SUPPLEMENTAL.

HC Deb 17 July 1888 vol 328 cc1546-94

Application of Acts.

Clause 76 (Application of Municipia Corporations Act, 1882, to county and district councils and this Act).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 65, line 5, to leave out "and district."

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

, in moving an Amendment in page 65, line 10, after "1884," to insert "section 124, part 5," said, its object was to apply that provision of the Municipial Corporations Act of 1882 as if it were re-enacted.

Amendment proposed, in page 65, line 10, after "1884," to insert the words, "Section one hundred and twenty-four, part five."—(Mr. Heneage.)

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

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

said, he would accept the Amendment. The section which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert was that which prohibited expenditure in connection with Parliamentary elections.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 65, line 14, after "re-enacted," insert "with the enactments amending the same;" line 19, leave out "elective;" line 21, leave out from beginning of line to "shall;" and in line 24, leave out "elective."

MR. RITCHIE moved, as an Amendment in line 24, to omit the words "and of every district council other than a borough."

Amendment proposed, in page 65, line 24, to leave out from the word "council," to the word "in," in line 25.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

asked, whatever the Sheriff of the county of London would be the same returning officer as at present?

MR. RITCHIE

replied in the affirmative.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made, in page 65, lines 31 and 38, and in page 66, line 2 and line 8, leave out "elective."

MR. RITCHIE moved as an Amendment, in line 9, to leave out the words "deputy sheriff," and insert "returning officer in pursuance of a writ directed to him from the Sheriff." The object of the Amendment was to provide that the returning officer in an electoral division of the county that was co-extensive with or wholly comprised in a borough should at the election of councillors act as returning officer in pursuance of a writ directed to him from the Sheriff.

Amendment proposed, In page 66, line 9, to leave out the words "deputy sheriff," and insert in lieu thereof the words "returning officer in pursuance of a writ directed to him from the sheriff."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question, "That the words 'deputy sheriff' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

MR. RITCHIE moved an Amendment, in page 66, line 10, to leave out "be subject," in order to insert "follow the instructions of, and return the names of the persons elected." The Amendment provided that instead of the relieving officer being subject to the Sheriff, he had to follow the instructions of the Sheriff and return the names of the persons elected.

Amendment proposed, In page 66, line 10, to leave out the words "be subject," and insert the words "follow the instructions of, and return the names of the persons elected."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question, "That the words 'be subject' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

MR. RITCHIE

, in moving an Amendment in page 66, line 11, to leave out "any other deputy," and insert— If he were a deputy sheriff, and any decision of an objection shall be subject to revision by the sheriff accordingly, and a reference in the said enactments to the town clerk shall, as respects the borough, be construed to refer to the town clerk, said, the object of the Amendment was to provide that the returning officer should be in the position of a deputy sheriff, and that any decision and objection should be subject to revision by the sheriff.

Amendment proposed, In page 66, line 11, leave out "any other deputy," and insert "if he were a deputy sheriff, and any decision of an objection shall be subject to revision by the sheriff accordingly, and a reference in the said enactments to the town clerk shall, as respects the borough, be construed to refer to the town clerk."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question, "That the words 'any other deputy' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made, in page 66, lines 16 and 18, leave out the words "or ward;" and in line 18, at end, insert the following sub-sections:— The returning officer shall forthwith after the election of county councillors for the county, return the names of the persons elected to the clerk of the county council; The period between the nomination and election may be such period not exceeding six days, as the returning officer may fix.

On the Motion of Mr. L. FRY (for Mr. Hobhouse), the following Amendment made, in page 66, line 18, insert the following Sub-section (8):—"An outgoing alderman shall not vote in the election of a chairman."

Amendment proposed, In page 66, line 20, at end, to insert the following sub-section:—"Section eleven of 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' with respect to the qualification of a county councillor by reason of his being entered in the separate non-resident list shall include, for the purposes of this Act, all persons entered in such separate list in any municipal borough by reason of occupation of property in the borough, and all persons entered in such separate list for any part of a county not in a municipal borough by reason of the occupation of property in that part."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan) moved an Amendment providing that the election of members of the County Council should take place on the 7th November, instead of the 9th November. That was the day fixed for the election of town Councillors in connection with Municipal Corporations, and as many of the candidates of the County Councils were likely to be members of the Corporation, he proposed to alter the day of the election to the 7th November from the 9th.

Amendment proposed, That the 7th November be the ordinary day of election for the county aldermen, and for holding the first meetings of the county council."—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend, and he trusted that some of the members of the Corporation would also be members of the County Council. He could quite conceive that it would be inconvenient under such circumstances if the election of the Mayor and Corporation and of the Chairman of the County Council were to take place on the same day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 61, line 27, after the word "wards," to insert the words "or borough auditors."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

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

On the Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment made, in page 66, line 30, at end, insert— (c.) Shall render any person elected to a corporate office without his consent to his nomination being previously obtained liable to pay a fine on non-acceptance of office; or.

Amendment proposed, At end of page 66, line 30, to insert—"(d.) Shall authorise or require a returning officer to hold an election of a councillor to fill a casual vacancy in the representation of an electoral division or ward of a district, where the vacancy occurs within six months before the time fixed by this Act for a new election of a councillor to represent such electoral division or ward; or."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

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

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

said, his impression was that in a former discussion they had fixed the period at three months, and not six months.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought the time fixed was six months.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, he entertained a strong belief that three months was the time mentioned.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that if he found that was the case, the clause should be altered on the Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 39, to leave out the words "or of the licensing committee."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

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

said, it might become important that some of the proceedings of the joint committee should be submitted to the County Council. He wished to know whether the President of the Local Government Board really attached much importance to the provision in this section, which liberated the action and pro- ceedings of the joint committee from the criticism of the County Council.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought it was desirable to retain the section. He saw no objection to it, and he would prefer not to omit it.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, it was dangerous that the Committee of the County Council should be made independent of the action of the County Council itself. They were creating an imperium in imperio. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to require that the acts of any committee to which powers were delegated in continuance of the Act should be submitted to the County Council for their approval.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the provision was specially limited to committees which were charged with power in pursuance of the Act. It did not apply to committees to whom powers were given by the County Council, but to committees to whom powers were delegated by the Act.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said he would take the case of the Finance Committee; they had certain powers delegated to them under the Act. All the financial arrangements were delegated to that committee; but was it proposed to make the finance committee dependent on the County Council?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that so far from the finance committee being dependent upon the Council, the Council would be unable to make payments without having received a report in favour of such payments from the finance committee. The whole control of the county finance would be in the hands of the finance committee.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a feeling in favour of giving the power of control to the Council.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he quite agreed with the general principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman, and thought it would be bad not to make the committees responsible to the Body which appointed them so far as reporting their proceedings and a control over them went. There was, however, one point which occurred to him, and it was that in reference to the gaol delivery, there was a committee appointed at York which was common to the three divisions of the county. In what way was a control to be exercised over that committee?

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, the point which had been raised was a very important one. If they wanted to have good management they must have concentrated responsibility. It was a question which had been very much discussed by those who had taken an active part in Local Government. The great point in these matters was to secure concentrated responsibility. He quite agreed that the County Council ought to have power over its committees; but if they required every act of the committees to be re-debated, and voted upon by the central Body, they would very much diminish the responsibility with which a committee would enter into any matter; in fact, it would be found that the committee would often do their work carelessly, in the belief that a superior authority would rectify any mistake. And what he would venture to suggest was that all the proceedings of the committee should be reported to the County Council, and that they should have power to intervene, but that they should not of necessity be required to confirm and re-debate the acts of other committees. Some of the most able workers in the cause of Local Government were of opinion that one of the great defects of the existing Local Government was that there was too much divided responsibility, and that in consequence nobody gave that attention he would otherwise devote to the work. No man would undergo much trouble and labour when he knew that all he did might be upset. He would therefore ask the President of the Local Government Board if it would not be much better that those committees should be required to report to the Council; but that it should not be necessary that every act of the committees should be re-debated by the central Body and confirmed by it.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

said, he was of opinion that it would not be necessary to re-debate the proceedings of the Committees; but he thought that they ought to be subject to the approval of the County Council.

MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)

said, he failed to see why if the joint committee did not report to the County Council, every other committee should not be called on to report.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would accept the view of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) so far as reporting went. He would take the case of the Watch Committee of a Municipal Corporation. Although the Watch Committee was an independent Body, it nevertheless reported to the Corporation, and those great endowments, such as grammar schools, partly managed by Corporations, always reported to the Town Council. Whenever a committee was appointed, instructions were given to them, and in the course of time they reported to the Town Council. The Town Council, however, had no power to upset the act of the committee. It would be an extraordinary thing to appoint a committee of any kind, and then allow that committee to be entirely independent, and not hear anything more about their proceedings. He was satisfied that rate-payers would not be content with such a state of things; he therefore trusted that the recommendation of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton should be adopted, and that there should be, at any rate, a report. Any other system would be most extraordinary in the case of a municipal Body.

MR. LAWSON

said, he thought it was desirable to make clear what the position of the London Council would be under the clause.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the clause did not apply to the Council of the County of London.

MR. LAWSON

said, there would be a finance committee in connection with the Council of London.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the, hon. Member might take it from him that this clause did not apply to London. In reference to the other question which had been raised, he believed that the analogy which had been drawn of the procedure under the Municipal Corporations Act did not apply in this case. He spoke with some hesitation in the presence of many hon. Gentlemen who knew about the matter much better than he did, but he did not believe that under that Act there were powers of absolute delegation.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he thought the Watch Committee was in-dependent.

MR. RITCHIE

thought not. The Watch Committee and other committees of that kind were bound to report to the Corporation, and he believed that all the various committees under the Bill which were analogous to the Committees appointed under the Municipal Corporations Act would have to report if this clause were accepted. However, finding that so much general opinion prevailed with the Committee in favour of the omission of this provision, he would consent to the omission of the words, on the understanding that if he found it would seriously interfere with the operation of any other part of the Bill, he would ask the Committee to reconsider the matter on the Report.

MR. C. T. DYKE ACLAND

said, the joint Committee was responsible for the finance of the police, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity for maintaining some connection between that committee and the County Council on financial questions.

MR. LAWSON

asked, the right hon. Gentleman whether he had quite satisfied himself that the clause did not apply to London?

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, he thought he was able to answer that question. The powers of the joint committee of the County Council and the Justices of the Peace would not be confined to police matters, but would be extended to various other purposes.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, that in the 27th section the Committee had enacted that the County Council— Should with the exceptions hereinafter mentioned have power to delegate with or without any restrictions or conditions, as they may think fit, any powers or duties transferred to them by this either to the justices of the county or to any committee of the county council appointed in the provisions of the Act. He had ventured to suggest, while that clause was under consideration, speaking from his own experience in connection with Quarter Sessions work in Yorkshire, that it would be a matter of great inconvenience not to have the power of delegation. There were many matters dealt with at Quarter Sessions which it would be inconvenient to delegate to a committee, and serious inconvenience would arise if the Town Council were not able to consider matters that had been referred to the committee.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not understand the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite went further than this—that committees should report. He did not say that under no circumstances should the Town Council have no power of delegation, but simply that committees should report.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, this was a clause qualifying a provision of the Municipal Corporations Act. The Municipal Corporations Act contained the express power of delegation; but it subjected that delegation to the revision and approval of the Council. It was wisely proposed to alter that, so far as the joint committee was concerned, and that joint committee would be in a somewhat similar condition to the Watch Committee, without power to report to the County Council or to Quarter Sessions. He thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly fair, and that it should be understood that if the decision was arrived at was hereafter found to conflict with the general provisions of the Bill, it should be amended. It must be borne in mind that in this Bill they were introducing new law.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 66, line 39, leave out the word "other."

Question, "That the word "other" stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.

Amendment proposed, After line 41, to insert the following sub-section:—(e.) "Shall prevent the use of schools and public rooms for the purpose of taking the poll at elections under this Act, but section six of 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' shall apply in the case of elections under this Act, and the returning officer may, in addition to using such rooms free of charge for taking the poll, use the same free of charge for hearing objections to nomination papers and for counting votes."—(Baron Dimsdale.)

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

Amendment proposed, in page 67, line 2, to leave out the word "elective."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Question, "That the word "elective" stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 67, line 4, leave out "and all costs properly incurred in relation to the holding of the election of elected councillors of district councils so far as not otherwise provided for by law should be paid for out of the district fund as general expenses.

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

Amendment proposed, at the end of the clause to insert "the provisions of this section shall apply to the City of London in like manner as to a borough."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS

asked, if it would be in Order to call attention to the word "properly" on line 4. The clause as it originally stood provided that all costs properly incurred in relation to the holding of elections should be paid out of the county fund.

MR. FIRTH

said, that part of the clause had already been disposed of.

MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS

said, he was not desirous of taking the ruling of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) on that point, but would prefer that of the Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the word had already gone out.

MR. FIRTH

said, he had not intended to give any ruling; but had simply made a suggestion in order to expedite the consideration of the Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Municipal Corporations Act did not apply to the City of London. It was, therefore, essential that some provisions should be made for the elections of County Councillors for London in the City, and the Amendment would make provision for the County Council of London in the same way as other County Councils.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, the following Amendment made, in page 67, at the end of line 8, to add— The meeting of a county council, or of any committee thereof, may be held at such place either within or without their county, as the council from time to time direct.

Amendment proposed, In page 67, at the end of the Clause, to insert—"The said costs shall not exceed those allowed by Part I. of the First Schedule to 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875,' as amended by 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1885,' or by such scale as the county council may from time to time frame: Provided, That, if any sheriff is dissatisfied with any scale so framed by the county council, he may apply to a Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State may fix the scale, which shall be in force until altered, in pursuance of this section; Sections four, five, six, and seven of 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875,' as amended by 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment Act 1886,' shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted with the necessary modifications, and in particular with the substitution of the county council for the person from whom payment is claimed, and of one month for the period of fourteen days within which application may be made for taxation; A county council shall, on the request of the returning officer, prior to a poll being taken at any election of councillor of such council, advance to him such sum not exceeding ten pounds for every thousand electors at the election as he may require."—(Baron Dimsdale.)

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

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to the Amendment, which he thought was a very wide one.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that under the Bill it was provided that the expenses of elections should be the expenses allowed by the Municipal Corporations Act. The Government ought to have known that there was no scale under that Act as fixed by that Act which simply allowed "reasonable expenses or charges." It was evident that that was an extraordinarily elastic phrase, and, therefore, it was desirable that some provision should be made for a scale of expenses. The Amendment applied the Parliamentary scale of costs for the election of Councillors under the Bill, but it further provided that the County Council might itself make up a scale. If some such provision were not introduced at the first election of the Town Council, it would be held without any limitation whatever. Under the circumstances, he thought he ought to accept the Amendment.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he did not see why the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act should not be applied at the first election. The Amendment, however, went a good deal further. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they could not permanently adopt the expenses under the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act; and he believed that that Act itself required amendment as soon as the House of Commons had time to attend to the matter. In the next place, the proposal was that such a scale should be followed as the County Council might from time to time frame. There was, however, a third element introduced—namely, that if any Sheriff was dissatisfied with the scale so formed by the County Council, he was to have the right of appealing to the Secretary of State. There were no such provision in the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, and he failed to see why Sheriffs should have that provision given to them here. He was quite content that the first election for County Councillors should take place on the scale now in force. He was also willing to take the second proposition, that the ratepayers should have power to fix the scale; but he entirely objected to the interposition of the Secretary of State whenever a Sheriff was dissatisfied with the scale.

MR. LAWSON

said, he wished to point out to the President of the Local Government Board what was the result of his own experience in connection with London candidates for Parliament. He had found that the Sheriff stuck out for exorbitant expenses, and, as a matter of fact, in many cases they had been obliged to take him into Court in order to have the costs taxed. He was generally as grasping in his charges as he could be under the Act, and he had no wish to give him any further opportunities of extortion.

MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS

said, the object of the clause was to hold the Sheriff harmless, and to prevent him from suffering pecuniary loss. Under the Municipal Corporations Act, the Mayor who acted as Returning Officer was in no danger of that kind, and it was not intended that the Sheriff should be in any other position. It was conceivable that the Sheriff might come to the conclusion that he could not possibly do the work within the scale of costs authorized by the County Council, and under such circumstances it would seem hardly fair to leave him without a remedy, and to require him to be out of pocket in regard to the discharge of duties in his office. He thought it was essential that, whatever was done in regard to the clause, the Sheriff should be left absolutely harmless so far as pecuniary loss was concerned.

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

said, he had only one word to say upon that point. He had in his pocket the Returning Officer's bill for the expenses of himself and his opponent in 1885. It amounted to £658, which were incurred in charges for the different polling stations. He thought it would be monstrous to put either the ratepayers, or the county, or the candidate who stood for the Council, to such an expense as that. Some revision certainly ought to take place in reference to charges. He should not have risen, however, if he had not recollected the large amount he had to pay upon the occasion he had referred to.

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

said, the hon. and gallant Baronet had really pointed out a reason why the matter should be dealt with in some such way as the clause provided. They were all agreed that some limit must be placed on the expenses, and it was essential that they should adopt some standard. The only scale in existence was that which was contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act. The next step was that the County Councils should have the right to frame a scale, which, it might be assumed, would be less than the scale for Parliamentary elections. Then came the necessity of providing for the duties which certain public officers had to perform. They had certainly the right to be protected, although it might be worth while to consider, as soon as possible, the question of expenses under the Parliamentary Elections Act, yet it would not be fair to put officers who had to perform ministerial duty entirely at the mercy of the County Councils in regard to the expenses they would have to incur, or to allow them to suffer pecuniary loss. The President of the Local Government Board only desired to prevent an unjust burden being placed upon those who provided and worked the machinery of an election. That was desirable in the interests of economy, in order to prevent the work from being improperly done, or imposing an undue burden on those who had to do it. His right hon. Friend had no desire to assent to the clause in order to increase the expense. On the contrary, until the County Councils took steps to frame a scale, his right hon. Friend was desirous of refraining from imposing undue burdens upon those who had to perform a public duty.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) that it had been found by experience that in London Sheriffs usually considered it their duty to charge the maximum rate. There had been many instances of that, and they did everything in the most expensive manner. There were many things that might be done economically, but those gentlemen invariably did them as extravagantly as possible. He thought that, on the whole, the matter must be left to the County Council, who would know what duties the Sheriff had to perform, and would decide on a reasonable amount for their performance. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist upon the last part of the clause.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, there was, no doubt, considerable dissatisfaction as to the charges now made by the Sheriffs. He wished to point out that the charges for a Councillor's election could not possibly amount to the same large sum that was now expended on the election of the Members of Parliament, for the simple reason that a great portion of the charges depended on the number of electors, and the constituencies in the Parliamentary election were much larger than those which would elect a County Councillor. Counties were different from boroughs in this respect—that they had no such officer as a Mayor, who was bound to conduct the elections. The Returning Officer in borough elections was the Mayor, and he was the officer of the Corporation who was bound, as part of his official duty, to conduct the elections. In the counties they had Sheriffs, who were not officers of the county, nor would they be members of the County Council. They would be entirely independent of the County Council, and would probably employ professional men to conduct the elections. When the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) talked of there being no authority to charge the expenses that were to be incurred on a County Council election, it ought to be remembered that the County Council and the Sheriff would stand in the position of creditor and debtor, and it was scarcely fair that the debtor should fix he amount to be paid to his creditor without appeal.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he did not agree with the idea that the expenditure at a County Council election would be necessarily much less than in a Parliamentary election. The difference in the number of voters would not be very great, taking into account the extension of area. The County Council would be elected over the whole of the county, and he did not think there would be much material difference. That, however, did not appear to be the point. The point was whether the charges were to be fixed according to the ordinary scale by which the Sheriffs wore now entitled to charge and to insist upon. He had no doubt that if every hon. Member were to get up in his place and detail his experience in regard to the expenses he had incurred, they would listen to a tale of woe and suffering such as had never before been related to the House. There was a little incident which he might himself relate, and which was well worth the attention of the Committee. For simply sending a carpenter to look after the erection of booths at different places in the division where the polls would be taken, he was charged £2 2s. a-piece for each polling station, notwithstanding the fact that only six months before the same duty had been discharged and the same inspection made. He pronounced that charge as little less than robbery. No doubt, the attorney who had charge of the elections took very good care to increase the expenses as far as he could. It was said that "a fellow-feeling makes us wondrous kind," and it would appear that the hon. and learned Attorney General was anxious to protect those members of his own Profession, who took very good care to line their own pockets out of those of the Members of Parliament. So far as the Amendment was concerned, that part of it which was intended to apply to the first election would not do any considerable amount of harm. But when the clause got into thorough working order it would be able to form a scale of charges which it would be desirable to enforce in regard to future elections. He strongly protested, however, against the intervention of the Secretary of State. It involved a principle which he could not approve of even temporarily. He wished to know whether, if the Amendment was accepted and passed, it would apply permanently to elections. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, that it was most undesirable to empower the Secretary of State to revise decisions as to a scale of charges arrived at after due consideration by the members of the County Council. He did not think there need be the slightest fear that the Under Sheriffs would be out of pocket. He had never known a lawyer to be out of pocket, especially when he held the position of Under Sheriff. They might depend upon it that the principle of placing the expenses on the rates, and having them controlled by the representatives of the people, would be the most certain means of keeping them within very limited bounds, and avoid anything like bribery and corruption.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had no doubt that many Members would like to see the cost of Returning Officers at Parliamentary elections reduced; but he ventured to think that that was hardly a relevant question at the present moment. He would explain to the Committee exactly what the position of things was in reference to the proposal before the Committee. Unless some scale of expenses was laid down for the first election under the Bill, there would be no limit at all. It was then proposed to take a scale, it might not be a good scale, and it might be an extravagant one, but it was the only scale they had. In the next place, his hon. Friend proposed to apply it to the first election. It was, however, necessary to provide what was to be done at subsequent elections. The Amendment said that the County Council themselves should fix the costs and expenses of subsequent elections. Then arose the consideration that the Returning Officer, who was the High Sheriff under the Bill, was not a paid official at all. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the Deputy Sheriff would take good care that he was never out of pocket. But he must point out to the hon. Gentleman, that if he took care that he was not out of pocket, if anybody had to be out of pocket at all, it would be the High Sheriff, who, he repeated, was Returning Officer, but not a paid official; and the hon. Gentleman knew the extreme difficulty experienced in inducing gentlemen to serve the office of High Sheriff, on account of the considerable expenditure which they had to incur during their term of office. It was now proposed by the Bill to place upon this officer's shoulders a new and onerous duty, and it would be hardly right or fair towards the High Sheriff to place him entirely and arbitrarily in the hands of the County Council to say how much the cost of a Parliamentary election should be, and then leave him to pay the excess, if there were any. If that were done, there might be many instances in which the High Sheriff would be largely out of pocket. [Mr. CONYBEARE: No.] He maintained that that would be the case, and the County Councils might set up such a scale of charges as would compel the High Sheriff to be considerably out of pocket. Was that what the hon. Member desired? [Mr. OONYBEARE: No.] Very well. Then what he said was, that there should be someone who should say whether the complaint of the High Sheriff was justifiable or not. His hon. Friend behind him (Baron Dimsdale) had suggested, in the Amendment, that the person to whom to apply should be the Secretary of State. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that he was not wedded to the one person, and if some suggestion could be made by which it could be provided that some reasonable appeal could be made in order to prevent the High Sheriff from suffering, he would be quite ready to accept it.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed as to the High Sheriff being out of pocket. When he was appointed he nominated an Under Sheriff, and the Under Sheriff was really the person the Committee were now dealing with. As a matter of fact, the Under Sheriff generally contracted to indemnify the High Sheriff against the cost of discharging his duties. [Cries of "No, no!"] He would repeat the observation, in order that there might be no mistake—namely, that whenever expenses were incurred by the High Sheriff in discharge of his judicial and administrative functions, there was an agreement entered into by which the Under Sheriff received all the fees and indemnified the High Sheriff against all loss. What was the cost that was involved? There was the cost of the Returning Officer, who had to appoint a Sub-Returning Officer, to obtain rooms in which the election was to be carried on, and to appoint persons by whom the votes were to be counted. They were quite willing that the very high scale for Parliamentary elections should be adopted for the first election; but who was the proper Body to settle what the scale for future elections should be? One hon. Gentleman spoke of the relations between the High Sheriff and the County Council as those of debtor and creditor; but it was nothing of the kind, any more than the relations between the Town Clerk and the Mayor and Corporation were those of debtor and creditor. The Mayor had no responsibility whatever, and the Town Clerk settled the scale. He was bound to say that the mode in which municipal elections were carried out was in every respect satisfactory. Then, why not trust the same duty to the County Councils, who would be the persons most interested in having the proper scale fixed? He could quite understand that if a Member of Parliament was called upon to settle a scale for his own election, he would apply a very rigid principle of economy; but in this case they were dealing with county expenditure, and the Body they professed to have so much trust in they dared not trust to fix what was to be the amount paid out of the county funds for an election, but they were to provide that the Secretary of State should supervize and regulate the expenditure. It was a satire upon the Bill to call it a Decentralizing Bill, when they evidently could not trust the County Council in a small matter of that kind, and notwithstanding the fact that at that moment they did trust the Municipal Councils. He saw nothing in the appeal it was proposed to provide except to open a loop-hole to certain permanent officials to increase the expenditure by calling on the Secretary of State to fix a scale, although he had no machinery for the purpose, knew nothing about the matter, and must refer to some subordinate in his own Office. He should certainly divide the House, if necessary, on the broad and general principle that the County Council ought to be competent to settle a question of the sort. Surely they could trust the County Council to settle the expenditure of a few hundred pounds for the triennial elections of its own members.

MR. HENEAGE

said, his right hon. Friend was not quite accurate in regard to what he had said in reference to the High Sheriff. In his county, in 1868, the High Sheriff had to pay the whole of the expenses of an election, because one of the candidates refused to pay his share, and in the election which occurred in 1885, he was out of pocket as Returning Officer in connection with one division. The only indemnity given by the Under Sheriff was in regard to any legal action brought for illegality or misconduct of the Sheriff's officers with regard to the issuing of summonses and writs. He should not, however, have risen to make that statement had it not been for the challenge which had been thrown out by his right hon. Friend, He quite agreed that in future the scale of expenditure should be determined by the County Council, and he did not approve of reference to the Secretary of State; but he would lay down the condition that the High Sheriff should not be compelled to undertake the office or perform the duties if he objected to do so.

MR. FIRTH

said, it had been established before a Committee that a Parliamentary election caused additional expense to a High Sheriff, because he was called upon to defray costs which were not covered by the Parliamentary scale. The High Sheriff usually made a contract with the Under Sheriff to indemnify him against all actions and costs, except those connected with Parliamentary elections.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). He had had to go carefully through the questions of Returning Officers' expenses, and he knew that expenditure was incurred of a most lavish description. He felt convinced that if the new County Councils in the various counties would go carefully through the cost of conducting the elections, they would be able to frame such a scale of charges as would place in the hands of the Under Sheriff all the money he would feel inclined to spend. The old scale of ex- penditure was very much too high, and would not be satisfactorily dealt with except by a practical body of business men. The fault hitherto had been that the scale had not been fixed by practical business men. He trusted that in the County Council there would be many men of that character, accustomed to deal with expenditure, who would be able to fix the charges that were necessary in regard to the conduct of elections. By that means they would get a scale of expenditure amply sufficient for the Under Sheriff, but much more economical then the scales they had hitherto had. He trusted that the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would divide the Committee in regard to the omission of those words, because although they might not defeat the Government, they would, at any rate, show what the opinion of the Committee was in regard to the expenditure incurred by there elections.

MR. LAWSON

asked, who was to be the Returning Officer for the Metropolis, and whether London was to be under this provision of the Bill? The Sheriff for the County of London would be the new officer. The Returning Officers at Parliamentary elections were appointed by the Sheriffs of the City of London after the Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman who were to be the men to preside over these municipal elections; were they to be new men or the existing officers?

MR. RITCHIE

said, they would, in the first instance, be appointed by the Local Government Board, and subsequently, in the case of London, the County of London would make the appointment.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

said, he thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Local Government Board than anyone else.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, this was a very small matter, and he felt sure that it was not likely that the County Council would fix an unreasonable scale. They proposed that the County Council should have the decision in this matter, for which they would be eminently fitted, inasmuch as they would know the cost of labour in the respective counties. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would give way, and not insist on the last sub-section of the Amendment.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he had had a considerable proportion of the deposited money in two elections returned to him, which proved that the amount now on the Parliamentary scale was so great as practically to make it perfectly safe to all concerned, and, as a matter of fact, there would be no risk whatever. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to that point for one moment he would be aware that in most cases the amount deposited by the candidate into the hands of the Sheriff was so large as to be out of all reason.

BARON DIMSDALE

said, the hon. Gentleman opposite had fairly stated the issue between him and hon. Gentlemen opposite; he had frankly admitted that it would be fair to adopt the scale proposed at the first election, and afterwards that the County Council should frame the scale. He (Baron Dimsdale) thought it would be agreed that if anybody was competent to frame a fair scale it would be the County Council. Then there was this difference between them. A portion of the amount was to go to the Sheriff; but supposing there was a disagreement as to the amount of the scale, surely there ought to be an appeal to someone, and if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill were to suggest an appeal to another officer, he thought that might meet the circumstances of the case. If neither of the parties were satisfied, then an appeal to the Secretary of State should be made, and he by no means waived that principle.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, the hon. Gentleman was disposed to regard this matter as if the Sheriff on the one hand and the County Council on the other were parties to the question with equal rights. That was not his view of the situation. The Sheriff was an officer who had to accommodate himself in carrying out his duty to the views of the County Council, and the County Council was the proper Body to decide this financial question. He failed to see why it should be assumed that the County Council would not be sufficiently liberal in the allowance which they might make and the scale which they would adopt. But he regarded the situation, which the Proviso would create, as one which appeared to be absurd. The County Council had to consider and decide on the question and to go to the trouble of framing a scheme, and then all that was necessary according to this Proviso was that the Sheriff should be dissatisfied—it did not even say that he should be reasonably dissatisfied—and then he would have the right to go to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State would be able to fix the scale over the heads of the County Council, and the County Council would not be entitled to resent being placed in such a position as that. If the Sheriff was dissatisfied with the scheme framed by the County Council, he might make representations to the County Council; but he (Mr. Stansfeld) saw no reason whatsoever why, on this financial question, which was within the purview of the authority and functions of the Council, the Sheriff should be entitled, merely on the ground of personal dissatisfaction, to go to the Secretary of State.

MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDY (Kent, Medway)

said, he did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite quite felt that the Sheriff was an officer who was compelled to serve whether he liked it or not, and that there was nothing whatever to make the County Council lay down even a reasonable scale of costs for his services. He suggested that the proper course would be to put the County Council in the same position as the Municipalities of boroughs. The Sheriff at the first election was protected by the present scale of fees, but at the next election he suggested that the Chairman of County Council be made the returning officer, and in that case the County Council would be sure to frame such a scale of fees as would be sufficient. For while they would not care for the Sheriff, they would be sure to see that one of their own body did not suffer.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was afraid that the suggestion of the hon. Member would hardly work, because it appeared to him that the Chairman of the County Council, if the Sheriff ceased to be Re-turning Officer, would become a candidate for the office. He understood that his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was willing that the words giving an appeal to the Secretary of State should be struck out, in order that the matter should be considered before Re- port. He thought, although the suggestion of his hon. Friend with regard to the Chairman becoming Returning Officer was one which they could hardly accept, yet there was no reason why they should not consider whether the County Council might not appoint the Returning Officer. In that case the Sheriff would be relieved of the financial responsibility he might otherwise incur. It could not, however, be done at that moment; but if the hon. Member would be good enough to withdraw that portion of his Amendment, the Government would undertake to consider between that time and Report whether it could not be done at that stage.

BARON DIMSDALE

said, he was ready to withdraw that part of his proposal which gave an appeal to the Secretary of State.

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

said, with regard to the proposal that the County Council should appoint a Returning Officer, he had no doubt that the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman might offer on Report would clear away all remaining objections.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, that the plan would render it unnecessary to give an appeal at all.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said, he failed to see why they should have any scale at all for the first election, because they looked to these County Councillors as men who would be able to take a fair and reasonable view of what the Returning Officer's charges ought to be. There was no reason whatever for taking a scale of payment which was, on all hands, acknowledged to be preposterous, and charge it to the ratepayers.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, he entirely agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy), which was the true solution of this difficulty.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "provided" to the end of the section.

Question, "That those words be left out of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 (Construction of Acts referring to business transferred).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 67, line 12, leave out "or district;" line 17, leave out "or district council;" line 21, leave out "or district council;" line 26, leave out "or district;" line 35, leave out "and for one year afterwards;" line 40, leave out "or district;" in page 68, line 5, after "admit," insert— And a presentment by a grand jury in relation to any such powers, duties, or liabilities shall cease to be made otherwise than by way of indictment; line 10, leave out "an Order in Council," and insert "a Provisional Order;" and in line 12, leave out from "Works," to "or," in line 14.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Proceedings of Councils and Committees.

Clause 78 (Incorporation of county council).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 68, line 25, before the word "county," to insert the word "administrative."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 79 (Payments out of fund and finance committee of county council and district council—not a borough).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 68, lines 38 and 39, to leave out the words "or district;" and in line 39, to leave out the word "or district."

Amendment proposed, In page 68, line 41, leave out all the words after "by," to "council," in page 69, line 1, and insert "the chairman of the meeting at which any payments are ordered to be made."—(Baron Dimsdale.)

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

said, he was afraid the Government could not accept this Amendment. The question involved was not, as the hon. Member appeared to suppose, one of signing cheques, but orders for payment. In this case the Government were following the analogy of the Municipal Corporations Act, which required orders for payment to be signed by three members of the Council.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 69, line 2, after the word "council," to insert the words "and the same order may include several payments;" and in line 7, to leave out the words "and district council."

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he rose to move an Amendment which, with the consequential Amendment he proposed afterwards to move, would make the clause run thus— Every county council other than the council of a borough shall, from time to time, appoint a standing committee for regulating and controlling the finance of their county or district, and so on. His object in proposing this Amendment was to meet two difficulties and dangers which he found had suggested themselves to those who were most conversant with the practical working of these County Councils. One of them was, that unless there were some sufficient controlling power, the practical administration of county business would run simply into the hands of the permanent paid officials; and, in proof of that, he thought it was only necessary to refer to what was taking place before Lord Herschell's Commission in connection with the Board of Works, which would show how dangerous that would be. It was admitted in that Inquiry that what had occurred was in consequence of the business of the Board having got entirely into the hands of permanent officials and cunning members of the Board generally. It was very necessary, therefore, that the permanent paid officials of the counties should be under proper control. On the other hand, they did not want to run into the other extreme, and allow the business of the county to fall entirely into the hands of a small clique of the county committee; and there was great danger that unless a strong standing committee was formed representative of all the boroughs in the county, the practical administration of business in the intervals of the sittings might fall entirely into the hands of a small knot of members who were resident in the immediate neighbourhood of the town in which the county business was mainly transacted. It was for guarding against these two dangers that he ventured to suggest the propriety of setting up a standing committee. The suggestion of the method of procedure had been upon the Paper for some time, and hon. Members would probably have in their minds an outline of the scheme. Briefly, it was simply to secure that the County Council should appoint from among its own Members a committee which should be strong enough to have such duties to perform as would offer an inducement to the most business members of the Council to undertake the duties attaching to the office. He thought the safeguards which he suggested were such as to dissipate any fear that such a committee would be a mere clique of the county. It would be obvious that it was necessary to have some sort of cabinet to transact the business of the County Councils during the intervals between the sittings of the Councils. He imagined that the County Council would not sit more than once a month, hardly once a fortnight; and what he wished to know, if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to accept the Amendment, was what authority, or what form of County Council, would there be to exercise control and conduct the administration of minor business when the Council was not sitting? He would only add that this principle of appointing a standing committee had been adopted in every country of Europe where there existed such a Council as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to establish under the present Bill. Such committees were first established in Belgium, and afterwards in France and Germany; and he believed that the system had been found to work so admirably that it had since been adopted by the countries in question. He mentioned these facts in connection with this matter; but, whatever might be the fate of his suggestion, he would look to the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten the Committee as to what he regarded as the probable course which would be taken by the County Councils for the transaction of ordinary business during the periods in which the Council was not sitting, because if the right hon. Gentleman could give him a satisfactory assurance on that point, he would not press the Amendment any farther. He was convinced that it was far better to have one strong standing committee than a number of small committees, because the latter would not have proper authority and influence over the parties to whom he had alluded, and in all probability, if those small committees had only limited powers, they would not be able to secure the best men on the Council for the discharge of the duties on the committee. It would be perfectly obvious that his plan did not exclude the propriety of having other special committees for dealing with the business of the different districts and boroughs of the county.

Amendment proposed, in page 69, line 8, to leave out the word "finance," and insert the word "standing."

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman to leave out the word "finance" and insert others, because it would do away with the necessity entailed by the Bill on the County Council of appointing a finance committee. He thought the Committee would agree that whatever committee the County Council might consider it desirable to appoint for the transaction of business, a finance committee was an absolute necessity; and under no circumstances could the Government consent to any committee in substitution of it. On the question whether or not they should entail upon the County Council the obligation of creating a standing committee, he had already pointed out that the Council could appoint any committees they wished; and he might add that, having set up Bodies charged with very important powers, it would be anomalous to say that they could not trust them to make the arrangements necessary for the conduct of their business.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, his proposal was that there should be a strong committee, and he was willing to leave in the words "for regulating and controlling the finance of their county." He did not want to press the right hon. Gentleman; but he had not thrown much light on the question as to what sort of cabinet he anticipated there would be for carrying on the administration of business during the intervals between one sitting and another. Did he contemplate that the Council would be constantly in session, or only sit once a month or once a week? He wanted hon. Gentlemen to understand that there would be great danger in dissipating the work among a number of small committees; because, on the one hand, there would not be sufficient work for the Council to do, and, on the other, the business of the county might lapse into the hands of a small clique. He submitted that his proposal would tend to the economical administration of county business.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, Amendment made, in page 69, line 18, to leave out the words "one hundred," and to insert the word "fifty."

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

said, the clause provided that all orders for payment should be signed by three members of the Council; but he thought that experience had shown that it would be much better that they should be signed by three members of the finance committee.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 80 (Appointment of joint committees).

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act made it necessary to appoint a number of small committees throughout the county. Now, the County Council would not have the means of establishing those committees from among its own members. By Clause 27 they had given power to the County Council to delegate its powers to Justices sitting in Petty Session, and he thought the arrangement would work better if when it was put in operation the County Council were to join themselves to the Quarter Sessions, and if they were enabled to do that the object he had in view would be carried out. He hoped the Amendment in his name would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, because it was very practical and would be very advantageous to the working of the Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 69, line 29, to leave out from the word "for," to the word "interested," in line 30, and to insert the words "carrying into effect any of the purposes of this Act."—(Sir John Dorington.)

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

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

said, he thought it had been made pretty clear in the Bill that joint committees might be appointed on matters of joint interest. But he was rather inclined to think that it would be desirable to limit rather than to increase the number of such committees; and he, therefore, ventured to hope that his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press his proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 70, line 8, leave out the word "elective," and after line 14 to add the words— This Section shall apply to the councils of county boroughs in like manner as to councils of administrative counties and the council of a county borough may join in the appointment of a standing joint committee for the purpose of police where there is one police force for the county and such borough.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 81 (Proceedings of committee).

On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, Amendment made, in page 70, line 19, after the word "quorum," to insert the words "and the place of meeting whether within or without the county."

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 70, line 20, after the word "direct," to insert the words "and the Chairman at any meeting of the committee shall have a second or casting vote."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Officers.

Clause 82 (Clerk of the peace and of county council).

On the Motion of Sir JOHN DORINGTON, Amendment made, in page 70, line 28, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the words— Of a county besides acting as Clerk of the Peace of that county shall also (subject to the provisions of this Act as respects particular counties).

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, in explanation of the reason why he had put down the Amendment he was about to move, that considerable inconvenience resulted from the fact that Clerks of the Peace frequently resided at a considerable distance from the town where the business of the county was transacted. Besides other places, that was the case at Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, and he mentioned this by way of illustration. He did not wish unreasonably to hamper the movements of the Clerks of the Peace; but it was a great inconvenience to parties who had public business to transact that they should be unable to find the Clerk of the Peace within a reasonable distance of the office or public building where their business had to be transacted. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of other cases than that which he had mentioned, but if so, he thought he would agree that there should be some limitation of the distance from the county town at which the Clerk of the Peace should have his office. If the Amendment which he proposed was too stringent, he would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what he was prepared to do in order to relieve the ratepayers of the annoyance caused by the practice he had mentioned.

Amendment proposed, In page 70, at the end of line 36, to add the words—"He shall have his offices in the county town, and shall reside within three miles thereof."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

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

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would take this matter into consideration. He was very anxious that Clerks of the Peace should in reality be the servants of the authorities, and that their business should be transacted in the county offices. These gentlemen very seldom did their own work, and they were accustomed to employ for that purpose another person at a small salary. He had known of one Clerk of the Peace in a Northern county who had one family in the county and another family in London. This gentleman did not visit his family in the North for many years, but lived with the Southern family. There was another Clerk of the Peace who had not been in Europe for 20 years; and, again, another who had not been in the place in which he was supposed to act for a similar period. He had known the whole work of an important court done by a clerk receiving 15s. a-week. These facts showed the necessity there was for some steps to be taken to ensure that the work should be done by the person who was paid to do it, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the subject before Report, with a view to remedying the state of things complained of.

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

said, he was afraid the Government could not, in this Bill, attempt to regulate the family affairs of Clerks of the Peace. But the future appointments of Clerks of the Peace would be made by a joint committee of the County Council and Quarter Sessions, and he thought it might be fairly left to them to make such arrangements as they thought best in the interest of the locality. Of course, it would be admitted that the Local Authority ought to get the man best qualified for the work to be done, and it might be that they had to go further afield than three miles from the county town for the purpose. But it would rest with the County Council to fix the place whore the Clerk of the Peace should reside. Of course, he agreed that the illustrations furnished by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northwich pointed to a great scandal, and there could be no doubt that the Clerk of the Peace should not live abroad, but in the country where his duties had to be performed; but he thought that the County Council and the Quarter Sessions, under the arrangement in the Bill, might fairly be trusted to see that nothing of the kind mentioned occurred in future. He pointed out to the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) that it by no means followed that the business of the County Council and Quarter Sessions would be conducted in the county town.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he, of course, meant the town which might be adopted by the County Council for the transaction of public business. He pointed out that the present Clerk of the Peace in Dorsetshire, to whom he had referred, was the son or grandson of the former clerk; he presumed the vested interest was safeguarded, and if a young man were next appointed, the practice he complained of might go on for the next half-century. The present Clerk of the Peace had not his office in the town where the County Council would be held, but in a town at a considerable distance off. He thought the matters which the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) had referred to would be more properly considered under the clause which dealt with the question of appointing Deputy Clerks of the Peace in case of illness or absence; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not lose sight of the cases he had mentioned, and that he would make it clear that Clerks of the Peace should not have deputies appointed for them except for particular purposes and for limited periods.

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

said, he would point out that Clerks of the Peace were at present freeholders of the office; it seemed to him, therefore, that they must deal not with the present, but the future Clerks of the Peace. As far as Staffordshire was concerned, he would like to say that the duties of the Clerk of the Peace were discharged personally by a man who did the work to the entire satisfaction of the whole county.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In pages 70 and 71, leave out sub-section (4), and insert—"He may from time to time appoint a person who has practised for not less than seven years as a barrister or solicitor to act as his deputy as respects the judicial business and all other matters transacted by the court of quarter sessions, either during his illness or absence, or in the second court on the division of the court of quarter sessions for judicial business. The county council may from time to time appoint a deputy clerk of the county council, to hold office during their pleasure, and to act in lieu of the clerk of the county council in case of his illness or absence, or in such other cases as may be determined by the council; and wherever a deputy so acts, all things authorised or required to be done by, to, or before the clerk of the county council may be done by, to, or before any such deputy. Subject as aforesaid, all officers acting under the clerk of the peace shall be appointed by the county council, or if appointed solely for the purpose of the judicial business and other matters transacted by the court of quarter sessions, then by the joint committee."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)

Question proposed, "That sub-section (4) stand part of the Clause."

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this Amendment. It would be much better that the power should remain in the hands of the joint committee. That committee would see that the proper person was appointed. This ought not to be a piece of patronage given to the Clerk of the Peace.

MR. WHARTON (York, W. R., Ripon)

said, that if the Amendment was negatived, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should put in after "case" in line 38, the words "of his death," so that the sub-section would read "in lieu of such clerk in case of his death or his illness, or absence." He recollected a case where a Clerk of the Peace died between two sessions, and a deputy was appointed, but he believed illegally appointed. He believed that the work of that session was illegally done, because it was done by a deputy who was not legally appointed. If the word "death" were put in, it would meet such a case.

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

said, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not accept this Amendment.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that this was one of a series of Amendments, proposed, he had no doubt, with a view of impressing the provisions of the Bill, but on the whole he thought that the mode of appointment provided for in the Bill was one most in accordance with the general provisions of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, he supposed that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton)?

MR. RITCHIE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of MR. WHARTON, Amendment made, in page 70, after the word "case," in line 38, to insert the words "of his death."

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

, in moving to insert after the word "peace," in line 5, the words "deputy clerk respectively," said, he had been asked to propose this Amendment by deputy clerks of counties. The deputy clerks were still to be appointed, but there was no provision made for their payment, therefore it was that he proposed the insertion of these words.

Amendment proposed, in page 71, line five, after the word "peace," to insert the words "deputy clerk respectively."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought it was clear that if the joint committee could appoint a deputy clerk, they could assign the salary. This sub-section applied to certain appointments made under enactments relating thereto. There were enactments relating to the pay of Clerks of the Peace, but there were no enactments relating to the pay of deputy clerks, and therefore, as a matter of form, his hon. Friend's Amendment could not be accepted in this place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

, in moving to insert after the word "peace," in line five, the words "in respect of his services as clerk of the peace, and as clerk of the county council," said, this Amendment was simply to make it clear that the salary should be in respect of the duties, some of which would be new duties, which the clerk of the county would have to discharge, as well as in respect to those he would still have to discharge in his capacity as Clerk of the Peace.

Amendment proposed, In page 71, line 5, after the word "peace," to insert the words "in respect of his services as clerk of the peace and as clerk of the county council."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)

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

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 71, line 17, after the word "documents," to insert the words "or to jury lists or to any registration matters."

On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, the following Amendment made:—In page 71, at end of line 20, insert the following sub-section:— The office of clerk of the peace of each of the administrative counties of Sussex shall be a separate office; but nothing in this Act shall prevent the same person from being appointed to both such offices, and the justices in general sessions assembled for the entire county of Sussex may from time to time appoint the person who is clerk of the peace for either adminintrative county to be clerk of the peace of such general sessions, and may remove such clerk, and the remuneration to be paid to such clerk shall be determined jointly by the standing joint committees for the administrative counties. The existing records of the county of Sussex shall, subject to the order of quarter sessions, continue to be kept by the clerk of the peace of East Sussex.

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

, in moving the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for the Stretford Division of South-East Lancashire (Mr. Maclure), said, he understood that the Government had no objection to the Amendment; it had simply to do with the peculiar position of Lancashire, where there was an immense amount of work to do.

Amendment proposed, In page 71, at end of line 20, to insert—"This section shall apply to the clerks of the peace and deputy clerks of the peace of the county of Lancaster, in like manner as it applies to clerks of the peace of any other county, but the appointment of any such deputy clerk of the peace may be discontinued if the standing joint committee think fit."—(Viscount Cranborne.)

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

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he did not think that it was desirable to strengthen the language in Sub-section 7 with regard to the County of London? It was quite clear that the Clerk of the Peace could not be the same person as the clerk of the County Council. They must have two separate officers, on account of the heavy work which would have to be performed.

MR. RITCHIE

thought, it was never contemplated that the Clerk of the Peace and the clerk of the County Council could be the same individual in London. He had not supposed for a moment that it was at all likely that the County Council would appoint a man who was Clerk of the Peace; but he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman deemed it necessary to take away from the County Council the power to do so. He would look into the matter before Report, to see whether they could make the word "shall" instead of "may."

On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, the following Amendment made:—In page 71, at end of line 34, insert— The joint committee of the councils of the three ridings or divisions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire may from time to time appoint a clerk of such joint committee, and may from time to time remove such clerk.

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said, he proposed to add at the end of the clause the following proviso— Provided always, that no paid clerk or other paid official in the permanent employment of the county council shall be eligible to serve in Parliament for any Parliamentary division in any county or borough wholly or partly within the limits of the county for which he is appointed by the county council. This Amendment raised a question of some importance. The duties of the officials of the new County Councils would, no doubt, be very extensive and very onerous. There had always been a jealousy in the House not to allow the Public Service to be neglected by paid permanent officials devoting their time to other duties than those of the Public Service. To guard against the risk of those engaged in official business neglecting their duties, such officials had been prevented from occupying seats in the House of Commons. A similar thing prevailed in regard to recorders, registrars, and revising barristers; and he hoped that now, when they were appointing officials of Bodies of very great power and influence, they would do nothing which might cause these officials to neglect their duties. He thought that in forming these new Bodies, and in appointing officials to them—who, no doubt, would be very highly paid, and who would have duties of a very great and comprehensive character—it would be wise for Parliament at this particular stage to guard against such officials using their position for other purposes than that for which they ought to be used. It would be wise of the Committee to agree to words providing that the officials of the County Councils should give up their time to the duties for which they were paid, and which they had to discharge in the public interest.

Amendment proposed, In page 71, to add at end of the clause, "Provided always that no paid clerk, or other paid official in the permanent employment of the county council shall be eligible to serve in Parliament for any Parliamentary Division in any county or borough wholly or partly within the limits of the county for which he is appointed by the county council."—(Mr. Webster.)

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

MR. LAWSON

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept this Amendment. He felt very strongly that the persons referred to should be as incapable of sitting in the House of Commons as any of the permanent civil servants, their whole time, which would be fully occupied, being given up to the duties of their office.

MR. BRUNNER

, in moving to amend the Amendment by omitting all the words after the word "Parliament," said, that would prevent any of these officials sitting in Parliament for any constituency whatever.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "Parliament."—(Mr. Brunner.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, that if the Committee thought an Amendment of this kind was desirable in the interests of the public, the Government would not oppose it. Personally, he was of opinion that if a man was not to be eligible to sit for any division of the county for which he was serving, he ought not to be allowed to sit at all, on the ground that he ought to apply his time to the duties of the office, and ought not at any time to be engaged in any canvassing in order to obtain admission to Parliament.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment amended, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 83 (Appointment of the justices' clerks and clerks of committees).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 71, line 41, to leave out from beginning of line to end of line 10, page 72; in page 72, line 17, after the word "sessions," to insert the word "justices;" and in line 18, leave out from the word "and" to end of Clause, inclusive.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Adjustmemt of Law.

Clause 84 (Licensing by county councils) agreed to.

Clause 85 (Making of bye-laws as to tricycles).

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said the Amendment he had to propose was one which excited a good deal of interest amongst that numerous body who rode upon wheels. It might be that it was not very germane to this Bill to introduce a clause altering the law on the subject of bicycles and tricycles. His excuse was that the clause, as it now stood, did alter the general law, inasmuch as it brought tricycles within the purview of "The Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878." When that Act was passed bicycles and tricycles were practically toys, and comparatively little used, and people did not travel upon them the great distances they did now. Powers were then given to the Court of Quarter Sessions and other authorities to make bye-laws regulating bicycles and tricycles, which powers were exercised to some extent. Subsequently, under the Municipal Corporations Act, regulations concerning bicycles and tricycles were made for towns under the powers of Corporations to control nuisances, which was a very uncomplimentary way of dealing with these vehicles. The proposal he now made to the Committee was that the complicated state of things which arose from there being numerous and varying sets of bye-laws throughout England should be done away with, and that there should be one common law regulating all these vehicles. It was very easy to understand that a bicyclist in passing from one part of England to another was exposed to great vexation from being wholly ignorant of the various regulations prevailing on the different roads he had to travel. There had been great uncertainty as to whether these machines were carriages or not, and whether they were liable to the regulations applying to carriages under the Highway Acts, and it was very much better that the matter should be cleared up. The Amendment he had to propose simply enacted that bicycles and tricycles and similar vehicles should be considered carriages, and that the most common form of bye-laws affecting them should be part of the existing statute law. He hoped the Committee would recognize the expediency of this change, and that his proposal might be generally acceptable.

Amendment proposed, In page 73, line 33, after the words "provisions of," leave out to end of Clause, and insert "section twenty-six, sub-section five, of 'The Highway and Locomotive Amendment Act, 1878,' and so much of section twenty-three, sub-section one, of 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as gives power to the council to make bye-laws regulating the use of carriages herein referred to, and all other provisions of any public or private Acts, giving power to any local authority to make bye-laws for regulating the use of bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines, are hereby repealed, and bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines, are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of this Act and the Highway Acts; and the following additional regulations shall be observed by any person or persons riding or being upon such carriage:—

1. 1. During the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, every person riding or being upon such carriage shall carry attached to the carriage a lamp, which shall be so constructed and placed as to exhibit a light in the direction in which he is proceeding, and so lighted and kept lighted as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach or position of the carriage.
2. 2. Upon overtaking any cart or carriage, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger, being or proceeding along the carriage way, every such person shall within a reasonable distance from and before passing such cart or carriage, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or such foot passenger, by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the carriage. Any person offending against the regulations made by this section shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding forty shillings."—(Sir John Dorington.)

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

MR. COGHILL (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

said, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept this Amendment. It was most important that there should be some uniformity in the regulations which affected cyclists in the use of the roads. In almost every county these regulations differed, and cyclists found themselves quite right in one county, but when they proceeded a few yards further they found that they were doing something quite wrong. He thought the enormous number of persons who used machines of this sort had some claim upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment, which he was sure would be looked upon with considerable interest outside the House.

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

said, he desired to remark in the first place, that this proposal was one which was hardly germane to the Bill, and he should be sorry to embark upon a discussion in Committee as to whether or not the proposal of his hon. Friend was right, or whether it was desirable that other regulations or alterations should be made in regard to bicycles and tricycles. But having said so much, he was bound to acknowledge that there was a great deal of force in the arguments which had been used in support of this Amendment. He could quite understand that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction existing amongst that large class of persons who rode on wheels; that when they went from one county to another they never knew what the law was and what penalties they were rendering themselves liable to. He had also to say that the proposals of his hon. Friend ran very much on the lines of the model bye-laws drawn up by the Local Government Board. Therefore, if the Committee thought it desirable that this Amendment should be accepted he, on the part of the Government—although the Amendment was rather outside the four corners of the Bill—would not object to its acceptance. He wished it to be distinctly understood, however, that if there was a difference of opinion in the Committee as to the advisability of accepting the Amendment the Government would not consider it their duty to ask the Committee to embark upon anything like a discussion of this matter. It might very well indeed be pleaded that this matter should be left to the County Councils themselves, and, so far as the Government were concerned, they would only be prepared to accept the Amendment if they found there was a general concensus of opinion in the Committee that the Amendment should be here inserted.

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

said, he thought that all the gentlemen who rode on the various carriages of this description would be exceedingly grateful if the Committee were to pass this Amendment. Cyclists did not know, as the right hon. Gentleman had just said, what might happen if they went from one county to another. They travelled very long distances from morning to night, and he was quite persuaded that the proposal of his hon. Friend would be very acceptable to them, inasmuch as it would do away with the uncertainty which prevailed as to the regulations to which they were subject.

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, he did not feel himself in a position to express an opinion with regard to the particular proposals of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Dorington), but it was impossible to deny that there was great force in what had been said as to the desirability of some such uniform and general kind of regulation. Recognizing that fact, he would not press the Amendment which stood in his name.

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

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment. Why should they introduce bye-laws into a great scheme of Local Government merely for the convenience of people who rode upon bicycles and tricycles? Why they should take away from the County Councils the power to make bye-laws for these people he certainly could not understand.

MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)

said, that one reason why they should not leave the power to the County Councils was that there would be a considerable number of County Councils in England, each of whom might make different bye-laws, and the unfortunate cyclist would be utterly bewildered by the different regulations to which he was subjected in the course of a day's ride. If, however, they established one law, the men who rode bicycles and tricycles would know when they were in the wrong and what penalties they were liable to.

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept the Amendment. It was clear it was germane to the clause, however ungermane the clause might be to the Bill.

MR. T. ROBINSON (Gloucester)

said, that a very good case had been made out for the Amendment, and, therefore, he hoped it would find acceptance at the hands of the Committee.

Question put, and negatived.

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

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made to the foregoing Amendment:—In line 3, to leave out "so much of;" line 4, to leave out the word "as," and insert the words "even so far as it;" line 6, to leave out the word "giving," and insert "in so far as they give;" and in line 25, after the word "person," insert "summarily convicted of."

Amendments to foregoing Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 86 (Adaptation of Lunatic Asylum Acts).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 74, line 2, after "and," insert "their;" line 12, after "justices," insert "or council;" line 17, after "justices," insert "or council;" line 21, after "appointment," insert "by the recorder or justices;" line 24, after the first "quarter sessions," insert "not being a county borough;" line 27, after "contract," insert— Cease to have power to build a lunatic asylum, and subject to the enactments providing for an additional charge for the maintenance of lunatics in cases where no contribution has been made towards the cost of building and furnishing an asylum, shall; and in page 74, at end of line 29, insert— Any asylum provided in whole or in part at the cost of a county shall for the purposes of this Act be included in the expression 'county lunatic asylum.'

COLONEL GUNTER

, in moving an Amendment which stood in his name, said, it was intended to prevent friction in large counties which had two or three lunatic asylums. The Amendment was to enable the various lunatic asylums to be placed on one basis of rate.

Amendment proposed, In page 74, at end of line 29, insert—"Where there is more than one county lunatic asylum, the county council may from time to time appoint one committee for the management and control of all the county lunatic asylums, and such committee shall be the committee of each asylum within the meanings of the Acts relating to pauper lunatic asylums, and shall from time to time appoint a sub-committee for each separate asylum, and may delegate to that sub-committee such powers and duties as the committee from time to time think fit. The said committee may, subject to any directions given by the county council, provide that a uniform charge shall be made for the maintenance of lunatics in the several county asylums, and that for that purpose any surplus arising on the accounts of one asylum shall be applied to meet the deficit arising on the accounts of another asylum."—(Colonel Gunter.)

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 87 (Application of provisions of 38 & 39 Vic. c. 55 as to local inquiries and provisional orders).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 74, line 33, after the word "matter," to insert the words "or otherwise to act under this Act;" in page 75, line 2, at end, to insert the words— Provided that where a Provisional Order transfers to county councils generally any powers, duties, or liabilities of Her Majesty's Privy Council, a Secretary of State, the Local Government Board, or other Government Department, it shall not be necessary to hold a local inquiry; and in line 7, after the word "held," to insert the words "under this Act."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 88 (Adjustment of laws as regards courts, juries, sittings at nisi prius and legal proceedings in Middlesex and London).

MR. BIGWOOD (Middlesex, Brentford), in moving to insert, in page 75, line 20, before "The," the words— Section nine of 'The Juries Act, 1870' (thirty-third and thirty-fourth years of Victoria, chapter seventy-seven), is hereby repealed, and, notwithstanding anything in the same or in any Act or Acts contained, the inhabitants of the city and liberty of Westminster shall be liable to serve on juries at the sessions of the peace for the county of London, said, he did not know what view the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board took of the Amendment he had placed somewhat hastily on the Paper; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that it was a matter of some importance that the inhabitants of the county—

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

said, that he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex (Mr. Howard), which he thought went the full length the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bigwood) desired.

MR. BIGWOOD

said, that, in that case, he would propose the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham.

Amendment proposed, In page 75, line 24, after the word "county," to insert the words "and the present exemption to inhabitants of the liberty and city of Westminster from serving on juries at quarter sessions for the county of Middlesex shall cease."—(Mr. Bigwood.)

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 89 (Adjustment as regards the Militia Acts) agreed to.

Savings.

Clause 90 (Saving for votes at any Parliamentary elections).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 76, line 13, leave out sub-section (2); and in page 76, at end of line 33, insert— Provided that the clerk of the peace who receives from the revising barrister the lists of voters in any such place shall supply to any other clerk of the peace or other officer such number of revised lists as he may require for the purpose of making up a register of county electors.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 91 (Saving for Metropolitan and City Police); Clause 92 (Saving for Metropolitan common poor fund); Clause 93 (Saving as to Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent); and Clause 94 (Saving for powers of Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Customs) agreed to.

Definitions.

Clause 95 (Definition of "written") agreed to.

Clause 96 (Interpretation of certain terms in the Act).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 77, line 34, at end, insert— The expression 'division of a county,' in the provisions of this Act respecting the property of quarter sessions, includes any hundred, lathe, wapentake, or other like division.

On the Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment made:—In page 77, at end of line 34, insert— The expression 'administrative county,' means the area for which a county council is elected in pursuance of this Act, but does not (except where expressly mentioned) include a county borough.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 77, line 39, after "1882," insert— And any reference to the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of a borough shall include a reference to the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of a city; page 78, line 1, before "means," insert "as respects any county, riding, division, or liberty;" and in line 3, at end, insert— And as respects any borough, means any courts of quarter or general sessions held for the borough or for any county of a city or town consisting of the borough, whether held by the recorder or by the justices, and as respects the city of London, means the court of the mayor and aldermen in the inner chamber.

MR. TATTON EGERTON (Cheshire, Knutsford)

, in moving to add, at the end of line 8, page 79— The expression 'property' shall further include in the case of the county of Cheshire any surplus revenue of the River Weaver Trust which is or would but for this Act be payable to the court of quarter sessions, said, he had already stated his reason for pressing some Amendment in these terms.

Amendment proposed, In page 79, at end of line 8, add—"The expression 'property' shall further include in the case of the county of Cheshire any surplus revenue of the River Weaver Trust which is or would but for this Act be payable to the court of quarter sessions."—(Mr. Tatton Egerton.)

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

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

said, he could not see that there was any necessity for this Amendment. Surely any surplus revenue payable to the Quarter Sessions which was transferred from the Quarter Sessions to the County Council was the property of the County Council. There was great danger in putting in the Bill any surplusage; it might be contended that things which might be defined as property were not property.

MR. TATTON EGERTON

said, he could not think that the term "property" covered this particular case. This case was not on all fours with any other. The Trust might employ the surplus money they had on other works. They need not give what surplus they had after paying their debts to the Quarter Sessions. The Quarter Sessions had no power to demand it. They had the power of auditing the accounts, and, having done that, their powers ceased. It was to enable the County Council to accept the money that he proposed this Amendment.

MR. TOLLEMACHE (Cheshire, Eddisbury)

said, he hoped the Government would strengthen the definition of "property," at least, so far as Cheshire was concerned, by the acceptance of the Amendment. If, however, the Government were satisfied that the word "property" did include the surplus revenue of the Weaver Trust, he imagined his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the clause provided that— 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. If that was not wide enough, he did not know what was. But he would inquire between now and Report whether some such words as those proposed were necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 78, line 19, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 21; page 78, leave out from commencement of line 33 to end of line 38, and insert— The expressions 'district council' and 'county district' mean respectively any district council established for purposes of local government under an Act of any future Session of Parliament, and the district under the management of such council, and until such council is established, mean respectively—

1. (a.) As regards the provisions of this Act relating to highways and main roads, a highway authority and highway area; and
2. (b.) Save as aforesaid, an urban or rural sanitary authority within the meaning of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and the district of such authority;

The expression 'highway area' means, as the case may require, an urban sanitary district, a highway district, or a highway parish not included within any highway or urban sanitary district; The expression 'highway authority' means, as respects an urban sanitary district, the urban sanitary authority, and as respects a highway district, the highway board, and as respects a highway parish, the surveyor or surveyors of highways or other officers performing similar duties; The expression 'urban authority' means, until the establishment of district councils as aforesaid, an existing urban sanitary authority; and, after their establishment, the district council of an urban county district; The expression 'rural authority' means, until the establishment of district councils as aforesaid, an existing rural sanitary authority; and, after their establishment, the district council of a rural county district; line 40, at end, insert— Any expression referring to the value of any parish, borough, or area as ascertained by the standard or basis for the county rate shall, in the case of any parish, borough, or area for which there is no such standard or basis, refer to the total rateable value as determined by the last valuation lists, or if there is no valuation list, by the last poor rates for such parish or the parishes comprised in such borough or area; and in page 79, at end of line 17, insert— The expression 'powers, duties, and liabilities,' includes all powers, duties, and liabilities conferred or imposed by or arising under any local and personal Act; The expression 'expenses' includes costs and charges; page 79, line 18, at end insert— The costs of assizes and of quarter and petty sessions include such of the following costs as are applicable, that is to say, the costs of maintaining and providing the courts and offices and the judges' lodgings, the salaries and remuneration of the chairman of quarter sessions, clerks of assize, clerks of the peace, clerks of the justices, and other officers, the costs of the jury lists, the costs of rewards ordered to be paid by the court, the costs of prosecutions including the costs of the defendants' witnesses, and all other costs incidental to the assizes, quarter sessions, petty sessions, or the judges, but nothing shall require a quarter sessions borough to contribute towards the costs of prosecutions at assizes except in the case of prisoners committed for trial from the borough.

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

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

said, there was one point to which he should like to call attention in connection with this clause—namely, that it was no doubt intended that the County Council under this Bill should perform the same function as the County Authority under the Allotments Act of last Session. Section 16 of the Allotments Act said that the County Authority should mean any representative Body elected by the inhabitants of the county, and it seemed to him that unless something were done to render it impossible, a quibble might be raised as to whether the County Councils were elected by the inhabitants of the county. He desired to know whether it would not be well to make it clear that, for the purposes of the Allotments Act, the County Council was "a representative body elected by the inhabitants of the county?"

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think there would be the slightest doubt about this.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 97 (Extent of Act); and Clause 98 (Short title) agreed to.