CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 27 July 1888 vol 329 cc681-719

Bill, as amended, further considered.

Clause 2 (Composition and election of council, and position of chairman).

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax) moved that the term of office of the Chairman of the County Council should be one year instead of three years.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 32, to leave out the words "Three years," and insert the words "one year."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'three years,' stand part of the Bill."

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

said, that since the point was considered in Committee he had taken the opinion of several gentlemen well acquainted with the subject, and he found that there was a very general view in favour of one year. He would therefore accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.) moved to insert words providing that the Aldermen by virtue of their office should be Justices of the Peace for the county they represented. He did not understand what their functions were to be, unless they were to be magistrates like Scotch Bailies. He understood that in England an Alderman was a mere name, fiction, and farce.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, after the word "county," to insert the words,—"(5.) As respects county aldermen, their term of office shall be three years."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted."

MR. RITCHIE

said, that he was a great admirer of Scotch institutions; but if the Bill were to be altered to make it accord with Scotch law, it would have to be re-committed for the purpose. In boroughs Aldermen were not magistrates, and Aldermen in counties would have the same functions as other members of the Council.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 34, after the word "county," to insert the words—"(5.) They shall by virtue of their office be justices of the peace for the county."—(Sir George Campbell.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 (Transfer to county council of administrative business of quarter sessions).

MR. A. M'ARTHUR (Leicester) moved an amendment of Clause 3, which mentions among the powers and duties of County Councils, the licensing of houses and other places for music and for dancing, and the object of the Amendment was to provide that the licensing should be "under any general Act."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 14, after the word "licensing," to insert the words "under any general Act."—(Mr. Alexander M'Arthur.)

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

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

supported the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 11 (Transfer to county council of powers of certain Government departments and other authorities).

MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

said, he had on the Paper the following addition to Clause 11:—In page 6, line 17, after the word "councils," to add— (3.) For the purposes of this section the fifteen county councils of Wales and Monmouthshire shall elect out of their number representatives to a general council for Wales, consisting of one person for each twenty-five thousand of the population of the county, and, if the population be not an exact multiple of twenty-five thousand, then also one additional member for such fractional part of twenty-five thousand over and above such multiple. The Members of Parliament elected for constituencies within the said thirteen counties shall, by virtue of their election to Parliament, be members of such general council for Wales. He could not move this as an Amendment, and at this stage of the Bill he did not propose to move it as a separate clause; but he should like, before withdrawing it, to say that his object was to do something towards removing the heavy burden which lay upon the House of Commons in dealing with local matters affecting Wales. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and also Sir Charles Dilke, had in public papers advocated the principle of the clause which he (Mr. T. E. Ellis) had put down. He was satisfied the principle was a sound one, and he expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. C. T. Ritchie) would keep it in view when dealing with the question of Provisional Orders to be made by the County Councils or Joint Committees of Councils.

Clause 12 (Entire maintenance of main roads by county council).

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby) (for Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE) (Bradford, Central) moved to amend the clause by inserting— The county council shall also maintain the roadside wastes on either side of any main road, and shall have the same powers as a highway board for preventing and removing obstructions, and for asserting the right of the public to the use and enjoyment of the said roadside wastes. He said, that roadside wastes were of great value, both as commons and as means of finding employment for the poor, and in his own neighbourhood enclosures were going on which were, he believed, illegal, and which were unjust to the people living near. They were quite defenceless, and, therefore, the wastes ought to be placed in charge of the County Councils, through whom the people interested could assert their rights. These illegal enclosures had been condemned in the strongest terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain).

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 28, after "accordingly," insert "the county council shall also maintain the roadside wastes on either side of any main road, and shall have the same powers as a highway board for preventing and removing obstructions, and for asserting the right of the public to the use and enjoyment of the said roadside wastes."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could not accept the Amendment in the form proposed, for it would place an obligation, which it was difficult to define, upon the shoulders of the County Councils. There ought to be safeguard, too, against the interference of private rights. He was willing to charge the Councils with any powers which might be in existence to prevent obstruction, and to secure the use by the public of roadside wastes, and he would accept an Amendment so worded.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

said, he accepted the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. JAMES ELLIS (Leicestershire, Bosworth)

said, it would be futile to give the Councils no more power than Highway Boards, for the Highway Act was being used to promote enclosures.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he preferred to abide by the Amendment as it had been put on the Paper by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford, who had special experience in the matter.

MR. RITCHIE

said, it was possible the words to which he objected might involve a large interference with private rights.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, he hoped the effect of the clause would not be whittled down. The roadside wastes in some parts of the country had been cribbed by private owners in a way of which the right hon. Gentleman was not aware. At present poor people were often driven to pull down fences that encroached upon the roads, and this action being illegal they got hard measure at the hands of the magistrates. He desired, therefore, to put upon the County Councils, who represented the ratepayers, the duty of defending them in regard to these roadside wastes as against private owners.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

said, he desired to urge the acceptance of the Amendment as it stood on the Paper. The only effect of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would be to enable the County Council, if it should so please, to perform functions which were entrusted at present to the Highway Authorities. There were various cases in which the Highway Authority had refrained from taking action to defend public rights from fear of entering into a very large expenditure of the public funds. This difficulty would be largely removed if the power were vested in the County Councils. The County Councils would not have the same reasons for excessive caution. There were recently cases in the neighbourhood of London in which consider able strips of land had been taken away from the use of the public simply by reason of the apathy of the Local Authority and its reluctance to take proceedings.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to strike out the words "also maintain the roadside wastes on either of any main road, and shall."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman approved the Amendment on the whole. He believed that at Common Law the Highway Authorities had undoubtedly the power to prevent obstruction to the roadside wastes, but unfortunately they did not think they had, and as a general rule they did not exercise the power. They considered that they were only bound to maintain the roadway within 15 feet of the centre of the road. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to leave these words in, because they gave a direction to do that which the Authorities did not now understand it to be their duty to do.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was in entire accord, with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter; but he was convinced that under the Amendment, as amended in accordance with his proposal, the County Councils would possess ample powers, and they were much more likely to protect the interest of the ratepayers than the existing Authorities.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he would consent, under these circumstances, to the words being struck out.

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 43, after the word "road," to insert the following sub-section:— (3). The amount of such payment shall be such annual sum as may be from time to time agreed on, or in the absence of agreement may be determined by arbitration of the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

Amendment proposed to the proposd Amendment, after the word "sum," to insert the words "representing the reasonable cost of the said maintenance, repair, and improvement."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Words inserted.

Other Amendments made.

On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 37, after "county council," insert the following sub-section:— (8) If any difference arises under this section between a county council and a district council as to the refusal of the county council to make a payment under this section to the district council in respect of any undertaking or road, or as to a road having been placed in proper repair and condition previously to its becoming a main road, or as to any notice given to the district council by the county council to place a road in proper repair and condition, such difference shall, if either council so require, be referred to the arbitration of the Local Government Board.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 41, after the word "road," to insert the words—"If the council of any borough, not being one of the boroughs mentioned in the Third Schedule, nor a quarter sessions borough, deem itself aggrieved by the decision of the county council on any application made by the council of such borough to the county council to contribute towards the cost of maintenance, repair, enlargement, and improvement of any highway, it may, within twenty-eight days after notice of such decision, address a memorial to the Local Government Board, stating the grounds of appeal from such decision, and shall deliver a copy thereof to the county council. The Local Government Board may make such order in the matter as to the said board may seem equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and the order so made shall be binding and conclusive en all parties."—(Mr. Walter M'Laren.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he must point out that if any appeal were given, it could not possibly be confined to the small boroughs to which the hon. Member referred.

MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

said, he would suggest that the power of appeal might be extended.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that was quite another matter. Of course, if the principle were accepted, it must be extended to urban and rural districts. While there was no doubt that the hon. Member was willing so to extend it, the Local Government Board could not consent to undertake the responsibility which it would have to assume if it were erected into a Court of Appeal on all questions connected with main roads.

MR. WOODALL

said, he deeply regretted the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived on the point. He hoped that the right hon. Gentletleman would recognize the equity of the claim, and would consent to allow an appeal. He could assure him that there was great reason to suppose, if he did not make any such provision, that there would be continual conflict between Urban Authorities and County Authorities, as the interests of the one would so obviously conflict with the other.

MR. ROWNTREE (Scarborough)

said, he also was in favour of the Amendment, which he contended was a moderate suggestion to remedy the results of the hopeless minority in which the boroughs would find themselves in relation to the counties.

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

said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be accepted. In his opinion the County Authorities would be anxious to do what was right towards the boroughs in their districts, and he believed they might be trusted to do what was just and proper, without there being an appeal. If the appeal were allowed to the Local Government Board, there would be such a mass of appeals that they would never be able to get through them.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he objected to being lectured by the hon. and gallant Baronet, who had all along shown his distrust of the County Councils, by seeking to withdraw from them control of the police and other powers. He agreed that the County Councils being trusted with these matters, their decision should be final.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 226: Majority 123.—(Div. List, No. 240.)

Other Amendments made.

Clause 14 (Qualification of medical officers of health).

On the Motion of Sir LYON PLAY FAIR, the following Amendment made:—In page 9, line 2, leave out "the;" and in same line leave out "preceding," and insert "consecutive" instead thereof.

Clause 20 (Transfer to county council of certain licences (transferred licences).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Clause struck out.

Clause 21 (Payment to county councils of proceeds of duties on certain licences (local taxation licences).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved to leave out the clause. He said those financial proposals of the Government were a mere nominal transfer and no real transfer of taxation. They constituted a fresh distribution of Imperial taxation; they were a leap in the dark, and were pretty sure to benefit the richer and injure the poorer localities.

Amendment proposed, in page 11, to leave out Clause 21.—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'After the financial year' stand part of the Bill."

MR. RITCHIE

said, the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. He did not think the hon. Gentleman would find any Member in the House to support him in a Division.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 22 (Grant to county council of portion of probate duty).

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

, in moving an Amendment altering the proportion of the Probate Duties to be paid to the Local Taxation account from "four-fifths" to "three-fourths," said, he had great cause of complaint in the treatment accorded in this matter to Scotland and Ireland as compared with that meted out to England. The total amount which was to be distributed to the localities as the Bill at present stood was 80 per cent for England, and 20 per cent divided between Scotland and Ireland. That was an unjust distribution. The population of Scotland and Ireland, according to the last Census, was close upon 9,000,000, and that of England under 26,000,000; and, therefore, considered solely from that point of view, Scotland and Ireland would be entitled to more than the Government proposed to allocate. If, however, the distribution was made according to the proportion contributed by those countries to the Revenue, his belief was that Scotland and Ireland might not come out badly, because, owing to the greater consumption of whisky in those parts, a larger proportion was contributed to the Imperial Revenue than by other portions of the Kingdom. His belief was that the proportion was vitiated by the inclusion of London in England. London was the capital of the Kingdom; it was the capital of Scotland, and London was full of Scotchmen and Scotch investments. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the point.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 16, to leave out the words "four-fifths," and insert the words" three-fourths."—(Sir George Campbell.)

Question proposed, "That the words four-fifths' stand part of the Bill."

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he did not know the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman refrained from moving his Amendment in Committee. He was bound to say, however, that this was a rather awkward moment to raise a discussion, after the Bill had almost passed through the House, and after all the calculations had been made on the basis laid down in the Bill—namely, four-fifths of the Probate grant. It was obvious that a great change at this moment would destroy all the calculations which had been made and upon which hon. Members had dwelt during the course of these discussions. He rejoiced to hear the wholesome doctrine laid down by the hon. Baronet that London was the capital of Scotland. He doubted, however, whether the hon. Gentleman was in entire sympathy on this point with many of the hon. Gentlemen among whom he sat. He demurred to the propriety of excepting London from those calculations. The principle followed in making the calculations had been not to make any general disturbance in the taxation, either local or Imperial, as between the three countries. It was impossible in a Bill of this kind to attempt to adjust all the questions of relative taxation between the three countries; and the principle followed was to attempt to solve in a fair spirit the division according to the existing taxation of the three countries. They thought it a fair way of testing the matter to consider what was the loss to the three countries respectively of the withdrawal from Imperial sources of the Probate Duty. They had made calculations accordingly, and he could assure the House that those calculations had been made with no bias towards any of the three countries, except in so far as they just gave the turn of the scale to Scotland and Ireland. He should be prepared when the Scotch Bill came on to say more on the subject.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was any Paper in print and laid on the Table explaining the distribution between the three countries under which the proportion of four-fifths had been arrived at? If not, one should be placed before the House.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that no Papers had been laid on the Table. He had explained that there were sets of figures pointing to those conclusions he had enumerated. They had also utilized the calculations made at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) considered the question of Irish taxation and the contribution of Ireland. Those figures had been examined and fresh figures drawn up to check them; and the general result was very much the same as that arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)

said, he had to complain that the incidence of the Probate Duty in Ireland was unjust as compared with England.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

supported the Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he hoped that the House would not embark upon a discussion of the incidence of the Probate Duty in England and Ireland. The calculation was made simply upon revenue, and the very fact that the Government stood in a position of sharp antagonism to hon. Members from Ireland made them all the more anxious to convince themselves that they were doing absolute justice in this matter.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 117: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 241.)

Clause 23 (Application of duties on transferred licences, local taxation licences, and probate duty grant).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 15, line 42, after "Contributions," insert— Where a town, not being a borough, maintains its own police and receives any payment from the county council in pursuance of this Act towards the pay and clothing of such police, this enactment shall apply to such town as if it were a borough; and in page 16, after line 8, insert the following sub-section:— Where any part of a county is situate within the Metropolitan Police district, this section shall apply as if that part were the area of a borough maintaining a separate police force, save that the sum which would he payable to such borough shall be paid to the district councils in such part and shall be divided among such district councils in proportion to the rateable value of the area of each district.

Clause 24 (Payments by county council in substitution for annual local grants out of Exchequer in aid of local rates).

On the Motion of Mr. LLEWELLYN, the following Amendment made:—In page 16, line 42, at end, insert the following sub-section:— They shall pay to the guardians of every poor law union the school fees paid for pauper children sent from the workhouse to a public elementary school outside the workhouse.

Clause 25 (As to Secretary of State's power respecting efficiency of police).

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 16, after the word "borough," to insert the words "other than a county borough."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 28 (General provisions as to powers transferred to county council).

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 41, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "the county council may also delegate to the justices of the county sitting in petty sessions, any power or duty transferred by this Act to the county council in respect of the licensing of houses or places for the public performance of stage plays, and in respect of the execution as local authority of 'The Explosives Act, 1875,' or of the Act relating to contagious diseases of animals, or to gas meters."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, he objected to the proposal to give the County Council these powers of delegation on the ground that to the judicial functions of Justices no new administrative functions ought to be added.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the Amendment was proposed in order to meet the objection raised in Committee that the general power of delegation contained in the clause was too large. The Government had agreed to take from the County Council the general power of delegation and to specify instead certain matters which might be conveniently delegated to Justices if the County Council should think it expedient to do so. It would be observed that the delegation would not be obligatory upon the County Council.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that if the County Councils should delegate those powers to the Justices there would be hardly anything left for them to do. There were two alternative modes of dealing satisfactorily with this question. The County Council might be given power to form a small standing committee of their own Body to perform the duties to which the Amendment referred, or matters might be left at present as they were on the understanding that those duties would be fulfilled by the District Councils when they should have been constituted. This change would amount to a repeal of half the Bill. If the Amendment were passed, he should regard the Bill as an absolute farce.

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had attacked the Government on very insufficient grounds. Considerable difficulty might arise if these powers, which frequently had to be exercised at very short notice, were left in the hands of the County Council, because, even if the Council appointed a committee, it was extremely improbable that all the members of that committee would reside in one district. Occasionally, when there was a sudden outbreak of contagious disease among cattle, it was absolutely necessary that the Justices in Petty Sessions should carry out the regulations under the Act. He felt certain that if this Amendment were not accepted, and if the Justices were excluded, very great inconveniences would arise in some counties, and there would be very great danger to the health of the herds. He thought they might safely leave the County Council to exercise the discretion which it was proposed to give to them.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved to amend the Amendment by inserting words providing that the County Councils should only be allowed to delegate the powers "until district councils were established."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 1, after the word "may," to insert the words "until district councils are established for the purposes of local government under any Act of a future Session of Parliament."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

Question put, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said, that it was not necessary to delegate to magistrates powers with regard to weights and measures and gas meters. He argued also that powers as to contagious diseases of animals should not be delegated.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 188: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 242.)

MR. HOBHOUSE moved to omit from Mr. Ritchie's Amendment the words "or of the Act relating to the contagious diseases of animals," on the ground that under the Act of 1878 the county authority could delegate its powers to subcommittees partly composed of ratepayers. A mixed committee of County Councillors and farmers would be a better administrative body than one composed of justices alone.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "or of the Act relating to contagious diseases of animals."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the words in his Amendment, "or to weights and measures, or to gas metres," were omitted, and the Amendment in the following form was agreed to. The county council may also delegate to the justices of the county sitting in petty sessions, any power or duty transferred by this Act to the county council in respect of the licensing of houses or places for the public performance of stage plays, and in respect of the execution as local authority of 'The Explosives Act, 1875,' or of the Act relating to contagious diseases of animals.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, at end of line 41, insert—"Provided that, as soon as district councils are established for the purposes of local government under any Act of a future Session of Parliament, the power of delegation to justices conferred by this section shall determine as from the day appointed for the coming into office of such district councils."—(Mr. Hob-house.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

pointed out that the Amendment just inserted of Mr. Ritchie would take away from the County Councils the powers proposed to be transferred to them by another part of the Bill.

MR. LONG

contended that it was necessary to make such a provision, in order to meet emergencies in dealing with such things as the outbreak of cattle disease.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, he thought it would be unwise to leave power to delegate the powers of County Councils as regarded cattle diseases to a committee of magistrates only.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT moved to amend the clause by providing that the financial adjustment, as between counties and boroughs, should remain in force for three years, and no longer.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 33, after the word "adjustment," to insert the words "and such adjustment shall remain in force for three years, and no longer."—(Sir William Harcourt.

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, that to put that provision in the Bill would be to keep up a constant ferment between counties and boroughs.

SIR HENRYJAMES (Bury)

favoured the principle of the Amendment, but thought that a re-adjustment should only take place on application by one or another of the authorities concerned.

MR. RITCHIE

promised, on the clause relating to the Commissioners, to bring up words providing that there should be a re-adjustment at the end of five years, on application to the Local Government Board by one of the authorities interested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked the Government to explain their financial proposals as now amended.

MR. RITCHIE

, in reply, said, that the new method in which the Probate Duty was to be distributed did not affect the appointment of the Commissioners, who would have to adjust the distribution of the new taxes between boroughs and counties.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 31 (Certain large boroughs named in the schedule to be treated as counties).

MR. RITCHIE moved an Amendment, having the effect of excepting "transferred licences" from the other Local Taxation licences in respect of the distribution of which an equitable adjustment between each county and each borough was to be made by agreement between the councils of such county and such borough.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, line 20, to leave out the words "transferred licences."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

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

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he objected to such "Local Taxation Licences" as were raised in boroughs, and which should form part of the boroughs' funds, being "apportioned equitably" between the boroughs and counties. The proceeds derived from such licences really belonged to the boroughs, and ought not be "apportioned" between the boroughs and the counties either equitably or otherwise. He could see no reason for treating "transferred licences" in a different manner from Local Taxation Licences and Probate Duty grant.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that if the right hon. Member for Derby had not represented a borough, he might have been expected to have risen in his place and make a vigorous attack upon the very proposal he was now putting forward. He considered that the omission of the words was necessary, so as to enable the Commissioners to make an equitable adjustment of the financial relations, and it would be for them to equitably adjust the amount received from these licences between the counties and the boroughs.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to apply the same principle to the Metropolis?

MR. RITCHIE

said, that London, being a county in itself, would occupy a very different position from a borough which was cut out of a county.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, in moving an Amendment, at the end of the 2nd sub-section, providing that the financial adjustment entered into between county and borough "shall remain in force for three years and no longer," said, he wished to point out that the adjustment in the Bill was a final one, founded on a condition of things likely to change. Great changes might take place not only in the population, but in the wealth of different districts, and to fix an adjustment now which was to be regarded as permanent would be unwise and unjust. This financial arrangement must be a tentative one, because how it would work out no one could tell.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 33, at end insert—"Provided that such adjustment shall remain in force for three years and no longer."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he wished to point out, in answer to some previous observations, that London kept a smaller amount of the Licence Duties than it might fairly claim as compared with the Licence Duties collected in other parts of the country. He thought that Derby would benefit twice as much, if not more, by this new financial arrangement than London would. He thought that the financial adjustment must be one lasting for some considerable time; but to limit the period to three years would be to keep up a constant ferment between county and borough with the view of getting the arrangement upset in a short time. Much friction would thereby result. It was hoped that the Commissioners would settle the matter in a fair and equitable way, and the Government had no doubt they would do so.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, he supported the view of the right hon. Member for Derby, that there should be some revision of the adjustment at some time. Hardship would be inflicted if those adjustments were to be made permanent; because alterations might take place in the population and the wealth of localities. If the Amendment were carried, however, they would have to begin by fresh legislation at the end of the proposed period for a new adjustment. In those circumstances, he suggested a modification, to the effect that either of the interested parties to the adjustment might go to the Local Government Board and ask for a special re-adjustment, where there was anything like injustice apparent.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I should be glad to do that.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

said, he thought that one of the great dangers likely to arise from this Bill would be the friction arising from the want of proper adjustment between boroughs and counties. He though the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Derby a reasonable one.

MR. S. HOARE (Norwich)

said, he hoped the Government would be able to give the House some hope that there would be a period fixed when this question could be revised. He supported the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that he was anxious to make an arrangement which should work satisfactorily, and he would suggest that on the Commissioners Clause the Government should introduce an Amendment fixing some period, say, five years, and giving all parties who thought themselves unfairly treated the opportunity of making complaint to the Local Government Board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.) moved to omit Subsection 3, enacting that in making such adjustments the Commissioners may consider the effect on the financial position of the county of the provisions of this Act with reference to all the county boroughs deemed to be situate therein.

Amendment proposed, in page 22, to leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

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

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, he hoped that the Government would retain the sub-section. The words were, no doubt, slightly obscure, but the meaning was tolerably plain—namely, that the Commissioners should consider the financial effect upon the county of having these large boroughs taken out of them. If these words were taken out, there would be no sufficient words of direction as to the apportionment of the Exchequer contribution.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, that it was impossible to tell what meaning would be given to the words by the Commissioners. The Commissioners might think they had power to levy taxation, or to alter the incidence of taxation between urban and rural districts. The Government had promised that the boroughs placed in the IVth Schedule should neither lose nor gain by the arrangement. The end aimed at by the sub-section was sufficiently attained by other words in the clause.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that throughout the whole career of the Bill, he had found nothing more embarrassing than the suggestions made on behalf of individual interests. The words were introduced in consequence of representations made on behalf of Lancashire. He had always felt that the words were obscure, and there was a great deal of force in the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet opposite the Member for the Clitheroe Division of Lancashire whether the sub-section was really necessary?

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the words were not perfectly clear. All that was meant was, that the Commissioners should be able to take into consideration the financial adjustments which would be necessary between the boroughs and the counties. There were now 14 borough counties in Lancashire, whereas, as the Bill was introduced, there were only two. He would propose that, instead of the sub-section, the following words should be inserted:— In making such adjustment the Commissioners may consider the effect on the financial position of the counties of the provisions of this Act causing the boroughs situate therein to become county boroughs.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that his right hon. Friend's suggestion was worse than the sub-section as it stood. The other portions of the clause sufficiently carried out what was desired.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think that the sub-section was necessary, as the other part of the clause would give all the protection asked for.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY (Lancashire, N., Blackpool)

said, he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) would give them an assurance to that effect, they need not insist upon the retention of the words.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could give that assurance. He fully believed that all the interests of Lancashire were adequately protected by the clause without the sub-section.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON (Lancashire, Rossendale)

said, that the boroughs were returned as county boroughs on the distinct understanding that the county at large should not suffer by the change. That was the point of the matter, and he did not feel so certain as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill that the Commissioners would necessarily understand the arrangement in the sense in which it was agreed to by the House.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

said, there could be no doubt that the understanding was that neither the county nor the boroughs should lose. There was an absolutely equitable arrangement of the matter; but if, on further consideration, they found that there was anything which would suggest unfairness, the Government would endeavour to rectify it in "another place."

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, as follows:— Provided, that at any time after the end of five years from the making of an agreement or award adjusting the financial relations of any county or borough the Local Government Board shall have the power to appoint an arbitrator charged with the duty of making a new adjustment.

Other Amendments made.

On the Motion of Mr. MACLURE, the following Sub-section inserted, in page 24, line 41:— Where for the purpose of calculating any contribution or payment to be made under this Act, it is necessary to ascertain the rateable value of both a county and a county borough, such rateable value shall be ascertained in like manner as the basis or standard for a county rate is ascertained at the date of the passing of this Act, but such rateable value shall be fixed by a joint committee composed of representatives of all the councils concerned, and the number of representatives for the county, and each county borough respectively shall be settled by agreement, or in default of agreement by the Local Government Board.

Clause 32 (Application of Act to larger quarter sessions boroughs not treated as counties).

MR. GULLY (Carlisle)

proposed to insert the following sub-section:— It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen at any time, on petition from the council of the borough, by Order in Council to declare such borough to be a county borough, and from the date named in such order such borough shall be a county borough within the meaning and for the purposes and subject to the provisions of section 31 of this Act. He said, that while the Bill was passing through Committee an Amendment had been moved at this point, which had had the effect of cutting out a number of Amendments dealing with the case of boroughs with a population of less than 50,000. He contended that the test of population was a rough and rude one. He thought boroughs like Cambridge, Carlisle, and Oxford—all places of considerable antiquity, and capitals of large districts—had greater rights to self-government than places like West Ham and Bootle, which were mere aggregations of bricks and mortar in the suburbs of a large town. Again, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had already departed from the population test and had admitted some boroughs on the ground that they were counties in themselves. He thought that there should be some tribunal which should be able to settle claims of this description.

Amendment proposed, In page 29, line 20, after the word "elections," to insert the words—"(8.) It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen at any time, on petition from the council of the borough, by Order in Council to declare such borough to be a county borough, and from the date named in such Order such borough shall be a county borough within the meaning and for the purposes and subject to the provisions of section thirty-one of this Act."—(Mr. Gully.)

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

MR. WATSON (Shrewsbury)

, in supporting the Amendment, said, he considered it to be very hard that such boroughs as Carlisle, represented by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gully), and Shrewsbury, his own constituency, should be excluded from the schedule of borough counties.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could not too often say how much he regretted that the Government were not able to adhere to the original proposal; but they could hold out no hope of going below the limit of 50,000. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment, which would leave it open to any borough to make this application. That would be to introduce an element which would be by no means conducive to good relations between the boroughs and the counties. The hon. and learned Member for Carlisle (Mr. Gully) spoke of West Ham, and said that antiquity had more claims than bricks and mortar. The Government had great respect for antiquity, as they had shown in the case of Canterbury, but they attached much more importance to bricks and mortar. West Ham had a population approaching 200,000, and if any borough had a claim to be made a county, West Ham had. He should be very glad if he could meet the wishes of every hon. Member with respect to his own particular constituency; but that would be impossible, considering the framework of the Bill.

MR. ROWNTREE

supported the Amendment.

MR. AINSLIE (Lancashire, N., Lonsdale)

said, he felt bound to express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had conceded so much already.

MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman might make the concession asked for.

Question put, and negatived.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 35 (Application of Act to smaller quarter sessions boroughs with population under 10,000).

SIR GEORGE RUSSELL (Berks. Wokingham)

in moving, in page 30, line 12, to leave out "according to the Census of 1881," in order to insert "on the 1st day of June, 1888," said, as the Census of 1881 was so remote, and the country was on the eve of another Census, it seemed to him that it would be very unfair to take the popuulation of the 10,000 boroughs at the rate of the census of 1881. In pressing the Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he might, perhaps, use the argumentum ad hominem, and ask the right hon. Gentle- man what he would think if he were to estimate his position in 1888 by comparing it with what it was in 1881.

Amendment proposed, In page 30, line 12, to leave out the words "according to the census of one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one," and to insert the words "on the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight."—(Sir George Russell.)

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

MR. LONG

said, he regretted that it was necessary to make a difference in the proposals in the Bill dealing with 50,000 boroughs and those dealing with 10,000 boroughs. He could assure the hon. and learned Member that the difficulty the Government had already had in having to contend with the representations from gentlemen connected with the different boroughs in the contry with regard to the 50,000 limit would lead them to believe that it would be a very dangerous thing indeed to accept this Amendment. There was nothing which would enable the Government to declare whether boroughs were rightly estimated or not, and, under the circumstances, although they regretted that smaller boroughs should be placed at this disadvantage, it would be absolutely impossible to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 37 (Application of Act to Metropolis as county of London).

Amendment proposed, In page 33, line 13, after the word "councillor," to insert the words "Provided that there shall be no further appointment of county aldermen after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five."—(Mr. James Rowlands.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

, in moving to insert an Amendment in page 31, line 14, said, he contended that the London County Council should have exactly the same authority as that possessed by the Council of any other great town, or even of any small district. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would seriously con- tend that the Governing Body in London was less fit than others to exercise these powers, having regard to the community they would represent?

Amendment proposed, In page 34, line 11, after the word "purpose," to insert the words "The London 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 Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled 'An Act to authorise the application of funds of municipal corporations and other governing bodies in certain cases.' 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 the county council if it be approved by not less than two-thirds of such council."—(Mr. Lawson.)

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

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, he felt it his duty to give the Amendment his cordial support. This power would enable the County Council for London to initiate many works of improvement, and a power which was possessed by the Corporation of the City of London ought certainly to be given to the County Council of London.

MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)

said, he could not approve the Amendment, which appeared to him to be, to some extent, unnecessary. The Metropolitan Board of Works, whose powers would be transferred to the new Metropolitan County Council, at present possessed the right of promoting and proposing Bills, subject to two very wholesome and salutary restraints, one of which was that, in addition to each Bill having to pass through the ordinary ordeal of a Private Bill, there must at the end of each Session be passed a Public Bill, which was termed the Metropolitan Money Bill, and which authorized the expenditure previously sanctioned by each Bill. This, he thought, was a very salutary safeguard, requiring as it did that the Public Bill should run the gauntlet of the House, and it also had the advantage of enabling the House to gather, from the contents of the Public Bill, the total liabilities which it was proposed to incur. The Metropolis was so vast, and its population so immense, that it required far greater protection than any ordinary town, and it could not safely be emancipated from all Parliamentary control. He submitted that the House ought not to relax by one jot the control of Parliament over the proceedings of the County Council of London, which was to succeed the Metropolitan Board of Works. In London the stakes were too large, the opportunities were too tempting, the immunity was too easy in a City where no one knew what his neighbour was about, for Parliament to dispense with a single guarantee or cheek.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)

said, he had listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. and learned Member. In the Bill it was sought to construct a directly representative Governing Body; and any speech more thoroughly marked by utter distrust of that Body than the speech of the hon. and learned Member he had not heard. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that because London was rich the members of the County Council would be so thoroughly saturated with notions of corruption that they might not be trusted to look after the interests of their constituents. If this were a sound view, why constitute and trust such a body at all? The hon. and learned Member had not given a single reason, except that London was a large place, why London should be deprived of the power at present possessed by every municipal borough in the country.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he scarcely thought that the observations of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Baumann) were open to the severe criticisms of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Charles Russell). He did not think that his hon. and learned Friend had shown marked distrust of the County Council, as had been suggested. His hon. and learned Friend was one of the first persons to express to himself the desirableness of giving the County Council of London as much power as could be given consistently, and to increase the importance of the County Council of London. He pointed out that Parliament had placed a restriction on the Municipal Corporations. He admitted that the provisions of the Borough Funds Act ought to be reconsidered; but, so far as they went, they said that, with reference to particular powers, there ought to be a reference to the owners and occupiers before those powers were exercised. It was admitted on all hands that this was impossible in London, because of the largeness of the area. The importance of the question connected with London was in this—that the town was so enormous; and if the restrictions were considered necessary in smaller areas, they were 10 times more necessary in London. He believed that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) would have this additional disadvantage if the first election in London were complicated with this question. He believed that if those powers were conferred a party might arise in London—a party of suspicion—with reference to the action of the London Council in those matters, and this might greatly interfere with the return of members to the London Council of the class they desired to see there. By accepting the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, they would be greatly adding to the burdens in connection with the work which the London Council had to do so as to seriously interfere, not only with the election of its members, but with the routine work which they had to take over from the Metropolitan Board of Works. The power of opposing Bills had already been conceded, and the Council would have the power of promoting Bills now enjoyed by the Board of Works. He urged the House not to further increase the duties and responsibilities of the new Council.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, he thought this proposal was one which the House might very safely consider. They were simply asking for the new and large Council of London powers which had already been entrusted to the smallest Local Boards in the country.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Newington, W.)

said, if it was the opinion of the Government that the London County Council was fit to administer the affairs of this great Metropolis, it ought to have the powers which were entrusted to the smallest Municipal borough in the Kingdom.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

said, it was impossible for the Government of this country, considering the enormous functions it had to perform, to exercise proper control over the Governing Body of London. He hoped the Government would not refuse to London the powers which were given to so many Local Bodies throughout the country.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the debate had been most ably conducted on both sides, and he would ask the London Members to assist the House at once to come to a decision. The fact of the case was well known to the House and the country, having already been thoroughly discussed in Committee. The Government regretted that they were obliged to oppose the proposal of the hon. Member in its present shape, although he admitted that the time must arrive when extended powers would have to be given to the County Councils.

MR. JAMES STUART

said, that the London Members had not either on this or on any other question unduly occupied the time of the House. They would take a Division on the matter if the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accepting the Amendment. The chief merit of the Bill was the creation of a London County Council, and if they were not going to give the Council anything to do, what was the good of bringing it into existence? Were they going to keep from the County Council of London powers which were already possessed by the most paltry Local Board in the country? The new Body was a representative Body, which the Board of Works and the Asylums Board were not. There were ample safeguards in the requirement of advertisements, second meetings of the Council, an absolute majority of the Council, and the consent of the Local Government Board or the Home Office, as the case might be, before any of these powers could be exercised.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

remarked, that the County Councils were like young bears, who, so to speak, had all their troubles before them. Speaking from experience, he thought that the Council would have a great deal to do without these powers, which would be very dangerous powers, until it could be seen how the new system worked. There was no reason to suppose that the popularly elected Body would be more economical than the Bodies which it displaced. Perhaps 12 months hence he would have the opportunity of pointing out many lathes and many difficulties in the Local Government scheme. He thought it was very undesirable that they should unduly tax the powers and duties of the new County Council for London at the outset, particularly with regard to the promotion and opposition of private Bills.

MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.)

said, he hoped the Government would soon lose the terrible fear which they seemed to entertain of London and the London people, who were a very law-abiding people. If their fears on this subject were genuine, instead of giving either Local Government or Home Rule, they had better introduce a Coarcion Bill for London.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 164: Majority 26.—(Div. List, No. 243.)

Other Amendments made.

Clause 42 (Application of Act to certain special counties).

Amendment proposed, In page 38, line 30, after the word "Cambridge," to insert the words—

• "(d.) The Liberty of Peterborough and the residue of the county of Northampton shall be respectively separate administrative counties for the purposes of this Act, and are in this Act referred to as divisions of the county of Northampton."—(Mr. W. J. W. Fitzwilliam.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he agreed that there was much to be said for Peterborough; but to carry out the intentions of the Amendment a number of new clauses would have to be added. He was afraid the claims of Peterborough would have to be left to the tender mercies of "another place."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 44 (Saving for salaried chairman of quarter sessions of Lancashire).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 40, to leave out Clause 44.—(Mr. Maclure.)

Question, "That the words 'Nothing in this Act' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouth, W.)

, in moving to add, at the end of Clause 48, which deals with the boundaries of counties, an Amendment providing that the boundaries of the counties of Monmouth and Brecon should remain as now existing, said, that under the Bill where an urban sanitary district was situate partly within and partly without the boundary of a county the district should be deemed to be within that county which contained the largest portion of the population of such district. The result in the case named would be that the county expenses and local rates would be considerably increased. The population of Monmouth generally were against the change, and the magistrates were unanimously opposed to it. They asked the House of Commons to say that the circumstances of the case were so peculiar that the boundaries should remain as at present.

Amendment proposed,

In page 44, line 7, after the word "York," to insert the words— (e.) The boundaries of the counties of Monmouth and Brecon shall remain as now existing."—(Mr. Warmington.)

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

The House divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 182: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 244.)

Other Amendments made.

Clause 53 (Future alterations of boundaries of county and borough, and of electoral divisions of a county).

On the Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, after sub-section (e.) insert— (f.) Or that the alteration of any area of local government partly situate in their county is desirable.

Clause 56 (Additional powers of Local Government Board as to unions).

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

, in moving an Amendment in page 49, line 12, providing that in the case of a Union situate in more than one county the Local Government Board might continue it as one Union, not only for the purposes of indoor paupers, as provided by the Bill, but also for the levying and administration of the poor rate, said, that his object was to pre- serve Unions as one great area for Poor Law purposes.

Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 12, after the word "purposes," to insert the words "or for the levying of the poor rate."—(Mr. Charles Ackland.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, that there were cases in which it would be undesirable to separate two Unions, because it would impose upon one of them the obligation to build a workhouse which at present sufficed for both. These were known as Doyle Unions, which were one for indoor relief but two for outdoor relief.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59 (Appointment of Commissioners).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, line 14, after "Act," to insert— The Right honourable The Earl of Derby, the Right honourable John George Shaw Lefevre, John Lloyd Wharton, esquire, F. Mowatt, esquire, and Joseph J. Henley, esquire; page 52, line 10, after "settlement," to insert— And until a final settlement is made the authority of the Commissioners shall extend to determine the proportions in which payments are to be made to the councils of counties and county boroughs out of the Local Taxation Account, and all payments so made shall be taken into account in the making of the adjustment.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 72 (Annual budget of county and district Councils).

Amendment proposed, In page 62, line 10, after the word "rate," to insert the words—"A copy of every such estimate, as mentioned in this section, together with the estimated amount of any contribution or rate required to be levied, shall be sent to every county councillor not less than fourteen days before the meeting of the council at which it is proposed to order the contribution or rate to be made, and shall be sent in the same manner in which notices of meeting are sent to such councillor."—(Mr. Maclure.)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 74 (Amendment of County Electors Act, 1888).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 65, line 39, after sub-section 2, by inserting the following sub-section:— The names of the parliamentary electors and county electors in the lists in each polling district may be numbered consecutively; and such portion of those lists as consists of the names of parliamentary electors may be taken to form the register for the purpose of parliamentary elections, and such portion of those lists as contains the names of county electors may be taken to form the register of county electors.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 88 (Special provisions as to adjustment in the Metropolis).

On the Motion of Baron DIMSDALE, the following Amendments made:—In page 77, line 7, leave out the first "county," and insert "counties;" after "Surrey," insert "and Middlesex respectively;" line 8, leave out "sum," and insert "sums;" leave out "county," and insert "counties;" after "Surrey," insert "and Middlesex respectively;" and in line 10, leave out "a liability," and insert "liabilities."

Clause 97 (Interpretation of certain terms in the Act).

On the Motion of Captain COTTON (for Mr. Tatten Egerton), the following Amendment made:—In page 81, line 24, at end add— And the expression 'property' shall further include, in the case of the county of Chester, any surplus revenue of the River Weaver Trust, which is or would but for this Act be payable to the quarter sessions.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 100 (First election of county councillors).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 84, at end of line 24, insert— The sheriff having authority in any administrative county, or largest part thereof, shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be the sheriff of that county.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 102 (Preliminary action of county councillors as provisional council).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—Iu page 85, at end of line 22, insert— And the term of office of such chairman shall end on the ordinary day of election of chairman in the three years next after the passing of the Act.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 112 (As to commission of the peace for London).

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 92, line 32, at end, insert— The fees payable to the clerk of the peace and clerks of the justices and other officers and authorities in Middlesex at the passing of this Act, shall be the first fees which may be taken in the county of London by the clerk of the peace, the clerks to the justices, and other officers and authorities in the county of London, and may continue to be taken until they are abolished or altered in manner provided by law with respect to the abolition and alteration of such fees.

Other Amendments made.

Clause 118 (Grant and application of part of probate duty and of horse and wheel tax during the year ending 31st March 1889).

Amendment proposed, in page 100, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words "trade carts."—(Mr. Causton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'trade carts' stand part of the Bill."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 100, line 38, leave out sub-sections (iii.) and (iv.), and insert the following subsections:—

1. "(iii.) If the amount received by the local taxation account from the duties on licences for trade carts, locomotives, horses, mules and horse dealers under any Act of the present Session, exceeds the sum so payable to county and highway or other local authorities, the excess shall be divided between the metropolis and quarter sessions boroughs, in proportion to their rateable value, as ascertained by the valuation lists, or where there is no valuation list by the last poor rate;
2. (iv.) The share of the excess distributed to the metropolis shall be divided between the Commissioners of Sewers in the city of London and the vestries and district boards in the parishes in Schedule A and the districts in Schedule B to 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1885,' as amended by subsequent Acts, according to rateable value as ascertained by the last valuation lists, and the share distributed to quarter sessions boroughs shall be paid to the councils of such boroughs;
3. (v.) If any payment is made under the foregoing provisions of this section respecting roads to the council of any quarter sessions borough, or to any authority for a highway area wholly or partly situate in such borough, or to the highway authority of any parish or district in the metropolis, the share of such quarter sessions borough, parish, or district in the distribution of the balance shall be reduced by the amount of the said payment, and, if less than that amount, shall not be paid, and any sum arising 713 from such reduction or non-payment shall be added to the balance and distributed accordingly;
4. (vi.) Any sum payable in pursuance of this section to a county authority or the council of any borough, not being a highway authority, shall be paid to the county or borough fund as the case may be, but any other sum payable under the provisions of this section respecting roads, or respecting the division of the excess to any highway authority commissioners of sewers, vestry, or district board, shall be applied in aid of the costs of the roads maintained by such authority, commissioners, vestry or board;
5. (vii.) Any balance remaining after the above payments shall be divided among the counties in England, in accordance with the provisions of this Act with respect to the division of the probate duty grant, and the share assigned to each county on such division shall be applied towards paying to the guardians of each poor law union wholly or partly situate in the county such sum as is directed by this Act to be annually paid by the county council of such county to such guardians;
6. (viii.) Any balance remaining after the payment to the guardians of such union shall be paid to the county council of the county upon its coming into office, and, if there is any county borough in the county, the sum so paid shall be included in the adjustment under this Act between the councils of the county and borough."

Schedules agreed to with Amendments.

MR. RITCHIE

It is necessary that I should now ask the House to recommit the Bill, in order to introduce two Amendments which have been omitted. I beg to move, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Bill re-committed in respect of an Amendment to Clause 15, and an Amendment to Clause 17.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made, in Clause 15, page 9, line 12, after "road," to insert— And the Act of the Session of the forty-fourth and forty-fifth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter seventy-two, shall be repealed; and in line 18, before "such," insert "and of the expenses of the Commissioners;" in Clause 17, page 10, line 24, after "authority," add as a separate sub-section— (3.) The Local Government Board, by Provisional Order made on the application of the council of any of the counties concerned, may constitute a joint committee or other body representing all the administrative counties and county boroughs through which a river, or any specified portion of a river, passes, and may confer on such committee or body all the powers of a sanitary authority under 'The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876,' or such of them as may be specified in the Order; and the Order may contain such provisions respecting the constitution and proceedings of the said committee or body as may seem proper, and may provide for the payment of the expenses of such committee or body by the administrative counties and county boroughs represented by it.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

MR. RITCHIE

I now beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I am sure we must all be very glad that we have at last reached this stage, and the first observation which I will make upon the Bill will be to offer the congratulation of this House to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure we have all recognized the ability, the temper, the conciliatory demeanour, and the strong common sense which he has displayed, and which has enabled him to carry a measure of this magnitude through the House of Commons. At this time of night I shall not think of detaining the House by endeavouring to make any lengthened observations on the character of the Bill. Any observations we, on our side, may have to make upon it must, I am afraid, be reserved for another place—I do not mean the House of Lords. We have places in which we can comment upon the proceedings of Parliament which are not the other House. Glad as I am that this measure should have been launched, and should have sailed into port safely, I must say I wish it had been a bark of larger burden, and that it had carried a more valuable freight. The character of this Bill is two-fold. There belongs to it both the machinery you have created, and the work you have given that machinery to do. As regards the first part—that is to say, the machinery you have created—I have very little except approval to express. You have removed what we consider an inefficient machinery, and you have created by the Bill a new machine. No doubt, there are some defects in the machine from our point of view, but I will not dwell upon that question now. At all events, I must say you have now in place of the hand loom created a great steam power; you have made a great manufactory, as it were, and you have put into it a powerful machine in the shape of a popular Representative Body. But having done that, what are the looms which you have put into the manufactory for your machine to work—what is the work you have given your machinery to do? Well, that is to be found in Clause 3, and I am sorry to say that it seems to me that the work is too narrow and insufficient for so a great a machine as you have set up. Besides the work connected with the Pauper Lunatic Asylums—which will be transacted, I imagine, as it is at present, by a small Committee—and work connected with reformatory schools, which will not occupy much of the attention of the County Councils, and work connected with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts—though we are told they are very likely to be delegated to the Justices—and work connected with the bridges and main roads, and besides the divided authority you have given County Councils in regard to police administration, this great popular representative Body will have nothing to do. Now, I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman will declare that that is not what he wishes this Body to do, but all the rest is reserved for the future. I regret that, because I am afraid that if you elect this Body with this uninteresting task before it, you will not get that interest taken in it, and those persons elected which you would desire to have. I regret, therefore, that a considerable part of this Bill has, during its progress through the House, been struck out, and that the County Councils, at the commencement of their work, will find that work of a very narrow kind. And to this part of the question also belongs the other observation, that not only have you set this Body very little to do, but that in the course of the Bill its means of doing it have been reduced. You have diminished its power over the funds at its disposal, and its borrowing powers. It must be remembered that few great works can be undertaken, and you have cast upon one single generation the whole burden of work, such as great arterial drainage schemes, or the building of bridges, and things of that kind—works which may last for centuries. But, above all, I regret that you should have thought it necessary to refuse to these great Bodies, and even to the great County Council of London, the power of promoting Bills—that is to say, of applying to Parliament for power to carry out works which they may consider essential to the community. There seem to me defects in the measure of a character which I am afraid will, to a considerable degree, diminish its utility. I am afraid people will think that you have created a very imposing machine, and that you have given it a very little to do. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman promises us something in the future. He says that in this respect there is to be some paulo post futurum provision—and I hope paulo will be the emphatic word in that sentence, and that we shall soon have provisions which will give to these County Councils greater dignity and utility than I am afraid is contained in the four corners of this Bill. There is an old saying that "batchelors' bairns are aye good children, for they hae yet to be born," and that is a proverb which may be applied to the clauses of this Bill that we have not seen, but which we are promised in the future. However, with all these defects, I, for one, look upon this measure with satisfaction, because I am sure that it must be the commencement of great things in the future; above all, I have seen with satisfaction the clauses relating to London Government. There is enshrined within the Bill a principle for which, on this side of the House, we have always contended—namely, that there ought to be a single government for London. But the proposals which have been made at various times by the Corporation, especially to break up London into small fractions, are finally disregarded and put an end to by the provisions of this Bill, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, this Bill is only an embryo of the future plans for the government of London, which I hope may one day assume a form which may be worthy of the Metropolis of England. Therefore, although he was unable to say that the Bill was in all respects such as he should have desired, he could not help congratulating the House on having made a long step towards the completion of a great work, and in that sense he thought the House might cordially agree to the Third Reading of the Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

Sir, my first duty is to recognize, and we most cordially recognize, the spirit which has actuated the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in what he has just said; and I am greatly obliged to him for the compliment he has been good enough to pay me with reference to my conduct in reference to this Bill. Then, Sir, I have this to urge—that whatever may have been my conduct in carrying it through, it would have been quite impossible for me to succeed in my endeavour if I had not received the cordial assistance of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House; and my thanks are therefore due to hon. Members in all quarters of the House for the assistance they have given the Government in passing the Bill. First, and naturally, those thanks are due to my hon. Friends on this side. I know there are in the Bill many provisions which must have been to some extent unpalatable to many of them—especially hon. Gentlemen who have for so many years been charged with the management of the affairs of Local Government, and whose conduct in that respect has met with universal approbation. There must have been some feelings of the kind I have described, when it was found that those powers which have been exercised by Quarter Sessions for many years were to be relegated to a Body so differently constituted; but, notwithstanding this, they have cordially assisted the Government during the passage of the Bill, and I welcome with the utmost satisfaction the opinions expressed on both sides of the House that in the future efforts will be made by those hon. Gentlemen to continue to take an adequate share in county government. Sir, it would have been an unhappy incident in these discussions if we had reason to suppose that hon. Gentlemen who have hitherto taken a leading part in county government would not freely offer themselves to the electors under the new condition of affairs; but I may call attention to the fact that our minds are relieved from any apprehension of that kind by the knowledge, which we have, that gentlemen in the counties, of all shades of politics, are prepared to accept the new condition of things, and do their utmost to make the county government of the future at least as good as the county government of the past. I thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and in all parts of the other side, for the manner in which they also have assisted the Government in passing this Bill. I know well that it bristles with subjects on which hon. Gentlemen are naturally exceedingly anxious to express their views to the House and the country; but they have refrained in a remarkable degree, believing, I am sure, that they would probably assist the progress of this great measure best by refraining from an undue expression of opinion with reference to its various provisions, on many of which they hold strong opinions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said that he approves, to a large exent, the machinery of the Bill; but he does not think that the work which we have thrown upon the County Councils is altogether adequate to the machinery set up. With reference to this, I would say that no prudent manufacturer, having started new machinery, would overload it; he would rather desire to test all the bearings of the machinery which he has set up, in order to see whether it is capable of enduring the strain of the additional work which he hopes at some future time to cast upon it; and, Sir, that is the view we have of this Bill. We do not at all wish, and we have never said, that the work we have cast upon this great machinery is the only work which we think it will be capable of properly performing in the future; on the contrary, we think there is a great future for the Councils we have set up. But we believe also, that it would be most imprudent and unwise for us to over-load at the outset the machinery now created. We believe that in future it will be found thoroughly capable of performing all the work which the country may think fit to devolve upon it. The Government has no desire to take undue credit for what they have done; but it must be acknowledged by the House that we have accomplished that in which many previous Governments have failed. We have succeeded, to the universal satisfaction of the House, in setting up these great Councils throughout the lenghth and breadth of the land, thoroughly representative as they are; but, in addition to that, we have set up in this great City of London a Body which, I think, will prove to be adequate to sustain the enormous burden that will be thrown upon it. In saying this I do not wish to disparage the amount of good work which the Metropolitan Board of Works has done in the past; and I hope that the cloud which is passing over that Board will not obscure from the minds of Londoners the work which they have done; but the time has now arrived when a Body so constituted must be replaced by one which is truly representative. We have set up that Body, and we believe that it will be a very great benefit to the people of London. I do not desire now to say one controversial word in connection with this Bill, and nothing remains for me but to conclude by again expressing my cordial thanks to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite and to hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House for the assistance they have given to the Government in our endeavours to settle this great and complicated question in a manner which I believe will be satisfactory to the country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.