FINANCE.

HC Deb 16 July 1888 vol 328 cc1426-93

Property, Funds, and Costs of County Councils.

Clause 63 (Transfer of county property and liabilities).

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's), in moving, in page 53, after "county," to insert "or treasurer or Commissioners," said, the object of the Amendment was to provide that— On and after the appointed day all property of the Quarter Sessions of a county, or held by the clerk of the peace, or any justice or justices of a county, or treasurer or commissioners,' for the public uses and purposes of a county, shall be held in trust for the council of the county.

Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 12, after the word "county," to insert the words "or treasurer or commissioners."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

, in moving, in page 53, line 13, to leave out the words "or any division or part thereof," said, he objected to those words on the ground that they would have a wider operation than was desirable or necessary or than was really intended. The clause transferred to the County Council all the county property; but, as it now stood, it would transfer to the county at large property which at present only belonged to part of it. The words of the clause were these— On and after the appointed day all property of the quarter sessions of a county, or held by the clerk of the peace, or any justice or justices of a county, or treasurer or commissioners, or otherwise for any public uses or purposes of a county, shall pass to and vest in and be held in trust for the council of the county. The Committee would observe that, by the first part of the section, all the property of the Quarter Sessions was to be transferred. There was no difficulty about that; but the clause went on to say— Or held by the clerk of the peace, or any justice or justices of a county, or treasurer or commissioners or otherwise That is to say, having exhausted, by the description given, all the ordinary trustees, the words "or otherwise" are introduced to include trusts vested in trustees not previously mentioned. The clause then goes on— for any public uses and purposes of a county, or any division or part thereof, shall pass to and vest in and be held in trust for the council of the county. The effect of the clause would be that property belonging to a district in a county would be transferred to the County Council. He failed to see why the property of a parish, or of a Local Board district, or of a sub-district in a parish, should be transferred to the Council of the county, and why it should not be given back to the trustees who had managed it before. He might say that a case which had occurred within his own knowledge would prove that that was no mere theoretical distinction. He, therefore, moved the omission of the words "or any division or part thereof."

Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 13, leave out the words "or any division or part thereof."—(Mr. Ambrose.)

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

said, he concurred in the view taken by his hon. and learned Friend of the point which had been raised; but he did not believe any risk would be incurred of the words being improperly interpreted. It would be better, however, to consider the Amendment when they came to Clause 96—the Interpretation Clause. Words might be inserted in that clause to show what was meant by the expression "division of a county," so as to exclude the possibility of including a small area, such as that of a parish or a Local Government Board.

MR. AMBROSE

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RITCHIE

, in moving, in page 53, line 20, at the end of the 1st sub-section, the object of which was to secure that, when such property is transferred from the Quarter Sessions to the County Council, it shall be held by that Body subject to the same covenants, conditions, and restrictions as if the Act had not passed, to insert the words— Provided that the existing records of the Court of Quarter Sessions shall, subject to any order of that Court, remain in the same custody in which they would have been if this Act had not passed.

Amendment proposed, In page 53, at end of line 20, to insert the words—"Provided that the existing records of the court of quarter sessions shall, subject to any order of that court, remain in the same custody in which they would have been if this Act had not passed."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Amendment proposed, In page 53, line 20, after the word "Act," to insert the words—"Provided nevertheless that any property, pictures, or chattels which have been presented to the justices of the peace for the county of Middlesex, or which have been purchased by them out of their own funds, or by subscriptions from members of their body, shall be retained and be held by the justices of the peace for the county of Middlesex (as altered by this Act) in trust for the justices for the time being of the same county."—(Mr. Bigwood.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Government could hardly accept the Amendment as it stood on the Paper; but he thought he understood what the hon. Member meant, and he would suggest an alteration to provide that the matter should be referred to the Commissioners appointed under the Act, and if it was considered desirable that the property should be retained, that it should be retained by the Commissioners for the benefit of the county.

MR. DUGDALE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

, who had Amendments on the Paper to Mr. Bigwood's Amendment, the object of which was to extend the provision to all counties, and not confine it to Middlesex, accepted the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board.

Question, that the words— Provided nevertheless that any property, pictures, or chattels which have been presented to the justices of the peace for the county, or which have been purchased by them out of their own funds, or by subscriptions from members of their body, shall be retained by the commissioners for the benefit of the county, be there inserted, put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 23, after the word "Justices," to insert the words "or Treasurer or Commissioners."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin), in moving after "power" in line 28, to insert "to acquire for county purposes, &c.," said its object was to enable the County Council to acquire as well as to manage, alter, and enlarge, and with the consent of the Local Government Board, to alienate land and buildings transferred by the clause or otherwise vested in the Council.

Amendment proposed in page 53, line 28, after the word "power" to insert the words "to acquire for county purposes and."—(Baron Dimsdale.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he wished to point out to his hon. Friend that this Clause dealt simply with the transfer of property, and it would be altogether impracticable to deal with property hereafter to be acquired. Clause 78 made provision for the acquisition of property, and the subject was also dealt with in a new clause to be proposed by one of the hon. Members for Dorsetshire. At any rate, the Amendment was not applicable here, because the clause simply dealt with the transfer of property.

BARON DIMSDALE

said, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RITCHIE

, in moving, in line 32, after "rooms," to insert "and such furniture, books, and other things," said, the object was to empower the County Council to provide furniture, &c., for the rooms in which it was necessary to conduct the business of the Quarter Sessions and of the Justices out of Sessions.

Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 32, after the word "rooms," to insert the words "and such furniture, books, and other things."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

, in moving to leave out, in lines 34 and 35, the words "or, in case of an equal division of opinion in that Committee, by a Secretary of State," said, that the object of the Amendment was to excise that part of the clause which gave power to the Secretary of State to determine, in the event of an equal division of opinion upon the standing joint committee what was necessary or proper for the due transaction of the business of the Quarter Sessions. He thought it would be a great pity to saddle the Secretary of State for all time with the duty of deciding minute differences of opinion among the members of the joint committee of Justices and County Council. The joint committee themselves would assuredly, after the lapse of a very short time, settle their differences, and to bring the power of the Secretary of State to bear upon the question whether a particular room was to be a foot longer or shorter was altogether undesirable. He thought it would be much better for the President of the Local Government Board to leave such matters in the hands of the joint committee.

Amendment proposed, in page 53, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words "or in case of an equal division of opinion in that committee, by a Secretary of State."—(Mr. Brunner.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think that such a division of opinion was likely to occur very often; but it was just possible, and, unless some provision were made for settling the difficulty, the joint committee might come to a deadlock. At the same time, he did not think it desirable to accept the Amendment.

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

asked, whether, in the event of an equal division of opinion in the joint committee, the chairman would not have a casting vote?

MR. RITCHIE

No.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 36, after the word "business," to insert the words "and keeping of the records and documents."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)

, in moving at the end of the clause to insert the following words:— The county of Chester shall be the authority to receive all monies now received by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and to apply the same to the same purposes as at the present time; said, that in that respect the county of Chester stood entirely by itself. At present, monies were received from trustees by the Quarter Sessions to the amount of £15,000 a-year, which went towards the rates; and the object of the Amendment was to enable the County Council of Cheshire to receive that money. The trustees could not be compelled to hand it over to the County Council, but it was handed over by the trustees of their own option. They handed over just what amount they chose; and the only power the Quarter Sessions had was to audit the accounts of the trustees, who were a self-elected body—the remains of the riparian owners of the river Weaver. He thought it was important that the County Council should enjoy the same benefits as those which were at present enjoyed in regard to this money by the Quarter Sessions, and that they should apply it to the same purposes.

Amendment proposed, In page 53, at end of clause, to add the words "the county of Chester shall be the authority to receive all monies now received by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and to apply the same to the same purposes as at the present time."—(Mr. Tatton Egerton.)

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

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, that it might be necessary to insert some provision of the kind proposed, and he rather gathered that the hon. Member had moved the Amendment in place of another he had on the Paper, in line 12. That, however, was not the proper place for moving such an Amendment. No doubt, it was a proper matter for consideration; but the best way of deal- ing with it would be by extending, if necessary, the definition of the word "property" in Clause 96—the Interpretation Clause. The section of that clause which related to property ran as follows:— The expression 'property' includes all property real and personal, and all estates, interests, easements, and rights, whether equitable or legal, in, to, and out of property real and personal, including things in action and registers, books, and documents; and, when used in relation to any quarter sessions, clerk of the peace, justices' board, sanitary authority, or other authority, includes any property which on the appointed day belongs to, or is vested in, or held in trust for, or would, but for this Act, have, on or after that day, belonged to, or been vested in, or held in trust for, such quarter sessions, clerk of the peace, justices' board, sanitary authority, or other authority. It would thus be seen that "property" was to include all property real and personal, all estates whether equitable or legal, and all registers, books, and documents. He would consider the matter before the Committee came to Clause 96.

MR. TATTON EGERTON

said, he was quite willing to accept that arrangement. His only object was to make it absolutely certain that, before the powers of the Justices ceased, these monies, which were purely a gift from the riparian owners, should be handed over to the County Council.

MR. BRUNNER

intimated that, at the proper time, he should argue whether the money was rightfully paid to the Quarter Sessions or not, and he could assure the Committee that there was no subject on which he could be more eloquent.

CAPTAIN COTTON (Cheshire, Wirral)

said, he thought the definition which the hon. and learned Attorney General had read in reference to property was scarcely applicable to this money.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, that if his hon. and gallant Friend was not satisfied with the definition of the word "property" which was given in Clause 96, the question could be raised when that clause was reached.

MR. TATTON EGERTON

said, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In line 36, at the end of the clause, to add the words— This section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to the administrative county of Sussex.

COLONEL GUNTER (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash)

, in moving to insert at the end of line 36— This section shall apply in the case of the property, debts, and liabilities which would, if this Act had not passed, have been under the control of or held in trust for or payable by the justices of all the ridings and divisions of the counties of York or Lincoln at their gaol sessions, in like manner as if it were herein reenacted with the substitution of gaol sessions for quarter sessions, and of clerk of gaol sessions for clerk of the peace, and as if the joint committee of the councils of the three ridings or divisions were the council of the county therefor; and the said joint committee shall, for the purposes of the said property, debts, and liabilities, and for the transaction of the administrative business or execution of their duties under this Act, be a body corporate, with perpetual succession and a common seal, by the name of the county committee, with the prefix of the name of the county, said, the object of the Amendment was to simplify matters and to put the joint committee of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire in the same position as the County Council with regard to the property dealt with by the Gaol Sessions. He proposed to add to the Amendment the words "with power to acquire and hold land for the purposes of the county."

Amendment proposed, In page 53, at end of line 35, to insert the words:—"This section shall apply in the case of the property, debts, and liabilities which would, if this Act had not passed, have been under the control of or held in trust for or payable by the justices of all the ridings and divisions of the counties of York or Lincoln at their gaol sessions, in like manner as if it were herein reenacted with the substitution of gaol sessions for quarter sessions, and of clerk of gaol sessions for clerk of the peace, and as if the joint committee of the councils of the three ridings or divisions were the council of the county therefor; and the said joint committee shall, for the purposes of the said property, debts, and liabilities, and for the transaction of the administrative business or execution of their duties under this Act, be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, by the name of the county committee, with the prefix of the name of the county and with power to acquire and hold land for the purposes of the county."—(Colonel Gunter.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he believed that these were necessary words, and therefore he accepted them.

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

asked, whether it was proposed that the joint committee created under Clause 29 should become a Body Corporate?

COLONEL GUNTER

replied in the negative.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, the Amendment did, in fact, convert the joint committee into a Body Corporate with a common seal.

COLONEL GUNTER

said, that would not be so. In Yorkshire the Gaol Sessions had certain property of its own, and his only object was to place that property on the same footing as other property, and to provide a common seal instead of requiring each member to sign his name.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he quite understood the hon. and gallant Member's object, but at present the joint committee had no corporate capacity at all. Why was it to be created under this Bill a Body Corporate with a common seal?

COLONEL GUNTER

said, that the rooms in York Castle were more or less the property of the three Ridings, and he was anxious that the joint committee should exercise the same rights and powers over it as a County Council would exercise over the property of a county.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

asked, If it was proposed that there should be two separate jurisdictions in the county of York; one the County Council, and the other the joint committee holding this property? If so, a serious question was raised.

COLONEL GUNTER

said, there were three divisions in the county.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he understood that; but what he was driving at was why the property of the three County Councils representing the three divisions that would be handed over to a joint commitee and such joint committees created Bodies Corporate.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, that instead of one County Council there would be a County Council for each division. His hon. and gallant Friend had pointed out that there was certain property which must be vested in the county or in the three County Councils respectively, and, as it could not be vested in three County Councils, it must be vested in a joint committee chosen from the County Councils of the divisions; and it became, therefore, neces- sary to make such joint committee a Corporation. It was a mere matter of machinery.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Clause 64 (Costs of Justices to be payable out of county fund).

On the Motion of Mr. DUGDALE, the following Amendment made:— In page 53, line 38, after the word "county," insert the words "or by any justice, police officer, or constable in defending any legal proceedings taken against him in respect of any order made, or act done, in the execution of his duty as such justice, police officer, or constable.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 65 (Funds of County Council).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 55, line 16, after the word "mentioned," insert the words:— And will prevent any sums by law specifically applicable to any particular purpose from being applied to any other purpose."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have any objection to insert the word "twelve," instead of "six," in line 24. There might be occasions when costs were incurred, or became payable within 12 months, and it had been represented to him that it would be desirable to make this change in the Bill in view of such contingencies.

Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 24, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Leake.)

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

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

said, he thought it was not wise to extend unduly the period over which the authorities might allow their debts to run. He would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 66 (Borrowing by County Council.)

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he hoped the debts of the counties would be consolidated once for all, and that the new debts would be for such short periods that it would not be necessary for them to be continually re-arranged. He had put an Amendment on the Paper, which he hoped the Government would accept, in order to show that, when the debts were consolidated, it was not intended that the Council should agree to borrow again for long periods.

Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 32, after the word "county," insert the words "existing at the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Bartley.)

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

said, the Government could hardly accept the proposal of his hon. Friend. If it were a good thing that the debts should be consolidated, he thought it would be a bad thing to limit the authority in the manner suggested. When, however, they came to the powers of the County Council, he thought he should be able to satisfy his hon. Friend still further on the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT LYMINGTON (Devon, South Molton)

said, he thought that, as the sub-section (b) now stood, it was somewhat premature, because the Government had agreed to drop all the clauses relating to the District Councils, and consequently the Committee was ignorant of the powers and constitution of the authorities to which County Councils were empowered under this sub-section to lend money. Another point had been taken with reference to this sub-section since the Bill had been in Committee. He saw that the Government had put down an Amendment proposing to alter the extent to which the County Council might go in borrowing money from two years' annual rateable value to one-tenth only of the annual rateable value of property in the county. He thought that Amendment was a very important one, on the ground of doing justice to the county itself. On the other hand, with reference to his Amendment, it had prevented the County Council from being a great lending authority, which this sub-section presupposed. The right hon. Gentle- man the President of the Local Government Board had already, owing to the pressure of borough Members, taken the large towns out of the purview of the Bill. In doing so, he had withdrawn the most valuable property from the rateable capital of the County Council, and what remained to the County Council was the property of the smaller boroughs which were left. He (Viscount Lymington) was afraid that the County Council would have to confront, on the one hand, the pressure which would be brought to bear from many of the bankrupt and insolvent towns to get it to take up their own loans; and, on the other hand, that the County Council would have to resist the importunities of speculative and small rising towns for loans for speculative purposes connected with the improvement of those towns. He feared that in some of the seaside towns, and such like places, persons might get on the Town Councils who were interested in land, and that they would use their position on the Town Councils to get loans started, and having done that, that they, acting in concert with the representatives of other towns, would go to the County Council, and exercise considerable pressure to get the County Council to back their loans. He thought that would place the County Council in a very difficult position. It was a notorious fact at the present moment that the rural districts were paying very small rates as compared with many of the towns, and it would be very hard if, through no fault of their own, but owing to the importunities of such towns as he had referred to, the county rate should be appreciably increased. What would be the security to the County Council? It would be the security of the rates. But supposing that some of these local loans turned out bad; supposing that the towns became bankrupt, what would be the position of the County Council? The County Council could not exactly re-enter upon their property, which might consist solely of gas and water rates or town improvement rates, and the County Council would have, as it were, to take over the business and manage the various concerns. That, he thought, would lead to a great deal of confusion, if it did not lead to a great deal of jobbery, as he feared it would, and accordingly he considered it as a danger which it was their duty to guard against. He ventured, therefore, to move the Amendment standing in his name; because, in the first place, the provisions of the sub-section were premature, inasmuch as the District Councils, having been struck out of the Bill, were not constituted; in the second place, because the provision might land the County Council in a rather perilous condition of finance; and, thirdly, because the local towns could, if their security were good, borrow, as many of them had now most successfully done, upon their own rates without involving the security of the County Council itself. He hoped his right hon. Friend would consider these objections, which were made in no Party spirit, and that he might see his way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 33, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Viscount Lymington.)

Question put, "That Sub-section (b) stand part of the Clause."

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, he desired to support the Amendment of the noble Viscount opposite. The question had been discussed not only at Quarter Sessions generally, but also by the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions assembled in London, who were all unanimously opposed to this power being given to the County Council; they were all agreed that it should not be given. The only ground on which this proposal had ever been supported was that it would be a profitable business for the Councils to undertake these loans. But he (Sir John Dorington) thought it far more probable that loss would result to the county in the way which the noble Viscount opposite had described, and he believed that it would land the County Council financially in a most undesirable position. For these reasons he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remember that he had struck out the clauses relating to District Councils. He could see no sufficient reason for taking this dangerous power. He thought it was a responsibility which ought not to be put on the County Councils. He had yet to learn that the County Councils desired to accept such a responsibility, and that they should derive any profit under the proposal would be altogether outside the idea of the Bill.

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

said, he ventured to hope that the Amendment of the noble Viscount would be accepted. He believed that no one who had had to deal with county finance would like to undertake the large responsibility of burdening the county rates with loans for special local purposes. He thought the localities would be better left to their own resources. They might be told that the County Councils would be able to borrow money for the localities at a lower rate of interest; but, on the other hand, he would point out that they would have no knowledge as to how the money would be expended, and as to whether the work could not be done at a less cost than might be proposed.

MR. RITCHIE

said, there was no doubt that a good deal of argument could be adduced in favour of the subsection being disapproved of by the District Councils themselves; but, at the same time, he thought that if the Committee were disposed to intrust this power to the County Council, it might have resulted in some decrease of burden on ratepayers in all parts of the country. There was no intention, of course, in making the proposal, that the County Council should derive any profit from the transaction; but the Government rather regarded the County Council as being interested not only in the county as a whole, but also in local areas of the county, and that a proposal which would be for the advantage of those areas would also be for the advantage of the county at large. They had thought that, on the most absolute security being given to the County Council, they might lend money to the District Councils at a somewhat cheaper rate than the latter could, even with the strongest security, borrow it for themselves. Although it was true that the Government had not created District Councils, yet there had existed what were practically District Councils within the area of the county, and he might say, although they had no reason to suppose that the counties desired to have the responsibility cast upon them, yet they had received applications from Liverpool and other districts to include these borrowing powers, so that it might be possible for the County Council to borrow at a smaller rate than the districts could themselves borrow. As he had said, he believed the power might be exercised without the smallest risk to the county. He might explain, however, that no County Council would be able to raise money to lend to Local Authorities without the consent of the Local Government Board, and without inquiry. The Local Government Board would not sanction the lending of money to any Local Authories that were not authorized under their existing powers to borrow; and no District Council could be authorized to borrow money without inquiry by the Local Government Board as to whether or not they were within their borrowing powers. He thought, therefore, the provision was so hedged around by these securities, that there would be no appreciable risk in the County Council lending money under the sub-section; at the same time he admitted that if in the circumstances the Committee should be of opinion that it would be wise to defer a provision of this kind, the Government would not be prepared to insist on the retention of the sub-section. He had said that the power might, in their opinion, be exercised with advantage to the counties; but they also thought that the somewhat small contingent advantage which might be derived might possibly be purchased too dearly if the suspicion were created that the county funds would be imperilled.

SIR RICHARD PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

said, he had heard with great satisfaction that the Government did not intend to press the sub-section. With regard to the Local Authorities being able to borrow money on easier terms through the County Council, he maintained that there was nothing so dangerous as the fatal facility of borrowing money. It was that facility which had led many of the Urban Authorities into serious debt, and he thought the House would do well to pause before it took any step whatever that would do anything to facilitate the accumulation of urban indebtedness.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he thought it would be a great advantage to the Local Authorities to be able to borrow money from the County Council. The Union in which he acted had saved a very large amount of life in the past 10 years by the exercise of its borrowing powers. They had provided water supply and other sanitary works in the villages, by which means alone they had succeeded in reducing the amount of zymotic disease by two-thirds, and therefore he trusted the Government would not give up this useful sub-section. He protested altogether against the intrusion of the spirit of jealousy between the rural and urban parts of counties. He greatly approved the provision in the sub-section; and he was of opinion that even if there were no existing authorities to lend to before next year, it would be well to retain the sub-section in the Bill as a direction to the authorities, which they might consider 12 months beforehand, so that when they began to lend they might lend wisely. He wished to point out that this power did not at all increase the facility of borrowing on the part of Local Authorities; it only enabled the authorities to borrow more cheaply. The facility for borrowing came from the Local Government Board. Now, if the Local Government Board had made up its mind that the Local Authorities ought to borrow, and that the security which they offered for the money was good, he should feel at perfect liberty to advise the County Council to assist the Local Authorities, in order that they might borrow at a cheaper rate. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the position and retain this useful sub-section.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he regarded with apprehension, if not with alarm, the proposal contained in this sub-section. It had been his portion to take some part in the work of the Police and Sanitary Committees. They had had to deal with applications from towns to borrow money, and there was nothing which required more vigilance, and he might say severity, on the part of a Parliamentary Committee, than these applications for power to incur loans. He had arrived at the conclusion that when they came to deal with the borrowing powers of Local Authorities those must be kept under the most severe control. He took it that anything in the nature of facilitating the incurring of debts was a signal disadvantage. His second objec- tion was that if they mixed up loans to Local Authorities with loans for county purposes the public mind would be perplexed by such an arrangement. They had one example of the lamentable result of this procedure in the Metropolitan Board of Works; and he thought it would be a strange thing if the House of Commons, in dealing with this Bill, should take the Metropolitan Board of Works as a pattern for the County Councils. The Debt which was now owing by the Metropolitan Board of Works was divided into Debt incurred for their own purposes, and Debt incurred by them as lenders and bankers to other authorities, and he ventured to say that few who had not made a study of Metropolitan affairs were aware how much of the Debt belonged to the Metropolitan Board of Works alone, and how much of it belonged to the minor authorities. He thought that any mode of keeping accounts or dealing with funds which confused the public intelligence and obscured the exact state of finance was a hazardous operation to which that Committee ought not to consent. He did not think that the statement that the county would incur no risk was a recommendation of the proposal of the Government, but that in one sense it was dangerous, because if the county incurred no risk the Council might be disposed to lend more freely and tempt the other Local Authorities into debt which would be injurious to them. For those reasons, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, that that was another attempt to emasculate the Bill, and take out of it one of its most useful provisions. He hoped the Government would be firm and retain the sub-section. He did not at all agree with profuse and easy borrowing; and he looked at the clause as being an absolute restraint. A Local Body wanting to borrow money would have to go to the County Council, and the County Council would have the option of refusing to lend the money, if they thought that the object in view was not a right one; and he would point out further to County Members that the Local Government Board would then have a second veto. On the whole, he thought the clause might be very useful indeed, and if the creation of District Councils was really only postponed, he certainly hoped the Government would retain it, because, without it, he did not see that the District Council would be able to do anything in the way of improving their portions of the county.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, he saw nothing in the Bill to enable the County Council to hold any inquiry as to the usefulness of any scheme on account of which money might be sought to be borrowed. His own opinion was that borrowing ought not to be made too easy, either for the County Council or the District Council.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had listened carefully to what had been said on the Amendment by Members in all parts of the Committee, and he concluded that there was a considerable consensus of opinion against the retention of the sub-section; among others, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had advised the Government not to adhere to this sub-section. Having regard, therefore, to the opinions expressed, Her Majesty's Government would consent to the omission of the sub-section. At the same time, he might say that he did not withdraw anything he had said as to the advantage which, in his opinion, might result from this power to lend to the Local Authorities being given to the County Councils, if not now, at some future time.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, he could imagine many arguments in favour of the small towns not being included in the county at all. But either they ought to be left alone and retain their powers, or else they ought to be allowed to share in the advantage of the borrowing powers of the County Councils. He hoped the sub-section would not be withdrawn.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

asked if he was to understand that the borrowing powers were to be postponed, and that the right hon. Gentleman, in a measure, pledged himself that when the District Councils Bill was introduced this clause would be included in it? If that were not so, he certainly agreed with hon. Members who were in favour of the sub-section being retained. If the District Councils were established, they must have some work to do, and unless they could borrow money that work could not be done. His own experience of municipal life was that all this fear about Municipal Authorities squandering money had no basis when they were under the control of the electors. The whole aim of the Bill was that necessary work should be done in the rural districts as it had been done in the boroughs, and unless there was power to borrow money he did not see how the District Councils would be able to do what was necessary. Of course, it was indispensable that care should be taken with regard to the wise expenditure of the money, and it was well understood that the money which had been expended by municipalities had resulted in promoting the happiness, health, and welfare of the people for whom it was spent; and the ratepayers were beginning to find out that if Local Government meant a little increase of expenditure, it also meant an increase of general comfort and advantages to themselves. That had been already found out in the boroughs, and he ventured to say that it would be before long found to be the case in the rural districts. If the Government were going to eliminate this sub-section, he thought the right hon. Gentleman should give an undertaking that it should be reinstated in the District Councils Bill; otherwise he should feel it his duty to vote for its retention.

MR. STANSFELD

said, that the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham appeared to confuse borrowing with lending powers. This was not a borrowing sub-section. The Sanitary and Local Authorities were now able to borrow; but the question was whether the County Council should be authorized to borrow money in order to lend it to the Local Authorities. As far as he was concerned, he saw no reason for imposing responsibility of that kind upon the County Councils who did not wish to undertake it, and he himself would be unwilling to involve them in such responsibility, as well as possibly enabling the borrowing authorities to call then to account, if they did not exercise their powers in their favour.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

said, that the distinction pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Stansfeld) was a distinction without a difference. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a lending and not a borrowing section; but he (Mr. Lawson) contended that it must be read with the 1st sub-section of the clause, where it was laid down that the County Council might borrow for a certain purpose, and that purpose was to lend to the Local Authorities. He ventured to think that his right hon. Friend did not in the least represent what he (Mr. Lawson) believed to be the opinions of hon. Members sitting behind him, because they contended that all that the Government asked the Committee to do was to improve the security on which money could be borrowed; the security was not increased, but improved by the sub-section, and it was intended to indicate a mode by which the Local Authorities might be able to borrow at a lower rate of interest. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) had declined to give any pledge that he would reintroduce this sub-section when he came to deal with the District Councils Bill; he only said that the sub-section might possibly be introduced by others. That was an enabling power alone, and it was perfectly clear that any County Council would make proper inquiry before the money was lent; the clause being enabling and not compulsory, it was to be supposed that the County Council would act in a common sense way, and satisfy themselves of the worthiness of the objects for which this money might be lent to the subordinate authorities. He hoped that the Committee would divide against the Amendment of the noble Viscount.

MR. ROWNTREE (Scarborough)

asked, what course the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take when Clause 68 was reached? He would like to know, in all seriousness, what benefit would be left to the small boroughs after the election of the County Councils, if this clause were omitted?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that if the Committee decided to cut out that sub-section, Clause 68 must, of course, be cut out also. He was asked whether the Government would bring in the sub-section again when they brought forward the Bill for the District Councils? He could not give any pledge; but he hoped that hon. Members who were opposing the sub-section now would reconsider the question, and when they came to deal with the District Councils Bill next year, that they would be relieved from the fear which now oppressed them. But if the clause were brought forward again, it was not one which the Government would force upon the House in opposition to its wish.

MR. WHITBREAD (Bedford)

said, the clause meant that if the County Council could borrow cheaper, as being the larger authority, it should exercise that power in favour of the smaller Bodies. That was the very thing which hon. Members in that House had complained of before—namely, that the Government used its large powers of borrowing for the purpose of lending to other Bodies. If hon. Members thought it dangerous in the case of a Government, much more did they think it dangerous in the present case, and he was very much inclined to leave these smaller Bodies to go to the market and borrow for themselves, which he believed would be the much safer course to take.

An hon. MEMBER said, that the sub-section proposed to give the security of the whole rating of the county for the expenditure applicable to one or more districts of the county. It seemed to him that they ought to insist that what-ever Body borrowed, that Body should be the ratepayers of the district alone, and that they ought to be responsible for the repayment of the money. For that reason alone, he felt it his duty to support the Amendment of the noble Viscount for the omission of the sub-section.

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

said, they had transferred by the previous clause all the jurisdiction and powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the new London County Council. Now, the Metropolitan Board of Works had always been in the habit of raising loans, out of which money was lent for local purposes, including school boards; and he asked what would be the effect of striking out the sub-section in that respect?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the school boards were specially excluded from the control of the County Councils.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 173: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 218.)

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 55, line 41, leave out Sub-section (e).

MR. BARTLEY

said, he rose to move the omission of Sub-section (f), which dealt especially with emigration, and which provided that the County Council should have power to borrow money, in order to send away emigrants from the county. The subject was so very important and so large, that he thought it would more properly form the subject of a Bill to be fully debated on its own merits in that House. It was necessary that such a provision as this should be adequately safeguarded, or otherwise he felt they might land the county in serious responsibilities. He regretted that they had not the opportunity of debating a Motion which had been on the Paper for some months; and although it was not desirable to initiate a general debate on the large question of emigration and State colonization on this occasion, yet he thought it was the proper time to say a few words upon the matter. He ventured to think that the power of borrowing money in order to create emigration, and enable counties to send away their surplus population, was a very dangerous one to confer. It was often supposed that State emigration was a means by which they could do away with the want of employment in this country; but he ventured to think that that was extremely doubtful. They were now emigrating about 200,000 persons a-year from the United Kingdom; but in spite of that reduction the population of the country was increasing at something like 360,000 persons, or 70,000 families a-year, which meant that if they were to affect the labour market of England by emigration they must manage to get rid of these 360,000 in addition to those who were now emigrated. Now, he thought such a state of things as sending away several hundreds of thousands could not be contemplated at the present moment with satisfaction, yet any measure which fell short of that would not really affect the great problem of unemployed labour which they had to solve. In order to get rid of that large number of persons, some had suggested that they should have what was called a Colonization system; and Papers had been presented to Parliament, some of which suggested that they should spend £125, £150, or even £300 per family, in order to get rid of the superfluous population and send it to other parts of the world. He would point out that if they were to get rid of the 70,000 families at the rate of £125 per family, the cost would be something like £9,000,000; and if the cost were £300 a family, it would amount to something like £20,000,000 a-year. But that money must come from the wage fund in some way or other; and he would like to know how many families there were in England, Ireland, and Scotland who would not be placed in a position of comparative affluence, if they had in their possession the sum of £125, much more £300? Therefore, he protested against the idea that they should spend these enormous sums to get rid of families, who, if such sums were spent on them here, might be prosperous in every sense of the word. Again, the expenditure of so large a sum in promoting emigration would leave the remainder of the people poorer than they were at present. It was a strange anomaly that they should be proposing in this measure to pass a clause enabling the County Councils to borrow money for the purpose of transporting persons out of the country, while, at the same time, they were importing into England large number of foreign paupers. It was said that some of these foreign emigrants were employed in Cheshire, and even by an hon. Member opposite. Under the clause it would be possible for the County Council of Cheshire to arrange, by a payment out of the rates, to lend money for the purpose of transporting a portion of the population to the Colonies and elsewhere; while, at the same time, the foreign paupers he had referred to were doing the work of English artizans. There was one firm alone in the country he referred to who employed 100 of these foreign hands; and while that was going on, as he said, the county, on the other hand, might borrow money at a large cost in order to send our own people away. He contended that this was a very wrong and dangerous system. Now, as regarded the statistics of population in connection with emigration, he could tell hon. Members who supported the clause that they would find those statistics a very useful study. He had himself gone through them carefully, but did not wish to take up the time of the Committee by considering them at great length. He would, however, point out that in the five years ending 1887, as compared with the five year ending 1882, our population had increased at the rate of 360,000 persons, or 70,000 families a-year, which meant an increase during the period named of something like 2,000,000. But it was a most remarkable thing that, although the population of the country was increasing at that enormous rate, the marriage and birth rates were decreasing. The marriage rate for the last five years was 1 in 136 of the population, as against 1 in 132 of the population during the five years ending in 1883. Again, the birth rate for the five years ending in 1887 was 1 in 30.6 of the population, whereas, in the five years ending 1883, it was 1 in 28.9 of the population. Although, the marriage and birth rates were decreasing, the emigration rate was increasing. Yet, as a matter of fact, the population of the country was increasing, which was due largely to the reduction in the death rate, which had gone down from 1 in 49.1 to 1 in 52.3 in the periods mentioned. That showed that, in dealing with this subject from the point of view of population, it was so difficult that he hoped the Government would not attempt to deal with it in an accidental clause in the present Bill. As a typical example, he would refer to the statistics relating to the town of Southport, and he found that in eight years ending in 1878 the birth rate was 24.5, whereas in the eight years ending 1886 it was only 21.2. The statistics showed that, in spite of the birth rate and marriage rate decreasing, the death rate was decreasing in so much larger a proportion in Southport, that since the year 1878 there were no fewer than 1,433 persons living in Southport, who would not have been living if the same death rate had continued which existed previous to 1878. This latter decrease was due entirely to improved sanitary arragements; and, therefore, they came to the conclusion that one cause the flood of industrial population and the scarcity of work was due to their having taken such precautions to improve the sanitary condition of the country. That, of course, was a most desirable result; but it showed how dangerous it would be to attempt by means of the clause to settle so extremely complicated a question of surplus labour off-hand. It might be asked what course should they pursue? But that was not the time or the place to consider the great question of over-population, and the means that should be adopted to diminish the scarcity of work which existed; and he had now only to express his opinion that it would be extremely injudicious to give to the County Councils the power of borrowing money for the purpose of transferring the surplus population to other parts of the world. The words of the sub-section were that they were to borrow this money; nothing was said about the period of repayment; they were to borrow the money, presumably in large sums, in order to get rid of the surplus population. He would not discuss the wording of the clause, which was extremely loose and dangerous, because he sincerely hoped the Government would withdraw it. He did not concern himself at this moment as to whether the money would be repaid or not; what he was particularly desirous of knowing was that they should not let the public suppose that wherever there was a surplus population in any district all they had to do was to clamour that the County Council should ship the surplus away. If there was a scarcity of work, the moral effect of this sub-section would be very serious. There would be no inducement to self-restraint; there would be inducement to delay matrimony; there would he no inducement to promote energy; there would be no inducement to promote thrift; and there would be no inducement to that assimilation of individuals to the changed circumstances of life which, after all, was the one great means by which a country could progress. People would go to the County Council, and expect a loan to be raised in order that they might be sent abroad. That was certainly not a matter which ought to be dealt with in a sub-section of a Bill like the present; if they were going to provide machinery for emigrating the surplus population, it ought to be provided by a special Act of Parliament. He was far from saying that emigration, in some cases, might not be desirable; but, after all, real emigration was that which made people save up and become thrifty and energetic themselves. It was such people who were the right people to go abroad; but they wanted to keep men of energy and "go" in this country. If this clause would enable them to emigrate theintem- perate, the lazy, and the indolent of all classes, he should be glad to support it, even if the emigration were to cost £120 a family; but this clause would simply be used to get rid of the best of the people, and if it was not so used, then it had better be taken out of the measure.

Amendment proposed, in page 56, to leave out Sub-section (f).—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'for making advances' stand part of the Clause."

MR. S. SMITH (Flintshire)

said, he had all his life studied the question of emigration. He thought that a judicious system of State-aided emigration was quite practicable; but he felt that there would be great danger if they were to grant the Local Authorities the power to emigrate all they chose. He wished to call attention to one limited class of emigration which he thought might safely be entrusted to the Local Authorities; he referred to the emigration of pauper children, and to one particular class of pauper children—namely, those who were at present maintained in workhouses and district schools at great expense to the ratepayers, children who were compulsorily maintained by the ratepayers, whom the ratepayers could not get quit of, whose cost was a very heavy charge, and who might be emigrated wisely and judiciously to our Colonies at a very great saving of cost to the ratepayers, and with very great advantage to the children themselves. He had for many years pressed the Local Government Board to give power to the Guardians to emigrate these children, and he was sorry to state that until recently every possible obstacle had been thrown in the way of the emigration of these children by the Local Government Board. But since the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) took Office a certain change of policy had taken place, and he recognized the right hon. Gentleman's willingness to meet them in this matter. In response to a Question he put last week, the right hon. Gentleman said that 677 children were emigrated in the course of last year. Now, there were at present about 60,000 pauper children maintained in workhouses and workhouse schools, at a cost to the country of about £20 per head per annum—that was at a total cost of about £1,200,000. That did not touch the enormous number of children who received outdoor relief—he believed the number of such children was about 250,000. He maintained that the emigration of the pauper children in workhouses was a matter which the County Authorities might very fairly take in hand. He spoke from a large experience of child emigration, having been connected for 15 years with some very successful experiments. In Liverpool they had emigrated 2,000 destitute children. These children had been, in many cases, taken from the gutter; they were certainly a miserable class of children; but no one could deny that the experiment had been remarkably successful. These 2,000 wretched children, who would otherwise have been left at home to inhabit our gaols, or workhouses, or penitentiaries, were now in Canada growing up prosperous and successful citizens. About 95 per cent of them were doing thoroughly well. Having watched these experiments most carefully for 15 years, he was prepared to say that there was no way in which this country could dispose of its pauper children at all comparable to this; it gave these children ten times as good a chance in future life as they would have here; it saved them from being poured back into the slums of the great towns, to which a large portion of workhouse children gravitated. What we in this country at present did was to train up these children at great expense for five, six, or seven years, and then plant them in the large towns. The Guardians exercised what care they could over the children, but a great portion of them, as he had said, gravitated towards the slums, and grew up confirmed paupers to beget another brood of paupers. He could not imagine a more senseless way of dealing with pauper children than this. His experience was that £15 would take a child out to Canada, pay all costs of outfit and preliminary training, and plant it safely on one of the Canadian farms. All that was asked was that the County Councils should have power to place these pauper children, before they entered the workhouse institutions, in charge of one of the many voluntary agencies established for dealing with such children. There were many agencies conducted by charitable and religious persons, who themselves contributed very largely towards the cost of child emigration. The County Authorities should have power to place pauper children in these institutions before they got the workhouse taint, and should have power to make a moderate grant for their maintenance during the one or two years in which they received preliminary training before going to Canada. That preliminary training was absolutely necessary; Canada would not take pauper children unless they had been adequately trained, unless they had been brought under religious and moral instruction, as well as manual and physical instruction. Let them give power to the County Councils to board these children out, and then to make any grant sufficient to place the children in the Colonies. This emigration had produced the very best results. It was only the other day he received a letter from one of the largest Homes which emigrated children to Canada informing him that a large band had arrived, and that so great was the demand for children that a telegram had been received in this country asking for 200 more. Such was the experience of Liverpool; for every band they sent out they had applications for at least four times as many. He thought that the responsibility involved in the emigration of these children might fairly be left with the Local Authorities.

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

said, he begged to thank the Government for having introduced this clause in the Local Government Bill. He certainly did not think the logic of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) was very good, because he did not see why a remedy which could not meet the whole evil should not be applied to certain cases. He could not conceive a more practical remedy for over-population than placing people in a position in which they could get an honest livelihood elsewhere. There was no method of dealing with our over-population which was more likely to conduce to their welfare than placing them in a position where they could earn an honest living. It seemed to him a very much sounder principle to lend money or to pay money, in order to place persons in a position where they could maintain themselves, than it was to pay money, as was done now in very large sums, to maintain persons in pauperism. He much preferred the plan of beginning at the other end, and advancing a little money for the sake of preventing persons sinking into a position of pauperism, rather than that of calling upon the people to pay large rates, something like £8,000,000 sterling a-year in England and Wales, to maintain them as paupers. He considered that this would be an especially useful clause in regard to the rural counties. They had to regret constantly the great outflow of men and women from rural districts into towns; the towns were overburdened with population, and they did not want more persons to come in from the country, because those persons pushed out other persons who were already in employment in the towns. The consequence of this influx was that constantly in towns a largo number of persons were unable to obtain employment. The persons who had gone through this stage of degradation were not persons who were able to make good Colonists; and he thought that it was a much wiser principle, or, at all events, much more loyal to our Colonists, that we should endeavour to help out of the country persons who were strong and able to make good Colonists. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), speaking of over-population, seemed to advocate the abolition of the sanitary laws, so that a good number of persons might die off. He (Mr. Rankin) did not think that that would meet with general acceptance.

MR. BARTLEY

said he must protest against such a statement; he never even indicated such a policy.

MR. RANKIN

said, he did not mean to say that the hon. Gentleman said so in so many words; but that was the only remedy he could glean from the hon. Gentleman's observations. He thought that it was a far better remedy to endeavour to put these persons in a position where they could help themselves. Moreover, he did not believe that anyone in the House need be alarmed at the dimensions to which this would grow; he did not believe that the County Councils would be called upon very largely to exercise their functions in this particular matter. He believed that if the County Councils were to do this work at all, it would be necessary for the Government to supplement the measure they had brought in, and form a Colonization Board. The duty of such a Board would be to negotiate between the County Councils, the Home Government, and the Colonial Governments. In his opinion, if the Government would throw their hearts into this matter, and make arrangements with the Colonial Governments to give facilities of land which would make any advances given by the County Councils or the Home Government absolutely certain of being returned, it would be as good an investment for loans from the County Councils as any investment could be, and, at the same time, it would save hundreds and thousands of men and women from sinking down to pauperism from want of work. Societies which were now being formed, like the Church Emigration Society, the Commercial Colonization Society of Manitoba, and other societies he could name, were societies which could do a great deal of good work in this direction if they had a little pecuniary assistance from such Bodies as the County Councils or the Home Government. He asked the Government to be firm in this matter; that as they had been good enough to introduce a clause of this sort to stick to it, and see that it was passed as part of this Local Government Bill. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) that, in regard to the emigration of pauper children, the County Councils could step in with very great advantage to the children and to the country at large. It was absolutely certain that the expense of sending these children out was less than that of keeping them for a long period in workhouses or workhouse schools. In conclusion, he entreated the Government not to agree to the omission of the clause, but to assist in every way the carrying out of the great scheme of colonization.

SIR JOHN COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.)

said, he hoped the Government would stand firm by this clause. His hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) said that this was not a desirable opportunity for discussing the question of emigration; but in the very short speech he made he raised almost every conceivable point connected with the subject. He (Sir John Colomb) asked the Government to stand firm by this clause for this reason. It was a permissive power which was to be given; and if County Councils saw the necessity for assisting persons to emigrate, he certainly thought facilities should be afforded them to grant such assistance. He was entirely in accord with the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Rankin). Why, if it was necessary to enable people to escape from misery, was it necessary to force them under the operation of the Poor Law? They knew perfectly well the difficulties which had arisen in our Colonies in carrying out any system of emigration. We had insisted upon conducting emigration through the Poor Law; this clause afforded an opportunity in special cases of emigrating children to Canada or elsewhere. If the clause was not retained, the only means by which the transfer of children to Canada or elsewhere could be effected would be through the poor-house. That, he thought, was a very material point in favour of the retention of the present clause. He heartily thanked the Government for having recognized the necessity of adopting some mode other than through the Poor Law of effecting emigration. He assured his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) that if he looked into the matter, and studied the public opinion of the country, he would find there was not the least reason for him to be afraid that if this clause passed the people would be carted out by thousands. This power would only be used in rare instances, and where the necessity for its exercise had become a matter of public endorsement. They must not only look at the question as a means of relieving the labour market of the United Kingdom by enabling those who were pressed out of work to escape to a place where they could get work, but they must look at the other side of the question, which was the advantage that the transference of people to our Colonies secured in the way of markets for our produce. That was a point which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) never touched upon, though it was a very important point, when they remembered that our great difficulty was to find an increase of markets, and when they knew, as a matter beyond dispute, that the increase of population in our Colonies meant the increase of the markets open to our produce. Just in proportion as our Colonies filled up did our trade expand with those Colonies. It was, therefore, not as a question so much of getting rid of our surplus population that this question must be regarded, but from the standpoint that we were one Empire, and that one portion was overcrowded, and that others were empty. Just in proportion as they relieved the overcrowding of the old portion and added to the population of the new portion, they increased the advantages of those who remained in the old portion by reason of creating new markets. Canada took 35s. worth per head per annum of our produce. While the United States only took 7s. worth per head, and Germany 8s. worth per head, of our produce, the Australasian Colonies took from £6 to £8 per head of our produce during the year. This commercial aspect of the question was an important point, and for the reasons he had assigned, as well as for others, he trusted the Government would stand by their clause.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, he heartily endorsed everything his hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) had said in regard to the very beneficial effect of emigrating poor children. Nothing could be more beneficial to poor children themselves, as well as to the community generally, than to send poor children out to our Colonies, to place them in such positions where they would have a much better chance in life than they had here. But this clause would not help them in the least. The clause ran— Where there is a reasonable cause to believe that the amounts or advances will be repaid by the emigrants. The means so advanced would never be even promised to be paid by the poor children, and what his hon. Friend wanted was really not aid in emigrating pauper children. They had the power to emigrate such children, and such children had been emigrated from Liverpool. What his hon. Friend wanted was the power to train pauper children before sending them out, and that this clause would not give in any way. He could not help thinking that the proper course to pursue was to try these experiments privately, by private means and with private watchfulness, until they were successful. When they were successful, their promoters might fairly come to the public, and ask them to help them in carrying the experiments still further. He contended that in the case of pauper children the experiment had been tried, and that it had been successful, both from an economical point of view and from the point of view of good derived by the objects of the undertaking.

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

MR. RATHBONE

, continuing, said, that in regard to the emigration of adults, he was sorry to say his experience was—and it had been considerable—that the promoters never did get repaid by the emigrants, even where the emigrants had received grants from the Government and every possible facility. He did not regret any money he had spent in this direction, because he thought it had done a great deal of good; but he was sorry to say that in no single case had the emigrants ever attempted to repay a farthing of the money advanced. He thought that in this case they ought to be able to show to the Government and to the people of the country a successful plan of emigration, and a plan on which the objects sought to be attained by legislation had been amply secured, before they asked for Government aid. That they had never been able to do as yet, and certainly before they passed such a clause as this they ought to be able to show there was some chance of using it usefully. While he would be very glad to support this clause if it would tend to promote child emigration, he did not think they were yet in a position to attempt to advance money in aid of adult emigration.

MR. SETON-KARR (St. Helen's)

said, he hoped the Government would not withdraw this clause. Personally, he looked upon the proposals of this clause as an important part of what some day he hoped would be a great national scheme of colonization. He was somewhat surprised to hear his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) raise almost the whole question of colonization. Having done so, the hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue to a very great extent in its favour, then to dwell upon the evils of over-population, and to conclude that colonization was no remedy for over-population. The hon. Gentleman said that colonization was a dangerous remedy, that it was not a good remedy, and he attacked its financial side. He (Mr. Seton-Karr) challenged every one of the hon. Gentleman's statements, and he trusted that before very long the House would have an opportunity of discussing the whole question of colonization, and of coming to a decision upon it. At present, he protested against what he might call the libel perpetrated upon the case of colonization by the hon. Member (Mr. Bartley). Of course, while he hoped that the Government would adhere to this clause, he admitted that its operation would not be very large. The clause was merely a step in the right direction; the County Councils would not spend very large sums of money in promoting emigration. They would have plenty of other work on their hands, and, furthermore, they were not the right authority to negotiate with Colonial Governments respecting the reception of emigrants; but, at the same time, he did not see what possible harm would be done by giving County Councils this power. The power was amply safeguarded, because, in the first place, they were to receive the consent of the Local Government Board; and, in the second place, they must have reasonable cause to believe that the amount advanced would be repaid by the emigrants. One must put a certain amount of confidence and trust in the County Councils; it was only a permissive power which was proposed to be given, but there was a precedent for it. At present, Boards of Guardians had power to use the ratepayers' money in the emigration of adults, and it was a very great regret to him that they had not used the power more largely. What had been done by Boards of Guardians in this direction was a very great argument against the assertion of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) that this was a dangerous power to give Local Authorities. The hon. Member for Islington adduced figures as to the increase of population, and then went on to assume that under this clause, or under some scheme of colonization or emigration, the Committee was about to sanction the expenditure of large sums of money—several hundreds of thousands of pounds—in emigrating families. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, he had only to say he was convinced that when the time came for laying the scheme of colonization before Parliament it would be found to bear inspection. In no scheme of colonization would they ever dream of advocating that large sums of money should be spent out of the Imperial Exchequer, or by the County Councils, in emigrating adults until they had tested the soundness of the scheme. The hon. Member had estimated the cost of emigrating families at £300 each; but he (Mr. Seton-Karr), however, believed that the average cost would be found to be about £150 per family. Suppose Parliament was in favour of a scheme of colonization, and that, in the first place, 100 families were emigrated—100 families at £150 each would be £15,000. Suppose that that money was raised at 3 per cent. either by an agency or by the County Council, or by the Imperial Exchequer—the whole liability that would be incurred in trying a colonization scheme affecting 100 families would be £450 a-year. Suppose the 100 families were not to be emigrated, but to be left in this country; suppose, too, that they were out of employment for a period of 10 years, and that they numbered 450 paupers, upon a very moderate computation £10 per year per head would be spent; therefore, they had at once an expenditure of £4,500, which was ten times the sum which would have to be paid, whether the emigration of the 100 families was a good experiment or not—whether it succeeded or not He maintained that it would be a far better experiment for this country to make, than to leave the people at home to breed paupers at a cost to the country of £10 per head per annum. The hon. Member for Islington said that we allowed foreign paupers to be immigrated to this country, and argued that, therefore, we ought not to emigrate any of our adults. He (Mr. Seton-Barr) never heard a more extraordinary argument. He asked why should they stop a useful remedy for the home population, because the home population was aggravated by the influx of pauper immigrants? He was as strongly opposed to the immigration of foreign paupers as anyone could be, but he did not see what that immigration had to do with the colonization of our waste Colonial lands. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Sir John Colomb) alluded to a most important point, which he trusted would never be lost sight of in the discussion of this question. He said that besides the question of reducing the population at home, there was also the question of utilizing and colonizing our great waste Colonial lands. How long did this Parliament suppose the Colonies were going to keep their fertile agricultural lands open to suit our convenience? If we did not utilize our surplus population in peopling these lands, the lands would soon be occupied by foreigners. The result would be that we should wake up some fine morning, and find our vast Colonial Empire colonized by an alien race. This question was one of the utmost importance, and he earnestly hoped that the Government would stick through thick and thin to the clause.

MR. W. A. M'ARTHTUR (Cornwall, Mid, St. Austell)

said, he joined in the hope that the Government would stand by the clause. He granted that no successful experiment of this kind of emigration had as yet been made; but he believed that such an experiment was a perfectly feasible one. He believed that State-aided Colonization was practicable, and he was in hope of seeing some of the experiments now in process turning out successfully. But, whether those experiments proved successful or not, it would be a very unfortunate thing if the Committee, by rejecting this sub-section, were absolutely to prevent the County Councils in the future from engaging in any such schemes without fresh legislation. They had now the chance of giving to the County Councils power, which would not be used immediately, but which might be of the greatest use hereafter to the agricultural population.

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said, he was afraid the discussion was likely to drift into one on the question of emigration or no emigration. He was in favour of emigration, but he demurred to the section now under consideration. He could not think that emigration was a fit subject for a local loan. Local loans ought to be raised to meet the present wants of the ratepayers, and to benefit those who came afterwards; and, in the second place, they ought to be certain in their results. Now, it was by no means certain that if emigration benefited the present ratepayers it would benefit future ratepayers. Furthermore, the expenditure under this head was altogether indefinite. He had no objection to the emigration of children, but he had the strongest objection to the emi- gration of adults by Local Bodies. He asked the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr) what would be the result if it got known in that town that the County Council intended to emigrate 100 families? Would not people flock into the town in the expectation that the Local Authorities would do one year what they had done in the previous year? What good would the emigration of so small a number as 100 families, or 1,000 people, do in the case of a great population like that of St. Helen's and that of similar districts? It seemed to him that this expenditure was entirely speculative. The expenditure necessary to make emigration successful must include the expense of transit and maintenance during transit, and the expense of settling the people for the first year, at least, in the new country. Then, again, this was a most dangerous power to give to a Local Body. How many ratepayers would willingly vote that money should be raised on the rates, if they had to meet it by taxation? He disagreed with this clause on principle, and he also objected to it because it was thoroughly indefinite. In his opinion, to treat the great subject of emigration in this haphazard and casual manner was altogether undesirable; and in the event of this clause being retained in the Bill, he intended to move an Amendment providing that, in the case of adult emigration, no advance should exceed in amount one-half of the expenses of the transit of the emigrant from his then place of abode to the destination specified by him at the commencement of the journey.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

said, he thought the Committee had forgotten how the clause originated. This was a Local Government Bill—a Bill by which the House of Commons professed to trust something to Local Bodies. But the whole tenour of the debate had been based upon the supposition that nobody was to be trusted to carry out the plan of emigration except the House of Commons itself, not even to the extent of advancing £10 towards the passage of an emigrant to one of our own Colonies. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) objected to the clause, because it gave to the County Councils power to make advances, not to emigrants necessarily, but to any persons, or bodies of persons, even under the condition that there was reasonable cause to believe that the amount advanced would be repaid. The clause said "repaid by the emigrants;" but it might well stop at the word "repaid," and he had an Amendment upon the Paper providing that it should stop there. The County Councils would, it was hoped, be a body, not only with the same sense of responsibility as the House of Commons, but be possessed of equal reasoning power—perhaps greater in some cases. Were the Committee to suppose that the County Councils would recklessly run away with the notion that this clause was to enable them to raise amongst them £9,000,000 sterling for the purpose of exporting the whole of the surplus population? The clause was purely permissive, and it might or might not be exercised. The object of the Bill was to delegate from this House the necessity of examining cases, such as might arise under the clause, of persons whom it would be desirous, not only in the public interest, but in their own interest, to assist to one of our Colonies. There was this reason why assistance should be given to our fellow-subjects who had no means themselves, and whom it was necessary to give assistance to, if they were to be saved from pauperism—that our Colonies were an integral portion of the British Empire. They happened to be separated physically by water; but nobody could doubt that if they were not separated by water, but adjoined England, and if the people had not the means to betake themselves to those remoter parts of the Kingdom, it would be the duty of the Government to make roads of communication for them to proceed by. The simple fact which raised the difficulty in our fellow-subjects emigrating were that the roads were over the water instead of over the land. By assisting men to emigrate they did the best thing they could possibly do for the men themselves, and at the same time they did the very best of services for the Colonies, inasmuch as they enabled the Colonies to be what they had hitherto been, the best customers of the Old Country. The Australian Colonies were customers to the extent of the value of £60,000,000 sterling a-year. It was evident that this country had too many people to support out of its own internal resources. [Cries of "No!"] Then, if hon. Gentlemen were right, he asked how it was that there were large numbers of people who were not so supported? During the last three or four years our trade had fallen very considerably, though it was now reviving; and, therefore, it was obvious that one of the best things that could be done for the people at home was that some should go abroad and create new wants, which could be supplied from the Mother Country. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) gave two reasons why he objected to this clause. One reason was that the power had never been given before. If that were true, it was no reason why it should not be given now. But the power had been given before. There was power now; [Mr. BARTLEY: Not to borrow money.] The power existed to emigrate people, but it was accompanied by the ban of pauperism, and that was manifestly a ban which honest working men did not care to come under. The other reason the hon. Member gave was that, the object of the clause being to get rid of the want of employment, that object would not be effected unless we exported 70,000 families a-year. He (Mr. Kimber) did not see why, because they could not accomplish all they desired, they should not accomplish as much as they could, if the object was good, and the result to be obtained was also good.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that the hon. Member seemed to be discussing this clause as if it formed some great emigration scheme or some great State colonization scheme. It did nothing of the kind. This clause was simply to enable the County Councils to assist emigration in cases where they deemed it necessary. There seemed to be some disposition on the part of the Government to unload it or emasculate it, and it was time that that proceeding should be protested against. The scheme was an important one on account of the enormous responsibilities that they were placing upon the County Councils, and it was only to the extent to which those responsibilities and powers existed that they would get the best men to come forward and do the work of the County Councils. Therefore, on principle, he would vote for any responsibility or duty proposed in the Bill being kept there and imposed upon the County Councils, as he was sure that that was the right policy. Nearly every one of these powers was described in turn as dangerous to commit to the hands of the Local Authority. It seemed to be forgotten that these County Councils were an elected Body under the control of the ratepayers, and hon. Members seemed to lose sight of the fact that they could trust the ratepayers to see that these powers were exercised in a proper manner. Therefore, he hoped that the Government would give up no more of the powers they proposed in the Bill to entrust to these Councils. As a matter of fact, there were many cases which happened which it would be very useful for the County Councils to have the power of discussing. Let him illustrate a case which came under his notice and which he examined in the county of Warwick. There was an able-bodied widow above the age at which women were assisted to emigrate, but she had a son in Queensland who was ready to maintain her, and she herself was anxious to go out to him, but the money was not forthcoming to pay her passage, although this was one of those cases in which he was perfectly sure that if the money had been advanced and time had been allowed for repayment, repayment would ultimately have been made. He knew perfectly well that the woman had no prospect in England, and that if she remained here, at some time or other, when her health failed, she would become a pauper. Here she had a home offered her in one of the Colonies, and with a little assistance from a County Council great good would be done to her personally, and a reasonable thing would he done so far as the community at large was concerned. It would be a hardship to deny this power to the County Council; but, independent of that, this and every other power could be safely entrusted to such a representative authority as they knew the County Council to be. All this talk about emigrating 70,000 families and relieving congested districts was beside the question, for nothing of that kind was involved, It was only a question of giving this great representative authority power, if it thought fit, in certain cases to do certain things. That being so, he should certainly vote—especially as there were certain powers existing to help people when they become paupers—for helping people who were very poor and unable to help themselves in the direction of emigration, but who were not paupers and were not likely to become paupers. If they omitted this clause he was sure they would be doing that which was wrong. They had already denied the right of the new Councils to borrow money cheaply, and had insisted upon their borrowing it at a high rate, and he trusted that they would not take away this power from them, which he was sure in many cases might be used with great advantage, and which he had said there was no fear of being abused, as the Councils were the representatives of the ratepayers, who would always keep an eye to the public purse. If the County Councils were lavish in their expenditure it would be the fault of the ratepayers themselves.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that a great deal too much importance was being attached by the Committee to this clause. It seemed to be supposed by some hon. Members that the Government were asking the Committee to embark in some great scheme of State-aided emigration. Well, but nothing of the kind was to be found within the four corners of the Bill. They were not asking the Committee to commit itself on this great question as to whether or not emigration ought to be assisted by this measure. It was evident, if they desired to raise such a question as that, it would have been most imprudent of them to have attempted to do so in such a complicated Bill as this. The Bill itself was of a very large character, and it would have been obviously impossible for them to hope to pass the measure through in anything like reasonable time if they complicated it with such great questions involving such enormous differences of opinion as State-aided emigration. On the question of emigration itself he did not think there could really be two opinions. It must be admitted, on all hands, that there were certain conditions and circumstances which rendered it desirable that some easy process should exist by which emigration should be assisted, if it could be assisted without danger to the State. Every Member of the Committee knew, from circumstances within his own knowledge, that the condition of things arising in particular localities and counties that the only choice sometimes seemed to be between emigration and pauperism. Well, if the question had to be decided as between one and the other, he had no doubt in his own mind as to the way in which the immense majority of people would decide it. He knew perfectly well that there were large numbers of people and large numbers of Members of Parliament who thought they had schemes which it would be well to adopt, and which would be found better than emigrating the people. But those measures were not before the country at present, and he ventured to think that it would be unwise for them, if they saw an opportunity of bettering the condition of the people rather than to pauperize them, not to take advantage of the opportunity than wait for the time to arrive when their condition might be ameliorated by legislation—legislation which, in his opinion, would have a very doubtful result, and which, in any case, could not be passed without a considerable amount of time and trouble being devoted to it. Therefore, he was certain that as between emigration and pauperism there could be no doubt whatever as to the merits of the former. What they proposed under this power was to provide some means by which County Councils, who would be freely elected Bodies, would be able to assist in emigrating people to places where they ought to desire, in the interests of those people whom they sought to benefit, to send them to. They did not impose any obligation on the County Councils. They had attempted to set up, and he hoped they would succeed in this Bill in setting up, a large and powerful organization freely elected by the people in every county. They would have large funds to dispose of, large financial arrangements to make, and the Government simply said in this clause that amongst other things they should, if they thought right, assist in this work of emigration—[An hon. MEMBER: With borrowed money?]—Yes; but a great deal had to be done in the Bill, and the hon. Member who interrupted him knew perfectly well that if they were to limit what was to be done by providing that the cost should be defrayed out of current receipts for the present year it would be no use giving these powers. A great deal had been said about this power of borrowing money, but there were two ways of looking at the question. If the Legislature imposed duties upon Local Bodies—duties which it was for the public good that they should perform—it would be enormously hampering the operation of those Local Bodies in the performance of their duties if they were to require that the expense should be defrayed out of money raised during the year. Therefore, naturally, there was a great deal to be said in favour of strictly limiting the borrowing power. It would be an unwise thing to say—"You shall provide duties for the Local Bodies when providing them with the means of raising the necessary funds." The obligation would be so onerous that it would be perfectly impossible to discharge it. As he had pointed out, they did not impose a duty upon the Local Authorities with reference to this matter; but they conceived a condition of things under which the County Councils should have power to assist people if they desired to emigrate, and he could not conceive how hon. Gentlemen who had confidence in the County Councils and believed they would be productive of good, and that the work they had to do would be well administered—he could not conceive how they could refuse to give them this power if they desired to exercise it. He would point out to the Committee what had already been pointed out by more than one speaker—namely, that a power would exist, in reference to emigration, in Boards of Guardians. Boards of Guardians might, and did, emigrate people; but how did they emigrate them? They emigrated them by converting them first into paupers. He had heard an hon. Member say that the Boards of Guardians lent the money for emigration purposes; they did nothing of the kind. It was not a loan, but a gift—it was a payment which reduced the people emigrating to the state of paupers. Looking at the fact that that could be done by Boards of Guardians, surely it was not a strong power to allow the County Councils, where they thought it desirable, the power of helping people to emigrate, which emigration would not only be good for the people themselves, but also good for the localities in which they lived. It was surely desirable to enable the County Council, within reason, to assist people to remove from a district where they could not earn their own living to a country where there was every chance, not only of their earning their living, but of bringing up their families in comfort and prosperity. He did not believe himself that the power which would be conferred by this clause would be exercised by the County Councils in the indiscriminating and wholesale way which some people imagined. Nothing of the kind. The Local Government Board would have to give their sanction, and would have the right of saying whether or not the powers asked for were those which should be sanctioned. The hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) was not unwilling that there should be some powers of this kind; but he desired to limit it to the emigration of children. The hon. Member had been good enough to say that since he (Mr. Ritchie) had come into the Local Government Board Office something had been done in the way of removing restrictions. Well, he (Mr. Ritchie) was glad it had been in his power to remove restrictions in these matters, and he desired to do that even still more. He would point out to the hon. Gentleman, whom he knew was very deeply interested in this subject, and was most anxious that the welfare of the poor people of the country should be secured, that any distinct instructions as to the emigration of pauper children in this clause might lead to considerable difficulty. The emigration of pauper children was by no means shut out of the clause—it was, on the contrary, included. But there was a great difference between including it in the general principle and specifying distinctly that pauper children should be emigrated. If such distinct specification were to be made, and County Councils were to take it as an instruction that it was especially desirable that pauper children should be emigrated, it might be a great evil. There was nothing that required more careful safeguarding than the emigration of pauper children. Though he had every desire that pauper children should be emigrated where possible, he had no wish that there should be anything like a wholesale attempt at the deportation of these children. Such emigration ought to be carried out with the utmost care and anxiety. The children should be previously prepared for emigration; and, in the next place, care should be taken that, whether they were sent to Canada or elsewhere, they would be properly taken care of on their arrival. The utmost care should be taken, not only that the children should be carefully trained before they went, but that there should be proper organization on the other side to receive and care for them when they did arrive. He (Mr. Ritchie) was as anxious as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) for the emigration of pauper children; but he was desirous of seeing this emigration grow naturally, and not to see it forced into an unnatural growth, which result, it seemed to him, would be brought about by the adoption of the Amendment proposed. The Government did not propose this clause with a view of opening up the whole question of State-aided colonization; nothing of the kind. They had proposed this clause simply because they thought this was one of the powers which might safely be entrusted to the County Council, and because they believed that it was that which, if carefully used, would be productive of considerable good It had been pointed out that the clause, as drawn, was very wide; and he was prepared to admit that there was some force in the objection so raised. They did not desire to proceed by "leaps and bounds" in this matter. What they desired was not to make the clause so wide as to render it possible that the powers given would be abused. He confessed that he had listened carefully to what had been stated, and the impression left upon his mind was that the clause might be somewhat restricted with advantage—that some alteration might be made to facilitate the County Council dealing with the question of emigration without giving any ground for the fears expressed on the other side of the House. He should be willing to amend the clause so that it would read that the County Councils should be empowered to borrowed money— For making advances which they are hereby authorized to make to any person or bodies of persons, corporate or incorporate, in aid of the emigration of the inhabitants of the country, with a guarantee for repayment from any Local Authority or the Government of the Colony, and. That would undoubtedly considerably restrict the operation of the clause. It would bring it within safer limits, and he hoped it would satisfy the Committee that the Government were not desirous of embarking with that wholesale system of emigration which some hon. Members seemed to fear. The Amendment would mean that any Local Authority within the county desiring to assist the emigration of any individual from the locality who applied to the County Council might assist the emigration with the guarrantee of the Local Authority, or, it might be, of the Government of one of the Colonies which might be desirous of receiving a certain number of emigrants, and to enter into an arrangement with the County Council for guaranteeing such a sum of money as would have to be granted for the purpose of the emigration. He trusted the Committee would see that this was a reasonable limitation, and that the clause, as amended, should be adopted.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said, he could not believe a scheme involving the principle of borrowing powers could be considered of little importance. If the persons to be elected on the County Councils would be as free from error as some hon. Gentle men seemed to think, there could be no harm in giving these powers, which would serve to make the Councils as important as possible; but they must bear in mind that they were dealing with a Council who would have great pressure put upon them by the ratepayers in the direction of extravagance, and there was nothing, perhaps, upon which they would be more likely to be extravagant than this emigration when appeals would be made to them ad misericordiam. They should, therefore, be careful in protecting them from the pressure which would thus be brought to bear upon them. He was very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman had consented to strike out of the clause words inadvisedly put in which allowed money to be advanced on a guarantee that it would be repaid by the emigrants. The words of the clause now retained seemed to him to be perfectly sufficient—namely, that the money that was advanced should be repaid by the Local Authority of the county. With those words inserted he should agree to the proposal.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

said, he thought he might say, not only for himself, but for a good many Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House that their anxiety for this clause of the Bill had not been lest the County Councils might commit itself beyond what might be financially prudent, but that the whole tendency of the clause was to foster a desire in the County Councils for the promotion of emigration and seemingly to enforce, by the sanction of this House, that the view of the country was that emigration should be encouraged by the County Councils. That was the way he took it, and he thought he was sustained in the view by the speeches which had come from the Benches opposite. They were all largely in agreement as to the fact of the existence of pauperism and the desirability of getting rid of it, and he should not have risen at that late hour if it had not been for the suggestion that no positive scheme for that purpose had been proposed from the Opposition Benches. In the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board there seemed to be an idea that the proposal of this clause was one which should meet the case; and it was because he (Mr. Halley Stewart) believed there were other ways of solving the problem of pauperism that he desired to take part in the discussion. It was because he thought there were better means of remedying pauperism that he felt very reluctant indeed to accept the clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, even as improved and amended. His opinion was that the Land Laws of this country were the cause of the pressure upon our town population, and also the cause of the sparsity of population in our rural districts. He believed that most moderate calculations went to show that the agricultural land of this country would sustain, at least, double the number of persons which it at present sustained. [Cries of "No!" from the Ministeral Benches.] Yes; maintain in comfort, at least, double the number of persons it now sustained, and when the hon. and gallant Member for Bow and Bromley (Sir John Colomb) spoke with enthusiasm of the new markets which would be opened to us in Canada and Australia, and the customers that would come to our looms and mills and manufactories if only we would emigrate these people—of the custom their industry would create for us—and when he said that they would be customers to us to the extent of at least £17 a-head—

SIR JOHN COLOMB

I did not say anything of the sort.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

said, the figures the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put before the Committee were, he believed, to the effect that per head of the population of Australia some £17 was spent in the home country.

SIR JOHN COLOMB

said, it was another hon. Member who had used that figure. What he (Sir John Colomb) had said was that, taking the average throughout Australasia over a long period of time, the amount would probably be about £6 or £7 per head.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

said, he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was a Gentleman behind the Treasury Bench who had used the figure; but the figure used by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley, after all, only emphasized the argument he had been going to use. If every individual in Australia was a customer of this country to the extent of £6 or £7, the argument would apply to a much larger extent than if the sum were £16 or £17. What he maintained was that if they found employment at home for that part of the population who were now a burden upon the rates they would be customers to our manufacturers to a much larger extent per head than they would be if sent to the Colonies. The amount spent by them in home manufactures would be doubled and quadrupled. If it were a matter of Colonial trade there might be some force in the contention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Colomb); but it was not merely a trade question. He imagined that in getting rid of our population and exporting the people as proposed, they were getting rid of the strength and sinew of the country. They never sent out the sick, the halt, the blind; but they sent out the best brain and sinew of the country. Of a family of eight or 10 it was never the laggard, the lazy, or the fool who went out, but the best man, the one with most courage and endurance; and the reason he and his friends objected to the system proposed in the Bill was that it would be bringing about weakness in this country just in proportion as it increased strength in the Colonies. He objected to the clause as it originally stood, and much preferred the Amendment as proposed by his hon. Friend on his right. The clause as now presented was less objectionable; but he certainly felt strongly opposed to favouring the system of emigration until they had developed the allotment system and made experiments in the direction of small holdings, which he believed would before long be established law, and he should not be surprised if the law were passed under the auspices of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. By this system new power would be given to village life, and the bestowing of this power was almost within the right hon. Gentleman's reach under the new District Councils. It was because he believed some such system should be adopted that he could not give his sanction to the system of emigrating our best sons. The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) had something to say about the "lightening of the ship;" but it was rather a singular circumstance, in view of his observations, to reflect that he was not present when the lightening of the ship was going on, and when the District Clauses were being disposed of.

MR. TOWNSEND (Warwickshire, Stratford-on-Avon)

said, he should like to say a word or two in support of the sub-section, particularly as now amended by the Government. He did not think the country need fear even if the County Councils had this power given to them that advantage would be taken of it, at any rate until the lapse of a considerable period, as the labourers of the agricultural districts were averse to emigration. In time, however, there would be some who would take advantage of it, no doubt. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) in thinking that this Emigration Clause would discourage thrift at home; on the contrary, he thought it would put a premium on skill and industry, but they should only send out those men of whose power, skill, and industry they were certain, and who would be likely to succeed. We should soon find out our mistake if we emigrated the thriftless and the idle, for they would be retnrned on our hands. We, no doubt, had in our rural population a large number of people who were willing to work and who were capable workmen, but who were not able to get work. He had witnessed this himself during the past winter. He had known these men, more capable and better workmen than many who were in employment, unable to earn a living, not through any fault of their own, but because there was not sufficient work for them in this country. He thought emigration would be an immense advantage to such men as those, and also to those who wore left behind.

SIR STAFFORD NORTH COTE (Exeter)

said, he should like to point out to the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Halley Stewart) that when he spoke of alternative schemes for the improvement of the condition of the agricultural classes, the Government proposal to promote emigration would not interfere with any alternative scheme for improving the condition of those who remained at home. The proposal of the Government was for an entirely permissive scheme—merely a proposal for enabling the County Council when appointed to advance funds to people willing to emigrate whom, in their judgment, it would be desirable to emigrate. He had heard with some regret the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, for the alteration of the clause, as he had stated specifically that he wished to amend it so as to make it operative only in cases where a guarantee was received for repayment from the Local Authority in the county or the Government of a Colony. It would be hard on a Colony, he thought, to hold it responsible for the repayment of the money necessary to emigrate people from this country. The hon. Member for the Spalding Division had said that it was only the best class that would emigrate, and that the worst class would stop at home, or, at all events, would be useless in the Colonies. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) conceived that if people really wanted to emigrate, the District Councils, if composed of wise people, would not undertake to spend the ratepayers' money in emigrating merely the cream of the working classes, but would take care in spending it on emigration to provide that with the bone and sinew which the hon. Member opposite had spoken of should be emigrated also a fair proportion of old and young persons—the older generation who were past work, and the younger generation who were not yet able to work; in short, he believed that if the Government asked the districts to support them in providing emigration they would provide that a certain number of useless hands should accompany the skilled and able workers who went out at the public expense. He thought there was great advantage in the proposal of the Government, for the reason that there was no doubt a very natural jealousy on the part of the working classes of anything in the nature of an Imperial scheme of colonisation. The scheme was advantageous, inasmuch as if any emigration scheme was to be carried out at all it would be carried out deliberately by directly elected representatives of the ratepayers, men who would be elected with a full knowledge of their views on this question. It was better that a man should emigrate, thrive, and become a consumer of this country's manufactures, than that he should become an inmate of the workhouse and a mere burden on the ratepayers. He trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) if he went to a Division, and thereby return good for evil, for the hon. Member had rather gone out of his way to cast upon him (Mr. Brunner) a charge which, at this moment, was one of the most odious which could be thrown upon a person in his position. The hon. Member had charged him with being one of those employers of labour who imported foreigners in order to keep down wages—a class of persons who just now, and very rightly, were under the ban of public opinion. Now, he (Mr. Brunner) was not amongst these—

An hon. MEMBER was understood to intimate that the hon. Member for Northwich was not referred to in the sense stated.

MR. BRUNNER

said, the hon. Member for Islington, if he remembered his words correctly, had said that he had heard within the last few days that the hon. Member for Northwich employed foreigners in this way; and he (Mr. Brunner) spoke in the recollection of the Committee. He happened to have heard within the last two or three days that this statement was made last Friday before the Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, and whether or not the hon. Gentleman's statement to-night was a hash of that evidence, he was not prepared to say. He did not know whether there was any connection between that evidence and the statement of the hon. Member to-night. The hon. Member was at liberty to explain where he got his information from if he pleased; but, for his (Mr. Brunner's) part, he had only to say, in reply to the charge made against him that of all the 2,000 men in his service there were not more than two or three in a 1,000 that were foreigners. He only, at present, knew of one, and all he knew of him was that he was an excellent musician, and that the ladies in the neighbourhood recently subscribed to present him with a piano. The children of this man were also all musical, and the only thing "sweated" in the neighbourhood was the piano.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said as distinctly as possible that he had some employés who were foreigners, and all that he (Mr. Bartley) had ever said was that he employed foreign workmen in a country where a scarcity of work existed for English workmen. He had said he believed the hon. Gentleman did employ such people, and now the hon. Gentleman distinctly told the Committee that such was the case. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"] Well, did the hon. Member say that he did not employ foreigners? With reference to this Amendment of the Government he must say he thought it met the case by obviating the difficulties he had pointed out, and he had no objection to accept it in lieu of the Amendment he had moved.

THE CHAIRMAN

Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of "No!"]

MR. S. SMITH

said, if he had an opportunity after this sub-section had been disposed of, he should move the addition of a new sub-section to the clause as follows:— For making grants which they are hereby authorised to make to any persons or bodies of persons corporate or incorporate, in aid of the boarding out, training, and emigration of poor children, and.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced words which he regretted to say he could not support. They were to the effect that this power of the County Council to borrow money for the purposes of emigration should not be exercised without a guarantee on the part of the Local Authorities or the Colonies. He would submit that that proposal would very much embarrass the powers of the County Council.

SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgton)

rose to Order, and pointed out that the Committee were not dealing with the subject on this Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

The time to discuss that Amendment will be when it is before the Committee.

MR. SETON-KARR

said, he had only one other word to say. He wished to join issue with those who said there were plenty of remedies at home. At least no schemes had been put forward that were substantially sound, and, at any rate, there was plenty of room for both home schemes and Colonial schemes. They on that (the Ministerial) side of the House had got a cut and dried scheme of colonization which was financially sound, and he denied that on the other side they had ever produced any scheme which could be tried which was financially sound.

SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN

said, that before the Amendment was put he should like to say one word on the main question as to whether local funds should or should not be given for purposes of emigration. He must say that he personally held a very strong opinion that this was not a proper application of the rates. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was a thoughtful Amendment, and, so far as it went, an excellent Amendment; but it still contained, in almost as dangerous a shape as ever, the principle of applying the rates for purposes of emigration. He thought the Amendment retained in almost as dangerous a way as before the principle of applying the rates in aid of emigration. If it were only a question of applying loans on the guarantee of the Government of a Colony it might be different; but he must say that his apprehension was not removed by any guarantee of the Local Authority, whether Town Council, or Board of Guardians, or the Council which under the Bill would take the place of these Bodies. Whatever these Bodies may be called, they are all composed of ratepayers, and they deal with rates. His objection was to placing any burden on the local rates for the purpose of emigration. The benefits of emigration were not local, but national, and if money was to be given or burdens and risks were to be imposed for emigration at all, they should be undertaken by the nation as a whole. The Government to which he had belonged introduced a scheme for the emigration of the Irish peasantry, but they did not propose to place any burdens for the purpose on the localities. It might be said that those localities were too poor, but if emigration were an economical advantage to the locality, the poorer the locality was the more they were bound to encourage and carry out emigration by means of the State funds and at the national risk. But in no part of the debate to which he had listened had he heard any hon. Member seriously argue that it would be an immediate or nearly immediate advantage to the county ratepayers to set on foot a scheme of emigration, limited or unlimited. He was extremely alarmed by this proposal, and when it was considered how much apprehension was caused by the addition of ½d. in the pound for a free library he could not but think that the Government was embarking on a wide sea of possible risk to the ratepayers. He hoped there would be a clear vote on the question whether or not emigration was to be assisted out of the rates.

SIR JOHN COLOMB

said, the right hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle that emigration should not be assisted from the rates; but he would ask him why, on a former occasion, he had distinctly supported a measure of emigration for Ireland which was still being paid for by the ratepayers? Further, the right hon. Gentleman had raised the objection that the poorer the locality the more emigration there would be under the clause. But that was exactly what the right hon. Gentleman had carried into practice in Ireland under the Administration of which he was a Member.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would now appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this Amendment. He had made a proposal which reduced the question within narrow limits, and, looking to the many important matters which had to be dealt with he trusted the Com- mittee would enable them to make progress.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, the right hon. Gentleman would find from statistics recently published by the German Government that it was estimated that the loss to the State for every person of the age of 14 years who emigrated was £100, and he ventured to say that with reference to this country the amount would be increased rather than diminished. He would, therefore, ask hon. Members to consider what that would amount to in the case of the emigration of any considerable number of persons of the age of 14; and he presumed if this power was intended to be used it would be for the purpose of emigrating not only hundreds but thousands of the population. The cost then to the State of every 100 persons emigrated would be £10,000. His view was that it was very much better to keep the people in the country, especially when, as was very well known, the Colonies and other countries would not take the scum of the population—paupers and criminals—but insisted on getting physically and intellectually the best of our people. If these were allowed to remain at home they would before long replace the money spent upon them from the national capital, whereas by getting rid of them a deadlock would be brought about. He objected strongly to this proposal, which was an inducement to those who wanted to get rid of poor persons in a locality, to send them abroad at the expense of the ratepayers.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 117: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 219.)

MR. S. SMITH

said, he rose to propose an Amendment for the purpose of authorizing grants in aid of the boarding out, training and emigration of pauper children. If this work was to be carried out it must be done by grants of money, and he asked the Committee to assent to his proposal, which would ultimately save to the rates more than the amount expended. £15 would serve for the training of a child for one year and for his emigration, whereas the cost to the country if he were kept at home would be £100. The scheme he pro- posed could be carried out in an admirable manner by means of the existing agencies, and he earnestly appealed to the Committee to accept the new subsection which he begged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 56, after line 8, insert as a new subsection, "and for making grants which they are hereby authorized to make to any person or body of persons, corporate or incorporate, in aid of the boarding out, training, and emigration of pauper children."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, if the Committee were to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, it would empower the County Councils to borrow money in order to make these grants. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman went beyond what the Government intended, which was that if grants were to be made the money ought to be raised by rates; and the only reason for giving the County Council power to borrow was that the works to be done were improvements, or of a kind that would repay the advances made. Another criticism of the hon. Gentleman's proposal which he had to offer was that the existing Local Authorities—namely, the Boards of Guardians, had already the power of making these grants, and he was not aware that there was any indisposition on the part of the Boards of Guardians to assist this kind of emigration to the extent that might be right. He understood the hon. Gentleman to imply that this provision was not so much with reference to action of the Boards of Guardians as with reference to the action of the Local Government Board; but he pointed out that the regulations of the Department were absolutely essential for the well being of the children emigrated, by ensuring that proper arrangements were made for their care when they reached a foreign land; and if he had been able to make some modifications of those regulations, the substance was still maintained which imposed on the Local Authorities the legal obligation of seeing that proper care was taken of the children sent abroad. He did not think it was wise to make the County Council responsible for this as well as the Boards of Guardians, and he was, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, he would suggest to his hon. Friend that his object might be attained by moving a separate clause at the end of the Bill to enable the County Council to raise money and pay out of the rates for the emigration of the children. For his part, he should certainly object to the narrowness of his hon. Friend's Amendment, because he thought it ought to include children in industrial schools and the children of prisoners who had committed gross assaults upon them. The course he suggested would avoid the objection to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had taken.

MR. STANSFELD

said, there was probably no man in the country who was so great an authority on the subject as his hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), and from his own recollection of former times at the Local Government Board, he regarded him as one who had addressed his mind to the best methods of carrying out emigration, not only with regard to poor children, but pauper children. He (Mr. Stansfeld) thought that the best way of dealing with the question, was not to confine the grants to those made by Boards of Guardians, because the children they wanted to be emigrated were those who had not yet become paupers, and therefore that the assistance should come rather from the County Council. He hoped that this proposal could be carried into effect by some plan that would not be open to the objections which had been urged against the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and if such a plan were suggested he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give it a fair and not unfriendly consideration.

MR. S. SMITH

said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the question would be raised again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RITCHIE

said, there had been many representations made to the Local Government Board, and to himself, in connection with the extent of the borrowing powers proposed to be given by the Bill to the County Councils. They had at first adopted the limit in the Municipial Corporations Act, but further consideration had convinced them that this was far too wide for any powers which the County Councils were likely to require, and on the whole they thought it would meet with most general acceptance if, when unduly large borrowing powers were required, Parliament should have the opportunity of examining into and passing an opinion upon the proposal which might be made. But they did not think the County Council should be so hampered as to be unable to exercise any borrowing power without coming direct to Parliament, and they, therefore, proposed to amend the Bill by placing this power within narrow limits and leaving the County Council to come to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order to be confirmed by Parliament if they wanted to exceed the amount named in the Bill. They proposed then to restrict the borrowing powers to one-tenth of the rateable value of the property in the county. He could inform the Committee that no County Authority in the country had hitherto approached the proportion they proposed to name in the Bill, the largest amount borrowed being, he thought, equal to about one-fourteenth part of the rateable value, and that being so, he believed the proposal would be accepted by the Committee.

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

asked if this limit would apply to boroughs?

MR. RITCHIE

said, it would not do so, as the Boroughs borrowed under the Municipial Corporations Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 56, line 18, to leave out from the word "of" to the end of line 26, and insert the words "one-tenth of the annual rateable value of the rateable property in the county, ascertained according to the standard or basis for the county rate; the amount shall not t e borrowed except in pursuance of a provisional order made by the Local Government Board and confirmed by Parliament—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed the alteration. Here was a large Body representing and elected by the electors of counties, possibly having work in hand, the necessity of which everyone was agreed upon; but if it happened to cost more than one-tenth of the rateable value of property in the county, or if that limit had already been reached, it would be absolutely im- possible to carry the work through without going first to the Local Government Board and to Parliament, at considerable expense, which would be incurred if there were any opposition. How would that restriction have acted, if such a rule had existed, in the case of some boroughs where improvements of the most desirable character had been carried out? It was proposed recently by the Authorities in Birmingham that there should be a supply of pure and wholesome water placed within the reach of the poorest people in the borough; and if this restriction had been in force, there would have been difficulties put in the way of that scheme. As the matter stood at present, the Authorities applied to the Local Government Board for the approval of a scheme, and when they were satisfied that it was good, they exercised no power as to the amount of money required for carrying it through. There was always expense when there was opposition. The limit here proposed was calculated to bar improvements which the County Council—a large and important Body—might think it desirable to carry out with the consent of the ratepayers. They wanted, by the present Bill, to decentralize. They had already recognized that the County Council was a very important Body, and the object was to encourage them, not to spend money needlessly, but to carry out the necessary work of improvement, and on the ground even that they were asked to take away from the County Council what he might call the dignity of the power of borrowing, he did not think the Committee would act wisely in passing the Amendment, As the clause stood before, the power was quite sufficiently limited, and ho certainly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to alter it. They might be quite sure that the County Council would, under any circumstances, go to the Local Government Board for approval of their schemes. They might be quite sure that that safeguard, together with the watchfulness of the ratepayers, would be quite sufficient to prevent waste of money, particularly if this limit of two years, which was a very moderate one, was allowed to stand. He could only regret that such a small limitation as one-tenth of the rateable value should be put into the Bill, as an idea, so to speak, to set the pace to the County Councils—as a guide to them what they were to do, and that they were not to exceed a certain amount. That amount was very small. The feeling would be that when once indebtedness to that amount was reached, the Council should not spend any more money until a portion of the indebtedness was paid off. That should not be the governing idea. The governing idea of the borough or county should be what were the requirements of the locality. Take the Birmingham Improvement Scheme, upon which the Corporation spent £1,500,000 of money. If such a limitation as that proposed had been in the Act, he ventured to say that such an improvement would not have been carried out; but the effect of carrying it out had been to reduce the death-rate of the town very materially, which was evidence of the great advantage of not embodying too strong a restriction in the Act.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that his hon. Friend was under some delusion in this matter when he compared the borough of Birmingham with the County Councils under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should remember that counties would be cut up into a number of areas such as boroughs, urban county districts, and rural county districts, and that these areas would provide such works as Birmingham provided for itself. The question of water supply, for instance, was not one of county expenditure, but of local expenditure; and there were provisions in the Act to enable Local Authorities to borrow for purposes of that kind, and the liability of Birmingham was no different to other Local Authorities.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he had mentioned water supply as an illustration of the sort of improvement that might be required. He did not mean to say that water supply would be a county undertaking, but he had meant that other improvements of equal value might be necessary.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the improvement the hon. Member had referred to, and which, no doubt, had cost a great deal of money, was not a matter with which the County Council would have to deal at all. These were matters for local areas which the Council would be separated from. It would not be a function of the county ratepayers to pro- vide water or drainage. It was for the local ratepayers to provide that, and the Government did not specify any limit in the Bill with reference to such matters. All they said was that for general county purposes it was not at all necesarry that enormous borrowing powers should be given. If he were asked, he should be unable to say in what way the County Council should spend in moderation money which was spent on improvements in such places as Birmingham and other local areas throughout the county. He ventured to say that for all local purposes adequate provision could be made under the proposal in the Bill, and if further expenditure was necessary there could be investigation as to the purpose for which the money was required, and whether the loans were borne out by the works required to be done.

Question put, and negatived.

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

Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 29, to leave out "(a) outstanding amount of loans lent both to the Local Authorities in the county and."

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

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

said, there was an Amendment which he proposed to move, providing that in estimating the total debt of a County Council there should also be deducted "the value of any assets which when realized will be carried to any sinking fund." He was advised, however, by an authority who had greater knowledge on this subject than he could pretend to possess, that those words were unnecessary to carry out the object of the section. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board considered the words to be unnecessary, he (Mr. Pickersgill) would not propose them.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would advise the hon. Member not to move the Amendment, which was unnecessary, and which the Government could not accept. The question of assets was one of such a precarious character that he was afraid if the Amendment were accepted it would lead to some confusion.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said, then he would not move the Amendment.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he begged to move the insertion, after the word "or," of the words "liability for which is."

Amendment proposed, in line 35, after the word "or," to insert the words "liability for which is."—(Mr. Brunner.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was very unwilling to accept Amendments of this kind which were not upon the Paper, and which therefore he had not had an opportunity of considering, He should much prefer that the hon. Member would move it on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 56, line 41, after the word "property," to insert the words "but does not include money previously borrowed for the purpose of repaying a loan."

Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 6, to leave out the word "sixty," and insert the word "thirty."—(Mr. Wharton.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

I believe this is the present Quarter Sessions limit, and therefore should be glad to accept it.

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

said, 60 years was too long a period for the repayment of a loan, but 30 years was too short a period. It would mean this, that if a County Council had to borrow money it would find itself in the market handicapped with a high rate of interest, and be placed at a great disadvantage compared to the boroughs in the same county, which were all allowed to borrow for certain purposes for periods of 50 years, some being limited to 40 years. Thirty years was the old municipal limit, and he thought that by adopting that limit they would be crippling the County Councils very unnecessarily. He did not see why there should be a general opposition to the County Councils having any borrowing powers at all, as it would practically come to that. It would involve a very heavy burden to cover both the interest and the sinking fund.

MR. BARING (London)

No, no!

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Member was no doubt a great authority, and he did not like to contradict him; but he thought the Government rate for loans of 35 years was 5 per cent including interest and sinking fund, the interest being calculated at 3½ per cent. The Local Sanitary Authorities and the Town Councils would be able to borrow on better terms than they were going to allow the County Councils.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that no doubt, so far as the Town Councils and Local Authorities were concerned, the limit of borrowing powers was greater than 30 years, but it was within the competency of the Local Government Board to lay down a term for which money ought to be borrowed; and following the express intention of Parliament during recent years, the policy of the Local Government Board had been, as far as possible, to limit the time for repayment. Although it was true that in some cases as many as 60 years had been allowed, there were few instances in recent years in which such a term had been given. He had on one or two occasions granted a period of 60 years for the purpose of purchasing land and other purposes which were germane thereto, but he had always done so with considerable reluctance. When a large limit of borrowing powers was allowed the pressure brought to bear on the Local Government Board to extend the borrowing limit to the utmost was very great indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax knew. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not think they would be placing the county in a disadvantageous position by limiting the borrowing powers to the term named. If there were special reasons, the term could always be extended by local Acts.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

asked what would be the effect of this limitation on county boroughs?

MR. RITCHIE

said, the provision would not affect county boroughs.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

asked whether there was any medium between 60 and 30 years? If 60 years was considered too long, would not 30 years be too short compared with the time ordinarily granted to boroughs? What was the ordinary time granted to boroughs?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that 30 years was the ordinary term given by the Local Government Board.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that the proposal before the Committee did not say that 30 years should be allowed for repayment in all cases, but that that period was to be the maximum. It was now proposed that this was to be the maximum, and although the Local Government Board would be able to allow that period, it would not be able to go beyond it. At a proper time, if possible, he should move an Amendment to make this period 40 years.

MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

said, the object for which money was to be borrowed was the execution of permanent works which would not be exhausted in 30 years. The policy should be not to burden the present generation with the whole expenses of that which was done for the benefit of future generations as well as the present, and therefore he thought 40 years at least should be allowed.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he hoped the Government would stand to the term of 30 years. All who had had experience in county financial business desired that the limit should be 30 years. He was surprised at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and others on that (the Opposition) side of the House on the subject, seeing that an Amendment in favour of adopting the limit of 30 years had been put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld).

MR. BARING

said, he should like to correct a little mistake which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had fallen into. He (Mr. Baring) had reason to know that a county could borrow at 3½ and 3¾ per cent. and he believed, though he was not sure, as he had not the figures by him, that a 1 per cent sinking fund would extinguish the debt in 30 years, but he thought that a limitation should be put upon the discretion of the County Councils to borrow money, as they might be tempted to do so too lavishly at first. No doubt they would not do so when they felt the shoe begin to pinch, and ultimately it might be well for Parliament to allow a longer time. Most of them were aware that young men were rather fond of borrowing, and he was inclined to think that young County Councils would in this respect be very like young men.

MR. LAWSON

said, he should like to know when they were going to find a point of resistance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman against the destruction of his own clauses. During the whole evening he had been running away from his own proposals, and consenting to the whittling down of the borrowing powers of the County Councils. It should be borne in mind that the Irish tenants under the Purchase Acts were allowed 49 years in which to pay off their instalments. If 30 years were adopted in the present case, the occupiers would bear the whole expenditure of the Local Authority, and the owners, as had happened in the Metropolis, would get the ultimate benefit. From some county Members they had heard nothing about this part of the Bill, but that the County Councils did not want these powers at all. What did they mean by "counties?" Why, simply the Quarter Sessions. These gentlemen were simply interpreting the views of the Quarter Sessions, on whose behalf they spoke. It had been said that the right hon. Member for Halifax had put down a similar Amendment to that now under discussion; but he (Mr. Lawson) thought he might say that that right hon. Gentleman had been rather too willing to give himself over into the hands of those against whom he should have been on his guard.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he had to inform the hon. Gentleman who had been good enough to catechize him, that he had not thrown himself into the hands of anybody, but simply adhered to his own Amendments. Whatever he had advocated this evening, he had advocated from his own convictions. He knew from experience of years gone by at the Local Government Board what a strong temptation it was to Local Authorities to borrow money, and he did not intend to abandon views, which he believed to be sound, in order to agree with the hon. Gentleman or with anybody else.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Hants, Petersfield)

said, that though he could not concur with the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) in running amuck against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), as he was sure that in the conduct of a Bill on that side of the House the right hon. Gentleman had only been desirous of making the financial position of County Councils as secure as possible, and he felt confident that the ratepayers would have to be very much on their guard whenever the hon. Member was found conducting a similar Bill through the House of Commons—though he (Viscount Wolmer) did not happen to agree with the hon. Member in all he said, he must unite with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) in pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the desirability of extending this term for repayment to at least 40 years. The right hon. Gentleman had limited the amount which the County Council could borrow, and had limited it very properly, but he (Viscount Wolmer) could not see why the right hon. Gentleman should render it necessary for the present generation to pay in 30 years the cost of improvements of a permanent character, the benefit of which would be derived by the next and following generations. He hoped that evening that the right hon. Gentleman would consider his proposal, and would accept the limit of 40 years as a compromise.

MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

said, he hoped that some concession would be made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. He would point out what really was the nature of these loans. They were loans for the purchase of property on deferred payments, and he desired to know why the men of to-day, of the present generation, should make a free present to the men of 30 years hence. Take a case from the town from which he came. They were there just building Court of Assize Courts which would last for five generations. Why should those Assize Courts be paid for by one generation only? Why should the obligation be imposed on the ratepayers of the county differently to the way in which it was imposed on the ratepayers in the borough? Why should they insist that a county, which wanted to put up an Assize Court to last 100 years or so, the obligation of paying for the building within 30 years? He maintained that if the counties sat quietly down and accepted the limit of 30 years they would be accepting something which the boroughs would not look at for a moment.

Question put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' be there inserted."

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider carefully what he was doing. A 30 years' limit would discourage any improvement or work which was required to be done in the counties. It was not reasonable to expect the ratepayers in a county for the sake of any improvement, especially if it were in the nature of permanent works, to pay the whole money in one generation. He felt certain that the whole usefulness of the Bill so far as improvement in the counties went, would be taken away or rendered more difficult if this limit of 30 years was maintained. He thought the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was too moderate. He must express surprise that his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax had proposed such a limit as this, though it was quite true that an excessive period for repayment was to be guarded against. If the Bill was to be of any good they should not have too small a limit. He would prefer that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would consent to the moderate modification of 40 years proposed. It was not fair to the County Authorities that they should be put under a great disadvantage as compared with boroughs. They could hardly expect the ratepayers of a county to assent to an improvement, no matter how important or necessary, when the cost to the present generation would be so enormous as it would be under the Bill as it now stood.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, that in order to bring this discussion to a prompt issue he would move as an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman that the word "forty"—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The question is that the word "thirty" be there inserted. If that is negatived another figure can be moved but not before.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that as such a high authority as the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Baring) had corrected him on a point connected with the matter under discussion, he had looked into the question, and he found that the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. He had said that the county could borrow at 3½ and 3¾ per cent. which no doubt was true, and that 1 per cent would be sufficient to repay in 30 years. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would draw the hon. Member's attention to a precedent as embodied by the Treasury in the Land Act of 1881. The time allowed for repayment in that Act was 35 years, and the interest and sinking fund amounted to 5 per cent. He should be content if the right hon. Gentleman would accept this precedent of 35 years in order to prevent the necessity for a Division.

MR. WIGGIN (Staffordshire, Handsworth)

said, he hoped the House would not be put to the trouble of a Division.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he calculated that the difference between 30 and 35 years would amount to something like ⅛per cent. He assured the Committee that the great bulk of the loans the Local Government Board had to sanction were for 30 years and less than 30 years. Numerous complaints had been made in the House as to the great accumulation of debts by Local Authorities and the enormous burden which, in consequence, pressed upon the people. Under all the circumstances, he thought an additional ⅛ per cent was a healthy pressure and one which the House of Commons ought to assent to.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 136: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 220.)

Amendment proposed, In page 57, after line 33, to add the words—"(12.) Nothing in this section shall be taken to empower the Cheshire County Council to borrow on the security of any revenue estimated to accrue from the surplus funds of the River Weaver Navigation."—(Mr. Brunner.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.