COUNCILS.

HC Deb 22 June 1888 vol 327 cc996-1058

Powers of County Council.

Clause 8 (Transfer to County Council of powers of certain Government Departments and other Authorities).

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 24, after the word "day," to insert the words, "it shall be lawful for the Local Government Board to make from time to time a Provisional Order for transferring.—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said, that when the Committee adjourned on Tuesday, some misunderstanding had arisen with reference to the Amendment. In the course of the discussion some words were addressed to him which, in justice to himself, he thought he should refer to. He must frankly admit that he was somewhat irritated by what had occurred on Tuesday afternoon. He had moved an Amendment in as few words as he could, being desirous to save the time of the Committee, which Amendment was supported by the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Sir Matthew White Ridley), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrew's (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald), followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and other hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), who gave a qualified support to the Amendment, as he desired that the transfer should be effected by means of a Provisional Order, instead of an Order in Council. The Government had intimated their intention of accepting his Amendment, and had agreed generally to the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, and it looked as if something in the nature of the Amendment was to be adopted. Whereupon occurred almost unusual incident—an hon. Member sitting on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. T. Dyke Arland), who had not heard a word of the Debate, interposed with a speech which led to a prolonged wrangle, which terminated in a Motion to report Progress being carried. Now he (Mr. Chaplin) had said as little as possible on the former occasion in support of his Amendment, as he was anxious to save the time of the Committee; but the Amendment was now in a different form upon the Paper, and perhaps the Committee would allow him to explain more fully the object he had in view in moving it. In the first place, he was most anxious to dispel the idea that there was the slightest desire or intention on his part, or on the part of hon. Members on that side of the House, to do what had been called by Gentlemen opposite, revolutionize the principle of the Bill. However that might be, he pointed out that a blind trust in the people was not of itself sufficient to make a Bill of this complicated character into a working measure. They wanted to make it a thoroughly workable and business-like enactment, and he protested that the clause as it was now drawn was not likely to attain that object, and it was in order to ensure the end he had in view that he moved the Amendment now standing in his name. The clause as it stood proposed to transfer by Statute certain powers, duties, and liabilities of Secretaries of State, Board of Trade, and Local Government Board to the County Councils. It further proposed to transfer certain other powers which were at present vested in the Privy Council and the Education Department and other Departments, as well as certain powers at the present time enjoyed by certain of the counties themselves, some of which were exceedingly important, and involved the expenditure of enormous sums of money. Now, the clause proposed to do all this, subject only to the Proviso contained in the 3rd sub-section of the clause. He wanted the Committee to consider how the clause would work, and he must point out, in the first place, that the powers which it proposed to transfer under the 1st subsection were very considerable. There were powers vested in the Local Govern-Board, some of them comparatively unimportant; others again were of great importance, and then there were the powers of the Board of Trade, which in his judgment, were of supreme importance, and which it was most undesirable should be transferred by Statute. The powers of the Board of Trade differed considerably from the other powers to which he had referred, and would be found by reference to the second part of the Schedule. They were as follows—The General Pier and Harbour Acts, The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, The Tramways Act, 1870, and the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. Those powers were now carried into effect under the admirable Staff now possessed by the Board of Trade, a Staff of great experience, and one under which what was called political continuity, so desirable in matters of this kind, was very successfully insured. As an illustration of the admirable way in which the duties of the Department had been performed, he would like to call attention to the fact that, out of 256 Provisional Orders moved by the Board of Trade with regard to tramways, 242 had been actually carried; out of 279 Provisional Orders in the matter of Gas and Water, 276 had been carried—that was to say, out of a total of 535 Provisional Orders, 518 had been carried. That was very strong testimony to the admirable way in which these matters had been dealt with by the Department up to the present time. Now, on the supposition that the clause were carried in its present form, and that the Bill, as he hoped would be the case, passed into law during the present Session, all these powers of the Board of Trade would cease, and would be transferred to the new County Councils. But, further, before the County Councils could be in a position to act, various promoters in different parts of the country might, and very probably would, want powers for Harbours, Piers, Gas, Water, and Tramways, and he would ask who was going to do the work, because it must be borne in mind that the Councils would have been only just elected; and they would not, therefore, have the necessary machinery at their disposal. He could conceive of no- thing more likely to bring things to a deadlock than that the clause should come into operation in its present form. In saying that he had no desire to eviscerate or emasculate the Bill. He was anxious that, as soon as the Bill was passed, there should be machinery in existence which would enable these powers to be carried out as before; at the same time that the Government of the day should have the power to proceed in certain respects by Provisional Order, of course subject to the consent of Parliament. What he contemplated in the case of the clause passing without his Amendment, which he hoped would be accepted, he believed would happen; and probably his right hon. Friend would be able to give his view of the subject. There were a great number of the powers to be transferred and specified in the Schedules which were not of very great importance, and which might be transferred en bloc by a Provisional Order to the new authorities; there were others in connection with the public health, and similar matters, the transfer of which from the Local Government Board, he thought, would be a matter for consideration; but with regard to those vested in the Board of Trade he was satisfied, for the reasons already stated, that it would be unwise and injudicious that they should be transferred as a whole to the County Council, and the Board of Trade altogether deprived of them. For these reasons, he ventured to submit the Amendment on the Paper to the Committee.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.) Kirkcaldy

said, as the Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen went to the very essence of the principle of transferring those powers to the County Council. He thought they had better deal with it on the Schedules of the Bill. It seemed to him that the way to defeat the object of the Bill would be to carry it in such a form that these important matters should be left to the discretion of the Government for the time being. He thought the Government should make their views upon this subject more clear, or else consent to the postponement of the clause. They were now entering upon a totally different part of the Bill—namely, that which delegated to the local Bodies the powers now exercised by the Central Authorities at Westminster. It seemed to him, in view of the serious import of this portion of the Bill, that the Government should have determined what powers they really intended to transfer to the local Councils before this, and that it was altogether inconsistent and indecorous that they should be, as they appeared to be, ready to surrender the whole of their scheme of delegation, and reserve the powers in question to Her Majesty's Executive Government. He could quite understand that some comparatively small towns did not like to be transferred from the dominion of the Board of Trade to the Councils; but if Her Majesty's Government really wished to give practical and substantial effect to the measure, they must with regard to powers now vested in the central authority, give before long something in the nature of modified Home Rule to the great Provinces of the Kingdom. Such a principle, he thought, might be applied with good effect to London, and such great counties as Yorkshire and Lancashire. On the whole, as it seemed to him Her Majesty's Government were prepared to accept the Amendment, it would perhaps be better to drop the clause for the present.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, he wished to make an appeal to the Government to know what course they intended to take in the matter. It was understood the other night that they would put down Amendments for which they were to be responsible, and he wished to point out that, practically speaking, the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, by this and subsequent Amendments, wished to withdraw the 8th clause, and he should like to know whether the Government were prepared to withdraw any more clauses without Notice. The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, if adopted by the Committee, would in reality destroy the object and intention of the clause.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he hoped that he might be allowed to explain. The Amendment, as it stood now, was moved at the request and instigation of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), who had led the Opposition in this matter.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in his assertion, and he was sorry that his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax was, in consequence of illness, prevented from being in his place. If the Government would state in the Schedule of the Bill what powers they proposed to delegate to the County Councils, then the County Councils, when they were elected, would know what they had to do. The matter as it stood was left to a Provisional Order, and a Provisional Order meant nothing more nor less than this—another Act of Parliament under another name. What he complained of in the course of the progress of the Bill was the crumbling away, day by day, of all the main provisions of the measure. The Committee were aware that there were other clauses to be omitted besides this, and the section they were now discussing was one of the most vital and important clauses in the Bill in reference to the transfer of powers to the County Council. Nevertheless, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, the Government were about to strike it out of the Bill.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment assumed its present form at the request of his own Party.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was not arguing the matter from a Party point of view. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be incapable of dealing with it from any other point. There were many other clauses which were to share the same fate. So far as he was concerned, he intended to support the clause, even in opposition to the Government. He desired to see the clause kept as it was. If there were any powers improperly proposed to be transferred under it, let them be omitted in the Schedule. He should like the Committee to consider fairly how they stood. If they dabbled with this and other clauses, what were they going to leave to the County Councils? What they had given to the County Councils in Clause 3 was, broadly speaking, nothing, and they had been relying upon Clause 8 to find the Council something to do. Now, however, it was proposed to get rid of Clause 8. The object of Clause 8 was to place very important powers in the hands of the County Councils, and he very much feared that if they took away those powers which were to be transferred by the clause as it stood, the usefulness and the authority of the County Councils would be greatly impaired. Unless the clause were allowed to remain in the Bill as it stood, what would be its effect? It would be impossible to get competent men to remain on the County Councils for the purpose of doing nothing. That was the great fear that was entertained. With certain exceptions, he approved of the constitution of the County Councils, and he approved of many of the functions which it was proposed to confer upon them; but he would like to see them with really operative functions. Would that be so if this clause were removed from the Bill? What would the City Councils then have to do? As far as he could make out, they would have to deal with the main roads. But, surely, that was not a very important power to confer upon the Councils. Then, again, they would have to appoint a Visiting Committee for the lunatic asylums, and would have to attend to the registration and the rules of scientific societies. In point of fact, they would merely have such jurisdiction as could be readily carried out by a committee. So far as their powers and duties were embodied in the Bill, that is all they would have to do. The Government were now cutting away all the more important functions it was originally intended the County Councils should exercise. He was of opinion that it would be far better to give them something and not be so very disappointing. He hoped the Government would not encourage this proceeding. He knew that the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire looked with no particular friendly eye on these Councils, and he knew that not only were there Members of that House, but others who were not Members of it, who regarded the Bill unfavourably. They would rather not have the County Councils created, and they desired that when they were created they should have as nearly as possible nothing to do, and no power and no authority. He was certain that that was not the intention of the Government; but he believed they were absolutely sincere in their desire to create a useful and powerful body. Nevertheless, step by step, they were taking away the powers originally given by the Bill. He entreated them to stand by that clause, and if they did so, he could assure them of the general support of that side of the House.

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

said, he did not know whether the right hon. Momber for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) included his right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) among those who desired to eviscerate that clause. It was necessary in consequence of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, that he should call the attention of the Committee to the arrangement which was entered into on Tuesday last, when the clause was under discussion. It was perfectly true that the clause, as it stood in the Bill, first of all transferred by way of Schedule certain powers to the County Councils, and that it, secondly, proposed in reference to other powers, that they should be subsequently transferred by means of an Order in Council. When the clause came on for discussion, his right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) rose and moved an Amendment by which all the powers were not to be transferred at once, but by Order in Council. That proposal was supported by at least half-a-dozen Members, who spoke on both sides of the House, and among others by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, who, during the discussion of the Bill, had given great attention to the details of the measure, and whose knowledge of the subject would not be denied or gainsaid by any Member of the House. He even thought that the right hon. Member for Derby would be willing to acknowledge that the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, from his experience, was bettor able to express an opinion than he was himself. Then again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax had been regarded, whether rightly or not he did not know, as having charge of the Bill from the Front Bench opposite. In the course of the discussion, that right hon. Gentleman rose and gave a qualified approval of the proposal of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire to transfer the powers by an Order in Council, but suggested that it would be more convenient if the change were made by a Provisional Order Bill, instead of an Order in Council. The Govern- ment, recognizing as they did in reference to many of the details of the Bill, that they were quite open to learn by the experience of Gentlemen who had long been connected with the question of Local Government in that House—the Government recognized that there was great force both in the remarks of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, and also in the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Halifax. Looking at the fact that the County Councils were not likely to come into active operation until April next year, it was quite a debatable point whether it was not desirable instead of at once saddling them with a considerable number of duties requiring great experience, to take some steps by which all the powers, or any part of them, might be made the subject of investigation at the hands of a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Such a Committee would be able to go into one and all of the various powers proposed to be conferred with a view to see whether all or some of them might be transferred, or whether some alterations ought to be made in the proposals of the Bill. That was a proposition which the Government considered reasonable, and they accordingly assented to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Halifax, stating that, so far as they were concerned, they saw no objection to the course of procedure he proposed. But no sooner had they made that concession, than hon. Members opposite rose and protested against it, not one single voice having previously been heard in opposition to the view expressed by the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division and by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite. Now, what were the real facts of the case? As he had said, those County Councils did not really come into power until April, 1889. There was, therefore, plenty of time between now and the commencement of next Session of Parliament for the Government to prepare and introduce a Provisional Order Bill, specifying the powers that were to be handed over to the County Councils.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked, if that Bill would be brought in during the present Session?

MR. RITCHIE

said, no; not during that Session. The right hon. Gentle- man knew perfectly well that it would be quite impossible to pass a Provisional Order Bill that year; but if it were presented early next Session it might be proceeded with at once, and passed rapidly into law. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that the Government had a desire to create County Councils, and then give them nothing to do.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

No.

MR. RITCHIE

That was the whole gist of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who said—"Are we to trust the Government to do anything of the kind, if we do not do it now in the Bill."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He did not say that; but he had pointed out that by a Provisional Order they would not have the powers transferred in time for the election of the new Councils, and the men elected would not know what they had to do. All he desired to point out was that the first election would take place without the County Councils knowing what the powers were they would have to discharge.

MR. RITCHIE

said, the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know what the County Councils were to do. It had been stated again and again that this new Body was being created in the hope of placing in the Schedule of the Bill the powers conferred by the measure. It was, however, recognized on all hands, that it would be unwise and impolitic for the House to saddle these new Bodies with the powers they would have to perform until the Councils themselves had bad some experience of the nature of the work and were ready to settle themselves down into working order. How could the right hon. Gentleman say that the County Councils would be elected in ignorance of what they would have to do, when the Government in the Bill made proposals in reference to all the questions that were scheduled in the measure, and only refrained from carrying them into an Act in consequence of representations made to them that it would be better early next Session to make provision for it. The right hon. Member said that the most important of those powers were the powers connectedwith Provisional Orders, and he thought the right hon. Member for Derby would acknowledge the truth of that remark. Therefore, it would not be at all satisfactory to say that they proposed to transfer at once certain powers which the Home Secretary now had, and then to refrain from doing more. There was not the smallest justification for supposing that the County Councils would be prejudiced in their election by the position which the Government had taken up in response to the appeal from the other side of the House. He could only say that the Government had shown their desire to secure that the powers of the County Councils should be ample, but they acknowledged that there was great force in the objections which had been made, that many of these powers would be transferred without sufficient examination by a Select Committee of the House. They would undertake to have a Provisional Order Bill drawn up and presented to Parliament at the earliest moment, with a view of showing that they had no desire to create a great and important machine like this, and then to give it nothing to do. That was the reason why he supported the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, and he was certain that the proposal would meet the approval of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)

said, he had waited with anxiety to ascertain what position the President of the Local Government Board intended to take with regard to the subsequent Amendments which appeared on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, because those subsequent Amendments altered the whole position as it was discussed tho other day.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was sorry if he had not made that matter clear. This Amendment was only preliminary. He was not prepared to say that he would accept all the Amendments upon the Paper; but what he did accept now was to transfer these powers by means of a Provisional Order.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he wished to point out that the whole position would be altered if these Amendments were accepted by the Government, and he desired to point out the way in which the matter stood when it was last under discussion. Many Members were opposed to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire altogether. He had not been one of those. He had thought that it would be wise to give instructions to the County Councils in cases where experience was required by means of a Provisional Order or an Order in Council. The powers which it was proposed to transfer to the County Councils had never been given to the municipalities, and the County Councils not having had the experience of the municipalities would certainly not be prepared at the first moment to exercise the powers proposed to be conferred upon them. But what was the position to-day, if the Government accepted the subsequent Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It simply meant the destruction of Clause 8. Everything up to line 48 was cancelled by the Amendment. If the Amendment were passed, the whole of the Schedules would go, because the effect would be to cause their disappearance from the Bill, and the whole purpose and object of Clause 8 would have vanished. Under such circumstances, he could not vote for the Amendment. If the Government would give an assurance that they would oppose this process of the evisceration of Clause 8 and would retain the Schedule, he would hold himself to his promise and would support them, because he thought it better that the Government should give instructions as to what powers the County Councils were to exercise. By assenting to the course now proposed, that would give to the Government the power of decentralizing the whole matter.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have heard the whole of the discussion upon this subject. One of the arguments of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was that if the clause were allowed to stand as it was in the Bill it would lead to a long and endless discussion on these very Schedules, and that was one of the chief arguments the right hon. Gentleman used in favour of his proposal. It was certainly an argument which he (Mr. Ritchie) had regarded as a very powerful one. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) did not seem to have heard the discussion which took place in reference to the Schedule, and he now said that the Government were going to omit a large portion of the clause. That was per- fectly true; but it was necessary to do so because the clause was divided into two parts. It, therefore, became necessary that much of what was contained in the 1st sub-section should be applied to the 2nd sub-section, and the proposal of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) was to deal with both sub-sections in the same way. The Government, therefore, allowed an amalgamation of the two sub-sections, and that was the sole reason why the words referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were proposed to be struck out.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, he had heard the whole of the discussion, and his interpretation of it was, and he thought it a good explanation, that if they were to give these complex powers, it was not desirable to transfer them at once to the County Councils, but to give the power of doing so by means of a Provisional Order. That would render it unnecessary to discuss tho Schedules in such detail as would otherwise be essential. He thought that that was a proper suggestion; but he had not dreamt that the right hon. Gentleman was going to strike out the Schedules altogether.

MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)

said, he thought that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the opposition of hon. Members opposite was unreasonable. He thought it was necessary to examine carefully the powers which the Bill proposed to transfer. He had been somewhat alarmed in the first instance at the restrictive powers of the Amendment, but it had been clear altogether that the Government had no intention whatever of restricting the power it was proposed to confer upon the County Councils, and, in regard to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) there was nothing more reasonable than that a full opportunity should be afforded for considering what powers were to be transferred. He was inclined to think that many hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion of the clause had lost sight of the importance of not handing over these powers at once by wholesale. He was of opinion that the County Councils would not be perfectly capable of carrying them out, and he should vote against the Amendment if he did not see that the practical effect would be to give them experience and knowledge of the work they were to perform. Take, for instance, the power with regard to the issue of Provisional Orders as to the carrying out of works. If this power were handed over at once to the Local Authority, what means would the Local Authority have of carrying out and giving consent to the issue of Provisional Orders in connection with such works as drainage? The money which would have to be borrowed would be a difficulty in itself; it would be necessary to apply to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners were not likely to grant a considerable sum without some evidence of an engineering character as to the value of the work proposed to be done. So, in regard to other works, a scheme would have to be properly prepared and submitted before the money could be borrowed. It would, therefore, be necessary to have an inquiry on the spot at which objections could be raised, and the whole matter would be fairly threshed out. It was ridiculous to suppose that any County Council would at once embark in any measure of this kind without such a preliminary inquiry; therefore, it was a wise precaution on behalf of the Government to see that the machinery was in working order before they handed over these powers to the County Councils. He hoped there would be no delay in granting the powers which he regarded as so important. It was of the highest importance to remove the power of decentralization, and get rid of the clog of Business that occurred upstairs. It was also desirable to relieve those who at present took part in projects of this kind, from the dreadful responsibility of bringing a local Bill before Parliament. He entertained the hope that, large as the powers were that were to be conferred by the Bill, there would be some further powers in regard to Private Bill legislation. The issue of Provisional Orders was another matter. No doubt, when they handed over this power to the County Councils, care would be taken to see that they were in a position to carry it out. They had had a clear statement from the President of the Local Government Board that it was not the intention of the Government to delay the transfer of these powers, and, there- fore, he considered that hon. Members opposite were unreasonable in objecting to the Amendment. He was sure that there was no intention on the part of the Government to restrict the powers of the County Councils. As to the evisceration of the Bill, if the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) would look at the Amendments on the Paper, and the powers to be granted to the County Councils, he could have no fear that the Councils would not have ample work to do. It was not, however, desirable that all the work they would have to do should be put at once upon their shoulders.

MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)

said, that after the two speeches which had been delivered by the President of the Local Government Board, they seemed really to have got at the bottom of the meaning of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire. It was simply a timesaving Amendment to shorten the debate on the Bill. The Government had done a good deal in that direction in throwing over extra weight, and from the ambiguous and unsatisfactory reply that had been given that afternoon by the First Lord of the Treasury, it was clear that it was at least possible that the London clauses of the Bill might follow the Licensing Clauses.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that not a single word had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who asked the question, or his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, which could possibly justify the assertion which the hon. Member had made.

MR. LAWSON

said, the silence of the right hon. Gentleman was just as significant as his speech. When the proposition was raised in the Committee, he protested against treating the County of London in the same way as other localities. He had heard nothing that day as to what was to be done for London. [Cries of "Order!" and "Question!"] He submitted that this was the Question. This clause conferred certain powers on the County Council for London, and it was impossible at a later period to insert in the Schedule the duties and liabilities of the County Council of London unless they were prepared to confer some powers upon other County Councils. He doubted very much whether the right hon. Gentleman had improved the Bill by substituting a Provisional Order for an Order in Council. No doubt they would have all the influence of the permanent officials against them, who had been accustomed to use these powers, as all must admit, with great efficiency. It was unlikely that they would be willing to surrender them, and to ask popular Bodies to take over the powers they now possessed. He was, therefore, afraid that the process of devolution would be much slower than was contemplated, and the proposition now made might prove more insidious than the one which was contained in the Amendment as it stood. He was of opinion that the whole of the arguments they had heard that afternoon related to one part of the Schedule, and one part only. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) and the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had referred to the powers now exercised by the Board of Trade, and they maintained that it would be improper to call upon the County Councils, who would be without experience and knowledge, to exercise such powers. The three parts of the 1st Schedule defined the powers that were to be transferred now exercised by the Home Office, the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board; and the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division, in endeavouring to prevent the second part from appearing in the Schedule, showed what the governing idea in his mind was. Personally, he (Mr. Lawson) did not see why some compromise should not be arrived at in connection with this subject. Why should not the Government at once admit that it was the powers of the Board of Trade that were objected to, on the ground that they required expert knowledge and practice which did not apply to other Departments of the State? The whole of the objections, as a matter of fact, applied to one part of the Schedule, and to save time the Government were going to cut out the whole Schedule and to diminish the dignity of the County Councils, simply with the object of lightening the load the Government had to carry. The Government would be prepared to say that at the present time there was no opportunity to discuss the Schedule. He thought some arrangement might be made by which it might be agreed to except the powers now exercised by the Board of Trade, and to take a moderate amount of discussion on the Schedule as a whole, because on most points in regard to them they would all be agreed. He trusted that hon. Members on that side of the House would resist the Amendment as it stood.

MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY (Sussex, East Grinstead)

said, that as one who was present during the whole of the discussion the other day, he felt bound to express surprise at the course taken by the Front Opposition Bench. He was second to none in desiring that the powers given to the County Councils should be both large and important; but when he came into the House the other day to hear the discussion of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), he did so with a perfectly open mind, and after the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, a very weighty speech was delivered by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Sir Matthew White Ridley). He thought it would have been greatly to the advantage of hon. Members to have heard that speech. They had had speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), the last of whom spoke with great authority upon matters connected with the health of the community. Both of those right hon. Gentlemen supported the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) waited to see whether any other hon. Members would address the House; and, finding that there was a universal consensus of opinion in favour of the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman rose in his place and said that, as he did not wish to resist the universal opinion of the House, he would accept the Amendment, against which not one word had been spoken by any hon. Member. Under these circumstances, he protested against the use in that discussion of such phrases as "evisceration of the Bill" and "time-serving Amendments."

MR. LAWSON

said, the phrase he used was "time-saving Amendments."

MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY

said, he felt bound to protest against the imputation of motives which had been made in the course of the discussion. The phrases which had unfortunately been used, he ventured to think, had much more to do with the Licensing Clauses, which were in a state of suspended animation, than with the question before the House. Those phrases were intended, not as consumption in that House, but for consumption off tho premises; they were intended to give the constituents the false idea that a measure which showed more trust in the people than had ever been evinced by any Government before was a sham. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He understood the meaning of that cheer. He had seen the same phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) when he gave the benefit of his assistance to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) by addressing his constituents. He could only say that it was with the greatest surprise he had heard, on the last occasion, the Motion made to report Progress by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secreatry for Ireland (Mr. John Morley), who had not been present during the whole of the discussion, and had heard very little of the comments of right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the same Benches themselves, but who, on the faith of representations of hon. Members who had casually dropped into the House, without having heard the discussion, moved to report Progress, and had thus occasioned a considerable waste of time.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON (Devon, Tavistock)

said, he sincerely hoped the Government would not accept the compromise suggested by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson). Nothing could be more fallacious than the argument that delay was advisable, so that the County Councils might have time to furnish themselves with experts like those who now advised the Board of Trade in regard to Tramways and matters of that kind. It was said that the County Councils had not the experience they ought to have, and that, therefore, they ought not to be entrusted with these new powers; but they never would have experience and were not likely to take experts into their service until they had full powers given to them. He sincerely hoped that all the powers would be given together and would stand or fall together.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire,) Arfon

said, he thought that the House generally was pretty much agreed as to what they wanted to accomplish; but the difficulty was how they were to accomplish it. He believed that most of them were anxious that the new County Councils should have large powers transferred to them; but there were some of those powers which hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House believed that it would be imprudent to transfer at the present moment. The difficulty was how they were to accomplish the transference of powers without involving too great a waste of the time of the House. Let them look for a moment at the matters it was proposed to transfer. The powers of the Secretary of State contained in the first Schedule ought, no doubt, to be transferred at once. The second part proposed to transfer to the County Councils the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Board of Trade, and he thought there was a general agreement that it would not be wise, before the County Councils got settled down to their work, to confer those duties upon them. When they came to the third part it was more difficult to come to a decision. He referred to the transference of the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Local Government Board. He believed that a greater part of those duties should be transferred at once, but there was some part of them which it might be desirable to transfer somewhat later. He thought there was a groat objection to the Amendment before the Committee which required these things to be done by Provisional Order. They always knew that Provisional Orders were very slow and difficult things to get through. What he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) was that ho should agree to transfer the powers by Order in Council instead of by Provisional Order, and then the right hon. Gentleman should state to the Committee what were the powers which ought to be at once transferred by such Order in Council. By that means he (Mr. Rath-bone) thought they would obtain the object they all desired to accomplish—that was to say, that all necessary powers would be at once transferred to the County Councils, and they would be able to get into working order for the rest.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, he desired to point out that it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) who had suggested a Provisional Order instead of an Order in Council. The hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had suggested a compromise, and proposed that by way of giving the Council something to do they should have at once transferred to them the duties performed by the Home Office. Those duties were "power to represent to Her Majesty in Council that burials should be discontinued in any place of burial in the Metropolitan area; approval of new burial ground or cemetery in the Metropolitan area, or within two miles of it; powers to make report to Her Majesty in Council for the discontinuance of burial in any place of burial; approval of new burial ground; power to order the abolition of a fair, and power to order an alteration of the day for holding a fair and the duration of a fair." Those were the powers of the Home Secretary which the hon. Member for West St. Pancras was kindly willing to say might be transferred to the County Councils.

MR. LAWSON

said, he had also pointed out that the powers of the Local Government Board might be transferred at once.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, if it was proposed that the whole of those powers should at once be transferred to the County Councils, he was afraid that it would lead to a long discussion, considering that a good many of them were of an extremely controversial character. The hon. Member seemed to think that the London Council would not have enough to do when it was proposed to transfer to it the whole of the powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He (Mr. Groschen) thought that would start the London Council with a fair amount of business. In point of fact it would devolve upon them a somewhat herculean task. It would be better to have the powers for which they were adapted given to the Councils, than to have their minds disturbed by a mass of business with which they would not be able to deal. His views were well known on this subject. He was strongly in favour of decentralization. The whole object of the Government was to decentralize as soon as they could, and he could assure the hon. Member that when he occupied the position of Chairman of the New County Council to which he might aspire, he would have plenty of business to attend to and ample scope for his talents. They were all unanimous, he trusted, on this point, that ample powers should be given to the County Councils, and the only difference was as to the lines upon which they should proceed. He was not going to repeat the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to why these powers should not be included in the Bill at the present moment. What he was dealing with now was the argument that in leaving out certain powers for the present the Government were influenced by some sinister design. The case would have to be considered by a Select Committee, and, of course, the Government would resist any endeavour on the part of the Department to retain powers in their hands which it was desirable to hand over to the County Council.

MR. LAWSON

said, that with respect to the remarks which had fallon from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was quite true that the London County Council were to have all the powers which were now exercised by the Metropolitan Board of Works, but he did not understand that the Government wanted another Metropolitan Board of Works, nor did the public want one. He understood that they wanted a different class of men altogether. He looked forward to the London Council having very different powers, and to a time when it might hope to secure the services of men of position and ability, with such a man as the right hon. Gentleman himself at their head. If they believed in all they had said about the necessity of decentralization, they should give their words effect.

MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

asked, why the clause and the powers to which it related had been deliberately put into the measure? What was the object? He thought that a great deal of time, a great deal of trouble, a good deal of friction, and a certain amount of misunderstanding would have been avoided if the Committee had thoroughly realized what powers were proposed to be granted to the County Councils. He would ask the Committee to consider what those powers really were. He represented a county constituency, and he would ask what powers were proposed to be transferred, after the remarkable admission which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the powers now exercised by the Home Secretary were very trumpery powers indeed. What were they? They would give the County Councils power to alter the day on which a fair was to be held without warrant, and without the necessity of going to the Home Office in order to obtain permission. They also gave the County Councils certain small licensing powers. Then came the second part of the Schedule, which related to the powers now exercised by the Board of Trade, and that was the part to which he wished most strongly, in the interests of the new governing Bodies, to direct the attention of the Committee. They had been told, over and over again, that the Government and the Conservative Party were most anxious to grant large powers to the County Councils, but he would venture, without hesitation, to say that the powers to be granted under the 8th clause and the second and third parts of the Schedules were, so far from being too large, nothing like the powers that a democratic Body like the County Councils would immediately insist upon having. He would invite the attention of the Committee to what those powers were. What was the first? The County Councils were to have the powers of the Board of Trade, with certain exceptions, under the General Pier and Harbours Act. Surely the Committee ought to have been told, before proceeding with the discussion, whether it was really intended to withdraw the concession of those powers. At the present moment, when a Local Authority wanted to have a pier or harbour made, it was necessary to go to the Local Government Board or to the Board of Trade.

MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

THE CHAIRMAN

declined to put the Question.

MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS

said, he was not in the habit of trespassing upon the patience of the House. He was only claiming for the County Council of his own county that the powers to be given should be given to them directly, and he wished to show that those powers, so far from involving great responsibility, involved scarcely any responsibility whatever. If a Local Authority wanted to make a pier or harbour, what would be the change introduced if they passed this Schedule? They would simply make it necessary that the Local Authority, or the promoters, as they were called, should go the County Council, instead of being required to come up to London, in order to lay their case before the Representatives of the people. Was that an unreasonable change to make in creating a great governing Body of this sort? It certainly did not amount to very much, for the County Council would only allow the application to be made. There were a number of serious restrictions imposed by Statute. For instance, it was necessary that notice should be given, and all the formalities of a Provisional Order gone through, and then the application would have to be submitted to the County Council. The powers under which a Provisional Order was to be given were expressly provided in all of the Acts—such as the General Pier and Harbour Act, the Tramway Act, and the Electric Lighting Act. The Local Authority would not be able to buy a foot of land without having practically to go to London. It was perfectly idle to tell him that these powers were too large to be confided to the discretion of the County Council, seeing that they were subjected to the provisions of an Act of Parliament, because a Provisional Order must always be assented to by Parliament. The Committee ought not to deceive themselves by supposing that the people were going to be satisfied with the process of issuing Provisional Orders when public works were required to be done, or that they would be content to come to Parliament for its assent. The powers they required were very much larger than those, and he would seriously ask the Committee to consider—especially those on the other side of the House, who had drafted these clauses—why on earth they should stultify the Bill by introducing certain provisions into it, unless they intended to stand by them. The Government said, "We have drawn up these Schedules and we consider that these powers are necessary powers." Then, why delay their insertion in the Bill? The Bill and the machinery would be ready next year. There were powers exercised by the Local Government Board in reference to baths and washhouses. At present those provisions applied to the whole country, but they could not be applied to a single parish except upon an application made to the Local Government Board. By the second part of the Schedule, instead of its being necessary to apply to the Local Government Board, the application would in future be made to the County Council. That was a very small power indeed, and if the Committee would take the trouble, as he had done, to go through every one of these Acts, they would find that it was only similar trumpery powers which were to be transferred. He, therefore, trusted that the Committee would at once proceed to invest the Local Authorities with the powers contained in the Schedule.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, that this debate would be a lesson to him in the future as to how he accepted an Amendment, or an alteration to an Amendment, on the invitation of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Complaint had been made of the substitution of a Provisional Order for an Order in Council. That alteration had been accepted on the direct invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). For his (Mr. Chaplin's) own part he greatly preferred his own Amendment; but, for the sake of making progress with the Bill, he had accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that it was somewhat hard and unreasonable to complain of the Government for the course they had followed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) had expressed his opinion on the previous night that half-an-hour's discussion would finish the question; as they had now been discussing it for two hours and a-half he claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 298; Noes 216: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 174.)

Question put accordingly, "That the words it shall be lawful for the Local Government Board to make from time to time a Provisional Order for transferring' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 306; Noes 224: Majority 82.

AYES.
Addison, J. E. W.	Campbell, J. A.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Carmarthen, Marq. of
Ainslie, W. G.	Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Allsopp, hon. G.	Chamberlain, R.
Allsopp, hon. P.	Charrington, S.
Ambrose, W.	Clarke, Sir E. G.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Coddington, W.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.	Coghill, D. H.
	Colomb, Sir J. C. R.
Anstruther, H. T.	Compton, F.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Cooke, C. W. R.
Bailey, Sir J. R.	Corbett, A. C.
Baird, J. G. A.	Corbett, J.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.	Corry, Sir J. P.
Baring, T. C.	Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.
Barnes, A.	Cranborne, Viscount
Barry, A. H. S.	Cross, H. S.
Bartley, G. C. T.	Crossley, Sir S. B.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Crossman, Gen. Sir W.
Bates, Sir E.	Cubitt, right hon. G.
Baumann, A. A.	Curzon, Viscount
Bazley-White, J.	Curzon, hon. G. N.
Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-	Dalrymple, Sir C.
	Darling, C. J.
Beach, W. W. B.	Davenport, H. T.
Beadel, W. J.	Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.
Beaumont, H. F.
Beckett, E. W.	De Cobain, E. S. W.
Beckett, W.	De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	De Worms, Baron H.
Bentinck, Lord H. C.	Dimsdale, Baron R.
Bentinck, W. G. C.	Dixon, G.
Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer	Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
	Dorington, Sir J. E.
Bethell, Commander G. R.	Douglas, A. Akers-
	Dugdale, J. S.
Bickford-Smith, W.	Duncan, Colonel F.
Birkbeck, Sir E.	Duncombe, A.
Blundell, Col. H. B. H.	Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.
Bonsor, H. C. O.
Boord, T. W.	Ebrington, Viscount
Borthwick, Sir A.	Edwards-Moss, T. C.
Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.	Egerton, hon. A. J. F.
	Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Bristowe, T. L.	Elcho, Lord
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Elliot, Sir G.
	Elliot, hon. A. R. D.
Brown, A. H.	Elliot, hon. H. F. H.
Bruce, Lord H.	Elliot, G. W.
Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.	Elton, C. I.
	Ewart, Sir W.
Caine, W. S.	Ewing, Sir A. O.
Caldwell, J.	Farquharson, H. R.
Campbell, Sir A.	Feilden, Lt -Gen. R. J.

Fellowes, A. E	Hunter, Sir W. G.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.	Isaacs, L. H.
	Jackson, W. L.
Field, Admiral E.	James, rt. hon. Sir H.
Fielden, T.	Jeffreys, A. F.
Finch, G. H.	Jennings, L. J.
Finlay, R. B.	Johnston, W.
Fitz - Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.	Kelly, J. R.
	Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Folkestone, right hon. Viscount	Kenrick, W.
	Kenyon, hon. G. T.
Forwood, A. B.	Kenyon - Slancy, Col. W.
Fowler, Sir R. N.
Fry, L.	Kerans, F. H.
Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.	Kimber, H.
	King, H. S.
Gent-Davis, R.	Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.
Giles, A.
Gilliat, J. S.	Knightley, Sir R.
Godson, A. F.	Knowles, L.
Goldsmid, Sir J.	Kynoch, G.
Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.	Lafone, A.
	Lambert, C.
Gorst, Sir J. E.	Laurie, Colonel R. P.
Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.	Lawrance, J. C.
Granby, Marquess of	Lawrence, W. F.
Gray, C. W.	Lea, T.
Green, Sir E.	Lees, E.
Greenall, Sir G.	Legh, T. W.
Greene, E.	Leighton, S.
Grimston, Viscount	Lennox, Lord W. C. Gordon-
Grotrian, F. B.
Gunter, Colonel R.	Lewis, Sir C. E.
Gurdon, R. T.	Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
Hall, C.
Halsey, T. F.	Long, W. H.
Hambro, Col. C. J. T.	Lowther, hon. W.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.	Lowther, J. W.
	Lubbock, Sir J.
Hamilton, Col. C. E.	Macartney, W. G. E.
Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.	Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.
Hanbury, R. W.
Hankey, F. A.	Mackintosh, C. F.
Hardcastle, F.	Maclean, F. W.
Hartington, Marq. of	Maclean, J. M.
Heath, A. R.	Maclure, J. W.
Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-	M'Calmont, Captain J.
	Madden, D. H.
Heaton, J. H.	Makins, Colonel W. T.
Heneage, right hon. E.	Malcolm, Col. J. W.
	Mallock, R.
Herbert, hon. S.	Maple, J. B.
Hermon-Hodge, R. T.	Marriott, right hon. Sir W. T.
Hervey, Lord F.
Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.	Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-
Hill, Colonel E. S.	Matthews, right hon. H.
Hill, A. S.
Hoare, E. B.	Mattinson, M. W.
Hobhouse, H.	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Holloway, G.	Mildmay, F. B.
Hornby, W. H.	Mills, hon. C. W.
Houldsworth, Sir W. H.	Milvain, T.
	More, R. J.
Howard, J.	Morgan, hon. F.
Howorth, H. H.	Moss, R.
Hozier, H. C.	Mount, W. G.
Hubbard, hon. E.	Mowbray, right hon. Sir J. R.
Hughes, Colonel E.
Hughes - Hallett, Col. F. C.	Mowbray, R. G. C.
	Mulholland, H. L.
Hulse, E. H	Muncaster, Lord
Hunt, F. S.	Muntz, P. A.

Murdoch, C. T.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Newark, Viscount	Smith, A.
Noble, W.	Spencer, J. E.
Norris, E. S.	Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.	Stanley, E. J.
	Stephens, H. C.
Norton, R.	Stewart, M. J.
O'Neill, hon. R. T.	Sutherland, T.
Paget, Sir R. H.	Swetenham, E.
Parker, hon. F.	Sykes, C.
Pearce, Sir W.	Talbot, J. G.
Pelly, Sir L.	Tapling, T. K.
Penton, Captain F. T.	Taylor, F.
Plunket, right hon. D. R.	Temple, Sir R.
	Theobald, J.
Plunkett, hon. J. W.	Thorburn, W.
Powell, F. S.	Tollemache, H. J.
Price, Captain G. E.	Tomlinson, W. E. M
Puleston, Sir J. H.	Townsend, F.
Quilter, W. C.	Trotter, Col. H. J.
Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Rankin, J.	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Rasch, Major F. C.	Walsh, hon. A. H. J.
Reed, H. B.	Watkin, Sir E. W.
Richardson, T.	Webster, Sir R. E.
Ridley, Sir M. W.	Webster, R. G.
Ritchie, right hon. C. T.	West, Colonel W. C.
	Weymouth, Viscount
Robertson, Sir W. T.	Wharton, J. L.
Robertson, J. P. B.	Whitley, E.
Robinson, B.	Whitmore, C. A
Ross, A. H.	Wilson, Sir S.
Rothschild, Baron F. J. de	Winn, hon. R.
	Wodehouse, E. R.
Round, J.	Wolmer, Viscount
Russell, Sir G.	Wood, N.
Russell, T. W.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Saunderson, Col. E. J.	Wright, H. S.
Selwyn, Captain C. W.	Wroughton, P.
Seton-Karr, H.	Yerburgh, R. A.
Shaw-Stewart, M. H.
Sidebotham, J. W.	TELLERS.
Sidebottom, T. H.	Chaplin, right hon. H.
Sidebottom, W.	Llewellyn, E. H.
Sinclair, W. P.

NOES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.)	Byrne, G. M.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Cameron, C.
	Cameron, J. M.
Acland, A. H. D.	Campbell, Sir G.
Acland, C. T. D.	Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.
Allison, R. A.
Anderson, C. H.	Carew, J. L.
Asher, A.	Causton, R. K.
Asquith, H. H.	Chance, P. A.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Channing, F. A.
Austin, J.	Childers, rt. hon. H. C. E.
Balfour, Sir G
Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.	Clancy, J. J.
Ballantine, W. H. W.	Cobb, H. P.
Barbour, W. B.	Coleridge, hon. B.
Barran, J.	Commins, A.
Biggar, J. G.	Conway, M.
Bradlaugh, C.	Conybeare, C. A. V.
Bright, Jacob	Corbet, W. J.
Broadhurst, H.	Cossham, H.
Brown, A. L.	Cox, J. R.
Bruce, hon. R. P.	Cozens-Hardy, H. H.
Brunner, J. T.	Craig, J.
Bryce, J.	Craven, J.
Buchanan, T. R.	Crawford, D.
Burt, T.	Cremer, W. R.

Crilly, D.	M'Carthy, J
Crossley, E.	M'Carthy, J. H.
Davies, W.	M'Donald, P.
Deasy, J.	M'Ewan, W.
Dickson, T. A.	M'Lagan, P.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Mahony, P
Dodds, J.	Maitland, W. F.
Duff, R. W.	Mappin, Sir F. T.
Ellis, J.	Marum, E. M.
Ellis, T. E.	Mayne, T.
Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.	Menzies, R. S.
Esslemont, P.	Molloy, B. C.
Evans, F. H.	Morgan, right hon. G. O.
Evershed, S.
Fenwick, C.	Morgan, O. V.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro-	Morley, rt. hon. J.
Finucane, J.	Mundella, right hon. A. J.
Firth, J. F. B.
Flower, C.	Murphy, W. M.
Flynn, J. C.	Neville, R.
Foljambe, C. G. S.	Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Forster, Sir C.	O'Brien, J. F. X.
Foster, Sir W. B.	O'Brien, P. J.
Fox, Dr. J. F.	O'Brien, W.
Fry, T.	O'Connor, A.
Fuller, G. P.	O'Connor, J.
Gardner, H.	O'Connor, T. P.
Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-	O'Hanlon, T.
Gilhooly, J.	O'Hea, P.
Gill, T. P.	Palmer, Sir C. M.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Parnell, C. S.
Gladstone, H. J.	Paulton, J. M.
Gourley, E. T.	Pease, A. E.
Grey, Sir E.	Pease, H. F.
Grove, Sir T. F.	Pickard, B.
Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F. S. A.	Pickersgill, E. H.
	Pinkerton, J.
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.	Plowden, Sir W. C.
	Portman, hon. E. B.
Harrington, E.	Potter, T. B.
Harrington, T. C.	Powell, W. R. H.
Harris, M.	Power, P. J.
Hayden, L. P.	Power, R.
Hayne, C. Seale-	Price, T. P.
Healy, M.	Priestley, B.
Healy, T. M.	Pugh, D.
Holden, I.	Pyne, J. D.
Hooper, J.	Quinn, T.
Howell, G.	Randell, D.
Hoyle, I.	Rathbone, W.
Hunter, W. A.	Redmond, W. H K.
Illingworth, A.	Reed, Sir E. J.
Jacoby, J. A.	Reid, R. T.
James, hon. W. H.	Rendel, S.
Joicey, J.	Reynolds, W. J.
Jordan, J.	Richard, H.
Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.	Roberts, J.
	Roberts, J. B.
Kenny, C. S.	Robertson, E.
Kenny, M. J.	Robinson, T.
Kilbride, D.	Roe, T.
Labouchere, H.	Roscoe, Sir H. E.
Lalor, R.	Rowlands, W. B.
Lane, W. J.	Rowntree, J.
Lawson, Sir W.	Samuelson, Sir B.
Lawson, H. L. W.	Samuelson, G.B.
Leahy, J.	Schwann, C. E.
Leake, R.	Sexton, T.
Lyell, L.	Shaw, T.
Macdonald, W. A.	Sheehan, J. D.
MacInnes, M.	Sheehy, D.
Mac Neill, J. G. S.	Sheil, E.
M'Arthur, W. A.	Simon, Sir J.

Sinclair, J.	Vivian, Sir H. H.
Slagg, J.	Wardle, H.
Smith, S.	Warmington, C. M.
Spencer, hon. C. R.	Wayman, T.
Stack, J.	Whitbread, S.
Stevenson, F. S.	Will, J. S.
Stevenson, J. C.	Williams, A. J.
Stuart, J.	Williamson, J.
Sullivan, D.	Williamson, S.
Sullivan, T. D.	Wilson, C. H.
Summers, W.	Wilson, I.
Sutherland, A.	Winterbotham, A. B.
Swinburne, Sir J.	Woodall, W.
Talbot, C. R. M.	Woodhead, J.
Tanner, C. K.	Wright, C.
Thomas, A.
Thomas, D. A.	TELLERS.
Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.	Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.
Tuite, J.	Morley, A.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 24, leave out the second "the" and insert "such."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Clause."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that it would be a shorter way to reach the object they had in view to strike out Clause 8. He saw no reason why the Committee should waste so much time on a number of verbal Amendments. The brains were out of the Bill, and it was said that, "when the brains were out the man must die."

MR. RITCHIE

said, the right hon. Gentleman was evidently unfamiliar with Parliamentary procedure, or he would know that if the clause were struck out it would not be in the power of the Government to transfer by Provisional Order at all. He had undertaken that they would proceed next Session to transfer these powers by Provisional Order.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to instruct him by means of his longer experience. He did not think it necessary to dispute the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, and would humbly bow to it. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to say that if all this work was to be done next Session, it might be better to discard the form of a Provisional Order, and introduce "A Bill to provide the County Councils with something to do."

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he ventured to propose that, instead of listening to any more of the frothy sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, they should proceed, if possible, in a business-like manner with the Amendments on the Paper, and in that way make progress with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was always complaining of the evisceration of the Bill by hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House; but he hoped it would be observed by those outside the House that the real and practical evisceration of the measure, by the omission of Clause 8, came from the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Amendment he (Mr. Chaplin) had moved was simply consequential, and, therefore, it was not necessary to dwell upon it. In conjunction with the Amendments which followed, it was intended to carry out the decision at which the Committee had arrived after considerable discussion—namely, to transfer the powers under this clause by Provisional Order instead of by Statute.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 25, leave out from "of" to "other," in line 41.—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that if the Bill were eviscerated at all it would be by adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, that Clause 8 should be struck out. He would point out, however, that the adoption of the Amendment just moved would make the clause a shadow and a sham.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) that the Committee ought to discuss these Amendments in a business-like way, and make progress with the Bill; but he thought that far greater progress would be made if the Government did not change their mind every five minutes on the Bill. A suggestion had been made with regard to the time when the powers under the Bill should be transferred, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of a reference to a Select Committee. Were the Committee to understand that a Select Committee was to be appointed at once to go into the question, so that the country might know what powers the Government were going to bring in legislation to transfer to the County Councils? Or were they to understand that the Government proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed at the beginning of next Session to consider what powers should be handed over to the County Council, that the Committee would sit all through the Session, and at the end of the Session make a Report, and then that in the Session following, if the present Government were then still in existence, some proposal might be laid before the House? He ventured to say that the Business of the House would be facilitated if the Government stated definitely what they intended.

MR. RITCHIE

said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said nothing about a Select Committee. But the ordinary course with reference to a Provisional Order Bill was that it should be read a second time, and if there was any opposition to the proposals in the Bill, it would be referred to a Select Committee in the ordinary course. What the Government hoped and believed was that in all propability the Committee stage of such a Bill as was contemplated would be an extremely short one; probably it would not exceed a week in duration.

MR. CHANNING

asked whether they were, then, to understand that no answer was to be given to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby?

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated that the administration of the Poor Law should not be transferred to the County Councils, and he had also said that he had no intention of transferring the powers of the London School Board to the County Council for London. It was not difficult to understand why the Government did not propose to transfer those powers; because the County Council for London, if it had, in addition to the business of the Metropolitan Board of Works and Quarter Sessions, to conduct that of the London School Board, would be completely overloaded. But the effect of the Amendment which he was about to move would not apply merely to the Metropolis; it would apply to the whole of the school boards of the country. It would be possible if the Bill were to come into operation in its present form, to lay upon the Table of the House for 30 days a scheme for the transfer of the whole of the school board administration throughout the country to the County Councils, which after that time, without any expression of opinion on the part of those interested in the school boards, would take place. He would like to give some reasons why he thought it impossible, at the present juncture, so to transfer the work of the school boards. There were in England and Wales more than 2,000 school boards, which had educational control in respect of 17,000,000 of the population; they were in the administration of funds amounting to £5,000,000 a-year, and they had, on the whole, done their work with great advantage and to the entire satisfaction of the country. They had increased the school attendance since they came into existence by more than 250 per cent; they had raised the standard of education in all the schools of the country, including the voluntary schools, which had been benefited thereby.

MR. RITCHE

said, he might save the right hon. Gentleman some trouble by saying that the Government were willing to accept words to exclude the school boards. The Government had never intended to transfer to the Councils the powers of the school boards, which had been set up by Act of Parliament.

MR. MUNDELLA

, asked what where the powers of the Educational Department which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to transfer to the County Councils?

MR. RITCHE

said, the Government were desirous of making the clause as comprehensive as possible, and they thought it simpler to put in the words "Education Department," because there might be some smaller matters that it would be useful to include.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that the revision of the schemes of the Charity Commissioners relating to Endowed Schools was work which would be taken out of the hands of the Education Department, and given to the County Councils. He begged to move the omission of the words.

Amendment proposed, in page 6,1ine 2, to leave out the words "or the Education Department."—(Mr. Mundella.)

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

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

said he could not conceive anything which it would be more desirable to entrust to the County Councils than the duties connected with local charitable schemes. The whole object of the Party to which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) belonged had been for some time past to secure some local control over the Charities, and yet they had the right hon. Gentleman getting up and disclaiming against the provision of the Bill which might by possibitity give much power.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he had no objection to the Councils having some control over secondary education, but he thought some power ought to be left to the Education Department.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he entirely agreed with what his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had said. It was of the highest importance that powers like those referred to should be transferred to the County Councils. He could only understand the view taken by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's own able administration of the Education Department had convinced him of the infallibility and perfection of that particular Department. Now, that was a great danger they had got to guard against—the belief in the Departments that nobody could do anything but them. If they really wanted to decentralize, they must resist that opinion. What he was afraid of was the pressure of the Departments, and that was why he wanted Parliament to take the matter into its own hands. In respect to all these Provisional Orders, they had the Departments fighting for every scrap of power they could get. That was really the decentralizing clause in the Bill, and if they wanted to make it effective, they ought to extend the powers as far as they could. They always found an enemy in a Department. He had been in Departments, and therefore he knew what the feelings existing there were; they would regard it as a point of honour to resist anything being taken away from them which they could possibly retain. He would point out to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) that, if his Amendment were accepted, they could not transfer any powers, because they would not have the authority under the Bill. After what had been passed in reference to Provisional Orders, they would be perfectly safe; the House would have control over what it transferred, and if any power was to be transferred improperly or which ought to be reserved, they could upon the Provisional Order discuss the transfer; but if they adopted, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment they could not transfer anything, however desirable. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that there were some powers which might very well be transferred, but they could not be so transferred under the Amendment. He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped that these words would be left in the clause; because if so, the Government would have discretion and the House would have the power to deal with the different matters.

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

said, he was glad he was able on that occasion to concur most heartily and entirely with everything which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), with, perhaps, a slight reservation. He did not think that the Heads of Departments deserved the censure implied in the right hon. Gentleman's observations. No doubt, they were exceedingly able and exceedingly well-informed public servants, and it was very natural that they should from time to time desire that the work in which they were interested should be conducted in the best possible manner. But there was a public interest involved in this question which the House ought to consider, and that was the great necessity of decentralization. The Public Departments were overwhelmed by caring for matters which ought to be cared for by the people themselves. It might happen that, under the new system, the work might not be done in all respects so perfectly as, he believed, it was done in the Public Departments; but there would be great gain to the public interest in this work being done locally, and in accordance with the local feelings and sentiments of the people. Under those circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) would not press his Amendment. He was obliged to refer to one observation which had been made in the course of the discussion. He thought it was extremely inconvenient to refer to past debates in that House. He possibly did give, on behalf of the Government, an undertaking to endeavour to accomplish certain purposes and objects; but he would prefer that the question of what interpretation was to be put upon his words should be deferred until his observations appeared in print. Certainly, he did not think that it was advisable at the present time to engage in a conversation upon the subject with the right hon. Gentleman across the Table of the House. He trusted the Committee would allow the words proposed to be left out to remain in the Bill, as he personally attached great importance to them.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that all he had asked the right hon. Gentleman was that he would fulfil the pledge he gave to the House in the debate they had a few weeks ago on secondary education. He, however, wished to make no further reference to that, because certainly they would hold the right hon. Gentleman to his engagement. As the powers were to be transferred by Provisional Order, and as it would be possible to deal with every case as it arose, he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment upon the distinct understanding that no elective Bodies, school boards or others, would be in any way influenced by the Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he thought it was well to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government proposed to accept the words suggested by the right bon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) with reference to school boards and Boards of Guardians.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.)

said, the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman that there was to be no interference with the school board system was very good as far as it went; but, unfortunately, in 10,000 out of 13,000 parishes in the country, there was no such body as a school board, and yet there was an educational system in which they were all interested. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to give them some further assurance—namely, that in no provision of the Bill would there be any power conferred upon the new Bodies to give any local grants out of local funds, or to give any support in any shape or form to what were called the denominational schools of the country.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is quite outside the scope of the Amendment.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

But it is cognate to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

THE CHAIRMAN

But I stopped the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, that he had an Amendment lower down on the Paper dealing with this subject; and perhaps this would be a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to make his undertaking a little more definite. He agreed largely in the remarks made with regard to the transfer of many duties of the Education Department to the new County Councils. As to the transfer of the powers relating to industrial schools, and to the development of agricultural and technical education, he had not a word to say. The point that he specially wished to secure, was that the school boards should not be included in the Clause. But there was a second point in his Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman had not referred. That point had reference to the Governing Bodies of endowed schools which had an elective element. He did not know whether it would be out of Order to ask, as an undertaking in regard to that special point, that the local centres—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is clearly out of Order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. T. E. ELLIS (Merionethshire)

said, he begged to move to insert, after the words "Education Department," "Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue Commissioners." There was no public Body which required greater re-organization than that of the Woods and Forests Commissioners. There was no Body which could so well give up some of its duties, such as the control and improvement of waste land, to the Local Authorities as could that Body. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board might reply that that Body was included in the words "or any other Government Department," but he, (Mr. T. E. Ellis) desired the insertion of these words, to show the urgent necessity of the powers vested in this Body being transferred to the County Councils.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 2, after the words "Education Department," to insert the words, "Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue Commissioners."—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman stood on an entirely different footing to anything which had been suggested or was contained in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was no doubt aware that the Body to which he alluded was the Body which had the management of Crown property, and, therefore, it was clear it would not be within the scope of the Bill to transfer to the management of local elective Bodies the powers vested in the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue Commissioners for dealing with Crown property. He was afraid it would be impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he was sorry to hear the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, because, in his opinion, there was no administrative Department in the State which was more grossly obstructive to the interests of the public than the Department of the Woods and Forests. He was quite satisfied that the present Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) would bear him out that there was no Department in the State which ought to be brought more under the control of some elective Body than the Department of Woods and Forests.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he must support the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in his opposition to this Amendment. If the Amendment meant anything, it meant that the management of Crown property should be transferred to County Councils. [Cries of "No, no!"] He did not know what else it could mean but that. Though he was not qualified to say that the Woods and Forests was by any means a faultless Department, and might not require reform, that was not the way in which to bring about an amendment. What happened with reference to the Woods and Forests was this. Before the Woods and Forests were made a separate Department, the whole of the Crown property was practically wasted, owing to the fact that it was administered by a Minister under the control of Parliament, who insisted in one way or another in making away with the funds it yielded. The Crown lands now yielded something like £350,000 a-year, the revenue had largely increased under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and that was a reason for not doing away with the Department, still less for giving them as a gift to Authorities who, he was afraid, might be quite as bad as the original management.

MR. CHAPLIN

suggested to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis) that instead of putting the Woods and Forests under the County Councils, it would be better to put them under the new Agricultural Department, of which they had heard a good deal lately, but which did not seem to be very much nearer being established.

MR. T. E. ELLIS

said, he could not assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, because he had not any great faith in the Agricultural Department. He would like to point out, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), that if reforms had been already effected in the management of Crown lands, there was no reason why they should not carry the process of reform a little further. There was no doubt that much of the old maladministration remained, and that the revenue from the Crown lands could be much increased. He ventured to say that in regard to thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres of Crown lands in various parts of the country, especially in Wales, the revenue could be doubled and trebled, and quadrupled, if they were managed with anything like intelligence and local knowledge. Crown property was, after all, only national, and the people's property. He was certain that, with regard to allotments of land for building in industrial districts in Wales, an immense amount of good could be done by conferring control of this property on a representative popular Body. Although he had very much respect for the opinions usually put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), he felt bound to press this Amendment to a Division.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had only one word to say, and that was, that if the hon. Gentleman had any information which would result in anything additional being secured by way of revenue to the country from the Crown property, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would put himself at once in communication with the Government. The Government were bound to protect the revenue, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman had made any suggestion which would afford security in that direction.

MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

said, he could not help suggesting a point that he thought was raised by the discussion, and that was, what was the meaning of the words in the Bill "or any other Government Department." His hon. Friend (Mr. T. E. Ellis) moved to insert the words "Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue Commissioners;" he (Mr. Asquith) would like to ask one of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to give them information as to whether the Woods and Forests was a Government Department. If it was, its powers were already, under the proposal of the Government, transferred, or capable of being transferred, to the County Councils. If it was not a Government Department, then it would be interesting to the Committee to learn what was a Government Department, and it would be desirable, with a view to the proper construction of this Act, when it became an Act, that some definition of a Government Department should, either in this clause or in some other part of the Bill, be inserted.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he imagined the Woods and Forests was a Government Department.

MR. ASQUITH

Are they?

MR. RITCHIE

said, of course it was. Hon. Gentlemen would see they specifically named certain Government De- partments, and that it was clear the Government could bring in, under the clause, a Provisional Order dealing with any Government Department. It was one thing to have general words of this kind dealing with every Government Department, and another thing to mention Government Departments specifically by name.

MR. ASQUITH

said, that in that case the Amendment was entirely unnecessary. It would clearly be within the power of the House, by a Provisional Order, to transfer, if it saw fit, these very powers to the County Councils.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, if these words were inserted in the Bill, it would amount to an expression of opinion that the Woods and Forests should be included among those Departments whose powers were to be transferred.

MR. A. L. BROWN (, &c.) Hawick

said, that the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had asked for information as to anything likely to increase the revenue derived from Crown property. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the Scotch fisheries, he would see that a larger revenue might be derived.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had emancipated himself from many Conservative prejudices, but he seemed still to labour under some such prejudices in regard to the question of the Crown lands. There could be no greater fallacy than the contention that Crown lands were not national property. They were national property, and it was a mere fiction to call them Crown lands. It was a fiction which had a very deleterious effect, because there were many instances in which Crown lands wore not administered for the benefit of the people. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT assented.] He was delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman assented to that view. If it was possible to improve such a condition of things so that the Crown lands could be managed for national and local benefit, great public advantage would result from the change.

MR. RATHBONE

said, that the Woods and Forests Department had possession of a considerable part of the foreshores, and, instead of considering they were the Trustees for the national benefit, they were often obstructive in their action.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the foreshores were under the Board of Trade. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was sure they were in Scotland, and he thought they were so in England.

MR. RATHBONE

said, that a case had come under his notice within the last year in which the Woods and Forests Commissioners prevented a Company getting at the sea as a means of transit for a very long time, and thereby considerably impeded the trade of a district.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he might add that there were cases in Scotland in which the foreshore had been made away with by the Department of the Woods and Forests at a very nominal price. No greater abuses had been perpetrated in recent years than those connected with the Scotch foreshores.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said, that the way in which this Amendment had been supported put many of them in a difficulty. It had been said there was a great deal of obstruction, and even some corruption in the Department of Woods and Forests, and with that opinion many hon. Members cordially agreed. But what he desired to put forward was, whether it was expedient to mix up the question of obstruction by the Woods and Forests Department with the question of the transfer of powers to the local Bodies? Would matters be improved if the powers were transferred to local Bodies? Let them have another inquiry like the Metropolitan Board of Works inquiry, to see whether the charges of obstruction and corruption were true, and whether a larger national revenue could not be derived from the property. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that this was national revenue which ought to remain in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he should be very sorry to see the Woods and Forests transferred to Local Councils. Certainly, he did not, by voting against the Amendment, desire to say that the Woods and Forests were anything but very grossly mismanaged.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the word "corruption" had been used in regard to an official Department. [Hon. GENTLEMEN: Possible corruption.] No; it was rather more than that. He asked if it was fair, unless there was real evidence to that effect, to use such a term? They could not brand a great Department of State on evidence that had not been examined with vices from which, he thought, our Civil Service had been conspicuously free.

MR. BUXTON

said, he would withdraw the word "corruption," and express regret for having used it. The word he ought to have used was "obstruction."

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

said, that all that was wanted was that there should be some control over the administration of the Woods and Forests which would be to the benefit of the different localities. That was only common sense, and he trusted his hon. Friend would go to a Division.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

trusted his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman had stated very strongly that Crown property was national property; but it seemed to him (Mr. Pickersgill) that the distinct effect of his Amendment, if it were carried, would be not to make the Crown property national property, but to convert national property into local property. In that sense the Amendment did not seem reasonable, and he, for one, could not support it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CHANNING

said, that the feeling which animated him and other hon. Members in wishing to have some such Amendment as that which stood in his name was, that the clause, as drawn, undoubtedly gave power to school boards and other elected educational authorities to wipe themselves out of existence by an Order in Council, and to apply for the transference of their powers to the County Councils. It was well known that strong representations had been made in this House by the Birmingham and the London and other School Boards in the country that that would be thoroughly undesirable. It was notorious to every Member in the House who had paid attention to the recent history of the education question, and who had read the important memorandum which appeared in The Times newspaper yesterday, and who had considered the important evidence given by a former Secretary to the Education Department and by the present Secretary of that Department, that many distinguished public officials and men who had taken a prominent part in educational matters, wished to carry out the definitely formulated scheme which was very fully put before the country in the letter of Sir Francis Sandford. That certainly was a matter which should not be dealt with by a side wind, should not be brought in as a mere permissive portion of a Bill of this kind, but should be dealt with on its merits. There was no doubt that the scheme brought before the Education Commissioners, and the scheme formulated yesterday by Sir Francis Sandford, contemplated the removal of the principle of the compromise of the Act of 1870, and the introduction of the principle of paying denominational schools out of the rates. He thought the Committee was entitled to ask why Her Majesty's Government had inserted words in this permissive clause which, without the slightest doubt, gave power to the school boards to apply for their own extinction? Hon. Members who had followed the matter must perfectly well remember the discussion on the clause introduced by Mr. Pell in 1876. The permissive power given in that clause, however, was of a much more limited character, and there was under that clause power to restore the school boards if desirable. When Mr. Pell's clause was discussed, no hon. Member of the House expressed himself more strongly against the power to bring the school board system to an end than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Birmingham (Mr. Bright), whose temporary absence they all so much deplored. He (Mr. Channing) had reason to press for an answer from the Government as to how these words appeared in the Bill. Had not the country some right to challenge the Government, and say they had been attempting, in this Bill, to introduce by a side wind one portion of the first step in the scheme for placing denominational schools on the same footing as board schools, and for handing over the control of education from the elected representatives of small local areas, men who were acquainted with the local feelings of the people, to a central body at some distance from the localities. He thought the principle of local control was the keynote of the success of education in England. It was the secret of the magnificent results obtained by such a school board as that of Birmingham, and it was equally true of the Managing Committees of voluntary schools. His amendment applied also to the endowed schools of the country, where there was an elective element in the body of governors. He quite agreed with much that had been said in regard to transferring to the County Councils some control over the endowments of the country. But he held that it was vitally important to maintain some form of local administration, so that the special wants and interests of the locality might be secured. He had reason to believe that the first part of his Amendment would be accepted by Her Majesty's Government; but he trusted that on consideration they would be disposed to accept the whole of it.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 9, after the words "authority" to insert the words "or a school board, or other board, committee, or authority elected directly or indirectly to deal with educational matters, or any body of trustees or governors, wholly elected, or partly elected and partly nominated, for the management of an endowed school."—(Mr. Channing.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was sure the Committee would hardly expect him to enter into a discussion of the merits of the Act of 1870, or of the manner in which the school boards of the country had fulfilled the duties cast upon them. He would only say that no one valued more than he did the provisions of the Act of 1870, and none were stronger in their admiration of the manner in which that Act had been carried out, and of the enormous benefit conferred upon the country by the school boards elected under the Act than himself. But it was unnecessary for them to enter into a discussion of that, because they had said explicitly, that they did not intend that the question of school boards should be included in the provisions of the Bill, and they had said they proposed to ac- cept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin), which specifically excluded school boards from transfer under the Bill. With reference to the latter part of the Amendment he had to point out that, in his opinion, all the hon. Gentleman desired to safeguard was amply safeguarded, now that they had accepted the proposal that no transfer should be made without Parliament being consulted and having an opportunity of expressing its opinion in the matter. That, he thought, would be accepted by the Committe as sufficient to safeguard all the hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon, and therefore he thought that, under the circumstances he had named, it would not be advisable to insert in the Bill the words the hon. Gentleman had suggested.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that school boards were to be excluded from the action of the Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that they were not included; but, in order to make it perfectly plain that they had no intention of superseding boards elected in that way under a specific Act of Parliament, by bringing in a Provisional Order, they would assent to them being excluded. They thought, looking to the nature of the powers, and the manner in which school boards were constituted, and the way they were elected, that if any alteration were made, it ought to be made by a public Act of Parliament.

MR. MOLLOY

asked if the Government meant to prevent the possibility of school boards being brought by Provisional Order, or otherwise, under the authority of the County Councils?

MR. RITCHIE

Certainly.

MR. MOLLOY

said, that in that case he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman had given no reasons. Education was a question for the people, and the people themselves were better able than anyone else to judge what kind of education they required. Yet the right hon. Gentleman had now announced, for the first time, he believed—[Mr. RITCHIE: No, no!]—that he intended to take away from the people powers given under the Bill in that respect. The hon. Member (Mr. Channing) speaking in favour of his Amendment, which he (Mr. Molloy) hoped would be withdrawn for some other, had contended that the system of education given under the school boards was satisfactory. He (Mr. Molloy) could not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He did not think that the system of education, so far as it related to the fitness of boys, when they left school to take up occupations in the world, was as good as seemed by many to be imagined.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) did not fully appreciate the meaning of the Amendment. The Bill as it now stood preserved from interference certain Bodies elected by the ratepayers, such as Corporations, as well as urban and rural authorities. This Amendment was to preserve other Bodies likewise elected by ratepayers from interference. He was surprised there was any objection raised to the Amendment on the other side of the House; certainly he must deprecate any attempt to enter upon a wide discussion of educational subjects upon that clause.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

said, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would satisfy the Committee upon one point. As he understood the matter, there was no intention, and it had been made clear by the acceptance of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that there should not be any interference with, or absorption of, the school boards by the County Councils. What he was anxious to know was whether any of the functions now exercised by the Education Department in connection with voluntary schools would be in any way transferred to the County Councils?

MR. RITCHIE

said, the Government had not the smallest intention of doing anything of the kind.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

believed that that statement would tend to shorten the discussion, because there was great anxiety, and, he must say, considerable jealousy upon the Education Question, considering the position in which it now stood. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had given an assurance to the Committee that there was no intention whatever of transferring any powers or altering the relationship between voluntary schools and the Department, except by an express Act of Parliament in the form of a Provisional Order. If that were the case, perhaps his hon. Friend would not find it necessary to press his Amendment.

SIR LYON PLAYFAIR

said, that under the Bill, no alteration could take place as to the endowed schools.

MR. CHANNING

said, that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) he would not trouble the Committee by pressing that part of his Amendment which dealt with endowed schools. With the permission of the Committee, he would withdraw his Amendment, and simply move the insertion of the words "or a school board."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 9, after the word "authority," insert the words "or a school board."—(Mr. Channing.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

thought it would be more convenient, the hon. Gentleman's former Amendment having been withdrawn, that his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Chaplin's) Amendment should be put, which included Boards of Guardians as well as school boards.

MR. CHANNING

pointed out that there was no objection to the words of his Amendment, whereas the additional words in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) might lead to controversy.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 9, after the words last inserted, to add "and not being a Board of Guardians."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, that as it appeared that the Amendment was about to be passed nemine contradicente, it was as well he should express a view, which he knew was held heartily on the Opposition side of the House, that Boards of Guardians ought to be disestablished and their powers transferred to the County Coun- cils. He knew that in that statement he was largely supported by the popular Party in the House. [Laughter.] Well, they would be able to know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite formed the popular Party when they had the courage to go to the country. Anyhow, he and his hon. Friend's had all along held that one of the greatest defects in this measure was that the Government had left altogether in an unreformed condition the Boards of Guardians in the country. He did not desire to say much upon the question; but as the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to purposely exclude Boards of Guardians from being transferred to the County Councils, it was their duty, at any rate, to utter a protest against that view, because they considered that the duties of Boards of Guardians were among the most important duties which County Councils ought to have to perform, being as they were so intimately connected with the welfare of the people of the country. It was perfectly well known that Boards of Guardians did not give satisfaction to the people. The qualification for membership was a high one; there were ex officio members, and if the Government were really sincere in their constant profession of trusting the people, they would have no difficulty whatever in handing over to the County Councils the duties at present inadequately performed by Boards of Guardians.

MR. RITCHIE

thought he should be able, in a very few words, to show how impossible it would be to transfer the power of Boards of Guardians to County Councils. Guardians were Guardians for Unions, while County Councils would be composed of the representatives of several Unions, and without an entire re-arrangement of the whole system it would be quite impossible to transfer the power of Boards of Guardians to County Councils. What the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Conybeare) suggested could only be done by a complete scheme and not by any method of transfer.

Mr. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

said, that if the contention of the right hon. Gentleman was correct, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) was really unnecessary. If, on the other hand, the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the transfer of powers from the existing Boards of Guardians to some other authority, the Amendment was in the highest degree mischievous. If there was one thing which was brought out more clearly than another in the debate on the second reading, it was that the existing system which the Bill proposed to continue, by which they were to have the constitution and qualification and mode of election of Boards of Guardians continued on the same basis as now, was one of the most anomalous features of the Bill. Surely an Amendment which provided that at no future time should it be possible to do away with Boards of Guardians, except by a special Bill brought in the House, was one which ought to be strenuously resisted.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that the Amendment only prevented the transfer of these powers by a Provisional Order—the transfer of the powers of a Body composed of representatives of one small area to a Body composed of the representatives of a very much larger area by a Provisional Order. He thought that whatever might be the opinion as to the expediency of the transfer in the future, hon. Members would agree with him that the transfer ought to be done by means of a Bill which would deal with the entire re-arrangement which would have to take place if the transfer were to be made.

MR. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden)

said, he had understood from the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long), that it was extremely probable that it would be left to the County Councils to determine whether the powers of the Boards of Guardians should be altered or reformed under the new conditions of the Local Government Bill.

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

said, he never made any statement of the kind.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. CHAPLIN, the following Amendments made:—In page 6, line 11, after "suit," insert "exceptions and modifications as appeared to be expedient and also such;" and in line 15, after "thereof," insert "shall be."

MR. T. E. ELLIS

said, that the Amendment which stood in his name was to leave out the words— By the Secretary of State or Department concerned, or approved by the Commissioners, Conservators, or body corporate or unincorporate, whose powers, duties and liabilities are affected thereby. He wished to ask the Government whether it was really necessary to include these words? Their object appeared to him to be that if any power was to be diverted from a Department to the County Councils, the approval of the Department must be had beforehand. He imagined that the Government of the day would bring forward a Provisional Order, whether they had the consent of the permanent officials or not. If that was the case, he thought it would be better to leave these words out of the Bill.

MR. RITCHIE

said, it was not a question of the permanent officials at all. The Local Government Board would be under the Bill charged with the preparation of the Provisional Orders, and clearly it was essential that the words should be inserted to show that before the Local Government Board acted in that way, the draft orders should be submitted to the Departments concerned for their approval.

MR. FIRTH (Dundee)

said, the Amendment which he had now to propose provided that before the Order in Council was made, the draft thereof should be approved by the County Council to whom the power was to be transferred.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 15, after "approved," insert "by the County Council to which the transfer is proposed to be made, &c."—(Mr. Firth.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was sure the Committee would see at once the enormous amount of inconvenience which might possibly follow the acceptance of such an Amendment as that. For instance, it might be desirable that certain powers should be transferred to a County Council, and it would be excessively inconvenient if the County Council said, "We do not want these powers." It was quite clear that they must deal with this question as a whole, and, under the circumstances, he trusted the hon. Gen- tleman would not press his Amendment.

MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)

trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he could not insert some words, either now or on Report, which would give the County Council of London an opportunity of saying whether it would or would not take over powers which it might be sought to transfer by Provisional Order. He thought it was not at all unlikely that an attempt might be made to overload the new County Council of London with powers and duties which it would have no desire to take, and which, considering its numbers, it might have no power to discharge. He thought that it was only reasonable that this Body should be asked whether it was prepared to take over powers contemplated to be transferred to it.

MR. FIRTH

said, that this was not a case of Provisional Order, but of Order in Council.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that was so; and that was really the answer to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Baumann).

M R. FIRTH

said, he should be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. FELLOWES (Huntingdonshire, Ramsey)

said, he now begged to move the Amendment, No. 17^a, standing in his name—namely, to leave out, in line 15, from "approved," to "shall," in line 18, in order to insert— If it relates to the powers, duties, or liabilities of a Secretary of State, or the Board of Trade, or any other Government department, by such Secretary of State, Board, or department, or approved, if it affects the powers, duties, or liabilities of any commissioners, conservators, or body, corporate or unincorporate, by such commissioners, conservators, or body. The object of the Amendment was very simple; it was only more clearly to define the powers of the Commissioners. At the present time something like 300,000 acres of fen land in Lincoln, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, and the Isle of Ely were under Drainage Boards, and it was considered that it would be very disastrous if the powers now exercised by those Drainage Boards should be handed over to those who were inexperienced in and knew nothing about fen land drainage. He therefore hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 15, leave out from "approved" to "shall," in line 18, and insert "if it relates to the powers, duties, or liabilities of a Secretary of State, or the Board of Trade, or any other Government department, by such Secretary of State, Board, or department, or approved, if it affects the powers, duties, or liabilities of any commissioners, conservators, or, body corporate or unincorporate, by such commissioners, conservators, or bo0dy."—(Mr. Fellowes.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, in framing the Bill it had been intended that words should be inserted to carry out exactly the intentions of the hon. Member. He was bound to acknowledge, however, that the point was much more clearly put by the words proposed. The words of the Amendment were very explicit, and therefore he should be happy to accept them.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

said, he should like to ask whether the word "commissioners" did not leave the clause too wide?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think so, as the clause already contained the word, and the Amendment simply referred in that respect to what was already adopted.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he would ask, would not this word be held to include Improvement Commissioners?

MR. RITCHIE

No, the Amendment simply follows the clause which refers to Commissioners of Sewers.

Question put, and negatived.

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

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he now moved to omit the words— Shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which such House is sitting, and if the House before the expiration of such thirty days presents an address to Her Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceeding shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft order, but otherwise the draft or such part as is not the subject of any such address shall be deemed to be approved by Parliament. His object was, afterwards, to insert the words— And every such Provisional Order shall be of no effect until it is confirmed by Parliament.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 18, leave out from "thereby," to end of line 25, and insert "and every such Provisional Order shall be of no effect until it is confirmed by Parliament."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, that this Amendment the Government, of course, accepted, as it had been the understanding throughout that the Provisional Orders they were speaking of were Provisional Orders which should be laid before Parliament.

MR. CONYBEARE

asked whether any Provisional Order ever came into effect without being laid before Parliament?

MR. RITCHIE

Yes; some of our Provisional Orders have come into effect without being laid before Parliament.

MR. CONYBEARE

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean simply by remaining on the Paper without notice being taken of them?

MR. RITCHIE

There are Board of Trade Provisional Orders, I know, which come into force without being submitted to Parliament at all.

Question put, and negatived.

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

MR. WOODALL (Hanley)

said, he rose to move Amendment No. 24, after line 25, to insert— Provided further that nothing in this section, nor in any order made under this section, shall extend to transfer to a county council, or to render exercisable by a county council, any power, duty, or liability within or with respect to any borough not by this Act constituted a county of itself. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see the propriety of accepting this Amendment. They had now arrived at a fair understanding of the constitution of the County Council, and the position in which it would be placed by the Amendments which had been adopted by the Committee. It would be remembered, with regard to the powers which were to be transferred from the different Government Offices to the new County Authorities, that they had learned from the right hon. Gentleman himself that the provision would not apply in the case of any measures promoted by the Authorities themselves. The provision for transferring these powers would not apply in the case of any of the scheduled boroughs; therefore it was clear that, much as they had desired decentralization and devolution, the Home Office, Board of Trade, and Local Government Board would be under the necessity of continuing the staff of competent men they had hitherto employed, in order to deal with those matters which would be referred to them under the same conditions as heretofore, and all this Amendment asked was, that corporate boroughs which were of less population than those exempted, that was, under the 50,000 population limit, would be left as heretofore, rather to the Government Authorities than to the newly constituted County Councils. He trusted it would not be necessary for him to occupy the time of the Committee at any length in arguing considerations which must be obvious to all hon. Members present. He was glad to see in his place the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Sir Matthew White Ridley), whose very weighty illustrations in support of this Amendment had, unfortunately, been heard by such a small number of Members. There must, however, have been many Members in the House who had been urged by their constituents to support this Amendment, and he, therefore, ventured to submit it to the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, after line 25, insert—"Provided further that nothing in this section, nor in any order made under this section, shall extend to transfer to a county council, or to render exercisable by a county council, any power, duty, or liability within or with respect to any borough not by this Act constituted a county of itself."—(Mr. Woodall.)

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

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could understand the hon. Gentleman placing this Amendment on the Paper, and desiring to have it inserted as the clause was originally drawn, because, when the clause stood in its original form, certain powers were at once transferred to the County Councils, many of those powers being powers connected with the issue of Provisional Orders, and many of them dealing with matters affecting the arrangements of the Imperial Government with the boroughs. But it must be pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that the face of things had very materially altered by the changes which had taken place in the clause.

MR. WOODALL

said, those changes had strengthened his point.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he did not think that could be the case, because, as the clause now stood, no transfer could be made except by means of a Provisional Order. It would be a matter for consideration, when a Provisional Order was made, whether it did or did not unduly and in an objectionable manner interfere with a borough. He thought it would be highly inexpedient to add a provision of this kind to a clause which would entirely prevent in future any power being given to a County Council which must be exercisable with reference to every borough within the county. He honestly believed that when this Bill came into operation boroughs which were contained within the counties would see, in reference to the position they would occupy on the County Councils, that in many matters for which they had now to come to the Government Departments, it would be more convenient and more desirable for them to go to the great Administrative Institution it was proposed to set up in every county. If this Amendment were accepted, it would prevent these powers being exercisable, and they would, for a time, until a fresh Act was passed, impose the duty on a borough of coming to the Central Department rather than going to the local Representative Institution on which they themselves were fully and adequately represented. He hoped, therefore, that, looking at the fact that there was a desire to carry out, as far as possible, a system of decentralization, and place in the hands of the Local Body those powers which had hitherto been discharged by the Central Authority, when the transfer was made from the Central Department, he hoped the hon. Member would see that the Government did not desire to infringe on the privileges of anyone in the county, but rather to increase them. All boroughs, by means of Provisional Orders, would be able to express their opinion upon any matter they thought desirable.

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

said, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have viewed this Amendment with more favour. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that the County Councils, as now constituted, would be very different Bodies to those foreshadowed in the Bill, and, he might say, as some of them would have preferred to see them. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that there were very few counties in England in which the County Councils would represent any boroughs at all. Take the large county of Lancaster. He could very well conceive that, if all the great boroughs in that county had found representation on a large Council formed for the representation of the County Palatine, it would have been possible to give them very many of the powers they had been discussing, and he presumed that no such Amendment as that now proposed would have been necessary. But what was the position they found themselves in now? There were many boroughs in Lancashire, part of which county he represented, which would not be treated as separate counties, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that these places had no desire to go to the new County Authority, as it would be constituted under this Bill, to get its sanction for Provisional Orders, or any other powers which might have to be given. These boroughs had already represented to the right hon. Gentleman that they would rather go to a Government Department. He had two or three boroughs in his mind in the county of Lancashire—health resorts, say. With what confidence could one of these go to a County Council such as they would be likely to have in Lancashire, where rival interests would, in all probability, be very largely concerned? Would they be able to go with the same confidence to such a Council as they would be able to go to a Central Department in London? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that a Provisional Order would meet the whole case, and that boroughs which did not desire to come under the control of the County Council were to have the advantage of obtaining such Orders. He (Sir Matthew White Ridley) could quite understand that there was something in that view of the right hon. Gentleman; but his contention was, that the municipal boroughs were not adequately represented on the County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said they were adequately represented, but that position he (Sir Matthew White Ridley) disputed. Why should those municipal boroughs be put in the position of having to oppose Provisional Orders promoted by the County Councils? They now asked that they might have a separate existence in the county, which was perfectly well understood; that all boroughs, whatever their population, should, with reference to these Orders, be excluded from the action of the County Council. Surely the case needed only to be stated to find some support, and he sincerely trusted the right hon. Gentleman would take a favourable view of the matter.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he agreed rather with the Government than with the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, or the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment. He would ask the question once more, were they or were they not engaged in decentralization? If they were, what was the object of the argument of the hon. Member that they ought to have centralization with regard to boroughs. ["No, no!"] Yes; that really was his argument, because all these authorities were to be reserved to the Government Departments. Now, he (Sir William Harcourt) wished to get this authority out of the hands of the Government Department as far as possible. He had been a party to getting the great boroughs out of the Bill, although, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in the interests of his measure, would rather have kept them in. He (Sir William Harcourt) fully admitted that, if the great boroughs had been kept in the Bill, it would have strengthened the right hon. Gentleman's County Councils; but then there were rival interests in connection with the great boroughs, which the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to respect. But if they were going to lay it down that all the small boroughs were also to be absolutely and entirely outside the purview of the County Councils as regarded these powers, practically speaking they would reduce their County Councils to a condition of comparative insignificance. Therefore, it was clearly in the interest of the Bill, as he was constantly contending, not to weaken the County Councils. He observed that the hon. Baronet (Sir Matthew White Ridley) had used these words—"Could these rival towns have confidence in the County Councils?" Why, that surely was a spirit of want of confidence which would weaken these Bodies very much. If they held the Councils up as Bodies to which towns in Lancashire could not safely trust their interests, they were disparaging the County Councils, not intentionally, perhaps, but they were expressing with regard to them a want of confidence that would very much diminish their authority. He objected very much to the exercise of many of these powers possessed by the Central Department. When he was responsible for the administration of the Home Office, he observed that Inspectors of Constabulary, for instance, were constantly going to towns and telling the Local Authorities that they ought to have more police than the Local Authorities thought they wanted. He absolutely prohibited any interference on the part of the Home Office with the Municipalities or the Local Councils in these matters. If these Councils knew anything at all, they knew much better than any Central Authority all about such matters as local police. The Inspectors of Constabulary, to his mind, were absolutely useless for the purposes for which they at present existed; and he referred to them as an illustration of what he considered a bad form of centralization. He should be very sorry to exclude from the Bill the power and means of getting rid of more of this Central Department authority. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, they did not commit themselves finally on the subject of what powers were to be given or not given, but, by keeping these words out of the Bill, they would be keeping open to themselves the means of transferring such of the powers as might be thought desirable.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he concurred with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. In his opinion, the County Councils would be in an extremely anomalous position if the Amendment were accepted. All these boroughs would be represented on the County Councils—and he did not know whether he had misunderstood the hon. Baronet in saying that they might not all be represented.

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said, that rival towns would be represented on the same Council, and it would not be a pleasant thing for a health resort, for instance, to apply to such Council for a Provisional Order, it might be, against the desire of other towns.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that with all respect to the hon. Baronet he had more confidence in what the position of these County Councils would be than to imagine that there would be such rivalries and jealousies between one town and another, which would prevent a town getting what it desired. It would be a matter for consideration, when a Provisional Order was brought in, what way the borough should be dealt with. Though he thought there was a great deal to be said for the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall), in regard to the transference of many of the powers which were of a debatable character—questions involving Provisional Orders—yet he thought that the concession the Government had made as to Provisional Orders really removed the main ground for this Amendment.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said, he hoped the Government would give this matter further consideration. The small boroughs, one of which he had the honour to represent, were strongly opposed to these rights being taken away from them. They were prepared to manage their own affairs through the Central Department, and they asked that they should not be disturbed. As the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Sir Matthew White Ridley) had said, they would be represented upon the County Councils, but they would have only one member, perhaps, on a Body consisting of 70 or 80, and their voice would be almost unheard amongst such a large number. The whole sense of the Bill, as proclaimed by the Government, was that vested interests would not be disturbed—that nothing would be taken away from any vested interest, so far as any local affairs were concerned.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, he also desired to support the Amendment. He was certain that the municipal boroughs of the country were most anxious to be exempted from the authority of the County Council, and not to be interfered with by it. The old Municipalities, almost one and all of them, begged to be exempted. He, therefore, agreed very much with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Blackpool, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill would look favourably upon the proposal.

MR. BRUNNER

said, he regretted he could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, though it was impossible for him to follow the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It seemed to him that the County Councils, as constituted by the Bill, would be somewhat less worthy of respect than they would have been if all the boroughs of 50,000 and upwards had been represented upon them; but, on the other hand, he thought it would be a sad thing on the part of the House to keep up two Authorities to which appeal could be made on matters such as were dealt with in the Schedules. Although ho had always had a very great respect for the action of the officials under the Local Government Board, he thought it would be well that the County Council should be the Authority of the future, not only because he had every confidence they would do their work well, but also on account of the educating influence which would thus be brought to bear upon them. He wished to point out, that if the proposal for selective Councillors were dropped the County Council would be more respected by the boroughs the hon. Baronet had spoken of than they would be in the future. This question of selective Councillors, however, had been thrashed out, and he did not wish to say more about it. He had endeavoured, in the consideration of this Bill, to put aside all Party matters, and he desired that those County Councils should be as greatly respected and as dignified as they could possibly be made, and he believed that if, by-and-bye, those selected Councillors no longer existed, the County Councils would be more respected.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in his desire for decentralization, and, at the same time, he agreed with those who supported the Amendment; but he thought that another alternative might be suggested which did not appear to have been brought before the Committee. It appeared to him that what they wanted to do was to carry out decentralization as far as possible, but, at the same time, to safeguard the individual urban life of the different municipalities, on behalf of which the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall) and the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division (Sir Matthew White Ridley) had spoken. Ho would ask if these two conflicting views could not be brought together by providing that, when a measure of decentralization should have taken place, authorities which differed very much in themselves should be transferred, some to one party and some to another? When the measure for decentralization was adopted and a Provisional Order Bill was brought forward, some of these powers might be transferred to the District Council. These District Councils would, he understood, in many cases be the municipalities which they were speaking of. He felt very strongly that the County Councils should have ample powers and should be made as dignified as possible, so as to command the confidence of the people generally; but at the same time they did not want altogether to stifle the individual municipal life of the old established boroughs which were now in question. He would, therefore, venture to suggest whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not consider the possibility of making some arrangement in the direction proposed. He did not say that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment as it stood upon the Paper, but he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not frame some suggestion, at a later stage, to provide that when such transfers of powers took place as was proposed, some of the powers should be transferred to the District Authorities instead of the whole of them being transferred to the County Councils. It struck him that this proposal might meet with the approval of the hon. Member for Hanley, and at the same time bring into harmony the conflicting views of hon. Members.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

said, he wished to add a few words in favour of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hanley. He believed that if the Bill was carried without the Amendment it would do harm to the municipal life of the small boroughs. Many of these boroughs were very ancient, and they would be placed in a secondary position—as compared with the position they had held in the past—under the Bill as it at present stood, and he did not think that would be good for their municipal life. Moreover, the adoption of the clause without this Amendment would be a slur upon those boroughs which during the past few years had been created municipal boroughs, as they would be placed in a secondary in place of an independent position as regarded the County Authority. The clause, unless amended, would afford an obstacle to the creation of new municipalities in the future, as they would have to maintain their claim through the County Councils instead of through a Government Department. It was in the interests of independent local life, which he thought ought to be encouraged and fostered by every means in their power, that he strongly supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hanley. One of the best things in our local life from one end of England to the other had been the growing up of communities into independent centres of local self-government. He wanted that state of things to continue. He did not wish to see these boroughs interfered with, whether they were old or new, as he did not wish to see these places put in an inferior position to a Body which would very often be out of sympathy with them.

MR. WOODALL

said, he should be very sorry to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division if he could avoid it; but he certainly, under the circumstances, felt bound to divide. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board could suggest anything to give effect to what he had understood him to imply—namely, that there might be the possibility of devising some method by which the municipal boroughs might have an option in the matter of going either to the County authority or to the Government authority.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was afraid it would be very inconvenient to have a dual control, but he had always said that when they came to consider the question of the transference of powers by means of Provisional Orders, he should be very glad to give full consideration to the suggestion made.

MR. WOODALL

said, that the right hon. Gentleman would see that his Amendment proposed that whatever might be the powers given under the Provisional Orders to county authorities, the municipal boroughs should be exempted.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he could not possibly accept that.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

asked, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the proposal of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare)?

MR. RITCHIE

We give large powers of delegation from the County Council to the District Council?

MR. CONYBEARE

asked whether it would not be possible, without putting the Committee to the trouble of a Division, to leave the matter so far open that when they came to discuss the matter of delegating these powers, they would still be in a position to discuss the question they were now discussing?

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Hanley would not think it necessary to divide the Committee upon this Amendment. It had not received much support, and there seemed to be a great deal in what was said of the changed position effected by the Amendments in the clause.

MR. WOODALL

Perhaps the Government would prefer that we should report Progress?

MR. RITCHIE

Certainly not.

Question put, and negatived.

It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.