COMMITTEE. [Progress 18th July.] [TWENTY-SECOND NIGHT.]

HC Deb 19 July 1888 vol 328 cc1784-879

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 PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)

said, 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 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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- 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 PLAYFAIR

said, 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. POWELL (Wigan)

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay)

asked, whether medical officers of small districts would be able to retain their appointments without being examined?

MR. RITCHIE

said, 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. RITCHIE

was afraid not.

MR. MALLOCK

said, he would put an Amendment on the Paper to that effect.

MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)

said, 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- 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. PICTON (Leicester)

said, 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 HUNTER (Hackney, Central)

said, 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 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 HUNTER

said, he did not quite understand whether the three years was to be antecedent to the passing of the Act?

MR. RITCHIE

said, 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 HUNTER

asked if medical officers in that position were to hold their appointments in perpetuity, and not be required to pass an examination at all?

MR. RITCHIE

said, 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 HUNTER

said, 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 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. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said, 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 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. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

wished 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, 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. POWELL

said, 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. CLARK (Caithness)

said, 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 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 PLAYFAIR

said, 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. TANNER (Cork, Co., Mid)

said, that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would adapt all the present medical officers of health to officers 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. STEPHENS

denied 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. TANNER

said, 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 ROBERTSON (Brighton)

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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- 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. TANNER

asked why the date 1892 was fixed; why should it not come into operation at once?

MR. MALLOCK

asked the right hon. Baronet the Member for South Leeds to give some information to the Com- 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 PLAYFAIR

said, 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. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, 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. FARQUHARSON

said, 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 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. BRUNNER

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. BRUNNER

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, he saw no reason why the service should not be made continuously.

SIR GUYER HUNTER

said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to make the Pro- 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 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. RITCHIE

pointed out that many persons were practising who had not taken out certificates.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, 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. POWELL

said, 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 PLAYFAIR

said, 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. TANNER

said, 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 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 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 (Glamorgan, S.)

, 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- 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 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- 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 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. SMITH (Flintshire)

said, he rose to second the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan (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 FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

said, 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 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 WILLIAMS

said, 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- 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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 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 TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

said, 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 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 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. PICTON (Leicester)

said, 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 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 10s., 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. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

said, 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 FIELD

said, 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. ELLIS

said, 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. 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. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

said, 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. 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. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, 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- 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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- 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 —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 HARCOURT (Derby)

said, 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 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. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, 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 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. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

said, 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 powers included in the clause of the hon. and learned Member.

MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)

said, 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. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, 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 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, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. FIRTH

said, 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- 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 STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, 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 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 PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

said, 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 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 HARCOURT

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 HARCOURT

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

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, 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 DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)

said, 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- 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. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

said, 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- 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 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. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, 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 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 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. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, 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 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 Friend (Mr. Firth) would persevere with his clause.

MR. LLEWELLYN

said, 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. KENRICK (Birmingham, N.)

said, 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 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. FIRTH

said, 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. RITCHIE

asked, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

said, 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. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he begged to move the Amend- 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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 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. HENEAGE

said, 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. HENEAGE

said, 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. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, 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:—

1. (a.) In the county of London all the members of the London county shall be directly elected;
2. (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;
3. (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;
4. (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.
5. (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 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. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, 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 (St. Pancras, W.)

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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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 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. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, 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 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!"] 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 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. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, 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 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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. 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 (St. Pancras, W.)

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. LAWSON

That referred to the City.

MR. RITCHIE

said, 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 STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, 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 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, 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 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 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 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. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)

said, 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 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 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. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

said, 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 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 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 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. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, 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 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 Body was set up it would be impossible not to give full consideration to the representations which they might make.

MR. FIRTH

said, 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. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, 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:—

1. (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
2. (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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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 LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

said, 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 to bear, that this particular Amendment should not be pressed.

MR. FIRTH

said, 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 LETHBRIDGE

said, 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 (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

, 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. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

said, 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 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. FIRTH

said, 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,' 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:—

1. (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;
2. (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;
3. (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 powers as it would have had if this Act had not been passed."

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

moved, 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, 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 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. CONYBEARE

said, 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. THOMAS (Glamorgan, E.)

moved 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- bilities, and officers of the said county and district road boards.

For the following purposes (that is to say):—

1. (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
2. (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. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, 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 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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 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. WOODALL

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 (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 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 EYRE (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough)

moved 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 SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

asked 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, 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. CONYBEARE

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. 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. CONYBEARE

said, 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—

1. (i.) The provision, enlargement, maintenance, management, and visitation of and other dealing with the county prisons;
2. (ii.) The purchase or otherwise freeing from tolls of any private bridges or toll bridges;
3. (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;
4. (iv.) The protection against encroachments or interference by private individuals of public rights of way, footpaths, commons, and roadside wastes;
5. (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;
6. (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;
7. (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. CONYBEARE

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. CONYBEARE

said, he thought it would be apparent to everybody that he was precluded from carrying out his original intention to move the sub- 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. CONYBEARE

said, 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. PICTON (Leicester)

asked 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. RITCHIE

said, 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, 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'ARTHUR (Cornwall, Mid, St. Austell)

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, 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. CONYBEARE

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 SIMON

said, he felt the force of the objection of the right hon. 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. CONYBEARE

rose 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. NORRIS (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

said, 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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. NORRIS

said, his intention was that the officers should contribute to the fund, and that the Councils should not.

MR. RITCHIE

said, 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. NORRIS

said, 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. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

proposed 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 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

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 SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said, 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) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

No, no.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE

said, 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. 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 SWINBURNE

said, what he said was that the Government had thrown the principle of population to the winds.

MR. RITCHIE

said, 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, 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. WATSON (Shrewsbury)

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not include Shrewsbury in the Schedule?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, 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. PEASE (York)

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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 (Cornwall, Camborne)

The East Riding appears on page 45 as well. Whore is York?

MR. A. E. PEASE

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, 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. RITCHIE

said, 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.]