Commons Sitting of 19 July 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Forest of Dean Turnpike Trust* [337].
Second Reading—Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) [290]; Bann Drainage [312].
Second Reading and referred to Standing Committee on Trade, &c.—Sea Fisheries Regulation [322].
Committee—Report—Local Government (England and Wales) [182–338] [Twenty-second Night].
Withdrawn—Bribery (Public Bodies) Prevention) [335].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Third Reading—Pier and Harbour (No. 2)* [248], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE v. NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY—ARBITRATION AND AWARD.
  MR. ASQUITH(for Mr. PRESTON BRUCE)asked the Postmaster General, Whether the final award has been made in the arbitration case between the Post Office and the North British Railway Company; and, whether arrangements have been made, or will be made, immediately, for the re-instatement of the recently discontinued sorting van between Burnt island and Dundee?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES):The final award has been made in the recent arbitration between the Post Office and the North British Railway Company; but it does not provide for any special service between Burntisland and Dundee. I shall be willing to consider any fresh proposal which the Railway Company may put before me in this respect. But the very high value which the Company have attached to services performed for the Post Office precludes me from giving any present assurance that the service in question will be restored.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—SCHEME FOR THE LEEDS GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If the Department are now prepared to approve the scheme for the Leeds Grammar School, submitted by the Charity Commissioners on June 22, 1887; whether any objections have been made to the scheme by the Town Council, or other Public Bodies, or leading inhabitants of Leeds; whether the scheme is opposed by the Trustees, and whether mainly on the ground that the scheme sets apart a sum of £500 per annum as a provision for the education of girls; and, whether the total endowment of this school is upwards of £4,500 per annum, being more than £20 per head to every scholar that is educated in the school?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The statements in my right hon. Friend's Question are substantially correct; but there are points outstanding on which all parties interested are not in agreement: and I am not at present able to say that a definite decision has been arrived at.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— SCHOOLS OF ART—NATIONAL COMPETITION—THE BUILDINGS AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If his personal attention has been drawn to the dilapidated condition of the buildings in which the examinations take place of the 700,000
  1740
  works annually sent in from the Schools of Art to the national competition at South Kensington; and, if it is a fact that, while foreigners are alleged to be far ahead of us in design even in Home manufactures, the Science and Art Department has no funds available even for the protection of the exhibits from the weather?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I am aware of the unsatisfactory condition of the building in which the examination of the work sent from the Schools of Art has to be carried on; and I have made strong representations to the Treasury and Office of Works, with the view of having the new permanent buildings taken in hand as soon as possible. During the recent bad weather wet has come through the skylights in places; but effectual precautions have been taken that the Art works shall not suffer.

  POST OFFICE—EXAMINATION FOR FEMALE CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that the advertised autumn examination of candidates for female clerkships in the Post Office is indefinitely postponed; and, if so, seeing the hardship that is likely to be inflicted on many intending candidates whose age when the examination eventually takes place may exceed the regulation limit, whether he will consider the advisability of consenting to the age that candidates would have reached had the examination taken place at the advertised time being taken as their actual age by the Civil Service Commissioners?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Member has been correctly informed as regards the first part of his Question, if it is accurate to say that an examination is postponed which has not been publicly announced by official authority. I greatly regret the disappointment which intending candidates may suffer whose age may exceed the regulation limit when the next examination takes place; but it is not in my power to take the steps suggested in the matter, the decision of which rests, as I understand, with the Treasury. I am, however, in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

  Admiralty (SHIPS)—THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, How many Squadrons are to be mobilized in the forthcoming Naval Manœuvres; whether the evolutionary exercises are to be in divisions comprising every class and type of ship and torpedo craft now afloat; whether the mobilization is for the purpose of ascertaining how best to protect the English and Irish Channels, as well as the leading military and commercial harbours on the coasts of the I United Kingdom, or whether it is intended to ascertain how best to prevent an enemy's ships from leaving their ports; if it is true that some of the Squadrons are to keep the sea for three weeks; if so, are the manœuvres to be confined to the quantity of coal on board, or will the vessels be supplied with coal at sea; whether it is intended that large bodies of troops are to be concentrated at a point on the coast for the purpose of exercising the crews in the rapid landing and embarking of men and stores; and, whether hospital and intelligence ships are to be attached to the Fleet, as would be the case in a time of war?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It would be premature at the present moment to state the whole objects of the proposed Naval Manœuvres; but I will publish shortly a Statement giving a sketch of the purport of the operations.
  CAPTAIN COTTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention had been called to the serious accidents reported in The Times of that morning as having occurred during the first two days of the Naval Manœuvres to the vessels of Her Majesty's Fleet—namely, Her Majesty's ship Northampton, unmanageable for one hour, her steering apparatus having broken down; No.41 torpedo boat sent to the Dockyard for repairs; Her Majesty's ship Agincourt in collision with a merchant vessel—result, one marine killed, boat, anchor, and 15 fathoms of cable lost; No.—torpedo boat disabled, last seen in tow of Her Majesty's ship Volage; and, whether the noble Lord would cause the strictest inquiry to be made into these and any future mishaps; and, if he would take care that a Return was prepared, similar to that of last year, giving the total number and par-
  1742
  ticulars of all casualties which might occur in the Fleet during the present manœuvres?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The report of The Times alluded to does not justify the allegations implied in the Question that serious accidents have occurred to Her Majesty's ships engaged in the Naval Manœuvres. With the exception of a collision between the Agincourt and a merchant steamer, as to the causes of which information has not yet been received, the casualties mentioned are trifling. The Admirals in command of the Squadrons will, in accordance with the usual practice, cause inquiry to be made as to the accidents that occur, and they will forward the Reports to the Admiralty. There will be no objection to the preparation of a Return showing any casualties, and their causes, during the manœuvres.

  EGYPT—THE NILE AND SUAKIN CAMPAIGNS—THE KHEDIVIAL BRONZE STAR.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, seeing that His Highness the Khedive has lately awarded the Khedivial bronze star to all ranks who served in the Nile and Suakin Campaigns, 1884–5, a certain number of officers' names, according to the precedents of 1882 and 1884, have been submitted to His Highness the Khedive for special Egyptian decoration?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I do not think the distribution of decorations by His Highness the Khedive after the Campaign of 1882 can be taken as a precedent in this case. The result of that campaign was to replace the Khedive on his Throne; and it was natural, therefore, that he should take some special means of showing his appreciation of the services of the British officers engaged in it. The circumstances of the Campaign of 1884–5 were very different; and excellent as the services of our officers were, their recognition, it appears to me, belongs more properly to the Imperial Government than to that of His Highness the Khedive.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—CONSTABLE GEORGE RUSSELL, W. DIVISION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of

  1743
  State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the case of Police Constable George Russell, of the W Division, Metropolitan Police, who has twice stood his trial for alleged perjury, the jury in the first case failing to agree, and in the second acquitting the defendant; and if, under such circumstances, the full costs incurred by the constable in defending himself against a charge declared by the learned Recorder to leave no stain on the defendant's character, and to have been supported by more falsehoods than he had ever heard told about the same thing in all his experience of 31 years, will be repaid, and the Director of Public Prosecutions instructed to consider the institution of proceedings against the false witnesses; and, if the decision in the case of P.C. Russell will govern that in the case of P.C. Hester, who was indicted in connection with the same circumstances, but against whom no evidence was tendered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; Police Constable Russell is, in my opinion, fully entitled to the benefit of the Rule that a public officer should be relieved of costs, when the result of his trial is to clear him of charges pressed against him in consequence of his action in the performance of his duties. The case of Police Constable Hester, who was indicted in connection with the same circumstances, but against whom no evidence was tendered, will be governed by the same Rule. I am advised that the success of proceedings for perjury against any of the witnesses would be doubtful. I do not, therefore, intend to instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute any such proceedings.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—DALSTON POLICE COURT—IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-ATTENDANCE.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been called to several cases of widows with children having been sent to prison for three days at the Dalston Police Court on Friday 13th instant because they were unable to pay fines of 3s. imposed for non-attendance of their children at the board school;
  1744
  whether any arrangement is made in such cases for looking after the children while the widowed mothers are in prison; and, whether, alike in the interests of education as well as of humanity, instructions can be given for this severe penalty, if it must be enforced at all, to be enforced with the greatest possible care?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, his attention had only been called to these cases by the Question. The Education Department had, however, no power to interfere with the action of a police magistrate in dealing with the nonpayment of fines imposed by his Court.

  WAR OFFICE—BELFAST HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS—SUBMARINE MINING ESTABLISHMENT.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received a Memorial of the 11th instant from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners; whether, as stated in the Memorial, the War Department, in 1885, applied to the Commissioners for ground for a submarine mining establishment, and, the Commissioners agreeing to grant a site for the same on lease at a nominal rent, a lease was drawn up accordingly; whether, in consequence of an intimation in April, 1887, that the War Department had decided to use a ship as a joint barrack and submarine mining store, a deputation of the Commissioners waited on the Secretary of State for War, and were informed by him that he considered a land establishment preferable to a vessel, and that provision had been made in the Estimates for the cost of the land establishment; and, whether, in view of the representation made in the Memorial that it would be impossible, owing to the demand for space for commercial purposes in the port of Belfast, to provide a quay berth for the vessel except at very heavy expense, the agreement made by the Department with the Memorialists will be carried into effect?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have received the Memorial referred to. The history of the case is, I believe, shortly as follows:—When it was de-

  1745
  cided to have a submarine mining establishment for the defence of Belfast Harbour, inquiries were made as to a site, and the Commissioners suggested certain sites which they were willing to lease to the War Department at a nominal rent. On examination, however, those sites were not found suitable for the purpose, and no agreement for a lease was come to. Under the circumstances, it has been decided that, for the present, a ship will be the most convenient depôt; but she will not require accommodation in the more valuable water frontage used for commercial purposes. I have been in communication with my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) and North Belfast (Sir William Ewart) on this subject for a long time past. But I never made to them, or to the deputation from the Commissioners, any such statement as that recorded in the Question.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that on the proper Estimate I shall endeavour to show cause why the original understanding should be, carried out, and that I shall oppose the grant of public money for the establishment of a ship.

  BOARD OF TRADE (MARINE DEPARTMENT)—SIGNALLING AT SEA—AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the statement in the Press that an International Conference on the subject of signalling at sea, in pursuance of the Act which recently passed the United States Congress, will be held on October 1 next is correct; when the proposed Conference will be held; what steps will be taken by the Board of Trade to appoint Representatives to the Conference; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to include among such Representatives one or more experienced captains of steamers who have special knowledge of the present conditions of steam navigation in the North Atlantic?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he understood that a Bill on this subject had been passed by the United States Legislature; and, writing on June 26, the British Minister at Washington stated that the Bill then awaited
  1746
  the signature of the President. Her Majesty's Government had as yet received no invitation to attend the Conference; and until they did so, and knew the scope and objects of the Conference, it would be premature to make any statement on the subject.

  THE MAURITIUS—SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY.
  MR. BAUMANNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Sir John Pope Hennessy is going back to the Mauritius; if so, when; and if not, by what rule in the Colonial Service a Colonial Governor is allowed to live in this country, and draw half his salary?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: It is proposed that Sir John Pope Hennessy shall return to Mauritius in October next. There is no Rule or Regulation defining the amount of leave of absence, whether with or without salary, which may be allowed to a Colonial Governor. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is responsible for making such arrangements as may be at once fair to the Governor and not injurious to the Public Service. I may add that Sir John Pope Hennessy's official work has been entirely within the tropics—namely, in Borneo, Sierra Leone, the West Coast of Africa, the West Indian Islands, Hong Kong, and Mauritius; and a Governor who has never served in a temperate climate is considered to be entitled to more indulgence in regard to leave of absence in Europe than Governors whose service has been in healthy climates. During his present leave he has been frequently consulted by the Secretary of State on important questions connected with his government.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Might I ask whether there is no Regulation regarding the amount of pay drawn by Colonial Governors on leave of absence?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I have answered that Question—
  "There is no Rule or Regulation defining the amount of leave of absence, whether with or without salary, which may be allowed to a Colonial Governor."

  THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS— ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE, EGHAM.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, as a Charity Commissioner, Who constitute the Managing Body of the Sanatorium at Virginia Water, founded by the late Mr. Holloway; whether there is any document in the possession of the Charity Commissioners, or to which the public have access, showing what were the Founder's intentions in regard to the object and management of the Institution; and, whether the Commissioners have taken any steps to insure the efficient administration of its affairs? Also, whether there has been rendered to the Charity Commissioners any account of the sums expended in the erection, furnishing, and equipment of the Royal Holloway College at Egham, and of the Sanatorium at Virginia Water, founded by the late Mr. Holloway; whether any accountants have been appointed to audit the accounts of the annual receipts and expenditure of the Trustees of the Royal Holloway College, as required by the Deed of Foundation; and, whether a similar Audit is required in the case of the Sanatorium; and, if so, whether auditors have been appointed?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Managing Body of the Sanatorium of the Holloway College is the General Committee constituted by Regulations approved on May 10, 1884, under the Lunacy Acts by a Secretary of State. The Deed of Foundation, dated November 3, 1871, was duly enrolled in the Court of Chancery. The Charity Commissioners have no document in their possession showing the Founder's intentions in regard to the Institution. The Sanatorium is under the control of the Lunacy Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners have given notice of their intention to establish a scheme authorizing the Trustees and the Committee of Management to use the buildings and site—which constitute the sole endowment—in accordance with the Regulations referred to. The Charity Commissioners did receive a full account of the sums expended in the erection and furnishing of the Royal Holloway College, but not of the Sanatorium at Virginia Water, the latter having
  1748
  been in great part built by the Trustees at their own cost. The Commissioners are not aware whether any accountants have been appointed to audit the accounts of the Royal Holloway College, as the accounts have not yet been received at the Office, a year having only just elapsed since the opening of the College. No provision for an audit is made by the Deed of Foundation of the Sanatorium; but the accounts are, in fact, audited by an accountant.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. P. WALSH, J.P., CO. MAYO.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on Sunday the 24th ultimo, at Swinford, County Mayo, a body of about 50 police, under the command of Mr. Peter Walsh, J.P., paid Vice Guardian of the Swinford Union, and District Inspector Allen, charged the members of a local football club whilst they were quietly walking from their practising field to their rooms in the main street of the town; whether Mr. Walsh ordered the members of the club to clear off the street in five minutes, and threatened to order the police to fire upon them; whether Mr. Walsh is the same person against whom an injunction was recently granted by Judge Boyd, for illegal conduct in his capacity as Vice Guardian; whether Mr. Walsh is a Justice of the Peace for the County of Mayo; and, whether he will be directed to confine himself, whilst at Swinford, to his duties as paid Vice Guardian?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that the allegations contained in the first two paragraphs are altogether inaccurate. A football match had been played that day between the local Commercial Club and a Club from a neighbouring town. The latter Club was preparing to leave the hotel to return home, when the Gaelic Athletic Club, which is bitterly opposed to the Commercial Club, marched with their band past the hotel groaning the visiting Club; and instead of proceeding to their room they returned by the back of the town, and were approaching the hotel again when the District Inspector of Constabulary, seeing that a breach of

  1749
  the peace was imminent, sent for the magistrate referred to, and ordered out all his available men, 30, not 50, in number, and formed a cordon across the street, requiring the Club band to return to their rooms at the opposite end of the town, while permitting the other members to proceed down the main street to their dressing room. There does not appear to have been any charge, nor was there any threat used as to ordering the police—who had only their bâtons—to fire upon the members of the Club or their band. A conditional order for attachment against the Vice Guardians of Swinford Union—of whom Mr. Walsh is one—for contempt of Court in connection with their proceedings for the recovery of rates was issued; but when the case came on for hearing the Judge appears to have stated that, on reading the affidavits in the matter, he was perfectly satisfied that the Vice Guardians' proceedings were bonâ fide, and he discharged the order. Mr. Walsh is a Justice of the Peace for the County of Mayo. He has proved himself a very efficient Vice Guardian; and I have every reason to believe that he would not allow his duties in that capacity to be interfered with by any avoidable extraneous duties. I do not, therefore, see any ground to adopt the course suggested.
  MR. SEXTON: When was Mr. Walsh appointed a Justice of County Mayo?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information upon the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: Upon the Estimates for the Local Government Board I shall call attention to the way in which this Vice Guardian is allowed to constitute himself a public nuisance.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— THE SCHOOLROOMS AT MURROE, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. FINUCANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Sullivan, Inspector of National Schools, examined the boys and girls schoolrooms in Murroe, County Limerick, in years 1886 and 1887, and reported to the Board that those rooms were only a "little more than half large enough;" that Mr. McNeill, another Inspector, made a similar Report in 1888; whether, in a
  1750
  correspondence between Sir Croker Barrington, manager of those schools, and the Education Board, the latter stated that "either the schools should be enlarged, or the attendance diminished;" whether the Board has requested the manager to enlarge the schools; whether he has refused; whether the number of girls on the roll for the year ending January 31, 1888, was 161; average daily attendance for same period, 104, the dimensions of the school room being 34 feet long, 18 feet broad, and 12 feet high; and, whether the number of boys on the roll in the years 1886–1887, were respectively 184 and 176, the dimensions of school room being the same as those of girls; and, if the above facts exist, will he direct the Education Board to take such action as may be necessary, to ensure adequate accommodation for the children attending those schools?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the facts are substantially as given in the Question. The manager, Sir Croker Barrington, in November last stated to the Commissioners that, having failed to get any local assistance towards the expense of the enlargement, he was not prepared to contribute the amount required by the Regulations—namely, a third of the total cost, the Commissioners contributing the remaining two-thirds from the Parliamentary grant. The Commissioners thereupon required of him to reduce the attendance to the number which the rooms are capable of accommodating; and, in consequence, a considerable reduction has taken place.

  CUSTOMS—SEIZURE OF BRITISH-MADE HATS.
  MR. JENNINGSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that great inconvenience and loss have been occasioned to the hat manufacturers of this country by the practice, recently adopted in the principal ports, of seizing British made hats which have been sent as samples to foreign firms, and returned here so that orders may be accurately executed; and, whether if a list of recognized hat manufacturers is supplied to the Custom authorities at the various ports, they will permit sample hats addressed to

  1751
  the firms in question to be forwarded without these vexatious delays?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: Doubtless some inconvenience has been occasioned to the hat manufacturers of this country, as to the manufacturers of other goods, through the detention on their return to this country of goods, or samples of goods, by reason of their being marked in contravention of the provisions of the Merchandize Marks Act, 1887; but this has been inevitable from the operation of the Act. If, however, particulars of the marks on such goods were furnished to the Board of Customs by those manufacturers who frequently receive back from abroad either consignments or samples of British goods, and of the ports into which they come, instructions might be sent to those ports to deliver the goods, upon proof being given direct to the local officers (1) that the goods were of British origin; and (2) that they were made by the persons whose names appear upon them. The latter proof may be furnished by the written consent of those persons to the admission of the goods; or by declaration from the importers that the goods were made by the persons whose names appear upon them; or the marking may be erased from the goods.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—DISMISSAL OF CONSTABLE SMITH AND OTHERS.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the continually reiterated statement in the newspapers that injustice has been done to Constables Smith, Hackett, Leach, Whyman, Villiers, and Skelton by dismissing them from the Force for a trivial cause, when all of them have many years' good character; and, if this was by Sir Charles Warren's orders; if so, whether, in view of the feeling in the Police Force on the subject, he can see fit to re-instate these men?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the constables referred to have been dismissed for grave misconduct in taking part in a lottery in a public-house for the benefit of police-constables who have
  1752
  been reduced in class for drunkenness on duty. This was not only a grave offence against discipline, but also an offence against the law of the land. I am not aware of any feeling in the Police Force on the subject. The Chief Commissioner has authority to dismiss constables; and I must decline to interfere with his discretion in acting as he thinks proper for the maintenance of discipline in the Force.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Metropolitan Police have orders to eject persons from the roadways and steps of houses surrounding Trafalgar Square; and, if he can state the precise limits of the space from which the police have orders to remove the public?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The police have no orders to eject persons from the places named. Their duty is to carry out the Police Order referring to Trafalgar Square, and to prevent obstruction and disorder from occurring in the Square, or in any thoroughfare or public place near the Square, or elsewhere.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—CHARGES OF STRIKING WOMEN.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will give a Return of the number of police constables accused of striking women in the last month; and, if his attention has been directed to the statement of Sir Charles Warren, that there were few complaints against the police?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have recently laid on the Table a Return of all charges against police constables during 12 months ending April 24, 1888. It does not contain any case in which a charge against a police constable of assaulting or striking a woman was substantiated. I have no reason to think that the last month would show any different result, so far as charges in Court are concerned; and I would not undertake to give a Return of accusations not made in Court. The Commissioner informs me that there are

  1753
  fewer complaints made against the police now than in former years.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—DISMISSAL OF CONSTABLE J. O'GRADY.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that Constable Joseph O'Grady was dismissed, after 13 years' service and good character, from the Metropolitan Police Force for having presented a Petition in favour of one of his comrades; and, whether he can see his way to make any representation to Sir Charles Warren with reference to this case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, the question has been altered in its form since his answer had been prepared. It contained a suggestion that the constable named was dismissed from the Metropolitan Police on the ground of being a Home Ruler. [Mr. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I apologize.] The Commissioner informed him that he was not aware whether the constable was a Home Ruler or not. He was dismissed for insubordination in getting up a Petition against the punishment awarded by the Chief Constable to other policemen for drunkenness while on duty. His defaulters' sheet was a very bad one, and he (Mr. Matthews) did not propose to interfere in the matter.

  POST OFFICE—PRICE OF POST CARDS
  MR. R. POWERasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is a fact that, until the termination of the present manufacturing contract, it is not possible, without loss to the Post Office, to sell stout cards for a less sum than 8d. per dozen; and, if so, what would be the aggregate annual loss to the Revenue supposing that, to meet the convenience of the public, these cards were sold by the Post Office at 7d. per dozen, as is now done by ordinary stationers?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): According to last year's consumption, if stout cards were sold by the Post Office at 7d. a-dozen, a loss of upwards of £24,000 to the Revenue would be incurred under the present contract. This, however, is the present price of thin postcards, which it would, of course, be
  1754
  necessary to reduce proportionally, and a further loss would, consequently, be incurred.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—LORD CARYSFORT'S ESTATE, CO. WICKLOW— BERNARD RAFFERTY.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the eviction of Bernard Rafferty on the estate of Lord Carysfort, in the County of Wicklow; whether it is true, as stated in The Daily News, that
  "Tremendous excitement was caused when five naked children were ordered to be carried out by the Emergency men, the eldest child being seven years old and the youngest one year. The poor mother struggled hard to prevent this; but, despite her efforts, it was effected;"
  and, whether the police were present assisting at the eviction?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The County Inspector of Constabulary reports that The Daily News' statement referred to is utterly misleading; that the eviction took place at 3.30 p.m., and did not cause much excitement; and that all concerned appear to have acted in a kind and forbearing manner. The children appear to have been purposely kept in bed to obstruct the eviction. The Sub-Sheriff appealed to the mother for a long time—he says himself upwards of an hour—to dress the children; but she refused, and refused also to say where their clothes were. The Sub-Sheriff made an urgent request to the County Inspector to allow two policemen to carry the children downstairs to a lower room, which, in the circumstances, the County Inspector sanctioned. The police did so in the gentlest manner, one of them wrapping his cape round a child. The bailiffs subsequently removed the children out of the house. The children appear to have been also kept in the lower sitting-room, wrapped in some bed-clothes, and were not removed until the house had been emptied of all its furniture. This would seem to be one of the ordinary attempts to excite public feeling by the deliberate concoction of dramatic incidents.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rent of this holding was £108, whilst the Poor

  1755
  Law valuation was only £88; that there was only two years' rent due; and that one half-year's rent was offered now, and another in September next?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper; but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a further Question I shall be happy to answer it. I have at present no information as to the financial position of this case; but I am aware that in another case on the same estate the landlord acted with extraordinary forbearance.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask what has become of the unfortunate children?
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): The right hon. Gentleman has made a grave imputation that there has been a deliberate conspiracy to excite public feeling in this case. May I ask whether the police made any inquiry as to whether there were actually any clothes to put on the children; and whether the Irish police have instructions in any case to withhold force in the execution of evictions when humanity requires that it should be withheld?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is every desire on the part of the police to see that every dictate of humanity is followed; but the hon. Gentleman will observe that if a mother refuses to dress her children that cannot be a reason for not carrying out an eviction.
  MR. SEXTON: But what I asked was whether there were any clothes to put on the children?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION— REMOVAL FROM WIMBLEDON COMMON—RICHMOND PARK.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the First Commissioner of Works, If any portion of Richmond Park is likely to be given up for a range to the National Rifle Association; if he is aware that this would entail the cutting down of many fine old trees, permanent injury to the scenery of the Park, and considerable inconvenience, if not danger, to the public; if he is aware that very great dissatisfaction exists among the residents of Richmond at the proposed encroachment upon the Park; and, whether, in view of the facilities for rifle practice afforded by the existing ranges at Wimbledon and else-
  1756
  where, he will refuse to permit the disfigurement of one of the most beautiful Parks in the Kingdom?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The request of the National Rifle Association to be allowed to use a portion of Richmond Park for the purposes of their annual competition, and the arguments for and against that proposal, are under consideration; and I think it is better that I should not express any opinion upon the particular questions raised by the hon. Baronet until a decision on the whole subject has been arrived at by the Government.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had observed any statement on the part of Volunteers to the effect that the National Rifle Association in no sort of way represented the Volunteer Force?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have heard a great many statements to the effect that the Association does not represent the Volunteers, and also a great many statements that the Volunteers are deeply interested in the question.
  MR. CONYBEAREinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that forms had been sent out to all the Volunteers, asking them to express an opinion in favour of this site being adopted?
  MR. PLUNKET: I am not aware of it, Sir.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If Arklow Harbour has been completed according to the original plans and contract; whether the works on the northern side, as originally proposed, have been abandoned; and, if so, is it because the money provided has been already expended in making good the damage caused to the breakwater; and, can he say how much it would still cost to complete the harbour on the original plan?
  MR. W. J. CORBETalso asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Arklow Harbour is completed; and, if so, what is the total cost of the works?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, that the construction of the northern works included

  1757
  in the original plan had been suspended for the present, and further funds must be raised and charged on the locality if it should be intended to proceed with the northern works. The total sum provided for the harbour had been expended. Owing to damage that occurred during construction, the probable additional cost to complete it would be about £5,000. The total cost of the work had been £35,416, which included £5,000 paid to the Wicklow Copper Mining Company in compensation for their interest in the harbour.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the right hon. Gentleman, was he aware that a plan and model had been placed in the Irish Exhibition by the Board of Works; whether it is stated on the plan that the works have been completed; and, whether the Board of Works were justified in stating that the works have been completed when they were in the incomplete state which he had just mentioned?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he had not seen the plan or model in the Irish Exhibition; but it would be certainly incorrect to say that the works had been completed. He understood, however, that the southern portion of the works had been completed.

  LAND AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE COUNTY COURT AT NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  SIR GEORGE ELLIOTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has yet been able to make arrangements for the sittings of the County Court at Newport (Monmouthshire)?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I am glad to say that I have made arrangements for the sittings of the Court satisfactory to all parties, and at a very small cost. This is mainly due to the fair spirit in which I have been met by the County Court Judge, the magistrates, and the Town Council of Newport.

  INDIA—STATE-AIDED EDUCATION.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the recent Resolution of the Government of India on State-aided education has been received at the India Office; and, whe-
  1758
  ther he will lay its text upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOAN GORST): The Resolution of the Government of India on State-aided education will be laid on the Table if the hon. Member will move for it.

  INDIA—THE ANNUAL MIGRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO THE HILLS.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, How many members of the Finance Committee signed the Report on the cost of the Simla allowances and the other financial aspects of the migration of the various Governments every summer to the Hills; how many members recorded dissents; and, whether the dissents, as well as the Report of the Committee, will be laid upon the Table of the House before the debate on the Indian Budget?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Report of the Finance Committee was signed by all the eight members. From certain passages in chapter 13, relating to allowances granted at hill stations, four members recorded dissents. The Report can be laid on the Table if moved for. It will be very costly to print, consisting of 1,625 pages; but the Secretary of State expects copies from India, and will be happy to furnish them to any Members who are interested in the subject.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—THE REPORT.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDasked the Lord Advocate, If he can say when the Report of the Fishery Board will be delivered; and, whether he can undertake that it will be in the hands of Members for a reasonable time before the Vote for the Board is taken?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I am informed that Parts 1 and 2 of the Fishery Board Report were ready for delivery yesterday, and I hope by this time are in the hands of hon. Members. Part 3, which deals with scientific investigations, will be ready in a few days. I hope, therefore, that the whole Report may be in the hands of hon. Members before the Vote is taken.

  WAR OFFICE (SMALL ARMS)—THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the new magazine rifle and ammunition will be submitted to a practical trial by the skilled rifle shots assembled at Wimbledon, as was done in the case of the Enfield-Martini rifle two years ago; and, inasmuch as His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge has advised a trial of the Morris magazine, whether such magazine will also be practically tried at Wimbledon?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The only magazine rifles at present made are in course of issue to regiments for a practical service trial. The only experience likely to be gained at Wimbledon would be as to the shooting power of the weapon. On this point we already have ample experience and satisfactory results. The rifles fitted with the Morris magazine are not yet ready.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE MAYLOUGH AMATEUR BAND, CO. GALWAY
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Head Constable John Ryan, Royal Irish Constabulary, Maylough, County Galway, acting, as he has stated, on instructions which he had received from County Inspector O'Brien, has given notice to Mr. Thomas Higgins that for the future the Maylough Amateur Band must not perform on any public occasion whatever; and, if so, would the Government state why the peaceful villagers of Maylough are to be deprived of an enjoyment which is allowed to all other people?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the Head Constable had not been told to stop the playing of the band by the County Inspector. On one occasion only had the band been interfered with by the police; and then it was on account of a breach of the peace being anticipated, owing to a squabble between some members of the National League.

  POST OFFICE—FINES ON POSTMEN.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware of the existence of the practice of fining postmen so much as two or more days' pay for comparatively trivial acts of misconduct, such as late attendance; and, if so, whether he will consider the propriety of substituting some other punishment for such offences, in the case especially of rural postmen, whose weekly wages are only 16 s. a-week or under?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am not aware that postmen are over fined for trivial acts of misconduct, nor on the part of a postman can I regard want of punctuality as coming under that description. For acts of misconduct which are not trivial the practice of fining postmen as a mitigated form of punishment is one to which the Department is constrained to have recourse as a means of enforcing discipline; and I do not see my way to replace it by any other method.

  CRIMINAL LAW—SENTENCE ON GEORGE WILLIAMS AT CAMBRIDGE ASSIZES
  MR. CONYBEARE(for Mr. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Deparment, Whether his attention has been directed to the painful case of George Williams, convicted at the last Cambridge Assizes of stealing food valued at 8d., and sentenced to five years' penal servitude; and, whether, although there were two previous convictions against this man, he can, under the circumstances, see fit to remit any portion of the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the learned Judge on this case. From this it appears that the prisoner had five previous convictions, of a character which indicates a consistent and habitual course of crime for the last 14 years. Under these circumstances, the learned Judge thought penal servitude was better, both for the community and the prisoner himself, than a shorter sentence. It is not a case on which I should advise any remission, as I see no reasonable hope of the

  1761
  prisoner leading an honest life if it were granted.

  BURIAL GROUNDS AND CEMETERIES—WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY, EAST HAM.
  MR. THEOBALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true that he has granted a licence to the proposed Woodgrange Park Cemetery at East Ham; whether he is aware that there are already in the immediate neighbourhood two cemeteries, one of which is estimated by its proprietors to be sufficient to accommodate burials at the present rate for 90 years, and the other to be similarly sufficient for 60 or 70 years; whether he is aware that building is going on in the immediate neighbourhood, and that it is tolerably certain that in a very few years the site of the proposed cemetery will be densely surrounded by houses; and, whether he is aware that the establishment of the proposed cemetery has been, and is, most vigorously opposed by everyone in the neighbourhood, and that its only advocates are speculative undertakers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have sanctioned the opening of Woodgrange Park Cemetery at East Ham. There are two cemeteries not very far distant, so that burials will probably be divided between the three, and spread over a considerable area. There is some building going on not far from Woodgrange Park. I cannot estimate the rate at which it will probably proceed. There was strong opposition to the scheme, which was promoted by a Company formed for the purpose of providing burial ground at a cheap rate for the East End of London. I should have been glad if I could have met the wishes of the neighbouring proprietors who opposed the scheme; but I am advised that I have no jurisdiction to entertain any considerations other than those of public health. Alter a full inquiry before the Inspector, at which all parties were represented by counsel, I came to the conclusion that there were no sanitary objections to justify the withholding of my sanction, which I have only given under specially stringent Regulations amply sufficient to protect the public health.
  MR. THEOBALDasked, whether the soil was not gravel, so that the impure water would pass into the adjacent wells, and become a source of disease?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that the evidence given before the Inspector, even by the opponents of the scheme, was that the soil was extremely well suited for a cemetery.
  MR. THEOBALD: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that I shall ask leave to bring in a Bill to prevent any Home Secretary from sanctioning or perpetrating such a scandalous outrage.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PRISONERS IN LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. O'KEEFFEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the exact number of persons now imprisoned in Limerick Gaol under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, specifying the names of the prisoners, the lengths of their sentences, and the nature of offences for which they were convicted?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was sorry that he had not yet got the information that would enable him to answer the Question, and he therefore asked for a postponement.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—LIMERICK PRISON—THE VISITING JUSTICES.
  MR. O'KEEFFEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If the Mayor of Limerick, legally constituted locum tenens, was again refused admittance to the Limerick Prison on Monday last, when claiming his right to enter as a Visiting Justice; and, if he will explain what powers in that respect the Mayor's deputy possesses under s. 69, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 194 (185)?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The Prisons Board inform me that they sent instructions on the 18th instant, to the effect that the claim referred to in the Question should be admitted. When the Mayor has been appointed as such a member of the Visiting Committee, his deputy is, in my opinion, entitled to act in that capacity

  1763
  in his absence under the section referred to.

  IRISH ANNIVERSARIES—CELEBRATIONS OF THE BATTLES OF AUGHRIM AND THE BOYNE.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the interests of good feeling and good government, he will use his influence with his friends in the North of Ireland to put a stop to the practice of celebrating the anniversaries of the battles of Aughrim and the Boyne?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am no particular admirer of the custom of celebrating anniversaries of a party character; and if all parties in Ireland were to cease, the practice it would, no doubt, be a great convenience to the Government responsible for the preservation of the peace. It is, however, due to the Orangemen of the North to say that, at a time when party feeling runs exceptionally high, the recent anniversary passed, so far as I know, in perfect order and without giving unnecessary offence.
  MR. W. REDMONDwished to know whether the fact to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded was not owing to the Orange feeling in the North of Ireland giving way to a strong feeling in favour of Home Rule?
  [No reply.]

  CATTLE DISEASES ACTS (IRELAND)— MR. F. C. PILKINGTON AND OTHERS AT KINGSTOWN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will inquire into the circumstances under which Mr. F. C. Pilkington, Sir H. Cochrane, and Captain Quinn were let off with nominal fines by the Chief Magistrate at Kingstown for offences under the Cattle Diseases Acts; whether he has seen a newspaper report, in which it is stated—
  "It was strongly urged upon the magistrate that such fines were entirely inadequate to the cases; but he was very peremptory, and said that he considered they were not cases that called for exemplary fines;"
  whether he is aware that the solicitors to the Guardians protested against the want of support afforded by the magis-
  1764
  trates to the Guardians in their attempt to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia; whether his attention has been called to a Resolution unanimously agreed to by the Board of Guardians on the 11th instant, endorsing the protest of the solicitors, and drawing the attention of the magistrates to the fact that ignorance can hardly be accepted as an excuse from any person for the violation of the Orders in Council and Regulations of the Local Authority which have been before the public for a very long period; and, whether he will take steps to secure the infliction of more adequate punishments for offences under the Cattle Diseases Acts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The solicitors to the Guardians appear, when communicating the result of the prosecutions, to have made the observation indicated in the Question, and the Guardians to have passed the Resolution referred to. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, the fixing of the amount of a fine to be inflicted within statutable limits is vested in the judicial discretion of magistrates. The fines which have been so measured from time to time have been attended by salutary results; and the Government see no reason, even if they had the power, to adopt the course suggested.
  MR. W. J. CORBET: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a Return of the names of the persons proceeded against under these Acts during the last 12 months, and the penalties imposeed so that the House may see whether even-handed justice between rich and poor has been meted out?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must give me Notice of that Question.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— THE BALLYCOTTON PIER.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Grand Jury of the County of Cork have unanimously decided upon declining to take over the Ballycotton Pier; and, what reasons have they given for so doing?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): No information has been received that the Grand Jury have refused to take over the pier; but I am

  1765
  informed that there was a newspaper report to that effect.
  DR. TANNERsaid, the Grand Jury not only refused to take over the pier, but they complained of the inadequacy of the statements made in the House of Commons in connection with the state of the pier, and they stated they endorsed the action of their predecessors, which was a strong Conservative Body.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he was not aware of that.
  MR. FLYNNasked, was it not a fact that, as late as April last, the county surveyor reported on the insufficiency of the pier?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he wished to have Notice of the Question.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS—DEATH OF STICKLEY AT COLNEY HATCH ASYLUM.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What was the result of the inquiry by the Lunacy Commissioners into the death of the man Stickley at Colney Hatch Asylum?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Committee of Visitors have made a searching inquiry, which has been reviewed by the Commissioners. The result is that Stickley's injuries are believed to have occurred after he had been received in the asylum; but there was nothing to suggest any suspicion of violence or rough usage on the part of any officer or servant. The Commissioners have censured the Medical Superintendent severely for laxity in his examination of the patient, and for omissions in the notice of death to the Coroner. They have also blamed the assistant medical officer, and have re-commended the dismissal of two attendants in the bath-room who left the patient before he was completely dressed. The Commissioners are of opinion that further inquiry would not lead to any good result.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, whether there was anything to show how the patient received the injuries if he did not receive them from some of the attendants?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that that was the subject upon which the inquiry principally turned, and every effort
  1766
  seemed to have been made to ascertain how they were sustained; but the Commission failed to get any complete account.
  Mr. CHILDERSinquired, whether the principal medical officer who was so severely censured would be allowed to remain at Colney Hatch.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that he was not aware whether the Commissioners thought he deserved dismissal as well as censure. His censure was for his careless examination of the patient; but whether that amounted to anything calling for dismissal he was not aware.
  MR. CHILDERSremarked that he did not suggest the dismissal, but the transfer of the medical officer.
  MR. MATTHEWSpromised to consider that question, and also whether the Report of the Commissioners should be laid upon the Table of the House.

  CRIMINAL LAW—BABY FARMING— CASE AT THE WILTSHIRE ASSIZES.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the recent Judgment of Mr. Justice Day, in a case of baby farming, at the Wilts Assizes, in the course of which the learned Judge is reported to have said that—
  "The prisoners received moneys in gross sums and then devoted themselves not to taking care of the children, but to getting rid of them. Through the instrumentality of those deadly Societies which insured children, the prisoners had put themselves in a position to make a profit by the death of these children. That was the effect of these Societies wherever they existed, and such Societies should have been stamped out by the Legislature long ago;"
  and, whether he will consider the possibility of introducing legislation at an early date to prevent such inducements to crime?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): This is an important subject, which has been frequently considered by the Home Office; but it is attended by many difficulties, and I cannot at present make any promise on the subject.

  ARMY—PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS—ERRORS IN EXAMINATION PAPERS.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the Secretary to the Trea-

  1767
  sury, in reference to the late examination for Admission to Sandhurst Military College, Whether it is within the knowledge of the Civil Service Commissioners that faulty examination papers have on several previous occasions been presented to and answered by candidates for public appointments; if so, would he state whether re-examinations were held on these occasions, or in what manner these faulty examination papers were dealt with; if he can inform the House how many candidates were examined on the first paper on the recent occasion; how many of these returned for re-examination; whether there were among them several candidates from Scotland, Ireland, and distant parts of England; and, what time elapsed between the first examination and the re-examination?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): In answer to the first paragraph, faulty examination papers have been presented and answered on previous occasions. There was no re-examination, allowance being made by the examiners. I may say that, in this case, the re-examination was the result of applications from hon. Members that re-examination should be afforded to the boys. The suggestion was not the suggestion of the Commissioners, but one made to them. In answer to the second paragraph, the number of candidates examined on the first occasion was 408; and in answer to the third paragraph, the number was 397. The answer to the fourth paragraph is, Yes; and to the fifth paragraph, three days.

  WAR OFFICE—VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION OF HORSES.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Secretary of State for War, if he can give the House any information as to the scheme lately introduced by him for the voluntary registration of horses for the Army?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am happy to be able to say that the scheme for the voluntary registration of horses has succeeded beyond my expectation. Within a few hundreds, the number provided for in this year's Estimates have already been registered at the fee fixed by the Government, and large numbers of offers are received every
  1768
  week. Most of the registered horses have already been inspected. I am glad to have this opportunity of acknowledging the patriotic spirit in which many of the large Railway, Carrying, and Brewing Companies have come forward and have registered a considerable percentage of their horses.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES) BILL.
  MR. CHAPLINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is able to say when it is likely that the second reading of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill will be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I fear it will not be possible to bring this Bill on next week; but I hope to do so before a fortnight is passed.

  AUSTRALIA—CHINESE IMMIGRANTS.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the following, which appeared in the papers of yesterday:—
  "The London correspondent of The Manchester Guardian hears that the Foreign Office has decided not to open negotiations for the present with the Pekin Government for a settlement of the question of Chinese immigration into Australia. The Government will probably first check the emigration of Chinese to Australia from Hong Kong and Singapore, which are the centres of the trade, and then will induce the Australian Governments to pass a measure dealing with immigration in general, which will be free from the objection to the present laws that they discriminate against Chinese only;"
  and, whether it is true, as above stated, that the Government have decided not to enter into negotiations with the Government of Pekin; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will reconsider the matter, and endeavour to procure a Treaty from China, as suggested by the Colonial Conference, on the question of Chinese emigration to Australia?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The newspapers are misinformed. Her Majesty's Government are at present in communication with the Government of China on the subject.

  WAR OFFICE—PARTY DEMONSTRATIONS—THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that Colonel Kinloch, commanding the troops in Enniskillen, attended an Orange meeting in that town on July 12 last, and wore an Orange badge; and, whether steps will be taken in future to enforce the Military Regulations which forbid officers from taking part in such demonstrations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Colonel Kinloch has telegraphed as follows:—
  "I took no part in any Orange meeting, nor did I attend it, beyond being a spectator of the procession in plain clothes in the crowd."
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman to answer what he considered the most important part of the Question—namely, whether Colonel Kinloch did not conspicuously wear an Orange badge to the great offence of many people?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, in the telegraphic reply Colonel Kinloch made no mention of the Orange badge. No doubt, he would have replied to that point if he did not think his statement fully contradicted it.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, what there was in the telegraphic statement of Colonel Kinloch which was supposed to indicate that he did not wear an Orange badge? Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would again interrogate Colonel Kinloch on the subject of wearing the Orange badge?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had given the House all the information at his disposal; but he should have liked longer Notice than he had received of such a Question as this. In consequence of the doubt being expressed as to the wearing of an Orange badge, he would again interrogate Colonel Kinloch on that point.
  MR. W. REDMONDgave Notice that he would repeat the Question on Monday, and regretted that he had been unable to give longer Notice of it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—COURT OF APPEAL (IRELAND)—"BYRNE v. KNOX AND OTHERS."
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  1770
  Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following passage in the report published in The Freeman's Journal of the 10th instant, of the Judgment of the High Court of Appeal in Ireland in the case of "The Queen at the Prosecution of Byrne v. Knox and others:"—
  "Lord Justice Barry in concurring observed that it had been stated by Mr. O'Brien in the course of argument that the carriage of a case stated lay with the magistrates and not with the parties. That was a dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine. It was contrary to the invariable practice in this country both at Assizes and in the Civil Bill Courts, which was that the parties themselves should state the facts, the Judge or magistrate settling any disputed matter. Otherwise, at the argument of the case stated one party or the other might find that the case did not contain facts that he required. He had heard it made a ground of complaint against some County Courts in England that they stated cases without the concurrence of parties, and without consulting them as to the facts;"
  and, having regard to the difference between this statement of the law and that made by the Lord Chief Baron and Baron Dowse, what instructions he proposes to issue to the Resident Magistrates with respect to their duties in stating cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As far as I am able to judge, there is an important difference between the statement made in the High Court of Appeal and the Court of Exchequer respectively in the case of "The Queen at the Prosecution of Byrne v. Knox and others" on the course to be pursued by magistrates in stating a case. I feel that this difference of opinion is likely to be embarrassing to the magistrates; but I fear that it is beyond my province to act as a final Court of Appeal from the learned Judges, and that it would be inconsistent with my duty to advise magistrates on the course which they should pursue when acting in their judicial capacity.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS—SUMMONSES FOR ASSAULTS.
  MR. P. STANHOPEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the ordinary practice of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction is to grant summonses for assault on a parole complaint; whether summonses for assaults alleged to have been committed by private persons on a police

  1771
  constable are habitually granted without any sworn information in writing being laid; if he is aware that at the Bow Street Police Court the magistrate refuses to grant any summons for alleged assault against a member of the Police Force without first having a formal information in writing laid before him; and, if there is any valid reason for thus making an invidious distinction between the police and the public?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Chief Magistrate that summonses for assault are usually granted on complaint without writing. Summonses for assaults on police constables are not applied for without the authority of a Commissioner of Police. There is no general Rule guiding the action of the magistrate with regard to summonses against constables. No distinction is made between the police and the public. The magistrate forms his opinion in each case upon the attendant circumstances, as stated by the complainant. And in all cases (whether against constables or other persons) he may require an information in writing if he thinks fit.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT—CONVERSION OF DEPOSITS.
  MR. WHARTONasked the Postmaster General, If it is proposed to reduce the amount now necessary for depositors in Post Office Savings Bank to accumulate before conversion into Government Stock (namely, £10); and, if so, to what extent does he contemplate reduction?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Section 5 of the Savings Bank Act, 1887, provides that the minimum amount to be invested in Government Stock shall be such sum as may be from time to time fixed by Regulation; and effect has been given to this section in the new Savings Bank Investment Regulations which have recently, in accordance with the Act, been before the House of Commons for 40 days. The minimum amount of Stock which can be purchased or sold has been fixed at 1s. The new Regulations will be brought into operation with the least possible delay.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT—THE COOKERY GRANT.
  MR. CYRIL FLOWERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If he will consider the possibility of dividing the cookery grant between laundry and cookery in evening schools during the ensuing winter?
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONalso asked, Whether, in accordance with the prevailing opinion that the elementary education of girls is incomplete unless they are trained to apply in practice the multifarious knowledge acquired intellectually, and in view of the success which has resulted from the establishment of laundry classes in some of the elementary schools in Liverpool, he will consider the expediency of admitting laundry work as a class subject into the Code, on the same footing as cookery, and in substitution for some other subject less important to girls in every-day life?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE), in reply, said, he considered it so important to encourage the teaching of cookery, that he doubted the expediency of diminishing the grant by dividing it with laundry work in evening schools. The suggestion to place laundry work in a similar position with cookery involved considerations of expense, and of the time at the service of girls in elementary schools, which could not hastily be disposed of. Evidence was given on these subjects before the Royal Commission on Education, and he was curious to see if they made any recommendation in regard to them. Washing could now be taught under the Code as a branch of domestic economy.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—RELIEF OF LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet determined how the sum of £127,000, granted this year for the relief of local taxation in Ireland, is to be expended; and, if so,

  1773
  whether he will lay his proposals before the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The matter has been engaging the attention of the Government, and we have elaborated a plan; but I am unwilling to give a detailed answer until the House has come to a final decision on the principles which are to govern the allocation of the grant in England.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked, if the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an opportunity of considering the plan laid out by the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that was a Question for the Leader of the House.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he would give an opportunity before the conclusion of the Session for considering any scheme which the Government might put forward for spending this £127,000?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Most certainly, Sir. An opportunity must be offered for the consideration of the question by the House.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—ADVANCES.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What was the total amount of advance sanctioned up to July 14, under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," and the sum applied for up to the same date, respecting which no decision has been arrived at?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(who replied) said, the Land Commissioners have furnished the figures up to the 17th of July. They are as follows:—Total amount of advances sanctioned, £4,450,325; sum applied for, respecting which no decision has been yet arrived at, £739,623.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  MR. D. SULLIVANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, under which it was proposed to prolong the powers of the Irish Land Commission, would give continuity of office to the Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners at present engaged in the administration of the Land Acts,
  1774
  and for what period; and, whether, having regard to the fact that there are over 60,000 applications for fixing fair rents still pending, such provision will be made as will be effectual to prevent public inconvenience which may arise from interruption in the sittings of the Courts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(who replied) said: The Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will not affect the tenure of office of the Assistant Commissioners, which does not depend upon Statute; but it will extend the term of office of the Commissioners, who, no doubt, will take care that no public inconvenience is caused by any breach in the continuity of the Sub-Commissioners' work.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL—THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Attorney General acted as leading counsel for The Times in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another," he will undertake that the hon. and learned Gentleman shall not be in attendance at any Cabinet Council at which any question relating to Parnellism and Crime is under consideration?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No, Sir. I must absolutely decline to give any undertaking of the kind indicated.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on matters of fact. I wish to ask him whether it is true, as stated, I observe, in an evening paper on Thursday, the 12th—the day on which the right hon. Gentleman announced the Commission of Judges Bill—that on that day, during the sitting of the Cabinet, Sir Richard Webster, the Attorney General, attended?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I decline to answer any Question of that sort.
  MR. SUMMERSasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman can inform the House what will be the future position of Mr. Attorney General with regard to the progress and operation of the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The future position of Mr. Attorney General must depend on the course taken by hon. Members in relation to the Bill and its operation.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was with the assent of the Attorney General that the Government last year offered the Attorney General as counsel to certain Members of this House, if they, or any of them, instituted legal proceedings against The Times; whether it was with the assent of the Government that the Attorney General became counsel for The Times in the recent action of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another;" whether the Government supplied to the Attorney General any of the material used by him in his speech as counsel in that action; whether the Government will continue to consult the Attorney General in reference to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill, and the constitution of the Special Commission; whether it will be open to the Attorney General to appear before the Special Commission as counsel for The Times; and, whether the offer of the Government to allot the Attorney General as counsel for the Irish Members is to be regarded as still open?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The offer referred to by the hon. Member, and made by me last Session, was that, should the Members affected by the charges then made desire that the matter should be investigated in a Court of Law, proceedings should be taken in the name of the Attorney General, and be conducted by any counsel and solicitor selected by the Members themselves. This offer was made with the assent of the Attorney General. It was neither with the consent nor dissent of the Government that the Attorney General was retained by The Times. The Attorney General was retained by The Times in his private capacity, and in the ordinary course of practice. The Government did not directly or indirectly supply to the Attorney General any of the materials used by him in his speech as counsel in that action. I repeat, that I decline to make any statement as to the course the Government will think fit to pursue in consulting the Attorney General in reference to the Bill in question, or to the con-
  1776
  stitution of the Special Commission. It will, I apprehend, be in the power of The Times to engage the Attorney General to appear at the Special Commission as their counsel, if they think fit, in accordance, I believe, with professional practice. The offer of the Government, to which I have referred, is, of course, no longer open. It applied to an entirely different state of things—namely, an investigation in the Courts of Law. Besides that, inasmuch as the Attorney General, as counsel for The Times, may have acquired information relating to the matters in question, it would, of course, be unsuitable that he should appear as counsel for the Irish Members.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to his statement that he refuses to give any information whatever as to the past action of the Attorney General in relation to the action of the Government, he will reconsider that determination, in order that the question may be raised, as I propose it, by moving to strike the Attorney General's salary out of the Estimates?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask, whether the Government propose to make any provision—any special provision—for the expenses of the Commission itself, or with respect to the proceedings before it, or with respect to the displacement of the Judges from their ordinary duties during the continuance of the Commission; and, if so, whether it will be necessary to take a Resolution in Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it would be better that I should have Notice of a Question of that character, which may be more properly raised when the Bill is in Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Attorney General, as the Legal Adviser of the Home Office, had an opportunity of obtaining information at that Office with regard to the facts that were discussed at the recent trial which would not have been enjoyed by other Members of the Bar?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Attorney General is not specially the Legal Adviser of the Home Office; and he has had

  1777
  no information whatever from the Home Office in relation to those matters.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, considering that the Attorney General has acted for The Times in the recent case, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, it is open to the Attorney General to be counsel for The Times before the Special Commission, the Government will consider themselves entitled to consult the Attorney General as to the persons who shall constitute the Commission?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already fully answered the Questions which were addressed to me on this subject. I retain for the Government full liberty of action, upon their own responsibility, as to any course they may pursue.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he intends to place the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill as the first Order for Monday next?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no intention of doing so.
  MR. CLANCY: With regard to the Question whether the Government supplied to the Attorney General any of the materials used by him in his speech as counsel in the recent action, I wish to ask whether he is not the very official who himself possessed the information?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Certainly not.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.
  MR. HUNTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill is put down for second reading, he will lay upon the Table, and circulate for the information of Members, a Paper showing what are the charges and allegations that have been made against certain Members of Parliament and others by the defendants in the course of the proceedings in an action entitled "O'Donnell v. Walter and another"?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is, in my opinion, quite unnecessary to circulate any such Paper. The charges and allegations, as the hon. Member is well aware, are contained in the pamphlet entitled Parnellism and Crime and the articles of The Times newspaper, all of which are referred to in the pleadings
  1778
  delivered in the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another."
  MR. COBBasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the second reading of the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill, he will have printed and circulated among Members of the House the pleadings in the action of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another"; and, whether, in moving the second reading of the Bill, he will state the names of the three Commissioners proposed to be inserted in Clause 1?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must refer the hon. Member, as regards the first part of his Question, to the answer I have just given. In answer to the last paragraph, I am not yet in a position to say whether it will be in the power of the Government to comply with his suggestion.
  MR. HUNTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously mean that hon. Members are to purchase some kind of pamphlet, of which I know nothing, and are to peruse an indefinite number of the columns of The Times, in order to be in a position to know what we are asked to vote upon on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure that the hon. Member will recognize that the charges are matters of public notoriety. ["No, no!"] The Charge of the Lord Chief Justice has been reported verbatim in all the London newspapers; and Her Majesty's Government cannot put the House in possession of further information than that.
  MR. COBB: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second paragraph of the Question.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I stated that we were not in a position to comply with the suggestion made.
  MR. COBB: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first paragraph of the Question.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I did, Sir, at the same time.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the pleadings of The Times, which are material to the issue, are not contained in full in any document available to Members of the House?
  [No reply.]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I suggest that the right hon.

  1779
  Gentleman should consult the counsel for The Times on the subject.
  MR. HUNTER: In consequence of the answer which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that when the second reading of this Bill is taken I shall move an Amendment, to the effect that its consideration be postponed until the House is put in possession of the alleged charges.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE; I wish to ask, for the convenience of the House, whether we are to understand distinctly that arrangements have been made for taking the second reading of what I may call the Commission Bill at a convenient hour on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think, Sir, that I indicated on Monday last that I proposed to take it about 9 or 10 o'clock on Monday, an arrangement which, I think, will be for the convenience of the House.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the hon. Member for South Monaghan (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) with reference to the Notice of opposition he has placed on the Paper to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill, whether, before putting down that Notice, he consulted any Irish Members?
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I consulted no Irish Member on the subject. I put the Notice on the Paper in consequence of an article in The Times the day before; and because I think it important that from some quarter of the House or other a protest against such legislation should at any rate be entered solemnly.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that as the First Lord of the Treasury contemplated the possibility of the debate on the second reading of the Royal Commission Bill taking no more than two or three hours, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the debate did take more time than that, and was not finished on Monday, he proposed to take it de die in diem?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir. I have not contemplated the possibility of the debate taking more than two or three hours. The alternative open to us would be to suspend the Standing Order with regard to the Twelve o'clock Rule; and I should be very sorry, indeed, to have to take that course.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—TRAFALGAR SQUARE (REGULATION OF MEETINGS) BILL.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the interests of peace and goodwill between the people and police, and the quiet government of the Metropolis, he will either give facilities for the consideration of the Trafalgar Square (Regulation of Meetings) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Horton (Mr. James Stuart), or undertake on the part of the Government themselves to propose legislation on the subject? The hon. Member also asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would adopt any measure which, during the interval before legislation could be considered, might tend to obviate the risk of any collisions between the police and the people?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to the latter part of the Question, I venture to hope that there will be no risk of collision between the police and the people. It depends very much on those who lead the people whether there will be any such risk or not. As it has been laid down by the Judges of the High Court that there is no right of meeting in Trafalgar Square, and as the Government are of opinion that meetings in the Square would involve serious risk to the peace of the Metropolis, they are not prepared to give facilities for a measure authorizing such meetings; and they entertain the earnest hope that no further attempt will be made to assert a claim which has now been declared by high legal authority to be without any foundation; and that it may, therefore, be unnecessary for the Government to propose legislation in order to prevent the continuance of a mischievous agitation.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, whether the opinions of the high legal authorities referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were not rather obiter dicta than decisions upon the question before them, and related rather to the general right of meeting than to meetings in Trafalgar Square?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was obvious he was not in a position to discuss the legal question.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMput the Question to the Attorney General.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): As I understand the decision of the Judges, it was not given in reference to the general right of meeting in public thoroughfares; but directly in reference to the meetings in Trafalgar Square, as to which they stated that in their opinion no such right existed.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked, in the name of justice and humanity, whether something could not be done to prevent collisions, which might occur at any moment, between the police and the people, in spite of all they could possibly do?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; I think the hon. Gentleman himself, and those who have co-operated with him, may exercise their influence to prevent a collision by dissuading the people from going to the Square when they have no right to do so, and preventing meetings being thus held.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is there any Act of Parliament which deliberately lays it down that there is no right of public meeting either in Trafalgar Square or any other place? Are we also to understand that the Commissioner of Police, although he has the power by statute to regulate and control public meetings, has any legal right and authority to suppress public meetings altogether?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be perfectly aware that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the question of law has never varied from the time this matter was first debated. Their view is that Trafalgar Square is a public place in the Metropolis, subject to the control of the police; and that a meeting ought not to be permitted which is likely to bring about a breach of the peace. That view has since been discussed in more than one Court of Law, and has never been called in question.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he contemplates with much satisfaction a repetition of the Peterloo massacre?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE OATHS BILL—THIRD READING.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in accordance with the exception he made on the occasion of taking the whole time of the House, that Bills in the Report stage should have secured to them the position conferred by the Standing Order relating to arrangement of Business after Whitsuntide, he can now fix the day on which the decision of the House may be taken on the third reading of the Oaths Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am sorry to say, Sir, I am not yet in a position to name any day on which it would be possible to afford the hon. Member the opportunity he desires; but I recognize his claim for consideration.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES BILL.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to ask the House to proceed, during the present Session, with the Limited Liability Companies Bill; and, if so, whether before the adjournment, or during the Autumn Sitting?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he was unable to state what course the Government might think it necessary to take with regard to the Bill.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— THE RECENT DISCLOSURES—LEASES.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will take such action as may be necessary to annul all the leases granted by the Metropolitan Board of Works, which, according to the evidence taken before the Royal Commission, have been obtained by bribing the officials, or giving colourable employment to members of the Board?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Royal Commission referred to is still sitting; and without expressing any opinion on the proposal of the hon. Member, I think it would be premature and unadvisable for the Government to take any steps with regard to the

  1783
  evidence given before the Commissioners till they have reported.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked, whether the Government would name a day for taking the Report on the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill, and would make it the First Order?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he had indicated last week the general course which the Government proposed to follow—namely, to complete the Local Government Bill and then to take Supply. Under those circumstances, he was not in a position to say when the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill would be proceeded with.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before the Prison Vote was taken, he would print and circulate the Prison Rules now in force in England?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, that the right hon. Gentleman might move for their production.
  MR. WALLACEasked, whether any arrangement had been made for proceeding with the Universities (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have informed the House that it is not possible to say anything with regard to the progress of other measures at the present moment. We must first make some progress with Supply.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give an opportunity to-night for the discussion of his Motion with reference to the More Mortification, as he had at some inconvenience withdrawn his Motion to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed with his Motion with reference to the Conversion of Consols?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he recognized the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman; but the arrangement of Business had been made, without his being aware of the desire of the hon. Member. It was impossible to give the hon. Member an opportunity for discussion to-night, as he was under a positive engagement
  1784
  to bring on the Colonial Vote, if it could be done before 11 o'clock.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he hoped a favourable opportunity would be given for the consideration of these schemes of the Endowment Commissioners, as though they might appear small in themselves, they were important, and excited considerable interest in the localities. He would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that not much time had been wasted this Session on Scotch Business.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would do everything in his power; but his power was limited by the hours of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th July.] [TWENTY-SECOND NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause,—
  "Except where the Local Government Board, for reasons brought to its notice, may see fit in particular cases specially to allow, no person shall hereafter be appointed the medical officer of health of any district, or the deputy of any such officer, unless he be legally qualified for the practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery; nor shall any person after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two be appointed the medical officer of health of any district or districts containing a population of fifty thousand or more inhabitants, unless he be registered in the medical register as the holder of a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or state medicine under section twenty-one of 'The Medical Act, 1886,'—(Sir Lyon Playfair,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that when Progress was reported on the previous day the Committee were discussing this clause, which provided I that, except where the Local Government Board saw fit in particular cases specially to allow, no person should hereafter be appointed the medical officer of

  1785
  health of any district, unless he were legally qualified for the practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery, nor should any person be appointed after the 1st of January, 1892, medical officer of any district with a population of 50,000 or upwards, unless he was registered in the Medical Register as the holder of a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or State medicine.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he quite understood that the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and those who agreed with him was to secure the appointment of a properly qualified medical man, and, as far as that went, he must understand that the Government were most anxious that properly qualified medical men should be appointed. But care must be taken in securing that result that they did not go too far and qualify a large number of men in excess of the amount of work to be done. He had no objection to offer to the first part of the clause. As a matter of fact, it only carried out the existing law and regulations of the Local Government Board; but as to the latter part of it, if it were carried in its present shape there could be no doubt whatever that it would disqualify a considerable number of men who had for many years fulfilled the duties in a satisfactory manner and to the advantage of the public. The latter part of the proposed clause would entail the necessity of all medical officers of health for any district containing 50,000 inhabitants and upwards having a diploma in sanitary science, public health, or State medicine under the 21st section of the Medical Act, 1886. The right hon. Gentleman would be aware that a certain portion of the examination contemplated under that section was of an elementary character, and of a character that would almost necessitate a certain number of medical officers recommencing their professional education and going back again to school. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well how rusty many very capable men became in the course of practice in regard to certain elementary subjects of examination. If the House were to pass a Bill saying that no Member of Parliament should be eligible to become a Member of the Government unless he could pass in the Sixth Standard, he sus-
  1786
  pected that a law of that kind might be very apt to spread consternation in the ranks of those who had held office in the past or who hoped to hold office in the future. For his own part, he should be sorry to be asked to go back and to pass a strict examination in that Standard. That, he apprehended, would be a very common case, and he thought that the efficient service for a large number of years ought to do away with any necessity for these gentlemen to pass such an examination. He would suggest to the Committee, that if they saw fit practically to accept the clause of the right hon. Gentleman, it should be so amended that medical officers who had served for a certain time should be qualified for these appointments without having to undergo the examination laid down in the clause. What he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman was this, that a Proviso should be inserted at the end of the clause to the effect that a medical officer who had served three years in a district with a population of 20,000 prior to the clause coming into force should not be required to pass an examination for a diploma. He was of opinion that three years' service under any Sanitary Authority should be deemed equivalent to a diploma. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept that Amendment, he would support the clause.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he thought that the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was a fair addition to the clause, and one that should be adopted. He would, therefore, accept it.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he thought that another Amendment ought also to be made. As the clause now stood, it only applied to district medical officers; but there was a proposal on the Paper to enable the County Councils to appoint medical officers for the county, and he would, therefore, suggest that the word "county" should be inserted as well as "district."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the first part of the clause merely re-enacted the existing law; and, in reference to the second, he proposed to substitute, after "1892," the words—
  "Those persons who have served for three years and upwards in a district of 20,000 inhabitants or more shall not be required to take out a certificate."
  MR. MALLOCKasked, whether medical officers of small districts would be able to retain their appointments without being examined?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, they would if they had been medical officers for districts of 20,000 inhabitants for three years prior to the clause coming into force.
  MR. MALLOCK: Not for the smaller districts?
  MR. RITCHIEwas afraid not.
  MR. MALLOCKsaid, he would put an Amendment on the Paper to that effect.
  MR. STEPHENSsaid, he thought there was some reason to be dissatisfied at the course the Government had taken. The essence of the qualification did not consist in the fact that a medical man had served for two or three years as medical officer of health, but in his knowledge of the laws of life, the care of health, and the treatment of diseases. He thought it was greatly to be regretted that the Government should make a speciality apart from the knowledge of the laws of health and the general treatment of diseases. He submitted that the Amendment would disastrously restrict the freedom of choice of the Local Authorities, and he thought the House and the right hon. Gentleman should be on their watch against attempts that were constantly made under the guise of a sanitary necessity to deprive Local Bodies of that freedom and responsible self-management which they ought to enjoy if they were to discharge their duties with efficiency. He thought the real gist of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was to be discovered in the Report of the Royal Sanitary Commission, which recommended that upon sanitary matters there should be one Sanitary Authority with eyes enough, through Inspectors, to make itself cognizant of everything going wrong, and with school enough, through experts, to give the best advice. But that was not all that was necessary to secure Local Government. He submitted that the object of the Bill was not to place the whole country under an agency of experts, and he was sorry and disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government of Board had seen fit to accept the Amendment even with the qualifi-
  1788
  cation that he himself suggested. Whether a medical officer had served for one, two, or three years as medical officer of health in a Local Authority was not the question. No system would work well under which a medical man who had lived for a long time in the district, and knew the needs of that district, was told to go back to school and pass an examination or be superseded by some stripling crammed with paper knowledge and a paper qualification. He submitted that that was a hardship which would be found intolerable and would not work. The object of the Bill was to set up local self-government, and they ought, as far as possible, to guard against its being degraded into impotency.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he thought the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was a very wise one. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down objected to the whole country being placed under an agency of experts; but it would be a great deal worse if the whole country were left under the inspection of a body of ignoramuses. The object of the Amendment was to provide that no such person was to be appointed after a certain date—namely, 1892. It was to be laid down that no one should be appointed to this important and responsible position unless he was certified by those having the requisite authority that he possessed the knowledge that would enable him to look after the health of the district.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERsaid, that when it became known that no person could be appointed to the office of medical officer of health, unless he held a diploma, there would no longer be a restriction of the freedom of choice. When once it became known that it was a sine quâ non, that the medical officer appointed should have a diploma, the freedom of choice would be very large. He thought nobody should be appointed medical officer of health unless the public had some guarantee that he possessed a diploma recognized by the different Medical Corporations of the country, and that he was fit to be placed on the Register. He was sorry to see the course the debate had taken, and he regretted that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) had not adhered to his

  1789
  original proposal—namely, that after 1892 no man should be appointed medical officer of health who did not possess a diploma. The fitness of individuals for the position would be recognized by the fact that they held a diploma. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was of opinion that the medical man who had held the position of medical officer of health for three years should be the same as if he had passed an examination in science and medicine and held a diploma; but if the Authorities employed a medical officer without a diploma, who was to be the judge of his fitness? Was the right hon. Gentleman himself to perform that duty?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he should be sorry to have that duty thrown upon the Local Government Board. The Amendment he proposed would provide that if a medical officer had served in a district with 20,000 inhabitants for three years prior to the clause coming into force, he would not require a diploma, or be called upon to pass an examination to qualify him.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERsaid, he did not quite understand whether the three years was to be antecedent to the passing of the Act?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was not requisite, but the officer must have commenced his services prior to the passing of the Act, and completed the service of three years before the provision came into force.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERasked if medical officers in that position were to hold their appointments in perpetuity, and not be required to pass an examination at all?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that most of them held office from year to year. All the Amendment said was, that they should not be prevented from being reappointed, provided they complied with this requirement, either that they should possess a diploma, or have served three years before the provision came into force.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERsaid, it was very easy to obtain a diploma. There were no less than 16 places in the United Kingdom where a diploma was to be had; moreover, no residence was required, but medical men anxious to obtain diplomas might present themselves for examination anywhere, Diplomas, also, were
  1790
  very cheap, and could be obtained at some of the Universities for something like £5 or £6. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to see that, as far as possible, all officers who exercised the functions of medical officers of health were possessed of diplomas.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he would not detain the House by arguing the question that was already settled; but he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board upon the line he had taken. Now, the proposal would, he thought, establish a great national scientific sanitary service throughout the country. It would improve the status of medical officers, and he hoped they would be well paid for their services. The Amendment, however, did not seem to be perfectly clear, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was of opinion that the first paragraph covered the second, so that the Local Government Board should possess the power of ascertaining, if they were the holders of a diploma, that the medical officers seeking appointments were legally qualified for the practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery? He wished to know whether the two halves of the paragraph hung together, and whether it was quite clear that the Local Government Board had all the power the clause proposed to give them? He thought it was very important, as the right hon. Gentleman had laid down that medical men who had been for a long time in practice, and who had got rusty in regard to their elementary knowledge, should not be called on to undergo an examination. He was afraid that his right hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Sir Guyer Hunter), experienced as he was, would find some difficulty in undergoing an examination according to modern ideas in reference to the principles of heat and hydrostatics and hydraulics. There was a large amount of elementary knowledge required, in order to enable a man to pass a preliminary examination, which it might be difficult for old medical men to get up again. He did not think there would be any hardship in future, if such men required to show the public that they had the position of Sanitary Authorities in the past, and that they intended to

  1791
  have it hereafter. He understood the Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman to apply only to men who were appointed medical officers of health prior to the passing of the Act.
  MR. LAWSONwished to know if he was to understand that the new clause applied to the Metropolis, because that fact could not be gathered from its wording?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) had a new clause on the Paper by which those parts of the Act which were not at present applied to London were applied to it.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he had a clause on the Paper which he proposed to insert after Clause 87, which provided that—
  "Section one hundred and ninety-one of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall apply to the Metropolis in like manner as if the Commissioners of Sewers in the City of London, and every vestry of a parish in Schedule A, and district board of a district in Schedule B to The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,' were a local authority within the meaning of that section, and as if any medical officer hereafter appointed by such Commissioners, vestry, or district board were appointed under the said Act, and the provisions of this Act with respect to the payment by a county council of a portion of the salary of a medical officer, shall apply accordingly."
  The words of the Act of 1855 were that every Vestry and District Board should from time to time appoint one or more legally qualified medical practitioner or practitioners of skill and experience.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that reference had been made to the Royal Sanitary Commission. He felt bound, as a Member of that Commission, to say that they never dreamt for a moment that any medical officer of health would be appointed who was not a duly qualified medical man.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he should regret the acceptance of the Amendment in the form in which it now stood. A man qualified in physic, surgery, and midwifery, and duly registered as such, might have no knowledge whatever of the work which a medical officer of health would have to do. The object of the clause ought to be to secure the appointment of medical officers who were thoroughly qualified as medical officers of health. They did not want a midwife to do that work, and
  1792
  the fact that a medical man had qualified as a midwife ought not to be regarded as a qualification to the position of medical officers of health, any more than it should qualify him to be Lord Chancellor. The appointment of medical officers of health ought to be limited to men who had qualified and studied at the University, and had passed an examination at the hands of the Licensing Bodies who were acquainted with the laws and the natural principles involved. It would be just as wise to appoint a man who had a knowledge of midwifery as it would be to appoint one of the Judges of the land a medical officer of health. He was sorry that his right hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds had given way, and he regretted that the Government were going to continue in office inefficient men, although they would probably do their work as well as they were paid for it. They ought to appoint men who knew the matters upon which it would be necessary for them to advise, and were thoroughly up to the work.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the clause simply provided that where the district was large, and where it was possible to obtain a properly qualified medical officer, he ought to have a diploma. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposed to add a Proviso for the purpose of securing that medical officers of health who had held the position for three years should not be disqualified even if they did not possess a diploma. Public health diplomas had existed only for the last few years, and some of the best of our officers of health, who were now in charge of large districts, and had reduced the mortality from zymotic diseases by one-half, did not possess the modern special qualification, because no such diplomas existed at the time they were appointed. It was only fair to recognize the value of the experience that had been thus gained, and to except from the clause officers of health who had done such useful sanitary work and had acted as sanitary officers in districts with a population of 20,000 and upwards.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would adapt all the present medical officers of health to officers

  1793
  under the Act, he failed to see what use there was in putting the date of 1892. If that Amendment was agreed to, he saw no reason why the appointments should not date from the time the Statute came into operation. He had been much amused to hear the hon. Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex (Mr. Stephens) argue against education. He presumed the hon. Member was in favour of Conservative ignorance. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, when he looked into the subject, would not pass over the district qualifications which had of late years been brought into vogue by the various Universities and Learned Bodies whose sole desire was to make these officers entirely efficient. If they desired to secure the best men, it was desirable that they should throw open certain positions to those members of the Medical Profession who studied hard.
  MR. STEPHENSdenied that he had argued against education. All he had said was, that it might do great injury if they were to pass over actual work done in a district in order to give those appointments to experts alone.
  DR. TANNERsaid, the hon. Member had stated that it would be a great mistake to give these appointments to mere youths who were able to pass a superficial examination, while they passed over older persons who were acquainted with the work, although they might have no knowledge of the new principles of science.
  SIR W. TINDAL ROBERTSONsaid, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was eminently satisfactory to the Profession, and would be of great advantage to the country. He thought it would be most unfair to make the clause a retrospective one.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had put a question to him in reference to the position in which London would stand. He had no intention in any statement he had made the other night to attack the position long and worthily held by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), although no longer the Representative of a Lon-
  1794
  don constituency in connection with the local government of the Metropolis. He valued very much the opinions expressed by the hon. and learned Member, and was glad whenever he could meet his views in reference to the government of London. He was greatly obliged to the hon. and learned Member and to other hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House for the ready manner in which they had assisted the Government. He had been asked a question in reference to the position in which the Metropolis stood. No doubt the Proviso would require to be slightly amended in order to deal with the case of London, and he was prepared when the hon. and learned Member for Dundee brought up his clause to make all necessary Amendments, so far as the qualification of medical officers of health were concerned, that he thought would meet the whole question in connection with London. It had been assumed that if the Committee accepted the Proviso he had suggested they would be doing away with the safeguard it was desired to set up by means of the new clause proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for South Leeds He did not think that that was so at all. All that the Priviso did was to recognize the fact that men might become perfectly well qualified by other means than the passing of a particular examination. A medical man who had been engaged for years on sanitary work might be as well fitted by his experience without passing an examination as a younger man who had passed a special examination would be. There was no desire to make the clause retrospective; but he thought he was justified in recommending the Committee to adopt the Proviso. The examination was not inconsistent by the requiring that after a certain date those who were not exempted should be required to have the special qualification. He thought it would be an improvement to adopt this new clause with the Proviso he had proposed and no injustice would then be done to any existing officer.
  DR. TANNERasked why the date 1892 was fixed; why should it not come into operation at once?
  MR. MALLOCKasked the right hon. Baronet the Member for South Leeds to give some information to the Com-

  1795
  mittee in respect of the first paragraph of the new clause, which provided that—
  "No person shall hereafter be appointed the medical officer of health of any district, or the deputy of any such officer, unless he were legally qualified for the practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery."
  Was it necessary that he should pass a special examination in order to be qualified under the clause?
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the object of the first few words of the clause was to meet cases where medical men had not got the necessary qualification. It was in order to remove a difficulty which might exist in the case of efficient medical officers thoroughly acquainted with the district and its requirements, but who did not happen to be legally qualified in the sense of the triple qualification required in the last medical Act.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he wished to have an understanding as to what the qualification of a medical officer of health was to be. In the first place he was to be appointed under the Act, next he was to have served for three years prior to the 1st January, 1892. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to make it three years continuously? Suppose a medical man had served two years some three years ago, and one year beginning two years hence in that position, would he be qualified? There was a third qualification—namely, that the medical officers should have a diploma in regard to scientific attainments.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the safeguards provided by the clause were quite sufficient, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for South Leeds was right in saying that there were a great many medical officers in the country who had learned their work by practical experience, and that it would be unjust and tyrannical to dispossess persons who were doing their work well. In Scotland what happened was this. There were a number of practitioners engaged in parish and sanitary work, for which sanitary work they got £10 or £15 a-year, and they did the work well enough. It would be tyrannical to require such practitioners to undergo an examination in order to obtain a diploma, although they might
  1796
  not be able to pass a particular examination upon some special points connected with sanitary science. Yet there were many points they had to learn in the curriculum they had to pass through, which rendered them perfectly competent after a little experience to perform sanitary work.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he would like to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the third qualification—namely, that the medical officer of health should have served three years in a district with a population of not less than 20,000. The first qualification was that he should be appointed before the passing of the Act; secondly, that he should have served three years. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to make the three years continuously, and for this reason: The Proviso was only inserted in order to safeguard the interests of men who had served their neighbours well. Now, if a man lost his appointment, it could only be because he had forfeited the good opinion of the Authorities who had origin ally appointed him.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the clause, as proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for South Leeds, would come into operation on the 1st January, 1892, and the Bill, assuming that it passed this year, would have little more than three years to run before it came into operation. The medical officer of health who would be qualified without possessing a diploma, must be a medical officer who had commenced his term of service prior to the passing of the Act; therefore, it would be seen by the hon. Member for Northwich that as there was little more than three years to run before the Act came into force, the service must be practically continuous.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The medical officer might have served for three years 10 years ago. What he desired was that the clause should apply to medical men who three years before 1892 had possessed the confidence of the people they served.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he saw no reason why the service should not be made continuously.
  SIR GUYER HUNTERsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to make the Pro-

  1797
  viso more thorough, and to insist upon all medical officers of health possessing a diploma in regard to their fitness.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, to new clause, after the word "any," in line 3, to insert the words "county or county borough or"
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment proposed to new clause, in line 3, after the word "district" to insert the words, "or combination of districts."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. F. S. POWELL MR. F. S. POWELL moved to omit in line 4, the words "legally qualified for the practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery," for the purpose of inserting the words "for the time being under the Medical Act, 1858."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIEpointed out that many persons were practising who had not taken out certificates.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the Amendment would alter the construction of the clause altogether. Formerly, a person might be qualified in one subject alone and still be on the register; but modern registration had made it necessary that a medical officer should be qualified in three subjects before he became a practitioner. He thought the clause had better remain as it was. The Local Government Board could make exceptions in the case of any medical man of experience who did not possess the required qualifications.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he would not press the Amendment; but the words he had proposed were words that were used over and over again.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. TANNER, in moving, after the words "legally qualified" in line 4, to insert the words "in Great Britain and Ireland," said, there were medical men who might possess qualifications from foreign Universities, and he thought it would be better to restrict the appointments to those who held qualifications in Great Britain and Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, in line 4, in the new clause, to insert after the words "legally qualified," the words "in Great Britain and Ireland."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the objection to the Amendment was, that the term "legally qualified" must mean legally placed on the register by the Medical Council, or persons who, in accordance with the Medical Act, could be legally put on the register by the Council, and it included Colonial degrees, or degrees conferred by Foreign Bodies, if approved of by the Council. The adoption of the Amendment might exclude some persons who were really fully qualified, but who might not possess a diploma obtained in Great Britain or Ireland. He thought that the sanction of the Medical Council ought to be sufficient.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman said that the words "legally qualified" met all the necessities of the case. There were certain Universities in Germany who gave two classes of certificates, one to practise in Germany and the other to practise outside Germany.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, to insert, after the word "district," the words "or county or."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  To insert at the end of the clause, "or who has been during the three preceding years medical officer of a district, or combination of districts with the population according to the last census of not less than 20,000"
  Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved, in page 12, after Clause 15, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Roads and tolls in Isle of Wight.)
  "After the appointed day, tolls shall cease to be taken on any road maintained and repaired by the Isle of Wight Highway Commissioners, under the Isle of Wight Highway Acts, 1813 and 1883, and rates shall cease to be levied by these Commissioners, and after such day 'The

  1799
  Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878,' as amended by this Act, shall apply to the Isle of Wight, and to every such road above mentioned, in like manner as if it were ceasing within the meaning of the said Act to be a turnpike road.
  Until provision is otherwise made by Parliament, or by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament, the repair and maintenance of the said roads shall continue to be undertaken by the said Commissioners, and the county council for the county of Hants shall pay such Commissioners, in respect of the said repairs and maintenance, such sums as may be agreed upon, or, in case of difference, be settled by arbitration under this Act."
  Question, "That the Clause be read a second time, and added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS, in moving in page 13, after Clause 16, to insert the following Clause:—
  "A county council shall have power from time to time to name so many fit persons, as to the council shall seem expedient, for the purpose of receiving Her Majesty's commission, to act as justices of the peace in and for the county. A list of such persons shall be forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, by whom it shall be forthwith transmitted to the Lord Chancellor for submission to Her Majesty;
  From and after the passing of this Act, no qualification by estate shall be required by justices of the peace for counties,"
  said, that the proposal was a very modest one. It was simply to provide that the County Councils should have power from time to time to name so many fit persons, as to the Council shall seem expedient, for the purpose of receiving Her Majesty's Commission to act as Justices of the Peace in and for the county. The proposal did not go very far, nor did it affect the power of the Lord Lieutenant, nor the authority which Her Majesty possessed through the Lord Chancellor, of appointing Justices of the Peace for the county. If it were adopted by the Committee, it would not interfere with the undoubted Prerogative of the Queen. If such power were invested in the County Council, he believed it would have a salutary effect in reference to the appointment of the unpaid magistracy of the United Kingdom. Before the year 1327, the Conservators of the Peace throughout the country might, by the Common Law of England, elect Justices just as the Coroners were at the present day elected by the freeholders. The appointment stood in exactly the same position, and the freeholders of the coun-
  1800
  ties practically elected the persons to look after the preservation of the peace throughout the Kingdom. Some years later the King assumed the Prerogative of appointing the Justices, or Conservators as they were called, of the Peace, and those Conservators ultimately developed into the unpaid magistracy we had today. The custom—for it was merely a custom—thus grew up, until the magistracy came to be appointed by the Sovereign, on the representation of the Lord Chancellor, who selected the men who ought to be appointed. That custom had now been continued for more than 500 years; but he ventured to submit that the experience of every part of the Kingdom decisively proved that such a custom in the present state of the Empire was mischievous and unsatisfactory. The discretion was left with the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who was under the control of no public opinion, and the exercise of the power was not only disadvantageous to the interests of the people, but caused the greatest dissatisfaction. The Lord Lieutenant of the county was almost always in England a nobleman. In Wales it was different; but in the Principality there were not enough noblemen to go round, and, consequently, a good many commoners were appointed. In Wales they were very well contented with that arrangement, for they did not care much for noblemen. Although there were not many noblemen, there were many men of rank and position who preferred the duties of Lord Lieutenant subject to the traditions which had prevailed during the last 500 years, and which, to his mind, were mischievous traditions. The first tradition was that the Lord Lieutenant should put on the Commission of the Peace persons of a certain rank and means, and it was a notorious fact that when the young squire was made a County Justice it was a matter of no consequence whether he was intelligent or not, or whether he was a proper person to discharge the duties of the office. As a matter of course, he went upon the Commission. Another mischievous custom was that the class of persons who were put upon the Petty Sessions Bench were invariably, as a natural con sequence, of one class, and of one class only. They administered justice to the whole body of the people, although they might

  1801
  not have studied the Criminal Law of the country, and were ignorant of the functions which magistrates ought to discharge. He would not for a moment suggest that the class of persons who discharged those duties were not most anxious, as a body, to perform them faithfully; but he said, without hesitation, that those who sat on the Bench at Petty Sessions were not as able as they ought to be from the position they occupied to understand the wants and needs and to sympathize with the condition of the great body of the people. He was, therefore, not asking too much when he suggested that with the new departure they were now making, they should provide some other method for the appointment of magistrates. His proposal was that the elected representatives of the people—the County Council—should have devolved upon them the duty and responsibility of selecting those whom they thought proper persons to be appointed unpaid magistrates. The County Council would be drawn from all classes of the people. He ventured to hope that they would have upon the Council not only the squire and the large landed proprietor, but the merchant, the farmer, and the retail dealer. He was afraid it would be too sanguine to hope or to expect that the working men would find their way to seats on the County Council. At all events, the Council would be drawn from the different classes, who would know much better than any Lord Lieutenant what the needs of the people were. The Lord Lieutenant had very little intercourse with those outside, and the County Council would know better than any Lord Lieutenant who were proper persons to sit on the Petty Sessions Bench. To illustrate his position he would turn to the Principality of Wales in order to point out what mischief was occasioned socially and politically by confining the recommendation in regard to the appointment of magistrates to the Lord Lieutenant alone. The Committee would be aware that nearly the whole of Wales—seven-eighths of it, at any rate—was Nonconformist. In the County of Carmarthenshire there were 117 magistrates. The overwhelming majority of the people were Nonconformist in their religion and Liberal in their politics. Nevertheless; upwards of 100 of the ma-
  1802
  gistrates were Conservatives; there were only 13 Liberals, and of that number one had gone wrong. He heard the expression "bosh" used by an hon. Member behind him. He thought that was an extraordinary expression to use in Parliament. He would only say that those who knew him would know that he would not have made a statement of that kind unless he had due warrant for it. He maintained that it was a serious matter that in a county like Carmarthen, under a Tory Lord Lieutenant, they should have exclusively Tory magistrates on the Bench to administer justice to an exclusively Nonconformist and Liberal population. If he could get at the religion of magistrates he thought it would be found that there were not two Nonconformists upon the Bench. In regard to his own county (Glamorganshire), he was bound to say that the Lord Lieutenant of that county, who was the Father of the House of Commons—the Member for Mid Glamorganshire (Mr. C. R. Talbot)—had, to the best of his ability, and according to his lights, acted with complete impartiality, and had followed an example which was, he thought, worthy of imitation by every other Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant of Glamorganshire had followed the example set by the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who for the first time in the history of the unpaid magistracy, selected three working men to sit upon the Bench. The Lord Lieutenant of Glamorgan finding that in the great mining district of Rhondda—worthily represented in that House by a working man Member—that the people had become so impatient in regard to the justice administered to them by squires only, that he listened to their representations and placed upon the Bench persons who were drawn from the body of the people. It was not with any disrespect to the Lord Lieutenant that he said that although he had endeavoured to discharge the duties of the office properly, it was absolutely impossible for a person to understand what persons ought to be placed upon the Bench. Speaking from his own experience, and with the greatest respect for his Colleagues on the Petty Sessions Bench, he felt that there was not one among them of common sympathy with

  1803
  the working people. He wanted to see farmers and tradesmen more frequently appointed, and, in fact, the strong desire was that an entire change should be made in the mode of selecting the unpaid magistracy. No later than yesterday the Government had accepted a clause similar to that which he had ventured to place upon the Paper, proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse). With the large extension of powers that was given to the County Councils, they now asked the Government to allow the County Councils, who would represent the people, to assume the responsibility of seeking out and nominating the proper persons to be put upon the Petty Sessions Bench. He did not think that that was asking too much. He might go through the list of magistrates in every county and point out the irritation which the present system produced. It was not, therefore, asking too much to suggest that, in future, this duty should be placed in the hands of the County Councils. The clause he proposed was copied almost verbatim from the 82nd section of the Bill brought in by Lord John Russell for a reform of the Municipal Corporations. That clause provided that it should be lawful for the Town Councils, and required them, from time to time, to prepare a list of persons who were duly qualified to be placed upon His Majesty's Commission of the Peace, and provision was made that His Majesty might thereupon appoint as many of them as he thought fit to be His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the borough. That was one of the many clauses included in that Bill, but, unfortunately, it was rejected by the House of Lords. Fifty years had now elapsed, and they were about to confer upon the counties duties and responsibilities similar to those which had been exercised by the Town Councils for many years. It was not, therefore, asking too much to suggest to Her Majesty's Government the propriety of adopting a clause which left the power to the Lord Lieutenant, but devolved upon the representatives of the people the duty of selecting the proper persons to act as magistrates for the county.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he rose to second the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan
  1804
  (Mr. A. Williams) In Flintshire the Bench of Magistrates consisted almost exclusively of Churchmen and Tories, while the great mass of the population were Liberals and Nonconformists. When this question was examined last year, he believed it was found that there was not one single magistrate on the Bench in Flintshire who was at once a Liberal and a Nonconformist. He had been called upon times without number to do what he could in that House to remedy this crying evil, but all the proposals he had made had been met simply with contempt. Many questions came before the magistrates, particularly in Wales, which were of a class character, and it was well known that the Game Laws, for instance, supplied the larger number of cases which were dealt with by the Justices of the Peace, while it was equally well known that the squirearchy looked upon offences against those laws as of the deepest dye, and that they awarded to those who committed them the most severe penalties. The fact that the whole of the Magisterial Bench in many parts of Wales was composed of men such as he had described had done much to exasperate public feeling in the Principality with regard to the Tithe Question, and no doubt many hon. Members could say that in some parts of England the same feeling existed, though, perhaps, in a less violent form. The time had, at any rate, come that there must be some change made in the arbitrary power of selection possessed at present by the Lord Lieutenant, and he, therefore, urged upon the Government and the Committee the acceptance of this very moderate and wholesome Motion, the effect of which would be truly Conservative, because it would produce a much better state of feeling in many counties throughout both England and Wales.
  New Clause (Council may recommend justices of the peace,)—(Mr. Arthur Williams,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, the hon. Member had been rash enough to put upon the Paper a clause which had not the slightest chance of passing, and he had found another

  1805
  Radical Member brave enough to second it. The clause was harmless, because, as he had said, it would not pass, but he would point out that it wound up with an insult, because, after proposing that the County Council have power to name persons to act as Justices of the Peace, it provided that the list of such persons should be forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, by whom it should be transmitted to the Lord Chancellor for his approval. The Committee would see that the Lord Lieutenant was here made use of as a machine, whereas he was a living reality, and, as far as hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House were concerned, it was hoped that he would remain so. He was bound to thank the hon. Gentleman for his urbanity in not criticising the magistrates so far as the performance of their duty was concerned, but the hon. Member had impressed upon the House that he wanted magistrates on the Bench who could sympathize with criminals.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSsaid, he wanted nothing of the kind.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: The hon. Gentleman found fault with the magistrates because they were selected from a class despised by Radicals—namely, men of social status and good means, and he wanted to get men without those qualifications. As far as he could see, the hon. Member's clause was framed in the interest of impecunious lawyers, because the hon. Member said that they should have no qualification by estate. If the clause of the hon. Member were passed, he (Admiral Field) was convinced that this condition would create such disgust throughout the country that the people would very soon cry out for stipendiary magistrates, who would necessarily be lawyers. He hoped the time was far distant when the present system would be changed. He had had a conversation some time ago with a French gentleman, who had expressed the wish that they had in his country men to administer justice without fee or reward; and this would show that the Great Unpaid, as the hon. Gentleman ironically called them, were not regarded with contempt on the Continent. The hon. Member for Flintshire complained that there were no intelligent Nonconformist magistrates on the Bench for Flintshire; but he supposed the reason was that they had not been able to con-
  1806
  vert any intelligent gentlemen to Nonconformist views, and he ventured to think that the hon. Member's grievance upon that ground was likely to exist for some years to come; indeed, he hoped that would be the case, and he was glad to hear that the Church was so successful in the Principality. He had had 29 years' experience as a magistrate, and yet he was not a squire. He did not know exactly what the hon. Member meant by the term squirearchy, unless it was that they were associated with the land, but, as a matter of fact, many officers in the Army and Navy were on the Bench, and he ventured to think that they would make vastly better magistrates than civilians. The experience of 29 years had taught him that justice was well and honestly administered by the gentry of England, and although they were not lawyers, still they were men of great experience, and not altogether unversed in the law, and they were associated, moreover, in the discharge of their duties with men of legal training who acted as clerks to the magistrates. There was no miscarriage of justice, and if the decision of the magistrates was challenged there was always an appeal. On the whole, he denied that there was any grievance at all, and he thought the House would feel that this was no time for transferring these powers, and making the Lord Lieutenant a mere machine for the purpose of transmitting a list of persons to the Lord Chancellor. For these reasons he trusted the Committee would not sanction the change proposed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he earnestly hoped the Committee would not embark on a discussion as to whether the present mode of appointing magistrates was or was not a wise one, or whether the mode in which the Justices now exercised the power conferred upon them was wise or the reverse. If they entered upon an exhaustive discussion of this great question he was very much afraid that the end of the Committee stage of the Bill was still remote. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this clause characterized it as a modest proposal. The object which the hon. Gentleman had in view in proposing this clause was to bring about a great Constitutional change; but he thought he

  1807
  might appeal to the Committee to say that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was not the proper way to bring about the great Constitutional change which he desired. If they were to attempt to deal so drastically with this matter, he was convinced that the discussion was likely to be very much prolonged. Without entering into the merits of the question whether it was desirable or not that this change should be effected, he submitted that it should not be made the subject of casual discussion at the end of a Bill of this kind, or by the introduction of a clause. Such a proposal, instead of being made at this stage, should be the subject of a Bill introduced at a time when the whole question involved could be thoroughly considered.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he sympathized with the paternal care over the debates on this Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had so admirable a right to exercise. He thought they might say that he had never, by the manner in which he framed his speeches, contributed to the prolongation of debate, and he (Sir George Trevelyan) would be very sorry if the Committee were to plunge into a lengthened discussion on the present question. Certainly he was not going to say anything against the county magistrates as at present appointed. He did not think, however, that they could pass by this question for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman had given. They had framed these County Councils under the present Bill, of which they now saw the end, and it was absolutely necessary that on one of the most important and intricate functions which those Councils could exercise they should take the opinion of the Committee. It was quite true that this opinion would have to be taken upon a clause brought forward by a private Member; but how could it be otherwise, seeing that the Government did not propose to give the County Council any influence over the appointment of county magistrates? Speaking for himself, one of the reasons for which he had hailed the Bill was that he believed it would put an end to the monopoly of the Judicial Benches in the counties, and he should have been glad if the Government had laid a clause or clauses upon the Table which would have the effect of placing the counties in the same
  1808
  position, at any rate, as the boroughs were in at the present moment. They had been told that the many changes which had been adopted throughout the counties were made on the ground that it was necessary to assimilate the municipal institutions of counties to the municipal institutions of the boroughs. He should not be guilty of the impertinence of lecturing hon. Members on the different manner in which magistrates were practically appointed in counties and boroughs. They all knew that while the Lord Chancellor nominally made the appointments, it was the Lord Lieutenant who, in fact, made them in the counties, with scarcely any exception, whereas the appointments in the boroughs were actually made by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of anyone—it might be the recommendation of a borough Member, or even of a borough candidate; but in the case of a wise and cautious Chancellor the opinion of the Corporation of the borough always met with very great respect. Well, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House wished, by some method or other, to assimilate the practical position of the counties in this respect with the practical position of the boroughs. He should not detain the Committee by importing into the discussion any political or religious heat; but it was impossible for anyone to study the state of things in Wales, at any rate, without seeing that this grievance which had been brought forward by Welsh Members was a very crying grievance, and one which could not exist in its full flagrancy in an English county; for although English counties had their grievances they were not of the same sort, nor did they exist in anything like the same degree. The more he examined this question, the more difficult it was for him to devise any better or less objectionable method of dealing with it than the clause which had been placed before the Committee by his hon. Friend. He believed the clause was capable of amendment. He did not think that it was at all necessary that these lists should be transmitted through the Lord Lieutenant; but that it should be recognized by Statute that the County Council had power to approach the Lord Chancellor was a point on which he thought many Members on that side of the House were bound to

  1809
  insist. He said it should be established by Statute, because the existing method of appointing magistrates was one of the most established and deeply-rooted customs of the country, and it was necessary that there should be some recognition of the principle in order to strengthen the hands of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor had occasionally found it necessary to override the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant; but in England that would be not quite, but very nearly, a novelty, and the clause of his hon. Friend, as it now stood, would justify the Lord Chancellor in giving due attention to the opinion of the County Council. He understood that in so doing it would not be establishing the principle of having elected magistrates, but that they would simply be changing the Authority who recommended the magistrates to the Lord Chancellor; and for this purpose he maintained that the County Council was a far better authority than the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he had so much regard for any request made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that he should be sorry to disregard his appeal that the discussion should be condensed within as short a period as possible. But the point was that, whereas legislation had recently tended more and more in a democratic direction, the administration of the law had not so tended, and therefore considerable friction had been created in the working of our system. They had had, for instance, a great deal of democratic legislation in the interests of education; they had had School Boards appointed, and compulsory powers passed. He asked whether that legislation had been carried out in the spirit in which it had been passed, and he replied to this question, that this had certainly not been the case. They found magistrates tending to minimize the law as far as possible, and usually their sympathies were so opposed to the working of the school board system that they were to be found making all sorts of excuses, and even granting payments to parents who would not send their children to school. He had in his recollection many cases which had come before the Middlesex magistrates. He had been a member of a suburban school board, and, over and over again, their
  1810
  efforts to get children into the schools had been thwarted by the magistrates. He remembered a case where a woman was brought up because she would not send her children to school, and the magistrates to whom they appealed, instead of compelling her to do so, gave her 10 s., and the whole of the evening was spent by her in creating riot and getting drunk on the money. He mentioned this to show the Committee the difference between the spirit of our legislation and the temper in which it was administered by the magistrates. He did not believe this could be altered until the people had some greater influence in the appointment of local Justices. This was not a question of the mode of election of Judges. He was as much against popular election of Judges as any Member in that House, and he thought it was not even desirable that Magistrates should be elected. All that was asked was that the County Councils should have an opportunity of naming men to the Lord Chancellor whom they believed would be fit and proper persons to fill the office of Justice of the Peace. That he did not consider a very revolutionary proposal, and he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would agree to it.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, the words of his hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan did not bear the interpretation placed upon them by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Eastbourne Division of Sussex (Admiral Field), when he said that he desired that there should be upon the Bench magistrates who sympathized with criminals.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated that the present magistrates on the Bench were not persons who could sympathize with the class brought before them, and that they could not enter into their feelings.
  MR. J. E. ELLISsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would no doubt thank him for the opportunity of explaining, but his explanation certainly conveyed a very different meaning to that borne by his original language. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted them to believe that if there were no qualification for magistrates, men would be appointed of no means and of inferior degree. He (Mr.

  1811
  J. E. Ellis) was not aware that this had taken place in the boroughs, and he did not think that any hon. Members in that House would say that the Justices in boroughs were in any way inferior to the Justices in counties. He agreed entirely with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and anyone who had any knowledge of what was taking place in many counties in England at the present moment would say there was a grave and crying scandal on account of the manner in which persons of strong political opinions of one kind were systematically excluded from the Magisterial Bench. It was within his own knowledge that three generations of one family had been excluded from the County Bench simply and solely from the fact that they had taken strong views of one political hue. It seemed to him that the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division would really improve the Amendment, but he should certainly support the clause of his hon. Friend as it stood.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, that the greatest safeguard of the public peace in any county was to be found in this—that the men who spontaneously became the leaders of thought and opinion should, as far as possible, become the official adminstrators of justice, and that the men who were trusted by the vast majority of the people should also have an official position in the county. But, on the other hand, the position was one of the greatest peril when the magistrates were in a position of social, political, and religious antagonism to the vast mass of the inhabitants. He did not wish to cast any censure on the present magistrates or Lord Lieutenants; but he said that Lord Lieutenants for many counties could not possibly know those who were leaders of opinion in the counties. Some Lord Lieutenants were absentees, and, when they appointed the magistrates, they were absolutely incapable of knowing who were the leaders trusted by the people. That was undoubtedly the case in regard to the county of Flint, represented by his hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith), where not one of the magistrates was a Nonconformist; and it was the same with other counties in North Wales—in places agitated by the Tithes Question.
  1812
  He was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) would not find the same trouble in those districts if the magistrates were more in accordance with the mass of the people. The hon. Gentleman opposite need not fear that these men would be sympathizers with criminals, or that they would be impecunious lawyers, as he did not believe that these classes would be very largely represented on the County Councils. What they wanted were men who really knew the needs of the people, and that was the real object of his hon. Friend's proposal, which he trusted would be adopted on its own merits, and not with regard to ownership or local status.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 168; Noes 217: Majority 49—(Div. List, No. 223.)
  MR. FIRTHsaid, there was no provision in the Bill enabling either the County Councils or the Local Councils to expend money in promoting or opposing Bills in Parliament. So far as London was concerned, the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works were to be taken over. The powers now asked were given to boroughs under the Act of 1872; he proposed, by the Amendment he was about to move, to apply the Act to the County Councils generally. That Act, however, contained a Proviso which would be clearly unworkable in the County of London, and it was that the consent of owners and ratepayers should be obtained to expenditure for opposing or promoting Bills in Parliament. They could not in London call a meeting of owners and ratepayers; first, because there were no buildings large enough to hold them; secondly, because they would not come; and thirdly, because those that did come would not be a fair proportion of the whole. Therefore, his first Proviso would enact that so much of Section 4 of the said Act as required the consent of owners and ratepayers should not apply to any expenses incurred by a County Council. There was, further, a Proviso that nothing in the second section of the Act shall prevent the London County Council from promoting any Bill for the purchase or regulation of the undertakings at present supplying water and gas to any part of London, or for the provision of a new sup-

  1813
  ply of water, gas, or light. The opinion of the House had been repeatedly expressed that Bills might properly be promoted with respect to these undertakings, and in 1880 a Committee sat in connection with the Water Bill of Lord Cross, of which Committee he had been a Member, and it distinctly reported in favour of steps being taken in respect of the London water supply. There was in the clause the final guarantee of Parliament, and it was not likely that a decision unjust to the various parties would be arrived at. For these reasons he asked the Committee to read the clause standing in his name a second time.
  New Clause,—
  (Power to county council to promote and oppose Bills.)
  "A county council shall have the same powers of promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament, and otherwise acting for the promotion and protection of the interests of the inhabitants of the county as if the county council were a governing body within the meaning of the Act of the session of the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled 'An Act to authorize the application of funds of municipal corporations and other governing bodies in certain cases,' and as if the county were the district in which such governing body had jurisdiction;
  Provided that so much of section four of the said Act as requires any consent of owners and ratepayers shall not apply to any expense incurred by a county council;
  Provided further, that nothing in section two of the said Act shall prevent the London County Council from promoting any Bill for the purchase or regulation of the undertakings at present supplying water and gas to any part of London, or any of them, or for the provision of a new supply of water, gas, or light to London or any part thereof"—(Mr. Firth,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and, Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time"
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. RITCHIE)said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) had stated that certain powers at present possessed by the Metropolitan Board of Works with reference to the promotion of and opposition to Bills were handed over to the new County Councils, as well as other powers now possessed by Quarter Sessions. But, not satisfied with that, the hon. and learned Gentleman had pro-
  1814
  posed to apply the Borough Funds Act. The hon. Gentleman frankly stated that his first Amendment was that the restrictions which compelled Borough Councils to obtain the consent of owners and ratepayers to expenditure should be abolished. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member that these provisions could not in justice or equity be applied to London. At the same time, he thought the Committee ought carefully to weigh whether or not this was a restriction which ought to be removed without substituting anything in its place. He knew very well that there was a feeling of a wide character that the restriction affecting boroughs was one which ought to be reconsidered, and many Representatives of boroughs, he was sure, would say that their constituencies were adverse to its continuance. Nevertheless he should be very sorry to accept on the part of the Government any Amendment of the law which would do away with that restriction without being absolutely convinced that there was an almost universal feeling existing in boroughs in favour of its abolition. Of course, it was not for him to enter into the reasons which prompted Parliament to enact that particular restriction, because the guiding motives were obvious without explanation; but undoubtedly it constituted a very great protection for owners and ratepayers against lavish expenditure on the part of the boroughs in either promoting or opposing measures. Everyone knew what enormous cost might be involved if such a power were largely exercised, and it was with a view of checking such expenditure that the restriction referred to had been introduced into the Act. Now the Government was asked, so far as the county of London was concerned, to give powers without that particular restriction, and he submitted to the Committee that they should hesitate before they acceded to that proposal. He believed, however, that if the matter were reconsidered it might be possible to manufacture a restriction of a less onerous character, but which might still have the effect of protecting owners and ratepayers from a large expenditure of public money upon various schemes. But there was another very important restriction which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to abolish with reference to boroughs and counties

  1815
  —namely, the restriction with reference to the supply of gas and water. Now, if there was one thing more than another on which money might be spent without any beneficial results, it was in the promotion of schemes of that character, and he contended that it required a very strong case to be set up before they should do away with either of these restrictions he had mentioned. If they were to be abolished it ought to be upon a full consideration of the whole question of promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament in connection with local schemes. But there was another argument in support of his contention that this was not the proper time for making alterations of this kind—namely, that the entire question of Private Bill Legislation was undergoing investigation. Hardly any hon. Member of that House was satisfied with the present position, and many of them would be disappointed with the result of the investigation if it did not bring about a considerable change in the law with regard to Private Bills. Therefore, in relation to all the points which he had ventured to submit, he would ask the Committee not to agree to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that when the Committee of 1880 sat on the subject of the water supply in London, they specially pointed to the necessity and advantage of having some Body representing the Metropolis possessing power to supply water; and there being no general Body representing London which could undertake that duty, they recommended the setting up a special Body for the purpose. The Committee included some very able men taken from both sides of the House, among them being the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and Lord Cross, who himself had proposed a measure on the subject of the London water supply. Under the Bill now before the House they were getting a general representative Body for London, and he thought it would be a great pity if that Body were launched under a prohibition that would perpetuate the monopoly now in the hands of the Water Companies. He could not conceive any subject more fit for the consideration of the London County Council than that of the London water supply, and it seemed
  1816
  to him that the part of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, which dealt with this question, was deserving of the attention of the Committee.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, that some such safeguard as that which the hon. Gentleman proposed to give was absolutely necessary in county districts. At the beginning of the present Session he had asked the House to join with him in opposing the second reading of a Bill promoted by a Water Company, to allow them to come into a district in which he was interested, and to a very great extent drain the whole of that part of the country. The difficulty the inhabitants had to contend with was, that they had to act on their own responsibility. The reasons he had given on that occasion were not sufficient to induce the House to throw out the second reading of the Bill; but the Bill went to the Committee upstairs, where it was rejected for the very reasons which he had advanced. But they had had to spend several thousand pounds in this opposition, and, in addition, to submit to a claim from the Commissioners of Sewers and the Rural Sanitary Authority who came to their aid. He did not believe that this Bill would have been promoted if the Sanitary Authority had been in a position to oppose it. He thought this case showed the necessity of such a power being given to the Local Authority, and it appeared to him that the County Council was the best authority to deal with the matter. But he would go further than the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Firth), and suggest that words should be introduced to the effect that the expenses incurred in promoting or opposing Bills in Parliament whilst ordinarily being paid out of the county fund, might by special resolution be charged to the district that would be affected by the Bill promoted. It might be argued that County Councils might initiate these proceedings on their own account; but he would like something to be put into the clause to the effect that the first action should be taken by the District Councils; in other words, he would wish the inhabitants of a district to put the County Council in motion, and that the charges should be borne by the districts which the County Council backed up. He observed that the hon. and learned Member had taken from the Act the words "of promoting

  1817
  and opposing." Now, he thought that as it stood the clause would confer a dangerous power on the County Councils, and, therefore, he thought that the words "of promoting" should be left out. His object was to bring before the Committee the position of the county districts in respect of the opposing of Bills, and in view of the importance of the subject he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the position he had taken up, and would accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, hon. Members for London constituencies on that side of the House would have heard with great regret the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. He was not going to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; but certainly the people of London would look upon the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman as a denial to them of that fulness of municipal power which was possessed by the great towns of the country. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that the Metropolitan Board of Works and the community which they represented had been placed at a great disadvantage, owing to the clumsiness of procedure with respect to bringing Bills before Parliament. There was a very strong feeling in the Metropolis that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee had acted wisely in inserting in his Amendment the Proviso which would enable the County Council to deal with the supply of water. But might it not be possible, if the right hon. Gentleman held out any hope of the clause being accepted, to cut out that part which related to a new supply of water or gas for London, because there were arguments against it which were not applicable to the other portion? In regard to the first Proviso it had been pointed out why it was impossible to deal with the ratepayers and owners in London in the same way. He suggested, however, that words might be introduced to the effect that the action of the Council should be approved of by no less than three-fourths of the members. He was not in favour of this himself, but he submitted it because certain London constituents felt very strongly the necessity of the possessing the municipal
  1818
  powers included in the clause of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. ISAACSsaid, if the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) would consent to some alteration of the clause, he believed he would find himself supported by Metropolitan Members on both sides of the House. He was disposed to think that there would be danger in a Municipal Body being entrusted with powers which would give them an opportunity of setting up rival schemes for the supply of water and gas to the Metropolis, and he would, therefore, suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Dundee that he should insert in his Amendment the words—
  "Provided, further, that nothing in Section 2 in the said Act shall prevent the London county council from promoting any Bill for the purchase of undertakings at present supplying water and gas to London or any part thereof."
  Hon. Gentlemen would see that he had struck out the words "or regulation," because he was of opinion that unless the London County Council could actually acquire these undertakings, they should not seek to interfere with them, whereas, if they were allowed to purchase them he believed that good sanitary results would accrue to the Metropolis. In 1881, when, at the instance of Mr. Secretary Cross, the question of the cost of acquiring the water supply of London was submitted to an expert, that expert made an award of so considerable a sum that it alarmed London and alarmed the Members of that House. The Bill was not proceeded with, and as it happened to be the last act of the Government of the day, it gave rise to the saying that the Government "had come in on beer and gone out on water." He trusted that they had now obtained more accurate knowledge upon the subject, and that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be able to see his way to accept this clause with the modifications he (Mr. Isaacs) suggested.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, his hon. Friend would, no doubt, see what a very strong feeling would be evoked if he insisted upon the County Authorities having the power to set up competing gas and water works. On the other hand, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would

  1819
  respond to the appeal made to him to give to the County Authorities the powers proposed in the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to say that the new County Authority could take over the powers at present possessed by the Quarter Sessions; but, surely, Quarter Sessions had no power to promote Bills in Parliament, or even to oppose measures in Parliament? [Mr. RITCHIE: They can oppose Bills.] Would the right hon. Gentleman mention a case in which Quarter Sessions had expended money in opposing Bills? At any rate, he (Mr. Woodall) thought it was a very doubtful power. Now, let him say a word with regard to the provision of the Borough Funds Act. With regard to the operation of that Act, he should like the Committee to consider how extremely stringent and severe were the provisions of that measure. The Act bore upon its face evidence of having been promoted in the interests of Gas and Water and other public Companies, and for the purpose of minimizing the powers of the Representatives of the general public to protect the interests concerned against those powerful Companies. For instance, under the provisions of the Act now in operation, it was necessary before any expenditure of public money could take place, that the proposal should have the support of an absolute majority of the whole Municipal Council; the Council should have been convened for the special purpose after 10 days' clear notice by public advertisement; that their action should then receive the approval of the Local Government Board or the Home Office; that they should convene a public meeting; and that any one ratepayer might compel the taking of a plébiscite upon the question at issue, and if the result of the poll so taken was adverse to the action of the Council, the Council could not even recover the expenses of taking the poll. He thought it would be seen from that explanation that the proposal of his hon. Friend, that the poll should be unnecessary if these powers were given to the Council was reasonable. He looked forward with very great interest to the proposal, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, he had been charged with a Bill which had been before Parliament for materially modifying these hard conditions,
  1820
  a Bill which he had hoped might have been so amended in Committee as to receive the assent of the right hon. Gentleman. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give to the County Authorities the powers proposed, with the modifications suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), stopping short at the proposal that they should have power to set up competing works; and he thought, also, that there might be omitted the whole of the latter section of the clause, inasmuch as he believed there could be no kind of question about those Authorities possessing the power to obtain, by negotiations, public works on equitable terms.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Woodall) had said very truly he was in charge of a Bill which proposed important modifications in the Borough Funds Act. That was a justification to some extent of the position he (Mr. Ritchie) took up—namely, that it would be wise for them to see whether by general legislation some alteration might not be made in the Borough Funds Act to secure the desired safeguards. With reference to London, he asked the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) whether, assuming that the Government, while objecting to any change in the condition of things respecting ordinary counties, were to recognize the force of the argument used as to certain powers which might be given to the County Council of London, as to the purchase of the water supply of London, he would be content with some Amendment, which, of course, could not be proposed here, because it would be too large an Amendment of the clause, but might afterwards be proposed, giving to the County Council of London the power of promoting a Bill for the purchase of the water supply?
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he felt that that was not a question he ought to answer in the affirmative, for the reason that in 1880 Mr. Secretary Cross's Bill was submitted to a Committee, and that Committee reported upon these very matters, and their Report was that there ought to be given to a Central Authority power to initiate a new supply, or to purchase or regulate the existing supplies. It would not be at all decent or proper, and it was not competent for him to consent to, or to suggest, legis-

  1821
  lation which would have the effect of taking away those three powers which, if he recollected right, by an unanimous vote, including, therefore, that of Mr. Secretary Cross, the Committee said the Local Authority in London ought to have—namely, the power of initiation, regulation, and purchase. If they could not have that, he would very much prefer having nothing, because the effect, as they had seen from too long experience, of putting in words, would be this, that the Local Authority would be told that Parliament had said they ought not to have the power of initiating a new supply; whereas the power of initiating a new supply, Mr. Secretary Cross's Committee laid down as essentially belonging to them, and as a fact it would be the strongest possible lever they could use for the purpose of obtaining their rights. He would not like a settlement which would abate one jot the rights the Committee had said were theirs. Unless the President of the Local Government Board saw his way to adopt the clause, it must be withdrawn.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he was very glad the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) meant to stick to the proposals he had made in respect to London. It was, perhaps, hardly fair that the whole of this clause should be argued from the point of view of London only. There were three points in the clause—there was the point of the extension to the County Councils of the powers at present in the hands of the Borough Councils; there was the modification of those powers; and there was the particular power which it was proposed to give to London in respect to its gas and its water supply. Curiously enough, most of this discussion had turned upon the last point. That was a point upon which the London Members felt most deeply, and it was almost a necessity that they should get some such clause as this referring to the gas and water supply of London, if they were to carry out the programme they were laying down in a subsequent clause. They would subsequently come to Amendments enjoining upon the London Council the duty of preparing a Bill for taking over the gas and the water, and as they were going to put upon the Council that duty, it would be a very odd thing if they did not, in connection with that, give the
  1822
  Council some power for promoting the Bill it brought forward. If it be desirable to disentangle the power in respect to the gas and water supply of London from the clause, it might, it seemed to him, be possible to introduce the question of the gas and water supply of London in a subsequent clause. But, whether that be so or not, he entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) that the powers sought for in respect to gas and water were sought for by them on behalf of the parts of London they represented in their entirety as put down by the hon. Member. He was in favour of the whole of the clause as it stood, and he should vote for it in its entirety.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he sincerely hoped that the power which was proposed to be given of promoting Bills in Parliament would not be so given. He could not conceive anything which was so likely to lead to extravagance as the granting, without any restriction, to the new Body of power to promote Bills in Parliament. The Borough Funds Act had already been referred to. It was the existing Statute which, on the whole, had operated in a most excellent way, which had been the means of prohibiting certain boroughs from entering into what might be reckless speculations. His hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) referred to a case of great grievance. He was acquainted with all the details of that case; but he would point out to his hon. Friend that they would go a great deal too far if they were to go to the length of supporting an Amendment which would allow not only the power of opposing, but of promoting Bills in Parliament, There was at present vested in Quarter Sessions the right to oppose Bills which dealt with matters in which they themselves were concerned. He knew of cases in regard to railways and county bridges in which Clerks of the Peace had been directed to take steps for initiating opposition. There was no power whatever of promoting Bills, and he extremely objected to any such power being introduced. He did not say whether some modifications of the Borough Funds Act might not, at some time, be necessary; but the general principles of that Act he believed to be wise and sound, and when on previous occasions demands

  1823
  had been made to alter them, they had been met by strenuous opposition. It seemed to him that that was a matter, so far as the Borough Funds Act was concerned, which would be best met by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall), who was in charge of the Bill for the amendment of the Borough Funds Act. He left the Metropoliton question to those who were more capable of dealing with it; but he protested against handing over or placing in the hands of the newly-elected Body power to expend the ratepayers money, without the restrictions found in the Borough Funds Act, which power might very likely lead to large and unnecessary expenditure.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) had proposed, with reference to London, the power of purchase; but that power of purchase was absolutely valueless. They knew perfectly well what became of the proposal to purchase the Water Companies made some years ago. The Committee of 1880 pointed out that the power of purchase was utterly worthless, unless it was backed up by the power of competition. It was proved before that Committee that an entirely new supply could be made for London at a price—he could not remember exactly what the figure was. [Mr. FIRTH: Less than half.] His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) reminded him that a new supply could be made for less than half that which was asked for the purchase of the present supplies. Of course, the power of purchase at a reasonable rate entirely depended upon the purchaser in the alternative being able to get the supplies for himself. That was the whole key of the matter, and to offer to London the power of purchase without the power of competition was to offer nothing at all. Why London was not to have the power to menace competition, in order to get a reasonable purchase, or, if it did not get a reasonable purchase, then to have actual competition, he could not understand. They refused a great public Body power it ought to have.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware that that was a power which was not possessed by any Municipal Corporation in the Kingdom.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was perfectly aware of that, and he, was speaking of London only. He maintained that the Committee, of which Mr. Secretary Cross was a Member, by a unanimous Report, recommended that London should have this power; that the Committee pointed out that the power of competition was the basis of the whole thing; and that if they refused that power, a reasonable purchase could never be made.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Local Government Board one question, and it was, whether he could tell them if, in handing over the powers of Quarter Sessions to the County Councils, they had handed over to the County Councils the powers which the Quarter Sessions at present possessed of defending their own property? Some time ago the Corporation of Stockton succeeded in passing a Bill through Parliament for a bridge in substitution of a county bridge. The Corporation took power in the Bill to levy £10,000 on the county. The Quarter Sessions fought that Bill, and got the sum reduced to £5,000. It was thus seen that the Quarter Sessions had power to defend their own interests, and he wanted the right hon. Gentleman to assure them, if he could, that that power would pass from the Quarter Sessions to the County Councils.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think there could be any doubt about that, when they had transferred all administrative powers from the Quarter Sessions to the County Councils.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that the Quarter Sessions had had power to defend their own property, but the power asked for in this clause was that County Councils should be able to promote or oppose Bills in the interests generally of the inhabitants within their districts.
  BARON DIMSDALEsaid, that the practical effect of the clause, unamended and unimproved, would be to confer on London preferential advantages which were not enjoyed in any other borough. He had no objection to the principle of the Bill, that there should be an assimilation between the powers of municipalities and of the County Councils, and it was quite reasonable that the powers con-

  1825
  ferred by the Borough Funds Act should be extended to the County Councils. But then there were two valuable Provisoes in the Borough Funds Act; one Proviso was that nothing in the Act should authorize any Governing Body to promote any Bill for the establishment of gas or water supplies; and the other, the fourth Proviso, was that no expenditure in promoting or opposing any Bills in Parliament should be charged upon the ratepayers, unless the promoters or the opponents got the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the district. If the clause was not altered, the practical effect would be that the securities which were enjoyed in every borough in England would not be extended to London. The Borough Funds Act was, as everybody knew, adopted in 1872; it was subjected to public investigation by Committees in the House, and it was thought to place the law on a permanent footing. There had been attempts made to alter that Act during recent Sessions. There was an attempt made to sweep away the fourth Proviso in Clause 4, but the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall), who had charge of the amending Bill, had receded from that original position. He (Baron Dimsdale) did not see why they should place London in a different position to the other parts of the country; certainly, by the adoption of the clause, they would act in a manner preferential to London, which would not be justified. What they should do was to have some other security, such as indicated by the President of the Local Government Board. It was quite necessary, if there was to be some other security, that they should have some Amendment of the Borough Funds Act, so that London and the rest of the country would be placed in the same position.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, there was no branch of the questions touching Municipal and Local Government to which, since he became a Member of the House, he had paid more careful attention than to the question of the power of Local Authorities to deal with the proposals made by great Companies for obtaining powers of a public nature, such as those connected with gas and water works. Having watched very carefully the question for some time past, he had come unhesitatingly to the conclusion that, although in re-
  1826
  spect to small boroughs and authorities, it might not be prudent to grant this unrestricted power, it was of the essence of the establishment of such Local Government as they were now trying to establish in this Bill, that the County Councils should have the power both of promoting and of opposing Bills in Parliament. Those who had sat long in the House could remember cases without number in which, on account of the want of that power, great and powerful Companies had practically usurped the proper jurisdiction of Local Authorities in respect to gas and water and other public works. The absence of the power to oppose and promote Bills in Parliament had so hampered Local Authorities that, step by step, these great Companies had obtained more and more power, to the detriment of the ratepayers. Surely the time had come when they might have confidence in the new Authority in London that they were creating, and pass the clause giving this power also to all counties and to the large boroughs.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought that the fact that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had only arrived at the conclusion he had arrived at after very anxious consideration, extending over a very considerable time, was a sufficient justification for the Government in asking the Committee to come to no settled determination on the question by inserting in this large Bill proposals such as those now made. He ventured to repeat that which he had frequently had to say in the course of the many debates which had taken place in the Committee upon proposals to confer such powers upon these Councils, that they had never pretended that, in setting up the new authorities, they were clothing them by this Bill with all the powers which, at some other time, they might think it right to clothe them, nor even that they were clothing them by the Bill with, many powers they thought that they ought now to possess. The Government thought that, if they embarked upon such a very large field of discussion as they would have to embark on to make proposals of the kind, it would be extremely doubtful whether they could, by any possibility, get a Bill of that magnitude through Parliament in the course of one Session. At present, all the Gas and Water Companies in the Kingdom

  1827
  were specially protected, by a clause in the Municipal Corporations Act, against any Public Body presenting a Bill to Parliament for the purpose of setting up a competing supply. If the Government had made proposals in the Bill doing away with the restrictions which existed by Act of Parliament, and specially enabling Local Authorities to present Bills for competing supplies, he maintained they would have got so much opposition brought to bear upon the Bill as would most materially have hampered its passage, and perhaps have altogether prevented its passing during the present Session. He asked the Committee whether it was not better for them to be content in the compass of the present Session to pass such a great Bill as this, creating the County Authorities, acknowledging that they were not complete and not completely clothed, than to have attempted that which was impossible? The course they had adopted was, he thought, one which would have commended itself to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they had had to propose and carry through Parliament, in the course of one Session such a great and comprehensive measure as the present. He was satisfied it was more prudent for them, before they made such large alterations in the law as they were now proposing, to wait until they had set up the new County Councils, and then to consider what other powers could be entrusted to them.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) that there were certain powers it was not necessary to confer on County Councils at once; but what he was particularly anxious to point out was that the power which it was proposed to confer by the clause was a necessary corollary to the position of the County Councils. Let him point out the position Rural Districts would be in if such a clause as this were not accepted. Under the Borough Funds Act power to oppose or propose Bills under very stringent restrictions was given, not only to every municipal borough, but to every Local Board and Board of Health throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to put those Local Boards in the position of District Councils, in a position which was obviously inferior to that which the County Councils would hold, and he was now proposing to deny to the County Councils powers
  1828
  which were at present possessed by every Local Board throughout the country. It was quite true that in country districts the people did not want the powers wanted in London to promote Bills for gas and water supplies. People in rural districts had not much concern in such things; but they might in some cases want to promote Bills for the benefit of the inhabitants of the county. They did most certainly want to have power to oppose Bills which might be introduced by neighbouring Corporations, or powerful Companies, and which might, if carried, inflict the greatest injury on the interests of the inhabitants of the various parts of their district. His hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Llewellyn) mentioned a recent case in which the inferior position of rural districts in that respect was very aptly illustrated, and he (Mr. Hobhouse) maintained that it would be a monstrous shame if the Bill passed, creating a great Body representing the inhabitants of the country, without clothing that Body with the power of looking properly after the interests of the inhabitants. It was not sufficient to transfer to the County Councils the present power possessed by the Quarter Sessions of opposing Bills, because he believed that that power simply related to Bills that affected the property belonging to the Quarter Sessions. They wanted to have power not only to protect their property, but to protect the interests and well-being of the inhabitants of every county. He had a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman. The main object of the clause was to confer the power which was given to other Local Authorities by the Borough Funds Act on the County Councils. The chief objection of the President of the Local Government Board to adopt the proposal was on account of two provisoes in the clause which would place the County Councils in a different position from that of the other authorities under the Borough Funds Act. As to the first, would it not be possible, between this and Report, to devise some check on the County Councils which would take the place of the check which the right hon. Gentleman admitted to be wholly inapplicable, the check provided by the Borough Funds Act in respect to the consent of owners and ratepayers? With regard to the second paragraph of the clause relating to gas

  1829
  and water supply, he suggested that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) should bring that up in a somewhat different form, and make it apply to London alone.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the President of the Local Government Board seemed to think it necessary that he should defend himself against an hypothetical suggestion that he ought to have introduced a clause of the description in the Bill. Now, that was no part of their contention whatsoever; he went with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that it was the business of a Minister in charge of a measure to put that measure on the Table with as little unnecessary contentious matter as possible. A Minister had to think of the possibility of carrying his measure through the House without any unnecessary or tedious delay; but it was a totally different question when, at the end, after a measure had practically been passed with the willing consent of the House and the Committee, questions arose on new clauses proposed by private Members which he might not have originally thought it wise for himself to raise and submit to the House. When a Government came face to face with proposals of that kind, it was bound to look upon them with no unfavourable eye, coming, as they did, from Members of the House who had received the proposals of the Government itself favourably, and had enabled the Government to carry their very large proposals. Therefore, he held that at that moment it was fitting that the Government should look at the proposal apart from any question as to whether they might themselves have originally made it or not. He remembered perfectly well, years ago, when he was first at the Local Government Board, taking a very strong view indeed of the Borough Funds Act. He held that there were cases in which it was very important that something very much like these precise provisions and precautions should be maintained and preserved, but he drew a distinction between cases. The Borough Funds Act referred to powers of promoting and opposing Bills to be conferred upon Governing Bodies. The definition of Governing Bodies included not only Municipial Councils, but Boards of Health and Local Boards, and Commissioners, and
  1830
  Trustees, and so forth. Therefore, it included Local Bodies large and small. He wanted to make a difference between Local Bodies representing large constituencies and large areas, and little Local Bodies such as Boards of Health and Local Boards, or by what other name they might be known. He thought the difference between the two classes was a practical difference of considerable moment and bearing upon this question. When they had a very small Local Board elected for what were called ordinary Local Government or Sanitary purposes, it was not to be supposed that the inhabitants of those confined areas and localities had had it in their minds, when they elected those small Bodies, that they would exercise, at their own discretion, the power of coming up to London with their solicitor at any time to amuse themselves either in opposing or promoting Bills in Parliament. The more modest the area and the constituency, the less likely was it to be in their minds that such powers should be exercised by their representatives. They did not practically choose their representatives with the idea of conferring upon them such powers. They did not desire that their representatives should have such powers, and it was well that the ratepayers of the small areas should have some power of putting a check upon speculative proceedings of the kind. But the situation was entirely changed when they came to great Bodies like County Councils, and still more so when they came to the great County Council of that vast Metropolis. With regard to the large Bodies supported by great constituencies, he thought that, consistently with the principles of this measure, they ought, with an ungrudging hand, to confer upon them powers of that description, and he did not think there was any danger, practically, of such powers being abused. He held strongly, that in the case of small constituencies and small local areas, the opinions of the ratepayers formed a very necessary court of appeal, but he maintained strongly, and with no hesitation, that when they came to large County Councils, and the County Council of this Metropolis, they would find quite sufficient precautions in the Borough Funds Act, without calling in the ratepayers to decide upon the proposals. He hoped his hon. and learned

  1831
  Friend (Mr. Firth) would persevere with his clause.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, that with regard to the reply the President of the Local Government Board had just made to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton), that the County Councils would become possessed of the administrative powers at present held by Quarter Sessions, he begged to question whether those powers included the power of opposing Private Bills. As far as he understood the matter, unless the property of the Quarter Sessions was affected, unless their property was mentioned in what was called the Schedule of Reference, the Quarter Sessions would have no locus standi before a Committee upstairs.
  MR. KENRICKsaid, he wished to say a word or two upon the Borough Funds Act, because he represented a large constituency. The Borough Funds Act had long been looked upon as an anachronism, as a relic of the past policy of distrust of Local Government, and as an Act which was thought proper and desirable to hamper and restrict the freedom—what he believed would be generally admitted to be the legitimate freedom—of all the great boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had drawn a very proper distinction between large and small Local Bodies, which the Committee would do well to keep in view. It might be very desirable and necessary to safeguard in some way the rights of property which might be interfered with by small Local Boards, but when they came to the County Councils, or to the Town Council of a large borough, if they were to have Local Government at all, they must entrust those Bodies with the power of carrying out the will of the inhabitants. He maintained that the poll required to be held under the Borough Funds Act did not really represent the views of the ratepayers in anything like the same degree or efficacy as did the Town Councillors. Every year all matters which interested communities were discussed at the annual elections, and members were sent to the Town Councils with what was now commonly called a mandate. All matters which were interesting to the community were, therefore, discussed at the proper time—namely, the annual election. The votes
  1832
  then given on any question of importance would far exceed the number of votes given on a special question. As a matter of fact, the people who voted in a plébiscite under the Borough Funds Act were generally interested persons. The majority of the ratepayers did not go to the poll at all, and the fact was they got the representation of the views of those interested in the gas and water supplies, and they did not get the views of the general body of the inhabitants or ratepayers. As a borough Member, therefore, he should support the clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that a clause stood in his name, on page 23, which simply empowered the County Council of London to introduce or oppose Bills in Parliament. Upon that a specific Division might be taken, if the Government thought that that would be best.
  MR. RITCHIEasked, if the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the clause under consideration should be withdrawn or negatived?
  MR. FIRTH: No; that the last provision should be withdrawn, and the rest accepted.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that that meant that power should be given to the County Council to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament, without the safeguards provided by the Borough Funds Act. The question must be dealt with not only as it affected London and the counties, but as it affected boroughs as well. He did not think the state of the law was satisfactory; but he impressed on the Committee the fact that they had great difficulties to deal with in keeping the Bill within manageable proportions.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 115: Majority 8.—(Div. List, No. 224.)
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause which was on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Leominster Division of Herefordshire (Mr. Rankin), the object of which was to enable the County Council to draw up a scheme for the establishment of a county pension or annuity fund, was beyond the scope of the Bill, and could not be moved.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he begged to move the Amend-

  1833
  ment standing in his name, to make provision for boroughs being made counties which hereafter attained to a population of 50,000. The clause was intended to carry out what he understood was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. It would enable boroughs which attained to a population of 50,000 to apply to the Local Government Board to be constituted counties of themselves, under the provisions of the Act, and that thereupon an inquiry should be at once ordered, unless an agreement between the borough and the county in which it was deemed to be situate for an equitable adjustment of their respective claims and financial position had been previously made; and it would empower the Local Government Board, by a Provisional Order, to constitute such borough a county of itself. The Government, he understood, had introduced an Amendment, with the object of providing for boroughs hereafter attaining to a population of 50,000; but he could not find any proposal for carrying out the object of the clause. There was no Amendment throwing the onus of refusal on the Local Government Board, or giving a primâ facie claim to a borough of 50,000 to be made a county. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board held the view that the object he (Mr. Heneage) sought to attain was already secured, he would withdraw the clause, and bring it up again on Report if he found it necessary.
  New Clause (Provision for boroughs which may hereafter attain a population of 50,000,)—(Mr. Heneage,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that what they had introduced into the clause did not give a primâ facie right for a borough, under the circumstances referred to, to be made a county; and if the right hon. Gentleman thought his clause would do that, the Government must oppose it absolutely. They could not give a borough a primâ facie case to be made into a county. What he (Mr. Ritchie) had done in the Bill had been
  1834
  this—he had provided that where a borough had attained a population of 50,000, it might apply to the Local Government Board to be made a county borough, and the Local Government Board might make it a county borough. That was the full extent to which he had gone, and he was afraid he could not go farther.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that the Local Government Board, under those circumstances, might refuse to make a borough into a county if it chose without assigning any reason whatever for its refusal.
  MR. RITCHIE: That is so.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that in fairness to the boroughs which were likely to have a population of over 50,000 in a year or two, he could not withdraw the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he had the following clause on the Paper, to be added after Clause 35:—
  "This part of this Act shall apply to the metropolis with the following exceptions and modifications:—

  (a.) In the county of London all the members of the London county shall be directly elected;

  (b.) The county councillors shall be elected for a term of three years and shall then retire together, and their places shall be filled by a new election;

  (c.) In the county of London the persons entitled to vote shall be in the metropolis outside the city of London, the persons now entitled under the Metropolis Management Act to vote in the election of vestrymen, and in the city of London the persons now entitled to vote in the election of common councillors of the city of London;

  (d.) The county council of London shall, if they think fit, elect any fit person to be the chairman of the council, and shall pay such sum out of the county funds not exceeding pounds per annum as salary as they think fit. He shall hold office for one year, but shall be eligible for re-election. The county council of London shall also, if they think fit, elect any fit person to be deputy chairman of the council, and shall pay him such sum out of the county funds not exceeding pounds per annum as salary as they think fit. He shall hold office for three years, but shall be eligible for re-election.

  (e.) Clause 15 shall not apply to the county of London."

  As regarded the first Sub-section (a.) it was out of the question, as the Committee had already decided that all the

  1835
  members of the London County Council should not be directly elected. Subsection (b) was already in the Bill. As to (c) his hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. Baring) had been going to introduce it; but the object was practically attained by an Amendment of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick) his (Mr. Firth's) Representative in the House, with which he thought the Committee would agree, and therefore he would not move that part of the clause. With regard to Subsection (d), after careful consideration, the first part of it was provided for in the Bill, and the second part embodied in an Amendment subsequently, and therefore he would not move that; and as Clause 15 was about main roads, and had already been discussed, he should not move Sub-section (e). He did not accept the judgment of the Government on the latter point, but he accepted the decision of the Committee, and therefore he would not move his clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The clause of the hon. Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell (Mr. Baumann) does not appear to me to be in Order.
  MR. BAUMANNsaid, his clause was as follows:—
  "The Metropolitan Fire Brigade, with all its powers, duties, property, debts, and liabilities, shall hereby be transferred to the Metropolitan Police, and be constituted a branch of that force, as recommended by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1877."
  With great deference to the hon. Gentleman he would submit that Clause 36 proposed to transfer all the powers, liabilities, and duties of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the new County Council for London, and amongst those powers, liabilities, and duties were some for the management of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
  MR. LAWSON: There are no powers whatever transferred to or from the Metropolitan Police.
  MR. BAUMANN: I do not refer to the police, but only to the Fire Brigade.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that the hon. Member had pointed out that, under the Bill, all powers, liabilities, and duties of the Metropolitan Board of Works were transferred to the County
  1836
  Council which was to be established; but the hon. Member, in his clause, proposed to transfer certain powers, duties, property, debts, and liabilities to the Metropolitan Police, and that clearly would be out of Order.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he begged to move the first of the clauses standing in his name as follows:—
  "The County Council of London shall, as soon as may be, submit to Parliament a Bill for the rearrangement of municipal government and administration within the area of the county of London."
  The clause was one which he considered of supreme importance. The opinion of London Members upon the subject of this clause was a thing which should be studied, and that opinion was very strongly in favour of the proposal on one side, and unanimous on the other—and he was glad that the hon. Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell was in his place, as he would very likely give them his views upon the matter. The object of the clause was this—they had had from the Government that year a Bill which, so far as London was concerned, provided what he might call a magnificent carcass. It provided a magnificent framework; but it did not deal with what had always been most difficult—namely, the complex problem of complete London reform, and all the intermixing, overlapping, and varying internal arrangements of London administration. It was a comparatively simple thing, though a bold thing to do, to constitute one great Council for London, and make that directly elective. It stood as a proposal so exhaustive and so Radical that he ventured to say that no Government composed of Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House would ever have ventured to propose it. The Radical Members had welcomed it, and intended to do their best loyally to make it a success. They might, by taking exception to many matters in the Bill which were repugnant to them, such as the provision for the selection of County Aldermen, have fulfilled the prophecy of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and have brought about so lengthened a debate that the proposal would have had to be dropped. But that had not been the case, and the result was that they had had the outside of London government

  1837
  formed by the Bill. But more was wanted, and it would be necessary on some future occasion to deal with the interior administration of London. He was not going into that matter now. It was a very difficult question. An extremely difficult series of questions arose as to the authority to undertake the preparation of a scheme for such interior administration, and his clause raised this specific point—"Should or should not the new London County Council be authorized to deal with this subject by way of a Bill, to be afterwards submitted, of course, to Parliament?" There were two alternatives. The first was, that the Government should deal with the matter. Well, if the Government dealt with it, and dealt with it as judiciously and well as they had dealt with the question of London generally in the Bill, he did not think anyone would have much reason to feel apprehension as to the future; but, as a matter of fact, the question was so difficult and required the importation, if he might use the word, of so many experts into the counsels of the Government, that there was no certainty that they would arrive at a conclusion which would be satisfactory to the people of London. The proposition he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to this alternative, was this—and he was tolerably familiar with the matter with which he was dealing, seeing that he had had a great deal to do with the Bill of 1884—if a measure was brought in by the Government, after all their executive labour, it would undoubtedly be discussed by the London Council. That London Council would contain within itself, in all probability, experts familiar with every department of London government, and know how the Vestry system, the City system, and the Board of Works system, and so on, had worked. Now, there were very few people who knew much about all those subjects; but on this Body there would be gentlemen who would know something about each and every one of those questions, and if a measure prepared by the Government were submitted to that Body, and not accepted by it, what would be the result? Why, an adverse vote of the London County Council on a Bill introduced by any Administration whatever, would kill that Bill. ["No, no!"]
  1838
  Well, he was merely expressing his own opinion, and he would go back from the dogmatic form of expression and put the statement into words which would satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. If a Government introduced a Bill upon which the London County Council pronounced an adverse opinion, the path of that Government would be beset with the greatest difficulties, and it would be almost impossible for any except a very strong Government—and, of course, they would have a very powerful Ministry to carry the Bill through the House of Commons—to bring to a successful issue a measure providing for the central government of a town, the existing Government of which did not agree with its provisions. That, so far, was a matter which affected the Government; and now he would say a word from the point of view of the manner in which the people of London would be affected. They were going to have a Council upon which all their interests and views and opinions, he apprehended, would be represented, and if there was a Body to which the preparation of a measure of that kind could well be committed, it would be to that Council. An essential point in connection with such a measure as this was the satisfaction of the people governed. To force upon the people of London that which they dissented from through their recognized Representatives would not conduce to the success of that form of government and would not be a wise policy, nor one which he believed a Minister responsible for this Bill would care to adopt. The clause he (Mr. Firth) proposed did not go far. It said that they should, as soon as might be, submit to Parliament a Bill for the re-arrangement of municipal government and administration within the area of the county of London. He was not sure whether, under Clauses 53 and 55, there was not already power to do that. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) said he would take it into his serious consideration, though he (Mr. Firth) was afraid he had rather startled the right hon. Gentleman with the suggestion. If the clause he was now moving was not accepted, of course, it would be a matter for consideration whether or not the power for which he was pleading would not be already possessed by the London County Council. But he submitted

  1839
  there was contained in this clause a solution of a most serious question—a question upon the details of which he might speak for two or three hours. If the clause were adopted, what would be the result? Why, a Bill would be brought in by the London County Council, and the whole matter would be put completely before the House, and the House would deal with it as it chose. Such a course would lead to less work in Parliament, although he was sure, looking at the ability and untiring energy which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had displayed in the conduct of the present Bill, that argument was not one which was likely to weigh very materially with him. But this clause would certainly involve wiser and better administration of London affairs than could be brought about by any other means, and he therefore begged to move the insertion of the clause.
  New Clause (Power to London Council to submit scheme to re-arrange municipal government,)—(Mr. Firth,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. BAUMANNsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had, he thought, very rightly described the measure, or that part of it which related to London, as a carcass. He (Mr. Baumann) should himself describe it as a shell—the shell of a house—the interior arrangements of which were to be filled in by another Bill which was to be introduced next Session, and the question was as to whom that filling in of the shell was to be entrusted. Was it to be entrusted to the House of Commons, or the Government, or was it to be entrusted to the new County Council of London? Well, he (Mr. Baumann) must say that, personally, he felt bound to oppose the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and for this reason—that they knew nothing whatever of the composition of the new Council for London. They did not know, in the least, what sort of men would find seats on that Council. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was very sanguine of obtaining a very high type of Councillor, and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite
  1840
  expected that the new County Council would be largely composed of experts. But those were mere conjectures, and he (Mr. Baumann) submitted to the Committee that they, the London Members, and nearly all Members of the House who were asked to vote for this Amendment, were being asked to entrust the future arrangements of the Government of London to an unknown Body whose composition was an entire matter of conjecture. The new County Council might be composed of experts, it might be composed of a majority of members of the Municipal Reform League, or, on the other hand, it might be composed of a majority of the Primrose League. They knew nothing whatever about the composition of it, and he venturned to submit that it would be rather a dangerous experiment to entrust such an important matter as the transformation of the existing Vesteries and District Boards into District Councils to this unknown Body. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that an adverse vote of that new County Council for London would kill any Bill which the Government might introduce into the House. Well, the present Government was a wise Government and a prudent Government and a strong Government, and that Government could well afford to consult the wishes and ideas of the new County Council upon the subject of the re-arrangement of Vestries, and so forth; but to say that an adverse vote of that Body would kill any Bill which a Government with a majority introduced into this House, seemed to hint, to say the least of it, to be an exaggeration. He really thought that if they were to accept that new clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman, they would be taking away from the Government what was essentially a matter for the Government, and referring it to a Body of which they knew nothing. He (Mr. Baumann) should therefore vote against the proposal.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that, so far as he was individually concerned, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee, that he was not that glutton for work which he seemed to think—that he had not got that lusty appetite for labour which seemed to be attributed to him.

  1841
  His idea of bliss was to have no work at all—[Cries of "No, no!" and "Oh!"]—at the present moment; and, therefore, if he could shift on to the shoulders of others, if he could shift on to the shoulders of the new County Council of London, the whole question of the internal arrangements of London, he was afraid he should be sorely tempted to do so. But he must confess that it would not be in accordance with his view of the duty of the Executive Government to do anything of the sort. The matter of the reform of the Government of London was a matter of such importance that he thought whatever changes were made should emanate from the responsible Government of the day, and whoever might be the responsible Government of the day might have to take into account the opinions and views of the various component elements of the County Council. But there could not be a question that, in dealing with such an enormously complicated problem as this, it was the imperative duty of the Executive to take up the question themselves, and not delegate it to any other Body whatever. Those were the views of the Government, and he must correct the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Baumann) in what had fallen from him as to the intentions of the Government. He did not think he had ever expressed any intention of bringing in a Bill next year for dealing with the government of London, although they had distinctly stated that the present measure would have to be supplemented by a Bill dealing with the interior areas of London. He could not enter into any engagement with the Committee as to when such Bill would be brought forward, but he did say again—
  MR. LAWSON: In a former debate the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not undertake to reform the City next year, but the Bill would deal with different areas of London.
  MR. RITCHIE: Not with the City; he did not say that. He knew the hon. Gentleman had attributed such a statement to him; but it had been explained that that statement had come from the Opposition Benches, and he had understood the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the suggestion, or he should have taken an opportunity of correcting him.
  MR. LAWSONThat referred to the City.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought it referred to the whole government of London, and he should have corrected the hon. Member if he had not thought he withdrew the statement. Those were the views of the Government. They had always said that the interior areas of London should be dealt with, but they maintained that when they were dealt with, it should be by the responsible Government of the country, and not by any other Body whatsoever.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth). There was no denying it, that on that (the Opposition) side of the House, the London Representatives felt that that clause was an important one, and he desired to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman in that, the dreadful solitude of the recommencement of Business after the dinner hour, that as he had so favourably considered so many points, and as he would admit that the Opposition had been guided in its action by such a friendly spirit towards the right hon. Gentleman and his Bill, that he would now refrain from making up his mind with regard to the present proposal until he had heard the arguments by which it was supported. The advocates of the Amendment did not intend to make a long story of it, but it did seem to them that it deserved to be discussed at that moment. Really, the clauses they were discussing, whether with respect to London or other places, deserved a certain amount of consideration, even though it might delay the passing of the Bill, so far as regarded London, for some hours, or even for a day. He felt that those new clauses represented the residual difficulties of many hon. Gentlemen who had carefully avoided complicating the Bill by unnecessary Amendments, in which they might, in some instances, have introduced those points. This point, however, which was introduced now as a new clause, was intentionally withheld by hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House from being moved as an Amendment to any clause in the Bill, because they did not desire to complicate the general passage of the

  1843
  measure with that question. It seemed to him that the arguments which wholly applied to London, and which were wholly peculiar to London, were arguments of considerable importance. The right hon. Gentlemen had rather argued against the clause and the giving of this power to the London County Council, on the ground of the great complexity of London Local Government. Well, it was exactly because of that great complexity that he (Mr. Stuart), for one, desired to see it placed in the hands of the County Council for London. The right hon. Gentleman said, "surely this is a thing which ought to be done by the Executive Government;" but how were the Executive Government going to do it; how could they do it? This was a special question, which required special knowledge; it was special in almost every aspect, and on that ground it ought to be considered by special people. If the Government were going to draw up a Bill for the Local Government of London they would require to discuss the matter with specialists in London. It was a very different thing drawing up a scheme for a County Council for London, for that ran on all fours with the principles which guided them in dealing with the County Councils in the rest of England, and, therefore, was considered by the Government on the basis of what he might call general policy. The Government, under those circumstances, consulted the whole of the constituencies and their usual advisers, and drew up their Bill on general considerations and grounds of general policy. Therefore, the formation of the County Council for London was a matter which was very properly undertaken by the Executive Government on its own responsibility, and when they came to the formation of a county government for the whole of England, then, no doubt, that also was a question which should be considered upon general lines of policy, and in consultation with the county Members sitting on both sides of the House. A Bill dealing with those matters should be drawn up on general grounds, and was one which very properly was drawn up by an Executive Government. But when they came to London and its internal county government, the arrangements of London were so peculiarly special a case that it could not be considered as a subject of general policy, and therefore the Government,
  1844
  whether Liberal or Tory, would have to consider it as a special case. How were they to act when they did that? They would have to consult specialists and the persons best acquainted with London. They would have to select the persons whose advice they were going to follow, and that was a thing which he objected to see done, either by a Liberal or a Conservative Government. What he wanted was that that popular opinion which was to form the Government of London should be of similar natural growth to the popular opinion which would form the Local Government of the rest of the country. The opinion by which they should be guided should be the naturally expressed local opinion apart from an opinion of a selective character which every Government would necessarily be obliged to rely on, and which they would obtain by consulting individuals outside that House. The complex and difficult character of the question was the reason why he thought this work should rather be done by a locally elected body of specialists than by a body of specialists selected by the Executive Government for the time being. There was another important point connected with this matter. He did not think they could fancy or imagine a Body which, from its constitution, was likely to be better able to deal with the complex question of London government than the County Council which they were about to have created in London. It would be observed that a large proportion of the members of that Body were to be locally representative. Those persons would in all probability be very largely acquainted with the local management of London; because, looking at the way in which the Central Council touched the local Bodies, there would be a great deal of importance attached to the members of the Central Council, being familiar with the work of the local Bodies. There was another point, and a very important point, to be considered. It had been urged from the other side of the House, and he thought also from the Opposition side, that there was a want of popular interest felt in Local Government in London. If there were that want of interest it arose from what was confessed on all sides of the House—that was to say, the absence hitherto of what might he called the representative

  1845
  interests in London. The Vestries had been very little representative, generally speaking, although, perhaps, not in form. Well, now it was necessary for them to turn the mind of London upon its own Local Government and upon the question of what was to be its own Local Government. That, he thought, would be admitted on all sides of the House. They wanted to induce the intelligent local people of London to consider the question, and could they, he asked, do that in a more powerful and efficient way than by saying that the men they were to elect at the next election were to be the persons who were going very largely to have a say in the decision of that question. They would then have good preparations made for these elections, they would have great activity amongst the electors and the candidates in discussing the whole of these questions and the subject of London generally. He should regard that as a blessing to the whole of the Metropolis. He should regard it as a great advantage in the encouragement of local life in the Metropolis. No doubt there would be a great deal of discussion amongst the electors as to the merits of the reformers versus the non-reformers. The questions which would be raised, and upon which the elections would turn, would not necessarily be political questions. It would in all probability be upon municipal reforms that the question of London representation would be decided, and he should be glad to see the matter decided in that way rather than on general political considerations, such as the Irish Question, or some other question of that sort. By the system he advocated they would have a real burning set of questions placed before the electors of the Metropolis, which would call out the very habits of mind and call into being the very lines of thought that they would desire to come into being and to create and to have perpetuated amongst the London electors. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would say, in reply to that—"Oh, but this would be going away from the natural function of the Council in London—the function of the Council in London would be that of an administrative Body, and you would be introducing into its formation something of the character of a legislative
  1846
  Body." Well, he (Mr. Stuart) did not see any evil in that. The Council would not be called upon to legislate, but would be called upon to consider what the legislation should be. Now, did they not see that that would have an immensely good effect upon its administrative capacity? The Government of London was to be an administrative Body, administering the affairs of the Metropolis. It touched at every point—and that was a point he wished to make—upon the local work and local administration of the Metropolis. What could they get better for the purposes of that administration than a body of men who had been sent together as the result of a full canvass and a full consideration of the faults of the existing system of Local Government, and the improvements desirable in respect of existing Local Authorities into contact with whom they were continually coming. There was the danger that they might have a number of Central Councillors in London unacquainted with these local Bodies. It would be a great danger if that state of things existed, and it, therefore, was necessary to make these gentlemen acquainted with the local Bodies. In this direction nothing could be better than the indirect effect of the Amendment, if it were passed into law, and he wished to put in this word about the indirect effect of the Amendment, because the argument might be urged against it that it went beyond the sphere of the new County Council. He had not said much about the direct advantages of the clause, because the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee had dealt with that point; but he wanted to put one of those direct advantages before the Committee. Under this clause, they would have brought before the House, considered by other people than the Members of the House, and by others than the Executive Government, a scheme of London administration drawn upon a system of devolution. Surely, that House had a great deal on its hands; surely, the Ministers and the Cabinet had got a great deal upon their hands, and it would be a great advantage to them that they should get rid of the preparation of a Bill of such vast proportion as this would be. Surely, it would be an advantage to the Government to refer such a measure to a set of persons not selected by themselves, and

  1847
  consequently not open to any of the objections which he had pointed out in the beginning of his remarks, but in whom, ab initio, the people had confidence. There was a great deal in the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee, that if the Government brought in a Bill for dealing with the internal arrangements of the government of London which the County Council of the Metropolis opposed, great difficulty would be experienced in passing it through the House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have to get hold of members of the County Council and ask them what they thought of the scheme, and would have to attempt to get, as far as he could, the ear and good will of the Council, and he would have to do that by a difficult and laborious and unauthorized process, if he (Mr. Stuart) might so say, whereas by the adoption of the clause the right hon. Gentleman would get at the wishes and desires of the Council at once and directly. It would be seen that those who supported the clause urged its adoption on behalf of the Government, on behalf of the government of London, on behalf of the case of the House in the formation of a scheme of government for London, and that they urged it on this ground also that it would improve the administrative capacity of the Councils which were about to be created.
  MR. ISAACSsaid, that before proceeding to address to the Committee the few observations he intended to make, he ventured to say that the words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the effect that the Government did not feel obliged to introduce next Session a measure dealing with the rest of London government, would create a large amount of disappointment and surprise amongst the inhabitants of the Metropolis generally; because there could be no two opinions upon the point that the Bill now happily nearly through the Committee stage, and which no doubt would soon become law, could only be regarded as an instalment of the very large measure of London government which must soon follow. He ventured, following up the simile used by the hon. and learned Gentleman
  1848
  the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), in which the hon. and learned Gentleman likened the Bill to the carcass or skeleton of a building, to say that there could be no doubt whatever that the hand which should prepare and complete this building with all necessary fittings should be the master hand that prepared the Bill. The Bill that was to come could only be considered as a part of the whole, and having obtained that portion which was now submitted to the Committee, it was essential that the same authority should give them the remaining portion. He trusted that the Government would retain the work in its own hands, and he also trusted that the Government would reconsider this question, and would not allow the people of the Metropolis again to ask, "Why should London wait?" He (Mr. Isaacs) had to offer an objection to the clause now before the Committee, because, in the first place, its language was so very vague. It said the County Council of London should "as soon as may be." That might mean anything. It might be next Session, or it might be in the next century, and a question of that importance should not be so disposed of. He ventured to say that the duty of the London County Council, when it was brought together, would be, not to formulate future legislative measures, not to indulge in speculations as to what should be the future areas of the Governing Bodies in London, but to devote itself to the work which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had entrusted to it, that work being of the highest character and the greatest importance for the well-being of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. He submitted that the London public would view with suspicion the proposal to hand over this great work of legislation for the internal management of London to the London County Council. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) went upon the assumption that they would get upon the County Council of London experts who would know exactly the class of legislation which was required; but permit him (Mr. Isaacs) to say that it was quite open to doubt whether that class of persons would be returned upon the London County Council at all. He ventured to point out that it was quite within the

  1849
  range of possibility—aye, and even of probability, that those persons now connected with the Vestries and District Boards of London, and who, through those subsidiary Corporations, were returned to the Metropolitan Board of Works, would find themselves completely kept out of the London County Council; and he ventured to think that it would be a great gain to London to have new blood infused into its Central Governing Body. Therefore, the plea as to the London County Council being composed of experts fell to the ground altogether. The only Body that would have the least chance of carrying a Bill of this kind successfully was the Government of the day. It had been tried over and over again by individual Members of the House to put before Parliament a Bill dealing with London government, and those attempts had always been met with the objection that those who should take up a measure of such first-class magnitude was the Government of the day. He would submit to the hon. and learned Member for Dundee that all these considerations being taken into account, it would be better not to press the clause upon the Government. If it were pressed it would only meet with rejection, and would not serve the cause the hon. and learned Gentleman had at heart.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, they could easily underdstand the feeling the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down entertained with regard to Bills dealing with this subject being brought forward by private Members. They all knew that the hon. Member himself had tried his prentice hand upon that matter, and prepared a Bill upon the subject, and as that poor forlorn thing was now decently put away, it was only natural that the hon. Member should come forward to drop a tear upon its grave the first time he had an opportunity. He (Mr. J. Rowlands) trusted the Government would give the London Council the power which the clause proposed to confer. He believed that they were now creating for London such a Body as had never existed in the Metropolis before, and that they would get men of eminence and of great capacity to put themselves up as candidates for that Body. He, and those who thought with him, had every hope that they would get practical men on the
  1850
  Council, who would be perfectly able to draft a scheme like the one proposed in the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee. There were a number of very important local issues to be dealt with in the scheme for the district government of London, and one of these, he ventured to think, was the question of boundaries. At present, the boundaries of the various areas in London seemed as though they had been laid down with a view to effecting the greatest amount of complication which could possibly be brought about. It must not be thought that the new Local Authorities would be free from the difficulties connected with this boundary question, and his belief was that when the elections took place in the divisions when the boundaries were decided, they would have an entirely new body of men constituting the governing authority, men not having previously sat upon the Vestries, and whom he should be pleased to say had never offered themselves as candidates for seats on the Metropolitan Board of Works, having looked upon that Body with that contempt with which every lover of municipal life had always regarded it. But these gentlemen, although they might not have been upon the Vestries or on the Metropolitan Board of Works, would, no doubt, be gentlemen who had devoted time and attention to the study of the great question of London government, and these would be the very men who under the present clauses would have to draft the scheme under which the district government of London would be arranged. The opponents of the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause seemed to think that by passing it the House would be handing over its authority entirely to the County Council, but there was no such thing proposed in the clause. Those hon. Gentlemen knew perfectly well that the Bill, when it had been drafted, would have to be brought up to the House. It would virtually be under the control of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, but there would be this great advantage, that the whole of its details would have been threshed out entirely in the locality affected, and instead of their coming to that deadlock which was sure to take place when any Government scheme was proposed in the House with regard to district

  1851
  government in London, they would have the whole thing threshed out and carefully considered outside the House by the persons most interested. That seemed to him (Mr. J. Rowlands) to be an advantage which would be very beneficial to the House and the districts involved. It might be feared that when they had 118 Members on the London County Council, the Body might not be of that Conservative character which distinguished the present Parliamentary representation of the Metropolis, but he hoped that that consideration would not prevent the Government from giving the proposed County Council the power now claimed for it, because they must remember that whatever power was now given, it would be open to them to alter it. He had seen the scheme of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) and that of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Isaacs), and also that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in the year 1884. Personally, he believed that they should make the districts much more important than were the Vestries at the present time. He was quite sure that the moment they had the County Council in existence and at work, it would soon solve for itself its relations with the District Body. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept this new clause.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government had already undertaken some very heavy obligations. Among other things they had undertaken to introduce a Bill dealing with the District Councils, and he was bound to say that after the numerous pledges which they had given, it would not be wise on the part of the Government to give an undertaking of this kind. There was not a pledge which the Government had given with reference to next Session that had not been made with the view of its being kept; and, therefore, they would rather leave the matter as it was, admitting that they felt that their scheme for the government of London was incomplete, without pledging themselves to deal with it next Session, nor did they believe that it would facilitate matters if they were to accept this Amendment. If the County Council for London had no greater powers than there were given by the Bill, they would have sufficient to occupy the whole of
  1852
  their attention for the first year or two, and even if this clause were accepted before the County Council could frame such a proposal as they could put before Parliament, Her Majesty's Government hoped they would be able to bring in and pass a scheme. He did not say that in dealing with this matter they might not place a great deal in the hands of the London County Council, but it would not be prudent to load that Body with duties that might overshadow other duties which they had to perform—which might render them more willing to deal with the former than with matters of a more simple character which he thought ought to be taken in hand at once. He quite recognized the importance of all that had been advanced by hon. Gentlemen who had spoken from the other side of the House upon this question; and while he should have been glad if they had been able to place this duty upon the County Council they did not feel it just to that Body, nor did they think it right, to admit into the Bill the clause of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, there was so much in the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman which he could not answer, that he was inclined to press upon his hon. and learned Friend the advice that he should not go to a Division upon this Amendment. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that a Bill for dealing with the Municipal government of London must be a measure introduced by the Government of the day. That was perfectly evident. He feared it was also evident that they could not reasonably expect the Government to invite the London County Council to submit a Bill to the House, and for that reason he did not see his way to support the clause precisely as it stood. But, on the other hand, he saw a great deal in the reasons with which his hon. and learned Friend had supported his clause and which he thought were not unworthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the Council of London would have so much work to do for the first two or three years that they would not have time to consider the question of internal re-arrangement. He could not say that he agreed with that view of the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he thought

  1853
  they would have time, with professional assistance, to consider this subject. Moreover, he had not the slightest doubt that they would consider it, and, further, he did not doubt that before they were elected the people of London would consider the question and expect the County Council to deal with it. The natural and easy course of action appeared to him to be that the subject should be undertaken by the Government, if they could do so, although, he did not believe that they could do it next Session. The right hon. Gentleman stated to the Committee some of the obligations which the Government were under, and the Committee would be aware that there were other questions which might become equally pressing. Therefore, he thought that they should be contented with an assurance that this question should be taken into their consideration without the Government being pledged to deal with it in the next Session of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman would assure his hon. and learned Friend that it was the intention and desire of the Government to consult the County Council of London, and invite their assistance and suggestions without committing himself or the Government to their conclusions, he thought that would be a considerable satisfaction to his hon. and learned Friend, he would not say a complete one, but one which he thought his hon. and learned Friend might accept. As far as he was concerned, he thought that was as much as the right hon. Gentleman could be expected to say; and he trusted this assurance would be given, because he thought it advisable that in a future Session the Government of the day should give its attention to the subject of internal re-arrangement.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the County Councils required no instructions whatever from that House to enable them to consider this question. If it fell to his good or bad fortune to introduce a scheme for completing the reform of London government, he should certainly feel bound to regard the representations which might be made to the Government by so large and important a Body as the County Council of London. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would wish him to go further than to say that when once this
  1854
  Body was set up it would be impossible not to give full consideration to the representations which they might make.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie), responding to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld), to say that the Government, if in power, would give the utmost attention to the representations of the London Council. That was only one stage short of the proposition contained in his Amendment. He understood that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board remained in his present position, and the County Council having considered this question, should make a representation upon it, then the Government would take that representation into consideration and frame a Bill upon it. That being so, he would ask leave to withdraw the clause he had proposed.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he had promised the Committee that when he came to the next clause standing in his name he would, without discussing it at length, formally move it. He had taken the terms of this clause from the Bill that was brought forward in 1884, and he moved it in accordence with an undertaking given to the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge). With respect to hackney carriages, the clause showed the form in which that question must be put before the House—that was to say, there must be an elaborate adjustment with regard to the whole district; but, as he had said, he would not go further into the question, because he wanted to see the Bill through Committee. The last paragraph of the clause provided that a Bill submitted to Parliament by the County Council, if submitted in pursuance with this section, or if it amended the Act, might be introduced as a Public Bill. That was the way in which the Council would introduce the Bill; but if while any such Bill was pending in either House of Parliament a petition were presented against it, it might be referred to a Select Committee, and the petitioner should be allowed to appear as in the case of Private Bills; and the Bill, if passed should be deemed to be a public general Act. He thought all the Bills passed by the London Council would be Public Acts.
  New Clause,—
  (Bills for transference of hackney and stage should not be pressed. carriages, and powers to supply water and light.)
  "The county council of London shall, as soon as may be, submit to Parliament Bills for the following purposes:—

  (a.) For transferring the powers of a Secretary of State for the regulation of hackney and stage carriages to the county of London, so far as regards the area of the county of London and to the local authorities of places in the Metropolitan police district which are outside London so far as regards those places; and

  (b.) For the purchase or regulation of the undertakings at present supplying respectively water and gas to any part of London, or any of them, or for the provisions of a new supply of water, gas, or light to London or any part thereof;

  A Bill submitted to Parliament by the common council, if it is submitted in pursuance of this section, or if it amends this Act, may be introduced as a Public Bill, but if while any such Bill is pending in either House of Parliament a petition is presented against such Bill it may be referred to a Select Committee, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of Private Bills; such Bill when passed shall be deemed to be a public general Act,"—(Mr. Firth,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) would inform the Committee that he did not intend to hold the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Firth) to any friendly arrangement that might have been entered into between them with regard to the clause. He (Mr. Ritchie) would point out that it was proposed that the County Council of London were to bring in a Bill not only to deal with the County of London, but also the County of Middlesex, in regard to the matters referred to in the clause. That being so, he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman, at this stage of the Committee, would not be disinclined to withdraw the Amendment.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, at that stage of the discussion he thought it would be well perhaps, especially after the admission of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite of the pressure brought
  1856
  to bear, that this particular Amendment should not be pressed.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he had made no admission. The only pressure brought to bear was from the hon. Gentleman himself, that he should move the clause.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he would not pursue that matter, because he had only risen to express an earnest hope that his right hon. Friend would be able to see his way, between then and Report, to introduce some clause that would deal with the registration and inspection of hackney and stage carriages in the County of London. It was a point upon which those who were concerned felt very strongly—and they were a very large, honest and intelligent section of the community. The subject claimed full discussion and the attention which he trusted might be given to it.
  MR. JAMES STUART, said, he and his hon. Friends would certainly divide on this clause. It would be remembered that, in the discussion on the question of gas and water supply, his hon. Friends had stated that if that Amendment were carried they would be willing to withdraw this clause. They had now come to the question of the taking over of these powers as to gas and water by the County Council, than which there was nothing of greater importance in connection with Metropolitan management. The question was one on which all people in the Metropolis, whether Liberal or Tory, felt very strongly, and, without any desire to waste the time of the Committee, they should take a Division upon it.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he was sorry to hear his hon. Friend state that he intended to go to a Division on this question, because he was quite certain that a Division would be very much misunderstood on this clause, which raised three distinct questions which had no connection one with the other. He could understand a Division being taken on Subsection (b), which related to the purchase and regulation of the undertakings for the supply of gas and water to the Metropolis; but he could not support a clause enacting that a Bill should be submitted to Parliament by the County Council for the purpose of transferring to the Council the powers of the Secretary of

  1857
  State with regard to hackney carriages. No one could bring in a Public Bill except a Member of the House, and were they to pass an Act that some person unknown should bring in a Bill for a specific purpose? That must be done according to the Forms of the House, and by a Member of the House. On the other hand, in the case of a Private Bill, what was there in the County Council of London to exclude it from the Rules which other Municipal Bodies had to submit to? No Private Bill could come to that House without submitting to the Rules which Parliament had laid down with respect to Private Business. If his hon. and learned Friend would open the door to all kinds of legislation without conforming to the Rules laid down through a long series of years he was introducing a most dangerous precedent, and not on the ground of objecting to give the County Council of London any power, but as a Member of Parliament desirous of preserving intact the Privileges, Rules, and Practice of Parliament, he could not consent to vote for the present Motion.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, it would no doubt be a serious matter to go to a Division without the support of his right hon. Friend; but if he expected him to take upon himself the burden of his exacerbating observations he might say that they did not apply. This clause had been settled by two of the most eminent draftsmen the country had ever produced, and adopted by one of the most able Home Secretaries and one of the ablest Presidents of the Local Government Board. He thought, however, that the Division should be taken on the simple question of giving the London Council control over the gas and water supply of the Metropolis.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 146: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 225.)
  On the Motion of Mr. JAMES STUART, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 37, after Clause 38, to insert—
  (Transfer of duties under 32 and 33 Vic. c. 67 of clerk of metropolitan asylum managers.)
  "All powers and duties of the clerk to the managers of the metropolitan asylums district under 'The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869,'
  1858
  shall be transferred to the clerk of the county council of London, and the said Act shall be construed as if the county council were substituted therein for the managers of the metropolitan asylums district."
  On the Motion of Mr. KNOWLES, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 38, after Clause 40, to insert—
  (Powers to amalgamate two combined boroughs.)
  "Where the Local Government Board make a Provisional Order for uniting two county boroughs, such order may make them one borough and one county for the purposes of this Act.
  Such Order may also contain such provisions as may seem necessary or proper for regulating the division of the combined borough into wards, the number of councillors to be elected for each ward, and the first election of the council of the combined borough, and for providing for the clerks of the peace, coroners, town clerks, and officers of the boroughs, and the application to them of the provisions of this Act as to existing officers, and for providing for all matters incidental to or consequential on the union of the boroughs.
  When any such Provisional Order is confirmed, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to grant a commission of the peace and court of quarter sessions to the combined borough in like manner as to any other borough under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' and the Provisional Order may contain such provisions as appear necessary and proper for regulating all matters incidental to such grant, and to the changes caused by the union of the borough in matters connected with such commission or court, or otherwise with the administration of justice."
  On the Motion of Mr. BOLITHO, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 38, after Clause 40, to insert—
  (Power to make Provisional Order for Scilly Islands.)
  "It shall be lawful for the Local Government Board to make a Provisional Order for regulating the application of this Act to the Scilly Islands, and for providing for the exercise and performance in those islands of the powers and duties both of county councils and also of authorities under the Acts relating to highways and 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and the Acts amending the same, and for the application to the islands of any other Act touching local government, and any such Order may provide for the establishment of councils and other local authorities separate from those in the county of Cornwall, and for the contribution by the Scilly Islands to the county council of Cornwall in respect of costs incurred by the county council for matters specified in the said Order as benefiting the Scilly Islands, and such Order may also provide for all matters which appear to the Local Government Board necessary or proper for carrying the Order into full effect.
  Any such Order shall not be in force until it is confirmed by Parliament."
  On the Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 52, after Clause 61, to insert—
  (General provision as to alteration of boundaries.)
  "In every alteration of boundaries effected under the authority of this Act, care shall be taken that, so far as practicable, the boundaries of an area of local government shall not intersect the boundaries of any other area of local government."
  On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 53, after Clause 63, to insert—
  (Power to purchase lands.)
  "A county council may, from time to time, for the purpose of any of their powers and duties, purchase or take on lease, or exchange any lands or any easements or rights over or in land, whether situate within or without the county, and may acquire, hire, erect, and furnish such halls, buildings, and offices, as they may from time to time require, whether within or without their county.
  For the purpose of the purchase, taking on lease, or exchange of such lands, Sections 176, 177, and 178 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted, and in terms made applicable to the county council.
  Where the county council, with the consent of the Local Government Board, sell any land, the proceeds of such sale shall be applied in such manner as the said Board sanction towards the discharge of any loan of the council, otherwise for any purpose for which capital maybe applied by the council."
  On the Motion of Sir ALGERNON BORTHWICK, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 65, after Clause 76, to insert—
  (Residential qualification of county electors in administrative county of London.)
  "A person who is entitled to be enrolled as a county elector in respect of any qualification in the administrative county of London, in all respects except that of residence, and is resident beyond seven miles but within fifteen miles of the county, shall be entitled to be registered as a county elector."
  On the Motion of Mr. FIRTH, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 74, after Clause 87, to insert—
  (Adaptation of Act to Metropolis.)
  "In the county of London the following provisions shall have effect:—

  (a.) The county council may from time to time appoint any fit person to be deputy chairman, and to hold office during the term of office of the chairman, and may
  1860
  pay to such deputy chairman such remuneration as the county council may from time to time think fit;

  (b.) Subject to any rules from time to time made by the county council, anything authorized or required to be done by, to, or before the chairman, may be done by, to, or before such deputy chairman;

  (c.) Section one hundred and ninety-one of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall apply to the Metropolis in like manner as if the Commissioners of Sewers in the city of London, and every vestry of a parish in Schedule A, and district board of a district in Schedule B to 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,' were a local authority within the meaning of that section, and as if any medical officer hereafter appointed by such commissioners, vestry, or district board were appointed under the said Act, the provisions of this Act with respect to the payment by a county council of a portion of the salary of a medical officer, shall apply accordingly."

  On the Motion of Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 76, after Clause 88, to insert—
  (Special provisions as to adjustment in the Metropolis. 40 and 41 Vic. c. 99.)
  "In the adjustment of the property, debts, and liabilities between the county of Surrey and the county of London, the annual sum payable by the county of Surrey in respect of certain bridges in pursuance of 'The Metropolis Toll Bridges Act, 1877,' shall be deemed to be a liability which shall be taken into consideration upon such adjustment."
  On the Motion of Mr. DUGDALE, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—In page 89, after Clause 112, to insert—
  (Transitory provisions as to Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts.)
  "(1.) Every executive committee appointed by the quarter sessions under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, and holding office on the appointed day, shall continue to hold office until the expiration of one week after the county council shall have appointed a committee for the like purpose, and no longer.
  (2.) An executive committee appointed by the county council shall come into office at the expiration of the said week, and shall be deemed to be a continuance of the outgoing executive committee.
  (3.) Every sub-committee of an executive committee under the said Acts holding office on the appointed day shall continue in office until a sub-committee for the like purposes shall be appointed by the county council, or by the executive committee appointed by the county council.
  (4.) Every committee and sub-committee continued in office by virtue of this section shall, during such continuance, have all such

  1861
  powers as it would have had if this Act had not been passed."
  MR. RANKINmoved, after Clause 119, to insert the following New Clause:—
  (County asylum pensions to be fixed by the visitors.)
  "The committee of visitors of every county asylum at the passing of this Act shall decide what pensions the officers, attendants, and servants, and others holding office under them, would be entitled to under Act sixteenth and seventeenth years of Victoria, chapter ninety-seven, section fifty-seven, and twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth years of Victoria, chapter one hundred and eleven, section twelve, supposing the said officers, attendants, or servants were retiring from sickness, age, or infirmity on the appointed day.
  They shall also determine in each instance what increase of pension shall accrue for each further year of service beyond the appointed day: Provided, that the pension due at the appointed day, together with such annual increments, shall not exceed two-thirds of the salary and allowance of each officer at the time of his retirement Provided also, that no officer or servant shall be entitled to claim such pension on his retirement unless he be incapable of performing his duties from sickness, age, or infirmity, or unless he be not less than fifty years of age, and have been an officer or servant for not less than fifteen years.
  Any dispute arising under this clause shall be decided as provided by clause one hundred and nineteen in this Act,"
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, with regard to this clause, that he had to repeat what he had stated with reference to other clauses—namely, that the Government believed that the new County Councils would act as fairly and justly to their servants as the old authorities had done, and therefore that they could not accept it.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was anxious to know whether the rights of public servants in lunatic asylums were sufficiently safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill which had already been passed, because he had received applications from such public servants in Cornwall expressing a hope that they would not be unfairly treated? He had in his hand a letter from Bodmin, by which he understood that there were a considerable number of superannuated servants and others, in
  1862
  whose minds there was a doubt as to whether their interests with regard to pensions were safeguarded by Clause 118. His own opinion was that they were safeguarded; but as doubt had been raised in the matter, he thought it only right, in deference to the wishes of his correspondents in Cornwall, to ask for an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. If the assurance were satisfactory he should not go further; but otherwise he should feel bound to support, if it went to a Division, the clause which had been moved on the other side of the House.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he should be very unwilling that any injustice should be done to the officers in question, and if he thought there was any chance of that occurring in consequence of the Government proposal he would rectify the clause referred to. But he had no such idea; on the contrary, there was not the smallest reason to believe that the new authority would act less fairly to these officers than the former.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, what he particularly wanted to know was whether this particular class of public servants were included in the terms of Clause 118, although not specially mentioned?
  MR. RITCHIE: Certainly, Sir.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. THOMASmoved the following New Clause:—
  (Adaptation of Act to South Wales roads. 7 and 8 Vic. c. 91.)
  "After the appointed day, tolls shall cease to be taken on any road maintained and repaired by a county road board in South Wales, in pursuance of 'The South Wales Turnpike Trusts Act, 1844,' and the Acts amending the same, and after such day 'The Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878,' as amended by this Act, shall apply to every county in South Wales, and shall apply to every such road as above-mentioned, in like manner as if it were ceasing, within the meaning of the said Act, to be a turnpike road.
  On the appointed day, every county road board and district road board in each county shall cease to exist, and the property, debts, and liabilities of any such board shall be transferred to the county council, and that council shall be the successors of the county and district road board, and the provisions of this Act, with respect to the transfer of the property, debts, and liabilities of quarter sessions to county councils, and with respect to the officers and servants of quarter sessions, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and made applicable to the property, debts, lia-

  1863
  bilities, and officers of the said county and district road boards.
  For the following purposes (that is to say):—

  (a.) For giving effect to the said transfer of the property, debts, and liabilities, and for controlling the officers and servants transferred by this section to the county council, and otherwise winding up the affairs of the county and district road boards; and

  (b.) For the purpose of the declaration of any road to be a district road, of the appointment of the surveyor of a highway board, the alteration of a highway district, and other purposes relating to highway boards;

  the county council of every county shall have all the powers of a county road board in a county under 'The South Wales Turnpike Trusts Act, 1844,' and the Acts amending the same, so however that nothing shall confer on the county council any power to levy any toll."—(Mr. A. Thomas.)
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Sir JOSEPH BAILEY, the following Amendments to the proposed New Clause made:—In line 1, after the word "day," to insert the words "no county road rate shall be levied, and"; and in line 30, at end, to add the words "or county road rate."
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he had to press upon the Government a clause standing in his name, the object of which was to save the powers, rights, privileges, or immunities of Municipal Corporations so far as they were not directly affected by the provisions of the Bill. He wished the Committee to bear in mind that the provisions of the Bill, especially of Clause 125, were of an exceptionally stringent and sweeping character—exceptional, especially having regard to all precedent. He thought that his proposal was not only an eminently reasonable proposal, but that it was a necessary one in the interest of the large and important Corporations throughout the country. Although he was anxious that something like his clause should be inserted in the Bill, he was quite prepared not to press the question if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board held out any hope that between this time and the stage of Report he
  1864
  would be able to grant the reasonable claims of Municipal Authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman could not hold out any such hope, he was afraid he would have to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
  New Clause—
  (Saving for Charters, Local Acts, &c.)
  "Save as by this Act expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall alter or affect the powers, rights, privileges, or immunities of any municipal corporation, or the operation of any municipal charter, local Act of Parliament, or order confirmed by Parliament, which immediately before the passing of this Act was in force therein; but all such powers, rights, privileges, or immunities shall continue to exist and to be exercised and enjoyed, and every such charter, local Act of Parliament, and order confirmed by Parliament, shall continue in force, and shall have the like operation and effect as if this Act had not been passed,"—(Mr. Woodall,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he was afraid that it would not be possible to accept the clause of the hon. Gentleman. It was very much too wide in its scope, and would very much interfere with the provisions the Committee had already passed. There was not the slightest desire on the part of the Government to interfere with the rights and privileges of Municipal Corporations other than in the kindly way which had already been sanctioned by the Bill. He hoped it would be found that the interference was of an extremely trivial character. The hon. Gentleman complained of the great breadth of Clause 125. All that Clause 125 did was simply to repeal the enactments which were inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill the Committee had passed. He was advised by those who were most familiar with the drafting of the Bill that there was a fundamental objection to the acceptance of this clause, and that, if they accepted it, it might very seriously interfere with the provisions already agreed to. For instance, he was told that it would prevent the issue of a Provisional Order for setting up a county borough, or for extending the area of a borough, and many other things of a kindred nature. They had already passed a clause which set forth that they

  1865
  might create a county borough, when certain conditions were complied with, and that they might extend areas. He was informed on very high authority that neither of these things could be done if the clause were accepted.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he had conferred with the much respected authority to whom the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and he knew how strongly his feeling was on the subject; but the Committee must feel that it would be quite possible between this time and the stage of Report to meet by express provision the particular point of difficulty mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman knew how anxious he (Mr. Woodall) had been, charged as he was with the Amendments of the Municipal Associations, to preserve all the rights and privileges of Municipal Corporations. From his position he thought he could lay claim to speak with some authority upon the subject. He asserted that there was a very large amount of earnest feeling upon the matter. There was a very grave apprehension in the minds of people, who knew very well what they were talking about, that if the measure were passed in its present form there would be constant, expensive, and dubious litigation, which it was desirable that they should avoid, if possible. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give still further attention to the subject in the interval between now and the reconsideration of the Bill on Report, he would be only too happy to leave the matter in his hands.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he recognized fully the claims the hon. Gentleman had to their consideration, Having been placed in charge of the interests of a large number of municipal boroughs throughout the Kingdom, the hon. Gentleman had exercised the responsibility devolving upon him in a manner which he had thought most consistent with endeavouring to press the measure forward. He felt greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the services he had rendered to the Government. The hon. Gentleman had jealously guarded the interests of Municipal Corporations; but, at the same time, he had been anxious to put no impediment in the way of the Government. He
  1866
  (Mr. Ritchie) willingly undertook the responsibility the hon. Gentleman desired him to undertake, and he would say at once that he would consider carefully and most anxiously with the hon. Gentleman, and other Gentlemen who were advising him, between now and Report, whether any words could be introduced to meet the hon. Gentleman's views.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. MACLURE, the following New Clauses were added to the Bill:—
  (Saving for Manchester Assize Courts Act, 1858. 21 Vic. c. 24.)
  "(1.) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the courts of assize at Manchester, with the lodgings for Her Majesty's judges, offices, lockups, and all other property vested in the justices of the peace of the county palatine of Lancaster by 'The Manchester Assize Courts Act, 1858,' shall be vested in the county council of the said county palatine, and shall be under the control and management of a joint committee of members of the said county council, and of the council of every borough locally situate in the hundred of Salford, which is constituted a county of itself; and that the joint committee shall have and exercise all such powers and rights (except the power of levying, imposing, or assessing a rate, or of borrowing money) as are conferred on the said justices by the said Act; and the hundred of Salford (including every borough locally situate therein) shall continue liable to contribute towards expenses incurred under the authority of the said Act.
  (2.) It shall be the duty of the county council of the said county palatine, and of the council of every such borough as aforesaid, to contribute such sums as may be from time to time required by precept of the said joint committee; and the county council of the said county palatine shall from time to time levy their contribution as special county expenses on the said hundred, exclusive of every such borough as aforesaid.
  (3.) The number of members of a joint committee appointed for the purposes of this section shall not exceed twelve, and the quorum requisite for the transaction of business shall be three."
  (Saving for salaried chairman of quarter sessions in Lancashire.)
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of any local Act of Parliament for the appointment and payment of a salaried chairman of any general or quarter sessions of the peace held in the county palatine of Lancaster, or alter the position or salary of any chairman so appointed: Provided that the salary of any such chairman shall from time to time be paid out of the county fund of the said county by the county council, and shall be raised as special county expenses in the hundreds by law liable to be raised towards payment thereof: Provided further, that where any borough, the

  1867
  area of which was immediately before the passing of this Act rated towards such payment, has been by this Act constituted a county of itself, the council of the borough shall, in lieu of the area of the borough being rated as aforesaid, pay to the county council out of the borough fund or rate such sum as would or might, but for the passing of this Act, have been raised within the area of such borough by the county council towards such payment as aforesaid."
  COLONEL EYREmoved the following New Clause:—
  (Council may purchase existing bridges.)
  "The county council shall have power to purchase existing bridges not being at present county bridges."
  New Clause (Council may purchase existing bridges,)—(Colonel Eyre,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to explain the effect of the clause.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that the County Council was only given charge of the main roads. There were some bridges on main roads which were not county bridges, therefore they took power to purchase those bridges.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that that was satisfactory so far as it went. He, however, did not think that the clause was as good as his own which stood lower down on the Paper. There was no doubt that the words "purchase existing bridges not being at present county bridges" were pretty general, and he felt inclined to believe they might include toll bridges.
  MR. RITCHIE: No.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that his clause, which would come on next, included the freeing from tolls of private bridges. Did the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be possible to stretch the point in order to include that?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he imagined that it would be quite within the power of the County Council to purchase any bridge on a main road belonging to a private person or a body of persons.
  1868
  Of course, if the County Council did purchase such a bridge they would free it from toll.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had put down the following New Clause:—
  (Additional powers to county council.)
  "The county council shall also have powers to deal with the following matters, namely—

  (i.) The provision, enlargement, maintenance, management, and visitation of and other dealing with the county prisons;

  (ii.) The purchase or otherwise freeing from tolls of any private bridges or toll bridges;

  (iii.) The appointment, removal, and determination of salary of a public registration officer whose duty it shall be to prepare, keep, and revise the register of parliamentary, municipal, and county voters;

  (iv.) The protection against encroachments or interference by private individuals of public rights of way, footpaths, commons, and roadside wastes;

  (v.) The acquisition by private treaty, or by compulsory purchase, of any land required by public buildings or schools, or recreation grounds, or labourers' dwellings, or burial grounds;

  (vi.) The acquisition by compulsory purchase of, at their then market value, or the imposition of a fallow tax at a rate not exceeding one pound per acre, upon the uncultivated lands of any landowner which being capable of cultivation for more than one year immediately preceding the thirty-first day of March in each and every year, has been left uncultivated and uncropped;

  (vii.) The purchase or otherwise freeing from tolls of any markets, the tolls rents or profits from which at present belong to private persons, and the making of bye-laws for the regulation and control of all markets thus purchased or acquired: Provided that, in the case of markets belonging to any borough or municipality, the corporation or town council of such borough or municipality shall have the power of making such bye-laws."

  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would say whether be would like him to move the sub-sections separately or en bloc. Perhaps it would save difficulty if the right hon. Gentleman would accept all the sub-sections.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Sub-section (1) appears to be out of Order; Sub-section (2) has been provided for by what we have just done; Sub-section (6) is out of Order. The others may be moved en bloc.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that he would proceed, therefore, with Sub-section (3). That sub-section dealt with the proposal to appoint a public registration officer in order to facilitate matters in connection with the registration law. He would not trouble the right hon. Gentleman with any remarks; he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause.
  New Clause—
  (Additional powers to county council.)
  The county council shall also have powers to deal with the following matters, namely:—
  (iii.) The appointment, removal, and determination of salary of a public registration officer whose duty it shall be to prepare, keep, and revise the register of parliamentary, municipal, and county voters;
  (iv.) The protection against encroachments or interference by private individuals of public rights of way, footpaths, commons, and roadside wastes;
  (v.) The acquisition by private treaty, or by compulsory purchase, of any lands required for public buildings or schools, or recreation grounds, or labourers' dwellings, or burial grounds;
  (vii.) The purchase or otherwise freeing from tolls of any markets, the tolls rents or profits from which at present belong to private persons, and the making of bye-laws for the regulation and control of all markets thus purchased or acquired: Provided that, in the case of markets belonging to any borough or municipality, the corporation or town council of such borough or municipality shall have the power of making such bye-laws,"—(Mr. Conybeare,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the hon. Member intended to move the sub-sections en bloc. It would be much more satisfactory to him if the hon. Gentleman were to do so. The hon. Gentleman asked him at the outset whether or not there were any of the sub-sections he could accept, and rather suggested that he should name those he would accept. He hoped that meant that the hon. Gentleman would not push any of the sub-sections which he (Mr. Ritchie) could not accept, because he was afraid he could not accept any of them.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he thought it would be apparent to everybody that he was precluded from carrying out his original intention to move the sub-
  1870
  sections en bloc, because some of them were ruled out of Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I decided, also, that those that were left could be moved en bloc.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that Subsections (4) and (5), dealing with questions of encroachment or interference by private individuals with public rights of way, foot-paths, and so on, were very important. He knew a great many hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House felt very strongly that there ought to be powers conferred on the County Councils to deal with this matter. He would make a fair offer to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had thrown overboard his proposal as to District Councils. He thought that the duty of dealing with such matters as rights of way would be properly entrusted to District Councils; but he would not press this clause if the right hon. Gentleman would give him some sort of promise that he would look with favour on some such clause as this if he was in Office next year, and had an opportunity of bringing before the notice of the House his scheme for District Councils.
  MR. PICTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman could not make an exception in favour of Sub-section (7), which dealt with market tolls? There was a Royal Commission sitting on Market Rights. Unfortunately their Report had not as yet been issued; but it was well known to everybody that trade was hindered and very much inconvenienced by the numerous annoying tolls and other inflictions which he should think a Local Authority like the County Council might very well deal with. Sub-section (7) of the clause was well worth the right hon. Gentleman's attention.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Gentleman knew quite well he entirely agreed that there was at least grave ground for suspicion that many markets were not managed in the public interest, and that many of the restrictions tended rather to hamper than to promote trade. The hon. Gentleman would remember that he, on behalf of the Government, at once accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), made more than a year ago, for the appointment of a Royal Commission. The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Royal Commission,

  1871
  and he would see that it would hardly be right to make any alteration in the existing law until that Royal Commission made its Report. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would allow the matter, which was being most thoroughly investigated, to stand over until the Royal Commission reported.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he thought that Sub-section (3) was a very valuable one. It was perfectly monstrous that Parliamentary candidates and others should have to spend large sums of money in seeing that the people whose duty it was to prepare voting lists did their work properly. The work of registration was so disgracefully done in many places that it was necessary for many Members of Parliament to incur considerable expense in seeing that the work was done. He did not think the work would ever be properly done until they had some officer in each county whose duty it should be to look after registration.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the point raised by the 3rd sub-section was one well worthy of consideration. Indeed, they were all agreed that an amendment of the law was desirable in many respects. But that amendment could not be carried out in a summary manner by means of a small clause of this kind.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the question of registration was one of considerable complexity. It required a very great deal of care in dealing with it. It would be possible, however, to introduce a Bill dealing with the matter on the lines proposed. But certainly this sub-section would have no practical effect.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw?
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that he did not withdraw the clause, as there were other sub-sections besides Sub-section (3). Personally, he thought it was a very reasonable proposal that they should have one responsible officer to look after these matters. As he found he was supported by a good many Members, he could not do less than take the sense of the House upon the sub-sections en bloc.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 204: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 226.)
  On the Motion of Mr. WHITMORE, the following New Clause was added to the Bill:—
  as to slaughter-houses in the metropolis.)
  "On and after the appointed day, the powers, duties, and liabilities of justices out of session in the Metropolis, in relation to the licensing of slaughter-houses for the purpose of the slaughtering of cattle for butchers' meat, and of cow-houses and places for the keeping of cows, shall be transferred to the county council of London."
  Amendment proposed, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Certain boroughs may apply to county council for orders declaring roads within such borough to be "main roads," with right of appeal, in case of refusal, to Local Government Board.)
  "The council of any borough (not being a quarter sessions borough and not being a borough included in the Fourth Schedule to this Act) may, at any time after the appointed day, apply to the county council for an order declaring any road mentioned in the application and situate within their borough to be a main road.
  The said county council shall forthwith consider such application, and shall either make or refuse to make such order.
  In case the county council shall refuse to make such an order the council of the borough may appeal to the Local Government Board who may direct a local inquiry to be held into the matter of such application, and if the said Board shall be of opinion after such inquiry that the road mentioned in any such application ought to be declared to be a main road they may make an order accordingly.
  Upon any such order being made either by the county council or by the Local Government Board, the road by such order declared to be a main road shall thenceforward be a main road within the meaning of 'The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878.'"—(Sir John Simon.)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he strongly objected to the Local Government Board or any Government Board being set up as a Court of Appeal from the County Council on a matter of this kind. The County Council would be a representative Body elected by the county rate, payers themselves, and he thought they would be quite capable of dealing with questions of main roads. If they were to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, they would practically say they could not trust the County Council to do that which was fair and right.
  SIR JOHN SIMONsaid, he felt the force of the objection of the right hon.

  1873
  Gentleman, but reminded him that an appeal was given by various Public Bodies to the Local Government Board. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the clause he would not press it.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CONYBEARErose to move the following New Clause:—
  (Proceedings of county councils to be privileged.)
  "The proceedings at any meeting of the county council or any committee thereof shall be privileged. And no action for libel or slander shall lie against any member of the council for any words used by him at such meetings."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The clause of the hon. Gentleman is outside the scope of the Bill.
  MR. NORRISsaid, he hoped the Committee would admit that the clause he had to propose was most important and opportune. He certainly approved of the principle that in view of the new appointments they were about to make some provident fund should be instituted in order that pensions should not fall upon the ratepayers or upon the County Councils. They all knew, from the investigations which had taken place, and from the speeches made in that House of late years, of the great scandal and disgrace in regard to the matter of pensions. He believed that now was the time to make a fresh departure, and therefore he proposed this clause in order that some arrangement should be made in the direction of saving the County Councils and the ratepayers from the incubus of pensions. He was strengthened in the position he took up by the fact that a Bill had been introduced in the House by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple) which provided for a similar arrangement for the School Board to that which he proposed in respect to the County Councils. His proposition was further strengthened by the fact that the Select Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had reported that they were of opinion that all persons in the service of the Crown should hereafter contribute towards their pensions a percentage deducted from their salaries.
  New Clause (Pensions,)—(Mr. Norris,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, his hon. Friend asked the Committee to read a second time a clause which was not only not on the Paper, but which was directly contrary to the clause he originally put on the Paper. The hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to affirm the principle which had not been recognized, so far as he (Mr. Ritchie) knew, in any Act of legislation. He understood that a fund was to be created, to which the officers of the County Council were to contribute nothing.
  MR. NORRISsaid, his intention was that the officers should contribute to the fund, and that the Councils should not.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that that uncertainty only showed the inconvenience of asking the Committee to assent to a clause when they really did not know what the clause was. From what he had been able to gather of it, he was altogether opposed to the clause.
  MR. NORRISsaid, that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw the clause, and bring it up on Report.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 struck out.
  Schedules 2 and 3 severally agreed to.
  Schedules 4 and 5 struck out.
  New Schedule (County boroughs) agreed to.
  MR. HOBHOUSEproposed to add after "Gloucester," the words "and Somerset." The City of Bristol, although a county in itself for some purposes, was deemed for other purposes to be partly in the county of Gloucester and partly in the county of Somerset. A portion of Bristol, containing, according to the last Census, a population of no less than 38,000, was deemed to be in the county of Somerset. This Schedule related to the financial adjustment between the county boroughs and the counties. In the part of Bristol which was deemed to be in the county of Somerset, there arose no less than £3,117 per year from the Licence

  1875
  Duties. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of this Schedule, as it now stood, would be, in regard to Bristol, to give Gloucester alone the benefit of any financial adjustment which might be made between Bristol and the neighbouring county. Under Clause 30, Gloucester would have the benefit not only of the adjustment as regarded the part of Bristol which was deemed admittedly within Gloucester, but also the benefit of the part of Bristol which was in Somerset.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in New Schedule, after the word "Gloucester," to add the words "and Somerset."
  Question, "That the words proposed be there added," put, and agreed to.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, he desired to move to insert Lichfield in the list of county boroughs. The City of Lichfield was a county of itself; it held a Charter, and had existed as a county for 334 years. It had its own police, its own Quarter Sessions, and its own Petty Sessions. It sent up to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of its magistrates, and was exempted from the necessity of attending the county town of Stafford for those purposes for which attendance at county towns was usually required. The Governing Body of the City of Lichfield had already expended something like £29,000 on sewage works; and if the city were incorporated with the county on the County Council, it would be called upon to pay a portion of a debt of £75,000 for county purposes.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): No, no.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman contradict that statement; but, at any rate, the Local Governing Body at Lichfield believed that they would have to do this. They would have to pay their proportion for the prosecutions in the county of Stafford, and as the county was a thickly populated mining district those expenses were not small; and, in addition to this, they would have to contribute to the maintenance of the Clerk of the Peace and the Clerk to the Justices.
  1876
  He maintained that this ancient borough ought not to be deprived of her rights. The people were quite satisfied with affairs as they were and as they had been for 350 years. They had always conducted their own business satisfactorily. As to the question of police they had their own force at present, but were prepared to waive that if it should suit the desire of the Local Government Board. He complained that Her Majesty's Government had abandoned all principle with regard to this Bill, because, when they first came down to the House, they declared that no town should be scheduled that had less than 150,000 inhabitants. They afterwards came down to 50,000, and then pressure was put upon them by Members on the other side of the House to admit certain cities; and the following cities, having a population below 50,000, had been taken in—namely, Exeter, Lincoln, Chester, Gloucester, Worcester, and Canterbury. It was a curious fact that all those cities, with one exception, were represented by supporters of Her Majesty's Government. Fortunately, perhaps, in this respect, or unfortunately for itself, Lichfield was represented by a Radical. It had never been within the jurisdiction of the county in which it was situated, and he believed he might say that it was second to none in its antiquity and loyalty. Two hundred and fifty years ago it had suffered very severely on account of its loyalty, and he did think it extremely hard that it should be treated in this exceptional manner—that it should be the only city and county in itself that was not in the Schedule. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would get up and ask—"How about the population?" But the Government had thrown the principle of population to the winds, and although they recognized the principle of admitting Cathedral cities to the Schedule, when they were represented by Conservative Members, they ignored the principle entirely, except in one instance, when the city was represented by a Radical Member. Lichfield was to be relegated, it seemed, to the category of the smallest town affected by the Bill. He hoped he had said enough to induce the Government to respect the antiquity of Lichfield, and he moved that it be inserted in the Schedule.
  Amendment proposed in the new Schedule, after the word "Lincoln," to insert the word "Lichfield."
  Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was glad to find from the hon. Baronet's showing that the cities included in the Bill, with one exception, had shown such a just appreciation of the circumstances of the time by returning Conservative Members, and he could not refrain from expressing the hope that at some future time Lichfield would adopt the same meritorious course of conduct. In addition to this peculiar claim the hon. Baronet had advanced several other claims for including Lichfield in the Schedule, one of them being that Lichfield had its own Police Force. He should have expected the hon. Baronet to say that it had its own policemen.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: It has a force.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he should have thought that a city that returned the hon. Baronet would have returned so orderly a population that it would not have required even one policeman. The hon. Baronet said throw population to the winds, and rather be guided in this matter by the amount spent upon drains.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, what he said was that the Government had thrown the principle of population to the winds.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government had not quite thrown population to the winds. He had no doubt that the amount of money Lichfield had spent on drains and sewage had been spent wisely and well, and that the city would derive that ample benefit from it which it ought to derive from such expenditure; but the population was, he believed, under 10,000, and the city could, therefore, have no claim to be included in the Schedule. The Government did not desire to take away from the city the power of managing its own affairs. They did not incorporate it with the county of Stafford, and Lichfield would still enjoy its freedom, and he hoped it would long continue to enjoy it. Hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House had great respect for antiquity, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would bear in mind, when any attack was made upon any ancient institution,
  1878
  that he had advanced this argument of antiquity as a reason for showing consideration to a certain city. Lichfield would continue to enjoy its municipal government and freedom; but, consistently with the principle of the Bill, it was impossible to go farther.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. WATSONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not include Shrewsbury in the Schedule?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Schedule simply contained the names of those places described as of 50,000 inhabitants, or being counties in themselves. He understood that Shrewsbury had not 50,000 inhabitants, and was not a county in itself; therefore, it would not be in Order to move the insertion of that town.
  MR. A. E. PEASEsaid, he begged to move to leave out from the second column of the Schedule the words "West Riding" after "York," in order to insert "North Riding." He thought it must be from some oversight on the part of the Government that the City of York had been taken out of the North Riding and inserted in the West Riding, with which the City had no connection whatever. He thought the people both of the Riding and of the City themselves would wake up very much surprised to-morrow morning if they found that the North Riding had lost the City, and the City had lost the North Riding.
  Amendment proposed, in new Schedule, second column, after "York," leave out the words "West Riding," in order to insert "North Riding."—(Mr. A. E. Pease.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought there was a great deal in what the hon. Member said, but he was also told that the West Riding had a claim to the City as well as the North Riding. If the hon. Member would move to add the North Riding to the West Riding he would agree to it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The East Riding appears on page 45 as well. Whore is York?
  MR. A. E. PEASEsaid, he must press his Amendment to keep York within the boundary of the North Riding. The city had never been recognized as being within any other Riding.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member to allow the matter to stand over till the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  New Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I report this Bill, as amended, to the House.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that before the Chairman put the Question, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board how soon he would be able to give them a reprint of the Bill?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government would hurry forward the reprinting of the Bill as rapidly as they could. They would put down the Report stage of the measure for this day week, but would undertake that if the Bill was not reprinted within the next day or two, and distributed, and sufficient time had not elapsed between the reprinting of the Bill and next Thursday to enable hon. Members to read it, he would undertake not to take it on that day.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 338.]

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL.
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Baron Henry de Worms.)
SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL.

  [BILL 322.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, in order that it might be sent to the Standing Committee on Trade, said, that the measure was the outcome of a debate initiated by his hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck) early in the Session, when a very general desire was expressed for the constitution of local tribunals upon which the fishing interest would be represented, with powers to frame bye-laws for the regu-
  1880
  lation of the fisheries, and also for the prevention of trawling, if necessary, for the application of the Oyster Fisheries Acts, and also for preventing refuse being thrown into the sea, to the injury of the fisheries. The bye-laws would require the sanction of the Board of Trade. He hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a second time, so that it might be fully considered by the Standing Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. MUNDELLA, in supporting the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), said, he did so because the measure affected a very large class of hard-working and industrious men, and would carry out some of the recommendations of the Railway Commission on the subject. As the Standing Committee would not sit much longer, it was desirable that the Bill should be read a second time at once.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSONsaid, he saw that enormous powers were given by the Bill to the Board of Trade, to whom Parliament was delegating its authority. He did not object to its being sent to the Grand Committee on Trade; but he hoped the Committee would give it great consideration, and carefully scrutinize the powers he had referred to.
  MR. ROWNTREEsaid, he also supported the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and thought that it would be an act of great injustice if an attempt was not made to pass an Act that Session.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked, if the Bill applied to the whole country?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that, as the hon. Member was aware, the fisheries in Scotland and Ireland were under different authorities. This was only an English Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.

BANN DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 312.]
(Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
BANN DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 312.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  MR. CONYBEARE, in rising to move—
  "That, inasmuch as the proposed scheme of drainage is essentially local in character, and tends principally to the benefit of the landlords owning the land in the districts affected, this House is of opinion that all such works should be undertaken by and at the expense of an Irish local administration, properly representative of, and responsible to, the Irish nation, and declines to sanction the increase of the burdens already unduly pressing upon the taxpayers of Great Britain, in consequence of the policy of coercion in Ireland, by making further free grants of public money for any such purpose,"
  said, that, as it was not 12 o'clock, he could not object to the Bill being taken then, and he would not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to postpone it. The right hon. Gentleman the other night was rather hasty in his assumption that there would be no opposition to these Bills, and it was quite true that the Irish Members did not care to go the length of offering any substantial opposition to the schemes. He declared that his Motion of opposition was placed upon the Paper entirely on his own initiative, against the wishes of those who had pressed him on the subject, and was based upon what he considered to be a sound objection to the principles of the Government proposals. In the first place, the schemes were of an essentially local character, and intended for the benefit of the landlords, rather than of the tenants. It was said that these Bills were intended to promote goodwill towards the people of Ireland; and some ill-natured critics even went so far as to say that, in proposing the expenditure of such large sums of money, the Government were anxious to buy at such a price the goodwill of the Irish people, which they knew they could never obtain by the coercive policy which they were now enforcing towards them. From the statements that had been placed before the House, and from the facts perfectly well known, the Irish tenants would have to submit to an increase of taxation for these works, which would improve the value of the soil, for which the landlords would by-and-bye demand a large rent. In England, he thought, they had no right to mix themselves up
  1882
  with matters of purely Irish administration. He thought it was a monstrous and crying shame that they should be called upon to spend large sums of money out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and he objected to the principles embodied in the scheme.
  MR. LEArose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the Bill proposed to constitute a Commission for the purpose of carrying out the scheme of drainage proposed by the Government. That Commission was to be constituted of four Members of the Royal Commission of 1886, and included Sir James Allport. What did he know about Ireland?
  MR. MACARTNEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 106: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 227.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CONYBEARErose amid cries of "Order." He said: I rise to a point of Order. The Question should be the Amendment which I have moved. [Cries of "Hear, hear!" and "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! No Amendment was moved to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. [Cries of "Hear, hear!" and dissent.]
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to say I did move my Amendment. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: No Amendment was moved. Before the hon. Member could move his Amendment, he was intercepted by the Motion for closing the debate.
  Question again put.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR(speaking seated and with head covered): May I ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, if the second reading of the Bill is to be taken without a single Irish Member being allowed to say one

  1883
  word upon it? [Cheers from Opposition Members.]
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a question of Order.
  An hon. MEMBER: It is a question of Order and decency of debate. [Cries of "Order!" and interruption, amid which Irish Members from below the Gangway rose and left the House.]
  The House divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 64: Majority 125.—(Div. List, No. 228.)
  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  Objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION BILL.— [BILL 335.]
(Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir Robert Fowler, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Whitbread, Sir Henry James, Mr. Richard Power.)
BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION BILL.— [BILL 335.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I object.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: In consequence of the objection of the hon. Member for Camborne, I move that the Order for the second reading be read and discharged, and the Bill withdrawn. ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I object.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot object to that Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

MOTIONS.
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1882 (MORE MORTIFICATION.)

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he had to move an Address to the Crown—[Cries of "Objection!"]—which he believed he was entitled to do, although the hour was late, praying that consent might be withheld from the More Mortification Scheme framed under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1882. The object of the scheme was to re-arrange and re-administer certain endowments granted under the will of Mr. John More, in 1753, for the benefit of the poor in the parish of Morebattle, Roxburghshire. The endowment was left in a form very common in rural districts for the benefit of poor persons, partly educational, and partly for their maintenance or assistance; and under the Act of 1882 it was provided that a certain Commission, named in the Act, were to have the power of revising and re-arranging such endowments, making them more generally useful for those dwelling in the neighbourhood, always having special regard to those persons intended by the testator to be benefited. In this particular case, a sum of £1,500 was left by this gentleman, Mr. More, in 1753, in trust to the heritors of the parish in these words—
    "For the support and maintenance and education of really poor and indigent orphans, belonging to the parish of Morebattle, and none else for ever."
    This sum of £1,500 had increased as time went on, through accumulations of unexpended income, to something like £2,000, and the income had been devoted yearly by the heritors of the parish in accordance with the wishes of the testator. The average income was £64, and though this might appear but a small sum, it was of great advantage to the poor of a rural parish. Of this £64, some £35 were annually employed by the visitors for the maintenance of the poor and orphans, and £4 for educational purposes. It had been the practice of the heritors to give a small sum of about £2 as an allowance to poor

    1885
    children when about to make a start in the world, and when a couple of pounds were of great use in providing an outfit or tools to enable them to get their own living. In that way the money had been spent to the satisfaction of all parties, until recently the Endowment Commissioners intervened for the re-arrangement and redistribution of the fund. The main opposition to the plan of the Commissioners—he did not propose to attribute to them any evil motive, or desire to do anything but what was right in the matter; but, nevertheless, what they had done was to take away the money hitherto used, and intended to be used, for the benefit of the poor and orphans of the parish in maintenance and education, devoting a large part of it to the benefit of higher education, increasing the staff of monitors for the purpose of higher education, for the foundation of certain small scholarships to be competed for by the children of poor parents, and the establishment of small bursaries. The effect, no doubt, would be the improvement of higher education in the parish, an object admirable in itself; but this was done at the cost of the poor inhabitants for whom the bequest was intended not merely for education, but also for support and maintenance. Of the sum of £64, the Commissioners proposed to devote £10 to free scholarships to be competed for by the children of poor parents of the parish, and the amount of £35, hitherto devoted to maintenance, was to be reduced to £20. But that was not all. No child would get the benefit of the maintenance fund unless he was a scholar, unless he had been regular in attendance at school, and was a successful pupil, and had shown ability in competition with his schoolfellows. Well, that was not the object of the testator, and the object to which the fund had been long applied. The testator had shown no indication of a wish to benefit the clever boys; he wished to assist the poor widowed mother or orphans in the struggle for existence and education; but in their early years orphans would be absolutely debarred from receiving a penny benefit from a fund that before had given them considerable assistance. The action he was taking against the scheme of the Commissioners was that which had been urged upon him as most desirable in the interest of the
    1886
    parish, not merely by the heritors, the old trustees of the fund, but by the school board elected by the ratepayers. They had asked him to lay the facts before the House, and point out that this scheme was taking away money—no doubt for a good object—from certain poor beneficiaries whom the testator wished to benefit, taking away for a good object, but an object that should be supported by those who had that object at heart. It was contrary to the 15th section of the Act of 1882, which provided that, where a Founder had expressly provided for the benefit of poor children within a given area by education or otherwise, the endowment should continue to be so applied. In the matter of outfits, the heritors and the school board found that these small sums were of the greatest advantage to the recipients. In the memorandum prepared by the heritors and the school board, a copy of which had been submitted to every Scotch Member, they pointed out, first of all, that under the scheme of the Commissioners, orphans belonging to the parish of Morebattle, but not attending school therein, would be excluded from the benefits of the fund to which, under the terms of the bequest, they were entitled, and also that children under school age, who did not attend school, and, therefore, could not pass any examination, were entirely debarred. The heritors and the school board said they—
    "Were thoroughly alive to the desirability of, if possible, preventing the pauperizing of deserving families, but the exclusion of those two sections of the class favoured by the founder will encourage, and, indeed, if their circumstances are such as to entitle them to the benefits of the fund, necessitate their being pauperized, and will, besides, throw the burden of their maintenance on the parish of Morebattle, the particular area favoured by the testator."
    Then they directed particular attention to the loss to a section of very young children of the benefits of the fund—
    "Since the fund came into the hands of the heritors many families of orphans have been brought up by its means, and the heritors and school board feel very strongly that the withdrawal of the benefits of the endowment from children at that helpless stage of their existence is a very great hardship. Many unfortunate infants and widowed mothers will be deprived of much needed assistance, which it was clearly the intention of the founder that they should obtain from thisfund, and that at a time when such assistance is particularly necessary to them."

    1887
    The points he had urged upon the House, the school board, as the representative of the educational interests in the parish, had done all in their power to put before the Commissioners and the Scotch Education Department. Certain changes and modifications had been made in the scheme, but the Endowment Commissioners were so thoroughly bitten with the desire for higher education, that they persisted in taking away from the poor an endowment that had existed for 150 years, making use of it in a way that would no doubt benefit the clever boys among the class intended to be benefited, but which would be absolutely useless to nine out of ten whom Mr. More wished to benefit. This particular case was one of a class that was greatly interesting in Scotland just now, and this was one of four schemes now lying before the House to which Notices of objection had been given. On each of these cases substantially the same questions were raised, and he would leave it to the House to consider whether it was desirable to excite the feeling, among those who had very little means indeed, that it was possible for a great Commission, acting under the authority of Parliament, to come down upon them, and take away what they had hitherto considered their own property, to assist those quite able to pay for their own education.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the scheme for the management of the Endowments in the parish of Morebattle, in the county of Roxburgh, known as the More Mortification, approved by the Scottish Education Department, now lying upon the Table of the House."—(Mr. A. R. D. Elliot.)
    MR. CONWAYrose to move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. SPEAKER: I shall not put that Question, for I consider it would be an abuse of the Rules of the House. I will state the reason why I think so. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution is acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in an Act of Parliament. The limit of the time within which he could so act is getting very near, and it would be a very unfair thing, by means of moving the Adjournment, to deprive the hon. Member of the only means of raising the question.
    MR. BUCHANANseconded the Motion. This scheme was similar in character to several others which were before the House, and which he hoped would meet with opposition. The policy which originated the Act of 1882 met with considerable opposition from the minority in the House at that time, a policy which he believed would not receive the assent of Parliament at this time. It was only on occasions like this that the House had an opportunity of judging the effect of the carrying out of the policy of the Educational Endowments Act of 1882. His hon. Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot), in the concluding part of his remarks, had put the whole case in a nutshell. It was on a small scale an illustration of what had been carried on in England, and what in England and Scotland would be continued so long as the House gave its sanction to the diversion of funds left by a testator for the benefit of the poor, for the real poor, as this bequest described them, for purposes in which the "real poor," the very poor, could not fully reap the benefit. He did not object to any scheme by which the character of the education to be bestowed could be improved; but the House ought to insist that this class of the very poor, for whom the endowments were bequeathed, should continue to enjoy the full benefit of them under any scheme that obtained the sanction of the House.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, as one of the Commissioners entrusted with the carrying out of the Act of 1882, he wished to make a short statement, though the hour was late. As to the attacks upon the legislation of 1882, he did not feel it was his duty now to say anything, except that Parliament had deliberately passed an Act giving Commissioners certain powers for the rearrangement of educational endowments in Scotland, not to take away the privileges of the poor, but to re-arrange the endowments in such a way as that they should do as much good as possible and carry out as fully as possible the intentions of the Founders. If to any extent there had been an error in regard to invading the privileges of the poor, it must be the fault of the Commissioners—it was not the intention of Parliament that that should be done.

    1889
    But in this, as in other cases in which complaint had been made against the Commissioners, the complaint was not well-founded. In this case, it should be remembered, the benevolent founder did not leave his money to relieve the rates, but to do good to the children of poor parents by contributing towards their maintenance and education. It was an educational endowment with a charitable side. What the Commissioners had to consider was, how best to carry out that intention, having regard both to the conditions under which the bequest was made and the circumstances of the parish. His hon. Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) stated that the trustees—the heritors—who had charge of the fund had spent on an average £4 a-year on education; but it was to be observed that there was a balance of £17 10 s. a-year not spent at all, so that it would seem that, under the system upon which they worked, they did not find fit and proper recipients for the whole endowment. What was proposed by the scheme of the Commissioners was to devote £10 to free scholarships, £20 towards the clothing and maintenance of poor children.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: Poor scholars, not poor children.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, let it be poor scholars; and the remainder of the amount, £34, was to be used by the Governing Body towards having better education in the parish—that was to say, in improving the equipment of schools, increasing the staff beyond the actual requirements of the Scotch Code, not in relieving the education rate, but in making the schools better than the Education Code insisted upon. Only in the event of the school board not caring to use the money for improving the equipment of the schools,—only in that event were there to be bursaries, and these for poor scholars. As to the distinction between poor children and poor scholars, the Commissioners regarded this as an educational endowment, and, therefore, the benefit went to those only who were of school age. They considered that the testator left the fund at a time when there was no Poor Law; he had in view the benefit of poor orphans, and the Commissioners were carrying out his intentions more fully by devoting the endowments to the poor of school age, leaving the younger
    1890
    orphans to the support which they received under the provisions of the Poor Law. His hon. Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) did not bring forward among his objections that which had been urged in Morebattle, that the Governing Body proposed by the scheme was unsatisfactory. The Governing Body would consist of the school board, numbering five, with two persons elected by the heritors. It could not, therefore, be maintained that the present Governing Body would be practically excluded from the management. Why the management was not to be continued in the hands of the heritors alone, was simply because at the time Mr. More made his bequest, the heritors had charge of education, but now that duty devolved upon the school board. It was scarcely necessary to say more, but he complained of a statement circulated in a letter from a heritor, which described the scheme in a very misleading way. As the letter had been published in a newspaper, he might quote from it. The writer said—
    "The Commissioners have allotted only £20 for the clothing and maintenance of the more destitute free scholars, and devoted the remainder of the fund to the general education of the higher classes of the school of Morebattle."
    That suggested an idea that was scarcely reconcilable with the facts. It insinuated that poor children were not to have the benefit, whereas the benefit was exclusively confined to those who were in want of assistance towards their education. He hoped the House would not accept the Motion.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, he thought it desirable the House should realize on what it was going to vote. The Act of 1882 was passed for Scotland, and enabled certain Commissioners to deal with endowments of an educational character. Of these Commissioners, the hon. Member who had just spoken was one, and certainly no one would suspect him of revolutionary tendencies. These Commissioners recognized as sound the principle that a charitable fund should not be tied up beyond the period when it served a useful purpose, and when the circumstances changing required change in the arrangement, to prevent the fund being a scource of mischief instead of benefit. The present endowment was a case in point. It was given in days when education depended much more on the contributions of

    1891
    benevolent people than it did that day, and not unusually the endowment was not of a purely educational character, but might be summed up in the words education and maintenance. Here was an endowment, the bulk of which went for maintenance and very little for education. Now, it would, he thought, be the general feeling in the House that education was a better purpose for a charitable fund than maintenance, for that would not be infringing on that very valuable principle of Poor Law administration, so long worked with benefit. The question was, whether the diversion of this fund, devoting the main part to education, was within the terms of the Act. He had not always been able to agree with the schemes of the Commissioners, and sometimes on their rearrangement of funds, they had seemed to apply them in a way to benefit rather the middle class than the very poor, sometimes establishing secondary schools with fees, precluding the attendance of the poor, yet not large enough to make the institution self-supporting. But he saw nothing of the kind in this scheme. It was surely better to use the money for the purpose of providing a really excellent education than to fritter it away in a manner that could only tend to pauperize the people and could do no good. Having read the scheme and listened to the arguments urged against it, he was not satisfied that his hon. Friend was right on this occasion, and, therefore, he should vote against the Motion.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he wished to call attention to the object for which the Commission was established. Such a Commission could not possibly act without, to a certain extent, treading on the toes of a great many excellent people whom his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) represented that night. The object of the Commission was to bring in a new system to deal with a new set of circumstances, therefore it was quite in vain for his hon. Friend to refer to a state of things that existed at the time the testator lived and left the money, or the state of things he had in contemplation at that time. Nothing could be more plain than this—that unless the Commissioners were to intervene and deal with this and other
    1892
    cases, bringing them into harmony with the state of things now existing, Parliament would never have passed the Act of 1882. It was obvious if the Act of 1882 was to be administered as Parliament intended, there must be considerable changes in the management of every one of the funds which came within the purview of that Act, because it was for that purpose the Act was passed. As regarded the charitable part of the bequest left by Mr. More, it was perfectly evident to those who administered the fund at the present time that it was not desirable in the parish itself that the whole of the funds should be devoted to charitable purposes for the relief of poor persons. If they had been of that opinion the whole of the fund would have been distributed. But they preferred to allow the accumulation of certain funds, and those the scheme proposed to deal with. In the first place, complaint was made that the children who would receive the benefit would be those only above the educational age, five years. Now, it must be perfectly obvious that whatever might have been the state of things when the fund was bequeathed, there was not the necessity now to make provision for children under five years. That was already done by the law. It was, therefore, as plain as anything could be, that to give any part of this fund in the future for the support of children under the age at which they could receive education, was simply just to take so much off the rates of the parish. That certainly was not the intention of the testator. His object was to secure that children should receive sustenance when it was necessary, and education when they reached a proper age. Inasmuch as no necessity for providing sustenance any longer existed, it did seem reasonable, where it could be done, to divert the fund from the sustenance use to an educational use. The second point put forward in support of the Motion was that the heritors of the parish, who formerly were liable for the relief of persons in the parish, had not a sufficient share in the management. At the time when the fund was instituted, the heritors alone were responsible in the matter. Now the general body of the ratepayers were responsible, and the heritors themselves, unless they were men of a benevolent turn of mind, had no interest whatever in the administra-

    1893
    tion of the fund, except the selfish interest of keeping down the rates. He quite admitted that, in a case of that kind, it would be an entirely wrong thing to oust the heritors altogether from the management. He thought, however, that they themselves, when they came to consider the matter, would admit that in those two representatives of the board they had full and ample representation according to the present state of circumstances. He believed that the hon. Member who had moved the Motion would admit that no scheme that had ever been brought before the Commissioners had received a larger amount of care and attention on their part than this one. The Commissioners had shown nothing in the nature of a determination to carry their own scheme without modification. Objections were taken to the original draft of the scheme drawn up by the Commissioners. Several of these objections were met in the scheme submitted to the Department. The moment, however, the amended scheme was brought forward, the people in the parish, who, up to that moment, had been quiescent, came forward, with fresh objections, and the scheme had once more to be altered. When the altered scheme was again submitted, a new complaint arose, and, at the instance of the school board, the proposal respecting that board was restored. After the drawing up of the scheme in its present form, no formal objection was taken to it from any quarter whatever. It was, no doubt, a fact that his hon. Friend (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) made a representation to the Vice President of the Council by letter. That letter was communicated to the Commissioners, and received their most careful consideration; but as his hon. Friend could not obtain any further modification of the scheme, he presumably acquiesced in it. The scheme lay a long time before the Scotch Education Department, and was then approved by the Department. Having been approved by the Department, objection was now taken to it, and these extraordinary charges were made. It was not the case that the orphans under five years of age would be deprived of anything. It was the duty of the law now to give them all they could derive from the bequest. [An hon. MEMBER: Paupers.] An hon. Gentleman said they were paupers; but he (Mr. J. H. A. Mac-
    1894
    donald) presumed that the Commissioners were bound to be guided by the law of the land, and not merely by names. If pauperization was to be an answer to every argument raised on any such question as this, the Commissioners, of course, would have to proceed upon sentimental considerations, and not upon the law of the land, which they were bound alone to consider. What would be the effect of paying for the orphans under five years of age out of this fund? It would simply be that the sentimental people who objected to these children being made paupers, would themselves save the money they would have to pay out of their own pockets if the children went on to the rates. He submitted that that was not a sound or a reasonable proposition. As he had said, the whole scheme had been considered over and over again, and the objections to it had been met. He thought the House would recognize at once that the Commissioners who had to deal with endowments of the kind had an extremely difficult task to perform. It would be perfectly impossible for them to carry out their duties under the Act without meeting with some objections. He thought the real objection to the present scheme lay in this—that those who had to contribute out of their own means towards the support of those who had to be supported out of the rates, objected to having so to contribute. The arrangement of the fund under the scheme was undoubtedly one which was consistent with that which had been done with reference to all the larger trusts dealt with by the Commission. The Commission had had before it a very large number of trusts, the funds of many of which were much larger in amount than in the present case, and the principles on which they had acted had been practically the same in all cases. The Commission was about to close its labours, and, with one single exception—and that on a point of law—both the Scotch Education Department and the House of Commons, when the schemes had been brought before it, had supported the Commissioners in all their proposals. If the House accepted the Motion, the effect would be to decide that the fund should be dealt with in a totally different way from that which the House had approved in reference to other schemes.
    MR. A. L. BROWNsaid, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had made a point respecting the sentimental people who objected to the use of the word "pauper." He would point out, however, that although the community might do what was considered its duty to the poor, it could not do its duty to pauper children in workhouses. If the poorhouse governor were consulted he would state that the very last place to which to send a child was the poorhouse, and if a small sum of money could be collected for a poor child, it could be devoted to no better purpose than that of paying a woman 2s. 6d. a-week to give the child a home. That was exactly what the More Mortification did, and that was exactly what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had just been opposing. Time after time the Commissioners had proposed the most monstrous schemes, and time after time the House of Commons had passed them. It was not to be wondered at, under those circumstances, that people had given up making formal objections to the proposals of the Commissioners. As the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said, the Commissioners would soon close their labours; but it must not be supposed that their schemes would be left as they were. Everyone of those schemes would be opened up again. The originator of the present charity left £2,000 for the education and maintenance of poor orphans. Under the old scheme, these orphans were getting £30 a-year, and sometimes as much as £50. Under the new scheme, they would get £20 a-year or less. For his own part, he did not object to re-organization schemes. He had no very great regard for the wish of "the pious founder" of any scheme, and would cut and carve into his plans if they were found to be mischievous. But he wanted to see money that was left for the poor go to the poor. In the present scheme, the Commissioners were taking money from the poor and giving it, for the purpose of secondary education, to the rich. If the money were devoted to the poor of Morebattle, he would raise no objection, but he did object to money which was left for the poor being devoted to the rich.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, it was, no doubt, the case that the schemes drawn up by the Com-
    1896
    missioners had been approved by the House of Commons; but that would always be so, because the Scotch Education Department was represented by the Government, and whenever any scheme which had passed that Department came before the House of Commons, the whole weight of the Government was brought to bear in support of it. Although there might be a majority of the Scotch Liberal Members against the scheme, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate always had behind him a large number of English Members ready to go into the Lobby with him in order to vote down Scotch opinion. Under those circumstances, it was no credit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or the Government of the day, that these schemes received the approval of the House of Commons. No Scotchman would object to the funds of these charities being applied to the education of the poorer people. But the money was to be devoted to the purpose of providing secondary education in the parish school. They all knew that the richer class would largely, if not entirely, benefit from a scheme of that kind. The Lord Advocate said that the opponents of the scheme wished to relieve the rates. The educational system in Scotland, however, included secondary education. Prior to the passing of the Education Act, every parish school was so conducted that young men could go from it to the University. It was now the duty of every school board to provide secondary as well as elementary education, as was done under the old system. What did the present scheme provide? It proposed that £4 per head of the money was to be devoted to the purpose of providing secondary education, which it was already the duty of the parish to provide. An attempt was being made in Scotland to prop up the system of secondary education, and for the last five years the Commissioners had been taking all the endowments which had been left for the benefit of the poor, and applying them to the purpose of secondary education. And what had been the result? Two years ago it was stated from the Treasury Bench that secondary education was in an ascendancy in Scotland, but last year the Scotch Education Department had to confess that secondary education was going back in Scotland,

    1897
    and a Parliamentary Committee had reported to the same effect. The fact was, that by knocking down the system of poor schools in Scotland, the authorities had knocked down secondary education, and the same thing would happen in England if the private schools were destroyed.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Haldane) had based his argument on the statement that the action of the Endowed Schools Commissioners would be to benefit secondary education. It was, however, very doubtful indeed whether that would be the case in rural parishes In the towns plenty of people would avail themselves of any facilities that might be afforded for acquiring secondary education; but it was a different matter in outlying districts where the people were poor. In matters of that kind, if the intention of the founder was as clear as daylight, as in the present case, and was not contrary to law, there was no reason whatever why it should not be carried out. He appealed to his English Friends on that side of the House and to Members generally to join in overthrowing this scheme.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he wished to answer the appeal of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The principal object of the Act of 1882 was to provide for representation on the Governing Bodies of all these schemes, and to put an end to close Governing Bodies. The Act distinctly protected the rights of the poor, and declared that the foundations should be conducted in the interest of those for whom they were originally designed. Up to the present time £17 a-year had never been expended under the scheme at all. The Commissioners proposed to give £10 for free education, £20 for maintenance, and the balance for improving the education of the school or providing bursaries for poor children. Surely, the Commissioners could not have erred very much in making proposals of that kind. He believed the Commissioners had done their work admirably, on the whole, ever since they were appointed. He did not say they were infallible; but he did say they had had distinct regard to the interests of the class with which they dealt, and he thought the House would make a
    1898
    great mistake if it did not support a scheme prepared by a body of men who had done their work with great public spirit and at great personal sacrifice.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella), intervening at the last moment, had tried to divert the House from the real matter put forward by himself and most of the speakers who had supported him. He (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) had not said a single word against the proposed Governing Body; he was in favour of the representative element thereon, and the school board having representation there. His main argument was not affected by that. The issue was whether it was right or wrong in carrying out the policy of the Act of 1882 to divert the fund from the benefit of the orphan children who were not scholars, for the purpose of establishing higher education and petty bursaries. He maintained it was not a right thing to take away this property of the poor, and say if they want assistance let them go upon the rates. These people had an objection to go upon the rates, to live at the expense of others when the fund that belonged to them was appropriated to other purposes. The policy of the Act of 1882 was not what the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate said it was. That Act required that respect should be paid to the intention of the testator; that intention was expressed in definite language for the benefit of a certain poor class, and it was because in the proposed distribution of the fund this was not done that he moved his Motion. It was only one among Motions of a similar character, and it was important to decide the question by division.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) ought to receive the support of all the English Members on that side, because the system against which he contended was growing up in England as well as Scotland, a system of taking away endowments left for the benefit of the poor children and devoting them to the benefit, not of the poor, but of the well-to-do and middle-class schools.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 102: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 229.)

    FOREST OF DEAN TURNPIKE TRUST BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill for the abolition of the Forest of Dean Turnpike Trust. ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 337.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, it might be for the convenience of the House, if he stated that at the next Sitting it would be proposed to take the Colonial Vote as the first Order.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked was it intended to proceed with the Bann Drainage Bill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, it was his intention if there was no general wish to the contrary.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, then he gave Notice that upon the Order for further proceeding with the Bill, he would move, that inasmuch as the second reading had been taken without opportunity being given to any Irish Member to address the House thereon, the House declined to proceed further with the Bill.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the right hon. Gentleman when he proposed to proceed with the Barrow Drainage Bill, and would he put it down for a convenient time, that he (Mr. Conybeare) might have an opportunity of continuing and concluding his speech, which was directed against the principle of that group of Drainage Bills, without fear of interruption by the application of the closure—which he had no hesitation in saying was, under the circumstances, simply a public scandal? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The remark the hon. Member has just now made must be withdrawn. ["Oh, oh!"]
  After a pause,
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will withdraw that expression?
  MR. CONYBEARE: Mr. Speaker, the application of my remark—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have asked the hon. Member to withdraw that expression; does he do so?
  MR. CONYBEARE(in a low voice): I withdraw the remark.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then I Name Mr. Conybeare to the House.
  MR. BRUNNER: May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to say that I understood the hon. Member did withdraw the expression?
  MR. DILLWYN: I beg to say that I also heard the hon. Member say he would withdraw it.
  Several other Members rose, including Dr. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid).
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member for Mid Cork will observe common courtesy. It is quite sufficient if the hon. Member for Camborne says he did withdraw. I did not so understand him; but I accept his word most unreservedly.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I said, Sir, most distinctly, that I did withdraw.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then I accept at once the statement of the hon. Member.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, what Business would follow the Colonial Vote on the morrow?
  MR. JACKSON, in reply, said, Supply—Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to have the courtesy to reply to his question in reference to the Drainage Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would put it down for third Order.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that there should be some discussion without fear of the closure being applied, as it had been that night by instructions conveyed from the right hon. Gentleman to one of his followers?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he simply rose to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with respect to these Bills, to give opportunity for discussion. He had been informed that as regards the first Bill, at least a dozen Irish Members desired to address the House. If the Bill was taken only a few minutes before 12, it was impossible there could be a discussion.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that after the remark of the hon. Member for Camborne, he hoped he might be allowed to say that he moved the closure without any instigation or in-

  1901
  struction from the Government. He also desired to say that he was the only Member of the House representing a constituency that would be affected by the Bann Drainage Bill, and his constituents were extremely desirous that the Bill should be proceeded with with the least possible delay. If he had any idea that any hon. Member representing a constituency interested, or who was entitled to speak on the subject, desired to discuss the Bill, he certainly would have hesitated to take the course he did take. He was actuated by the desire to do justice to his constituents and those who had suffered from floods in the district.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid, as he had also been attacked, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words. He did not wish, in any way, to add heat to the discussion, and regretted that any should have been introduced. He was not aware that he had dropped a single word to give any hon. Member the idea that he desired to close the debate. He never suggested the closure, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Macartney) had said; but he might say that he had more than once appealed to hon. Members from Ireland, and explained to them that he was extremely desirous of passing those Bills, and he had received what he thought was authentic information from Gentlemen sitting in that quarter of the House, that they also were anxious that the Bills should pass; while receiving this intimation, he was also obliged to say that the present state of Business prevented a very long time being given to the discussion. At this period of the session delay would be fatal, and his proposal was to refer the Bills to a hybrid Committee, and, after they had been threshed out by that Committee, then hon. Gentlemen would have the opportunity of discussing the Bills in, possibly, an amended form, and of rejecting them if they thought fit. He thought, and he still believed, that he would be carrying out the wishes of hon. Members by proposing that course. It was impossible to put aside great measures of Imperial interest to discuss measures of this kind; but if hon. Members would agree to his suggestion, it was possible that these Bills, which they acknowledged would be for the benefit of Ireland, would be passed in the resent Session.
  MR. FLYNN, in answer to what had been said—that a large number of Irish Members were anxious to see the Bill carried through—said, there were many questions in relation to the Bann, the Barrow, and the Shannon, that Members desired to raise, but not to discuss at unreasonable length. The opportunity for that had been refused, and it was most unreasonable to closure the second reading debate, before any Irish Member had had the opportunity of expressing his view.
  MR. HUNTERprotested against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney), that he was most interested in the Bill as representing a constituency that would receive the money. That hon. Member claimed to have the greatest interest; but he Mr. Hunter) represented one of the constituencies that would be called upon to pay the money, and he claimed, on the part of Scotch Members as well as English Members, the right to discuss the question. He could not imagine a worse use of public money than that attempt to bribe the Irish people.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that he was under a complete illusion as to the views of Irish Members. There was not an Irish Member who did not feel the strongest resentment at the extraordinary and unprecedented course that had been taken that night. It was a most unpromising course in the interest of the Bill. He should persevere in opposition to the Bill, unless the Irish Members were placed in an equally good position for discussing the Bill as they should have had on the second reading.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, by the indulgence of the House, he might be allowed to say that he had neither the wish or the desire to prevent discussion, and Members were not deprived of that opportunity. He could not prevent discussion; he should only regret it, if it made passing the Bill impossible.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, English Members had equal reason to complain of the Bill being forced through a second reading. He was glad to have the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman had no share in bringing the debate to a premature close. It was impossible that the Government

  1903
  could have ascertained the general feeling in regard to the policy of these measures. The arguments the Chancellor of the Exchequer used on a former occasion against the expediency of committing the British taxpayer to this outlay in Ireland were still in force. The policy was dangerous and mischievous, and it was impossible that any such measure could go through without at least taxpayers having time to urge their grave objections.
  MR. BIGGARexpressed his personal opinion that, had the management of the Bills been conducted in a different manner, there would have
  1904
  been reasonable prospect of their passing. But the course taken had spoiled that chance. If the Government had not instigated the Motion of the hon. Member for South Antrim, they had played into his hands, and they had voted in favour of the closure. Probably the wiser course now would be to withdraw the Bills; for he was satisfied that, though the bribe was a large one, there was no chance of the Bills passing that Session.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Two o'clock.