Commons Sitting of 25 April 1899

Preamble
MR.SPEARKER MR.SPEARKER too the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  NORTH WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL (QUEEN'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  RUSHDEN AND HIGHAM FERRERS DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
  BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILE.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LOWESTOFT PROMENADE PIER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Order [21st March] that the Metropolitan Water Companies Bill be committed, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  WALLASEY TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).
  Mr. Hargreaves Brown reported from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the London Improvements Bill had stated that the evidence of Robert Vigers, 6, Frederick's Place, Old Jewry, E.C., was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not he procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Robert Vigers do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Robert Vigers do attend the Committee on Group F, Private Bills, To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Mr. Johnson-Ferguson reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of Members, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.(Bill 166.)
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed
  Minutes of proceedings to be printed.(No.171.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee—

  1."That, in the case of the West Middlesex Water Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the committee on the Bill think fit."

  2."That, in the case of the London United Tramways Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, An Act to authorise the Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Company to abandon certain of their authorised works, and to confer further powers upon that Company; and for other purposes."(Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill (H.L.)
PETITIONS.

  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
  petitions for alteration of Law:—From Rawmarsh;—ltchen;—and,
  Barry; to lie upon the Table.

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (CODE OF REGULATIONS FOR DAY SCHOOLS).
  Petition from Worcester, against proposed alterations to Articles 33, 37, and 42; to lie upon the Table.
  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition of the Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FINE OR IMPRISONMENT (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour,—From Ashton
  under Lyne;—Mossley;—Cardiff;—Sunderland;—Rawmarsh:—and, St. Pancras; to lie upon the Table.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (NOTIFICATION) ACT (1889) EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Gainsborough, against; to lie upon the Table.
  JUSTICES DISQUALIFICATION REPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Inverness (two);—Glasgow;—Brcchin;—Bowmore;—Leith;—Dunfermline;—Scottish Temperance Association;—Aberdeen;—Kirkcolm;—Alloa;—Overton;—Perth;—Comrie;—Irvine;—Brough
  ton;—Carnoustie;—Dunragit;—Kincardineshire;—Ceres;—Leuchars;—and, Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Dewsbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Norwich;—Clare;—and, Sandown; to lie upon the Table.

  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Nunnery Colliery;—Alfreton;—Ryland's Main;—Blackwell;—Chickenly Heath;—Batley; —North Staveley;—Aldwarke;—Heckniondwike;—Denby;—Woodside;—New Oaks;—Chestertield; —Alma;—
  Grassmoor;—Millbridge; —Horn-
  thorpes; —Dronfield;—
  Dunston; —Barl borough;—East Gawber;—GreasBorough;—Ormiston;—Oxenford—Micklefield;—Beeston;—Strafford;—Preston Grange;—Tranent; —Elphingstone;—Panstone; —Northfield;—Heage; —Victoria Colliery; —Home Rule Lodge; —Bond's Main;—and, Wood thorpe; to lie upon the Table.

  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL.
  Petition of the Incorporated Law Society, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PARISH COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Leeds, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Newcastle upon Tyne, against; to lie upon the Table.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Petitions in favour; —From St.
  Blazey;—Stockport; —Bristol;—Lewes;—Walsall;—Bath;—Swindon;—Tondu;—Llantrissant;—Cheltenham;—Stroud;—Barry; —Accrington —Chesterfield; Ramsbottom;—Morpeth;—Todniorden;—Crewe;;—Aintree;—Skipton;—Rugby;—Wellin borough; —Wellington—and, Colwick; to lie upon the Table.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment;—From Dunfermline;—Edinburgh;—Rothesay;—and, Oban; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Puddle town;—Nacton;—Olveston;—Rochdale;—and, Southlands; to lie upon the Table.
  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Ellon;—Kintyre;—Glasgow; —General Assembly of the Church of Scotland;—and, burgh; to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition from Bayswater, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table
RETURNS, REPORTS,ETC.
  ARMY(VOLUNTEERS)
  Copy presented,—of proposed Amendment of the Scheme relative to the efficiency of the Volunteers in force under Her Majesty's Orders in Council, dated 31st July 1880,14th April 1884,etc.[by Act];to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL GALLERY ETC.(SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Fifth Annual Report to the Secretary for Scotland by the Commissioners and Trustees of the Board of Manufactures in Scotland, being fur the year ending 30th. September l898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARBITRATION IN THE CASE OF MR. ALDERMAN BEN TILLETT (COMMERCIAL, No. 2, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Papers relating to the Arbitration in the case of Mr. Alderman Ben Tillett [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented,—of General Report to the Education Department by the Chief Inspector of the Welsh Division for the year 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4 Bill."—(Mr.Ritchie)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie
  upon the Table, and to be printed.(No.164.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting provisional orders(No. 5) Bill"—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 165.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 166.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie
  upon the Table, and to be printed.(No.167.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHT1NG PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional orders include in the Electric Lighting provisional Orders (No.8)Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.(No.168)

NEW BILL.
  TRUCK ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  "To amend the Truck Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be rend a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. (Bill 167.)
QUESTIONS.

  STATUE OF OLIVER CROMWELL.
  MR. JOHNSTON: On this, the 300th anniversary of his birth, and honouring the memory of the great Lord Protector, I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can state the present condition of the statue of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector, which has been presented to the nation by the munificence of a private donor, and at what date, and on what site, it will be erected in. Westminster?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Befere the right honourable Gentleman answers that Question may I ask whether there is any precedent for granting a site in the vicinity of this House for the erection of a statue to a murderer?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I understand that the statue of Oliver Cromwell which has been promised to the nation by a private donor is advancing towards completion; but I am unable to say when it will be finished. The site selected by my predecessor in the Westminster Hall Garden will be adhered to.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS FOR WASTE.
  SIR. J. MACLURE (Lancs., Stretford): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty Whether the contracts for waste for the last few years have been given to the same two or three firms; and whether he is prepared to allow three Members of the House, not interested in the trade, to examine the samples and the deliveries in various
  516
  dockyards, in order to compare the sample with the actual deliveries, and at the same time to give the names of the contractors and prices charged by each?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY, Antrim, S.): The reply to the first paragraph of the Question is, as regards the past three years, in the affirmative, and to the second paragraph in the negative.

  PROVINCE OF YORK CONVOCATION AND THE BURIALS LAWS.
  MR. SIDEBOTHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of a Debate on the Burial Laws in the Upper House of the Convocation of the Province of York, and to the fact that a Resolution expressing the opinion that the recent Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the Burial Laws affords a satisfactory basis of legislation for the consolidation and revision of the existing Laws of Burial, was moved by the Bishop of Newcastle, seconded and supported by the Bishops of Durham and Chester, and unanimously adopted; and whether he can now state if he hopes to introduce a Burials Bill during the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancs., Blackpool): Yes; I have read with much interest a Report of the Debate to which my honourable Friend refers. A Burials Bill is now practically ready, and I can only repeat the hope, which I have already expressed, that I may have an opportunity of introducing it during the present Session. In the present state of public business, however, I am obliged to say that I am not able to make any promise in the matter.

  TELEGRAPHISTS AND SORTING DUTIES.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether all telegraphists entering the Government service since 1896 are expected to acquire a knowledge
  sorting duties; and whether the addi-

  517
  tional increment for acquaintance with postal work will be granted to them after live years' service?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (for Mr. HANBURY): Notice was given in January 1896 that on and after the 1st February 1896, at all provincial offices at which there is a divided staff far sorting and for telegraph duties, male candidates for appointment would be required to qualify both in postal and telegraph duties, and be appointed on vacancies to a combined class of sorting clerks and telegraphists. A similar arrangement for dual training of new entrants applies in London. This being so, such officers will not be eligible for the additional increment.

  SOLDIERS' TEETH.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he will state the number of recruits rejected during the past year on account of bad teeth, who were in every other respect fully up to the required standard?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,: 1,767 recruits were rejected in the year 1898 under the heading "Loss or decay of litany teeth."

  FOREIGN TRADE WITH THE SAMOAN ISLANDS.
  MR.HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the total amounts of the export and import trades of the Samoan Islands, and the relative interests of Great Britain, America, and Germany therein?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE rent FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODIUCK, Surrey, Guildford): The Consul's Report on the Trade of Samoa, published in April last, shows that the exports in 1897 were £47,839, and the imports £165,926. The relative interests
  518
  of Great Britain, America and Germany were as follows:—Exports: British Empire, £5,405; United States, £311; Germany, £10,861. Imports: British Empire, £34,754; United States, £16,826; Germany, £10,683.

  FOREIGNERS IN SAMOA.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the total number of Europeans resident in the Samoan Islands, and the proportions, relatively to the total, of the British, American, and German subjects in residence there?
  MR. BRODRICK: The latest Report from Her Majesty's Consul shows that there are 439 British subjects in the Samoan Islands. Of these 141 are British horn and 298 half-castes. No general census has been taken since 1895, when the number of Germans was 120 and of Americans 26, but these figures are probably not correct at the present moment.

  MALWA OPIUM TRADE.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether lie has observed the statement of the quantity of Malwa opium imported into Ningpo in 1898 on page 9 of the Consular Report on the trade of Ningpo fur 1898, just issued, and, as that is apparently an important error, could he state what is the correct quantity.
  MR. BRODRICK: The amount given in the Return as imported in 1898 is clearly an error. I am afraid I cannot give the correct figure from information in my possession, but inquiry will be made at once.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay upon the Table the statistics of the proceedings in sheriff courts in Scotland, under

  519
  the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during, the year 1898?
  SIR J. LENGhad the following Question on the sane subject: To ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Local Government Board in Scotland will present to Parliament a Report and statistics relating to, proceedings in sheriff courts in Scotland under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, mid the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, during, the year 1898, corresponding to these issued by the Home Office for England nod Wales.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have arranged with the Secretary for Scotland that the statistics mentioned in the Question shall be collected. As soon as they are ready, I shall be glad to lay them on the Table. The honourable Member for Dundee will also, perhaps, accept this as an answer to the Question which he has addressed to the Lord Advocate.

  DEDUCTIONS FROM GOVERNMENT PAY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state on what grounds a deduction of at least 10 per cent. is made from the Government pay of officers pensioned from the Army or Navy; could he state what the sum so obtained by the Treasury amounts to; and whether he would consider the abolition of the deduction, or making it from the half or retired pay of those officers affected, instead of as at present from the pay of the office or appointment held?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (for Mr. HANBURY): The deduction in question is statutory, being made in pursuance of rules drawn up by the Treasury under section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887. The preamble of those rules explains that the general principle adopted by Parliament has been that, where any person receiving, non-effective pay on account of service to the State accepts fresh State em-
  520
  ployment the State should benefit by some saving upon the sums otherwise payable to such person on account of his non-effective pay, and of the emoluments of his fresh employment. The deduction is made from the civil salary because, when retired pay has been received in the form of a gratuity, or any non-effective pay has been commuted, abatement can be made in no other way; and, also, because retired pay represents the closing of a bargain between the officer and the Board of Admiralty, or the Secretary of State for War, which it is better not to disturb; while the civil salary is a matter still open to arrangement when each appointment is made. The total amount of these deductions in the year ending 31st March 1898 was a little under £4000. For the reasons given above it is not proposed to make any change in the existing arrangements.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: May I ask if it is the fact that this deduction is made both on the retired pay and the current
  Pay?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS: I am not certain; perhaps the honourable Gentleman will put a Question down to the Secretary of the Treasury.

  THE NIGER COMPANY.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government expect to be able to make any announcement to the House as to their negotiations with the Niger Company?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I cannot say at present.

  WRECKS IN THE ATLANTIC.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg, to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number and tonnage of vessels lost in the North Atlantic with all hands during the heavy gales of last winter; and whether, in view of the treat sacrifice of lives which occurred, he is pre-

  521
  pared to give effect to the proposals of orders granting to police constables in the Load Line Committee for reducing the winter North Atlantic freeboard, Fever Acts half the fine inflicted On a and thus increasing the risk to the lives defendant and whether such an order of seamen in future winters?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,: The number of British vessels lost in the North Atlantic with all hands during last winter was nine. Their net tonnage was 16,701, and the number of lives lost with them was 278. The proposals of the recent Load Line Committee have been given effect to, but I am advised that there is no reason whatever to think that any one of these missing steamers had an insufficient freeboard. In fact, four of the vessels in question were bound by the new regulations to have two inches more freeboard than was formerly required; of the remaining five, one was from a port to which the North Atlantic winter freeboard has never applied one had two inches more and one had five inches more clear side than the old roles required.

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Bill dealing with Irish Agriculture is to be introduced?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: I hope to he able to introduce this Bill before Whitsuntide, but it will have to be under the Ten Minutes Rule.
  MR. DILLON: It would be a great convenience if the right honourable Gentleman could make. some general statement as to the course he intends to adopt with regard to Irish business.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I can hardly make a statement.

  SWINE FEVER PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is the practice of some benches of magistrates to make
  522
  orders granting to police constables in charge of prosecutions under the Swine Fever Acts half the fine inflicted on a defendant; and whether such an order is in accordance with the law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am not aware that such a practice is in vogue, and should like to have definite information of some particular instance of it before expressing any opinion as to its legality.

  THE SINKING FUND.
  SIR H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of Consols has been purchased with Savings Bank Funds, or for the purpose of the Sinking Funds, during the last 10 years; what amount, and at what cost, has been purchased at a discount; and what amount, and at what cost, has been purchased at a premium?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The amount of Consols purchased during the last 10 years with Savings Bank money and with Sinking Fund money was £112,887,409. Of this, £37,980,400 was bought at or below par prior to the 1st April 1894, at a cost of £37,004,984, or at an average discount of 2.6 per cent.; and subsequently £74,907,009 above par, at a cost of £80,343,249, or at an average premium of 7.2 per cent. The outlays in the Consul market would have been larger had it not been that the Government have been able to effect investments in Local Loans Stock, Irish Guaranteed Land Stock and other Parliamentary securities.

  AUCKLAND (NEWZEALAND) HARBOUR.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now inform the House of the amount of the grant-in-aid sanctioned under Vote 10 by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to enable the Harbour Board at Auckland, New Zealand, to equip the new dock there with requisite machinery and plant

  523
  so as to make it available for Naval purposes, in accordance with the application made last year, and supported in this House?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN,: The Admiralty have, with the sanction of the Treasury, agreed to give the Auckland Harbour Board an annual subsidy of £2,950 for 30 years. The principal conditions attached to the grant are (1) that the Harbour Board shall, at their expense, erect certain additional buildings and machinery, a deep water jetty and sheers, and shall put and keep the dock and appliances in an efficient condition; (2) that the Admiralty shall at all times have priority of use of both dock and machinery; (3) that no charge shall be made for their use by Her Majesty's ships beyond expenses actually incurred by the Harbour Board; (4) that in the event of the earnings for the use by vessels other than Her Majesty's ships of the machinery, etc., provided under this arrangement exceeding the amount required for maintenance and wages, the Admiralty shall participate in such earnings; (5) that the Admiralty shall have the right to terminate the agreement at any time, should the dock, machinery, etc., not be kept in working order to the satisfaction of the Commander-in-chief on the station.

  DR. LAMONTS CASE.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Dr. Lamont (recently unanimously acquitted of certain charges of issuing false certificates of vaccination brought against him by the procurator fiscal at Lochmaddy) who was arrested in his mother's house in Glasgow at 12 o'clock p.m. on the 17th of last September, and locked up in a police cell in Glasgow till the mornnig of 19th September, and on being taken to Lochmaddy was again locked up in a police cell during the nights of 20th and 21st September; whether he is aware that the charge is dated Lochmaddy, the 19th September, or two days after Dr. Lamont was arrested in Glasgow, and the warrant for his apprehension is dated the 21st September, or four days after he was apprehended;
  524
  and will he explain on what authority Dr. Lamont was apprehended and locked up; whether the warrant in question was granted by Dr. W. P. Mackenzie, an honorary sheriff-substitute, who was subsequently one of the witnesses for the Crown against Dr. Lamont; what right had the procurator fiscal to cause Dr. Lamont's arrest and imprisonment four days before the issue of a warrant for his apprehension; whether, if such an irregularity took place, he will cancel Dr. Mackenzie's commission as honorary sheriff-substitute and remove the procurator fiscal in question from his office; and whether the Scotch Office has submitted to the Treasury the recommendation unanimously made by the jury which tried Dr. Lamont, that the Crown should make him pecuniary compensation for the loss and indignities to which he had been subjected; and, if so, with what result?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A.
  GRAHAM MURRAY,): The honourable Baronet called my attention to the subject-matter of this Question on the 27th ultimo, and I refer him to the answer I then gave, to the terms of which I adhere. The statement in the second paragraph of this Question is not correct. The original charge against Dr. Lamont was dated, Lochmaddy, 10th September, with warrant for apprehension of same date; and it was on this charge and warrant that his apprehension was ordered and was executed in Glasgow on the 17th. The charge mentioned in the Question was a subsequent charge including further cases, the warrant upon which did not need to be executed as Dr. Lamont was already in custody. I have already explained that the warrant was issued in ordinary course by the honorary sheriff-substitute; there was therefore no irregularity in the apprehension. As regards the last paragraph, the recommendation of the jury was not as stated, but was that Dr. Lamont's expenses should be paid. I have already expressed my regret that Dr. Lamont should have been arrested, but as I also said that in my judgment in the circumstances the arrest was justifiable, there is no precedent for asking the Treasury to make any such payment.

  HOURS OF LABOUR IN JAM FACTORIES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the existing state of affairs as regards the conditions of labour in fruit-preserving factories has is been brought to his notice; whether he has observed that the Chief Inspector's Report for 1897 shows that in some factories arduous work is permitted to young persons during a day Of unlimited duration throughout the months of June, July, August, and September on the plea of the spoiling of fruit, whereas other firms meet the extra demand made by the arrival of the fruit by additions to the staff or readjustments of departments; whether he is aware that many factories preserve bath fruit and fish, employing the same persons for both processes, thus often extending over a period of more than six months the time during which women and girls are unprotected by the Factory and Workshops Acts: and whether, seeing the proved absence of any necessity fur the existing exemption, he will take steps to put a stop to this state of affairs?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The state Of affairs described in the Question is constantly under my consideration, but I have no power to remedy it, unless Parliament will agree to repeal the existing exemptions from the Factory Acts enjoyed by the trades in question. I proposed last Session that this should be done, and that the Secretary of State should be entrusted with powers to deal with the whole matter under conditions which would secure the protection Of the work-people, but Parliament had no time to deal with the Bill. I think legislation in this matter is desirable.

  CAB REGULATIONS IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the treat relief afforded by the exclusion of crawling cabs from the Strand, he can see his way to extend the scope of the regu-
  526
  lation to other main arteries of the Metropolis where the nuisance is now very conspicuous and contributes to a congestion of traffic?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Up to the present it has not been considered necessary to take any steps in other streets than the Strand, etc., with reference to cabs illegally plying for hire. I am, of course, unwilling to interfere unless the conditions of traffic render it necessary to do so, but I am prepared to take similar measures in any other streets in which I find such action to be required.

  IMPERIAL PENNY POSTAGE.
  MR HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether Jamaica has joined the Imperial Penny Postal System; and whether he can specify the Colonies that still maintain a hesitating attitude in this connection?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (for Mr. HANBURY): The Government of Jamaica has decided to adopt on the 24th May the Penny Postage Scheme which is in force between this country and various British Colonies and possessions; the directors of the North Borneo Company have also decided to introduce the scheme in North Borneo and Labuan, but have not yet fixed a date for carrying their decision into effect; and the Government of Mauritius is expected to join. If these British possessions all carry out their intention on the 24th May, the only important Colonies which will then not be included in the Penny Postage Scheme will be Australia, New Zealand, and the Cape of Good Hope.

  THE KING OF SAMOA.
  M. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it will come within the province of the Joint Commission to inquire into the legality of Mataafa's exclusion from the succession in Samoa, and the extent

  527
  to which sectarian influences operated in bringing about that exclusion; and whether it is proposed to give the Samoan people any voice in the selection of their future king?
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of the succession in Samoa will be reported upon by the Commissioners, whose Report will be considered by their respective Governments.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: May I ask whether under the Berlin Tripartite Agreement the British Government did not oblige themselves to recognise as King any ruler of Samoa who might be elected in accordance with native custom, and whether Mataafa was not so elected?
  MR. BRODRICK: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  INDIAN SUGAR DUTIES.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in addition to the new countervailing duties, German and Austrian sugar will still be subject to the general 5 per cent. impost duty; and what relation, at present prices, this duty bears to German and Austrian bounties?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,: All sugar imported into India since 1894 has paid 5 per cent. ad valorem duty; and bounty-fed sugar will not, under the recent Act, become free from this duty. In reply to the second part of the honourable Member's Question, I can only give a very rough estimate; but the bounties on sugar imported into India from Austria and Germany may be taken on the average to be one-eighth of the value of the sugar; and, on this assumption, the 5 per cent. ad valorem duty would be about five-thirteenths of the amount of the bounty.

  TREATMENT OF FOREIGNERS IN JAPANESE PRISONS.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any satisfactory arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government with the Government of Japan respecting the incarceration of British subjects in Japanese
  528
  prisons; and whether any concessions have been obtained from the Japanese Government relating to the disabilities and other matters of grave importance affecting the lives and liberties of British subjects resident in Japan, referred to in their memorial presented to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
  MR. BRODRICK: Assurances have been given by the Japanese Government that measures will be taken to provide foreign prisoners with food and accommodation in accordance with their manner of living. It is not possible to make a full reply to the second Question within the limits of an answer to a Question, but I may say that assurances have been received regarding reforms in the press law and restrictions on foreigners generally, and that there is no reason to fear that British subjects will not be fairly treated when the new treaties come into operation.

  MEAT TRADE BETWEEN BELGIUM AND NEW ZEALAND.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Vice-Consul Venables on the trade of Belgium, and to the statement therein that the Antwerp Chamber of Commerce had addressed the central authorities at Brussels with the object of extending the trade of that country with the British Colonies by a policy of free trade, and by the removal of existing duties on those articles in which the Canadian exporters were most interested; whether he is aware that the frozen meat trade between Belgium and New Zealand and other Australasian possessions, which was of considerable importance and gave promise of considerable extension in the future, had now almost disappeared through the Belgian Government requiring that all carcases imported should have the lungs attached; and whether he would consider the advisability of approaching the Belgian Government in conjunction with representatives of the Colonies in respect to same?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
  TUB COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBRERLAIN,: I have seen the statement in the Report of Mr. Vice-consul Venables to which the honourable Member refers. I am aware that the restriction imposed by the Belgian Government has injured the trade in frozen meat with the Australasian Colonies. Representations have been made to that Government on the subject, but so far without success.

  GERMANY IN ASIA MINOR.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the political agreement recently concluded between Great Britain and Germany included an arrangement that the exploitation of Turkey in Asia Minor, or of the greater part, was to be abandoned to Germany; and whether the Smyrna-Aidin Railway is about to be sold to a German company?
  MR. BRODRICK: No arrangement has been made of the nature mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question. We have no information to confirm the statement in the second paragraph.

  THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I
  beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to give the House any information us to the recent negotiations with the Beer Government regarding reforms in the Transvaal?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have no information to give to the House beyond what has appeared in the newspapers.

  FAIR RENT CASES.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has his attention been drawn to the action of Sub-Commissioners Bailey, Byers, and
  530
  Williams where, in fixing the fair rents of two adjoining farms on the estate of the trustees of G. J. Hunter, the tenant of one of the farms was allowed 4½ more percentage of deductions than the other, the farms being of almost equal quality; and does the Government propose to take any action in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been drawn to the cases of the two holdings referred to by a communication received from the honourable Member. The matter, however, is not one in which the Government can interfere.

  THE PEACE CONFERENCE.
  MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can undertake that our delegates to the forthcoming Peace Conference shall be instructed to call the attention of their colleagues to that passage in his Annual Statement in which he expressed a willingness to reduce our Naval Estimates, provided the other Powers reduce theirs?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): I am sure the House will feel that it would be unwise and inexpedient to make any public announcement of the instructions to be given to the British delegates at the forthcoming. International Peace Conference.

  CLERICAL TITHE-OWNERS.
  MR. LOYD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the opposition of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and. other Members of both Houses (on behalf of the tithe-owning clergy) to the Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1840, was withdrawn on the express undertaking of the Government of that day that the duration of that Act should be for one year only, and that the injustice of allowing clerical tithe owners to remain

  531
  subject to rating under the statute 43 Eliz. c. 2, while exempting all other inhabitants from liability thereunder in respect of profits arising within the parish, should be remedied in the following Session; and whether, seeing that the Act of 1840 has notwithstanding been annually renewed, and that numerous other rates have been imposed on clerical incomes for purposes from which they derive no benefit, the Government will undertake that the Poor Rate Exemption Act, 1840, shall not be included in the Schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of this year unless, in the meantime, the condition upon which its passing was obtained has been fulfilled by the passing of a Government Bill to remove or mitigate the injustice to which the tithe-owning clergy are subjected under the present rating laws?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I am not sure that my honourable Friend's narrative is an accurate one. I rather think he has been misled in some particulars, for the Act of 1840 was brought in in order to make it possible to co11ect the rates, and the grievance alleged to attach to this Act was a. grievance dealing with the question of the proper burden as between realty and personalty, and not specially in connection with tithe rent-charge. If we were to adopt the course suggested, and not renew the Act of 1840, the result, I am informed, would be that no rates could be collected throughout the country—a result which would be impossible. The whole matter, however, is, as my honourable Friend knows, under the consideration of the Government, and though we do not propose this particular remedy, it is by no means to be implied that we have no remedy to propose.
  MR. LOYD: Will the right honourable Gentleman say that the Expiring Laws. Continuance Bill shall be brought in at an earlier period than usual this Session so as to give an opportunity of discussing this very important question of tithe rating?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I should deprecate making the Expiring Laws Continuance Act an open battlefield for controversy upon the various Acts included in its schedule.

  THE GRANT TO LORD KITCHENER.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill for the grant to Lord Kitchener will be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I can only repeat that a week's notice shall be given to the House before the Bill is taken.
  MR. J. ELLIS (Notts, Rushcliffe): Will it be before Whitsuntide?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have just given.

  NEW WINE DUTIES.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received representations from the Australian Colonies protesting against the new wine duties; and whether the Government intend to exempt Australian wines from the proposed new tax?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No direct communication has been received; but Lord Strathcona, on behalf of the Agents-General of all Colonies has represented their objections to the proposed tax. The second Question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the House be placed in possession of the representations.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No representations have been made to me except verbal ones by Lord Strathcona.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'metropolitan boroughs,' and insert the word 'districts' instead thereof."—(Mr. Stuart.)
    MR. STUARTsaid his object was to bring the title of the units which the Bill dealt with into accord with fact. The units which the Bill dealt with were the rich and poor persons of the trading classes which constituted the unit of existence. They might draw a wall round it, and it was still a self-providing unit, as much as any unit could be self-providing in the present state of commercial enterprise. Let them look at the boroughs which were to be carved out, and take those which were already carved out in the Bill. Take Poplar on the one hand, and Hampstead on the other. In Poplar the rateable value was £4 10s. per head, whilst in Hampstead it was something like £12. Let them consider the more extreme cases of St. James's, Westminster, where they had a rateable value of £35 per head, and compare it with Mile End Old Town, where they had a rateable value of about one-tenth part of that. It was not the intention of this Bill to make that district into a borough, but even if they added all the units round about it it would not make very much difference. They had in one part of London the labouring classes and in another the mercantile and wealthy classes, which could only be considered as parts of a whole which would be incomplete unless all the parts were added to it. If they sought for anything in the nature of an ordinary borough they could find nothing smaller than the administrative county of London. This was recognised as a fact, and he was not laying down a
    534
    theoretical division by pointing out how the trades were located in different parts of London. He appealed to the Members representing great borough constituencies in the rest of England to consider what would be the result if those districts were split up. He would ask the honourable Member for Liverpool what that, municipality would be if Sefton Park were cut out and made into a borough. Would it have any of the elements of a borough? It would be almost as grotesque as some of the separate elements proposed in London government. He had no objection to those districts being local areas for local government, but he adhered to the words of the Royal Commission, which laid down that London contained within itself large areas which could not wisely be weakened or endangered. He entirely agreed with the substance of the Bill in one part, but those areas should not be weakened, but strengthened. Look at the limitation which legislation had imposed upon those divisions of London which were now to be called boroughs. Putting aside the question of the police, which affects all London, they were on a different basis entirely to the big towns, the government of which is solely in the hands of the central authority. Take the boroughs which they were about to establish, and observe how many of the elements of local life would pass to those boroughs under this Measure. There was the question of drainage, of water supply, and of gas. Did they suppose that anyone would argue that the new municipalities in London were to deal with those questions? No, for they were to be deprived of a large number of functions which appertained to all ordinary boroughs. Those great functions attaching to borough life in England would not be enjoyed by the metropolitan bodies, for London was one great town, of which the various districts were only divisions. Nearly three-fourths of the whole expenditure of the new boroughs would be imposed upon them by an extraneous authority; they would have no power over their fire brigade, and could never hope for it; they would have no power under the Building Act, and they would not have the control of technical education. Unlike the area of every other borough they would not be the area of a separate School Board, and the poor law area would not always be coter-

    535
    minous with the area of the borough. He had enumerated some of the great functions of borough life in England which were necessarily taken away, and which were not placed in the hands of the London boroughs. Were they going to bring the assessments under one common basis, or were they to part company one from the other in the future? There was now a central control which did not exist in any other borough. There was the London County Council, the Metropolitan police, the Asylums Board, the School Board, and certain other authorities, and nearly three-fourths of the whole expenditure of these boroughs would be incurred and imposed by outside authorities. How could those bodies be called by a name which is applicable only to the great existing boroughs of the North of England? The new boroughs were districts which were distinct portions of the one great whole covering the administrative county of London, and the object of the Amendment was to ask the Committee to call these new bodies what they really were. Metropolitan boroughs were meant to indicate something different altogether from other boroughs, and yet they called them boroughs. The word "metropolitan" was cast to the wind, and they retained that portion of the name which was misapplied. A good deal had been said about the advisability of dignifying local life, and lie was in favour of that. He hoped the Bill would secure greater interest in local life, which was greatly needed in London. He did not believe, however, that greater interest in local life in London would be secured by giving those districts the wrong name, or by committing what is, more or less, in the nature of a pious fraud. He had had a great deal to do with the administration of London affairs, and he had observed enormous progress in local life. There had been more interest in vestry work, and it was now more successfully undertaken than was the case 10 years ago. In the case of Shoreditch they had changed an absolutely worthless vestry into an active, able, and energetic body, which had created libraries, installed electric light, undertaken technical education, erected baths and washhouses, and had done much for the benefit of that district. That success was founded upon the fact that a few strong and
    536
    determined men had cleared out that worthless vestry and had renovated it. That result had been seen in many other parts of London. That result depended on individual effort, and not in trying to get any names which did not rightly belong to them. The thing that had animated Londoners had been the feeling that they belonged to one great and noble city, of which they were very proud indeed—quite as proud on that side of the House as they were of the City of London on the other side. He regretted that in this Bill there was no attempt made to dignify or mark out that London in any sense was one city, and therefore it was not a sound piece of London reform. They wanted to recognise facts as they were, and dignify and strengthen the local government of London by creating a feeling of common citizenship. It was contemplated under this Bill to divide into separate boroughs districts which were the powerful, great, and admirable areas of a. mighty city, but this Measure would leave London, as far as nomenclature was concerned, divided into separate entities, instead of leaving the great community of London unimpaired.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The question between the honourable Gentleman and ourselves is evidently one of language. It is whether a particular area should be denominated district or borough. By the Amendment the constitution of the areas or the powers to be granted to them are not affected. I am far from asserting that it is a matter of indifference by what Lame a particular unit of local government is named, and we have to decide what is the most appropriate name to be given to the boroughs, what will most conduce to arousing in them that flame of local energy and local zeal which the honourable Gentleman desires as much as the framers of the Bill. The honourable Gentleman has laid down the proposition that nothing ought to be called a borough which is not a self-contained entity, and by that. I understand the honourable Gentleman to mean a community in which all the classes concerned in the work of the unit reside within its area. If that definition is to be rigidly adhered to, there is hardly a single borough in the country which deserves

    537
    the appellation of borough, for there is hardly a single borough anywhere in which a large number of those engaged in the most important work of that borough do not reside outside its limit. If the honourable Gentleman's views are to be carried to their extreme consequence, I presume that the whole of London ought not to be described as the City, unless, for example, Chislehurst is brought within its limits, a proposition which neither the honourable Gentleman nor anybody else wishes to maintain. I object to these theoretical views of the honourable Gentleman, and I will now address myself to the question whether the name borough is more likely to assist the dignity of local life which this Bill is intended to further. The honurable Member appears to be afraid that, if you use the word borough instead of district, those who live in a borough—that is to say, in Chelsea, Shoreditch, Poplar, Westminster, and so forth—may forget that they are citizens of London. That is an illusionary theory. The unity of London is bound up with all our habits of thought and with all our linguistic practices so closely that it cannot be forgotten by anybody. A man going to the seaside from Chelsea or Shoreditch speaks of leaving London, and when he returns he does not say he is returning to Chelsea or Shoreditch, but to London, or to town. Moreover, the unity of London is embodied in the constitution of London it self. When the honourable Member for Hoxton, as the mouthpiece of the London County Council, of which he is so able a. representative, belittles the now areas and describes thorn as districts and not boroughs, he makes himself the engine of something which almost deserves to be described as petty jealousy. I cannot imagine what the London County Council has to gain by the fact that Westminster, Chelsea, or Paddington and the rest are henceforth to be called districts, or what it has to lose by their being calle boroughs. The word "borough" has long been connected in this country with the best forms of civic life which we possess. The Government seeks to stimulate the energies of the subordinate areas of London, and believe no email step in that direction will be taken if we associate with the new constitutions of these areas a
    538
    name which has been distinguished in our civil life.
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid the right honourable Gentleman who had charge of the Bill appeared to imagine that the name of borough was appropriate to these new bodies, whereas it was the most inappropriate which could have been chosen, because the proposed boroughs had none of the characteristics of the boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Act. They might be described as "M. B.," which had hitherto meant a clerical waistcoat, and possibly that was what they would be called to distinguish them from boroughs with which they had little or nothing in common. The districts themselves had not asked to be called boroughs, and at the great conference of the London authorities which took place in 1896, the word borough did not appear. It was suggested a little prior to 1896 that the name of mayor should be applied to the chairmen of the councils, but that was all. It was not until the Metropolitan Municipal Association, which was made up of peers and gentlemen who had not previously taken part in London local life, was formed that the mime of municipal 'boroughs was brought forward for the new districts, and to introduce the name of borough into the Bill would be to lead to confusion and ambiguity, because boroughs had peculiar powers which these new creations would not possess. One point in which they would differ would be in the control of the police; there was no intention of having a Watch Committee, for instance.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: A Watch Committee is not a necessity. You can have a, borough without a Watch Committee.
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid that was so, but contended that there were no boroughs which did not differ very greatly from those which were proposed under this Hill, and he ventured to say that the control of the police was one of the centres of borough life in great boroughs. He thought he might say without fear of contradiction that these new creations would possess none of the powers of a borough, and, that being so, they ought not to be so termed. They were really districts, and ought to be so called.
    MR BIRRELLsaid he could not appreciate the new-fangled passion of the First Lord of the Treasury for calling old things by new names. If it were possible to create, as the Bill sought to do, certain important boroughs round about London, well and good, but the Government knew perfectly well that it was impossible to evolve out of the chaos of all these localities that feeling of pride for the birthplace of these institutions. Londoners had that feeling, but it was a feeling for London itself as a whole, and could not be created for a particular part. It was a mistake to suppose that a man ceased to be vulgar because he changed his name. They had been told that vestries were vulgar. He denied it; it was not the vestries who were vulgar, but the people who sat upon them, and by calling these localities by a new name no difference would be made in the character and personality of those who sat upon them. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was so much against vestries that he had stooped in the gutter to pick up the word alderman. He (Mr. Birrell) would venture to say that if they searched the literature of the country for the last 300 years—from the great poet Shakespeare down to Kipling—they would not find the word used except as synonymous with gluttony. He thought the First Lord of the Treasury had a terrible time before him. He was the putative father of these 15 new cities—one was enough for Romulus, who was suckled by a wolf—the right honourable Gentleman would create them without traditions and without municipalities, and without cooks, and he would have to accept day after day their hospitality. Keen would be his pangs of indigestion and keener still would be the feeling that he nursed the opinion which impelled the steel.
    MR. HOLLANDdid not agree that the discussion was academic in its character, but even if it was, the language of the Bill itself was more correct than that which the honourable Member for Shoreditch wished the Committee to accept. It might be true that these new creations might lack many of the features which boroughs in the provinces possessed, but it could not be denied that the areas of the London boroughs would be infinitely more im-
    540
    portant and infinitely more deserving of the title of boroughs than some of the small boroughs in the various parts of England. In his opinion, it went a great deal further than a question of language. The object of the Amendment was quite clear. The Government in considering the reform of London government preferred that the City of London should remain as now, surrounded by the new municipalities to be created. He hoped the Government would not accept any of the Amendments which affected the title of the districts, or the districts themselves, as they were scheduled in the Bill.
    MR. BUXTONdenied that the object of the Amendment was to alter the status or dignity of the new bodies, and he felt that unless they were called by a name to which they were entitled it would be most misleading, and would give them the impression that they were to become more powerful and independent bodies than would, in his opinion, be for the good government of London. The chief objection that he found was that the words of the Bill tended to make the new local bodies think that they had isolated and independent lives, and that they would be able to carry on their own local operation without a central authority at all. He desired to know the reason which the Government had for changing the words in the Bill, which was really a sort of hotch-potch of the Local Government Act of 1888 and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in introducing the Measure had said that, as regard constitution and status, these new local bodies would be practically identical with municipalities throughout the country. That was hardly correct, because they would not have any of the powers of those municipalities. The only things which they would have which were taken from the Municipal Corporations Act were "aldermen," "audits," and the "compulsory retirement of one-third of the council each year," instead of the re-election of the whole of every council at the end of every third year, and for that reason these new bodies were to be called municipalities. He thought they were entitled to ask the Government how far they intended

    541
    to go when creating these municipalities in granting them new powers. The right honourable Gentleman had said in a speech to a deputation from the Strand vestry that when Westminster was created under the Bill he hoped that it would have great dignity, power, and control, and that it would be practically independent of the London County Council. He (Mr. Buxton) thought that the Committee was entitled to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether such language as that was not calculated to give an utterly erroneous impression to the new bodies as to their powers, and to lead to a good deal of friction with the central authority.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Does the honourable Gentleman desire that the district bodies which he Would set up should be wholly dependent in every particular?
    MR. BUXTONsaid that that was not the question. He thought the words which had been used would create a wrong impression in the minds of the new bodies which could never be boroughs or municipalities in the true sense of the word; but which must in their powers always be subordinate to the central ways central authority. He thought that it was desirable that the subordinate bodies should have powers to carry on their work with efficiency and economy, but in his opinion they were, and always must remain, subordinate to the central authority, and he desired to emphasise that fact.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid that the word "borough" had been used for centuries in London without damage to the City or the County Council or any other co-ordinate body. For instance, there was the borough of Southwark. In his opinion, a more fallacious argument did not exist than that which set up the fact that, the word "borough" could only be used in the particular sense of the Municipal Corporations Act. When the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean first entered the House he sat for what was called the borough of Chelsea. The whole Debate had been a vain attempt to attain an accuracy
    542
    which could not be reached, and the instance which he had shown proved that the word could be used for quite another purpose without any serious danger to anybody at all It was not correct to say that all boroughs had control of their police and other matters, because that was not the fact. He desired to know what the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife meant when he suggested at an earlier stage of the Bill that a more attractive title should be given to the new local bodies to be created.
    MR. LAWSON WALTONwas of opinion that it would be difficult to find a more inaccurate and misleading expression than that which had been adopted under the Bill for the purpose of describing the new corporation. The answer to the honourable Gentleman who had just spoken was obviously that the word "borough" as used in this case was not used in the sense that it was in the case of the old county boroughs or the Parliamentary boroughs, which always sent two burgesses to the House of Commons. The grave objection to the word was that in the Bill it was used in an entirely contradictory sense. The word "district," which conveyed the idea of unity and community, was, in his opinion, a better word. It was not a mere speculation, because they had had a consistent course of legislation dealing with the municipal government of London front the year 1855, from which time they had had two rival policies—that of making the vestries the instrument of municipal government, or that of extending the new municipal powers to the central body. Now, which of those policies had given consistent expression to the views of both Parties in the House? If they had, from 1855 down to 1899, a consistent policy of treating the central authority as the municipality and as the instrument of municipal government, the moment they left that line and sough t to extend the same power to the various component districts they made an entirely new departure. He asked the House to look at the various powers extended to the London County Council, which was the real centre. If the use of the word "borough" implied the notion of separation and independence, then under this Bill it was an expression

    543
    which was misleading and inappropriate. This was not a question of incorporation, because the vestries and district boards of London were already incorporated, but it was a question of finding a fit designation for an entity which was already known to the law. He could not congratulate the Government upon the word "borough." If the word was used simply to increase the dignity, surely there were other words which could have accomplished that object. The suggestion made by the Commission was that they should be called councils, and that their chief officer should be, known as the mayor, and everybody seemed content that mayor and council should be the future designation of those bodies which were already in corporated. Why the area was to be called the borough was difficult to, discover. He asked the Committee to say that this name was a reflection upon the capacity of the English language, for it was obviously an inaccurate expression, and, therefore, he requested the Government to reconsider the phraseology of this Bill.
    *EARL PERCYsaid he was exceedingly glad that thus Amendment had been moved, because it showed the real character of the opposition to this Bill. On the previous night the Government were attacked for not extending to the City the same advantages and the same reforms which were being extended to other areas, and now they were asked by the honourable Member for Shoreditch to interpret those reforms as consisting only in stereotyping existing Acts and in bestowing upon them a totally irrelevant and misleading title. He could not see why they should deny to these new districts the title of borough, which conferred upon them a name in relation to their duties, and substitute for it one which conveyed that idea which was associated with district boards, whose type of government was what they were particularly anxious to get rid of. The point was, whether any district could be created a borough under the Municipal Corporations Act unless it had all the powers, which, according to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, would not be possessed or exercised by those future areas. So far as he was aware
    544
    absolute discretion hi that matter was left to the Privy Council, with the exception that such a borough must be a county in itself, or must have a certain population, which is placed as low as 500,000. Kensington, winch had been designated a town in Acts of Parliament as tong ago as 1835, lead a far greater right to that appellation than the vast majority of towns and boroughs now existing under the Municipal Corporations Act. Of the whole 304 towns and borough's now existing under that Act only two had a higher rateable value than Kensington, and only 13 had a larger population. The vestry of Kensington now performed almost all the duties which a borough possessed. The late Home Secretary and Lord Rosebery not long ago, when discussing this question of London government, stated that their Party were anxious and willing to provide a stimulus for the electors of London to take a larger interest in local affairs by offering them more attractive titles. Did the right honourable Gentleman really think that by reducing districts, which in the Acts of Parliament had the designation of a town, to the same level as district boards under Schedule B (Parishes), that he would be conferring upon them that stimulus to municipal life? One of the great objects of this Bill was that, having created them, they were entitled to interpret their powers in the larger sense, and to have a title which would be a stimulus to them in their desire to extend their local activity.
    MR. HALDANEsaid he had listened to the speech of the Member for Kensington in the hope that he might have thrown some light on the motives of the Government for adopting this title. He had not, however, done so, and he seemed to agree with the First Lord of the Treasury that one valuable result would be to rouse the flame of local energy and zeal in these districts. If the Government depended upon calling things by a wrong name, which did not describe what they really were, foe raising energy and zeal, they were building upon a very slender foundation. What had become of the scheme which the President of the Board of Trade advocated in 1888, when he said that only the want of opportunity prevented him from attempting

    545
    to set up district councils in the great administrative county of London? They now proposed to make divisions which they miscalled boroughs, and which were much more district councils than anything which they were in the habit of regarding as boroughs. The Government had given them another name, and he asked why? The Committee appointed in 1894 put forward in their Report certain proposals for the reform of London government, and the City proposals were that there should be created a number of boroughs—13 at first, and afterwards 10—and they were to form a, sort of ring round the City. That proposal got the name of Tenification, and it was the alternative proposal to the carrying out of the Report of the Commission, and it got rid of reforming the Corporation of London by creating a number of boroughs throughout the area of London. He did not think the Government could throw the President of the Board of Trade altogether overboard, but they could take the completion of his scheme and call them by different names, and that was precisely what the Government had done, for they had labelled them "boroughs." Therefore they had called boroughs what were really district councils. Why was the name chanced? It was no doubt because they considered that it was their sacred and most bounden duty to please the enemies of the reform of London government, and so they made this concession.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid that, is a matter of fact, London was a number of towns which had been brought together by force of circumstances. People used to stop at the village of Charing Cross, and now they bad Camden Town and Kentish Town His honourable Friend represented a part of the old City of Westminster, and, therefore, he would point out that London had never been entirely a unit. It had been pointed out that London was, so to speak, One city, and that it was practically the same town, but that was not so, as he had already shown. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife had argued in some mysterious way or other that the word "borough" meant "division," and the word "division "meant" unit." He had not heard that the honourable Member for Shoreditch lord any great bulk
    546
    of public opinion behind his views, for ho had not brought a petition from his district in favour of them. The constituency which he represented were all in favour of a municipality, and, surely if there was anything at all in the name, they were entitled to have that name if they liked it. There was no doubt that some of the work must be done by the central body, and he believed that the London County Council had done their work very well, and he would ask the House not to take away any of those powers which they had exercised successfully.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do earnestly appeal to the Committee now to allow the discussion on this Amendment to come to a close.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIRstated that if he had thought that this was an unimportant matter he should not have intruded. He thought, however, that this meant more than merely fighting over a name, It involved consequences which were quite typical of the policy adopted by the Government, and he wished to speak a word about what he believed were the true interests of London, in the matter. If this Amendment meant that they ware to recognise the position of those boroughs at the expense of the unity of London, then he thought the Government were taking a disastrous step, which must react upon themselves. It was true that it was within the discretion of the Government to call these bodies what they liked, but they were not going to make them energetic and zealous simply by giving them this name. His honourable Friend the Member for Haddington had pointed out that this title was objected to by the President of the Board of Trade, and they might go back to the recommendation of the Commission of 1854, when the Government rejected the proposition to create boroughs, and proceeded on different lines, by establishing the various vestries and district boards which were now the local authorities in London. That was a fact which he did not think his right honourable Friend would contradict. In the interests of the good administration of London in important particulars, the Government could not take a worse step for their Bill than, at the very outset, to arouse so many suspicions as would be

    547
    aroused by the adoption of this name for the local authorities. The great fault of the Bill was that it did not frankly recognise that for the purposes of good administration in London there must be a united London. And if they were going to have a united London they must take into consideration the position of the City. He did not wish in the least to belittle or criticise too severely the City, but one great obstacle to the unity of London was the difficulties presented to the central administration by the existence of the powers of the City in their present form The Government flack most fatally for themselves and the interests of the City, given themselves into the hands of the various monopolies of the City. There they were sitting behind the Government—the chairmen of railway companies, water companies, gas companies, etc. He would go one step further. It was obvious that if they could not have 27 boroughs or divisions in London acting regardless of each other, they must have a controlling authority somewhere. If honourable Gentlemen opposite refused to take the London County Council as the co-ordinating and controlling authority they
    would have to look elsewhere, namely, to the Local Government Board—an official bureaucracy.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Order, order! The only question before the Committee is whether these areas are to be called districts or boroughs.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid he did not wish to transgress the limits of debate, but only to show that for the interests of London the large groups of boroughs must have some relation to the central authority, and that the Bill, as it stood, would withdraw the boroughs from the control of that central authority. He regretted to believe that the policy of the Government, whether they wished or intended it or not, would bring disastrous consequences on London as a whole, and he wished to protest in the strongest terms against it.
    Question put—
    "That the words 'metropolitan boroughs' stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 242; Noes 130.—(Division List No. 97.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood,Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Aird, John

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Curzon, Viscount

    Allhusen,AugustusHenryEden

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Bowles,T.Gibson (king's Lynn

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Arnold, Alfred

    Brassey, Albert

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Broderick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Arrol, Sir William

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Ascroft, Robert

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Butcher, John George

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Bagot,capt Josceline Fitzroy

    Carlile, William Walter

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Baird John George Alexander

    Cayzer. Sir Charles William

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Fellowes, Hon.Ailwyn Edward

    Balfour,Rt.En.A.J (Manch'r

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Fergusson Rt HnSirJ.(Manc'r

    Balfour,RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

    Chamberlain,Rt,Ho.J (Birm

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Barry,RtHnAAAHSmith-(Hunts

    Chelsea, Viscount

    FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Beach,Rt.HnSirM.H.(Bristol

    Coddington, Sir William

    Flower, Ernest

    Beach,W.W.Bramston(Hants

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Fry, Lewis

    Berg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Garfit, William

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Compton, Lord Alwyn

    Gedge, Sydney

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Cook, Fred. Lucan (Lambeth)

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St.Albans)

    Bethell, Commander

    Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Herefd)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Corbett,A.Cameron (Glasgow)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

    Godson,SirAugustusFrederick

    Bolitho,, Thomas Bedford

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Gorst,Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Lowles, John

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Goschen RtHnG.J.(St.Grge's)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkham

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon Sir John

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lucas, Shadwell William

    Rutherford, John

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Samue, Harry S.(Limehouse)

    Gretton, John

    Maclean, James Mackenzie

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Gunter, Colonel

    MCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Iver,SirLewis(Edin'bgh, W)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    M'Killop, James

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Hamilton,Rt.Hon.LordGeorge

    Markes, Henry Hananel

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Hardy, Lawrence

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Heath, James

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M.

    Spencer, Ernest

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Henderson, Alexander

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Stanley,Henry M.(Lambeth)

    Hermon -Hodge,Robert Trotter

    Monk, Charles James

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Hill,SirEdwardStock(Bristol)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Hoare, E. Brodie(Hampstead)

    Morgan,Hn Fred.(Monm'thsh

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M Taggart

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwhich)

    Morton,ArthurHA.(Deptf'd)

    Stirling-Maxwell,Sir John M.

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Mount, William George

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Strauss, Arthur

    Howard, Joseph

    Murray, Rt. Hn H.A.G.(Bute)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Howell, William Tudor

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Hozier, Hn. James 'Henry Cecil

    Murray, Col. Wyndbam(Bath)

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Myers, William Henry

    Usborne, T.

    Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Valentia, Viscount

    Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Vincent, Col SirC.E. Howard

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Northcote,Hn Sir H.Stafford

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    WebsterSirR.E.(IsleofWight)

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Penn, John

    Wharton, Rt.Hn. John Lloyd

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Percy, Earl

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Kemp, George

    Pilkington, Richard

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Kennaway,Rt.Hn.SirJohnH.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Keswick, Henry

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Williams, J. PoweR(Birm.)

    Kimber, Henry

    Priestly,SirW.Overend(Edin

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H (Yorks)

    Knowles, Lees

    Purvis, Robert

    Wodehouse,Rt. H n. E. R. (Bath)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Pym, C. Guy

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Wylie, Alexander

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Rankin, Sir James

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Younger William

    Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Long Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

    Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Lowe, Francis William

    Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    A11en, W.(Newe.-under-Lyme)

    Carmichael, Sir T.D. Gibson

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Asher, Alexander

    Cawley, Frederick

    Harwood, George

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Charming, Francis Alliston

    Hayne, Rt. Hn Charles Seale-

    Asquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

    Clough Walter Owen

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Crombie John William

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

    Baker, Sir John

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Balfour,RtHnJ.Blair(Clakm.

    Dillon John

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Barlow John Emmott

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

    Billson, Alfred

    Ellis, John Edward

    Joicey, Sir James

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Jones, D. Brynmor Swansea)

    Branner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Fenwick Charles

    Jones,William(Carnarvonshire

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

    Buchanan, Thomas Rybprn

    Fitzmaurice. Lord Edmond

    Kinlock, Sir John G. Smyth

    Burt, Thomas

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby C.)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Buxton. Sydney Charles

    Fowler, Rt. Ho. Sir Henry

    Lambert, George

    Caldwell, James

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Langley, Batty

    Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow

    Gold, Charles

    Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'land

    550

    551

    Leng, Sir John

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Thomas, Abel Carmarthen, E.)

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Perks, Robert William

    Thomas,.Alfred(Glamorgan,E)

    Lewis, Lohn Herbert

    Phillipps, John Wynford

    Thomas, David A. (Mertyyr)

    Logan, John William

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Macaleese,Daniel

    Pixie, Duncan V.

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    MacDonnell,Dr.M. (Queen's C.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Price, Robert John

    Walton,JohnLawson(Leeds,S.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.(Leitrim)

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Maddison, Fred

    Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Maden, John Henry

    Roberts, John H (Denbighs.)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Wills, Sir Henry William

    Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    Morgan,W.Pritchard(Merthyr

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York,W.R.)

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Wilson, John (Goven)

    Morley,Rt.Hn.J. (Montrose)

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T(Huddersf'd

    Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Woods, Samuel

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    SoamesSpicer, Albert

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Strachey, Edward

    Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

    O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow,W.)

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Mr. M'Arthur.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sullivan, Donal(Westmeath)

    Palmer, George W. (Reading)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Another Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word boroughs,' to the end of the clause, in order to insert the words 'in the manner in this section set forth' instead thereof."—(Sir C. Dilke.)
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid this Amendment would take the place of the one which stood in his own name. They must discuss this Amendment fully, because it really raised the whole scheme of the construction of the Bill, and if accepted it would leave the way open for further Amendments. It constituted the most important point not raised during the Second Reading of the Bill; and it did not divide Parties as did the other Amendment which had just been divided upon. The Notice Paper showed that there were a great many Members on the other side of the House who were dissatisfied with the present constitution of the Bill in regard to the areas included in it and the areas excluded from its direct purview. Whole pages of Amendments to the Schedule stood in the names of honourable Members opposite, and many of the Conservative vestries had expressed their alarm at the provisions that the Bill contained in this respect. His contention was that they could not afford to leave to the discussion of the Schedule of the Bill the whole consideration as to whether all the areas were to be dealt with in the Bill itself, or whether most of them were to be decided by the Privy Council. On the Second Reading of the Bill there was no Debate upon the matter which
    552
    the Amendment raised. There was a Debate on two of the areas picked out from the Schedule, namely, Westminster and Wandsworth. And his honourable Friend the Member for Chelsea had expressed his dissatisfaction with the Schedule of the Bill at it stood, and had placed Amendments on the Paper.
    *MR. WHITMORE,said that might be so, but he did not express dissatisfaction with the general scheme of the Bill.
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid the Bill proposed to pick out 16 areas, of which the great majority were in the West End of London, and to make them metropolitan boroughs by the Act itself. But it proposed in the case of 22 of the existing areas of metropolitan government, some of which were populous, some of large area, and some of large rateable value—one of them, indeed, possessed all these three qualifications—to leave them to a body repeatedly alluded to in the Bill, but not really described, namely, to the Privy Council. The Privy Council was a body consisting of one very well known Gentleman in the House, a noble Duke, and one or two messengers and office boys. It was a body which had no staff, and which had to employ special commissioners. It was not a Department, like the Local Government Board or the Home Office; but whenever it had any work thrown upon it it had to employ a staff on purpose, drawn from the other Departments. It was to this body, which scarcely had any existence except in name, of which London knew nothing,

    553
    and which knew nothing of London—it was to this body they were expected to relegate the constitution of the areas in the east, south, and north of London. Not only that, but Parliament was to hand over its powers to this body to be exercised by the Privy Council, through Orders in Council, and the local populations would not be consulted in regard to the provisions of these Orders. Those matters for which inquiries were necessary in the case of granting charters of incorporation were to be left to the discretion of the Privy Council. Now, this matter had not escaped the attention of many of the local governing bodies of the metropolis, and many Conservative vestries had expressed their alarm at the provisions of the Bill. A notable conference took place in 1890 on this matter. A certain amount of friction had been produced between the London County Council and the vestries. The vestries thought that the London County Council through one of its committees intended to break up and interfere with them, and the main object of the conference was to insist that, as a general rule, in the readjustment of London areas the administrating units should be preserved as far as possible. The vestries then pointed out that the present boundaries had existed for a very long period, some of them from before the creation of Parliament itself, and that that should be kept constantly in view in the preparation of the Bill. That was a sound conservative doctrine, and sound also as regards local government generally. The principle should not be departed from without the House understanding what it was doing. Many Conservative vestries continued to entertain these opinions, and he had no doubt that honourable Members who represented them, and who were dissatisfied with the Schedule of the Bill, would have due regard to the expression of the opinions of these highly Conservative bodies on this subject. He submitted to honourable Gentlemen opposite that it would be far better, instead of waiting for the Schedule, to decide on that clause the general principles on which the subject should be regulated. How could the Government justify the fact that with two exceptions all the new boroughs to be created were in the West End? There was great local life in the West End, but there was some
    554
    healthy local life in other districts in London also. He suggested that pressure should now be brought on the Government that had prepared this lopsided Measure. It was a matter which should not be relegated to a Schedule, and now was the time to deal with it.
    Question put.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As I understand it, the object of the right honourable Baronet and those who agree with him is that he wishes to determine in the first clause every municipal borough which is to be formed under this Bill.
    *SIR C. DILKE: Not necessarily to determine every area, but while determining some areas to lay down the principle upon which the other areas should be determined.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We have laid down certain principles, and it is perfectly competent, if the Committee thinks that these principles are insufficient, to move additions to the Bill as it stands. I do not think, therefore, that this question is really raised by the right honourable Baronet. The question which I understand him to raise is the determination in clause 1 of practically every area in which this Bill sets up municipal boroughs. I most earnestly deprecate that course. If we are to set to work upon the task of discussing areas before we discuss powers, I venture to say that the prospects of the future progress of this Bill in Committee are very remote indeed. Nor would the right honourable Baronet if he were in charge of any Bill of this kind, for one moment—acquainted as he is with the practical working of our Parliamentary system—consent to the adoption of a course which he is good enough to press upon us. The right honourable Baronet has complained of the course the Government has taken, chiefly, as I understand him, on the ground that the areas fixed in the Schedule are chiefly drawn from the West End. I can assure him that the position of these localities, west or east, never entered our heads when framing the First Schedule of the Bill. All we thought of was whether the areas placed in that Schedule were such

    555
    as we could with confidence recommend the House to adopt without having gone through the preliminary, that of a local inquiry. It is possible that the First Schedule may be added to with advantage, and when we come to it I certainly shall not lay down any hard and fast rule and say "Thus far shall we proceed and no farther." But it must be perfectly clear to the Committee that to adopt the principle recommended by the right honourable Baronet, and to accept as they stand all the administrative areas now to be found in London, would be to foredoom the Bill from the beginning, I will not say to complete failure, but certainly to an incomplete measure of success. No one who has looked at the map of the existing areas can seriously maintain that all the administrative vestries and district boards now carrying on the work of local government in London are carrying; out their labours so admirably that no reform is necessary. It is not required surely that I should go in detail through all the areas omitted from the first Schedule, in order to show that on the face of it a great many of them are absolutely un-suited to serve as units for future local government. I think the right honourable Baronet in saying all these areas arc drawn from the West End is stretching the points of the compass. There is no legal definition of what constitutes the West End. It is but a very subsidiary point, however, and the real point which we have got to determine is whether the Committee, on imperfect information, is going to stereotype for ever a great many areas. quite unfitted to be permanent areas in the local government of London earnestly deprecate that proposal. It is perfectly true—and no one knows it better than the right honourable Baronet—that the question of boundaries agitates localities far more than large questions of policy, and there is more friction, difficulty, and local feeling aroused by the smallest modification of any accustomed limit than very much larger and more permanently important subjects that come before the House. But I submit what we have to determine at present is whether the Committee is in possession of sufficient information to decide now for itself all the areas of future local government, or whether that task is to be delegated to some other body, which
    556
    would carry out investigations on the spot. We have not reached the point when it would be appropriately discussed whether that body should be the Privy Council or not. When that point is reached I shall be ready to give the fullest, and I think the most satisfactory, reasons why the Privy Council is well qualified to carry out the necessary investigations. The point now is whether these investigations are necessary, and if that be once admitted it is clear that the Committee is not in a position at the present time to settle these questions of boundaries. It must be evident if, for instance, we take the area of St. Saviour's, Southwark, as it appears on the map, and ask whether that area is to be stereotyped as a future centre of local government in Bondsm. The Committee will see it is impossible, and if it is impossible we cannot make in this Committee the necessary corrections that can only be made after a local investigation. I hope, therefore, the Committee will not contemplate the possibility of accepting the Amendment of the right honourable Baronet, which, however well intended, would have, unquestionably, the effect of wrecking the Bill at its very inception.
    MR. BUXTON: I am very glad to hear the statement of the right honourable Gentleman that when we come to discuss the question of areas he will be quite willing to consider whether certain districts should or should not be included in the Schedule. That is an important declaration on the part of the right honourable Gentleman. I am quite sure that I am speaking not only for myself, but for my honourable Friends also, when I say that that is the spirit in which v e desire to discuss this Amendment and all other Amendments to the Bill. I think, however, the right honourable Gentleman is wrong in thinking that honourable Gentlemen believe that every single area throughout the metropolis could he absolutely scheduled in the Bill. I quite agree that there are certain areas which require a local inquiry to decide the manner in which they should be finally constituted. I think, however, the right honourable. Gentleman rather misapprehends, if I may say so, the intention and scope of this Amendment. It seems to me that we would be in a much better position to discuss the powers, duties, and

    557
    authority of those new municipalities if we knew how they are to be constituted. This Bill proposes to create the areas, differing enormously in population, rateable value, and area, and we feel it very difficult to know on what lines we can discuss their powers and duties. The right honourable Gentleman will, think, admit that that is a matter of great moment, and very largely affects the principle of the Bill and the powers to be given to these authorities, and it is because we think that some indication should be given to us on behalf of the Government that this Amendment has been moved.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We have laid down a certain number of areas, and in that wav have laid down the principle on which the others should he constituted.
    MR. BUXTON: I quite agree that a certain indication has been given by these 16 areas, but it must be remembered that they differ enormously in area and rateable value. The instructions to the Commissioners are very vague, and I do not think they afford any reel indication. That is one of the principal objections I find to this Bill, and it could he largely got rid of if we discussed areas now. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman why, when he was picking and choosing between the different districts of London, he took 11 of the districts recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission and omitted six, adding five or six of his own. I would he much more satisfied than I am now to leave the rest of the areas of London to the Privy Council if, in addition to the areas now scheduled, the six stated by the Royal Commission to be ripe for municipal life were added. That would be a very great indication to the Commissioners in dividing tin the remaining parts of London. I presume the Government have some idea in their own as to the manner in which the Privy Council should divide up the remaining areas, and I think it would very much facilitate the work of the Committee if at the present moment we could discuss the question of areas. Which the right honourable Gentleman says is of great local interest. Having decided that, we should then be in a very much
    558
    better position to discuss the question of powers. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will even now reconsider whether the question of areas could not now be discussed.
    *MR. WHITMOREsaid he could not see why the discussion on the Amendment should continue. There was an opinion on both sides that the First Schedule ought to include as many areas as possible, but on the other hand it was felt that it was impossible to avoid a Boundaries Commission. He should like to see co-operation on both sides on this question of areas. He himself was of opinion that both Bethnal Green and Shoreditch should be scheduled, but then he knew perfectly well that they had not only to consider the intrinsic claims of particular areas, but also the effect on adjoining districts of their inclusion in the First Schedule. That could only be done through the machinery of a Boundaries Commission. He thought that a great deal of the feeling shown by vestries arose from the indefiniteness of the powers to be given to the Privy Council, which had occasioned some confusion of thought and misapprehension. He should be very glad indeed if the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill would state rather more explicitly than he had done that the Boundary Commissioners to be appointed by the Privy Council were to conduct local inquiries, at which local opinion would be freely heard and ascertained, and that the Report of the Commission would be based on those inquiries. If such a statement were made the misunderstanding now existing would be removed.
    MR. STUARTsaid he would wish to second the appeal of the honourable Gentleman for more information on the question. There was a strong desire on both sides to know better than they did at present the principle on which the division of London was to be carried out. There was indefiniteness not only with reference to the body to which that division was to be referred, but also in the character of the instructions to be given to it. The right honourable Gentleman stated that the 16 areas scheduled afforded en indication of the principle on which the division would be carried out, but he had looked through them and

    559
    had not been able to find it. They varied in area from 791 acres in Chelsea to nearly 10,000 acres in Wandsworth; in population from 70,000 to 80,000 in Chelsea to nearly 300,000 in Islington; and in rateable value from £600,000 in Lambeth to nearly £5,000,000 in Westminster. Consequently he altogether failed to detect in the Schedule any guidance. The right honourable Gentleman stated that sub-section (b) showed sufficiently the principle by which the Commissioners would be guided, but that sub-section only stated that the other areas should be dealt with within the limits that the scheduled areas were dealt with, and therefore afforded no additional information.
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid the Amendment really amounted to a proposal to leave, out the reference clause, and would practically make the Bill unworkable.
    MR. HALDANEsaid he agreed that a Boundary Commission was absolutely necessary, but what was asked for was more definite information and better safeguards as to what these areas were to be. It would be very convenient if the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill would give the Committee some information as to the procedure before the Privy Council. Under the Act of 1888, when application was made to the Privy Council for a charter, an inquiry was held locally, before which the inhabitants of the district, could appear and ensure such safeguards being taken as would prevent any injustice being done. It was really necessary for the adequate discussion of the distribution of power under the Bill that the Committee should know what, the areas and bodies were to be.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable and learned Gentleman's speech was somewhat inconsistent. He told the Committee that it was impossible to discuss the provisions of the Bill with regard to the powers of the new bodies until the Committee knew what they were to be, while he said at the beginning of his speech that it was impossible for the Committee to determine these bodies without inquiry. I am desirous of putting in the
    560
    First Schedule all the areas which can be proper units of local government, and with regard to the remainder the, procedure I contemplate is a local inquiry held by competent persons, before whom any local authority concerned, or, indeed, any considerable body of ratepayers, could appear and ask for the determination of their case. I venture to say that, so far from being a body that should cause distrust among local authorities, it should inspire their confidence more than a Committee of this House, which could not thresh out the petitions of local authorities or aggrieved ratepayers. I desire that such cases should be heard, not before the House, who from the very nature of the inquiry are incapable of carrying it out, but before a body well qualified to do so, who will be bound by the directions given them to hear and adjudicate between the parties. I am confident that the Committee will see that the procedure suggested by the Government is the only rational procedure which they can adopt.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)said the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury had gone some way towards answering the objection that had been raised. There was one essential difference between the position which existed in regard to English counties in 1888 and that which existed to-day in the case of London. A Commission was appointed in 1888 because there were overlapping areas and there were no county councils in existence. Now, however, there was in London a County Council, and he greatly regretted hat the Government had not shown greater confidence in the Council and entrusted them with the drawing up of a Provisional Order dealing with the London areas. The confusion in London concerning boundaries could not be compared with that which existed in the provincial districts. The London County Council were increasing their bold upon the goodwill and confidence of the ratepayers of the metropolis; they were thoroughly conversant with the areas of their county, and they, instead of the Committee of the Privy Council, should be entrusted with this question of boundaries.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid the district he represented, which included Stoke Newington, was so deeply affected by the Bill, and its opposition to the Government proposals was so strong that he should not be doing his duty if he did not take the earliest opportunity of stating how matters stood. The Amendment, vague as it was, had served a very useful purpose, and he wished to thank the Government for intimating that they were prepared to consider the case of any particular unit which could legitimately and properly claim to be a unit of local self-government, and which wished to be included in the Schedule. But this was not a mere question of boundaries, for in certain districts of London it was practically a question of local administrative life or death. He was anxious to know how the Government proposed to deal With those areas which were dissatisfied with the matter being left to the Boundary Commissioners and with the principles laid down for the guidance of the Commissioners, which, in some cases, would prevent that body arriving at a solution which would be favourable to the wishes of any one area. He did not think that a greater mistake could be made than to start these new institutions by overriding local feeling. At present there was no indication on the face of the Bill that the Boundary Commissioners were to have any regard to popular feeling. If an as surance were given that local feeling would be considered, and in some way or other put before the Boundary Commissioners, it would remove to a considerable extent some of the objections which had been put forward.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: This is hardly the place in the Bill at which to discuss this particular question, but of course local feeling must be taken into account. This is so ob-
    vious a consideration that it never entered into my thoughts that local feeling would not be a factor in guiding the Commissioners on the question of the formation of boundaries.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he wished to thank the right honourable Gentleman for having allayed-some of his doubts.
    CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he should support the Amendment, because no principle had been laid down upon which the Commissioners should act. There should be some assurance that districts which had been declared to be fit for local self-government should be included. It they could get that assurance from the right honourable Gentleman it would greatly facilitate the passing of the Bill through Committee. There were areas with which he was closely connected which were more suited for local self-government than many of those which were included in the Schedule.
    MR. BURDETT-COUTTSexpressed the hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn after the statement of the right honourable Gentleman. He understood him to say that he had an open mind with regard to including other areas, but that he did not extend that principle to any modification or alteration of existing areas which were in the Schedule.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not said anything about hat.
    Question put—
    "That the words of the clause to the word 'areas,' in line 14, stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 180; Noes 114.—(Division List No. 98.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Aird, John

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Butcher, John George

    Arrol, Sir William

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Beach,Rt.HnSirM.H.(Bristol

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Cecil,Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Balfour,Rt.Hn. A. J (Manch'r

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Chamberlain,J.(Birm.

    Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

    Bond, Edward

    Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Hermon-Hodge,Rbt. Trotter

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

    Hoare,Edw.Brodie(Hampstead

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Purvis, Robert

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Flobhouse, Henry

    Pym, C. Guy

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Holland,Hon.Lionel R. (Bow)

    Renshaw, Carles Bine

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

    Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Russell,Gen.F.S. (Cheltenham

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kemp, George

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Kennaway,Rt.lin.SirJohnH.

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Kenyon, James

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Keswick, William

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Davenport, W. Bromley

    Kimber, Henry

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Douglas,Rt. Hn. Akers

    Knowles, Lees

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchuch)

    Egerton, Hon.A.de Tatton

    Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Spencer, Ernest

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

    Fellows, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Long, RtIlnWalter(Liverpool)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Finch, George H.

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lowles, John

    Stewart,SirMarkJ.M`Taggart

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stirling-Maxwell,Sir John M.

    FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Thorburn, Walter

    Galloway, William Johnson

    M`Killop, James

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Garfit, William

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gedge, Sydney

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    WebsterSirR.E.(Isleofwight)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Middlemore J. Throgmorton

    Wharton,Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Gillian John Saunders

    Milton, Viscount

    Whitely, George (Stockport)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

    Monk, Charles James

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

    Gordon, on. John Edward

    More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Morgamlim.Fred.(Monnalish

    Wilson-Todd,Wm. H.(Yorks.)

    Goschen,RtHnG.J. (StGeorge's

    Mount, William George

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Wortley,Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

    Wylie, Alexander

    Greene, Henry-D. (Shrewsbury)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

    Gretton, John

    Myers, William Henry

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Newdigate,Francis Alexander

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Nicol Donald Ninian

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hamilton,Rt.Hon.LordGeorge

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H.Stafford

    Sir William Walrond and

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Hardy, Lawrence

    Percy, Earl

    Heath, James

    Pierpoint, Robert

    NOES.

    Allen, William (Gateshead)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    Allen,W. (Newt.-under-Lyme)

    Carmichael, Sir T.D. Gibson-

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Asher, Alexander

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Hayne, Rt. Tin. Charles Seale-

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Channing, Francis Alliston

    Hogan, James Francis

    Baker, Sir John

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Balfour,RtHnJ.Blair(Clakm.

    Crombie, John William

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Barlow, John Emmnott

    Dillon, John

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

    Billson, Alfred

    Dunn, Sir William

    Jokey, Sir James

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Ellis, John Edward

    Jones,William(Carnarvonshire

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Kinlock, Sir John G. Smyth

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Fenwick Charles

    Kitson, Sir James

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Lambert, George

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'land

    Burt, Thomas

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby C.)

    Leng, Sir John

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert J.

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Caldwell, James

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lewis, Lohn Herbert

    Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow

    Gold, Charles

    Logan John William

    564

    565

    Lough, Thomas

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    M`Ghee, Richard

    Provand, A. D.

    Walton,JohnLawson(Leeds,S.

    M'Laren, Chas. Benjamin

    Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Maden, John Henry

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Weir,James Galloway

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Samuel, T. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Morley,Rt.Hn.John(Montrose

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Williams, John Carvell(Notts)

    Moss, Samuel

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Spicer, Albert

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T(Huddersf'd

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Woods, Samuel

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Yoxail, James Henry

    O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow,W.)

    Strachey, Edward

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Sir C. Dilke and Mr. Haldane.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Tennant, Harold John

    Phillipps, John Wynford

    Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    *CAPTAIN NORTON, in moving the Amendment, which provided that each of the new areas in London "shall correspond to an existing area of local administration in London, drew attention to the fact that his object was to preserve the existing areas of local government and of administration, and to avoid disruption and the formation of unmanageable areas, and to prevent the destruction of local life. He thought that the various vestries and district hoards should form the new boroughs subject to the formation of new areas under this scheme. That was the policy which was followed by the Government after the Report of the Commission which sat in 1854 was issued. On the Report of that Commission the Government in 1855 formed 37 administrative local bodies in London, to which they gave nine-tenths of the duties appertaining to local government at that time. Since 1855 there had been great developments in local self-government, and as it had developed so fresh duties were imposed upon these local bodies. When it came to the case of London it was found necessary to have recourse not to the vestries and local bodies, but to the only central body then existing, the Metropolitan Board of Works.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: How does the honourable Gentleman connect his argument with the Amendment standing, in his name?
    *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was endeavouring to show that the duties which ought to have devolved upon the
    566
    vestries of London which it was found impossible to give them had been handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works. And it was now proposed to set up similar bodies and take the duties which were vested in the County Council, the central London authority, away from them and hand them over to the new municipalities. He suggested that the existing areas in the majority of cases were sufficiently large and thoroughly competent to carry out the duties which would be imposed upon them exclusive of the wider and larger duties which could only be performed by a. central body, and they ought to be real municipalities in the sense of the word. He was attempting to show the necessity for giving the new powers to existing areas instead of the larger areas. He was in entire agreement with a statement made by the Leader of the House in which he had said a larger district could not he superior to a. small district because it completely destroyed local life. The great feeling upon the Bill was that it touched the question of the equalisation of rates, and it was only natural that each, municipality should do all they could for the improvement of their own district. They would do nothing, for the areas more remote from them: they would attempt to shirk their responsibility to the poor and would not attempt to do anything for the benefit of London at large. All the rich districts lying to the west have been included in the schedule, but all the poorer districts lying to the east and on the river side, with the exception of poplar, were left to be dealt with by the Commission. If that were done it

    567
    would create cities of the rich and cities of the poor. The Tower Hamlets, if made into one area, would have a population of 1,000,000 who would be unable to take care of themselves. The new boroughs would not be boroughs in the true sense of the word, nor would they be such that the people living in them could take part in local life and have any control over those important matters which affect the health and life of the people. He wished to know on what principle Westminster was to form one of the new areas, when there were existing at the present time other areas, parishes, and vestries which. were managing their own affairs sufficiently large and popular to be included in the schedule of the Bill, which were not included. The answer which they had received was that it was because of its historic associations. But there were many areas, in London which had existed just as long and were equally historical. Westminster was never a borough in the true sense of the word. It had never a complete local life such as the borough of Newington had, the inhabitants of which had done more for London than Westminster had ever done. The essential difference between London and other great cities in the country was that in London there was a constant migration of working classes to the extent of some 33 per cent. per annum, whilst there was an addition to the population annually of some 50,000. It was impossible to get the people of London to take an interest in the government of London except as a whole outside existing well-known local areas.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the object of his honourable Friend was to practically do away with the first Schedule, the effect of which was to draw a distinction, between some of the local government areas of London and others. His honourable Friend desired that there should he no such distinction.
    *MR. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)thought a good deal of discussion might be saved if the Government could see their way, in looking through the Amendments to the Schedule, to include some of the large and self-governing areas. He had every possible confidence that as in 1885, when the boundaries
    568
    were altered for Parliamentary purposes, so on this occasion, when the Commissioners came to deal with the areas under the Bill, they would show the same consideration for local feeling. It the same time he thought it would be advisable to extend the first Schedule so that it might include many boroughs which manifestly, both in regard to population and rateable value, came within the minimum laid down in the Bill, and were, therefore, entitled to be so included.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid he should like to say one word in order to press upon the Government not to concede too much to the advocates of particular interests on one side or the other. It was obvious that the principle underlying the Amendment in favour of smaller areas was really a contention in favour of smaller areas. more corresponding to existing local government areas. Certainly local interests ought not to be left out of sight. He thought it would be the greatest possible pity if the municipalities were not, generally speaking, constructed on a large scale. In the case of small municipalities there was a. great danger in the direction of jobbery and corruption from which large municipalities were likely to be free. There was another matter that particularly applied to poorer parts of London, where there was only a limited supply of persons who had a natural capacity, or acquired the capacity, for local government. If, therefore, they had a larger number of councils, and broke up, especially the poorer parts of London, into a large number or areas, they would get people on the councils who would not make good councillors. He hoped that in the poorer parts of London especially every effort would be made to keep the municipalities as large as possible.
    MR. COHENsaid he did not see why the supporters of the Amendment should not accept with gratitude and confidence the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, which he thought would give all that was required.
    *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he had no desire to unduly press the Amendment. If the Leader of the House preferred to

    569
    take the discussion under sub-section (b) he was quite willing to allow the matter to drop.
    Question put.
    Amendment negatived.
    On sub-section (b), which provides that every other borough than those mentioned in the previous sub-section unless for special reasons stated in a Report which shall be laid before Parliament, have either a rateable value exceeding £500,000 or a population between 100,000 and 400,000—
    MR. PICKERSGILLmoved an Amendment to the effect that every such borough should
    "be formed with due regard to considerations of local feeling, and of historic development, weighed in conjunction with those of administrative convenience."
    He said it was felt that the Bill left far too much to outside authority. Although it might be necessary that certain powers shall be entrusted to a Commission in order to carry out the purpose of the Act, at the same time it had hitherto been the practice of Parliament to lay down clear principles and leave to the Commissioners only the duty of carrying them out. As the Bill stood there was absolutely no rule for the guidance of the Commissioners. It seemed to be thought that there was. As a matter of fact, under the Bill as it stood it would be quite possible for the Commissioners to make the whole of London which remained outside the boroughs into one area. He therefore proposed as en Amendment that each of the proposed areas should be formed with due regard to considerations of local feeling. It seemed to him that where they had an area in which for many years people had been working together in public life, and where public spirit had been to some extent developed, it would be very unwise to interfere with it. It was said that the object of the Bill was to encourage local patriotism. Well, surely where they found local patriotistu—which, at best, was a plant of slow growth—it was policy to stimulate its growth and not rudely pluck it out by the roots. Again, there were many existing areas of local government
    570
    which were very compact, having the same area both for local government in the strict sense of the term and also for poor law purposes, but where the population was somewhat small. He thought that in many of these cases it was very desirable that these areas, although small, should continue to exist. The salutary effect of his Amendment would be to direct the Boundary Commissioners to have regard to local feeling in fixing areas.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There has, no doubt, been so considerable a manifestation of feeling on both sides of the House that it may be desirable to give further instructions to the Commissioners, and to embody so far as possible in the Act itself, the general declaration of policy which I had the honour to make to the House a short tune ago. But I do not like the actual words of the Amendment. The honourable Gentleman said he to d them from the Report of the Commission, but they are hardly suitable for an Act of Parliament. I would suggest the substitution of these words for the words of the honourable Member—
    "Every other borough shall be formed with due regard to efficiency of administration and local history and association."
    MR. PICKERSGILLaccepted the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury.
    The Amendment of the honourable Member was accordingly withdrawn, and the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury agreed to.
    On the Return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval—
    MR. LOUGHmoved as an Amendment—
    "That in clause 1, page 1, line 22, to omit after the word 'have' the words either a rateable value exceeding £500,000, or."
    He desired to acknowledge the importance of the Amendment which had already been accepted by the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill, but the only direction given to the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill was that there was to be a rateable

    571
    value of £500,000 in each borough area, or a population limit of between 100,000 and 400,000. Now, the important word of these lines was the word "or." If either of these conditions existed, the area would be constituted into a single borough. He believed there were no lines in the Bill which had created so much alarm in London as those three lines with which his Amendment dealt, because under the provision as it stood the whole of the area of London outside the scheduled areas might be constituted a single borough. For that area would have a rateable value of more than £500,000. Now, what he thought should be in the Bill was a maximum and not a minimum limit of rateable value. Indeed, his conviction was that rateable value was not a proper condition at all in deciding whether an area should be constituted a borough. The provision as it now stood was too vague, and practically laid down no rule for the guidance of the Commissioners. As it stood, the words which he had quoted would prevent the Commission from creating an area into a borough which, but for the words, it would be desirable to create into a borough. The fault of the Bill in regard to that part, at any rate, was that it suggested to the Commissioners that they ought to create far too large areas into boroughs. That had been simply a terror to the existing local authorities in London.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I suggest to the honourable Member that the question of rateable value should be made a separate question. The question of population can be dealt with by a. subsequent Amendment.
    MR. LOUGHsaid that was a very good suggestion, and he was quite willing to accept it.
    *COLONEL HUGHESthought that the Committee should have a definition of what rateable value included.
    MR. LOUGHasked as a point of order whether, if he adopted the suggestion to discuss first the rateable value as the basis of a borough area, that would prevent him from proposing his population limit?
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The honourable Member wishes to exclude the question of rateable value altogether, and to make these borough areas depend on population. Rateable value is one question, and population limit is another question.
    MR. LOUGHaccepted the Chairman's suggestion to limit his present Amendment to rateable value, and to leave the population limit to subsequent debate. He thought it would be very difficult to give any reason for including rateable value in the Bill at all. It would only lead the Commissioners into difficulties. He moved the Amendment excluding rateable value.
    MR. T. H. ROBERTSONwas personally very strongly in favour of large areas, and he believed that the majority of the inhabitants of East London were of the same opinion.
    HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
    MR. T. H. ROBERTSONsaid that there were very few persons who had the knowledge of the wishes of the inhabitants of East London which he had, and it was his firm and positive belief that they desired large and important boroughs, although there might be a certain number of people in the vestries who had a contrary opinion. He had an Amendment leaving out "either," and to substitute "and" for "or," but he begged to withdraw it.
    *MR. FLETCHER MOULTONsuggested that there was some blunder either in the printing or the drafting of this clause. The first words "either rateable value of £500,000" left the Commissioners with only a minimum and with no maximum, so that they could go to any extent above a rateable value of £,500,000. It. was evident that this was not the intention of the clause, for in the latter part a population limit was introduced as an alternative, which gave, not only a minimum, but a maximum limit as to population. Now, it was too absurd that the clause should not put a maximum limit as to population, which could be got rid of at once by making a gigantic rateable area. What was intended was evidently one of two things —either that there must be both a rate-

    573
    able value of £500,000 and a population of between 100,000 and 400,000—which seemed to him the more probable—or that where there was rot a population of 100,000, a rateable value of £500,000 should be sufficient to justify the constitution of a borough.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)did not think that there could be any mistake in regard to the clause. The intention Of the Government was quite clear, namely, that the area should have a rateable value of £500.000, or a population of from 100,000 to 400,000. The question now before the Committee was whether the words "either a rateable value exceeding £500,000" should be struck out, on the ground that there should be no rateable value. Now, rateable value went with population as a. rule. The case of a very large area with a very small population and a very large rateable value was really an impossible case, at any rate, in London. Population went to a large extent with rateable value, and rateable value was good evidence and a good test of an area for the purposes of local government. The Government was not prepared to exercise the test of rateable value out of the Bill, and therefore they could not accept the Amendment. The Government
    were certainly in favour of large areas.
    MR. DILLONsaid that the point made by the honourable Member for Islington was absolutely clear. According to the sub-section, as it stood, the Commissioners would be at liberty to take either the test of rateable value or of population. In the case of population, there was a minimum and a maximum limit, but in the case of rateable value there was a minimum but no maximum; and accordingly, if the Commissioners selected the test of rateable value alone, they could put the whole of London outside the scheduled areas into one borough.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not with population also.
    MR. DILLONsaid that the point was as clear as could be. As the sub-section now stood, the Commissioners could constitute an area a borough if it had
    574
    "either a rateable value of £500,000, or a population between 100,000 and 400,000." Earlier in the Debate the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean proposed that the principles on which these areas or districts Were to be carved out should be laid down in the first clause of the Bill. He had listened to the right honourable Baronet's argument with interest, and was completely convinced that he was right. The First Lord of the Treasury pointed out that when they came down to sub-sections (a) and (b) of the first clause they would find the principles which were to guide the Commissioners, but when looked into it was found that the principles in these sub-sections were of the loosest possible description, and they practically left the Commissioners to carve out what areas they thought fit. He thought the honourable Member was entitled to demand from the Government, before they passed from this clause, some clear definition as to the powers of the Commissioners, and as to the character of the new boroughs to be established. A remark made by the right honourable the Attorney-General had aroused suspicion in his mind. The right honourable Gentleman said that the Government were more enamoured of large districts than small districts, and this clause was so drafted that it placed no limit to the size of the districts which the Commissioners may determine. He yielded to no one in his ignorance of the City, but he had always looked on that Bill as skillfully designed for the purpose of worrying the London County Council and discrediting its work. Therefore, if that were so, it was perfectly clear that the larger the areas of the new boroughs the better that purpose would be served. For the larger these new boroughs were, they would be the more likely to set themselves up in opposition to the London County Council, and to break up the administration of London into fragments. He believed that by this Bill it was intended to surround the London County Council with a ring of great municipalities which would be encouraged by the present Government to set themselves up in opposition to that body and to diminish its powers.
    *MR. LOWLESsaid he had in his hand a Return of the whole scheduled areas in

    575
    London, and as a matter of fact there were only two cases in which the conditions laid down by the clause in the Bill did not apply; that was to say, as to the population being more than 100,000, and as to the rateable value of £5000,000.
    MR. BUXTONsaid he thought the Government must feel that the Committee wanted an explanation on this matter. If he understood the speech of the Attorney-General aright, the Bill did not carry out the intention of the Government. They naturally wanted to have this Bill drafted so that an ordinary person reading it would understand it rightly. As he understood the matter, it was not the intention of the Government that a very wide discretion should be given to the Commissioners, and that both rateable value and population would be restrictions on the Commissioners as to the areas which they would constitute boroughs. He did not think that anything could be worse in carrying out the principle on which the Bill was founded than in selecting for a borough a very large population with a little rateable value; and he thought the Commissioners ought to have specific instructions to consider rateable value as well as population.
    Another Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 22, to leave out from the word have,' to the end of the clause, in order to acid the words a population between one hundred thousand and four hundred thousand, or, if the population is less than one hundred thousand, a rateable value exceeding five hundred thousand pounds,"—(Mr. Balfour.)—in-stead thereof.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-
    SURY: I entirely agree that the words, grammatically construed, do not carry out the intention of the Government, and I therefore propose to amend the sub-section by substituting words which do carry out the intention of the Government, which my right honourable Friend the Attorney-General explained. As amended, the sub-section would readߞ
    "Every other borough shall, unless for special reasons stated in a Report which shall be laid before Parliament, have a population of between 100,000 and 400,000, or, if the population is less than 100,000, then a rateable value exceeding £500,000."
    576
    That carries out with precision the intentions of the Government. If that can be put from the Chair, then the Amendment of the figures can be dealt with, the general form of words being accepted.
    Question proposed—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "To leave out the words 'between one hundred thousand and four hundred thousand,' in order to insert the words 'not exceeding three hundred thousand.'"—(Mr. Stuart.)
    MR. STUARTsaid he wanted to recall the Committee to an aspect of the question which had not been before them in the short discussions raised. The House has already adopted the suggestion of the Leader of the House that the Commissioners should pay attention to the local history and associations of the various areas. But he feared that the Commissioners would not be able to carry out these instructions if the clause stood as it was now put. There were 22 districts left out of the Schedule of the Bill. Now, many of these districts had a long historical life, and were really administrative units before the creation of Parliament itself. They were not really bad areas for local government purposes. But, supposing the clause was carried as it now stood, there would be only six of these 22 areas which would stand as they now were as separate entities. He suggested, therefore, that the Commissioners should be more limited as to population area, and that that limit should be put not at 400,000, but at 300,000. There were, in fact, as he had said, only six areas with a population of more than 100,000 Bethnal Green, Hackney, Mile End, Newington, Shoreditch, and Greenwich. All the other districts had less than 100,000. But such a district as Bermondsey, which had a long history, had only a population of 85,000. He therefore thought that a latitude ought to be allowed to the Commissioners in this matter. Unless that were conceded, the

    577
    Commissioners would be driven to interfere with those areas other than the six he had mentioned, even if they were to have regard to the lowest limit, as for instance, in the case of St. Luke's, which would be transferred into another area which had no connection with its local associations.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid he took a totally different view from the honourable Member who had just spoken. He thought it would be a great pity to limit the clause to the maximum number. He did not want to see a great number of very small municipalities, which seemed to him to constitute the real danger of the whole improvement. There might also be difficulty in fixing a maximum. The clause, therefore, should read, "A population of not less than 100,000," leaving the maximum out altogether.
    MR. BUXTONthought it would be better to put a maximum limit than a minimum one. If the limit of 100,000 were accepted, Whitechapel, for instance, which had a population of 78,000, would be left out. Whitechapel was a case in which it might very fairly be argued that it might be formed into an independent locality of itself. It had its own poor law' union, which was very well administered; it had own local associations, and its own feeling; and he should regret to see their local life absorbed in that of a neighbouring borough. There were, to his mind, very good reasons to be advanced against any great amalgamation of poor districts. It was comparatively easy to administer municipalities when the work was entrusted to men of position and wealth, who kept their carriages, but in the East End, those who had to administer local affairs had to walk to their town hall or to the building where the administration of local government was carried on. If they were going to have large areas in the poor districts, there would be the physical difficulty which had unfortunately arisen as regarded many of the county councils throughout the country—namely, that those who were elected to represent the ratepayers were unable to carry out their duties efficiently.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps I may say one word in response to the argument and appeal made to the Government. I entirely agree that the one object should be to frame efficient units of local government, and the question may be discussed without the smallest tinge of Party feeling. When, however, I accepted a previous Amendment it was with the distinct wish that the limit in the latter part of the sub-section should be retained, and I should never have thought it possible to accept that amendment if the inferior limit were going to be removed by a subsequent Amendment. The acceptance of that Amendment makes it necessary to retain the lower limit. If not, we should hand over the Commissioners helplessly to any view which may be expressed by the locality in favour of the existing area. That would be a great misfortune. I certainly think it most important to let the Commissioners understand that the limit of 100,000 is to stand unless very strong reasons can be alleged in a contrary direction. I do not deny that in some cases those strong reasons may exist, but, speaking broadly, I think it would be a great misfortune for the future of those new bodies if any considerable number of them are below the limit of 100,000 population. For these reasons, Sir, I should greatly regret if the Committee accepted the Amendment.
    MR. KIMBERsaid there were raisons against both the higher and the lower limit, and, if in order, he would move that the consideration of this sub-section should be deferred until the Schedule had been considered. The lower limit was put in the Bill at 100,000. The Government had already admitted in the Schedule several areas below 100.000 population. Why should that limit apply to the whole of the rest of the area of London, so as to shut out from the consideration of the Boundary Commissioners cases which, in their view, might be legitimately considered? In this respect the case of Wandsworth, which he had the honour to represent, was peculiar. It had an area of 15 square miles—15 times the size of the City of London, and far larger than that of any of the proposed munici-

    579
    palities. The parishes which constituted that district had different opinions upon the subject, and they desired to lay them before the Government, and he asked the Committee not to prejudge the decision which might be come to. He was not going to say whether he was in favour of the district board as now constituted, or of separate municipalities. That was the question which divided his constituents, and he appealed to the Government to give them a fair hearing before this particular portion of the Bill was decided on. If he was in order, he would move that this sub-section be postponed for a week.
    *COLONEL HUGHESdrew attention to the case of Plumstead, which, with a present population of 62,000, was increasing by 3,000 or 4,000 every year, and had an area of five square miles. He submitted that that extent of territory was quite enough for one council to look after, especially considering the rapid development of the district. He thought the law should be so framed as to ensure that those districts which had such immense possibilities for increase of population in the early future should not be placed within the 100,000 limit.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE: I cannot help thinking that a considerable number of the Members of the Committee will, by the time we have now arrived at, have been gradually brought round by the force of circumstances to feel that there is a great deal in what has just fallen from the honourable Member. We are going to appoint a Commission, or rather a Privy Council, under this Bill. We may assume that those Commissioners will be men of very great knowledge, experience, and judgment, and no doubt their names will be communicated to the Committee before these proceedings are terminated. The question, therefore, arises whether it would not be better to trust them altogether. If you once begin to try to lay down limits, be they maximum or minimum, you will be almost certain to get into difficulties. Surely the best plan would be to give the Commissioners a perfectly free hand in the matter.
    MR. L. HOLLANDsaid he took the same view as the honourable Member for Islington. He thought a maximum limit Of population was unnecessary.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It would be very convenient for the Committee if they were to distinguish between the lower and the higher limit, because it is quite evident that an entirely different set of arguments apply to cases.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I foresaw that, and all that I put to the Committee was that the word "between" stand part. If the Committee decide to accept he word "between" they can agree to discuss either the higher or the lower limit.
    MR. HOLLANDsaid the question in his mind was whether it was not desirable to exclude the higher limit altogether, but inasmuch as the Government were prepared to consider the question he would leave the subject as it was.
    MR. LOUGHsaid that the point which he desired to make was that they could not have respect to historic or local feeling unless the lower limit was removed. The right honourable Gentleman admitted that he was willing to deal with values, but without removing the lower limit that was impossible, and therefore he implored the right honourable Gentleman to consider the matter very carefully before he retained it in the Bill. If he maintained the lower limit he at once ruled out 16 areas of those 22 which appear in the first schedule of the Bill. And how could he have any regard to historic value if he ruled out those areas which had been the centres of local government for many years past. He would refer to the case of St. Giles, which the right honourable Gentleman desired to retain. It would be impossible to retain that unless the lower limit was removed. It was stated that its valuation was over £500,000, and that, therefore, it might be brought in, and it was also admitted that that was the gross valuation, and therefore did not count, and that the net valuation was only £400,000, arid if those figures were admitted that area would have to be ruled out if the lower limit was retained. He thought that the Commissioners should be left a free hand to deal

    581
    with the various localities, having regard to the great increase of population which had taken place in many of them. Put that was not possible so long as the lower limit was retained. He pointed out the union between Stoke Newington and Hackney, which appeared to be one of the most simple matters in the world to arrange, would not last 10 years; that domestic defferences would arise, and in years' time there would be another Bill brought in to separate them. The concession made by the right honourable Gentleman in the early part of the evening was completely abrogated if lie would not consent to the Amendment now before the Committee, and he therefore asked him to sweep away the offending words.
    MR. BOUSFIELDwas of opinion that the position of affairs was materially altered by the extremely considerate
    manner in which the Leader of the House had dealt with it. The words suggested in the sub-section went as far as right honourable Gentlemen had seen possible to go at present. Speaking on behalf of his constituents, who felt very strongly upon the subject, he was bound to say that unless the Government could see their way to modify the sub-section he would be bound to vote for the removal of the lower limit in this matter. He thought the lower limit ought to be removed, and that the matter ought to be left to the Boundary Commissioners, with any provision which might be thought necessary.
    Question put—
    "That the word 'between' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 101.—(Division List No. 99.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood Capt. Sir A. F.

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

    Aird, John

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. E.

    Cox, Irwin E. B. (Harrow)

    Hoare,E.Brodie(Hampstead)

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Howarth, Sir Henry Hoyle

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Curzon, Viscount

    Jackson, Rt. Hn. W. Lawies

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Banley, James,Walworth)

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Jesse, Capt. H. Merton

    Balfour,Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

    Denny, Colonel

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn. (G. W. (Leeds)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Doughty, George

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Barnes, Frederic George

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

    Kemp, George

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Duncombe, Hn. Hubert V.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hr. Sir J. H.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Kenyon, James

    Beach, Rt Hn.Sir M.H. (Bris'l)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col.William

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Keswick, William

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Kimber, Henry

    Bethell, Commander

    Finch, George H.

    Knowles, Lees

    Bigwood, James

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Lafone, Alfred

    Bill, Charles

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

    Bond, Edward

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Hayes

    Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Loden, Gerald W. Erskine

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Gedge, Sydney

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Butcher, John George

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbysh)

    Gilliant John Saunders

    Lowe Francis William

    Cayzer, Sir Charles Wm.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

    Loqles, John

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Lucas-Shadwell,William

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Chamberlain, Rt. hn. J. (Bir.)

    Goschen,RT Hn.G.J.(St.Geo.)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    M'Killop, James

    Cochrane, Hn. T. H. A. E.

    Greene, Hy.D. (Shrewsbury)

    Maxwell, R t. Hn. Sir H. E.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gretton, John

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hamilton, Rt. He. Lord G.

    Milton, Viscount

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Monk, Charles James

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Heath,James

    Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Mon.)

    Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Mount, William George

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Murray, Rt Hn A. G. (Bute)

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Round, James

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Myers, William Henry

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Webster,Sir R.E. (1.of Wight)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Ryder, John H. Dudley

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Percy, Earl

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Sharpe, William Ed. T.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Chesh.)

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Wodehouse,Rt Hn E.R.(Bath)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

    Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

    Wortley,Rt Hn C.B. Stuart-

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D). (Strand)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

    Purvis, Robert

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Pym, C. Guy

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Strauss, Arthur

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

    Tollemache, Henry James

    NOES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. H. Henry

    Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Baker, Sir John

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Balfour, Rt Hn J.B. (Clack.)

    Hayne,Rt Hn. Chas. Seale

    Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Billson, Alfred

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Humphreys-Owen,Arthur C.

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Joicey, Sir James

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Burns, John

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Spicer, Albert

    Burt, Thomas

    Lambert, George

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Langley, Batty

    Steadman, William Charles

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Strachey, Edward

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Leng, Sir John

    Sullivan, Donald (Westmeath)

    Campbell-Bannerman,Sir H

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Cawley, Frederick

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Walton,J(Leeds, S.)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    M`Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

    Walton, Joseph Barnsley)

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Warner, T. Courtenay T.

    Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

    Maddison, Fred.

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Dillon, John

    Maden, John Henry

    Weir, James Galloway

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Duckworth, James

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    Ellis, John Edward

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud.)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Nussey. Thomas Willans

    Woods, Samuel

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Lough.

    Gladstone. Rt. Hn. H. John

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "To leave out the words 'one hundred thousand,' in order to insert the words fifty thousand,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
    MR. BOUSFIELDasked the Government to meet them half way in the matter. If the Government would not give full discretion to the Commissioners he appealed to the
    584
    Government to accept the lower limit of 50,000, in order to widen their discretion. He did not suggest 50,000 as the best size. There was not any best size; what they wanted was variety. He was perfectly in Agreement that it was desirable to have large areas, such as Greater Westminster, provided they were created with the goodwill of the people it was proposed to include. He submitted to the Committee that there was

    585
    no reason why greater latitude should not be allowed. They did not want to reduce every district to the same level. There was no reason why they should cut all these new municipalities to the same pattern. If the limit were reduced to 50,000 it would give the Commissioners latitude to have regard for local feelings and historic associations. He quite admitted it would be undesirable to flood London with small areas of local government, but there was no reason why the lower limit of 50,000 should not be fixed, which would enable such districts as Stoke Newington and Plum-stead to be included.
    Question put—
    "That '100,000' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR.SOAMESsaid if the Amendment were not carried several districts would be omitted and a large amount of grouping would be necessary. In many cases it would be necessary to group five or six districts in order to bring the population up to the higher limit. It was undesirable to get rid of the possibility of having variety in the formation of the new municipalities.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope my honourable Friend and the honourable Gentleman opposite will not persist in their Amendment. If we reduce the limit to 50,000 undoubtedly the Commissioners will think themselves directed to preserve every existing locality which reaches that population. That I think would be a great detriment. On the other hand, if we leave the limit at 100,000, and if there are any special reasons why a lower limit ought to be adopted the Commissioners are perfectly at liberty to adopt it. But we ought to place the limit of 100,000 in the Bill in order to show the Commissioners what under ordinary circumstances, and unless there are special reasons to the contrary, should be the minimum they ought to aim at in framing these new municipalities. I am convinced that the Committee will feel that we should really be
    586
    stultifying ourselves if, after having accepted an Amendment requiring the Commissioners to look to the history and associations of any locality, we should then introduce a population limit of 50,000 to indicate what the idea was at which the Commissioners should aim.
    MR. LOUGH: One reason in support of the Amendment Was that 50,000 was the limit of county boroughs outside London under the Local Government Act, and one of the great objects of the Bill was to assimilate the London boroughs to the outside boroughs. If the Amendment were not adopted the hands of the Commissioners would unfortunately be tied.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: I recognise the difficulty mentioned by the First Lord of the Treasury that the Amendment might be taken as an indication of size, though it need not necessarily be so. He had another Amendment which he Lad not the opportunity of putting on the Paper, but which, if in order now, he should like to move. Seeing the difficulty surrounding the Amendment and the manner in which it was suggested it might be construed by the Commissioners, he did not wish to put it to a Division. But there was another way of meeting the point, and that was to add to the end of the clause the following words: —
    "Or be an existing sanitary district constituted by Act of Parliament within 10 years before the passing of the Act."
    He did not want to make a 50,000 population the pattern throughout London, and if the right honourable Gentleman would consider the alternative he had suggested, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no!
    Question put—
    "That '100,000' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 95.—(Division List No. 100.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Hayes

    Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Mon.)

    Allhusen, Augustus Hy. E.

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Mount, William George

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Mumz, Philip A.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Gedge, Sydney

    Murray, Rt Hn A. G. (Bute)

    AsInnead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Myers, William Henry

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J. (Manch'r)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Balfour, Rt.Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Staff.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.Geo.)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Barnes, Frederic Gore11

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Percy, Earl

    Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Bathurst, Hn. Alan Benjamin

    Greene, Hy.D). (Shrewsbury)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Beach, Rt Hn.Sir M.H(Bris'l)

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gunter, Colonel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.

    Pryce-Jones,Lt. Col.Edwd.

    Bethell, Commander

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Purvis, Robert

    Bigwood, James

    Hare, Tomas Leigh

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bill, Charles

    Heath, James

    Rasch,Major Frederic Carne

    Bond, Edward

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

    Ritchie,Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brodrick, Rt. Fin. St. John

    Hoare,E.Brodie(Hampstead)

    Rothschild,Hn.Lionel Walter

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Round, James

    Butcher, John George

    Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

    Russell,Gen.F.S.(Chelt'Hm.)

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Howarth, Sir Henry Hoyle

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles Wm.

    Jackson, Rt. Hn. W. Lawies

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Jesse", Capt. H. Merton

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Johnston. William (Belfast)

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Bir.)

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Sidebotham,J.W.(Cheshire)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kemp, George

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cochrane, Hn. T. H. A. E.

    Kenyon, James

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Keswick, William

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Kimber, Henry

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Knowles, Lees

    Stewart,Sir MarkJ.M`Taggart

    Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

    Lafone, Alfred

    Strauss, Arthur

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Vincent,Col.SirC.E.Howard

    Cox, Irwin E. B. (Harow)

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Webster,Sir R.E.(Isle of W.)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Lopes, Hy. Yarde Buller

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lowe, Francis William

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lowles, John

    Williams,Jos. Powell - (Birm)

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Lucas-Shadwell,William

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Denny, Colonel

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Wilson-Todd,Wm.H.(Yorks.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Wodehouse,RtHn.E.R.(Bath)

    Doughty, George

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wortley,Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wylie, Alexander

    buncombe, Hn. Hubert V.

    M'Killop, James

    Wyndham-Quin,Major W.H.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Milton, Viscount

    Sir William Walrond and

    Finch, George H.

    Monk, Charles James

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Finlay, Sir B. Bannatyne

    Montagu, Hn. J. S. (Hants.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

    NOES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Brunner,Sir John Tomlinson

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Burns, John

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Billson, Alfred

    Burt, Thomas

    Baker, Sir John

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Balfour,RtHnJ.Blair(Clackm.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Caldwell, James

    588

    589

    Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

    Lambert, George

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Langley, Batty

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'ld.)

    Sinclair, Capt. Jno.(Forfarsh.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Leng, Sir John

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Spicer, Albert

    Cohen, Benjamin Lewis

    Lough, Thomas

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Steadman, William Charles

    Dillon, John

    M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

    Strachey, Edward

    Duckworth, James

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Maddison, Fred.

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Ellis, John Edward

    Mendl,Sigismund Ferdinand

    Thomas,David Alf. (Merthyr)

    Evans,SamuelT.(Glamorgan)

    Morgan,J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

    Walton,Jno.Lawson(Leeds,S)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Foster,Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Gladstone,Rt. Hn Herb. Jno.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Griffiths, Ellis J.

    Palmer, Geo. Wm.(Reading)

    Williams,Jno.Carvell(Notts.)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Wilson,Fredk.W.(Norfolk)

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Hud'fd.)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Woods, Samuel

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Joicey, Sir James

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Mr. Bousfield and Mr. Soames.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    To leave out t he words 'four hundred thousand,' in order to insert the words 'three hundred thousand,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Lough.)
    MR. LOUGHsaid now that the Committee had disposed of the question of the minimum lie hoped the Government would give favourable consideration to his proposal that 300,000 inhabitants, and not 400,000 as proposed in the Amendment, should be the maximum. He did not think it necessary to repeat the arguments he had already used, but hoped the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would recognise that 300,000 would be sufficiently large, especially in view of the fact that there was only one borough in Loudon with a population of more than 300,000. There could be no good local government in London unless the area was such that the members of the governing body could become familiar with it, and he thought 300,000 a sufficient maximum to insert in this Bill.
    MR. L. R. HOLLANDexpressed the hope that the Government would see their way to change the limit, but not in the direction suggested by the honourable Member for Islington. He hoped it would be possible to change the maximum to 500,000, because, if the
    590
    limit of 400,000 was retained, it would be impossible, however much the Commissioners might desire it, to create a borough of the Tower Hamlets. When they reached the Schedule it ought to be open to the Committee either to include the Tawer Hamlets, or to leave it to the Commissioners to decide whether it would be advisable to form the Tower Hamlets into one borough. It was only in regard to population that the Tower Hamlets exceeded the limits of the Bill; its rateable value was less than half the rateable value of Westminster, and was equal to that of several of the districts mentioned in the Bill. It might be possible that many of the different districts in the Tower Hamlets would prefer to stand by themselves and be created separate boroughs, but the decision already arrived at in regard to population would make it impossible for Limehouse and Whitechapel to be separated. If amalgamation was to take place it would be better to create in the East End of London a district which could balance the greatness and the dignity of the borough of Westminster in the West End of London. For the sake of unity of assessment and of valuation, and in order to secure unity of rating over as large an area as possible, it was, he thought, advisable that the discretion he had suggested should be left to the Commissioners.
    MR. MARKSsupported the suggestion that the maximum should be raised to 500,000. He did not desire to prejudge the case of the Tower Hamlets, which could be discussed at a later stage, but there were many points in favour of making the Tower Hamlets into one borough. There were natural associations, strong sympathies between the various divisions of the district, and a strong feeling in favour of the Tower Hamlets being constituted a borough.
    MR. STUARTtrusted that the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would be willing to accept the Motion to reduce the maximum population from 400,000 to 300,000. The reason why he supported 300,000 as the upper limit was that it was well above the population of the largest of the existing divisions—namely, that of Hackney.
    MR. STEADMANhoped when the time came he should be able to convince the First Lord of the Treasury that the borough of Mile End had a sufficient claim to be made a. municipality. Of the 90 members on the Mile End Vestry, 60 were supporters of the present Government, and that vestry had unanimously passed a resolution in favour of this proposal. There were various reasons against making the whole of the Tower Hamlets one municipality, one of which was the question of rates, and therefore, on this occasion he should support the Government.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid, in support of what fell from his honourable Friend the Member from Bromley, that nowhere was local government more unsatisfactory than it was over large parts of East London, and nowhere did they hope the new municipalities might be more productive of reform and benefit. For example, philanthropic persons often engaged in what was called a Sanitary Committee in that part of London, with
    592
    the object of putting pressure on the local authorities to execute the law. The very fact that it was necessary for persons coming from other parts to engage in a voluntary organisation to secure the operation of the law, indicated how much room there was for reform. He believed it would be of real advantage to the East End of London to set up the largest municipality possible. No one would say that an area with 500,000 population would be of unmanageable size; it was a reasonable figure to make a municipality really independent and efficient, and not so large as to be cumbersome and unworkable.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Avowedly the proposal to change the figure is in the interest of one particular scheme, proposed by my honourable Friend the Member for Bow and, Bromley, and supported by my noble Friend, for a large municipality in the East End of London, and as to that I am far from saying it is impracticable or inexpedient, but as it is an isolated scheme it does not appear to me to be desirable at the present stage of the proceedings to alter the figure in the Bill. My honourable Friend implied that if the figure were left unaltered the Committee would be precluded from taking the step, should it seem good to them, to set up a larger Tower Hamlets, but in that he is mistaken; it would be just as easy in discussing the Schedule, and I am unwilling to prejudge the question or make an alteration that might be unnecessary in view of subsequent debate at a later stage. Even apart from the Schedule it will be in the power of the Commissioners, if they are as convinced as my honourable Friend as to the expediency of establishing a large municipality, to frame a scheme for the 'purpose and give special reasons. On this ground I would suggest to the House that we should not alter the superior limit at the present stage any more than we have altered the inferior limit, but leave it for subsequent discussion.
    MR. BURNSsaid that the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich appeared to be under the impression that the mere fact of grouping five or six parishes into one large municipality would necessarily bring about better administration. He did not agree with the noble Lord. There were some large parishes in London with a population of 200.000 and 300,000 where the sanitary laws were less efficiently administered than in parishes with 50,000. Good administration depended on the zeal of the officers, and on the care of the men elected on the local bodies, and not merely on the size of the district. It was all very well for the Member for Bow and Bromley, where rates were about 8s. 7d. in the £, to suggest amalgamation with parishes where the rates were only 7s.
    MR. L. R. HOLLAND: I always thought the Member for Battersea was one of the advocates for equalisation of rates throughout London.
    MR. BURNSreplied that this was so, but that the worst way to set real equalisation of rates was to take very poor parishes in the East End of London and group them with other parishes worse off than themselves and leave the greater question of metropolitan equalisation untouched. The suggestion of the honourable Member was a meretricious form of equalisation which was not in keeping with the high sounding principles which the honourable Member had expressed. He (Mr. Burns) was a Moderate man, and on this occasion supported the Government. He would urge
    all honourable Members on this side of the House to support the First Lord of the Treasury, and reject the dangerous and insidious proposal of the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley.
    Question put—
    "That the words 'four hundred thousand' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Motion agreed to without a Division.
    Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "To leave out the words 'or, if the population is less than one hundred thousand, a rateable value exceeding five hundred thousand pounds."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the proposal as it stood would operate very unequally as between rich districts and poor districts, and that a very mischievous result might follow. He strongly deprecated the creation of small rich districts which might result from the adoption of the Amendment as it stood.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In introducing rateable value as one of the conditions to be taken with population for determining local areas, the Government are only allowing the common tradition. It is a most similiar method of arriving. at the proper districts for dealing with local afairs. I do not think there are any small districts with a very large rateable value.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 83.—(Division List No. 101.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex.F.

    Balfour,RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Arrol, Sir William

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Bethell, Commander

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bartley, George C. T.

    BhoWnaggree, Sir M. M.

    Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

    Bigwood, James

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Bathurst,Hn.Alien Benjamin

    Bill, Charles

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beach,RtHn. SirM. H. (Bristol)

    Bond, Edward

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.A. J.(Manch)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gunter, Colonel

    Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Hamilton,Rt.Hn.Lord George

    Myers, William Henry

    Brassey, Albert

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Heath, James

    Nicol, Dunal Ninian

    Butcher, John George

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

    Carlile, William Waiter

    Henderson, Alexander

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Cavendish, R. F. (X. Lans.)

    Herman-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hill,Sir Edwd. Stock(Bristol)

    Penn, John

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford,

    Hoare,Edw.Brodie(Hampstd.)

    Percy, Earl

    Cecil,.Lord Hugh(Greenwich

    Hobhouse. Henry

    Pilkington, Richard

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

    Houston. R. P.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Chamberlain,J.Austen (Worc)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edwd.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Hughes. Colonel Edwin

    Purvis, Robert

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H.A.E.

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Johnstone. Heywood (Sussex)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Jolliffe, Hn. H. George

    Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Kemp, George

    Round, James

    Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Here'fd)

    Kenyon, James

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

    Keswick, William

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Kimber, Henry

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Knowles. Lees

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Lafone, Alfred

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.

    Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Denny, Colonel

    Lockwood. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Smith,Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Dickson-Poynder,Sir John P.

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D.(Strand)

    Doughty, George

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (L'pool)

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Douglas, Rt, Hn. A. Akers-

    Lopes. Henry Yarde Buller

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Stewart,SirMarkJ.M'Taggart

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lowe, Francis William

    Strauss, Arthur

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lowles. John

    Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Ox.Univ.)

    Fellowes.Hn.Ailwyn Edward

    Lucas-Shadwell. William

    Tollemache. Henry James

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Tomlinson.Wm. Edw.Murray

    Finch, George H.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Valentia. Viscount

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Vincent.Col.Sir C.E.Howard

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Maclure. Sir John William

    Warde. Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Fletcher Sir Henry

    M'Killop, James

    Warr Augustus Frederick

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Webster, Sir R.E.(Isle of W.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Martin,Richard Biddulph

    Whitmore Charles Algernon

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Massey-Mainwaring.Hn.W.F

    Williams Colonel R.(Dorset)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Mellor. Colonel (Lancashire)

    Williams. Jos. Powell (Birm.)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Milton. Viscount

    Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E R, (Bath)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Wortley. Rt. Hn. C.B.Stuart-

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Gost, Rt, Hn. Sir Jno.Eldon

    Monckton,. Edward Philip

    Wylie, Alexander

    Goschen.RtHnG.J(StGeorge's

    Montagu.Hn.J.Scott (Hants.)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

    Goschen. George, J. (Sussex)

    More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Goulding Edward Alfred.

    Morgan. Hn.Fred.(Monm'sh.)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morton. Arth.H. A. (Deptford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Green, WalfordD. (Wednes by.)

    Mount. William George

    Sir William Walrond and

    Greene,HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Mr. Anstruther.

    Gretton, John

    Murray.RtHnA.Graham(Bute)

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Murray, Chas. J.(Coventry)

    NOES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Asquith.Rt.Hn. Herb. Henry

    Burns, John

    Colville, John

    Baker, Sir John

    Burt, Thomas

    Courtney,Rt.Hn.Leonard H.

    Balfour,Rt. Hn.,J.Blair(Clackm.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Caldwell, James

    Duckworth, James

    Billson, Alfred

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Ellis, John Edward

    Birrell, Augustine

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Evans,Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Cawley, Frederick

    Fenwick, Charles

    596

    597

    Ferguson, R. C.Munro(Leith)

    M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

    Spicer, Albert

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn.Herb.Jno.

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Maddison, Fred.

    Strachey, Edward

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Thomas,David Alf. (Merthyr)

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Walton, Jno.Lawson(Leeds,S.)

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Weir, James Galloway

    Joicey, Sir James

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Proyand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Williams,Jno. Carvell(Notts.)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

    Lambert, George

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Langley, Batty

    Roberts, John II. (Denbighs.)

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hnd'fd.)

    Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'ld.)

    Samuel, J.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Leng, Sir John

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Lough, Thomas

    Sinclair,Capt. John(Forfarsh.)

    Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. James Stuart.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Words added.
    Question proposed—
    "That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment proposed—
    "Clause 1, page 1, line 25, at end, add—Where it is proposed by an Order under this section to alter one of the areas mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act by detaching from such area any part thereof of which the population according to the last published census exceeds 20,000, in such case before any such Order is made the draft of the Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than 30 days on which that House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those 30 days presents an address to Her Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.'"—(Sir C. Dilke.)
    *SIR C. DILKEsaid his Amendment was not a fighting Amendment, but one which he had put down for the purpose of eliciting the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this question. There were two districts in London which were divided by a considerable distance. These two were the Strand district, which the Government dealt with in the creation of the greater borough of Westminster, and the other was the parish of Chelsea. In Chelsea, vestry offices had been erected at a great cost in one part of the parish and a large library in another, and if the district was to be
    598
    divided as indicated between two other parishes there would be very serious financial arrangements to be made for the purpose of that division, and it was very difficult to know what would be the fate either of the library or of the municipal offices. There were several legal difficulties involved. He asked that great care should be taken with regard to these financial adjustments, and that the matter should be brought in some way to the attention of Parliament. It was rfor this reason that he had put down the Motion.
    *MR. WHITMOREexpressed the hope that every care would be taken by the right honourable Gentleman to prevent any injustice to the division he represented—namely, Chelsea.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am quite conscious of the difficulty and the importance of the question brought before the Committee by the right honourable Baronet. I hope the provisions will be adequate to meet them, but I am perfectly ready to carefully consider any suggestions which may be made to me.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he thought it desirable that, before the clause was passed, the Committee should see on the

    599
    Paper the important Amendment imported into it by the Government.
    And, it being Midnight, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee Report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
BUSINESS DEFERRED.
  SUPERANNUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 30th May.
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALKS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12th May.
  TRUCK ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 1lth May.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [12th April] further adjourned till Monday next.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [21st February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading adjourned till Monday 15th May.
  JUSTICES' DISQUALIFICATION REPEAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 10th May.
  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till this day.
  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.