now stood. It was quite understood that hon. Members were not committing themselves, and that the Government would carefully consider all that had been said in the course of the discussion.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought that what the right hon. Gentleman had stated was satisfactory, and that it showed an open mind. He was bound to say that, with regard to the discussion which had taken place that day, the technical difficulty in the matter was that the Committee had agreed, by an overwhelming majority, that the Government proposal for the settlement of the question on the basis of indoor relief should be carried; but he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the opinion expressed on the question not only on those Benches, but by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

said, he quite agreed that the Committee should accept the proposal to omit from the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman certain words, but that the Amendment itself should not be agreed to without a Division being taken upon it, because he thought that the proposal of the Government was unreasonable. He could understand the proposal which the Government had made originally; its meaning was perfectly intelligible, and its object was to discourage outdoor relief, and to encourage indoor relief; but what was now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was utterly without any principle or reason whatever. The right hon. Gentleman proposed in future, without reason or principle, to stereotype the system of indoor relief which now existed, and to make it the basis of distribution of the Probate Duty. When they listened to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, it was quite clear that he was halting between two opinions; it was evident that he was holding to his original opinion, and yet, because he could not carry it, he was endeavouring to emasculate the clause. There was one view of the matter which had been urged by the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) and others—namely, that where outdoor relief was given wages were low, and where indoor relief was given they were high. He begged to contradict that statement with respect to Scotland, and the experience of Scotch Members would fully bear him out in the matter. He pointed out that the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire had only proved that to be the case with regard to Liverpool, by showing that the Liverpool paupers were driven away to Manchester and other places. He thought the Committee ought to accept the Amendment for the omission of the words, but that they ought to divide against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he would suggest that the distribution should be in proportion to the average number of indoor paupers during the preceding five local financial years ending on the 25th of March next before the passing of the Act.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he should have no objection to that proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Verbal Amendments made.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said, that the discussion of that evening had been altogether upon the anomalies of Her Majesty's Government proposal as between different parts of England; but he should like to call attention to another point, and that was the anomalies which would he produced as between one part of a county and another. He might at once point out what its effect would be with regard to Lancashire. According to the Blue Book issued, 11 county boroughs of Lancashire would receive £138,578, and the County Councils of the county would receive only £83,326. There were similar anomalies with regard to other counties, and there were also anomalies as between borough and borough. Oldham, for instance, would receive a grant of £7,724, while Blackburn and Bolton, with nearly the same population, would receive £4,608 and £3,872. If they looked at the present grants, however, they would see that the disproportion was not nearly so large, as the boroughs of Oldham, Blackburn, and Bolton received respectively £7,542, £6,444, and £8,003. Under the proposal to distribute the grant in proportion to indoor relief, not only would the county boroughs receive far in excess of the amount which they would get according to population or rateable value, but there would be also the greatest anomalies and inequalities as between one borough and another. He did not wish at that moment to press the right hon. Gentleman too hard on the subject; but he might call attention to the fact that unless the Amendment which he had put on the Paper with reference to Clause 30 were altered so as to give some more clear direction to the Commissioners and greater power of readjustment, the Commissioners would not be able to deal with inequalities so large as those he had mentioned. He and the noble Lord the Member for the Darwen Division of Lancashire (Viscount Cranborne) had placed upon the Paper Amendments to Clause 30, which proposed to give the Commissioners very much wider power. He wished to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman his opinion with respect to the principle which these Amendments contained; and if he received an assurance which offered with regard to Lancashire the prospect of a fair arrangement, he should not press the present Amendment to a Division. He hoped, therefore, that he should hear the views of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "proportion," add the words "but as between a county and the county boroughs (if any) situate therein, shall be distributed among the county boroughs and the county in proportion to their respective populations."—(Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth.)

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

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)

said, he hoped the Government would listen carefully to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet opposite, because there was no doubt that in Lancashire very great difficulty would be introduced if the clause of the Bill remained in its present form. Of course, any general rule that might be laid down would produce some hard cases. He did not propose to go into the general question of hard cases as between county and county; but that there would be such he had no doubt. He thought, however, that they might see that the counties at large were, to some extent, entitled to the advantage of their circumstances. But they did not look on the great boroughs as apart from the county; they were the centres of the county district in which they stood; although they were not part of the counties they were supported from them, and their obligations ought to be read with the obligations of the counties. Under the circumstances, no doubt, some modification must be introduced into the Government plan. He did not entirely approve the modification proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire, because he only substituted one artificial arrangement for another; and although the right hon. Baronet's proposal would effect an improvement in the case of Lancashire, he did not think that it was the best arrangement that could be made. In his judgement, the Government had indicated the proper direction in which this matter ought to be set right—namely, to give very large powers to a Commission to arrange as between County Councils and the county boroughs with reference to the Transferred Licences and Probate Duties to be assigned. But he thought his right hon. Friend's Amendment on Clause 30 did not give sufficient power to the Commissioners to deal with the enormous amount of money which would be involved in any equitable arrangement in the county which he had the honour to represent; and, therefore, he had ventured to put down an Amendment giving much more definite power to the Commissioners, which he earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider.

MR. RITCHIE

said, it would be manifestly out of Order for him to discuss the Amendment to be proposed on Clause 30; but he would only say, with reference to the question raised by the right hon. Baronet opposite and his noble Friend who had just spoken, that the object of the Government was to deal, as he had always stated, fairly as between the counties and the boroughs. That principle he had always enunciated. When this discussion had accidentally arisen the other night, it was clear that the opinion of hon. Members was that, while they assented to the proposal of the Government to refer the matter to a Commission, they were of opinion that the Government proposal required strengthening in the direction of giving more specific instruction to the Commissioners for the proper adjustment of relations between the counties and boroughs, so that the one should not be more fairly treated than the other. He had, therefore, stated at the time when the clause came on that the Government would consider the best means of strengthening the Commission, in order to see if anything was necessary to be done; and, perhaps, on his assurance that the Government were prepared to do that, the right hon. Baronet would not think it necessary to push his Amendment at the present stage, which he might point out, and with which he was quite sure the Committee would agree, had not offered a convenient opportunity for dealing with this matter.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he was not surprised at the manner the right hon. Gentleman had met the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth). It was suggested to him (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the county of Lancashire had been exerting its blandishments over the right hon. Gentleman. Now, it appeared to him that that matter ought to be settled at once. The proposal of his right hon. Friend was that the distribution as between counties and boroughs should be regulated on the principle of population. They were quite ready to have the principle of population adjustment applied to the whole of the Kingdom; but the Government had beaten them on that ground, and it appeared strange to hon. Members who supported that principle that the Government, having rejected it as between Lancashire and Yorkshire, should admit it as between Lancashire and Manchester.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he must point out that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when he (Mr. Ritchie) had said that it was not convenient to propose an Amendment of the kind without Notice. He had been averse to the question being decided in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman; but he had expressly stated that the Government could not assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the matter that was in dispute.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he thought it was only right and fair to take the earliest opportunity of entering their strongest protest against any such departure from the original understanding existing from the beginning between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). The cardinal principle laid down at the time was that there was to be no imposition upon the boroughs in addition to their present burdens. His right hon. Friend had endeavoured to obtain a subvention to the county funds. To that he should offer the most strenuous resistance; and if the right hon. Gentleman looked, he would find that, unintentionally he was quite sure, he was departing from the understanding arrived at on an earlier stage of the Bill, if he acceded to any such proposal. He certainly hoped the Government would not in any way attempt to alter the understanding arrived at, or otherwise they would only bring upon themselves a very protracted discussion, because they contended that the boroughs were dealt unfairly with in the Government Bill, inasmuch as they were not to receive the amount to which they were entitled. They were, however, prepared to accept the arrangement that had been already proposed; but if there was to be a roving Commission sent about the country with power to add to the taxation of the boroughs, he said that it would be the duty of all borough Representatives and county Representatives also to offer the proposal the strongest opposition in their power.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, he ventured to hope that the Committee would see the necessity of proceeding with the clause before them, and not attempt to discuss Clause 30. He assured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that there was no disposition on the part of the Government to depart from the principle which they had laid down; their object being to secure, as far as they were able, that there should be no undue advantage either to the county or the borough.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)

said, that he had put down some Amendments to Clause 30 at the request of 60 boroughs named in the Schedule. He could only say that they would resist any proposal such as that contained in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. It was not population alone which determined this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had entered into a most clear understanding with reference to boroughs, and he had no doubt that it would be strictly and honourably adhered to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 16, line 32, leave out "direct" to "and," in line 34; in page 17, line 13, leave out "any," and insert "such number of;" and in line 15 leave out "when exceeding," and insert "as exceed."

On the Motion of Sir JOHN DORINGTON, the following Amendment made:—In page 17, line 18, after the word "day," insert— Provided always, That any paupers maintained under any contract or agreement in a workhouse other than that of the union to which they are chargeable, should be included only in that number of paupers of the union to which they are so chargeable.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 (Application of duties on transferred licences, local taxation licences, and probate duty grant).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 17, line 28, leave out from "licences" to "on," in line 32, and insert "and."

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said, he did not understand the meaning of the words in paragraph i, Subsection 2, "paying the costs incurred in respect thereof, or otherwise chargeable thereon." These words might imply a good deal, and he trusted the right hon. Genntleman would enlighten the Committee as to their meaning.

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

said, the words were inserted because it was assumed that there might possibly be some charge in connection with the matter, but the Government did not include any charge for collection.

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

said, he did not propose to move the Amendment in his name which dealt with several matters of great importance, and the nature of which would make it desirable for him to reserve his observations until a subsequent stage of the Bill was reached.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 18, line 38, leave out "it," and insert "and is in excess of what the County Council consider necessary to carry forward to the next account, such excess,"

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, he hoped the Government would be able to meet him in part, if not altogether, with regard to the mode of payment from the Exchequer to the boroughs, and in order to give an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman of expressing his views on this matter he begged to move the omission of subsection (3).

Amendment proposed, in page 18, leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Woodall.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."

MR. RITCHIE

said, the intention of the hon. Gentleman was perfectly clear. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not think the hon. Gentleman had ever disguised the fact that the intention of the various Amendments he had put down in connection with the boroughs was that they should stand, as it were, on their own bottoms with reference to finance; that for the purpose of finance they should form no part of the county. The hon. Gentleman would know that it was quite impossible for the Government to accept that proposal, striking as it did the very framework of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 19, line 3, after "council," insert "other than the council of a borough."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 (Payment by county council in substitution for annual local grants out of Exchequer in aid of local rates).

Amendment proposed, In page 19, after line 20, to insert the words "Provided, that nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal any enactment relating to, or in anywise to affect any payment out of the Exchequer by way of composition for or contribution towards any local rates, in respect of any Government property.—(Mr. Woodall)

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

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

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that if he thought there was the smallest doubt on the subject referred to in his Amendment he would willingly accept his proposal. There was nothing in the Act which could be construed as repealing any enactment relating to or in anywise affecting these payments out of the Exchequer, and the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be, therefore, unnecessary.

MR. WOODALL

said, he wished the right hon. Gentleman to understand that every one of these Amendments had been most carefully considered by responsible and experienced men, and he was convinced that they were necessary.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was quite certain that nothing in the Bill affected any contribution out of the Exchequer on account of local rates on Government property. If, however, the hon. Gentleman found that it was otherwise between the present time and the Report, he would, when that stage was reached, be happy to consider the proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

said, he should be very brief in the remarks he had to make in support of the Amendment to the clause standing in his name. He proposed to omit the words which stated that the County Councils should pay to the Guardians, or to the proper Local Authority, such sums as the Local Government Board certified, in substitution for local grants— For payments to public vaccinators under Section 5 of the Vaccination Act, 1867. The effect of the section was that the County Councils would have to pay the sums on the certificate of the Local Government Board; and the answer was anticipated that eventually those Councils would object to the payment of money in respect of matters over which they exercised no control. This matter of vaccination had recently been fully discussed; and, therefore, he would not, in the present state of Public Business, occupy any time by making a statement upon it now. The object of the payment of bonuses was well understood, and the result had not been achieved. It did not obtain in Scotland or Ireland, and he begged to move the omission of the words in question, so that the practice might not be perpetuated in England.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 33, leave out from the word "appliances" to the word "and," in line 34, inclusive.—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Government did not insert the words in order to stereotype their views on the matter. This was one of the grants paid from the Exchequer at present; it had been paid for a great number of years; it was considered as a portion of the payment made to Vaccination Officers in respect of their fees, and it was intended to secure an efficient and proper administration of the Vaccination Law. It had always been considered essential that this matter should be dealt with by the localities, when the organization which they now proposed was set up. But, of course, if hereafter the House should arrive at any decision on the question of vaccination, and should decide upon an alteration of the law, that alteration could always be made applicable to this portion of the Bill.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the chief objection to the localities dealing with these grants. That objection was that at present these sums were granted out of sums provided by Parliament; they were put down on the Estimates, and hon. Members had always an opportunity of raising a question on the subject, and of dividing against the Votes when they came forward in the usual way. Now, by what the Government contemplated it would be very easy to avoid that. They were, in fact, doing by the proposal what the right hon. Gentleman said they were not doing; they were going to stereotype all these payments. They had started with the notion that what they wanted was Local Government and decentralization, and now there was no Local Government in the clause whatsoever. These grants had hitherto been borne on the Estimates, and they were now to be charged on the County Councils in respect of the licences and Probate Duty handed over to those Bodies; payments which had been voted by that House in the past, were now fixed and stereotyped, and were to he paid compulsorily in future by the County Councils. Therefore, he said, it was not Local Government that they gave here; there was no discretion allowed to the County Councils to deal with these matters. Not only was that the case, but there was no decentralization. The purview and control of the House of Commons in respect of the disposal of these sums of money was taken away, and placed in the hands of the Local Government Board. If the Government had given larger powers to the County Councils, they might have granted, within certain limits, the power of dealing with these Votes; but the Bill had been eviscerated in this respect, and the principle of Local Government no longer existed in the clause.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, right hon. Gentlemen opposite had done their best to get the boroughs taken out of the counties, and now they made it a reproach against the Government that that had been done. They said the Government had eviscerated the Bill, because they had taken out the boroughs at their own desire. But he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was as much Local Government in the Bill as before. Right hon. Gentlemen, however, said that the Government were not giving boroughs which formed counties, or were counties in themselves, sufficient powers of reviewing these Parliamentary grants. He admitted there was some force in that contention; but he put it with some confidence to the Committee that great confusion would be caused if County Councils, as soon as they were formed, had to review every possible local contribution. When the Councils had been thoroughly established, he thought it would be open to question whether they should not have more power in reviewing grants, and it would be the desire of the Government to give greater powers afterwards than the Councils would have in the first instance. He thought it would be desirable that when these Councils first started, overwhelmed as they would be with business, they should not have cast upon them the duty of reviewing every grant made for local purposes. He asked what would be the position of the Councils if they were left entirely in the dark as to what their contributions would be for the first few years? Parliament would not have said its last word when the Bill was passed; and he thought the House would have to consider how to effect that great object in which they all were concerned with regard to decentralization and taxation.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fond of putting unfavourable interpretations on words coming from that Bench. He strongly protested against the words used by the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of his speech. He (Mr. Stansfeld) had never said that the Government had eviscerated the Bill, but simply that he regretted that the Bill was not originally constructed in a way which should have made these Amendments unnecessary. He had pointed out that this was not decentralization, and the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that it was a distinct flaw in the Bill. After the Act passed into law it would be competent for the hon. Member for Northampton, or the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) to raise this question of vaccination grants, but there would be no method left them but to bring in a Bill. This sum of £18,000 now became the fixed payment; it became permanent by Act of Parliament; the County Councils could not dispute it, and that House could not say that the grant should not be made. That could only be done by Parliament itself; but everyone knew how difficult it was for a private Member to pass any Bill through the House dealing with a subject of the kind.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 123: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 199.)

MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)

, in moving to omit, in page 19, from lines 34, 35, and 36, the words— And for poor school boards under section ninety-seven of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870.' said, the constituency which he had the honour to represent was very greatly affected by the proposal of the Government. Gateshead was a poor constituency, and £644 was paid in aid of its poor schools. Of course, it was impossible to make out a case from the circumstances of his own constituency; he desired rather to put this matter on the ground that it was the only matter relating to education in the Bill. He proposed this Amendment particularly in view of the probability that, if not in this Session, at all events in no distant Session, the whole question of the grants for elementary education would be revised by Parliament. In his opinion, this was a question which ought to stand over until such time as it could be dealt with as a whole, and not in the fragmentary manner now suggested. It was as well to bear in mind that the total grant which was concerned in this matter only amounted to about £7,000, and £1,100 of that was paid to the County of Durham alone. His own borough came within the 50,000 limit. It would not be a county in itself for the purposes of the Bill, and he urged that as some reason why he should make this proposal. The amount paid in Wales was about £2,000, and he thought, although the Welsh Members had been somewhat unfairly treated with regard to Clause 21, they would support the very moderate proposal that this sum should not be taken from them.

Amendment proposed, In page 19, lines 34, 35, 36, to leave out the words "and for poor school boards under section ninety-seven of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870.'"—(Mr. W. H. James.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, that, as his hon. Friend had stated, the matter was by no means a large one. The whole grant only amounted to something like £7,000, and it was a grant they would be sorry to see the poor schools in any way deprived of. But as they were giving the County Councils or Local Authorities the revenue out of which it was paid he held that they ought to take this burden upon their own shoulders. It was quite evident that if they were to continue to make this grant from Imperial sources it would be contrary to the principle adopted in that Bill. He thought they did rightly in laying upon the shoulders of the County Councils who were drawing the revenue the obligation to pay these poor schools; and, in his opinion, that was all he could fairly ask the Government to do.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, that this was part of the Parliamentary grant under the conditions of the Act of 1870. It was really a portion of the Imperial grant. The sum was not large; on the contrary, it was a very small sum, only £7,000. [Mr. W. H. JAMES: £6,200.] It fell with exceptional severity on poor districts. More than £2,000 of the total went to Wales alone. He noticed that in the Memorandum published by Sir Francis Sandford the other day, which was the only light they could get thrown upon the Parliamentary grant, that it was proposed to return this grant. They had not yet received the Report of the Royal Commission, although portions of it had appeared in the Press. According to the portion they had seen it was not proposed to abolish the grant. In his opinion, having regard to the fact that the Report of the Commission had not been made, and that what they knew of it was in favour of the retention of these grants, they ought to be retained as a portion of the Imperial grant and Parliament ought to exercise control over it. If they deprived the districts of the grants they would make matters extremely hard for the poorer districts. He did not mean to say that this was a very great matter, but he could not help thinking that it would operate very hardly upon some of the Welsh counties and many of the poor districts of England.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, there was no doubt there was something in the remarks of hon. Members. It would fall with exceptional severity on the poorer districts, and, therefore, the Government would not persist in retaining these words in the Bill.

MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made this concession, because the clause as it was introduced would be found to operate very hardly upon Gateshead. Gateshead was exceptionally situated, and he felt satisfied that the concession of the Government would give great satisfaction to the people of that town.

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concession.

Question put, and negatived.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

, in moving to insert after the word "paid," in line 38, the words "not less than," said, this Amendment and another he had on the next page were really consequential on one which came still further down on the Paper. The object was to reduce the grant from the counties to the Unions from 4d. to 3d. per day for each indoor pauper, and to allow the County Authorities to spend the remainder in such way as they thought fit. In order to leave their hands free he proposed not limit the sum they should pay for officers of health, inspectors of nuisances, and police to one-half, but would allow them to give five-eighths or three-quarters, or any portion they might think proper. He must not go at length into the Amendment to which this was really consequential, though when he reached that he felt confident he should be able to show the right hon. Gentleman there were a great many Unions in which 4d. per day per head would defray the whole cost of the keep of the paupers; in fact, which would be the only expense the Unions would be put to if they filled up the workhouses. The expense of warming and lighting and the salaries would be just as much for the smaller number as for the larger. He was bound to say the line the Government had taken in regard to this grant did not make it less advisable to diminish the amount the Unions would receive.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 38, after the word "paid," insert the words "not less than."— (Viscount Ebrington.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, there would be very great practical inconvenience in accepting the Amendment of the noble Viscount, because they might then have varying amounts of grants in the different districts. He did not think that it was at all likely that County Councils would be very anxious to increase the amount of grant that was made, and he did not know, therefore, whether the power would be very much taken advantage of if it were given. What the noble Viscount said about the contributions to indoor poor did not apply particularly on this Amendment. He had not a doubt that even if the Committee were to restrict the County Councils to the payment of 3d., or of any smaller sum, the County Councils would find plenty of good outlets for the money left in their hands without giving to them the power of increasing the payments such as the noble Viscount had suggested. In this matter the Government did not inquire whether the amount which was now paid in the shape of grant was adequate or inadequate—they felt that if they were to go into all these questions it would be impossible, within anything like reasonable time, to pass a Bill of this character. They had been content to take the grants as they found them, and to place on the shoulders of the County Authorities the obligation of continuing them. He did not think it would be well to vary them in the way suggested by the noble Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 19, line 42, to leave out "as amended by this Act."

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he wished the right hon. Gentleman to consent to omit the words— But if the Local Government Board certify to the Council that such medical officer has failed to send to the Local Government Board such report and returns as are for the time being required by the regulations respecting the duties of such officers, made by order of the Board under the said section, a sum equal to such half of the salary shall be forfeited to the Crown, and the council shall pay the same into Her Majesty's Exchequer. The effect of the provision as it stood was that, if a medical officer of health did not send in his Returns to the Local Government Board, the Local Government Board might instruct the County Council not to pay to the District Council or the Rural Sanitary Authority, as it was now, the half salary to which they were entitled. Now, this put it in the power of a medical officer of health who had quarrelled with his District Council to fine the District Council one-half of his salary. The Bill did not give to the District Council the power of reducing the salary, because the medical officer of health had not sent in his Returns; and this provision, therefore, as he had said, put it into the power of a medical officer to fine his employers. If the provision were that the Local Government Board might refuse this one-half grant if the medical officer of health had distinctly failed in his duties in an important particular, there might be something to be said for it; but as it stood now it was, to his mind, most distinctly a blot on the Bill, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not refuse to exclude these words.

Amendment proposed, "in page 19, line 42, after the word "Act," to leave out from the word "but" to end of sub-section in page 20.— (Mr. Brunner.)

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

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this clause does not apply to London?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that with reference to the Amendment before the Committee he must point out the enormous importance of securing, in some way or other, that the Local Government Board should receive these Returns regularly. It was of the very highest importance to the public health of the country that the Local Government Board should be quite certain that these Reports would be secured. It was upon these Reports mainly that the Report of the Local Government Board in connection with the public health of the country was based. Upon many occasions it was upon these Reports that the Local Government Board took action when the action of medical officers was not such as accorded with their duties to the public health of the country. It was only with a view of securing that these Returns should be regularly made that the Government inserted these words in the Bill, and he thought it would be unwise if some such provision were not adpoted.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had determined to retain these words, because he regarded them as being of very great value in the interests of the public health. Decentralization was no doubt a good thing in a certain degree as regarded administration; but he held that it should never be carried so far as to prevent the House of Commons and the country from having the fullest information as to what was going on in the different districts. If there was one thing more certain than another, it was that publicity as regarded the public health of one district was of great value to the rest of the community. He might, if time permitted, give many illustrations in support of that view. He hoped, however, that they would regard it as a fundamental principle throughout this Bill that, although they decentralized from time to time, they should always retain the fullest publicity as regarded matters of public health and matters of public accounts. He hoped they would always maintain full and entire publicity, so that the country might know what was going on, and that the whole community might derive advantage from the experience of any particular locality.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance of having the Reports sent up to the Local Government Board, and as to the Local Government Board having some machinery to compel the Reports to be sent up. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman, however, that when he brought this question forward on the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman at once assented to a suggestion he made, and which he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would have given effect to by an Amendment. The matter, no doubt, had escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention; and if that was so, the Amendment might possibly be made on Report. The suggestion he made was that in order that the County Councils should know something about what was happening to the health of their districts, these Reports might be sent to the County Councils, and the County Councils might through their expert medical officers consider them, and have full knowledge of them before they reached the Local Government Board.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he quite remembered that the point was raised on the second reading. He remembered undertaking to see what steps could be taken to carry the view of the right hon. Gentleman; but amidst the enormous amount of detail connected with the Bill the point had been omitted. His idea was to insert an Amendment providing that the medical officer should be bound to send his Report to the Local Government Board, and to send a copy also to the County Council, who might make such representation to the Local Government Board on the Report as they thought fit. He hardly thought that the Report should be submitted to the County Council first, because it might be that prompt action was necessary to be taken by the Local Government Board. He thought also that the County Council ought to have power to make such representations to the Local Government Board as they thought necessary upon the Report, and he would take care that an Amendment to that effect was inserted.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and he thought that that would be a great improvement upon what he (Sir Lyon Playfair) suggested.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, that it was the District Council who would be fined, and not the medical officer. It appeared to him that instead of the last words of the sub-section—namely,"and the Council shall pay the same into Her Majesty's Exchequer," they ought to insert the words "and the Council shall be empowered to deduct such sum from the medical officer's salary." He did not think they ought to punish the ratepayers, and at the same time to allow the medical officer to receive his salary.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could not altogether dissociate the District Council from the responsibility involved in the performance of his duties by the medical officer. It would certainly be unwise to leave it possible for the District Council to make a profit by the nonperformance of his duties by the medical officer.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he certainly thought the amount ought to be deducted from the salary of the medical officer.

MR. BRUNNER

asked, what he was to understand the President of the Local Government Board had agreed to? He quite agreed that the public health should be protected by the publication of these Returns; but he wanted to point out that a District Council was obliged to pay this salary, and having paid this salary they were to be fined for the laches on the part of the medical officer, against whom they were absolutely helpless. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should keep in his hands the power of dismissing the medical officer. There was certainly no possibility of the District Council making a profit.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had simply agreed to consider the question whether under the Bill the position of the County Council in this matter was a right and proper one. He would consider whether any injustice was done to any authority, and, if so, would endeavour to remedy it on Report.

MR. HENEAGE

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would insert the words "shall be empowered to deduct such sum from the medical officer's salary," in lieu of the words "shall pay the same into Her Majesty's Exchequer," in line 7?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he preferred that the matter should remain as he had said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

said, he desired to move his Amendment in a slightly altered form. The Amendment on the Paper only applied to the outdoor pauper lunatics; but in the form in which he desired to put the Amendment his proposition would apply to all pauper lunatics. In the altered form his Amendment would read— They shall pay to the Guardians of every Poor Law Union wholly or partly in the county, or to the council of each borough in the county, not being a county borough, a sum not exceeding three shillings a-week, and in no case exceeding the actual relief granted, for each pauper lunatic chargeable to such Union, or to such borough who is certified to be a lunatic by a medical officer of health, or by the medical officer of the Union, and before payment of such grant by the county council, they shall require a certificate from a medical officer of health that such cases have been properly treated and cared for. Under this Bill the grant of 4s. per week for pauper lunatics in asylums was to be done away with, but it was re-created in exactly the same form, and he would state the objections he saw to that. In the year 1859 the number of pauper lunatics in the country was 31,401. In the asylums there were 17,640; in workhouses 7,963; and with relatives 5,798. In the year 1873, the year before the 4s. grant was given, there were in asylums 31,479; in work-houses 4,343; and with relatives 7,070. There was, no doubt, a large increase in the number of lunatics in asylums, and a large increase also in the number in workhouses. He did not say it was the case, but he had no doubt it was the case, that a much more strict treatment of pauper lunatics took place during this year. But he took another year for comparison—namely, the year 1887. In the year 1874 the 4s. grant to pauper lunatic asylums was given. Now, what did they find in 1887? In that year they found that there were 49,253 pau- per lunatics in asylums, 17,381 in workhouses, and only 5,809 with relatives. That was to say, the percentage of pauper lunatics in asylums rose from 59.51 in 1873 to 67.99 in 1887; in workhouses there was a falling-off in the percentage from 27.12 to 23.99. The falling-off in the number of lunatics with relatives was from 13.37 in 1873 to 8.02 in 1887. His contention was that the 4s. grant which was paid for every pauper lunatic in an asylum had the tendency which it was obvious it would have—namely, of sending a great number of cases into asylums which probably were not cases for asylums at all. It was obvious from the figures he had given, and from the change in the percentages in the different treatment of the lunatics, that such was the case. Of course, the grant was originally made from Imperial taxation to assist local rates; but that now was not the case, and it would make very little difference to the Unions how they got it. His object in moving this Amendment was to do away with the inducement to the various Unions to send pauper lunatics to the asylums. Allow him to give figures in regard to the cost. He found that if the number of lunatics in asylums had increased in proportion to the increase of population, there would have been an increase between 1873 and 1887 of 6,485; but the excess over the due increase was actually 11,289. He found that the average cost per head in building asylums was £224, and that would produce an excess of cost in the building alone of these institutions of £2,464,000 since the year 1873. That, he thought, should be known to the ratepayers of the counties and Unions, so that they might see what a large cost this 4s. per head per week grant had been to the different Unions. He would also point out that the £110,000 for maintenance of asylum paupers was at least £10 per head more than it would have been had the paupers been in workhouses or otherwise treated. If to the £110,000 per annum they added the interest upon the £2,464,000, to which he had already referred, they got a sum of £184,000 spent every year, owing, as he believed, or, at all events, in a great measure owing to, the 4s. per head grant. Now, he had testimony, but he did not propose to adduce it, to show that, in the opinion of a great many competent authorities, many of the cases which were sent to asylums could be perfectly well treated in workhouses, and according to many, too, could be perfectly well treated with their relatives. The cases of children of weak intellect, and the cases of old persons who were simply in their dotage, could be better treated by friends at their own homes. This grant was a premium to parents and relations to get rid of their unfortunate friends, to whom they owed a duty. If the grant were reduced as he proposed, and equal treatment meted out to the whole of the insane and pauper poor, that tendency, at all events, would be got rid of. He had been a visitor of asylums for a great many years, and he could speak from personal observation that there were numbers of cases in asylums which were not by any means cases which ought to be there. He, however, would not trouble the Committee with any further statistics on this point, but trusted that the Government would be able to accept his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, leave out sub-section (d), (e), and (f), and insert "They shall pay to the guardians of every poor law union wholly or partly in the county, or to the council of each borough in the county, not being a county borough, a sum not exceeding three shillings a-week, and in no case exceeding the actual relief granted, for each pauper lunatic chargeable to such union or to such borough, who is certified to be a lunatic by a medical officer of health or by the medical officer of the union, and before payment of such grant by the county council, they shall require a certificate from a medical officer of health that such cases have been properly treated and cared for."—(Mr. Rankin.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (d) stand part of the Clause."

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

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Rankin) argued that the present system, under which 4s. per week was paid for the maintenance of pauper lunatics, tended rather to increase their number, and thereby to increase expenditure. In the next place, the hon. Gentleman contended that paupers were sent into lunatic asylums who ought not to be sent, and whom it would be better to maintain in the workhouse or with their relatives. The Government were not prepared now to accept the proposal, which would interfere with existing arrangements and the law under which these payments were made. The pauper lunatic asylums were very extensive properties of the various counties and large boroughs; and any proposal which would tend to interfere with the way in which they were at present managed, and not the purposes for which they were used, would be a dangerous one, and far too serious a one to be dealt with in an Amendment of this kind. Might he say one word in justification of the course they intended to follow in regard to this Amendment? He thought that anybody who was at all cognizant with the condition of the Poor Law in this country must be convinced that when any poor person, whether old or young, was so unfortunate as to be afflicted with weakness of intellect, they were infinitely better off not only on their own account, but on account of those among whom their lot was cast, if they were placed in an establishment built for the purpose of receiving them, and if they were attended by people who understood the management of their particular cases, and who were able to treat them with a very large amount of kindness, and able to apply to their cases, varying and difficult as they were, all that science could prescribe to relieve and, if possible, to cure them. He did not think his hon. Friend quite realized the true character of the boarding-out system. It was possible these poor, unfortunate creatures might be treated well during times of the day when their friends were able to keep an eye on them; but he asked any hon. Member of the Committee whether there must not be frequently times during the day when poor people were unable to exercise over their unfortunate relatives that supervision which ought to be exercised, and which was indispensable to proper treatment and care of these unfortunate people? He did not think that on grounds of economy, or of the humanity of the treatment of these people, it would be advisable to accept the Amendment.

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

said, that agreeing as he did with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, he asked the Government whether they could not go so far as to alter the words "equal to," in each of these sub-sections, to "not exceeding," so that the counties, if they had opinions in the direction of the views of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rankin), would be able to deal with the cases which they had in their own county. There was no doubt whatever that the tendency of this grant during the last few years had been to produce a waste of public money. Certainly, that had been the experience in several counties in the West of England. Each county might deal with its own cases if the words "not exceeding" were inserted in place of "equal to," and the alteration would not necessitate any change of which the counties did not approve.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, he would not do anything to increase the number of those unfortunate people who were kept outside asylums. A great number of pauper lunatics were capable of cure, but a cottage was no place for them. From the Reports sent up by the medical superintendents of the different lunatic asylums they saw that a very large proportion of people who were sent there were cured, if not permanently, certainly for a time. He differed from his hon. Friend (Mr. Rankin) in regard to the advisability of sending pauper lunatics to workhouses, in preference to asylums, on account of the cost. He believed there was no greater cruelty than to send these people to workhouses where there was no proper accommodation for their reception. It was cruelty to them, because their life was less tolerable and the chance of cure was very remote—it was cruelty also to the other people who had to associate with them, especially children.

MR. ALLISON (Cumberland, Eskdale)

said, it was unfortunate that the Government did not seem disposed to make any concession. The system suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Rankin) was working satisfactorily in Scotland, and experienced medical men in the English lunatic asylums were very much in favour of extending the system to this country. He thought that everybody who visited lunatic asylums must know there were many people in those establishments who would be far better in their own homes, or in workhouses, or in quieter places than asylums usually were. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) had alluded to the fact that these people were not so easily cured outside asylums; but there were a great many cases of old people who were beyond all hope of cure. He was sure that such people would he equally well off in their own homes, or in properly arranged wards of Union workhouses. He earnestly hoped that some concession might be made to them in this matter, as he thought it would be very unfortunate to stereotype the present expensive system by anything contained in the Bill.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it now stood. The observations which he had been able to make of the treatment of patients in lunatic asylums inclined him to favour the collection of these unhappy people in such institutions, where they could have the best advice, where they could enjoy recreation in the open air, and where in the long winter nights they could be supplied with such amusements as their poor capacities enabled them to enjoy. Some reference was made to the economy of keeping patients in workhouses. In his opinion it was most cruel economy. In workhouses patients did not receive the treatment to which they were entitled. If they were to have the treatment which their cases required it was far more expensive in workhouses where only a few were collected. Then reference was made to the treatment of the afflicted poor by their relatives in their own homes. He confessed that if there had been one reform more valuable than another during the last few years it was the removal from our towns and villages of the silly imbecile creatures who had been the sport of the boys and young people in their respective communities. The old condition of affairs was a disgrace to the country, and he rejoiced at the removal of these unfortunate people, in some cases to the workhouse, and in other cases to the central asylums, where they received the best treatment which science, and skill, and care could confer upon them. He trusted the Government would adhere to these provisions, because he believed they were beneficent in the interest of the patients, and also in the interest of the entire community.

MR. RANKIN

said, he did not propose that cases which would beneficially be sent to asylums should not be sent to asylums. He only proposed that there should be equal treatment, so that no inducement should be given to send those who could be better treated out of asylums into asylums. He maintained that there were many cases which could be treated much better out of asylums. Curable cases, undoubtedly, ought to be sent to asylums, but there were hundreds of cases which were not curable and which might be treated much more happily and more comfortably for the lunatic outside of the asylum. He trusted that if the Government could not see their way to accept his Amendment, they would, at all events, accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland), by which County Councils would have the power to reduce the amount if they thought fit.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not yield to the request of the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland), because the only effect would be that if they chose County Councils could starve the lunatics in order to get them taken home. That would be to the disadvantage of the lunatics themselves, and it certainly would be to the disadvantage of the safety of the general public. If the lunatics were sent to the towns and villages, the police force would have to be increased, and the money saved in one direction would be expended in another.

MR. BRUNNER

said, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rankin) had advocated the dismissal from lunatic asylums of all incurable cases. He (Mr. Brunner) had been extremely grieved to see several incurable cases of young women in his own neighbourhood turn out most disastrously. These poor creatures had been the prey of every scoundrel in the neighbourhood. Here were the very cases which ought to be sent to the asylum.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

asked why his right hon. Friend had put in the clause, "clerks of assize and their officers?" Clerks of Assize had never been paid out of the county funds. They were appointed by the Judges, and they had nothing on earth to do with county matters excepting at the Assize, when the whole of the expenses were paid out of Imperial funds, and he protested strongly against an endeavour to place more burdens on local rates. He moved the omission of the words.

Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 26, to leave out the words "clerks of assize and their officers."— (Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought that this was one of those matters which might very fairly be left to the County Council, seeing that the County Council were to be given considerable revenue.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said that they might just as well be asked to pay the Judges.

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

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the Amendment. These were expenses which ought to be under the control of Parliament.

MR. FIRTH

said that the salaries of the officers of the Central Criminal Court were in exactly the same position.

MR. F. S. POWELL

suggested that the hon. and gallant Baronet should withdraw his Amendment, and that they should omit the whole of Sub-section (k).

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Wigan. He had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, but he did not move it, because he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept any Amendment coming from the quarter of the House in which he sat.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, and he was unwilling to agree to the omission of the sub-section until he had consulted with his right hon. Friend. If he agreed to the omission he would reserve to himself the right to reinstate it on Report if he saw reason to do so.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, it would be as well that the right hon. Gentleman should make himself familiar with all the details of the Bill, so that he would not be under the necessity of postponing any matter until he consulted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 21, leave out from the word "and" to the end of line 30, inclusive.— (MR. F. S. Powell.)

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

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

MR. FIRTH

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of having the clause so framed that it would apply to London?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to reserve any discussion on the subject until they reached the London Clauses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 24 (As to Secretary of State's power respecting efficiency of police).

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich), in moving to leave out the words "numbers and," in line 8, said, the clause as it now stood provided that if the Secretary of State considered that the police of any county had not been maintained in a state of efficiency as regarded numbers and discipline— He may order the council of that county to place the force in a state of efficiency in the manner mentioned in the order. His desire was that, as regarded the number of the police, full authority should be placed in the hands of the County Council. He believed, and was prepared to argue, that the County Councils might be trusted to maintain their police in efficiency in every respect. He maintained that if the County Councils, by judicious action, by kindly consideration towards the people over whom it ruled, brought the people into such an orderly state that they gave the authorities little trouble, that there was very little crime in the county, the Council ought to get the benefit of such a condition of things by a reduction in the numbers of the police. Surely the first virtue of a Governing Body was so to rule its people that little or no force need be used in governing. When they got a County Council who ruled its people so that it needed few police, it would be wrong to allow the Secretary of State to come down upon it, and say—"You must have more police." The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) had been in conflict with some of the boroughs of Yorkshire on this point, and he (Mr. Brunner) was very strongly on the side of the boroughs against the right hon. Gentleman, because he considered they were far more fitted to decide how many police they should have than the Secretary of State was. He was perfectly aware the Secretary of State did not decide these matters; it was the permanent officials at the Home Office; but in the counties of Lancashire and Cheshire, with which he was specially acquainted, he could find dozens of men who were far better fitted to decide this question than any permanent officials at the Home Office.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 8, leave out "numbers and."—(Mr. Brunner.)

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

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

said, he wished to point out that the Amendment was objectionable, for the reason that it would give the Secretary of State no general authority over the police. In Lancashire there would be about 14 independent bodies of police, and, unless the authority of the Secretary of State was maintained, there would be no getting these bodies to act in common.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, he should support the Amendment, because surely the representatives of intelligence and property in a county would be best able to judge of the question as to how many police were required in that county than the Secretary of State. The County Councils, to his mind, would be a much better authority to lay down what the numbers of the various police forces which were required in their localities should be. If they decentralized at all let them decentralize in this direction.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

said, the observations of the hon. Member proved too much, for, if he was right in his con- tention, the same would have to be said of boroughs. His experience, during his short tenure at the Home Office, had been that the operation of that Department in connection with the police forces of the country had been, not in the direction of raising the numbers, but distinctly in the direction of keeping the numbers down. The chief difficulty that the Home Office had to deal with in connection with the borough police was the demand which the Local Authorities were continually making for an increase in their local police forces. The people who lived in the various localities seemed to be always desirous of increasing their police forces, and the authority of the Home Office had hitherto been exercised almost universally in the direction of retrenchment. He could not recall a single instance where the action of the Secretary of State had been in the direction of increasing the number, unless the application had come from a recently extended and very thickly populated district. It was always customary to subject the Local Authorities who proposed to increase their police force to a very rigid cross-examination in order to discover whether the proposed development of the police force was really necessary. In his opinion, it would be most dangerous, from an economical point of view, to place a power to increase the number of the force in the hands of the County Councils.

MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

said, they must not assume that the boroughs were quite content with the existing arrangements, and he must say he hoped the Government would yield to the representations of the bon. Member for the Northwich Division of Cheshire (Mr. Brunner), and would eliminate these words from the Bill. He thought that, on the whole, the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) rather tended in that direction, for he said that the Home Office, in any representation that they had had from Local Authorities on this matter, had generally been urged in the direction of an increase in the force. But such an increase was one which could only take place at the expense of the ratepayers; and it might be argued from that that the Local Authorities might, with perfect safety, be intrusted with the management of this question. They would not be likely, from motives of economy, or from any other motive, to run the number of police down to a point below safety. And there was another matter in connection with this subject which he thought the Committee ought to bear in mind, and that was that the Home Office was necessarily on this question very much in the hands of the Inspectors of Police. An Inspector of Police reported in a certain case that the number of the police force was too low. The Watch Committee of the Town Council, on the other hand, might say that the number was sufficient for the purpose; and the Home Office, acting upon the Report of this Inspector, compelled the Local Authority, against its own judgment, to increase the number of police, for, usually speaking, they were guided by the opinion of the Inspector, and the result was that the view of one individual was allowed to override the opinion of the Local Authorities, and to force the Local Authorities into an expenditure which they themselves thought they ought not to bear. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would resist the Amendment of the hon. Member.

MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)

said, he would ask the Committee to look at the position in which they would be placed if this Amendment were carried. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be intrusted with the power of seeing that the police forces in the country were maintained in a state of efficiency and discipline, but would leave them no authority in deciding the question as to the numbers which should constitute the forces. Now, it appeared to him that one of the most important conditions of efficiency, as far as the police were concerned, was that it should not be deficient in numbers, because, however able and disciplined the men might be, the force could not be said to be efficient if, numerically speaking, it was too weak for the duties it had to discharge. He would appeal to the experience of hon. Members opposite, who were members of Watch Committees, or who had ever been connected with Watch Committees, to say whether those Bodies were not thoroughly satisfied with the super- vision of the Home Secretary in regard to this question of police?

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

said, that he had been twice Mayor of Bath, and from his experience in connection with that municipality, he was in a position to say that on more than one occasion the Home Office had endeavoured to increase the number of local police in that city. He was, at any rate, under that impression. To his mind, the decision of the numbers of the police forces would be better left to the discretion of the County Authorities. If they did not trust these Authorities, they ought not to create them; but if they were going to create them, at any rate they should show confidence in them by giving them this power.

MR. W. SIDEBOTTOM (Derbyshire, High Peak)

said, he hoped the Government would accede to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that he did not know an instance where the number of the police had been increased by the action of the Home Office. There might be no case where the number of the police had been increased by the direct action of the Home Office; but he (Mr. W. Sidebottom) could give a case where the number of men had been increased in consequence of the action of the Inspector of Police, and this was in the borough which formed part of the constituency he represented, and with which he had had the honour of being connected as Mayor. The Inspector of Police in that district had informed the Watch Committee that if the number of police was not increased so as to have one policeman for every 1,000 of population, he would be obliged to report to the Home Office that the force was numerically inefficient. In some districts no doubt, one policeman to 1,000 of population was the correct number to employ, but in other districts one per 1,000 was more than the requirements of the case necessitated in the opinion of those best able to judge, as the crime in some localities was so much greater than in others. He could only say that he thought the County Councils would be perfectly competent to decide on the question of the number of police without reference to the Home Office. Seeing that this Bill was said to be a measure of decentralization he thought it would be unwise to maintain a system of centralization in connection with the police, and to keep the control over these Bodies in the hands of the Central Department.

MR. KENRICK (Birmingham, N.)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department contended that the Home Office rarely forced police upon boroughs against the judgment of the Watch Committees. Well, that might be so; indeed, he believed it was, and for this reason—large boroughs were generally allowed to have their own way in these matters; but as the object of this Bill was to confer powers upon newly created Bodies, he thought the Committee would make a fatal mistake if they showed distrust of these new Bodies, and acted as though their judgment was not to be relied upon. If they were to make the County Councils a success, it was necessary, in the first place, that they should repose some trust and confidence in them. Any attempt of this kind to limit their authority and their discretion would be a great mistake. Having regard to that which they all desired—namely, the success of this measure when it came into operation, it must be obvious to everyone that a local body such as a County Council would be more familiar with the local conditions of a certain district than the Government or any Inspector of Police sent over by the Local Government Board could be.

An hon. MEMBER

The Home Office and the Local Government Board.

MR. KENRICK

Well, it must be obvious that the County Councils would know more about the police requirements of their district than any official of the Home Office. The condition of certain districts, as had already been pointed out in the course of this discussion, varied very considerably. It would be a great mistake, for instance, if the Watch Committee of Birmingham were compelled to keep up a police force equal to that of Liverpool, as the conditions of the two towns were wholly different, and as the character of the populations was not the same. He spoke from his own experience in the matter, and he submitted that the Inspectors were nearly always in favour of the adoption of a cut and dried rule—of a system to be applied to all Watch Committees in all parts of the country. That, to his mind, was a very objectionable policy; and although it might be true that it had not been applied to many boroughs in the country, that was owing to the fact that these boroughs were large and important, and had been able to get their own way.

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

said, that the whole question now under consideration was this—whether or not the Central Government were to be responsible in any degree for the maintenance and efficiency of the police. That really was the whole question, for it would be absurd to make the Home Office responsible for the efficiency and the discipline of the Body over whose numbers they had no control. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment (Mr. Brunner) was not to leave out the whole clause—not to strike out the responsibility of the Home Office with reference to the maintenance and efficiency of the police—but only to take from them all responsibility as to the numbers of the police force in the various districts throughout the country. Now, he (Mr. Ritchie) maintained that there was really nothing between leaving out the whole clause and striking out this provision. The effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would clearly be to do away with all responsibility attaching to the Home Office. The Central Government acted on this question of the efficiency of the police throughout the whole country, and the present Amendment simply had reference to the authority of the Home Office as against that of the County Council—because, as the hon. Member very well knew, the power which the Amendment would take away from the Central Department was one which was now exercised throughout the whole of the boroughs. It was a far reaching Amendment, and the Committee should weigh very carefully what it was proposed to do before they assented to a suggestion depriving the Home Secretary of any power in connection with the numbers of the police, which really meant any power in connection with its efficiency. The Government maintained that the efficiency of the police was much more than a local concern, and that view had always been maintained even by the most advanced Radicals. In past times, no one held that view more strongly than John Stuart Mill. If the hon. Member who moved this Amendment would study the writings of that great political economist, he would find that there was nothing upon which greater stress was laid than the maintenance of a central control over the police. John Stuart Mill then went so far as to advocate that the police force should not be a local force at all, but an Imperial force throughout the country. Well, the Government would be sorry to make any such proposal as that. They were not making a new proposal at all on the present occasion when they said that that which existed in every borough in the Kingdom should continue to exist in the counties under the Bill creating new County Authorities. They maintained that if there was to be any change in the relations between the Central Government and the police of the country, the alteration should be made by means of a general Bill which could be discussed in all its bearings. The police should certainly not be made the means of an Amendment of a clause. He therefore hoped the Committee would not consent to the Amendment, which really meant the striking out of the whole clause.

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

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that this clause was really are-enactment of what existed before, he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had not liked to contradict him. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken with good authority at his elbow; but the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the clause contained words to this effect—that if the Secretary of State considered that the police of any county had not been maintained in a state of efficiency, in point of numbers and discipline, he might order the Council to place the force in a state of efficiency in the manner mentioned in the Order, and then came the material words And it shall be the duty of the county council and of the standing joint committee of the county council and quarter sessions to comply with the requirements of the order, and such compliance may be enforced by writ of mandamus. Now, were the Committee to understand that the Home Secretary possessed any such power as this at the present time? Could he go to Birmingham, for instance, and say to the Local Authorities there,—"You shall have a certain number of police, and if you do not comply with my order I will enforce compliance by a writ of mandamus?"

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he would say—"If you do not comply we will withdraw the grant."

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he knew that the grant could be withdrawn, and he would come to that point directly.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that his observations had been restricted to the Amendment.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that anyone would have assumed, from the statements they had heard from the Front Ministerial Bench, that there was a power in the Central Authority for controlling the police of the country, and that obviously it would be wrong in such a Bill as this and in such a way as that proposed to alter that power; but he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) did not understand the matter in that way at all. He did not think that under the present law power was vested in the Central Authority for controlling the police of the Kingdom. As he understood the law at present, the Council and Borough Authorities had absolute control as to the number of police they might see fit to employ. Parliament, however, came forward and said—"We will give you half the cost of your police provided you comply with our views as to its efficiency; if you choose to go without that grant you may have as few police as you like." But there was no power in the Central Authority to enforce its desire by means of a "writ of mandamus." In that respect this clause was creating a new power altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said he had no experience at the Home Office of any attempt to force upon local Governing Bodies the employment of a larger number of police than those Bodies thought requisite. Well, he (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) could say this, that prior to the time when his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was at the head of that Department, the tendency was to enforce a larger number of police than was wanted upon Local Authorities. The Home Office, for in- stance, was of opinion that Birmingham should have more police than Birmingham itself thought it wanted. A Police Inspector—and these officials were really the authorities in this matter, for the Home Office acted entirely upon their recommendation—reported that Birmingham should have more police; but Birmingham rebelled against the opinion of the Home Office, and having a distinguished Representative in the House, who could look well after its interests, the town eventually had its own way. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) was prepared to concede to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it was desirable that there should be a Central Authority with respect to the efficiency of the police. He thought also that that control should exist in counties as well as in boroughs. But what was objected to was counties and boroughs being compelled to subordinate their own local knowledge of their requirements as to the number of police to the opinion of gentlemen in London. Unless the right hon. Gentleman omitted the words in the clause giving the Home Secretary control of the police "in point of numbers," he should support the Amendment.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; the Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

CAPTAIN COTTON (Cheshire, Wirral)

said, it was perfectly impossible that the question of the efficiency of the police could be kept separate from that of the numbers of the force. The efficiency of the police included both their numbers and their discipline, and the two points must go together. He hoped the Government would stick to their guns, and not assent to the introduction of such an anomaly as would be created by the adoption of the Amendment, the effect of which would be to bring about endless confusion.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he desired to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find, if he looked into the matter, that under the Statute 2 & 3 Vict. relating to the county police, the number of the force was not left to the discretion of the Justices. The 1st section of that Statute enacted that the Justices might, in the first instance, declare by report in writing to the Secretary of State how many constables were required for the preservation of the peace, the protection of inhabitants, and the security of property, but such number of constables should not be more than one man for every 1,000 of the population. The next section stated that it should be lawful for the Justices, with the consent of the Secretary of State, from time to time, to increase or diminish the number of constables; so that the County Justices had not the power of varying the number without the consent of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out that the existing law did not make provision for the Home Secretary to enforce compliance with his order by a writ of mandamus, and he (Mr. Matthews) was not sure whether the mandamus would lie if the Justices increased or diminished the force without the consent of the Secretary of State; but there was no doubt some process by which they could be made to obey the law. By the Statute of the 19 & 20 Vict. the Government grant for the maintenance of the police could not be paid except upon a certificate of the Secretary of State that the force was efficient in point of numbers and of discipline. Therefore, the provisions of the present Bill were exactly analogous to the Act which applied when the county police were in the hands of the County Justices. It could not be said that the Government were showing want of confidence in the County Councils. Therefore, he submitted that the preservation of law and order was not a matter of Local Option, but should be left in some degree under the control of the Central Authority.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he could not agree that the present Bill left the law precisely the same as it was under the 19 & 20 Vict. By Section 15 of the 19 & 20 Vict. it was lawful for the Government to appoint three Inspectors to visit and inquire into the state and efficiency of the police, and in that section the word "number" did not occur. Then they come to Section 16, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had read, and there they found it stated that a certificate from the Secretary of State was required to the effect that the police were maintained in a state of efficiency in order that the Government contribution might be obtained, and there the word "number" appeared. What, therefore, he said was, if they did did not go further than that Act, and they ought not to go further than that Act, they would not require this sub-section at all. The 1st sub-section of this clause said that if the Secretary of State did not consider the county police maintained in a state of efficiency in point of numbers and discipline, he might order the County Council to place them in such a state of efficiency, and if the County Council did not comply with his order he might enforce compliance by writ of mandamus. The Government had gone out of their way to claim this new power. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was not lawyer enough to say whether this new power in the shape of a mandamus would apply when the existing law already provided a remedy without this enactment, that remedy being the refusal of the Government contribution if the police force was not maintained in a state of efficiency satisfactory to the Home Office. He could not say whether that power would exclude the mandamus, but he trusted, at any rate, that Sub-section 8 would be altogether omitted.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)

said, he should like to point out that the intention of the older Act was that on the question of numbers there should in every case be a reference to the Secretary of State. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had been responsible for the administration of that grant in aid, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, for some time, and whenever applications for grants in aid were made, it had been his practice to make inquiries as to the numbers and efficiency of the police. The only occasions on which the power of withdrawing the Government grant had been threatened to be used had not borne directly upon the question at issue, but had had reference in one case to the condition of places in a county in which people were confined awaiting trial, and had had reference in another case to the refusal of a borough to dismiss a Head Constable who had been proved to be addicted to habits of intemperance.

MR. STANSFELD

said, the Government had shown that they felt this power contained is this sub-section to be unnecessary, because both the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State of this Department had told them that, in their experience, they had never known a case in which the Home Office had insisted upon an increase of the numbers of the police.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

Such a case has not occurred for the last three years.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that if that were so, and the Government had had no experience of insisting upon an increase of the number of the police, what did they mean by introducing this sub-section, seeing that in the other sub-sections they continued the powers which already gave him control over the efficiency of the police, who were under the management of the County Justices. It seemed to him that the first sub-section of the clause was unnecessary, on the statement of the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

said, he did not propose to follow right hon. Gentlemen who had lately spoken in their interpretations of the law, but it seemed to him that no answer had been given by the Government to the objections which had been raised to the enlargement of the powers of the Home Office. And that seemed to him to be one of those most important points which were constantly being raised in connection with that most ponderous Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said time after time that the basis of the Bill was trust in the people who would form the County Councils; but he (Mr. J. E. Ellis) contended that that was another instance which went to show beyond all doubt that the Government did not trust the people. The people of the localities, he contended, had a great deal more interest in the preservation of law and order in their districts than could possibly be taken in the matter by anyone in London. But it almost seemed to him that the system of bribing localities—for it was nothing else—to surrender powers which they could exercise most fitly by offering them money if they would give the Home Office the control over the numbers and efficiency of the police, was a most pernicious one. The Quarter Sessions in the division he had the honour to represent had a Chief Constable who came before them last year, and applied for an increase in the number of police. The proposal was one of very doubtful expediency, and a committee was appointed to inquire into the matter, the result being that the suggestion, at any rate to the extent to which it was made, had not been carried out. The Home Office, acting upon the advice of their Inspector, thought that the number of police should be increased in the county of Nottingham; but the County Magistrates did not think so, and they refused to adopt the suggestion of the Inspector, in spite of all sorts of threats of pains and penalties if they did not give way. He very much doubted whether the Inspector had any right to introduce the name of the Home Office on that occasion; but he had done so, and that sort of thing took place all over the country. This was one of the evils of the present subsidized police system. An ex-military officer was appointed as Chief Constable, and necessarily viewed the situation largely from a military point of view, and this official put himself into communication with the Inspector under the Central Department, who, in all probability, was also an ex-military officer. In this way, the police in certain localities were very frequently increased, in spite of the views of the Governing Authorities in those localities. The Public Departments were full of Inspectors who were constantly making recommendations, although, as a general rule, they knew very little about the condition of the localities to which those recommendations applied.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he did not propose to go into the question as to whether the Home Office or any other Central Department could exercise control over the police, as that question, he thought, could be more properly raised on the Amendment in his (Mr. Conybeare's) name, to reject the whole of the clause. The only argument, so far as he had been able to gather, in listening to this debate, which had been advanced by the Home Secretary and his Colleagues on the Front Ministerial Bench, was that the influence of the Home Office had always been exercised in the direction of diminishing the police force. Well, so far as that was a matter of fact, it was doubted and denied by very good authorities sitting opposite to those right hon. Gentlemen. But, supposing it were the case, as stated by the Home Secretary, he (Mr. Conybeare) did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman, or any of his Colleagues, insisted upon the retention of this power on the ground that it was essential to the safety of Her Majesty's subjects; but the right hon. Gentleman had been careful to explain to them that it was owing to that anxiety they had in the interests of the ratepayers and the protection of the rates. Well, to his (Mr. Conybeare's) mind, the ratepayers were quite able to look after their own pockets, and would satisfactorily exhibit their power in that respect if the control of the police were left in their hands. He protested against the ratepayers being under the thumb of ex-military officers in police matters, and was, in fact, totally opposed to any Central Authority having power in this matter.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

said, he thought they should recollect that, hitherto, there had been some check on the Home Secretary in the direction of compelling the Local Authorities to do what he thought right in regard to increasing the police, because half the expense of maintaining the force had been paid by the State, and if the police were increased in a particular place, it would of necessity entail increased expenditure on the part of the State. But, in future, that check would be removed as the whole of the cost would be defrayed by the localties. He thought the Committee ought to be very careful not to enlarge the powers of the Home Secretary, so as to enable him to increase the numbers of the police. It appeared to him that the clause, as now drawn, would increase the authority of the Secretary of State, and give him greater power either to induce or compel Local Authorities to adopt the recommendations of his Inspectors.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he thought the fears of right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the control of the Secretary of State in this matter were somewhat without reason. It was only the other day that they had a long discussion as to the Charity Commissioners. That was not a question of voting money for the purposes of that Commission, but of the reduction of the grant for the payment of the Chief Commissioner, and if the question of the payment of the Chief Commissioner could occupy the House during the whole Sitting on the mere question of administration as to the question of a school here and there, he was quite sure that any complaint which anyone might have of the manner in which the Home Secretary discharged his functions under this clause would occupy the attention of the House for no less a period when the question of the police administration came before them in Committee of Supply. Therefore, he thought the control of the Home Secretary might be regarded as sufficient and complete. But he thought they should not lose sight of the fact that the police in a country like England, where people were constantly passing to and fro, and various districts were constantly in communication with each other, was really a national question, though there doubtless might be a local element to be considered in the management. If there were any weakness on the part of the police force in any county, or any deficiency, those extremely busy men who were active all over the country—namely, the criminal class, would soon find out that weakness or deficiency, and the result would very soon be an increase of crime in that unfortunate locality. He thought the localities would obtain great advantage from the experience of a Central Department which had the opportunity of watching the general progress of these matters, and comparing the conditions of various districts, and would be, therefore, in a position to give solid advice to the localities as to the administration of the police force. He thought it would be a great act of unwisdom if this experience of a Central Department were thrown aside, and if the police were left to be managed by the accident of local feeling from time to time. He had confidence in the Local Authorities, and he had often expressed that confidence in the course of these debates; but because he felt that confidence, it did not follow, as a matter of course, that he thought there was no value in the experience gained by the Central Office in the many opportunities they had of watching events separated both by space and by time. They must remember that not long ago the management of the gaols was regarded as a local business, the county magistrates having entire command of them. A change was made in this matter, however, and he confessed that it was to him and to most Members on that (the Conservative) side of the House a most distasteful change. But the alteration was effected, and he believed now that no one would agree to go back to the system of managing gaols which prevailed originally. They had centralized in that matter, and he believed with very good effect. Though he did not desire to increase centralization in regard to the police, he believed that what they had done in the matter of gaols might be some guide to them in this matter also, and might be a warning to them not altogether to decentralize and throw away the advantages which might be derived from the experience of a Central Department having control over the police. He hoped, on the whole, that the Committee would stand fast and retain the clause as it now stood.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he thought the Government, after the speech they had just heard, might well say, "Save us from our friends." The Government contended that they were re-enacting the law as it stood; whereas the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. S. Powell) had been defending, on broad and general principles, an assimilation of the arrangements as to the police force, similar to that which existed in the matter of gaols.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, that all he contended was that, seeing that they had adopted a system of centralization in connection with gaols without any bad affect, they should not fear the retention of a certain amount of centralization in connection with the police. He was not at all praying for mere centralization.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he did not think he could admit that the change in regard to the centralization, so far as the gaols were concerned, had been such a decided success as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. Let them see what the present law was with regard to the control of the police. In the counties, the original number of the county police had been fixed by the Quarter Sessions with the approval of the Home Secretary, and it was not in the power of the Quarter Sessions either to increase or diminish that number without the consent of the Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary was of opinion that the force ought to be increased, or if he was of opinion that the force ought to be decreased, he had no power whatever to compel the Quarter Sessions to adopt his views; his only remedy, so to speak, would be to withhold the Government grant which had been entirely on the Home Secretary's certificate. If the Home Secretary's certificate was withheld, it of course implied a forfeiture of the grant itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would, therefore, see that the County Authorities possessed an independent control over the police. In boroughs, under the provisions of the Act of 1882, which was a Consolidating Act, it was provided that the Watch Committee should, from time to time, appoint a sufficient number of fit men to be borough constables. There was no control whatever given to the Central Authority over the Watch Committees; there was not even an instruction laid down as to one man for a thousand of population to guide them, The Watch Committee were, therefore, independent as to the number of police they thought necessary for the protection of the borough; but, of course, the grant to the boroughs was subjected to the same conditions as that of the counties, and in that way, if the Home Office was dissatisfied with the action of a borough Watch Committee, it withdrew its consent to the payment of the Government grant. They came, therefore, back to this—that the control of the Home Office really consisted in its power to withhold the grant. Well, but the clause went much further. No one wanted to diminish the control which at present existed; but a new provision altogether was put in to the effect that the Home Secretary was to have absolute power. not only as to efficiency, not only as to discipline, but as to numbers. If the Home Secretary was of opinion that any borough or county had not a sufficient—[Mr. MATTHEWS: Not borough, but county]—Under a subsequent section boroughs were made counties, and this provision would apply to all such boroughs as Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, as much as to Lancashire and Yorkshire. If the Home Secretary was of opinion that a borough or county had not a sufficient number of police, the clause not only contemplated the withholding of the grant, but it enabled the Home Secretary to enforce his view by a writ of mandamus. That was a great alteration. This management of the police was a matter which had always been under the control of the boroughs; but they were now, it seemed, going to give the Court of Queen's Bench power to go into the boroughs at the instance of the Secretary of State to order that borough to increase its police force. He did not think that should be done in this Bill. He admitted that the Question was a very difficult one. The existing system had worked well. The Secretary of State had never been able to get up in that House and state that such and such county, or such and such borough, had an insufficient number of police. He submitted that the clause was introducing a very radical change into the existing law, for which no case had been made out. He would ask the Government to reconsider their position, and would support the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), that Sub-section (1) was not necessary at all, and that ample protection would be given under Sub-section (2).

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, that before the Government put their foot down finally, he hoped they would take into full consideration the argument just now urged. This Amendment was not proposed from the point of view of desiring an alteration in the existing law, but from the point of view of desiring that the existing administration should not be more centralized. The Government had proposed—on that (the Opposition) side of the House, they thought quite unnecessarily—a change conferring on the Home Secretary greater power than he possessed at that moment. They did that concomitantly with giving a larger control over the police to the people generally through the Committee of the Body elected by them; and surely when they were giving this larger control to the ratepayers generally, that was not the time at which to increase the central control; for what was the great guarantee to them for a well-conducted police force, if it were not that they were now about to constitute a representative body to control them? Hon. Gentlemen opposite had spoken as though there was some danger involved in this, as if a popular Body would be less likely to desire the preservation of law and order and safe living, if he might so say, than the smaller non-representative Body, the Court of Quarter Sessions. On the contrary, they on that (the Opposition) side of the House were deeply and really impressed with the belief that they would have more care taken of the police force, and would be more safe, and would have greater confidence in the police now that the control of the force was vested in a representative Body; more than it was before, and now that there would be less reason to introduce the interference of the Home Secretary than formerly. Let him recall what, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was much better acquainted with than he was—namely, the historical origin of this interference of the Home Office in the management of the police. The origin was not any expressed desire of the Home Office to interfere, but the fact that the Local Bodies were not able or willing to accept the responsibility of the whole maintenance and efficiency of the police, consequently a grant was made to them from the Consolidated Fund, in return for which a certain amount of control was rightly claimed by the Central Body. That grant was for the pay and clothing of the police, and it was really in connection with that pay and clothing that the Home Secretary's power of interference was established. He sincerely hoped that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would reconsider this subject, and would not unnecessarily introduce new matter into the Bill, which would only delay a measure which they and the Opposition were equally extremely desirous of seeing become law. He trusted that the Government would leave the matter as it now stood.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he understood the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) to be that Sub-section l should be omitted, which would leave the matter as it now stood so far as the Home Secretary was concerned. Well, the Government were prepared to accept that suggestion, and to omit the sub-section, leaving the law as it stood.

MR. BRUNNER

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrwn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, sub-section (1) struck out of the Clause.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without recording his protest against the policy of the clause. Some of them felt very strongly that it was a great mistake that the Central Authority of the Home Office should have any control over the police. The omission of the subsection which had just taken place would leave the powers of the Home Secretary exactly as they were at present; but their desire was not to leave them as they were, but to take every opportunity of doing away with his powers in respect of the local police. The particular principle upon which he took his stand, and would be prepared to argue the question at length, was that to place this matter in the hands of a Central Authority at the Home Office was to introduce an unconstitutional practice. Because it placed under the control of and at the disposition of the Government of the day a new armed force, or standing Army, in the shape of the police. The police had at various times been regulated by law, and therefore he could not say that that principle was illegal. But he held that it was distinctly unconstitutional, and had been the cause of much of the mischief which had occurred in Ireland and also in London. They were prepared to fight for the omission of the whole clause; and it was only because of the important concession which the right hon. Gentleman had made that he refrained from moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Grant by county council towards maintenance of indoor paupers).

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

said, when he gave Notice of an Amendment to exclude London from the provisions for the different Unions, the President of the Local Government Board had not given Notice of the Amendment now on the Paper for the distribution of the grant according to the number of indoor paupers. Fivepence a-head was already given to every Union in London for each indoor pauper, in addition to the 4d. that was to be granted under the Bill. It seemed to him, therefore, that the application of this money was not a wise one. But the right hon. Gentleman had given Notice of an Amendment providing for the distribution according to the number of outdoor paupers, and had thus removed the original objection which he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had to the clause. But, on the other hand, his proposal introduced matters which were also objectionable, inasmuch as he had stereotyped the contribution made by the Council of London to the Unions according to the number of indoor paupers which might exist at the time of the passing of the Act in London. He need not remind the Committee that there was a very great difference in the expenditure upon indoor paupers and outdoor paupers in the various parishes in London. Stepney, St. George's-in-the-East, and Mile End expended on outdoor paupers almost nothing. There were in Stepney only 218 outdoor paupers, and only 192 in St. George's-in-the-East, and so on. On the other hand, in some parishes the expenditure on outdoor paupers was very considerable. The proposal of the Government appeared to stereotype the grant to the various Unions in proportion to the existing number of paupers in London, and without regard to particular parishes increasing in population, and that seemed to him altogether unsound in principle as well as unjust. He, therefore, proposed to except London from the provisions of the clause. The Committee would observe an Amendment lower down on the Paper pointing out what he wished should be done in the case of London. He proposed that the whole contribution to the county of London out of the Probate Duty, including not only the two-thirds now proposed to be given in the shape of 4d. every day for indoor paupers, but also the one-third to be distributed according to the rateable value, should be distributed according to population, and not according to the number of indoor paupers. The effect of the proposal would be to somewhat improve the position of the populous parishes, in which there was a very large amount of pauperism. He had made a short calculation, and under the proposal of the Bill he found that Hackney would re- ceive about £18,000, whereas upon the proposal based upon population it would get £28,000, or an increase of £10,000 for that parish alone. In Lambeth parish, under the Bill, the contribution would be £26,000; under his proposal £32,000. The City of London, on the other hand, would get £32,000, of which £9,600 would be the contribution for indoor paupers, and £22,000 on the rateable value, whereas his proposal would give the City of London only £10,500; and considering that pauperism there was not very great, that appeared to him to be a fair sum. And the same might be said with regard to the Strand. Under the Bill, the City of London would practically receive in respect of rateable value £32,000; whereas on the principle of population, the proportion of the City would be only £7,500, making a difference of £24,500. That amount would be divided among the poorer parishes, and thus the richer parishes might lose some money under his proposal; but the difference would be divided among those poorer parishes which had a large population, and consequently more pauperism. His proposal appeared to him to offer a fair basis of settlement, and was not open to the complaint which stereotyped the grant which had to be made out of the Probate Duty to the different Unions according to the number of paupers which existed at the time. That basis appeared to him to be thoroughly unsound, because it made no account of the varying conditions of the different parishes in London, or the increasing population from time to time of some of the outside parishes.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 40, after the words "county council," to insert the words "with the exception of the county council of London."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

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

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

said, the right hon. Gentleman had asserted that the cost of maintaining the indoor poor in London was very much less than the amount which would be received by the Union, if they were to receive 4d. for each pauper in addition to the 5d. which they already received. Instead of 6d. being the cost of the indoor pauper in London, it was 7 3/10d.; the cost of loans was 3 6/10d., and other matters 5 1/10d.; in all, 1s. 4d. a-day. The right hon. Gentleman would see that the actual cost of maintenance was 7 3/10d., and he would also know that it was impossible to increase to any extent the number of indoor poor without increasing the buildings; his own experience would tell him that if such increase had to take place, there was hardly any amount to be conceived in reason which would pay the Guardians for carrying out such a policy as was suggested, because there was in Great Britain no city where the cost of sites and buildings approached to anything like the cost of such things in London. The right hon. Gentleman would know that the Guardians could not increase their resources in that respect without enormously increasing their rates also, and, therefore, that the money proposed to be given would, in no shape or degree, compensate them for their increased expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman having acknowledged that, as far as the amended proposal went, there would be no inducement whatever to increase the number of indoor paupers, he had laid stress on the fact that the City of London would be a great gainer, and. he went on to state his conclusion that in a rich parish there would be a gain at the expense of the poor parishes. He (Mr. Ritchie) would like to hear what hon. Gentlemen who represented London would say on the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. They knew perfectly well that, so far as the poorer districts in London were concerned, that the basis of indoor poor would place them at a very great disadvantage. It might be perfectly true that here and there some rich locality would gain so far as the gross amount was concerned; but there was no doubt whatever that the poorer parishes by the proposal of the Bill would gain very largely in respect of their poor rates, and, therefore, whether the right hon. Gentleman regarded the matter from one point or the other, he (Mr. Ritchie) maintained that the proposal in the Bill was, so far as London was concerned, one which would effect what they most desired to realize—namely, something approaching to an equalized poor rate. The whole question of the application of the Probate Duty had now been discussed at very considerable length, and the Government had undertaken that they would consider the question of the allocation of the money; that being so, he would suggest to the Committee whether they should not now pass the clause, on the understanding that before Report the Government should consider the discussion which had taken place that night with a view to seeing, upon the expressed desire of the Committee, whether some basis of a more satisfactory character could be agreed to. Hon. Gentlemen would understand that they would not commit themselves to anything more than they now stood committed to on the clauses they had already discussed.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and would not press his Amendment.

MR. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

asked, if the Government intended to turn their special attention to the necessity of meeting the altered circumstances which might arise. The scheme they had suggested was based, as it were, on an instantaneous photograph of existing indoor pauperism, and did not allow for possible variations in years to come.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that was precisely what they proposed.

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

said, the Poor Law Authorities would look forward to another settlement of the question. Hon. Members on that side would not be able to accept the "instantaneous photograph" as a settlement. He therefore hoped the Government would not include outdoor pauperism as an element of the question, nor base anything on the condition of pauperism in the present year.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Government had never stated or thought that outdoor pauperism was a proper basis on which to rest distribution. They had simply said, they would consider the discussion which had taken place that night. They did not intend to commit themselves to the principle of outdoor pauperism; nor did he believe that was the principle that was approved on the opposite side of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

said, he did not propose his Amendment in any spirit of hostility to the principle of the proposal of the Government, and he was bound to express his surprise that it had met with so much opposition on that side of the House, especially when he remembered that Sir Charles Dilke said, in. 1882, that there ought to be a contribution by the Counties to the Unions of a substantial nature in aid of the cost of maintenance of indoor paupers; but that opinion, like many others, appeared to be a thing of the past. But, although he thought it was right that some encouragement should be given to Guardians, he did not think that too much temptation should be put in their way, and that too high a premium should be put on the workhouse test. A proposal to give 2s. 4d. a-week for every indoor pauper would, in his opinion, be too great a temptation. When a workhouse was two-thirds full, the salaries and working expenses of the house would be no less than when it was quite full, and the proposed sum would, in some cases, defray the whole cost of maintenance, with the addition of clothing and interest on loans. He had some figures which showed that 10 Unions in the South-Western district were able, some years ago, to provide the provisions of the inmates of the workhouses at from 2s. 3d. to 3s. a-week, and since that the contract prices of meat and provisions had fallen. Therefore, he thought the Government might fairly reduce the grant from 4d. to 2d., and there would then be no ground whatever for saying that there would be any temptation to the Guardians for bringing poor persons into the house. Unless the Wheel and Horse Tax was more productive than had been stated in some counties, a great portion of the grant of 4d. would have to be provided out of the county rate. In Wiltshire, it seemed to him that the whole of it would have to come from that source, because the Licence Duties and Probate Grant would do no more than cover the cost of main roads; in Dorsetshire the county would have to provide 2d., and other counties 1d. He thought that was an additional argument in favour of reducing the grant, and for the reasons given he would move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 23, line 1, to leave out the words "four pence" and insert the words "two pence."—(Viscount Ebrington.)

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

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

said, his noble Friend had in the course of his remarks referred to the county of Wiltshire, which he(Mr. Long) had the honour to represent. He appreciated his noble Friend's strong desire that his county should not suffer, but he thought he was in error in supposing that there would be any new charge on the counties. The County Authority would continue to bear the half-cost of the maintenance of main roads as at present; and, therefore, he did not think, on the ground of increased cost to counties, the Amendment of his noble Friend could be accepted; nor, after the concession made by the Government, did he think there could be any reasonable desire on the part of the Committee to reduce the grant any further.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, he thought the Government would be wise to reserve their freedom in this matter as well as in the other; because, by reducing the amount of the grant from 4d. to 2d. or 3d., there would be a much larger sum left for the purpose of rectifying the inequalities so much complained of.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, he had had no scruple in supporting the Government in distributing the Probate Duty between the counties on the basis of indoor pauperism, because he had never looked at that proposal as an objectionable part of the scheme; but he always considered that a direct grant to Guardians of so much a head might work prejudicially in the rural districts. In those districts the cost of indoor maintenance was much less than in towns, especially the Metropolis, and, from inquiries he had made in rural Unions, he found that the grant of 2s. 4d. a-week would, in many cases, almost or entirely cover the cost of keeping of indoor paupers. It was perfectly clear that there were many Unions in which it would not be necessary to raise the establishment charges in order to admit more paupers into the workhouses. That was the administrative ground on which they supported the Amendment. With regard to the financial ground, it had been said, truly, that the charges pro- posed to be put on the counties by the Bill were not new charges. At the same time, it would appear on the face of the Bill as if the Government intended the House and the public to believe that the charges for indoor paupers and main roads would be entirely covered in the case of every county by the relief afforded from Imperial taxation. But it had been pointed out in an able article in The Economist that there would be a deficiency in many counties unless the Wheel Tax amounted to more than it appeared likely to do; and, therefore, he thought the Government would do well to accede to his hon. Friend's proposal to give the Committee a pledge that they would reconsider the provision to give 4d. a-head for each indoor pauper.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought he had made it clear that the reconsideration of the Government would extend not only to the clause already passed, but to the present clause. He was bound to say that if the original proposal had been accepted, the Government were prepared to accept a reduction of the amount in question from 4d. to 3d. At the same time, he hardly thought it worth while to make any alteration in the clause now. The Government had undertaken to consider all the matters dealt with in both clauses of the Bill, and therefore he hoped the Committee would allow the present clause to remain as at present. Hon. Gentlemen must see that it was impossible not to admit that even if the amount of the county rate was not greatly reduced by the contribution from the Exchequer, it was perfectly immaterial so long as the general local rates throughout the country were lessened by the contribution of the Government. He had nothing more to add except that he entirely held to the promise that the consideration of the Government should be given to both clauses.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, the right hon. Gentleman would see that when they were going to take indoor pauperism once for all as a means of allocating this money, no administrative consideration came in at all. The whole question before them was as to whether it was adequate or inadequate, a proper or improper, distribution of the money. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would simply consider the question of fair distribution for the next five years.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought that the question had been sufficiently threshed out in the discussion which had taken place upon it. The point referred to by the hon. Gentleman must form an element of consideration with the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:— In page 23, line 1, leave out from "head," to end of line 2, and insert "and such grant, during the five local financial years beginning on the appointed day, shall be reckoned according to the average number of indoor paupers so maintained during the financial year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March next before the passing of this Act, and shall after the end of the said five years, unless Parliament otherwise determine, continue to be reckoned in accordance with the same average number.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 (Supplemental provisions as to local taxation account and Exchequer contribution account).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 23, line 11, after "this," insert "or any other;" and in line 12, after "Exchequer," to insert "or to the Treasury."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

General Provisions as to Transfers.

Clause 27 (General provisions as to powers transferred to county councils).

Amendment proposed, in page 24, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words "either to the Justices of the County sitting in petty sessions, or."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)

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

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

said, that the Government, having complete confidence in the discretion of the County Councils, could not accept this Amendment.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he did not think that many hon. Members would agree that the Government had that amount of confidence in the County Councils which they professed. However, that might be, Mem- bers on those Benches had not complete confidence in non-responsible magistrates, and they objected to any attempt being made to delegate the powers of the Councils to them. The hon. Gentleman said this matter could be safely left in the hands of the Councils. They had to keep in view that, owing to the mischievous institution of County Aldermen, the probability was that by this dodge the Government had secured the "parson and squire" element on the Councils; and the great majority of the Councils would have power to delegate all manner of important powers to the magistrates in Petty Sessions, by which means the door would be opened to evasion of the principle that the people should have the control of the affairs of their own counties.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

said, that if the Government had no better reason to urge against the Amendment than had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long), he saw no objection to the words of the hon. Member. He should like to have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board as to what he considered the kind of authority which should be delegated to the County Justices.

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

said, he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that it rested altogether with the County Councils whether or not they would transfer any of these powers. The Committee had already passed Clause 4, which transferred to the County Council certain powers of the Justices out of Session, powers in respect of the licensing of houses and places for the public performance of stage plays, and so on. It was with reference to any emergency arising under the powers of that clause that the section now under discussion was framed. The object was to establish an authority which would be easily accessible for such purposes as the licensing of stage plays.

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

said, if that was the intention of the Government, they ought to say so in the clause.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that this clause as it stood almost amounted to a repeal of the whole Act. They had transferred certain powers from the Justices to the County Councils. There was no slur implied upon the County Justices by this process, as it was simply part of a long-contemplated scheme of the reform of Local Government. But now it was proposed that the County Councils should delegate back any of those powers to the Justices sitting in Petty Sessions, and he must say that it seemed to him that to pass such a provision as this was to cast a slur upon the newly appointed Councils. He could quite understand the County Clause, which was taken from the Municipal Corporations Act; but that Act compelled the Municipal Corporation to appoint out of its own Body a certain Committee to deal with this matter, and he thought that they should follow the same rule here. Words ought to be put in to cover that.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he thought that might be done by introducing words similar to those contained in Section 4. He would suggest whether it would not be more in accordance with the principle of the measure and find favour with the Committee generally, and be more desirable on the whole, if these powers were delegated to the District Councils. He would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) whether that suggestion could not be accepted—whether it would not put the clause in harmony with the general principle of the Bill if they were to give power to the County Councils to delegate these powers to the District Councils rather than to the Justices of the Peace?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the County Councils would have that power under the Bill as it stood, but the hon. Gentleman would understand that there would be occasions when it would be to the convenience of the district that powers such as they had mentioned should be exercised by the County Justices—that was to say, that it would be convenient to exercise the power of appealing to two Justices of the Peace, who would be readily accessible, rather than waiting till the County Councils should be called together in order to appeal to the larger authority. If the Committee desired it, he would have no objection to limiting the powers to the purposes of Clause 4.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, that assuming that the Government should be unable to proceed with the District Council portion of the Bill, it would only be possible under this clause for the County Council to delegate these powers to the Justices of the County, or to a Committee of the County Council.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that if unfortunately the Government found themselves unable to proceed with the District Council part of the Bill, they would at a later stage introduce an Amendment defining the meaning of the words in the clause.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he hoped the alteration would be carefully considered before the Report stage.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he hoped that care would be taken to give ample power of delegation. At present the Quarter Sessions had no such power, and he was confident that great inconvenience arose therefrom. So far as regarded the Justices at Petty Sessions, it would be easy to introduce words in a sub-clause defining their powers.

MR. RITCHIE

said, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had said, it might be better not to amend the clause, but to pass it on the assurance of the Government that they would amend it on Report in the sense he (Mr. Ritchie) had pointed out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, the next Amendment stood in his name.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is a long Amendment here containing several sub-sections, and in my opinion this should be moved in a new clause. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, move the next Amendment on the Paper in his name.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, that the next Amendment in his name was on page 24, at the ending of line 5 to add— Provided, that in the constitution of any such committee the number of county aldermen appointed to serve thereon shall in no case be more in proportion to the number of councillors so appointed than the number of aldermen in the whole council bears to the councillors. The number of County Aldermen on the County Councils had been fixed at one-fourth of the whole Body, and he desired to maintain the same proportion of County Aldermen on any Committee to which the powers mentioned in the clause were delegated. He did not wish to detain the Committee by any remarks in support of this proposal. It seemed to him to be a perfectly reasonable and fair proposal, and in making it he did not wish for a moment to derogate from the virtue of the non-representative element, but only to secure that the elective element, on the importance of which the Government placed so much stress, should not be ousted, but should have its fair proportion of all the duties as it had on the Council as a whole.

Amendment proposed— In page 24, at end of line 5, add,—"Provided, that in the constitution of any such committee the number of county aldermen appointed to serve thereon shall in no case be more in proportion to the number of councillors so appointed than the number of aldermen in the whole council bears to the councillors."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

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

MR. LONG

said, there was nothing unreasonable in the view of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, but he (Mr. Long) thought that anybody cognizant of the manner in which the affairs of a county were conducted would realize that it might frequently be of advantage to the County Council if a number of Aldermen or selected councillors to serve on a particular committee were appointed in a larger proportion than their numbers would warrant under the Amendment of the hon. Member, for the reason that the work required to be done might be such as those gentlemen were especially capable of performing, and for the reason that those gentlemen would be better able to devote their time and attention to the duties in question than ordinary members of the Council. The object to be aimed at in forming a committee ought to be to get as much special knowledge and ability as possible, so as to secure the doing of the work in the best manner; and surely the County Council might be trusted to appoint its own committee.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (Summary proceedings for determination of questions as to transfer of powers).

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

said, he begged to move, in lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words— The Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State, or any Government Department, or of the," in order to insert "a.

Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 16, leave out from beginning of line to "Chairman" in line 17, in order to insert "a."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)

said, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name—namely, after "Chairman," in line 17, to insert, "or of the respective Chairmen where there is more than one Chairman." He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have no objection to the Amendment, as it was intended to meet the case of several counties, notably the counties of Hertfordshire and Suffolk.

Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 17, after the word "Chairman," to insert the words "or of the respective Chairmen where there is more than one Chairman."—(Baron Dimsdale.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, that this Amendment was unnecessary, as the object the hon. Member had in view was met by the Amendment which they had just agreed to on his (Mr. Ritchie's) suggestion, substituting "a Chairman" for the words of the Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Standing joint committee of quarter sessions and county council for the purpose of police, clerk of the peace, officers, &c.).

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he begged to moved the Amendment standing in his name—namely, in line 27, after the words "consisting of," to insert the words "not more than eight members appointed by quarter sessions, and eight members appointed by the county council." He wished to restrict the number of these standing joint committees to 16, which he thought would be a good number to transact the business provided for under this clause. He did not think that any Watch Committee in any borough had a larger number of members than that. He had heard it said that 12 would be a good number, but it appeared to him that counties were so large in some cases that it would be difficult to find members to attend regularly if the number were restricted to 12, and therefore he proposed 16. If, however, the Government should prefer another limit, and would state their view, he should be glad, if possible, to meet them.

Amendment proposed, In page 24, line 27, after "consisting of," insert "not more than eight members appointed by quarter sessions, and eight members appointed by the county council."—(Mr. Heneage.)

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

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

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was making a proposal and moving an Amendment which was hardly a necessary one. It was hardly possible to fix on any number which could be laid down as a general rule applicable to the cases of all counties. The right hon. Gentleman said, that if the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment, he would be glad to meet them in any proposal they might make as to the limitation of the numbers of the members of the joint committees. It appeared to him (Mr. Long) that it would be desirable to leave the decision in this matter to the County Councils themselves. They would be best acquainted with the local circumstances, and would be better able to select a fitting number.

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

said, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage), he only proposed a maximum. He did not say that the number upon these joint committees should be 16 and no less. The Municipal Corporations Act limited the Watch Committee to one-third of the whole Body, and on the precedent of that Act it seemed to him (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the limit of 16 would be too small. The Amendment would make it that one-half should be appointed by the Quarter Sessions and one-half by the County Councils, and, to that extent, he thought the Amendment was a good one, as the clause itself was not clear on that point. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) thought that these joint committees should be composed of equal numbers of each Body from which the members were drawn. If the Amendment were not accepted there should be something introduced into the clause to make it clear that the committees should be appointed in this way of equal numbers.

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

said, he did not think it was conferring too great a power on the County Councils to give them authority to fix the numbers of these joint committees; but he certainly thought it desirable that something should be put in the clause to make the original intention of the Government clear—namely, that there should be an equal number of the two Bodies upon these joint committees.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that that object would be obtained by leaving out the word "such," in line 27, and inserting the words "an equal," which would make the line read, "consisting of an equal number of justices, &c."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 27, to leave out the word "such," in order to insert the words "an equal."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he begged to move the next Amendment, which stood in his name—in line 28, to leave out the word "members," in order to insert the words "elected councillors." The object of this Amendment was perfectly clear—namely, to provide that the members appointed by the Councils should be elected representatives and not the selected County Aldermen. He thought the Amendment just accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was an argument in favour of this Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman, by accepting that Amendment, recognized that it was desirable to preserve an equal proportion between the non-representative Justices and the more or less representative members of the Councils. As the members from the two Bodies on their joint committees were to be equal, he thought it would only be carrying out to its full extent the object of the Government if they accepted this Amendment, which would provide that elected, and not nominated, members of the Council should form half of these joint committees.

Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 28, to leave out the word "members," and insert the words "elected councillors."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'members' stand part of the Clause."

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

said, he thought that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division was necessary after the insertion of the words "an equal." When those words were inserted it was forgotten that a large number of those County Councillors would already be County Justices, and that it would not be necessary, therefore, to preserve the interests of that class. He thought it essential, however, that they should take care that the elected members of the Council, at all events, equalled the number of Justices appointed outside the Council; and, therefore, he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

MR. LONG

said, that it was impossible to accept the Amendment. The Committee had accepted the principle of selected members or Aldermen on the Council, and it would be absolutely out of harmony with the principle so accepted to proceed afterwards to limit the powers of the selected Councillors. The hon. Member who had just sat down had said that he thought the nominated members would be in many cases Justices. Well, however that might be, they would not be nominated by outside authorities, but by the Council itself; and he thought it would be unreasonable and inconsistent to exclude these Aldermen from the choice of the Council in forming these committees. It would not only be unjust, but absurd, after having given power for the selection of these County Aldermen on the Councils, to proceed to limit their powers.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that the object of this last Amendment was to secure that upon these joint committees there should be an equal number of members of the County Councils and of the County Justices. He had so often appealed to the Government to follow the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act that he felt bound to urge them to follow it right through in this respect as in others. He did not know how this would work out—he had voted against County Aldermen altogether—but the Committee, having adopted the principle of County Aldermen, and seeing that they were to be on the Councils, and seeing that under the Municipal Corporations Act the power as contained in this clause was given, he thought they should adopt that principle all round. His experience of Municipal Councils was that the Aldermen were often the most useful members. As a rule, they had been longer connected with the Town Councils than the elected members, and were more familiar with the duties of the office.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

said, he thought when a principle was mischievous the best thing to do, irrespective of precedents, was to try and limit the operations of that principle all round. They had departed from the precedent of the Municipal Corporations over and over again, and he could not see why they should not do so on this occasion. Within the four corners of the Municipal Corporations Act there was no joint committee whatever; and, therefore, there was not even a satisfactory precedent to guide them. He did not wish the magistrates to be a dominating force on these joint committees, unless they were elected members of the Councils. Of course, he did not object to any County Council member of a joint committee being a member of a Court of Quarter Sessions; only let him, in the first place, pass through the ordeal of an election.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he could not quite accept the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend who had just spoken that hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House regarded the whole principle of County Aldermen as essentially mischevious, and that they were not going to make any compromise whatever in the matter. Whenever they saw any possibility of attacking this mischievous principle they were determined to do so. The importance of this joint committee was that it had to deal essentially with the police. They had had a long discussion that evening about the control of the police, and he (Mr. Conybeare) had said on an earlier Amendment, which he had not pressed, that his view was that the Central Authorities should not have any control over the local police; and if the Central Authorities—that was to say the Home Office—were not to have, nor was it possible that they could have, control over the local police, he held that it was still more impossible and undesirable that unrepresented, irresponsible local magistrates should have control over the local police. If such control were given it would produce a want of confidence in the administration of the force in the different localities, which it was their greatest desire to prevent. That being so, he did not think he should be bound to take the sense of the Committee on this joint committee, because it was a matter of principle. He would say this—that the Government had got on so well that night that they were becoming too self-confident, and it was desirable to show that they could not tumble in on the Report stage any Amendment which had been discussed in Committee.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, he would join in the appeal to the hon. Member not to press this Amendment to a Division. He had voted against the County Aldermen, and was as opposed to selected members being on the County Councils as anyone in the House; but when they had got these Aldermen there he thought it was a very great mistake to limit their duties. They might be experienced men with special knowledge, whom it might be very desirable to have upon a particular committee. And it must be borne in mind that of the members of the County Council three-fourths would be elected by the ratepayers, and that it would be this Body who would have the selection of the members of the joint committee. He thought they could be trusted in the matter.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

said, he should like to remind the hon. Gentle- man that they had already limited the powers of the selected Aldermen, and having limited them in one direction it was desirable that they should limit them in another.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

said, he would make a suggestion to his hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare), which might, perhaps, get the Committee out of a difficulty. It had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board that having assented to these County Aldermen they could not limit their powers; but if the Amendment were altered so as to read that the number of Justices appointed by Quarter Sessions, and the number appointed by County Councils should in no way exceed the number of selected Councillors, it would effect that which the hon. Member was asking for.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is speaking to another Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 252;Noes 81: Majority 171.—(Div. List, No. 200.)

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster), in moving the following sub-section:— The joint committees shall have the management of all shire halls, county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, justices' rooms, and police stations, said, under Sub-section 3 of Clause 29, questions referring to various buildings would be referred to and determined by the joint committees, and he thought it would be advisable to further specify the buildings named in the Amendment. It was usually the case that shire halls and county halls were part of the same building that contained the Courts of Justice, and he thought it would be inconvenient to have two Bodies to look after the same building, and he therefore suggested that the management of all the buildings mentioned in the Amendment should be placed in the hands of the Joint Committee. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see the drift of this Amendment, and would accept the proposal.

Amendment proposed, In page 24, line 35, to insert the following sub-section;—"That joint committees shall have the management of all shire halls, county halls, assize courts, judges' lodgings, lock-up houses, justices' rooms, and police stations."—(Mr. Rankin.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment would be entirely at variance with the decision the Committee had already come to on Clause 3. If the hon. Member would look at that clause he would find that the Committee had already transferred to the County Council all matters relating to shire halls, county halls, assize courts, and so on; and, having passed that provision, it would be entirely at variance with it to accept this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he begged to move the rejection of the clause. This was the last Amendment with which he should trouble the Committee that night, and he only desired to say a word in moving it, in order to emphasize the objection which they on that side of the House entertained to this idea of the joint committees altogether. He did not want to pose as a prophet, but he thought it worthy of consideration whether the result would not be that the institution of these joint committees would turn out to be a misfortune. It appeared to him that the proposal was to save the susceptibilities of the county magistrates. The Government expressed trust and confidence in the County Councils which they themselves had established, and yet they insisted on introducing these joint committees, which were merely a sop to the rather ruthlessly disturbed feelings of the county magistrates, and would be of no use whatever. He rather thought that these joint committees would prove a delusion and no more. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had given them some figures to show what proportion of the magistrates were in the habit of taking part in the management of county affairs. He could not speak as a county magistrate, because he had never been one; but from the observations he had been able to make outside, he ventured to say that a very small proportion com- paratively of the magistrates in any county were working members of the commission. Take the case of the county in which he was spending some time yesterday in the West of England—he would not give the name of it—there, out of 300 magistrates in the county, not more than 40 were in the habit of taking part in the county work. Now, if that was the case throughout the country—and he believed it was—they would find that nearly all the energetic practical men amongst the county magistrates were selected Aldermen. That being so, he should like to know where they would get the other magistrates to perform the duties which would be conferred upon them under this clause? The magistrates they would get would only be second-class magistrates—those who were not accustomed to the duties and who were not sufficiently popular to be elected on County Councils. They would be gentlemen to whom they would not care to give such powers if they had to be elected. He thought that experience would prove that these joint committees, so far from being valuable, would prove a pig in a poke. It was in order not to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division that he rose to express his opinion upon the principle of the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.