TRANSITORY PROVISIONS.

HC Deb 17 July 1888 vol 328 cc1594-644

First election of County Councillors.

Clause 99 (First election of county councillors).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 80, line 11, leave out "elective;" line 25, leave out "roll," and insert "register;" and leave out "rolls," and insert "registers."

BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)

said he desired to move Amendments with the object of bringing the clause into accord with the provisions adopted in Clause 76.

On the Motion of Baron DIMSDALE, the following Amendments made:—In page 80, line 33, leave out "not exceeding those allowed by law for a municipal election;" and in line 36, leave out "and shall be taxed in like manner as the expenses of a municipal election," and insert "and may be taxed on an application made by or by direction of the provisional council."

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

said, that, before the next Amendment was taken he desired to call attention to the great inconvenience that would arise in the County of London from unnecessary duplication of Returning Officers under this section. In London the Returning Officer was appointed by the Sheriff of Middlesex to operate under the Act of 1885. It was not possible, however, for one Returning Officer to do the whole of the work throughout the Metropolis; therefore, if one Returning Officer were appointed he would have to select a number of others throughout the county. In the first case it would be better that the Sheriff of Middlesex should nominate the Returning Officer rather than that they should have a double set of these officials.

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

said, it was desirable that there should be one Returning Officer for the whole of London, who should be allowed to appoint other Returning Officers to assist him. It was desirable to leave this official a free hand in the matter of appointing his assistants. As the hon. Gentleman knew, there were boroughs in London with five or six divisions, and that there was only one Returning Officer for the whole borough. Take his (Mr. Ritchie's) own borough of the Tower Hamlets for instance. The Returning Officer there had to appoint a representative in each division. Though there was only one Returning Officer for the whole borough, he had to appoint five other Returning Officers for the other divisions. He did not think it desirable that by this enactment they should split the divisions up again so far as the Returning Officers were concerned, and that the Returning Officer for the Tower Hamlets should appoint his deputies. It would be better to leave the Returning Officer for the whole of London to appoint his deputy Returning Officers. There could be no doubt that he would appoint those men most familiar with the work and best fitted to carry it out.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 81, line 6, leave out "roll," and insert register; "line 6, leave out "rolls," and insert "registers;" line 7, after "elections," insert— And shall make them up out of the list of voters made out in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight for the City of London, and for such portions of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, as are comprised in the Metropolis, and shall make the necessary alteration in the forms of those lists, and the secondary of the City of London and the clerks of the peace of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, shall deliver to the said returning officer such number of copies of the revised lists of electors as he may require.

On the Motion of Baron DIMSDALE, the following Amendment made:—In page 81, at the end of line 7, insert The Court of Quarter Sessions in any county, and the Metropolitan Board of Works in the Metropolis, shall advance to the returning officer such sum as is authorised by this Act to be advanced by county councils to returning officers for the purposes of an election.

MR. LAWSON

said, he should like to know whether some other Body besides the Metropolitan Board of Works in the Metropolis could not advance the sum referred to in this Amendment?

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

Clause 100 (Retirement of first county councillors).

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman at this point, whether he was prepared to make the statement promised with regard to a matter which had been left over—that was to say, as to the period for which the county Aldermen should be appointed?

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

said, he did not think the question was as to the period for which county Aldermen should be elected, but as to whether or not any alteration should be made in the period of election of county Councillors. He believed that was the point raised, and that he should be able to answer later on.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 81, lines 12 and 13, leave out "selected councillors," and insert "county aldermen."

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, they had placed a very difficult task before the councillors. If it should so happen that some should have to serve for a longer term than others, it would be hard to select the men for the longer term, and he would propose that the discrimination should be made by ballot. The selection might be made as in connection with Local Boards—that was to say, by allowing those who had the largest number of votes to serve for the longest period, and in the case of equal votes, the point as to who should serve for the longest term being settled by ballot. He would move an Amendment declaring that the term should be settled by ballot. If necessary he would leave his Amendment over until the Report.

Amendment proposed, in page 81, line 15, after the word "department," insert the words "by ballot."—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)

MR. RITCHIE

I will accept this Amendment.

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

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said, on Clause 101 he had a similar Amendment.

On the Motion Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 81, lines 16, 17, and 18, leave out "selected councillors," and insert "county aldermen."

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said, he hoped that one-third of the Councillors would retire at intervals either annually or biennially, as had already been suggested on another clause of the Bill. They were expecting an announcement on Report from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on this subject, and he trusted it would be to the effect that there would be a retirement of one-third at such intervals.

MR. RITCHIE

said, his recollection was that the promise was that an announcement would be made as to whether or not the Councils should be elected for a longer period than three years. He thought six was mentioned, with the retirement of a third every two years. That was the point upon which a statement would be made on Report.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would understand that that was not the opinion of hon. Members on the Radical Benches so far as London was concerned. They were quite in agreement with the proposal as it stood in the Bill.

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

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

asked, whether there would not be inconvenience in the periods fixed for the Commencement of the County Councils and the termination of the administrative functions of the Quarter Sessions? Were these Bodies going to work side by side for a time? If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was satisfied that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton) would remove the difficulties, he would not detain the House on this point.

MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)

said, that with regard to the County Council of London, it should be remembered that the Metropolitan Board of Works completed its financial year on the 25th of March, and it would be as well to make the next day—namely, the 26th of March, the period when that County Council would come into operation. The Quarter Sessions would go on all through April.

MR. HENEAGE

said, the Quarter Sessions would go on all through April—they would have to proceed and finish their business, and some authority would have to levy the new rate, and he did not know whether that would be done by the Quarter Sessions, or the new Councils which would come into life next April.

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

said, that he intended to make a proposal on this question, but that it would not affect the new rate. It was that the Quarter Sessions should meet and wind up their business, to receive the reports of their committees, and the reports of their officials, so as to hand over their business to the new County Councils in ship shape. He did not propose that they should transact any financial business subsequent to the 31st of March, that being the end of the financial year.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he proposed to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton), which would meet the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). As to what was stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walworth Division of Newington (Mr. Isaacs) in reference to the London Council, London in this matter would not be different to other counties. The Local Authorities would be in a position to make all their arrangements for transferring their functions two or three months before the period on which they expire, and he did not think that any inconvenience would result.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should fix the 1st of April for the County Councils to come into operation, because it would probably tend to their being described as "April fools."

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 101 (Preliminary action of county councillors as provisional council).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 81, line 33, leave out "selected councillors," and insert "county aldermen."

MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper, in line 34, after "council," to add— This vote to be taken by ballot, each provisional councillor to vote for no greater number than three-fifths of the selected councillors to be elected. said, that one of the strongest objections which had been made on nearly every side of the House to the proposal to appoint county Aldermen was, that in the case of this selected Body the selection would be made the occasion for warm contests and political fights, and that, no doubt, was a very natural objection. For his own part, he did not believe that political contests would take place; but, of course, the Committee could not shut its eyes to the possibilities of the case. The fight might take place upon many questions—the licensing question, for instance. It had been objected that the County Councillors, having been originally elected upon some political or other cry, and having to appoint one-third of their number of County Aldermen, they would act unfairly in their selection—that was to say, that the majority would elect men of the same views as themselves, so that, assuming that a County Council consisted of 60 members, and that at the first election the elected Councillors were divided by a party line, 31 on one side, and 29 on the other, the 31, as the Bill stood, would have the power of adding to their number no less than one third of the total number of Councillors. The result would be that unless some clause were put in to obviate this state of things, a majority of only two of the elected Councillors would be able to add 20 of their political friends to their number, so that there would be a majority of 51 on one side as against 29 on the other. The Amendment in his name, or rather the first part of it, had been practically agreed to in the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who moved the insertion of the words "by balllot" on the previous clause. His (Mr. Webster's) object in moving the Amendment was similar to that of the hon. Member for Wigan, for he thought it would be a very invidious duty for men sitting on the County Council to have put before them a number of names of gentlemen, many of whom might be their personal friends and neighbours, to be obliged to state publicly for which of these men they voted. Well, if the other part of the Amendment was accepted—which was to enable each provisional Councillor to vote for no greater number than three-fifths of the selected Councillors—it would enable each elector to vote for three out of five county Aldermen, the result would be, if the Council were divided, as he had just now mentioned, the majority would elect 12, and the minority eight, so that the majority would be 43, and the minority 37. It was contended by the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse)—who had an Amendment on the Paper—that the better mode of carrying out the selection of county Aldermen would be to give each elected Councillor the right to nominate one Alderman. He (Mr. Webster) did not agree with that, and for the reason that one or two difficulties would be sure to arise. They might have 10 or 12 candidates put down on the list of selective Aldermen, all of whom might be equally good, and all of whom might make very good Aldermen; or they might have a list of names in which one would be far and away better than the rest, and in the ballot all the Councillors, save eight or nine, might vote for this one man. Supposing 54 voted for him, and the other six each for one other candidate, one man would be elected with 54 votes, and six others with one apiece. Such a system would be obviously inconvenient. He thought that the system by which each individual on the Council would be able to vote for 12 out of 20 names would be found to work much better, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accepting the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 81, line 34, after the word "council," to add the words, "this vote to be taken by ballot, each provisional councillor to vote for no greater number than three-fifths of the selected councillors to be elected."—(Mr. Webster.)

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

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, it might be to the convenience of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman opposite if his Amendment—which had the same object as that of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Webster), though he sought to obtain it by a different method—were discussed at the same time as that of the hon. and learned Member. If the Committee decided against the principle of the Amendment just moved, of course, he (Mr. Hobhouse) should not propose his own. The Amendment before the House contained two different propositions. The first was that the vote should be taken by ballot, which was a totally different thing from the second part of the proposal, and one for which he thought there was no necessity. The provision under the Municipal Corporations Act—under Section 60 of that Act as embodied in this Bill—was to the effect that the voting for Aldermen should be by means of voting papers; and that, he thought, would be a much better plan than the system of voting by ballot. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, the object he (Mr. Hobhouse) sought to attain was to prevent a bare majority of the first Council electing the whole number of Aldermen, and he thought the hon. and learned Member who had preceded him had shown very clearly the evils which would arise under that plan; and let the Committee remember that the evil, if it were an evil, would be double as great on the first election as it would be on any subsequent election, for the number of Aldermen selected on the first election would not be the same as on subsequent elections, the number on the first occasion being the whole number, and not half as afterwards. It would work in such a way that they might have all the Aldermen on a County Council elected by a bare majority of one or two Councillors; and if the selection of Aldermen was altogether in the hands of one party, they could, by their selection, bring their number up to nearly double that of the other side. He ventured to think that if such a thing took place, even in any one county at the first election, it would reflect considerable discredit upon the County Council at the first start, and would not only influence very considerably the constitution of the first County Council, but would also influence very materially the following County Council, for half the Aldermen selected by the Councillors first elected would remain in on the next County Council. It was quite true that the County Aldermen, by Amendments introduced into the Bill, would not be able to vote at the subsequent elections of County Aldermen; yet, by their numbers they might succeed in turning a popular majority into a minority. He believed his proposal had superior advantages to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, (Mr. Webster), that each Councillor should only vote for three-fifths of the Aldermen. He ventured to think that the hon. and learned Member's plan would involve rather a difficult calculation for every Councillor to make, especially for hon. Members from his own part of the country—namely, London, where there were 19 Aldermen, and where it might be very doubtful what number of Aldermen each Councillor would have to vote for. No such doubt as that could possibly arise under his (Mr. Hobhouse's) Amendment. Under that Amendment each Councillor would only be able to vote for one Alderman, and the result would be that no confusion could possibly arise. They must remember that the voting would be conducted by voting papers, which might be prepared before the election, and there would be plenty of time under the provisions of the Bill for Councillors to lay their heads together, and decide who were the best and most useful men to appoint as Aldermen. They would be able to present their voting papers ready filled up, and the Council would be fairly constituted without there being any of those evils which would arise from a bare majority at an election. He would only say that he hoped the Government would not think he was tied, however, to any one plan for attaining the object in view. The object was a very important one, especially at a first election; and if the Government did not see their way to adopting his proposal—especially for the first election—he should be ready to withdraw it at this stage, in order to raise the whole question again in connection with the election of the Aldermen generally on the Report stage. He considered the evils which he had referred to, however, would be much greater at the first election than at any subsequent election, looking at the necessity there was of giving the County Councils a fair start. He thought that the Government would see the necessity of making some alteration in the direction he had pointed out.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

said, he was no advocate of what was usually referred to as proportional representation; but he hoped the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) would be accepted. In saying this he was thinking most of his own case, of the Metropolis. He had heard the hope expressed that the County Council battles would not be fought on political lines; but he thought that was a futile expectation, particularly as they saw on every hand that political organizations were already stretching their limbs for the fray. These contests in the Metropolis, as in Birmingham and other places, would, no doubt, be fought on political lines. He felt certain that there would be a great many evils existing on the London County Council if they did not adopt some such provision as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset, in order to secure the representation amongst the selected Councillors or Aldermen of those who found themselves in a minority amongst the elected Councillors. He trusted this matter would have the most careful consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.

SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) in preference to that of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse). The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset would be all very well if it were provided that the election should be carried on, as the hon. and learned Member suggested, by means of voting papers. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) admitted that, under those circumstances, it would be a feasible scheme. But if the election was to be conducted not by voting papers but by ballot, then equally he thought that the method suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset should not be adopted. It would be open to the obvious objection that in all probability one person would receive a vast majority of the votes of the elected Councillors, and the other Aldermen would be elected each one by a very small number of votes. He thought it very important that the election should be conducted by ballot. There were many reasons by which that proposal could be defended, but he thought it quite sufficient to point out that if the election was not to be by ballot a great many considerations would be allowed to enter into the election that should be excluded from it—personal considerations and considerations of friendship, and so on, would not fail to enter into the election unless it were conducted by ballot. As the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras had said, it would be a very invidious business for the elected Councillors to refuse to vote for their own most intimate personal friends; therefore, he thought that the election ought to be by ballot; and if that were admitted he thought it was clear that if some form of the representation of minorities were adopted—and he thought it should be adopted—it should be something in the nature of that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras; otherwise they would get almost all the elected Councillors voting for the same person, and the election would not carry out the intention, or what he supposed to be the intention, of the Committee—namely, the representation of minorities.

BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)

said, that, unlike the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), his object was to ask the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), as he thought that that Amendment was the better of the two submitted to the Committee. They had to guard against the risk of a narrow majority of elected Councillors, when they attained to power, taking advantage of the opportunity they would have of electing Aldermen entirely of their own way of thinking. The hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had drawn up a calculation saying that supposing there were 31 on one side and 29 on the other, the 31 would take the opportunity of electing the whole number of Aldermen on their side; but how was that position to be grappled with by the proposal the hon. Member had made? The hon. Member had said let them elect by ballot and they would get security in that way; but it seemed to him (Baron Dimsdale) that if they did that the same influence that guided them in their endeavour to secure a majority would operate equally under the ballot. The hon. and learned Member for East Somerset, on the other hand, said—"Let us have really a system of proportional representation, by which each member will only vote for one candidate." He (Baron Dimsdale) owned that that would meet the evils against which they wished to guard. Supposing the Licensing Question was at stake, they might have on the County Council a narrow majority in favour either of the drink party, so to speak, or of the temperance party, and whichever side was in the majority would try to secure the ascendancy by means of the election of Aldermen, and they might in this way prolong the life of their majority long after they had ceased to have a majority of selected Councillors. Proportional representation would meet the case fairly and fully. As to the so-called safeguard of the ballot, he believed it would be found no safe-guard at all. This was a transitory part of the Bill after all, and the Amendment proposed would only apply to the first election, and the arrangement suggested need not be prolonged after that, for it was really at the first election that they were likely to meet the danger apprehended—namely, the danger of a small majority of elected Councillors securing a number of Aldermen, which would give them great power in the future. Personally, he was very much in favour of proportional representation, and should be glad to join with those who were anxious to see it adopted throughout the Bill; but the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster), who adopted a tone as though he did not approve of proportional representation, would not escape from a still greater evil. He trusted that the Committee would adopt this system of proportional representation, which he believed would be a great safeguard.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, he thought it very unfortunate that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) had introduced into the discussion words which frightened a great many people—that was to say, the words "proportional representation." This was a very practical way of meeting the difficulty which had been very much urged, and which would do away with a great many objections which had been raised against County Aldermen. But he must point out to the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras that when he introduced the ballot in this case he was proceeding upon a wrong principle. The ballot was all very well when a man was giving his own vote, but that was not the case in a representative assembly, for there a man was voting as the representative responsible to his constituents. Under such circumstances, the ballot was altogether out of place, and, so far from its being a step in the direction of liberty of representation, it was a very different thing. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) seemed to be the more simple of the two; but he (Mr. Rathbone) really hoped that in one way or the other the Government would adopt the proposal now made. He thought it would make the County Councils more representative of the whole county than they would otherwise be.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, there was almost a consensus of opinion on both sides of the House in favour of proportional representation, and he thought he ought to congratulate himself on the general expression of opinion which had taken place on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras, not that he desired to advocate proportional representation, but because it showed very much how the minds of hon. Members and the Committee gene- rally had changed since an early day of the Committee, when he had had the honour to place before it an Amendment having precisely the same object which Members on both sides of the House were now seeking to accomplish. His Amendment was, of course, applied to a different part of the Bill, and he was not prejudiced in favour of the proposal he then submitted any more than he was prejudiced in favour of the proposal either of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset or the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras. His proposal had simply been that Aldermen should be elected by a majority of two-thirds of the Councillors. Probably that was impracticable; but he only now was remarking that the object he then had in view, and which he had endeavoured to press upon the Committee, was rejected by a large majority, and that now it seemed that almost all were in favour of adopting some method by which the possible tyranny of a bare majority on the Council might be obviated. He did not know to what they owed this change in the opinion of the Committee; but he congratulated the Committee upon it, and only hoped that it had permeated the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. He (Mr. Conybeare) would only remark that, since the day when he was as a voice of one crying in the wilderness on this question, the Committee had come to a more satisfactory conclusion on the matter, and that The Daily Forger, which did not always tell the truth, especially so far as he (Mr. Conybeare) was concerned, had taken up that which was originally his proposal. As he had already said, he thought it was highly important, by some method or other, to prevent a bare majority on one of these Councils from turning its majority of one, as it might be, into a majority of two-thirds or more than that perhaps. The figures which the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had placed before the House some time ago must, he thought, bring conviction to every mind as to the danger which might exist in this respect, and he sincerely hoped that the Government might find themselves able to accept one or other of the proposals which had been pressed upon them from both sides of the House, or that they would bring forward some other pro- posal of their own which would relieve the Committee from the difficulty they felt they were in. He did not say that this danger would necessarily be a very considerable one; but what they had to look at was this—that, in the first place, the danger, if it existed at all, would, as the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset had stated, be twice as great at the first election as it would be at any time afterwards, and that the effects of whatever might happen on that occasion would be a good deal more lasting, and might give a tone and colour to the Councils for generations to come. Supposing that what the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) had sketched out should take place, and that a bare majority of one on a particular side should turn that bare majority into a majority which would enable it to carry by force whatever it desired to carry, no matter how prejudicial it might be to the party in the minority, it must be clear to all that a fatal blow would be struck at the authority and influence of the Council, because it would create great friction and party spirit, and give the Council a very bad start, and mar the working of that which would otherwise be a very successful scheme. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would give every attention to these considerations, and see whether he could not adopt the method proposed for mitigating the evils of the clause.

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

said, it was stated by the hon. Member, just now, that this was a debate on proportional representation; but he hardly thought the proposal was one which, even if adopted, would very much advance the cause of proportional representation. What was the proposal? It was that, so far as the first election was concerned, the principle already adopted by the Committee with reference to the ordinary election of Aldermen should not apply; and while the Committee had accepted the proposal in the Bill that the majority in the County Council should elect the Aldermen, nevertheless, in the first election, they should not elect the Aldermen. He did not think it would be advisable for either of the Amendments to be adopted. If either of them were accepted, it would be impossible to maintain the position given to Aldermen in the Bill as it stood.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

So much the better.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think that it would be possible to maintain that there should be a different mode of election the first time to that which should be adopted at any other time. He thought he had heard the hon. Member for Spalding (Mr. Halley Stewart) say, "So much the better," when he had said that the acceptance of either of the Amendments would render it impossible to maintain the Aldermen in the position in which they stood in the Bill. He did not know whether the hon. Member's observation was intended to reach beyond his own side of the House; but, at any rate, he (Mr. Ritchie) had heard it. Whatever position the House took up—whatever decision they arrived at—must seriously affect the position of the Committee or the House if it were challenged again in any future stage of the Bill with reference to the election of Aldermen. He would remind the Committee that what was now complained of as being almost an outrageous proposal was a system which was in existence at the present time, and had been in existence with reference to the elections of Aldermen at Town Councils for many years. The objection had been raised by those who would eliminate the election of Aldermen altogether from the Bill. So far as he (Mr. Ritchie) could see, there was no substantial case made out for departure from the principle of the Municipal Corporations Act, which applied to Town Councils. If the Committee were to adopt any different principle to that contained in the Municipal Corporations Act, so far as the appointment of Aldermen in Local Councils were concerned, there would be two kinds of elections—there would be one kind in the County Councils and another in the boroughs. He maintained that if the system of election, as laid down in the present Bill, were wrong, it was wrong all over the country, and should be altered all over the country. Au anomaly which would be absolutely in-defensible would be set up if the Committee required the boroughs to be made counties of themselves, to have one mode of electing Aldermen, and the County Councils to have another. If the system was to be altered, let it be done by a Bill applied generally to the whole system of Aldermen throughout the country, and if that were the attitude taken by hon. Members he should not raise a single objection to apply the system to the provisions of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, as he had pointed out, proposing a considerable and fundamental change which the Government could not accept; and, under the circumstances, he asked the Committee to adhere to the proposal in the Bill, and to reject the Amendment.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he hoped that, whatever might be the decision of the Committee, the vote given by the Council would be a public and open vote, and one given under a full sense of responsibility. The practice of voting under the Municipal Corporations Act was that every Councillor entitled to vote did so by sending and personally delivering to the Chairman a voting paper containing the Christian and surname and other particulars of the gentlemen for whom he voted; the Chairman was bound by the Act to produce and openly read the voting papers, and was further bound to deliver them into the hands of the Town Clerk to be kept for 12 months. The Legislature had, by the Act of 1882, provided the most complete form of procedure to insure publicity; and he thought for the Committee now, when the that County Councils were first established, to change that procedure, and to shelter the action of the electing Councillors by secrecy, would be a retrograde step of the most melancholy character. In his opinion, the first election of Aldermen should proceed on the same lines as the subsequent elections. It was somewhat late in the day to endeavour to devise a new scheme for election, and he thought the Committee would do well to adhere to the proposal in the Bill.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, whatever might be the opinion of the Committee as to the aim of the Amendment, he thought it would require a great deal of explanation before it commended itself to hon. Members. The first objection to the Amendment was that by the ballot electors would not know how the County Councillors had discharged their duties with regard to the election of Aldermen. Then, when he came to the latter part of the Amendment, he found it open to a fatal objection. It proposed that no County Councillor should vote for a greater number than three-fifths of the selected Councillors to be elected. But suppose each County Councillor voted for the same man, the consequence would be that they would have only three-fifths of the number of Aldermen returned. The practical difficulty was much greater when they came to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), because under that Amendment each County Councillor would vote for only one Alderman, and it would be seen that all of them might vote for the same person. If the Amendment were adopted, a great deal of machinery would have to be added to the Bill, in some form or other, to allow of a second election, with the object of getting the proper number of Aldermen. He sympathized with the object in view, but these new-fangled methods of voting did not appear to him likely to attain the end at all. For these reasons, he would require some further explanation of the hon. Member's proposal.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, he had put his Amendment down in a very simple form, in order that it might be intelligible without explanation. His proposal was that each Councillor should only vote for one County Alderman. This would be done by voting papers. The Councillors would be able to find out among themselves whom their colleagues were going to vote for, and it would be perfectly well known how many votes would be necessary for each man, and, therefore, no votes would be lost. His Amendment would enable the Council, on adjournment, to fill up vacancies, and there would be no difficulty in this matter, because there would be time to consider who were the best men for selection. He did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Collings) would find any practical difficulty in the way of carrying out the proposal. It was extremely unfortunate that the Committee had now to consider two entirely different questions, and he asked them to deal with his Amendment separately. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he did not understand that he condemned the principle of the Amendment, although he had considerable objections to urge against it. The first of these was that it would create an indefensible anomaly—that was to say, there would be two kinds of elections, and those boroughs which were to be made counties of themselves would have one mode, and the counties proper would have another. But he would point out that the right hon. Gentleman had already accepted an Amendment which created a similar indefensible anomaly—namely, that of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire—for preventing Aldermen voting in the election for Aldermen, which would make a desirable alteration in the mode of election from that obtaining in county boroughs. But the right hon. Gentleman had another objection. He said that if the principle were applied, it ought to be applied to all elections, and not only to the first. He (Mr. Hobhouse) had already pointed out that the evil was double at the first election, and that what took place at the first election would be perpetuated. He had already refrained from moving an Amendment to Clause 2 at the request of the right hon. Gentleman himself; but if he still maintained this second objection to the Amendment on the Paper, he thought he might meet him by not moving it now, but by bringing up on Report an Amendment to Clause 2, containing a similar provision which would apply to all elections.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, it appeared to be agreed that the ballot was inapplicable in this case, and that a representative Body ought to give its votes publicly, so that those whom they represented might see how they had voted. It appeared to him that both these Amendments were actuated by the fear of the majority. If there was any justification for that, it seemed to him that the method taken for attaining the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman desired was extremely clumsy. In the case of a Council composed of 60 ordinary and 20 selected members, if each of the 60 members were only to vote for one Alderman, the result would be, if they were equally divided, that each elected Alderman would have three votes. All that went to show that the scheme would not work out in the manner which hon. Members imagined desirable. What they wanted was to have different elements, which some thought could be secured by limiting the number of votes each man might give. He believed that the simplest plan to adopt would be that of voting by majority. That was accepted in the House of Commons, and it could be surely accepted with regard to the election of Aldermen in the County Councils. It had been said that it would work unfairly where the Council was nearly equally divided. It worked unfairly when a Member was returned to that House by one or two votes only; but the alleged unfairness was generally compensated for by a Member of the opposite Party being returned in another constituency by an equally narrow majority of votes, and the same principle would hold good in respect of the election of County Aldermen.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, the last argument of the hon. Baronet was perfectly original, If in County Council A the Liberals had a majority of one, they could elect all the Aldermen; in County Council B, the Conservatives with also a majority of one, could elect all the Aldermen, and that his hon. Friend called compensation. The real parallel was not to be found in the election of Members to that House, but in that of the Representative Peers who were elected by the Party in a majority, who elected Peers of their own colour. No one could deny that that was a great evil, and one which would be greater in the case of County Aldermen at the first election than at subsequent elections. It was said that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) was imperfect, and could not be carried out in detail to its necessary conclusion. He thought that was not a fatal objection, because if they voted for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member it would be perfectly possible to give it practical effect on Report. The right hon. Gentleman had used it as an argument against the proposed Amendment, that it would lead to an anomaly. But the right hon. Gentleman had been reminded that he himself had consented to the introduction of an anomaly already. He had started with the idea of proceeding on the lines of the Municipal Corporations Act, which was a very sensible line of procedure, and yet he had accepted improvements on that pro- cedure. He (Mr. Stansfeld) did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not do the same thing here. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were not responsible for the construction of this measure, or the principle of the selection of Aldermen on the County Councils. He, therefore, saw no reason why they should not be entitled to remove the defect pointed out; and, therefore, if the Committee divided upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset, he should feel it his duty to support that hon. and learned Member's proposal.

MR. WEBSTER

said, he would ask permission to withdraw that part of his Amendment which provided that the vote should be taken by ballot, and he would then take the opinion of the Committee on the latter portion of it. He thought the opinion of the Committee might very well be asked upon this question, because it went on the same principle as was originally carried out in three-cornered constituencies. In Birmingham they elected three Members, but each elector in Birmingham was only allowed a vote for two of them. It had been said that the number of selected Councillors might not be divisible by three-fifths; but he knew that a large number of Municipal Corporations had been able to get over that difficulty. He thought the question was one of great importance, and should ask the Committee to divide upon the latter part of his Amendment.

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

said, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras, that each County Councillor should vote for no more than two-fifths of the total number of Aldermen to be chosen, would be found impracticable in its working. One of the evils of the present system had been removed by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that of Aldermen voting on their own elections. He did not wish to raise the question of proportional representation; but he believed that if there was a case in which it was desirable to have proportional representation, either by the transfer of votes or by a cumulative vote, it was this. He did not see a way clearly out of the difficulty; but he would suggest that it might be met by adopting the precedent set in the Education Act—namely, that of a cumulative vote, which would give to each of the members of the County Council as many votes as there were Aldermen, and enable them to give the whole to one candidate, or to distribute them, as he thought best. That, of course, would only apply to the first election, and he believed it was the only practicable way, without a transferable vote, of protecting the minority in the first election.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras that he should be content with the discussion which had taken place, and bring the question forward again on Report. His hon. Friend (Mr. Webster) would see that his proposal met with very little support from any quarter of the Committee, and he (Mr. Ritchie) hoped he might be induced not to press his Amendment. He felt he had no right whatever to appeal to the Committee to press forward the Amendments, because of the magnificent progress they had made that night; but, at the same time, he might say that he thought it would be agreeable to hon. Members if, by any good fortune they were enabled to dispose of the remaining Amendments on the Paper at that Sitting.

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

said, he hoped the Committee would agree with the suggestion of his right hon. Friend; but he wished to enter his strongest protest against some remarks which had been made in the course of the discussion, especially on the opposite side of the House. They all knew perfectly well that municipal elections in boroughs were made subservient to political questions. In the counties, however, they had never had the question of politics raised at all, and he sincerely trusted and believed that the County Councillors would be elected and selected upon their own merits alone, and that there would not be introduced into the County Councils that which he looked upon as the worst feature of municipal elections—namely, the elections turning almost entirely upon the politics of candidates. He thought that was a very appropriate opportunity for making the earnest protest which he desired to record against the practice.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he rose to second the appeals made to the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) to withdraw his Amendment. The hon. Member would be in a much better position if he were to bring the question forward on Report, when it could be discussed with a much greater chance of reaching a satisfactory settlement. In any case, he hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said, he hoped the suggestion made by the right hon Member (Mr. Heneage) would be accepted, and that the question would be brought forward again on Report, because when they came to discuss the matter they would then have the advantage of hearing one hon. Gentleman on the question of minority representation whose position disabled him from addressing them. He did not believe that county questions would be argued on political grounds. They had never heard at Quarter Sessions what was a man's political views, and he did not believe that the decisions of County Councils would be influenced by a consideration whether the speakers were Whigs, Tories, or Radicals.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

said, before the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) replied to the appeals that had been made to him, he would like to know whether the Government would promise the Committee that they would give a benevolent consideration to the Amendment if it were held over? If the right hon. Gentleman would give that pledge, Members on that side would not be disposed to go to a Division; but otherwise they would not only pursue the question now, but would raise it again on Report. With regard to the statement made on the other side of the Committee, that no political questions had ever entered into county elections, he would point out that that was due to the fact that the gentlemen engaged in the administration of county affairs had always been of one colour. ["No, no !"]

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, after the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, it was necessary to point out that in the established organ of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the month of June last, it was suggested that the elections for the Councils should be conducted on political lines, and that they would have a majority of five-sixths on the London Council. He thought hon. Members on that side were entitled to have something introduced into the clause by way of safeguard. They had fewer Aldermen in London than in any other district, but still they had more than they wanted, and their experience led them to desire a smaller number. Therefore he desired that with regard to London, at any rate, there should be a safeguard introduced. He did not mind so much for the counties, who could fight for themselves. The present was the proper time for settling the question, and he objected to its being deferred. Were they to have these 20 gentlemen elected who were purely of one political opinion? That would be unfair; nevertheless, it had happened in Liverpool, Leeds, and other places; and therefore, having regard to the threat that had been made, he desired that some change should be made in the direction in which hon. Members on that side of the House wished to go, and when that was done they should be ready to allow the Bill to pass through Committee that evening.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not quite understand by what authority the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken said—"We do not want these Aldermen." He submitted to the hon. and learned Gentlemen that the Representatives of London who were seated on that side of the House were a better authority to speak on behalf of the people of London on this question; however, he would not pursue that subject. He earnestly hoped that whatever the advice given by the organ referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which he did not name, might be—[Mr. FIRTH: The National Review.]—it would not be followed. He had not studied that article, and begged leave to say that he entirely dissented from what was suggested. He sincerely hoped that the election in London would not be fought on Party lines, so far as the Conservative Party were concerned; but, on the contrary, on lines drawn with reference to the interests of the localities represented. He did not believe that the County Councils would be divided into those sharp divisions which some people imagined. He was asked to give some pledge that the Government would take this proposal into their benevolent consideration. The hon. Member for the Spalding Division (Mr. Halley Stewart) made that appeal in such a benevolent way, that really, were it a matter of his own personal feeling, he should have been inclined to respond in the same spirit to the hon. Gentleman; but he was afraid he must resist his blandishments, and he could not on behalf of his Colleagues, or for himself, promise to give the kind of consideration which he indicated. But the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset had declared his intention to bring this question up again on Report, and he imagined that the matter would be then better decided by the House, because the whole question would be more fully before it, and it could be settled upon its merits. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would now say that he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but reserve what he had to say for another occasion.

MR. WEBSTER

said, he would ask the Committee to allow him to withdraw his Amendment. He wished, however, to make one observation—that there was this difference between the schemes proposed by the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) and himself. Under his own scheme, every provisional Councillor could vote for three-fifths of the selected Councillors, and therefore 12 out of the 20 would be elected; whereas, under that of his hon. Friend, they could only vote for one man, and in that case there would have to be an adjourned election for the remainder of those who were not elected.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, that after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated he scarcely saw on what ground the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) should be urged to withdraw his Amendment, because it was quite open to him to bring it forward on Report, whether he took a Division upon it now or not. It was not a question of Liberal or Conservative, or any Party politics, that had to be decided. It was a much graver question. If there were on the Body elected a certain majority in favour of any very important point on which the Councillors might be elected, there would be, under the present circumstances, an opportunity for the majority perpetuating its view through the next six years, and that was what hon. Members on that side really objected to, and what also hon. Gentlemen opposite practically objected to. He should be very glad if the Government would give an assurance that the majority, whatever it might be, should not have the opportunity on the first election of perpetuating its position. Take the case of the London Police. Suppose that the Council of London were elected on pledges given on this question—suppose that one side had the predominance on that question, it would be unfair that on either side the view taken should be perpetuated for the next six years. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not withdraw his Amendment until some pledge was given, or until they had the opportunity of learning from the Government that they shared that view, and that they were desirous to produce such an Amendment as might, to a certain extent, guard against the perpetuation and intensification for the next six years of the view of the majority of the Council elected for the time being.

MR. FIRTH

said, the President of the Local Government Board had asked him why he had used the word "we" in his remarks on the clause. He would withdraw that word, and substitute "all the Liberal Members for London, two Conservative Members, all the Vestries, and the League of which he had been chairman for six years."

Amendment proposed, In page 81, line 34, after the word "council," to insert the words "save that at each such first meeting or adjournment each councillor shall only vote for one county aldermen."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 99: Majority 1l.—(Div. List, No. 221.)

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 81, line 34, leave out "selected councillors," and insert "county aldermen."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 102 (First proceedings of provisional council).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 82, line 6, leave out from "and" to "to," in line 9; and in page 82, line 25, after "and" insert "the clerk of the peace and his officers, and."

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, that the object of the Amendment which stood in his name was to enable the officers of the expiring authorities to obtain remuneration for the extra work they had to do in connection with the creation of the new authority. These officers seemed to think that the expiring authorities would hardly be able to remunerate on behalf of the new authority for work done before the new authority came into existence.

Amendment proposed, In page 82, line 32, at end insert—"There shall be paid out of the county rate to the clerk of the peace of the county such reasonable remuneration as the court of quarter sessions may award for extra services rendered by him in bringing this Act into operation, and in acting as clerk of the county council until his salary for acting as such clerk is fixed in manner provided by this Act."—(Sir John Dorington.)

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

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 82, line 37, before Surrey," insert "and;" leave out "and Kent; "line 39, after "Middlesex," insert "and;" line 40, leave out "and Kent;" and in line 41, before "officers," insert "the clerk of the peace and his officers and the."

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

, in moving the Amendment which stood in his name, said, that it was simply to allow the Quarter Sessions to wind up their business at the end of the quarter, and hand it over to the County Councils.

Amendment proposed, In page 83, at end of line 8, add "and may after the appointed day, meet in like manner as if this Act had not passed, for the purpose of receiving reports from the committees and county officers for the period subsequent to the last quarter sessions and prior to the appointed day, and for making the ordinary quarterly payments, the usual sessional orders, and otherwise concluding and winding up the business of the county prior to the appointed day."—(Mr. Wharton.)

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

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

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, he desired to draw attention to the 5th sub-section of the clause, which gave to the new Council the offices of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The number of the new Council would be very large, and he feared there was no room in the Metropolitan Board of Works buildings which would accommodate the Body. He supposed that words would be inserted permitting the new authority to hire buildings in which they could be accommodated.

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

said, that the clause dealt with the first proceedings of the Council. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether there was any necessity for having any Provisional Council at all? The original intention, no doubt, was that there should be a Provisional Council; but now that they had provided that the Aldermen should not vote in the new election, the Council was complete when the elected members had been chosen by the ratepayers. In his opinion, therefore, the whole of this provisional arrangement was unnecessary.

MR. RITCHIE

promised to consider the point.

Question put, and agreed to.

First Election of District Councillors.

Clause 103 (First election of district council); Clause 104 (Retirement of first elected councillors); Clause 105 (Preliminary action of councillors as provisional council); and Clause 106 (First proceedings of provisional district council); struck out of the Bill.

General Provision as to First Election.

Clause 107 (Casual vacancies at first election).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 86, lines 3 and 4, leave out "or for more than one ward of a district;" lines 4 and 5, leave out "or ward; "line 8, leave out "or ward;" line 10, leave out "or ward;" line 11, leave out "selected councillor," and insert "county alderman;" line 13, leave out "or district;" line 13, leave out "as the case may be;" line 15, leave out "or district;" line 21, leave out "or district;" line 26, leave out from "council," to "shall," in line 27; line 29, leave out "or district;" line 31, leave out "or district;" and in line 32 leave out "or district."

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

asked whether, in pursuance of Sub-section 4, the Chairman would have an original vote and a second or casting vote?

MR. RITCHIE

Yes; certainly.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 108 (Power of Local Government Board to remedy defects).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 87, line 8, at end, add— (2) The Local Government Board in the case of the first election may also authorise an electoral division returning two or more members, in any case where the difficulties arising out of the registers of voters and the population of any area appear to render it necessary, and may also authorise portions of two or more county districts, or wards for which a separate register can be made, to be united for the purpose of an electoral division; line 11, leave out "elective;" line 17, leave out sub-section (3); line 23, leave out "or district;" line 24, leave out "or wards;" line 26, leave out "and wards;" and in line 27, leave out "rolls," and insert "registers."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Appointed Day.

Clause 109 (Appointed day).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 87, line 30, leave out from "Act," to "shall," in line 31; and in page 88, line 1, leave out sub-section (2).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Transitional Proceedings.

Clause 110 (Current rates, jury list, &c.)

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 88, line 35, leave out "and district council."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 111 (Continuation of licences) struck out of the Bill.

Clause 112 (Transitory provisions as to lunatic asylums).

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, the Amendment he had now to propose had for its object the more efficient working of the lunatic asylums. He felt extremely anxious about the change which was to take place one week after the County Councils came into office. It was not that he supposed that the members of the County Council would be deficient in ability; but they could not be an expert Body as regarded the management of the lunatic asylums immediately after they were elected. It was possible that many of those who would be members were now visitors of the county lunatic asylums, and would be again chosen for the office; but it was also quite possible that the County Council might not have that advantage, and might have to elect an entirely new committee of visitors of the lunatic asylums, men wholly unaccustomed to the work, and without any knowledge of the subject. Even on humane grounds that would not be a right course to take. It would not be right to place these great institutions under the management of persons, however able, who were entirely ignorant of the course of management of such institutions. He, therefore, wished to propose that for one year the existing visitors should be maintained in office, and, together with the new Committee should form the Governing Body of those institutions. He believed that that would not lead to any quarrelling; but that those who were new to the work would welcome the aid of those accustomed to the business.

Amendment proposed, In page 89, line 17, leave out all after "office" to end of sub-section, and insert "for one year conjointly with the committee of visitors appointed by the county council."—(Sir John Dorington.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'until the operation,' to 'one week,' stand part of the Clause."

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

said, he could quite understand the reason which actuated his hon. Friend in proposing this Amendment. But he feared that if the Amendment were accepted they might set up a condition of things which might not be very satisfactory in the management of lunatic asylums. They would practically have two separate Bodies managing the same asylums, and he thought that that would tend to a large amount of friction which would not be conducive to good management. He was certainly of opinion that a very considerable portion of the new Bodies would be men who had done the work in the past; and, that being so, he was confident that the visitors elected by the new Councils would consist very largely of gentlemen who had performed similar functions under the old state of things. In any case, he thought that the risk was less dangerous than the risk which would attend the setting up of the new Bodies as suggested. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

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

said, he thought that one month instead of one week would be a reasonable period. He thought, too, that the same period of grace might very reasonably be allowed in the case of the carrying out of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act and the Highways and Locomotives Act.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought there was no great objection to the proposal to substitute one month for one week; but with regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Wharton's) second proposal, it was as well he should point out that this clause dealt solely with the provisions as to lunatic asylums. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman might think desirable in connection with the Contagious Diseases Acts and the Highways and Locomotives Act, it would hardly do to insert words in reference to those Acts in a clause dealing with lunatic asylums.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

said, he thought that the sooner the new Bodies got to work after they were elected the better.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 89, line 33, at end, insert— Where there is a joint committee of visitors for two or more counties or boroughs, this section shall apply to each portion of the committee appointed by the justices of any such county, or by the justices or council of any such borough, in like manner as if it were a separate committee.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Transitory Provisions as to Metropolis.

Clause 113 (Transitory provisions as to Sheriffs of London and Middlesex).

Clause 114 (As to commissioner of the peace for London).

Clause 115 (As to places for holding quarter sessions).

Clause 116 (As to existing justices in Metropolis).

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE (Surrey, Reigate)

said, the Amendment he had placed on the Paper affected very seriously a few persons in the county he had the honour to represent. He was not a sufficiently good lawyer to say exactly in what it affected them, but it might affect them very seriously. The existing Clerk of the Peace in Surrey happened to be a Justice of the Peace for the county of Kent. By Clause 116 Justices of the Peace for Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent were made Justices of the County of London. If the provision with regard to the continuance of the business on the Surrey side of the County of London, as it was now, were agreed to, the Clerk of the Peace would be in an anomalous position; he would be a magistrate for the County of London and the Clerk of the Peace for the Surrey side of the County of London; consequently he would be both master and man. The Amendment which he (Sir Trevor Lawrence) proposed would meet the difficulty; and he hoped, therefore, that the President of the Local Government Board would be able to see his way to accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 92, line 37, after "London," insert—"Provided always, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any justice of the peace of the counties of Surrey and Kent, or either of them, so long as he shall hold any office connected with any court of quarter sessions of the county of London."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)

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

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

said, he had spoken to the Clerk of the Peace of Surrey upon this point, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that something in the nature of this Amendment was necessary. The Amendment would meet the difficulty, and, therefore, he commended it to the careful consideration of the President of the Local Government Board.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. NORRIS (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

said, that in the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Islington (Sir Albert Rollit) he begged to propose the Amendment which stood in the hon. Gentleman's name.

Amendment proposed, In page 93, line 14, at end, insert—"Any person who is an existing deputy lieutenant for any of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, or for the Tower Hamlets, or any hamlet or liberty in the said counties, who occupies property in the county of London, shall be a deputy lieutenant of the county of London, as if he had been appointed by the lieutenant thereof."—(Mr. Norris.)

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

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

said, he thought that this was rather too large a power to be conferred by a clause in a Bill. If any hon. Gentleman who had the privilege of being a Deputy Lieutenant for either of these counties, or for the Tower Hamlets, desired to be a Deputy Lieutenant of the County of London, he would take the necessary steps to secure the privilege.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Existing Officers.

Clause 117 (Existing clerks of the peace and other officers).

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE (Surrey, Reigate)

said, that the clause affected very seriously indeed the county of which he represented a portion. He had taken the liberty to put down several Amendments to bring the operation of the clause in regard to Surrey into the same position as the county of Middlesex would be by the clause. It was rather difficult to follow the continuity of the Amendments, because they had to go in here and there, and they practically depended one upon another. The 1st Amendment came in the 1st sub-section. It was necessary that some such Amendment should be adopted in order to save existing rights.

Amendment proposed, In page 93, line 17, leave out "subject as in this Act mentioned, and insert" continue to be such clerk of the peace, and shall, subject to the provisions respecting certain counties in this Act mentioned."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'subject as in this Act mentioned' stand part of the Clause."

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

said, that he understood that the object of his hon. Friend was to secure that the existing officers should continue to be officers of the new Council. Undoubtedly, Clerks of the Peace had a freehold in their office. It was the intention of the Bill that the existing officers should be continued, because by that means a very considerable amount of compensation would be saved to the ratepayers of the county. He thought the Bill as framed would have secured the object his hon. Friend had in view; but if the hon. Gentleman thought there was any ambiguity in the clause he had no objection to the Amendment. He, however, preferred the Amendment next on the Paper.

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

said, he did not see that there was any objection to these words being inserted; but he warned the Committee, now that they had reached Clauses 117, 118, and 119, that they had reached three of the most crucial and most dangerous clauses of the Bill, and all Amendments must be most rigidly scrutinized. This was the first line of attack on the pockets of the County Council.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

said, his object was to save the pockets of the ratepayers. He, however, was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucester (Sir John Dorington).

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

said, that this was really a very peculiar case. London had been carved out of Kent, Surrey, and Middlesex, and it was a question deserving of very serious consideration how the Clerks of the Peace were to be paid, and what use was to be made of them.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that perhaps he had better on this subject mention to the Committee what the general scope of the provisions of the Bill on the point was. As his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said, they had to deal with a very peculiar case—they had carved out of three counties the new County of London. So far as Kent was concerned, he did not think that any special provision was required. Kent was so little affected that he did not think that the position of Clerk of the Peace was one really requiring readjustment at all. But when they came to Surrey and Middlesex the case was totally different. As hon. Gentlemen were aware, there was a very large part of Surrey and a very large portion of Middlesex embraced in the new County of London. The Government were extremely desirous of saving the ratepayers of the County of London from being afflicted with any great burden of compensation for either one officer or the other; and it seemed to them that, at any rate, so far as existing officers were concerned, in all likelihood there would be for some time to come quite sufficient work for the Clerk of the Peace for Surrey to do, work which he had mainly been doing for years past in the Surrey portion of London, and that also there would be work for the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex to do in Middlesex as hitherto. As hon. Gentlemen might be aware, the principal remuneration of Clerks of the Peace was for the criminal work in which they were engaged. There had been a special Sessions to try prisoners in Surrey at Newington, and there had also been a special Sessions at Clerkenwell to try Middlesex prisoners. The Government had thought it advisable to retain for the Clerk of the Peace for the County of Surrey that portion of the criminal work done in the Surrey portion of London, and which, he imagined, would be continued to be done in Newington; and to retain for the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex the criminal work of Middlesex, which would continue to be done at Clerkenwell, and for that reason no additional remuneration was given to the Clerks of the Peace, and all questions of retiring allowances or compensation were avoided.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, that the Clerk of the Peace of Kent was considerably interested in this matter. Deptford, Greenwich, Woolwich, and several other places were in the part of Kent which would now be under the County Council of London; therefore, a large amount of his duties were transferred from Kent to London. He (Mr. Talbot) did not desire to raise any objection at this stage; he wished to assure the Committee that the Clerk of the Peace of Kent strongly felt that, if justice was not done him in that House, he would have to make considerable claim on the county of Kent.

SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE

said, he noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had made ample provision for the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex; but he did not see the same careful provision made for the Clerk of the Peace for Surrey. The Clerk of the Peace for Surrey was like other Clerks of the Peace—he was paid partly by fees and partly by salary; he had a large amount of criminal business to do at Newington, which he discharged very efficiently, and, judging from his appearance, there was every reason to believe it was likely that he would be able to discharge those duties for very many years to come.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the hon. Member and other hon. Members from Surrey had been in communication with him since the Bill was presented, and practically they had arranged a clause to meet this matter.

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

said, there was not to be any compensation for the Clerks of the Peace for Surrey, Middlesex, and Kent; but, on the other hand, those gentlemen must not be subject to the slightest pecuniary loss by what was being done. They had a freehold in their offices; no maladministration had been charged against them, and no one wanted to injure them in the slightest degree. What was wanted was so to apportion the distribution of the duties between the three counties that the Clerks of the Peace would not suffer from a loss of income; while, on the other hand, the County Council of London would not be called upon to provide for officers to discharge the duties the Clerks of the Peace had hitherto done. He thought that they might leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that that was what they had done in regard to Surrey and Middlesex. He acknowledged that the case of the Clerk of the Peace of Kent had not been considered quite in the same light, because, as he remembered, there was no Sessions for Kent held in London. He would place himself in communication with his hon. Friend (Mr. Talbot), and endeavour that no injustice should be done to the ratepayers of Kent or to the Clerk of the Peace of that county.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Sir JOHN DORINGTON the following Amendment made:—In page 93, line 17, leave out "shall, subject as in this Act mentioned," and insert— Besides continuing to be such clerk of the peace shall, subject to the provisions respecting certain counties in this Act mentioned.

Amendment proposed, In page 93, line 20, to leave out the word "office," and insert the words "offices of clerk of the peace and clerk of the county council."—(Sir John Dorington.)

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

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that this Amendment went a little further than was contemplated. He trusted the Government would adhere to their own words, as the Amendment was clearly adverse to the public interest.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought that the words were totally unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KERANS (Lincoln)

moved, on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton), the Amendment which stood in the hon. and learned Gentleman's name.

Amendment proposed, In page 93, line 23, after the words "clerk of the peace," insert the words "clerk of the general assessment sessions."—(Mr. Kerans.)

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

On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, the following Amendment made:—In page 93, at end of line 26, insert— The person who at the appointed day is clerk of the peace for Sussex, if he held office at the passing of this Act, shall be clerk of the peace for East Sussex and clerk of the peace for West Sussex, and clerk of the peace for the justices of Sussex in general sessions assembled, and shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, hold the said offices of clerk of the peace by the same tenure, and have the same power of acting by deputy, as heretofore. Such person shall also be clerk of the county council for East Sussex, and clerk of the county council for West Sussex.

Amendment proposed, In page 93, at end of line 26, insert—"This section shall apply to the persons holding office at the appointed day as clerk of the peace and deputy clerks of the peace for the county of Lancaster, in like manner as it applies to clerks of the peace of other counties."—(Mr. Maclure.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, there was a special Act which applied to Lancashire, and these officers were really existing officers under the terms of that Act. The Act provided that these officers should continue in office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 93, at end of line 33, insert—"The person who, at the appointed day, is the clerk of the gaol sessions in Yorkshire or Lincolnshire shall, if he holds office at the passing of this Act, continue to be that clerk, and shall also be the first clerk of the joint committee for the county councils of the three ridings or divisions of those counties, and shall hold that office by the same tenure and have the same power (if any) of acting by deputy as heretofore."—(Colonel Gunter.)

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

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

asked if the Amendment was not inconsistent with what they had already decided?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the Amendment did not provide anything new. As the hon. Gentleman might be aware, the Committee had decided that there should be a joint committee of the three Ridings, each of which were interested in the Gaol Sessions at York, and also that that there should be a special committee for the purpose of the three Ridings. There was now a gentleman who was acting as clerk in the position of deputy. If that gentleman had no right to act as deputy, this Amendment would not confer the right upon him.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE, the following Amendment made:—In page 93, at end of line 33, insert— If the person who at the appointed day is clerk of the peace for Surrey held office at the passing of this Act, then so long as he holds that office—

1. (a) He shall, besides continuing to be that clerk, continue to be clerk of the peace at any quarter sessions held for the county of London at Newington, and be for the purpose of all business transacted at those quarter sessions deemed to be the clerk of the peace for the county of London, and as such shall have the same power of appointing and acting by a deputy as heretofore in his capacity of clerk of the peace for Surrey; and
1632
2. (b) Such of the records of the county of Surrey as at the passing of this Act are in his custody at Newington, and, if this Act had not passed, would have remained in that custody, shall, subject to any order of the court of quarter sessions, continue to be kept in his custody at Newington."

On the Motion of Mr. FORREST FULTON, Amendment made:—In page 93, line 35, after "divisions," insert "wholly or in part in London;" page 93, line 36, after "Act," insert "and as to so much of such divisions as are in London;" page 93, line 37, at end, add— And as to so much of such divisions as are not in London, such persons shall also be the first salaried clerks of the petty sessional divisions of the counties in which such parts are situate.

On the Motion of Mr. BARTLEY, Amendment made, in page 93, at end of line 37, insert the following subsection:— In the case of the persons who, by virtue of this Act, become clerk of the peace for the county of London or salaried clerks of petty sessional divisions for the county of London, their servicee as such clerks after the appointed day in the county of London shall be deemed to be a continuous service with their service as clerks of the peace and clerks of petty sessional divisions in the county of Middlesex.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment standing in his name. He thought the county auditor should be included in the provision they were considering, as he was a superior official to some of those already dealt with, and as he was a permanent officer having a permanent salary there should be no difficulty in including him.

Amendment proposed, in page 93, line 39, after "treasurer," insert "county auditor."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think there was any necessity to put in these words, as the object in view was simply covered by the word "other." There was no objection, however, to accepting the Amendment if the hon. Member thought it necessary to press it. He would suggest, however, that the next Amendment which included "county solicitor" should be adopted in preference to that of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson).

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

asked whether the county auditor was exactly on the same footing as the other officials dealt with in this section—would not the mere fact of the question being one of finance necessitate this official being put on a different footing? Officials of this kind ought to be above all suspicion.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that all they were providing was that the new authority should take over the old officials on the same terms as they were employed by the old authority. If they did not think they were desirable officers, they should have the same means of getting rid of them as the old authority.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

Who is the county solicitor?

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

He is an official peculiar to Lancashire.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, the following Amendment made:—In page 93, line 39, after "treasurer," insert "county auditor and county solicitor;" and in line 42, after "county," insert "or any committee of such justices, or any committee of visitors for lunatic asylums."

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper—in line 42, after the word "or," to insert "are clerks to burial boards or," but he presumed that as the Bill now stood the Amendment was not necessary.

MR. RITCHIE

No, we do not interfere with burials at all.

Amendment proposed, In page 94, line 3, after sub-section (5) add "all persons who at the appointed day are officers and servants of the general assessment sessions, shall become the officers of the quarter sessions of the county of London."—(Mr. Forrest Fulton.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said this Amendment could only be accepted in conjunction with the following Amendment on the Paper, so as to limit the duties of the officials named in the Amendment to their functions in connection with the General Assessment Sessions.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 2, after "shall," insert "so far as regards their duties under or in connection with those duties only."—(Mr. Bartley.)

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

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

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 94, line 7, leave out Sub-sections (7) and (8).

COLONEL GUNTER

said, the next Amendment stood in his name and was a proposal rendered necessary by a change which had been made in the Bill. The object of this was to cover the case of existing chief or other constables, so far as regarded the provision inserted in the Bill dealing with the status of these officers in future. At present the control of the police was vested in the Quarter Sessions, but by the Bill that control would be vested in a joint committee of the Quarter Sessions and County Councils, and his proposal was to enable the existing officers to retain their present position.

Amendment proposed, In page 94, at end of line 15, insert—"Every person who, on the appointed day, is the chief or other constable of the police force of any county, or is an officer or servant employed in connection with that force, shall, after the said day, be chief or other constable of the police force of the same county under the standing joint committee appointed in pursuance of this Act, or be an officer or servant of such joint committee, as the case may be."—(Colonel Gunter.)

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

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

said, he should like to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to the next Sub-section, which brought about a change in the status of the police in the country districts. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Indian Army was first joined to Her Majesty's Army every man in that Army had to be re-enlisted before he could become a soldier in Her Majesty's Service. In the same way they should not say that a constable, whether he liked it or not, should be put under a different authority from the one which had control when he joined the force. Constables in some districts which would come under the control of the joint committees might be paid at a higher rate than those in other districts, and it would be obviously unfair to put them under different conditions without giving them the opportunity of refusing those conditions if they thought it advisable. The men should have the choice of saying whether they would be enrolled or would not be enrolled under the new conditions.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the Bill provided that a certain borough should cease to maintain a certain police force, but that the constables should not be able to say that they would not continue to serve, as that would leave such borough without a police force at all. When boroughs were merged into counties the hon. and gallant Gentleman said they should not force the constables to continue in the force under a new controlling Authority. It was not true that they would be forced to serve, because they could obtain their discharge, but they would not cease to hold the position of constables on the passing of the Bill.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 118 (As to officers transferred to county or district councils).

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

said, he wanted to know whether Clerks of the Peace would receive higher salaries for being clerks to the County Councils as well? He desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered that question? Would these officials have more duties thrown upon them than they had at present, and, if so, would they have higher salaries?

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

said, it would be possible, though not as a matter of course, that they would have to perform other duties; but arrangements in this respect would rest with the joint committees of the Quarter Sessions and County Councils.

On the Motion of Mr. FORREST FULTON, Amendment made, in page 94, line 24, after "quarter sessions," insert "or general assessment sessions as far as aforesaid."

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

said, the next Amendment in his name was purely consequential.

Amendment proposed, In page 94, line 25, after "justices," insert "or any committee of such sessions, or justices, or of any committee of visitors for lunatic asylums."—(Colonel Gunter.)

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

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said, that before the next Amendment was moved he should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had considered the question of taking over the officers of the Metropolitan Board of Works by the County Councils.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought it would be most injudicious for the Committee to treat the officers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, so far as transfer was concerned, in a different way from that in which they treated the officers of any other Local Authority. There was no obligation, however, further than the existing obligation imposed on the new County Councils to employ the officials of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It must be borne in mind that the officials would be entitled to compensation if their services were not continued.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, that was the very reason why he had not moved an Amendment, which he had been foolish enough to put on the Paper.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 94, line 28, leave out "or of a district council;" and in line 31, after the first "and," insert "while performing the same duties."

Amendment proposed, in page 94, line 31, after "remuneration," insert "and emoluments."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)

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

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

said, he should like to know what other remuneration there was that a man might claim beyond that which the section already provided for?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. These small Amendments, the object of which was to save existing rights, had been of enormous trouble to him. He was not always able to show any reason against them; but they were always unnecessary, and should not be proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, he begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name. After "passed," insert— And in case of dispute shall have a right of appeal to the Local Government Board, whose decison shall be final. The object of this Amendment was to enable the county officers named in the clause to take the judgment of the Local Government Board in cases of dispute. He desired to enable them to obtain compensation in accordance with the ordinary customs of Acts of Parliament which regulated their service. They were willing to trust to the old Authorities; but they thought that as they would be transferred to new Authorities, it was possible that they might not be treated with the same consideration as they would have been under the old condition of things—they feared that they might not be treated in accordance with the understanding on the strength of which they took office.

Amendment proposed, In page 94, line 33, after the word "passed," insert the words "and in case of dispute shall have a right of appeal to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final."—(Sir John Dorington.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could not admit that there was the slightest chance of these gentlemen being treated less favourably by the new authority which this Bill would set up, than they would have been by the old authority, and he could not for an instant think of countenancing any such suspicion by accepting the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 94, line 36, leave out "or district council;" and in page 95, line 3, leave out "or district council, as the case may be."

On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, Amendment made:—In page 95, at end of line 6, insert— The provisions of this section shall apply to the chief and other constables of any police force, and to any officers employed in connection with such force, in like manner as if they were herein re-enacted with the substitution of the standing joint committee, under this Act, for the county council.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 119 (Compensation to existing officers).

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

said, that in line 11, he proposed to leave out the words "or by diminution or by loss of fees or otherwise." He thought that if a person suffered direct pecuniary loss that was intelligible, but to put in "loss of fees or otherwise," might be a very wide claim for compensation. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, and stop at the word "office," leaving out the words to which he referred.

Amendment proposed, in page 95, line 11, leave out "or by diminution or by loss of fees or otherwise."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

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. Georges)

said, he did not quite see how this would affect officers who were paid mainly by fees.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, they would get compensation under the words "pecuniary loss."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not know whether those words would altogether cover the case of loss of fees, and he did not wish to do an injustice to anyone. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not desire to do so either. He therefore thought it would be wiser to accept the words as they stood in the Bill, and to consider the case before Report. On Report they might introduce an Amendment if it were found necessary.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question before Report, and strike out the words "or otherwise," now he should be content.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would consent to strike out the words "or otherwise."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 95, line 13, leave out "or district."

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 95, line 23, after "the," insert "Acts and;" line 26, leave out "or district council;" line 36, leave out "or district council as the case may be;" and in line 41, leave out "or district council."

Amendment proposed, in page 96, line 3, after "protest," insert" acting on behalf of the other subscribers or a majority of them."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could not accept this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 96, line 17, leave out "or district council as the case may be;" line 22, leave out "or district council;" and in line 34, leave out from "purposes" to end of Clause.

SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN (Wolverhampton, W.)

said, he would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the wording of the clause in regard to the large sums which might be payable as compensation for abolition of appointments. He doubted whether it was desirable the Committee should commit itself to a declaration which might saddle the country with very large claims for compensation.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the great object that had been kept in mind was that the country should not be saddled with large demands for compensation, and the Bill provided that Clerks of the Peace should be continued in office. It was provided that they must go to the County Council without giving them the alternative of compensation. He pointed out, more-over, that even if that were not so, the clause only provided a maximum which could not be exceeded, but it by no means laid down the principle that in all cases the maximum should be reached.

SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration whether the maximum was not excessive and the proportion of compensation too high.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think the maximum was too high under the circumstances, but so far as the principal officials, the Clerks of the Peace, were concerned, there could be no claim for compensation, for they would be obliged to go over to the new authority.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Temporary Provision as to Grant from Exchequer.

Clause 120 (Grant and application of part of Probate Duty and of horse and wheel tax during the year ending 31st March, 1889).

Amendment proposed, in page 97, line 18, leave out "horses and vehicles," and insert "licences for trade carts, locomotives, horses, mules, and horse dealers, under any Act of the present Session."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

supposed that hon. Members were not bound by this to the form of the tax hereafter? If so, they might as well have the Wheel Tax debated now.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he quite understood that.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 97, line 23, after "union," insert "during the financial year ending the twenty-fifth day of March next before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

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

asked, were they to understand that this committed Members to the original proposal of the Government? He thought a new plan was to be suggested.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was not asking the Committee to commit itself at all. The Government were only doing exactly the same thing as in regard to the other grant, with the understanding that the whole question was to be reconsidered in reference to the original proposal.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 97, line 28, leave out from beginning of line to "and" in line 36, and insert— (ii.) In paying to every county, highway, and other local authority who have heretofore received out of moneys provided by Parliament a contribution to the cost of roads, or to the successors of such authority, such calculated in like manner and according to the like scale and regulations as in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight.

Amendment proposed, In page 97, line 40, leave out to end of line 8, page 98, and insert the following sub-sections— (v.) The share of the balance distributed to the metropolis shall be divided between the city of London and the parishes in Schedule A and the districts in Schedule B to 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,' as amended by subsequent Acts, according to rateable value as ascertained by the last valuation list; (vi.) if any payment is made under the foregoing provisions of this section respecting roads to any quarter sessions borough, or to any urban district wholly or as to the larger part thereof situate in such borough, or to any parish or district in the metropolis, such borough or such parish or district in the metropolis shall not be entitled to any share of the balance unless the amount of the said payment is, with the consent (given within the prescribed time) of the authority receiving the same, added to the balance."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

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

MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation of this, for it seemed to him that this method of distribution would be unduly favourable to the City of London and unfavourable to the rest of the Metropolis, because if rateable value was to be the basis of distribution the rateable value of the City of London would be very high in proportion to population. The City would get an unduly large proportion and the rest of the Metropolis an unduly small proportion compared to what they would be entitled to according to area and population.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, the proportion the City would get would be about an eighth of the whole balance.

MR. RITCHIE

said, in considering the methods of distribution this was thought to be the most fair to the various districts of the Metropolis, giving them each the portion that fell to their lot for application to their own particular purposes. He did not see any better method of distribution of an amount that he did not anticipate would be large.

MR. BAUMANN

hoped he would be at liberty to bring the matter up on Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 97, line 16, leave out "said;" and in line 17, after "financial year" insert "ending on the thirty-first March next before the passing of this Act."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

As to power of Local Government Board respecting existing authorities.

Clause 121 (Power of Local Government Board to continue existing local authorities) struck out.

Savings.

Clause 122 (Savings for existing securities and discharge of debts).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 99, line 4, after the first "or," insert "of any;" lines 4, 5, 8, and 15, leave out the words "or district."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 123 (Saving for existing byelaws).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 99, line 24, leave out from "works" to "or," in line 25; line 27, leave out "or district."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 124 (Saving for pending actions, contracts, &c.).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 99, line 37, leave out "or district;" and in page 100, line 7, leave out "or district."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Repeals.

Clause 125 (Repeal of Acts, &c.).

MR, WOODALL (Hanley)

said, he did not know whether the Committee realized quite how sweeping and com- prehensive this clause was. It might be well to consider whether it was possible to modify it with a view to protect to some extent the existing rights of chartered corporations.

MR. RITCHIE

said, this was a very general form of termination of a Bill, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman need be at all alarmed or fear any proposal to interfere with or threaten the chartered rights of any municipal corporation.

MR. WOODALL

said, he was much relieved to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so, but they had arrived at a state of things when a Conservative Government had shown very little regard to chartered rights at all. It would be his duty to propose to modify the severity of the clause by saving existing rights and charters.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, he quite sympathized with the misgiving expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The fact was, the Committee had been rushing through these latter clauses at such express speed that many Members did not know exactly where they were. He believed there was a general sort of impression that they were near the end of the Bill. The rate of progress had been so great that even the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill got somewhat bewildered, and the Chairman became so accustomed to calling clauses and Amendments without opposition, that it required some effort to arrest his attention. He only mentioned this as indicating the effect on the mind of the terrific pace at which they had been travelling through the clauses, and it was highly desirable a few hours should be allowed for Members to consider the position. It would not be asking too much to request that the final clause might be allowed to stand over until tomorrow—["No, no !"]—that Members might consider the effect of the clause and its sweeping character on those chartered rights to which the hon. Member had made allusion.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was quite sure the Committee would not spoil the grace of the assistance they had given the Government by pausing at the last clause. As the hon. Member was aware, although the last clause was reached, yet many new clauses remained for consideration. He hoped the Committee would not separate without the satisfaction of knowing they had disposed of all the clauses and Amendments.

MR. WOODALL

said, he would join in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and hoped there would be no opposition to the clause at that stage.

Clause agreed to.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, that in view of the possibility of the new clauses being disposed of on the morrow, he should like to know when the Report stage would be taken.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he would inform the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow, if the new clauses were then disposed of.

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

said, of course a reasonable time would be allowed?

MR. RITCHIE

Certainly.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.