In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'metropolitan boroughs,' and insert the word 'districts' instead thereof."—(Mr. Stuart.)
§ MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
said 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, Manchester, E)
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. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)
said 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. DILKE
said 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 BIRRELL (Fife, W.)
said 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. HOLLAND (Tower Hamlets, Bow)
did 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. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
denied 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. BUXTON
said 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-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
said 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 WALTON (Leeds, E)
was 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 PERCY (Kensington, S.)
said 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. HALDANE (Haddington)
said 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. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)
said 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.
stated 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.
said 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.
That the words 'metropolitan boroughs' stand part of the clause.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 242; Noes 130.—(Division List No. 97.)551
|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.|
|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|
|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. DILKE
said 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. DILKE
said 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. WHITMORE (Chelsea)
said 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. STUART
said 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 HUGHES (Woolwich)
said the Amendment really amounted to a proposal to leave, out the reference clause, and would practically make the Bill unworkable.
§ MR. HALDANE
said 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. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)
said 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. BOUSFIELD
said he wished to thank the right honourable Gentleman for having allayed-some of his doubts.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON
said 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-COUTTS (Westminster)
expressed 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.
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.)565
|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|
|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|
|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 NORTON
said 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. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said 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 CECIL (Greenwich)
said 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. COHEN (Islington, E.)
said 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 NORTON
said 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. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
moved an Amendment to the effect that every such borough shouldbe 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.
§ 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. LOUGH (Islington)
moved 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.
§ *COLONEL HUGHES
thought that the Committee should have a definition of what rateable value included.
*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. LOUGH
accepted 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. ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)
was 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.
§ MR. T. H. ROBERTSON
said 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 MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)
suggested 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. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said 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.
§ MR. DILLON
said 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. LOWLES
said 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. BUXTON
said 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 readߞEvery 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.
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.
§ Question put, and negatived.
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. STUART
said 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. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said 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. BUXTON
thought 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. KIMBER (Wandsworth)
said 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 HUGHES (Woolwich)
drew 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. HOLLAND
said 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. HOLLAND
said 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. LOUGH
said 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. BOUSFIELD
was 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.
That the word 'between' stand part of the proposed Amendment.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 101.—(Division List No. 99.)583
|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|
|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. BOUSFIELD
asked 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.
That '100,000' stand part of the proposed Amendment.
§ MR.SOAMES (Norfolk, S.)
said 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.
That '100,000' stand part of the proposed Amendment.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 188; Noes 95.—(Division List No. 100.)589
|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)|
|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|
|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. LOUGH
said 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. HOLLAND
expressed 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. MARKS (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)
supported 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. STUART
trusted 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. STEADMAN (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
hoped 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 CECIL
said, 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. BURNS (Battersea)
said 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. BURNS
replied 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.
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. PICKERSGILL
said 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.
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.)597
|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-|
|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.|
|Gull, Sir Cameron||Murray, Chas. J.(Coventry)|
|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|
|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.
That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
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. DILKE
said 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. WHITMORE
expressed 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.
§ And, it being Midnight, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee Report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.