Commons Sitting of 27 April 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve of the clock.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., have leave to sit this day during the Sitting of the House.—(Mr. John Edward Ellis.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
  London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway (No. 2).
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  MESSAGE TO ATTEND THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
  The House went;—and, being returned;—
  Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to,—

  1. Army (Annual) Act, 1899.

  2. Cathcart's Divorce Act, 1899.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  By Order,—Third Reading deferred till Thursday 11th May.

  LONDON WATER (PURCHASE) BILL (BY ORDER).
  MR. STUART: I move that the Second Reading be postponed to 1st June.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: We have received no notice that these Bills were to go off, and I must say that great inconvenience arises from honourable Members being brought down here to consider Private Bills (by Order), and that then they should be put off. I have an objection to their going off, and I move that the Amendment be taken, now.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member cannot move an Amendment to do that. The only thing the honourable Member can do is to vote against the postponement of the Second Reading.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,: I wish to say that as the Bill is put down by Order it ought to be proceeded with, but the difficulty that the House is in is that the honourable Member who has undertaken to move its rejection is not here. His notice for rejection is on the Paper and he is not here, an arrangement having been come to between the parties. Of course, I have nothing to say to that arrangement, but I must object to the postponement of a Bill in this manner. The Bill is down "by Order," and to postpone it in this way is a most inconvenient course to everybody here. Of course, if the House had been informed of the proposed postponement I should not object to it.
  MR. STUART: I entirely admit the inconvenience of postponing this Bill from time to time, but it will be remembered, I think, that with the complete approval of the House I took the course when this Bill was first down of proposing its postponement from that time to a later date in the hope that the Royal Commission, which is now sitting on the Water question, would have indicated the solution which it desired to make; and, Sir, I have on more than one occasion taken the same course with respect to this Bill for ex-

  681
  actly the same reason, and I, not unnaturally, postponed it until a late date because I, with the rest of the House, had heard rumours afloat that the Commission might report at that time—I believed, by the present occasion. The evidence to be given before the Commission was finished a considerable time ago, and the Commission might reasonably have been expected to report by this time. I am not finding fault with the Commission, but I mean that outsiders might reasonably have expected it to have made its report by this time. But finding it has not done so, and hearing, at any rate, that the Commission will report by the Whitsuntide holidays, and thinking that that is a very reasonable expectation, I have taken the course which has been proposed by the honourable Gentleman who has proposed this date of asking the House to postpone the Hill to the date which he has indicated. The reason of that date is a very simple one, and the reason against taking the Hill now is equally a very simple one. I have no desire to divide the House on this London Water question when the obvious reply to my position would be that a Commission is just about to report, and, therefore, this matter cannot be decided upon its merits. I think, with proper deference to the House and to the Commission, that I ought to maintain that position. I propose to put it off now till immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays. I think honourable Members will admit that it is the first possible day, and if it be not, I shall be happy to accept any other that is suggested, but I think it is the first possible day after the Whitsuntide holidays. I wish to point out to honourable Gentlemen that this is not such a great postponement in the case of the present Bill as it might be in the case of an ordinary Bill, because it is postponed in the hope that the Commission may have reported favourably—may have reported by that time. Now, if the Commission reports favourably to purchase, which I would hope, at any rate, or in whichever way the Commission reports, it will be observed that a great portion of time, which will be occupied in discussing such a Bill in this House, would take place upon the issue of—Should the purchase take place or not? If there is the Report of the Royal
  682
  Commission, after the attitude which all sides of the House have taken upon that question, suppose the Commission reports in favour of purchase, it will scarcely need to be argued. There would be, therefore, merely a question of clauses and the other portions of the Bill. If this Bill had, without the Commission sitting at all, gone on in the ordinary course, and been started at the ordinary time, by the Whitsuntide holidays—and I am speaking with considerable experience as Chairman of Committees—we would not really have got through the main issue of whether purchase should be permitted or not. So postponing it, as I do, till after Whitsuntide in the hope that the Commission will have reported, I believe the Bill will be practically under the same circumstances and in the same condition relatively to the Committee as it would be if this interval of delay had not taken place. I would really appeal to the House not to cut off the last opportunity that there may be for passing this Bill, because if this Bill be dealt with just now, to-day, it is quite obvious that the House will hold, and very fairly argue, if it is dealt with today, that the Commission has not reported. But if the Commission should report, and we should be able to deal with it on the 1st June, we have still a very reasonable opportunity of passing the Bill into law. And, Sir, allow me to point out why I desire to have that opportunity and ask the House to support me in getting that opportunity. It is that the sands are running out. There are a large number of Bills which have been passed for various companies—for every company, in fact—within the last five years except the Kent Company. Every company has obtained a Bill giving powers amounting to nearly 4½ millions of money, and with this year to six millions of money; and to a large amount of that is affixed the condition that it shall not affect the value of the companies if purchase takes place within a certain time. Sessions are, therefore, of extreme importance in this matter, and my hope is, if the Commission should report, as I hope it might report, we should be able to save a Session in this important matter, otherwise a very large and serious charge will be thrown upon the people of London, contrary, as I venture to suppose, to the wishes of Com-

  683
  mittees of Parliament which have inserted that clause suspending the addition to the companies' value for a period of years in each case. These are the reasons both why I did postpone the Bill and why I do not ask the House to take it just now, and why I hope that the House will not extinguish this possibility. The Bills of the companies have gone on this year, and they are before a Committee, and if I am rightly informed, the Committee has suggested to them to wait a little before they proceed till they see what the Royal Commissioners' Report may be. I think we are all desirous of seeing that, and I think I have shown good reason why we should be left the last chance we can have in this matter. I have taken every opportunity of letting the House know of the postponement by putting it in the public prints, and in other ways I have tried to meet the convenience of the House; but the circumstances are extremely peculiar, and that being so, though the procedure may be somewhat inconvenient—I admit that it is inconvenient, but I say the inconvenience is not one of the creation of the promoters of this Bill—I think it is a reasonable inconvenience under the circumstances of the case. I do not attempt to argue anything about the Bill. I hope I have confined myself solely to the matter of the delay, and under these circumstances I hope the House may be able to support the postponement.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,: I think my honourable Friend the Member for West Cumberland was perfectly justified in raising the protest which he has this afternoon. It certainly is very inconvenient to those who are not what I think I may call "in the know" to come down time after time expecting Bills to come on, and then to find that the Bill does not come on, or that by some arrangement between the parties the Bill is dropped or postponed to some future date. I think it must be admitted that that is rather an inconvenient practice.
  MR. STUART: Yes.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: But there are occasions, it seems to me, when that cannot be avoided. I will certainly do what I can to inform my hon-
  684
  ourable Friend, if he will apply to my office, whenever I know myself that a Bill is not coming on which appears on the Papers for a particular day. I have sometimes opportunities of knowing. With regard to this particular case, I think the honourable Member who has just addressed the House has certainly made out a case for the postponement, and that the circumstances which he has narrated, and which certainly I need not go over again, distinguish this Bill from the case of very many other Bills. The main principle of the Bill depends to a great extent upon what the Commission may report. It is quite true if the Commission reported in one direction or the other, so a large number of Members of this House would be influenced either in one direction or the other on the Second Reading of these Bills. Therefore, I do not know on the whole that we lose very much time in postponing this Bill. But I think it should be distinctly understood that on the 1st June we really should see the last of this Bill, and either pass it or reject it. Of course, it is possible, I quite conceive, that by the 1st June the Commission shall not then have reported, and therefore the honourable Member opposite would be able to make exactly the same speech again as he has made this afternoon as to the desirability of postponement, and his arguments would be just as cogent. But then I think it would really be an improper thing, having reached within two months, for we should be then within a period a little over two months of the end of the Session; and I think by that time, on the 1st of June, we ought really to have disposed of the Second Reading of such an important Bill as this, because it must be remembered there are other parties besides the promoters of this Bill who are much interested. The water companies have been kept month after month in a state of doubt as to whether the House means to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill or not. I may point out to my honourable Friend that one good reason for not proceeding with the Bill to-day is the absence of the opponents. Both the honourable Members whose names are down as opposing this Bill certainly do not expect it to come on, and neither of them is present. I think, under the circumstances, it would certainly be very inadvisable that the House should pro-

  685
  ceed this afternoon with the consideration of this Measure, but, on the other hand, I think if the Bill is postponed to the 1st June it should be with the distinct understanding that the House disposes of the Bill then, either by passing it or rejecting it. On that understanding I certainly support the honourable Member in postponing it to the 1st of June.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I am sure I shall have the indulgence of the House in order to say that I shall have no choice but to withdraw my opposition to the postponement of the Bill to-day. At the same time, in doing so, I hope that the practice which has grown up, and which causes not only considerable inconvenience, but a large amount of expense, which must fall on the ratepayers and public companies, will not be repeated; and I should like to make the suggestion that in future, when private business is put down by Order for a certain day, it should be taken on that day. I beg to withdraw.
  MR. BOULNOIS: Can we receive the assurance that the Bill, under these circumstances, will not be postponed beyond the 1st of June? It is an extreme inconvenience to those who are interested to the extent of £40,000,000 in this matter to have it hanging over their heads. Can we not receive an assurance from my honourable Friend who represents the London County Council (Mr. Stuart) that they will deal with the matter in one way or the other on the 1st of June?
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: There is only one word I should like to add. The honourable Member (Mr. Boulnois) has just asked an assurance to be given that the matter shall not be postponed after the 1st of June, and I think what the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Lowther) stated is absolutely the fact, that we shall be put as qua water companies to great expense, and kept in a great state of suspense, unless we are given an assurance that the matter shall be settled, for good or bad, once for all, on the 1st June There is another matter I wish to raise on the speech of the honourable Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart). He stated, what is perfectly true, that the Committee sitting on the Bill of the East London Water Company had postponed
  686
  their sittings because they seem to have expressed the opinion that we should not proceed with our Bill pending the Report of the Royal Commission. What I wish to impress upon the House is that we are in no way parties to that postponement. I myself look upon it, I was going to say, with consternation, but I will not use so strong a word, but I feel very strongly on this keeping back of the Bill pending the Report of the Royal Commission. I would not allow it to be thought for a moment that the East London Water Company are in any way a party to that postponement.
  MR. STUART: I feel it will be quite obvious to the House generally why I do not pledge myself to the suggestion that has been made, but it will be quite plain that the arguments I have used to-day for taking this Bill on the 1st of June and the possibility of doing it will be evanescent in their character. I cannot repeat those arguments with effect to the House, because the obvious answer is that we have not time to do it. But if I were to give a distinct pledge at the present moment that on the 1st of June I would take this Bill, whatever happened, it will be obvious that I might be landed in this difficulty—the Commissioners' Report might be out on that day. I say it is a very probable thing, for it is just after the Whitsuntide holidays, and I might be forced to take this Bill on the 1st of June on the pledge that I made to take it on that day. But I may say that I obviously cannot ask the House to continue to postpone the Bill in this way, and I think, not pledging myself, for the reasons I have given, in this matter, and pointing out clearly that I should not be able to give good reasons for a further postponement, with that statement I think the honourable Gentlemen on the other side who have asked the question might fairly be satisfied.
  SIR J. PEASE: As Chairman of the Committee on the East London Water Bill I would just say a word. I am not going into the merits of the question before the Committee, but the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite has hardly made a correct statement of what occurred in that Committee. The Committee expressed their view of the difficulties they were in with regard to the

  687
  question of dealing with the Bill in the face of the Commission sitting, and at the request of the counsel for the company we adjourned until Monday week, and I reported that to the House in due course.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Not at the request of my company; after the expression of the opinion of the Committee it was adjourned.
  SIR J. PEASE: The Committee had not adjourned till after the request of the counsel for the Company.
  The Motion to adjourn the Second Reading of the Bill was then agreed to without a Division.

  LONDON WATER (FINANCE) BILL. (By Order.)
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  MR. STUARToffered to postpone till 1st June the Motion—
  "That Standing Order 194 be suspended in the case of the London Water (Finance) Bill."
  MR. SPEAKER: After the discussion that has taken place I think I should state at once that I should have to inform the House that this Bill was not properly before them. It is in breach of Standing Order 194, and that will not be cured by the Motion that Standing Order 194 be suspended. It is not a proper course to introduce this Bill as a Private Bill, which by the Standing Order cannot be introduced as a Private Bill, and then to say that it is properly introduced, and that on the Motion that it be read a second time the Standing Order be suspended. The proper course is to bring it in as a Public Bill, if the Standing Order so requires it, and, having brought it in as a Public Bill, ask the House to take any course the honourable Member may think fit to take to carry out the object of the Bill; but I should be obliged to tell the House when it came on for Second Reading that I must decline to put it.
  MR. STUART: On the point of Order I think I follow you, Sir; understanding that the Bill cannot be introduced as a Private Bill, and therefore it cannot be proceeded with so far as the Standing Order has been suspended for the purpose. But if the Standing Order has been suspended, then the Bill either introduced as a Public Bill or in some
  688
  other way with which you are familiar, in accordance with the forms of the House, it can then be proceeded with, and could be introduced owing to the suspension of the Standing Order. The Standing Order is first to be suspended, and then the Bill introduced and proceeded with.
  MR. SPEAKER: If there were an Order made by the House for the Private Bill, suspending the Standing Order, then the Bill proposed to be brought in might be introduced, but that must be done before any steps are taken. That could not apply to this Bill.
  Bill withdrawn.

  BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  KEW BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions, for Private Bills.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from tomorrow till Wednesday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the county councils of the administrative counties of Middlesex and Surrey to raise further moneys for the purposes of The Kew Bridge Act, 1898." [Kew Bridge Bill [H.L.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Norfolk Estuary Act, 1877." [Norfolk Estuary Bill [H.L.]

PETITIONS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL, ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL, TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL, AND PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND).
  Petitions against proposed legislation;—From Kincardine; and, Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour;—From Haslingden; Padiham; Guisborough; and, Chipping Wycombe; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND VALUES (TAXATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Kincardine O'Neil; Perth (two); Aberdeen (two); Stonehaven; Bonnyrigg; Baillieston; Port Bannatyne; Alloa; Alva; Penicuik; Blairgowrie; Cooper Angus; Duns; Wishaw; Stockport; Govan; and, Pollokshaws; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Glasswell; Hickleton Main; Townbent; Low Laithes; Ossett; East Ardsley; Wharton Hall; Grassmoor; Avenue; Brotton; North Skelton; Lewden; and, Burnley and Prince of Wales' Pontefract Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Cathcart, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Incorporated Society of Law Agents in Scotland; and, Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Sanitary Institute; and, Bacup; to lie upon the Table.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Southport; Derby; Glasgow; West Hartlepool; King's Lynn; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Worcester; Neasden; Bradford; Stafford: Manchester; Brighton: and, Grantham; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Colne; Tamworth; Beverley; and, Preston; to lie upon the Table.
  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Glasgow; Aberdeen; Coatbridge (two); and, Dalmarnock (two); to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, against; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKMEN'S HOUSES TENURE BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Minute of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 27th April 1899, providing for the distribution of the sum available for Secondary or Technical (including Agricultural) Education under the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Account presented,—of the Gross Public Income and Expenditure in the year ended 31st March 1899, together with the Balances in the Exchequer at the

  691
  commencement and at the termination of the year, and the Amounts received into or issued from the Exchequer in respect of Funded and Unfunded Debt created or redeemed in the said year (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 170.)

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 21st April 1899, declaring that David Pollock, Rural Postman at Ardrossan, Post Office Department, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate, through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Copy presented,—of Code of Regulations for Evening Continuation Schools, with Explanatory Memorandum, Schedule, and Appendices by the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Return of the number of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  JUDICIAL TRUSTEE RULES.
  Copy of Additional Rule made by the Lord Chancellor under the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896 [by Act].

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WARNED.
  Copy ordered, "of Quarterly Returns, by counties, of the Public Elementary Schools (1) which have been warned by the Education Department under Article 86 of the Code, including schools from which the grant has been withheld under that article; (2) which have been warned by the Education Department that the annual grant will, in future, be withheld unless defects in the school premises are remedied; (3) the annual grants to which have been suspended for three months or more from the date of the receipt by the Education Department of the inspector's report on account of defects in school premises (in
  692
  continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 192, of Session 1898)."—(Sir Francis Powell)

  SUGAR (BOUNTIES, ETC.)
  Return ordered, "of all the Bounties, direct and indirect, on the production or export of Sugar given by France, Germany, and Austria, supplemented by a Copy of the Circular issued by the Secretary to the United States Treasury on the 12th day of December 1898, giving particulars of the Sugar Bounties, direct and indirect, given by the principal Continental Countries."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
QUESTIONS.

  MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL GRANTS.
  MR. DILLON (for Mr. MACNEILL): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the reason for the delay in sending to the clerks of unions, now the clerks of boards of guardians, the usual forms to be perfected before the payment of Parliamentary grants towards medical and educational purposes usually payable in February; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to deprive the several Poor Law Boards in Ireland of the grant payable in February, 1899, and which accrued between September, 1898, and February, 1899, before the new arrangements under the Local Government Board Act had come into operation?
  MR. G. BALFOUR: At the request of my right honourable Friend I will answer this Question. There is, needless to say, no foundation for the suggestion in the second paragraph. The forms for a return of the medical and educational expenditure incurred by boards of guardians during the half year ended 25th of March were sent out yesterday. There has been no delay in the dispatch of these forms. Recoupment will be made when the required particulars have been furnished by the several unions.

  PROPERTY PURCHASES BY IRISH CONSTABLES.
  MR. DILLON (for Mr. DAVITT): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is in accordance with the regulations of

  693
  the Royal Irish Constabulary for a constable serving, but not permanently residing in a county, to bid for houses or farms which are set up for auction in such county; whether he is aware that a constable, M'Whirtor, has recently bid for and purchased a house in Cashel, county Tipperary, offering a larger amount for the property than that tendered by the occupant of the premises; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?
  MR. G. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Regulations do not prohibit a member of the force from purchasing a house or farm, though if he purchased any such property in the county in which he was serving, the Regulations would not permit him to remain in that county. The constable named in the Question (Constable M'Whirtor) recently bid for a house at Cashel and was declared the purchaser. The occupant of the house did not, I am informed, make any bid for the premises.

  NAVAL WORKS.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give to the House any explanations of the continued retardation in the execution of Naval works; and what progress is being made at Gibraltar, as compared with the promises made to the House on the Naval Works Hill of 1895, 1896 and 1897, as well as in the Session of 1898?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: It is not possible to give a full reply to the inquiries of the right, honourable Baronet within the limits of an Answer to a Question. For the explanation of the difference between estimates and expenditure in the year mentioned in the Question, I must refer the right honourable Gentleman to my Statement on the Estimates last year. The progress made at Gibraltar during the last financial year is described in the First Lord's Statement, circulated with the Estimates for the current year. It has fully come up to our expectations, and I see no reason to doubt that the contractors will finish the work within the contract time. The dates for completion are given in the Statement.

  ARMING OF THE IRISH CONSTABULARY
  MR. W. REDMOND: On behalf of Mr. Field, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have in contemplation the supplying of new rifles to the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, whether any special circumstances have caused such a policy to be desirable; whether he can state the precise difference between the rifle at present in use and that proposed to be substituted therefor; and in what respect is the new rifle supposed to be of more practical utility in Ireland than that at present in use; whether he can state how often during the past 10 years have the Royal Irish Constabulary been obliged to use their rifles in the discharge of their duty, and on what occasions; and what is the estimated cost of the new rifles, and from what fund is it proposed to be defrayed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,: It is proposed to supply Martini-Henry carbines to the constabulary in lieu of the Snider carbines with which the force is now armed. The Snider carbines have been in use for nearly 40 years, and many of these weapons have become unfitted for use owing to incrustations of rust and other defects, which render them a source of danger to the men. The Martini-Henry carbine is a modern weapon, and is much less liable to get out of order than the Snider carbine. During the past 10 years the constabulary have been obliged to use their rifles in the discharge of their duties on 14 occasions—namely, twice at evictions, when the police and sheriff's officers were fired at, seven times on the occasion of moonlighting outrages, three times during affrays between water bailiffs and poachers, once during a riot, and once when a land agent and his police escort were fired at. The new carbine will be supplied by the War Department free of charge.

  VACCINATION ACT OF 1898.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant a Return showing the number of certificates of exemption from vaccination allowed since the Vaccination Act of 1898 came into operation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,: A Return on the subject of certificate exemption from vaccination has been issued to-day. It relates to all certificates of conscientious objections delivered to vaccination officers up to the 31st December last. It is too early to call for a further Return with any public advantage at present.

  ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATION WITH LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. C. MCARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how the provisions of section 2, sub-section (5), of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898, permitting the use of electrical communications with lighthouses for private messages at reasonable charges are to be made operative; and whether it is intended to issue a scale of charges for the transmission of such messages; and, if so, when the publication of the scale may be looked for?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,: As the honourable Member is aware, electrical communication with light stations can only be made available for private messages, so far as they may be compatible with the efficiency and safety of the lighthouse service. This involves many considerations and communication with other departments. The matter is receiving careful attention, but I am unable to give any particulars at present.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state what course he intends to pursue with regard to the Regulation of Railways Bill?
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can yet state definitely the course he proposes to take in reference to the Regulation of Railways Bill; and, in the event of his final decision being unfavourable to the Measure, will he withdraw the Bill at such an hour as will afford honourable Members an opportunity of expressing their sense of the circumstances that have led to this abandonment?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am afraid I must abandon the hope of proceeding with the Regulation of Railways Bill this Session, but a Royal Commission will be at once appointed to make inquiry into all cases of accidents, fatal or non-fatal, to servants of railway companies and truck owners, with the view to adopting means to reduce the number of such accidents. The inquiry will not only embrace such matters as are dealt with in the Bill, but the adoption of any other safety appliances.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: May I ask whether the right honourable Gentleman did not, in his reply to Mr. Maddison, promise to endeavour to pass the Bill through a Second Reading and refer it to a Select Committee?
  THE SPEAKER: Order, Order! That is raising a discussion on an answer given.
  MR. BAYLEY: I should like to know whether the non-contentious clauses could not be passed?
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Is it not a fact that according to the Return in the year 1898, 500 railway servants were killed?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask whether the action of the Government is not an attempt to burke this question in the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a complaint which cannot be made in this House.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the reference to the Royal Commission include all classes of accidents to railway servants, not to shunters only?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It will. At one time I had hoped to embody the so called non-contentious clauses in the Bill, but I have received so many indications that some of these clauses are contentious, and, having regard to the time at the disposal of the House, it will not be possible to pass it. As there is to be a Royal Commission, I believe it will not be disagreeable to have these clauses, as well as others, referred to.

  PUPIL TEACHERS.
  MR. A. HUTTON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education how many pupil teachers have been presented during the last three years at the scholarship examinations; how many have failed; and in how many cases have the Education Department used the powers under Articles 34 and 64 of the Code to disqualify any managers or any teachers from being entrusted with the training of pupil teachers?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,: Pupil teachers entering for the Queen's scholarship examinations are not distinguished in the departmental records from other candidates, and the numbers cannot at once be given. One set of managers have within the last three years been disqualified under Article 34, and inquiries have been made, and warnings given, in many other cases. There has within the same period been one case of suspension of the right to superintend pupil teachers under the note to Article 64.

  SCOTCH POOR LAW MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the law of Scotland as to the tenure of office by Poor Law medical officers differs from that of England; and whether he would consent to lay upon the Table a Return showing the instances in which since the coming into operation of the Local Government (Scotland) Act of 1894, Poor Law medical officers have been dismissed or compelled to resign in consequence of a too conscientious performance of their duties?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,: The reply to the first paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Secretary for Scotland considers that it would not be possible to prepare a Return in the form proposed by the honourable Member.

  POST OFFICE AND TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the present total liabilities of the State in respect of deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks and the Trustee Savings Banks; whether these deposits are liable to withdrawal at call or at a short notice; and, if at a short notice, at what notice; what assets are held by the Savings Banks to meet their liabilities, and in what form; are the assets held in the shape of securities valued at the price at which those securities were bought, or are they valued at the market price of the day; what is the amount o. that part of the securities thus held that consists of stock which, as he states in his Treasury Minute of 11th April 1899, must in ordinary course be purchasable at par in or before 1923; and has any provision been made to provide for the constant diminution in value of these securities as thus contemplated as between their present market price and the par price at which he suggests that they must be purchasable in 1923?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I informed the honourable Member for Islington, in reply to a Question a 7th March last, that the total liability of the State to depositors in the Saving's Banks at the last date to which the accounts were made up was £173,780,000 in round figures. The legal notice of withdrawal from the Post Office Savings Banks is 10 days; in the Trustee Savings Banks it varies with the rules of the banks. The honourable Member will find a statement of the assets, valued at market price, in the Report of the Postmaster-General and Return No. 64 of 1899; they include £102,697,000 Consols. The total assets, valued at par, show, as I stated on 7th March, a surplus over the liabilities.

  SAVINGS BANK SYSTEM.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is still the case, as he stated on 16th April 1896, that the State actually incurs a loss by receiving Savings Bank deposits, and that the

  699
  Government loses in order to enable depositors, who belong to quite another class than the working classes, to obtain a larger interest, for their money than they can obtain from the ordinary banks; whether he has carried out his undertaking, given on the same day, to carefully bear in mind this matter as well as his own suggestion that before long it might, become necessary for him to propose some alteration in the existing law, which might have the effect of preventing the abuse of the Savings Bank system; whether he has, accordingly carefully borne this matter in mind during the past three years; and whether he now intends to propose either any such alteration in the law as he then, suggested, or any other alteration in this respect?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think that the first paragraph of the honourable Member's Question quite fairly represents either what I said in 1896 or the facts of the case; but I may say that, in considering the matter since that time, I have found reason to believe that the proportion of depositors in the Savings Banks who could not properly be considered to belong to the working classes, is smaller than I then supposed. If the honourable Member desires to know my views on the subject and the reason why I have not made any proposal with regard to it, he will find them stated in discussions that have since taken place on the Vote for making good the deficiency in the income of the Savings Banks—the last occasion was, I think, in February of the present year.

  THE PEACE CONFERENCE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accepting the invitation of H.I.M. the Tsar to the Conference to consider the possibility of limiting armaments, Her Majesty's Government have followed the course adopted by Lord Derby in 1874 by instructing its delegate not to entertain in any shape, directly or indirectly, anything relating to maritime operations or naval warfare, and not to be led into any discussion which may, however remotely, affect
  700
  those operations or that warfare; whether he can now state what conditions, if any, any been made by Her Majesty's Government in accepting the invitation to the Conference; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to secure this country against the adoption of any conclusions which might be calculated to impair the future development or the present exercise of the full naval power of Great Britain in time of war?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Sr. JOHN BRODRICK,: I fear I can only state, as I have already done in reply to a Question on the subject of the Peace Conference, that it is not expedient to make any public announcement as to the instructions to be given to the British delegates.

  REORGANISATION OF THE WAR OFFICE.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has any objection to state the terms of reference submitted to the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the reorganisation of the War Office in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the late Under Secretary?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,: The Committee has been appointed to consider the numbers and constitution of the clerical establishment of the War Office, and to inquire how far it may be possible, by a letter distribution and devolution of work and by the amalgamation of subdivisions, to effect reductions in the present clerical staff.

  ZAMBEZI RIVER TO TAKE NYASSA RAILWAY.
  MR. STANLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the delay in proceeding with the construction of the railway from the Zambezi River to Lake Nyassa, the route for

  701
  which was surveyed some time ago at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, is causing great inconvenience and alarm to the white inhabitants of the British Central African Protectorate; and whether, as the fate of the country may be said to depend upon this railway, he can give some indication as to the intentions of the Government in regard to commencing the work?
  MR. BRODRICK: Some delay has occurred in furnishing the details of the survey which was undertaken on behalf of the Government. They have been reported on by the Crown agents, and the question of the railway will shortly be considered by Her Majesty's Government.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS IN IRELAND.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any official inquiry has recently been made into the working of the Industrial schools in Ireland; what was the nature of the inquiry; whether the manager of the schools received any intimation that such an inquiry was being held; and whether any official connected with the administration of industrial schools in England visited Dublin in connection with this inquiry; and, if so, with what object?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An inquiry held in October and November, 1897, into a variety of matters connected with the administration and practice of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Office in Ireland. The Committee appointed to conduct the inquiry consisted of Mr. Holmes, the Treasury Remembrancer, Mr. Fagan, the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland, and Mr. Robertson, Assistant-Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Great Britain. The inquiry was an inter-departmental one, and no intimation of the holding of the inquiry was given to the managers of the schools.

  CAPE TO CAIRO RAILWAY.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to state if the Government has now decided to give any guarantee of any portion of the railway proposed by Mr. Cecil Rhodes to connect the Cape with Cairo, or of any other proposed new railway in Africa?
  MR. DILLON: Before the right honourable Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether his attention has been directed to a leader in the "Times" of this morning, and whether the statement there made with regard to the intentions of the Government with regard to guaranteeing a portion of the railway is correct?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have not seen the article, and therefore cannot give an answer to that Question. We have no proposal now before us for a guarantee of any new railway in Africa. The proposal before us relates solely to the existing Bechuanaland Railway from Mafeking to Bulawayo, and communications are still proceeding with regard to it.

  SENTENCE ON SATYANATH MAHAPATRA.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of two years' imprisonment recently passed, under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, upon Satyanath Mahapatra by the Deputy Commissioner of Singbhum, who himself instituted the prosecution; whether he is aware that the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur has, on being appealed to, set aside the conviction and directed a re-trial of the accused, on the grounds that the maximum punishment under the section referred to was one year's imprisonment; that the accused had not been given an opportunity of claiming a transfer of his case to another court; and that such a case should be tried by some competent magistrate other than the Deputy Commissioner; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?
  THE SECRETARY STATE FOR INDIA (Lord George HAMILTION,: I have received no information on the subject of the case to which the honourable Member's Question refers, nor have I observed any reference to it in the public Press. It would appear from the terms of the Question that if any judicial error was committed, it was set right on appeal, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  AMERICAN MAIL CONTRACT.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the British mails to New York were dispatched from Liverpool on 12th instant by the White Star cattle ship "Cymric," and only arrived in New York on the 22nd, three days after the Continental mails, which left Southampton also on the 12th, and which arrived in New York on the 19th; that the Cunard steamship "Umbria," and another liner, which sailed three days after the "Cymric," reached New York the same day as she did; whether the Continental mails viâ Southampton do, on the average, arrive in New York in advance of the British mails sent from Liverpool the same day; and whether, as British business is by these arrangements seriously handicapped against Continentals, any alterations can be made in them?
  MR. ANSTRUTHER(for Mr. HANBURY): The Postmaster-General has not yet received any information from the New York Post Office as to the times at which the vessels referred to arrived at New York; but, according to reports in the newspapers, the "Kaiser Friedrich," conveying mails embarked at Southampton on the 12th instant, arrived at New York on the 19th, between two and three days earlier than the British packet "Cymric," which carried mails embarked at Queenstown on the 13th. The reports also show that the Cunard packet "Umbria," which left Queenstown on the 16th instant, and the American packet "New York," which left Southampton on the 15th, arrived at New York on the same day as the "Cymric." The White Star Company,
  704
  however, state that their steamer arrived off Fire Island at 1 a.m. on the 22nd—not at 10 a.m. as reported—so that the correspondence carried by her should have been delivered the same morning, whereas that carried by the two other vessels, which arrived in the afternoon would not be delivered in New York until the following Monday morning. Although the "Cymric" carried cattle from New York to this country, that fact does not affect her speed; and from this country to New York she is an ordinary passenger and cargo steamer and does not carry any cattle. She is not, however, regularly employed in the mail service, but had to be used on this occasion in place of the "Germanic," which sank in New York Harbour in February, and which, although refloated, it is not yet again fit for the mail and passenger service. She is, however, expected to resume her place shortly. It is the fact that the foreign packets starting from Southampton on the same days as the British packets leave Liverpool (i.e., the day before they leave Queenstown) more frequently reach New York before than after the British packets; but the correspondence carried from Queenstown includes practically letters posted a day later than that carried from Southampton. It should be remembered that, on the exceptional occasions on which a comparatively slow steamer has to be employed in the British service, the senders of the letters can, by using a special superscription, have them forwarded by another steamer.
  MR. A. THOMAS: Is it not the fact that the mails from Southampton arrive in New York two or three days before the mails starting from Liverpool?
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: I think I should be unwise to add anything to the reply I have just given.

  SAVAGE SOUTH AFRICA IN LONDON.
  SIR R. REID: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governments of the Cape, Natal, the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal have expressed disapproval of the recent introduction of native men and women

  705
  into this country for the show called "Savage South Africa, in London," as injurious to themselves and the South African population, and whether the High Commissioner has conveyed to the Colonial Office his concurrence in that disapproval; and whether the correspondence between the High Commissioner and the Capo Government can be laid before the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: The answer to both questions in the first part of the Question is Yes, and I may add that I entirely concur in their opinions. I do not propose to lay the correspondence before the House, but the honourable Member can see it at the Colonial Office if he desires to do so.

  JUBILEE FUND OF THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at a recent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Queen's Jubilee Fund in Dublin the police pensioners, who are subscribers to the fund, had not proper representation; and if at future meetings of this Committee, at least one police pensioner from each county will be allowed to be present to take part in the deliberations?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The rules governing the Queen's Jubilee Fund of the Royal Irish Constabulary do not provide for the representation of pensioners on the Cmmittee of Management. Consequently pensioners were not represented at the meeting referred to. The fund is not a public fund, and the question of the representation of pensioners on the committee is one for determination by that body and the Board of Headquarters Officers.

  SEVEN-DAY NEWSPAPERS.
  SIR M. STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether, in view of the new issue of seven-day newspapers, amounting at present to an initial issue
  706
  of one-half to a million, and the consequent Sunday employment of thousands of hands in their distribution, he will receive a deputation on the subject, so that the complete facts of the case may be laid before him, more especially as information has already been given to the Government on one side of the question by one of the largest of the Sunday newspapers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,: I am quite in sympathy with my honourable Friend in deprecating any unnecessary increase of Sunday labour. In this case the facts appear to be in dispute. I do not know what action he suggests that the Government should take—nor, in fact, can the Government take any action. I shall be ready, however, to receive a small deputation, if my honourable Friend thinks he can supply me with reliable information on a subject which is of considerable public interest.

  ADMIRALTY EMPLOYEES.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will he explain why armourers and blacksmiths are not eligible in accordance with the. Queen's regulations to become engine-room artificers; and whether a blacksmith serving in the Royal Navy, and borne on the books, of Her Majesty's ships at Devon-port, has recently been examined with, a view to being appointed as an acting engine-room artificer; if so, will he state what was the result of the examination?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADRALTY: I shall be glad if the honourable Member will postpone this question.

  WINE DUTY.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the unanimous support given by Colonial Governments, through their Agents General, to the suggestion of the United Empire Trade League that wine produced in and imported from British Colonies and Dependencies should be

  707
  exempt from the new duty, he will yield to the general desire and abstain from levying the new duty upon wine produced in and imported from the British Empire?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Agents General of the Colonies have placed their views on this subject before me. The two Colonies practically interested in the increase of the wine duties appear to be Victoria and South Australia. I am considering the statements that were made as to the special circumstances of the wine trade of these Colonies and the mode in which it is affected by the rates of duty proposed. But that trade has grown up under a long-established system of equal duties which, even when increased, will be very small as compared with the Customs duty on wine levied by the Colonies named. The return to differential duties would be a change of great importance in our fiscal system, and even if the principle of such a change were accepted I do not see why the benefit of it should be extended to Colonies which levy a highly-protective tariff on the manufactures of the United Kingdom.

  IRISH TITHE RENT-CHARGE BILL.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give an undertaking that the Irish Tithe Rent-Charge Bill will not be introduced till after Whitsuntide, and that it will not be introduced under the 10 minutes' rule?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I must decline to give the undertaking asked for.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will grant the Return of Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales, with the number of scholars provided for and in attendance, and the particulars of income and expenditure, similar to the Return presented in 1894 (C. 7529) which has been placed on the Paper?
  SIR J. GORST: The Return asked for is a very costly one, and the particulars required, except as regards income and expenditure, are included in the annual Report of the Committee of the Council. But the propriety of granting the Return will be carefully considered.

  SHOP CLUBS.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to introduce a Bill this Session to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which inquired into the subject of Compulsory Shop Clubs?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I beg to refer the honourable Member to an answer given by me to a similar Question a week ago. I cannot see my way to introduce such a Bill this Session.

  CANTON-HAN-KAU RAILWAY.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Société d'Etude des Chemins de Fer en Chine, otherwise the Franco-Belgian Syndicate, has, in the event of the contract with the American syndicate for the Canton-Han-kau line falling to the ground, a preferential right to obtain the said contract; whether Sir Claude Macdonald in October last requested the Tsung-li-Yamen to give the first refusal of the said contract to the Anglo-Eastern syndicate in the event of the agreement concluded with the American syndicate coming to an end from any cause; whether he can say how it is the Anglo-Eastern syndicate failed to obtain the right which they applied for, and why it was given to the Franco-Belgian syndicate; and whether such a proceeding is in accordance with the claims put forward by the Government on behalf of Great Britain in the Yang-tsze region?
  MR. BRODRICK: have no information that the Belgian syndicate has acquired any reversionary rights in connection with the Han-kau-Canton line.

  709
  Sir C. Macdonald requested the Chinese Government to negotiate first with the Anglo-Eastern syndicate in the event of the abandonment from any cause of the American agreement, to which the Yamen replied that in such event they would consider and deal with the matter.
  MR. YERBURGH: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is aware that the Franco-Belgian syndicate stated in their prospectus that they had obtained that privilege?
  [No Reply.]

  HYDROPHOBIA IN INDIA
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, between July 1898 and March 1899, 33 soldiers have been sent from India to the Pasteur Institute at Paris to be treated for hydrophobia; and, if so, at what cost to the State and with what result; and whether he will obtain the figures showing how many cases of death from hydrophobia have been reported in the Indian Army during the last ten years previous to these dates?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The reply to the first part of the honourable Member's Question is "Yes." The payments in this country on this account were about £10 a man, and the results have been, so far as I am aware, very satisfactory. I have no information as to the total payments in India. In the 10 years from 1888 to 1897 there were 23 deaths of British soldiers in India from hydrophobia.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Buisson baths have been established at various centres in India for the sudorific treatment of persons bitten by dogs supposed to be suffering from rabies; and whether a trial has been given to these baths by the Indian medical authorities; if so, with what result?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am aware that Buisson baths
  710
  have been established in India; but the opinions of the Indian medical authorities, so far as they have been received, are not favourable as to the efficacy of this form of treatment of hydrophobia.

  INDIAN SUGAR DUTIES ACT.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it will be possible for bounty giving States, under the promised exemption of British goods from the Indian Sugar Duties Act, to render the Act inoperative by sending to this country goods intended for the Indian market, and trans-shipping them at London or Southampton into British vessels bound for Bombay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: My honourable Friend is mistaken in supposing that any exemption of British goods from the operation of the Indian Sugar Duties Act has been promised. That Act will be administered, necessarily, by the Government of India, who must deal with cases as they arise, by the light of experience and according to circumstances. I stated on the 18th, and again on 20th April, that, in view of the comparatively small amount of the export of confectionery from this country to India, and of the difficulty of estimating the quantity of sugar in a given quantity of confectionery, I did not think it likely that the Government of India would in this case insist upon their rights. But it is certain that they will grant no exemption which would have the effect described in my honourable Friend's Question, and it is equally certain that there would be no difficulty whatever in framing regulations which would effectively prevent any wholesale evasion of the duty as is suggested.
  MR. MACLEAN: Can the noble Lord say how the Customs House authorities in India are to distinguish between goods sent in British ships in regard to the places where they come from?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: Yes, sir. I believe it is the practice to state on the packages the original port of shipment.

  RECRUITING IN CANADA.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in the report of Major-General Hutton to the Canadian Government to the effect that a proposal has been, made by the Imperial Government that recruiting for the 100th Regiment (Royal Canadians) shall be open to British subjects in the Dominion of Canada, and that complete arrangements for carrying this out have been prepared; whether this statement was made by authority of the War Office; what steps, if any, have actually been taken in the direction indicated; and whether the early withdrawal from Canada of the 100th Regiment (Royal Canadians) is taken with a view of recruiting the regiment?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The Secretary of State has not yet received Major-General Button's Report, and the War Office has not authorised any such statement as that referred to in the Question. We are in communication with the Dominion Government as to recruiting in Canada, but the arrangements, which I am glad to say are progressing satisfactorily, are not sufficiently advanced for any statement to be made. The early withdrawal of the 1st Battalion of the Leinster Regiment from Canada will be in the ordinary course of reliefs.

  WRIGHT, LEEDS POST OFFICE.
  MR. LEUTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a person named Wright, who, after having been dismissed from the post office at Leeds, was offered the alternative of resignation; and whether the complaint against him being of a character to justify the offer of acceptance of his resignation, some allowance could be made to him in lieu of the pension he had prone so far towards attaining, having served in the Department of the Post Office for a period of 24 years?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,(for MR. HANBURY): The case of Wright has been under consideration on several occasions
  712
  since dismissal, but the Postmaster-General sees no reason to alter the view originally taken, namely, that Wright's conduct had been such as to render him unfit for further employment in the public service. In the circumstances it would be out of the Postmaster-General's power to give the certificate of good conduct, without which by law no pension can be given to a public servant.

  OYSTER FISHERIES.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, when he proposes to introduce his Bill restricting the sale of oysters from polluted layings?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: A Bill is ready for introduction, and I propose that it should be introduced in the House of Lords.

  LAND TAX.
  SIR J. RANKIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the. Exchequer whether, when land tax has been paid by persons whose incomes do not exceed £160 a year by mistake, owing to ignorance of the law, the Board of Inland Revenue refuse to allow repayment of the amount of land tax so paid; and, if this is so, whether he will consider the matter and allow repayment of land tax to be claimed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The power of the Board of Inland Revenue to grant relief from the land tax under section 12 of the Finance Act of 1898 is distinctly limited by the terms of the: section to cases where the claim to exemption or abatement of income-tax is established before the land tax is paid. There is no provision in the section for repayment of land tax, and the introduction of a, system for allowing claims for such repayment would largely increase the labour and the cost of applying the concession. If any persons have omitted to claim the benefit of the section during the past year they should take care to apply in good time in future years.

  THE VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any money out of the aid grant under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, has been allotted to Voluntary schools in the following London parishes—St. George's, Hanover Square, St. Peter's, Eaton Square, and St. Michael's, Chester Square; and, if so, at what rate per scholar in average attendance?
  SIR J. GORST: In the financial year 1897–98 aid grants were paid at the following rates:—To St. George's, Hanover Square (Hanover Branch) National School, at 5s. per scholar in average attendance; to St. George's, Hanover Square, United National School, at 3s. 4d.; to Pimlico, St. Michael's National School, at 3s. 6¾d.; to Pimlico, St. Peter's National School, at 3s. 6d. In the financial year 1898–99 aid grants were paid to the two former school s at 6s. 1½d. and 3s. 4d. respectively, while no aid grant was paid either of the two latter schools.

  POST OFFICE REGULATIONS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the decision of the Post Office, that in cases where an officer has performed the duty of a superior officer continuously for more than nine months lie shall, during the continuance of such employment, receive the difference betwen his own pay and the minimum of the class in which he is doing substitute duty, provided that such allowance shall in no case exceed £20 a year, is being carried out; will he explain why two clerks at Manchester performed assistant superintendents' duties for 12 months, but were refused the minimum salary of an assistant superintendent for the three months in excess of the time.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. Hanbury): The decision is being carried out. In the case of the two clerks at Manchester to which the honourable Member referred, it was under a. misapprehension that the decision was not acted upon. The matter is now being put right.

  PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL STATIONERY.
  MR. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education what action has been taken by the Education Department with reference to the complaint of Mr. Edward Francis, of Flint, who has represented to the Department that his son John Oswald Francis was removed to a lower standard owing to non-payment for school stationery; whether the Department has taken any, and, if so, what action on the representation of Mr. R. T. Price that between the 17th and 20th February last his child, Maud Price, aged 9, was sent home twice with a message to bring to school the next morning money to pay for school stationery, and that on returning the following morning without the money she was caned; what action has been taken by the Department in the case of Mr. Edward Shaw, of 39 Mount Street, Flint, who has complained to the Department that his children have been sent home from school for money to pay for school stationery, and when the money was not sent the children were caned; whether in any, and, if so, which of these cases a charge of school stationery could be legally made; and whether such charge could be legally levied or not, do the Department sanction the punishment of children because their parents have not provided them with money to pay for school stationery?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of the Council are assured by the managers that John Oswald Francis was not removed to a lower standard for the caused alleged in the Question, but failed to obtain promotion owing to his low attendance and irregular attendance consequent upon employment in a grocer's shop. The Committee of the Council are also informed that Maud Price was absent from school from February 8th to February 21st, and therefore could not have been caned on the date in question. They are also informed that the children of Mr. Shaw were not caned for the cause alleged; but inquiry in the Maud Price and Shaw cases is still proceeding. The charge for stationery was legal in all the cases named, but was not compulsory. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  BOER ASSAULT ON NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENT.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the correspondent of the "Times" newspaper has been assaulted by Boers at Johannesburg because he has sent truthful accounts of the grievances of the Uitlauders to this country; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The editor of the Johannesburg "Star" appears to have been assaulted on account of an article in that paper on the subject of the International Peace Conference. His assailant, who was a private individual, has been fined £20, and, as at present revised, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  FINLAND CONSTITUTION.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Tsar has recently abrogated the free constitution of Finland in order to largely increase the Finnish quota of the Russian army?
  MR. BRODRICK: A manifesto was issued by the Emperor of Russia in February last reserving for his decision the final specification of legislative questions common to the whole empire while leaving in force the existing rules for the publication in Finland of laws of local interest. I can express no opinion as to the object of the manifesto.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that it is proposed to increase the Finnish quota to the Russian army by 500 per cent.?
  [No Reply.]

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present First Lord of the Admiralty, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated, on 21st April
  716
  1887, that he had made a calculation that if the fixed charge of £26,000,000 per year for the National Debt as then proposed were steadily persevered with, we should redeem £600,000,000 at par in about 52 years, and £700,000,000 in 56 years, so that by the year 1943 the whole of the then present National Debt would be extinguished; and whether he has now made any similar calculation to show the effect, which will be attained in this respect if the fixed charge as now proposed of £23,000,000 per year be persevered with, and to show at what date under this diminished charge the present National Debt would be extinguished?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The high premium at which Consols now stand and the increased uncertainty as to their value in the future would make any such calculation as that to which the honourable Member refers so purely hypothetical at the present time as to be valueless. I believe that if matters remained as at present a fixed Debt charge of £23,000,000 a year would discharge the Debt in about 60 years—a term which Parliament has sanctioned in the case of municipalities. But I attach no importance to hypothetical calculations.

  ANCIENT IRISH ORNAMENTS.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the disposal of the ancient ornaments has reported yet?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I propose to present the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the disposal of the ancient Irish ornaments to-day.

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will undertake to give time for a discussion on the Resolution relative to University education in Ireland which stands on the Notice Paper?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; I can make no promise.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he intends to take any steps this Session to give practical effect to the views that he has so frequently expressed in his public speeches upon this Question?
  MR. DILLON: May I supplement the Question by asking the right honourable Gentleman whether he has taken into consideration the fact that it is only by giving time for the discussion of this Resolution that the opinion of the House upon this Question can be taken this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That, of course, is a self-evident proposition. With regard to the Question I do not think it is a matter that can be dealt with by question and answer across the floor of the House.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that opinion in Ireland, with the exception of that of a small number of Orangemen in Ulster—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to appoint the Committee on Municipal Trading?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Negotiations for the appointment of the Committee on Municipal Trading are in progress; but I cannot mention any precise date on which it will be appointed.

  IRISH BUSINESS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can make a general statement as to the time when Irish Business will be taken, and also further information as regards the Charitable Loans Bill, the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill, and the Bill for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in
  718
  Ireland, and the date upon which any of them will be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: One of the Bills has already-been introduced.
  MR. DILLON: Yes, but we do not know with regard to the Second Reading.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not propose to take the Second Reading of any of these Bills before Whitsuntide. As regards Irish Supply, I do not intend to take it before Whitsuntide either, unless the honourable Gentleman and others sitting in that part of the House express the wish that it should be taken. I rather imagine that it would be more convenient to the Irish Members that it should be taken after Whitsuntide.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right honourable Gentleman give us some assurance that Irish business will be taken together at some part of the Session, or that these Bills will not be proceeded with at any stage before Whitsuntide? It would be inconvenient to Irish Members—it would be perfectly unfair to Irish Members—that they should not know when Irish business is to be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Gentleman wilt see that I have already given him a negative answer with regard to the whole time between this and Whitsuntide.
  MR. DILLON: As to the First Reading.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As to the First Reading. If any Bill is introduced it will be, of course, under the Ten Minutes' Rule, and any long discussion would, under those circumstances, be impossible.
  MR.DILLON: That is what we object to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business he proposes to take next week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I propose to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday next. Any remaining Government time

  719
  will be devoted to the London Government Bill.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Does the Government propose to give Members an opportunity for discussing the questions raised under the Railway Regulation Bill, especially having regard to the fact that Members have given up a former opportunity on the understanding that the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We cannot proceed with the Couplings Bill next week.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.
    Question again proposed—
    "That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. LOUGHdisclaimed any intention to continue the discussion at any length upon this clause. There was only one remark he desired to make upon it. The Committee felt that, with regard to the various matters in Schedule 1 of the Bill, the position had been greatly improved, but he trusted there would be another opportunity for discussing that. With regard to the other areas which did not appear in Schedule 1, but which were to be dealt with in Schedule B, there was one question he desired to put. There were very wide powers in the Bill, and the question he desired to put was whether some further opportunity would be given to the Committee to consider what might be done with regard to the areas which might be dealt with under Schedule B. It did not appear whether there would be any opportunity of revising them. It
    720
    was a point on which he believed great interest was felt out-of-doors as well as in the House, and he thought some assurance should be given, and, if it were, it would greatly facilitate the passing of the clause.
    MR. HALDANEdesired, before the Question was answered, to put it in a more precise form. There was power under the clause to the Queen in Council to fix the boundaries of the new boroughs by Order in Council. He was not satisfied that in clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill there was any machinery for bringing those orders before Parliament. It was a matter of importance, and it was only right that the right honourable Gentleman should provide some machinery for that purpose. The matter would be greatly facilitated, he thought, if some assurance was given with regard to the Orders that they should be laid upon the Table of the House, so that they might be discussed in the same way as was afforded by the Educational Endowment Act. Unless that was done this matter would be taken out of the consideration of the House.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I am not quite certain that the same Question is the same as the second put by the honourable and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I understand the honourable Member for Islington desires to know whether there will be an opportunity for discussing this matter after the Commission has been appointed. I answer distinctly in the affirmative.
    MR. LOUGH: I accept the question of my honourable and learned Friend, and associate myself with the question, put by him.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Gentleman will have the opportunity he desires on the consideration of clauses 14 and 15. I fail to see the reason for the House 10 discuss the question of boundaries, which it is not able to decide, nor is it the practice of the Privy Council, when settling the boundaries of municipalities under their charter, to bring before the House questions, of boundaries. I do not think that this is the proper time

    721
    to discuss the questions raised by the honourable Member; the proper place to consider them is at a later stage of the discussion.
    MR. BUXTONsaid he quite understood that the right honourable Gentleman did not wish to give a hasty reply at the moment upon the question. He desired to make a few observations upon the clause generally. He did not wish to be thought to acquiesce in it in its amended form, though it was no doubt a great improvement upon the clause as originally introduced. He recognised the conciliatory attitude of the right honourable Gentleman in dealing with it, but the clause still contained a blot in the shape of the misleading word "municipality" instead of "district," and it took out of the hands of Parliament any power to interfere with it. It did not give definite instructions either to the Boundary Commissioners. He desired to emphasise what were the alterations in the clause, in order that no misunderstanding might arise hereafter. He understood that the right honourable Gentleman had given a promise that when he came to the schedule he would favourably consider any area which it was proposed to bring into the schedule.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Gentleman assumes that I have given a pledge. I said I would consider any suggestion brought before me on the schedule that other areas should be added. As the phrase "favourable consideration" is often interpreted in the House, it would pledge me to accept any Amendment which might be submitted, and I could not make any such pledge.
    MR. BUXTONsaid his object in making these observations was that there should be no misunderstanding. He quite understood the right honourable Gentleman's qualification, and withdrew the word "promise." He understood the right honourable Gentleman to say he would not absolutely pledge himself upon the schedule as it stood, and that if any area not included in the schedule was brought forward he would consider arguments with regard to it. No doubt the instructions to the Committee which had been introduced into the clause would be of great value to the Bill, because the Commissioners were not at present left
    722
    entirely alone, and they were to have regard to the districts themselves, which was a very valuable instruction to them. The further Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman himself, when he altered the words of the clause with relation to the rateable value and population—rateable value except in the case of small boroughs of under 100,000—would now disappear under the alteration, and the Commissioners would see that it was not the intention of the House that there should be large rateable values, and, consequently, they would have a wider discretion in the creation of smaller municipalities. There was a. great improvement in the clause, but it still left much to be desired. The maximum was still put at, 400,000, and is still left megalomaniacal ideas room to expand. He thought the right, honourable Gentleman ought to inform the Committee what were the Government's real intentions with regard to the matter. It was not fair that there should be no information as to what the Government desired in regard to the unscheduled areas. He hoped the Committee would be informed whether it was the desire of the right honourable Gentleman that there should be these great municipalities in the East of London, or whether there should be small municipalities.
    MR. STUARTsaid, although the clause was one with which he disagreed, it was one to which great attention had been given. He did not rise for the purpose of discussing it, but for the purpose of emphasising the position of the clause when the Bill passed. If the clause passed and the rest of the Bill remained unaltered the House would have no power to superintend or deal with the boundaries of the new areas except when the Commissioners went beyond their instructions under clause B. It would be done by an Order in Council, which was very much the same in character as a Royal Charter in the case of old boroughs. The question of the boundaries was a very important one, and one in which he thought the House had a real interest, and he believed that there would be very little difficulty in arriving at some arrangement by which the question of settling them might be brought, before the House. He desired to be informed as to whether

    723
    such an arrangement would be come to. There was an alternative method of dealing with the question, which was, that the right honourable Gentleman should make some definite statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the size of the new boroughs. If the House had a clearer perception as to what size the boroughs under clause B were to be it would greatly facilitate the discussion. He did not consider his request unreasonable, but he did not press it immediately, but would ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to give the information in the course of the Debate, He thought that the House was entitled to some official information as to the size of some of the unscheduled areas. Important discussions would arise as to whether a borough ought to be separated from its neighbour, or ought to be joined, and questions would arise as to the amount of rates, and as to the debt (whether represented by assets or not) of these unscheduled areas.
    The clause, as amended, was added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 27, to leave out the word 'alderman.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. PICKERSGILL, in moving the omission of "aldermen," contended that it did not form part of the constitution of the new boroughs. He rested his case on two grounds. In the first place, he objected to aldermen altogether; and, in the second place, there were special reasons why aldermen should not form part of the constitution of the new boroughs. The institution of aldermen was for the supposed purpose of securing the services of men of greater knowledge, weight, and experience, who would not offer themselves to a constituency. His answer to that was that there was nothing which could compensate for the absence of direct contact with the constituency, and no argument had been used in favour of "aldermen" which was not applicable to the other side of the question. If there were persons so fragile and delicate that they could not bear the brunt of a popular election, he thought that they might dispense with, their services. The real
    724
    fact was, that aldermen would be taken from a class of men who had neither the time nor inclination to attend to the business for which they had been co-opted in these councils, and that was shown by the experience of the London County Council. There were hard-working aldermen on the London County Council, but as a, member of that body of some years' standing he (Mr. Pickersgill) had come to the conclusion that the labours and distasteful work of the committees was not discharged by them to the same extent that it was by the elected members. It had been said that the position of aldermen was an attractive one, and that by retaining that position they were able to secure the services of men who had a greater knowledge of local government, whom they would not otherwise secure. That might be so, but how long would the position continue to be attractive after the Measure now before the House had become law if his Amendment was lost? He did not exaggerate when he said that this Bill would bring 500 aldermen into creation, and the largeness of the number would not only make the institution ridiculous, but accelerate its extinction. The probable effect of including aldermen in the new counties would be that the best men would lay by, instead of coming forward as candidates for election, in the hope that they would be co-opted as aldermen, and the legislative council would be inferior in its character to what it would be under a different system. The people of London as a whole did not like a number of indirect elections. Their experience of indirect elections had not been fortunate. They still remembered the Metropolitan Board of Works, and when that indirectly-elected body was proposed to be established precisely the same argument in favour of that peculiar mode of constitution was advanced then as now.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Gentleman seems to a certain extent to have forgotten the example set by the municipal corporations throughout the country. There is no movement of any force or volume that I know of to get rid of the institution of aldermen in county boroughs, or, indeed, in any municipal borough outside the limits of London. Criticism has, indeed, been passed upon

    725
    them, chiefly owing to the fact that in certain cases their presence has unduly prolonged the preponderance of a particular Party in the Council; still, I think the general experience of those interested in local government is that the institution has, on the whole, worked successfully, rather than the reverse. And, Sir, legislation in this House which has dealt so much with local government during the last 10 or 15 years is in favour of the course the Government now proposes to pursue. We deliberately instituted aldermen in the case of the London County Council, and we deliberately instituted aldermen in the case of Councils in the rest of the country.
    MR. DILLON: Not in Ireland.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We have not done so in Ireland for many reasons, which I will not go into now. There may be here and there cases in which borough councils will elect as aldermen persons who have never been popularly elected to serve as councillors, but the experience of county boroughs, which is the nearest analogy to the present case, indicates, speaking broadly, that the aldermen will be chosen from among the number of councillors. I think we may take it that human nature is very much the same in London as it is in Manchester, Liverpool, or Birmingham, and that it is extremely unlikely that any large number of alder men will be elected, except among the councillors themselves. Under these circumstances, I think the danger which the honourable Member points out is an illusory danger. On the other hand there are many persons upon these councils, whose services are perfectly invaluable to the locality, who are perfectly prepared to go through the trouble of one, two, or three popular elections, but are not prepared indefinitely to undergo that labour in addition to the work of administering their district. Well, Sir, I have great sympathy with those persons. I think those persons' services are of extreme value to the community, and I should be very sorry if we were to deprive ourselves of those services by rejecting, on rather shadowy grounds, an institution which has been proved to be of great practical utility in relation to the administration of local affairs.
    MR. HALDANE: In the case of district councils, the most recent analogy, Parliament deliberately went away from the principle of co-optic aldermen. It seemed to him, moreover, that the argument of the right honourable Gentleman did not apply at all satisfactorily to the bodies which the right honourable Gentleman proposed to constitute by his Bill. In the case of the London County Council it was no doubt right that it should be left open to the Council to co-opt those whom it had co-opted to take a more or less prominent part in the administration of the affairs of the Council. They had the whole of London to choose from; and he should regard the concessions of some value if the right honourable Gentleman had allowed Whitechapel or Bethnal Green to co-opt somebody of financial experience who would be willing to undertake the missionary enterprise of going to the East End and there bestowing the benefit of his experience and knowledge upon the body to which he was co-opted. But the provisions of the Bill restricted the qualifications of aldermen to that of a borough councillor, and therefore it was impossible to get that kind of assistance which could be got from London as a whole. The East End boroughs would have to be co-opted from men who had not had the opportunities which had been enjoyed by the sort of class who had been co-opted in the County Council. In the interests of she East End constituencies rather than the West End, he should vote for the Amendment.
    MR. LOWLESappealed to the right honourable Gentleman to reconsider his decision. Of seven Amendments in identical terms to that before the Committee, three came from the Ministerial side of the House, and, singularly enough, one stood in the name of his honourable Friend who shared with him the representation of Shoreditch. These might be taken to reflect the feeling of those who were in daily contact with their constituents in the East End. It would be especially difficult in that part of London, for a variety of reasons, to co-opt men of the character of the aldermen on the County Council. There was no analogy between aldermen in county boroughs and aldermen in London boroughs. He strongly felt that

    727
    the non-representative character of these aldermen, who as the Bill stood would form a ridiculously large proportion of the whole council, was in itself an objection to the inclusion of the aldermen in the Bill. What they all desired was not to perpetuate anomalies but to secure the better administration of local government. He believed that the only way to secure it was to make every person directly responsible to the electorate; and if, therefore, the Government insisted on the inclusion of aldermen he should have to go, in the Division, into the other lobby.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid the honourable Member for Bethnal Green quoted quite accurately the Report of the Royal Commission over which he had the honour to preside, but he admitted that for his own part he had a perfectly open mind on this subject. The whole question was whether aldermen were likely to be efficient and worthy members of the body to which they were co-opted, and on that point the experience of the country showed that they had been very useful members. With respect to the London County Council, he believed the experience there was that it had been strengthened by the admission of aldermen selected from without, and he understood that they formed a very useful element. His vote on the subject would be influenced very much by what his right honourable Friend the Leader of the House might say on the subject of how these aldermen would be brought into the councils in these districts. He could not conceive why the Committee should object to the extension of the choice of aldermen beyond that to which it was apparently now restricted. Under the Bill as it now stood he was inclined to think that women were eligible as aldermen or "alderwomen," and if women were brought in there would be the possibility of a valuable addition to those bodies. If they could introduce in the election of aldermen some provision which would make them correspond to the different divisions of the Council which co-opted them, so that there should be no machinery for increasing or perpetuating the strength of one party, he thought the argument in favour of aldermen would be greatly strengthened. He should certainly be disposed to support
    728
    the Bill as it now stood, if the First Lord of the Treasury would give an assurance on one or more of three points, namely, (1) that aldermen should be eligible as aldermen, even if they had not the qualification necessary for being elected as councillors in the particular district for which they were willing to be chosen as aldermen; (2) that women should be eligible to be co-opted, as well as men as aldermen, and (3) that there should be some provision to secure in the choice of aldermen a representation proportionate in weight and numbers to the different sections of opinion among the elected councillors.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right honourable Friend behind me and the honourable and learned Member for Haddingtonshire on the other side have made an appeal to me, and perhaps it will conduce to an agreement on this subject if I were to say that there appears to me to be a very strong case for a wider qualification as regards both aldermen and councillors, and I shall certainly be prepared either to accept some of the Amendments on the Paper or to propose words myself carrying out that idea.
    CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the Member for Fife (Mr. Birrell) had declared that he could find no poet, from Shakespeare to Kipling, who had sung the praises of aldermen. Poetry was usually associated with the tender passion, whereas aldermen were more associated with unusual abdominal development and turtle soup. He (Captain Norton) had consulted the encyclopædia and he found nothing with reference to aldermen, except the fact that in Anglo-Saxon times they were persons of great importance, second only to the king, and acting sometimes as viceroys. But how had they fallen from their high estate. In attempting to give the suggested dignity to these new bodies, they would be clashing with the genuine aldermen of the City of London. The genuine alderman of the City of London was an individual of importance. He represented a great historical centre, isolated though it was from the remainder of London. Again, the new aldermen would be brought into contact with the aldermen of the London County Council, who, in their turn, represented

    729
    the élite, in some sense, of the citizens of London and a population of 4,000,000. Moreover, they were going to bring them in by a back-door, and if they did this if would bring about, in many instances, a continuity of bad policy. They had in London, in these new borough areas, a migratory population, and the men who might be selected as aldermen might be in another part of London before the next election came round. What an absurdity the creation of such a large number of aldermen to the degradation of the aldermen of the City and the aldermen of the London County Council. It would further lead to a distinction being drawn between aldermen and aldermen. They would have the unfortunate aldermen of the East End boroughs, since their position would not enable them to indulge in real turtle soup, known as Block turtle aldermen of as calf's head aldermen, and the result would be to degrade in the eyes of the English people the honoured title of alderman.
    MR. ROULNOISsaid that in his evidence before the Commission of 1894 he was opposed to aldermen for the new corporations which it was thought might then be established. Experience, however, had show that his judgment in that matter was probably wrong. At the time when he spoke the elections to the vestries were not held, as the elections to the corporations would be triennially. He did think it was most important that aldermenn should be elected for a term, in order that the whole body might not disappear simultaneously. Experience in the London County Council had know that aldermen who were left in at the time of elections gave great assistance when the new body came into operation. He must confess he was a little surprised at the languages used by the honourable Member for Bethnal Green when he spoke of the "select private door" which it was proposed to open to allow those alderman to come in; and the honourable Member who had just sat down spoke of it as a "back door." He would like to know what the London County Council would have been at this minute without that back door by which several gentleman who had been defeated at the polls were brought into the Council and several of them very worthily held seats. Among these
    730
    were Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Hoare, the well-known banker, and last, but not least, a gentleman whom everybody knew, Sir Algernon West. The honourable Member or Bethnal Green had spoken as if the aldermen were merely ornamental, and did not do much work; but that was not his experience. They did a fair share of the work, and at this moment Lord Welby was acting as Chairman, an office which was no mere sinecure, and certainly not a bed of roses. He hoped the Leader of the House would accept in some form the Amendment of the honourable Member for Chelsea, which would carry out the proposal of the honourable Member for Haddington, that the boroughs could be able to go out of their own area and bring in aldermen from the outside. If that were done the whole objection to aldermen would pass away.
    MR. STUARTrose to disabuse the mind of the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House that what he had suggested, namely, that the aldermen should have no qualification in the boroughs, met with the general approval of Members on that side of the House. He believed that that would make matters worse and not better. The whole theory of the local government which the right honourable Gentleman was constructing was that the ratepayers should elect persons who were responsible to them, and who would have certain qualifications which would make them feel that where they spent the rates badly they would feel it in their own persons. That view extended throughout all the municipal government of England. They wanted to encourage local life in these districts, but if these small honours were to be given to those outside the districts, where was the argument for the intensification of local life? What they would encourage would be a species of dilettante aldermen from the West End who would come down to the East to indulge in a species of philanthropy. He was entirely opposed to aldermen. Nobody had ever asked for them; no local body that he knew of had asked for them. On the contrary, he had seen a letter addressed by the Secretary of the London Municipal Society to a lady who had asked whether the society would support women being made aldermen. The

    731
    answer was that they supported women being in the councils, but that they did not expect aldermen would be in the Bill at all. The Conference at Westminster did not suggest it. The Bill which was drawn up under the auspices of that Conference did not suggest it. Where, then, did the suggestion come from? They were altogether at a loss as to why London should be gifted with 400 or 500 alderme, who had never been asked for.
    *SIR M. M. BHOWNAGGREEsaid that in putting down the Amendment which stood in his name he had only tried to give expression to the feeling which existed in his constituency as to aldermen. The main reason which influenced many honourable Members as well as the public generally in their opposition to the adoption of the aldermanic principle was that persons who did not command popular approval, or who could not make their way into the borough councils by popular election, might get in by a side door. He must say that the concession of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did not meet the case. If they restricted the election of aldermen from among those who were elected as councillors, then the fears which underlay their objection to the clause as it stood would be removed. The concession that had been made was practically valueless, and if the First Lord of the Treasury did not make a further concession in the direction he had indicated he would go into the Lobby against the clause.
    *LORD E. FITZMAURICEsaid that the high authority of the memory of Lord Melbourne's and Lord Russell's Government at the time of the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act had been quoted in favour of the appointment of aldermen. It should be remembered that when the Municipal Corporations Bill was sent up to the House of Lords there were no aldermen in it. They were inserted by the House of Lords, and Lord Melbourne and Lord Russell's Government accepted that Amendment very unwillingly. He wished to suggest to the Committee that there was an answer to the argument from experience of the county councils and municipal boroughs, and that was that the powers given by this Bill to the
    732
    metropolitan boroughs were exceedingly small as compared to those given to the county councils and municipal boroughs. So far as he could make out, the new boroughs would have nothing whatever to do except to look after the streets in their districts, and some minor matters of sanitation. They would have nothing to do with main drainage, with tramways, with electric lighting, or with the large and most important class of business which municipal boroughs had to do with. Surely it was not necessary to bring in aldermen from the outside to discharge such duties as were conferred on the new boroughs. As to the argument of continuity, that might be obtained by giving the elective councillors a longer term of office, and doing away with the objectionable clause in the Bill by which a certain number were to go out of office every year. In 1888 the President of the Board of Trade hesitated a long time as to whether he would insert aldermen in the London County Council Bill or give the councillors a longer period of office. He always regretted that the President of the Board of Trade did not take the second alternative, and he suggested to the Government whether it would not be better to drop aldermen altogether and give to the councillors a longer period of office.
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid that the honourable Member who had just sat down had stated that the new boroughs would have nothing to do with electric lighting. That was not so. The present local authorities in different parts of London were getting Provisional Orders to carry out electric lighting in their districts, and the feeling was spreading every day that the local authorities should furnish the electric lighting rather than companies. He could assure the Committee that there would be plenty of work on which these boroughs could exercise their best intelligence. The new boroughs were, as far as possible, to have equal powers with those of the municipal boroughs in other parts of England. He could hardly imagine a mayor without aldermen; they might just as well have a bride without bridesmaids.
    MR. STEADMANsaid the purpose of the Government in putting aldermen into the Bill was, it was alleged, to get the very best

    733
    men possible to take an active part in municipal life and work. But he thought that the Government would have attained that object without having aldermen upon the new borough councils. He knew that at the present time it was impossible to get good local men to contest vestry election. In the first place they detested the word "vestry," and the very fact of altering the name of vestry to borough council would induce better men to come out without having aldermen on the councils. The fact also that the chairman of the borough, council would be a mayor would induce the very best men in the East End of London to come out and contest an election. His chief reason for objecting to aldermen was this: At the present time Members of Parliament had to go through a very severely-contested election, and the same applied to the members of the London County Council. They all knew by experience that a contested election meant worry, anxiety, sleepless nights, and considerable expense; but if aldermen were to be retained in the Bill, the first duty of those who had undergone all the worry, anxiety, and expense of a contested election would be to elect a number of aldermen who had taken no part in the worry, anxiety, and sleepless nights, nor even in the expense, and these aldermen would come in and take a position which was supposed to be more dignified than that of the councillors. He was inclined to say that if gentlemen aspired to dignity they ought to take some share in the responsibility in securing that dignity, and if any men were entitled to dignity they were those who had gone through an election contest. They had been told that the London County Council was greatly indebted to certain of the aldermen on that Council, although these men had been defeated at the polls. That might be true. As for their taking a fair share if the work, they might attend on the Tuesdays, but the municipal work of London was not done at the general meetings on Tuesdays, but in the committee-room; and if the attendances of the aldermen, as compared with those of the councillors elected under responsibility to their constituents, were analysed, it would be found that the aldermen were very low down in the scale as far as real work was concerned. He
    734
    thought the honourable Member for Chelsea could tell the House what work he had himself seen in the committee-room as an alderman. It had been said that it would have been a great loss if certain gentlemen like Mr. Dickinson, who were defeated at the polls, had not been chosen for the Council. But it did not follow that if these gentlemen were defeated at the polls at one election London would have lost their services unless they had been chosen as aldermen. At the last General Election two leaders of the Liberal Party were defeated at the polls, but constituencies were found for them, and they were still Members of the House. The same thing would apply to men like Mr. Dickinson. No doubt, rather than lose the services of such an able man, another constituency would have been found for him in another part of London. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated that no movement had been made to get rid of the aldermen. That was quite true, but it did not follow that a principle which was good many years ago was good for to-day. Why, even Conservatives had turned Liberals, and Liberals Radicals. Now was the time and the opportunity when defects in the legislation of the past could be remedied, lie did not suppose for one moment that even Her Majesty's Government would have inserted aldermen in the London County Council Bill had they foreseen the result of the recent elections to the London County Council. If Her Majesty's Government were to speak the truth, he believed they very much regretted inserting aldermen in that Bill. There were no aldermen in the Local Government for Ireland Act, and he maintained that legislation which was good for Ireland was good for London, and that London was not entitled to any more privileges than Ireland. In conclusion, he had no objection to any man being on the borough councils provided he was duly elected by a constituency. He might be a Member of the House of Lords or any other House, so long as he was elected by and represented the people. Then he would have to bear the responsibility, and account to the people for his work. At the present day in the London County Council an alderman, although bearing a title higher than that of councillor, could please himself

    735
    as to what work he would do, and could stay away from the Council, for he was responsible to no one. He believed in everyone being responsible to his constituents. Because of that consideration, he trusted that the First Lord of the Treasury would delete aldermen from the Bill.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid he had no objection to the creation of aldermen on the new councils with the reservation, which he thought was a wise one, that they should be selected from amongst the councillors returned by the electors. He could not help thinking that the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury to allow aldermen to be appointed from outside the area would not work well in London. If they were elected from the councillors they would possess local knowledge, and would be trusted by the electors. The title was an honourable one, and it came down to them from Anglo-Saxon times. No doubt 500 appeared a large number of aldermen, but compared with the vast population of London, he did not think it was larger than the number of aldermen in Manchester, as compared with the population of that city.
    *MR. J. SAMUELexpressed his surprise at the alacrity with which the right honourable Gentleman, the Leader of the House had accepted the suggestion in reference to co-opted aldermen, which he thought was a dangerous and undemocratic principle. The aldermen in some of our municipal boroughs were very unpopular because they did not represent the ratepayers directly, and some of those boroughs had already adopted resolutions in favour of the abolition of aldermen. If the Committee adopted this suggestion, men who lived in the West End could become aldermen for Whitechapel and other places in the East End, where the council would become very unpopular in consequence. There was no comparison between the co-opted members of these boroughs and the County Council, because in the latter case they were all residents within the county of London, and were liable to the county rate. He did not think men should be elected to serve as aldermen and become responsible for the expenditure of money towards which they would not pay a single fraction. In the municipal
    736
    boroughs, at the present time, those elected as aldermen must be councillors or qualified to elect to the office of councillor. He protested against this suggestion being adopted, and he was more than surprised that it should have been made from the Liberal site of the House, because of its anti-democratic spirit. Although he was an alderman himself, he was opposed to the creation of any new aldermen by fresh legislation, and if they were to have aldermen they should be resident within the district, and be qualified to be elected as councillors. The idea of co-opted aldermen was against the spirit of the age, and, therefore, he hoped the Government would reconsider their position before adopting the suggestion that had been made.
    *MR. H. H. MARKSsaid the honourable Member for Stepney had pointed out that the disadvantages which existed in the present system were due to the indisposition of the better class of men to take part in local affairs owing to the bad repute which attached to vestries, and he went on to say that this indisposition would disappear when the vestry gave place to the borough. He thought that argument was a very high and just commendation of the Bill before the House. The honourable Member went on to say that the better class of men who were not willing to take part in vestry work would be found quite ready to take part in borough work, because those who were not ambitious of serving in the office of chairman of the vestry would be anxious to serve in the office of mayor. The mayor would be selected from the aldermen, and if the best men were anxious to serve as mayor, they would also be anxious to serve as aldermen. Under those circumstances, what became of the suggestion that it would be difficult to get aldermen of the right class? He should support the retention of aldermen, but he objected to selecting them from outside the district. Such a proposal would create a class of carpet-bag aldermen, migratory aldermen, going from one part of London to the other in order, to give preponderance to either one Party or the other. It had been said that aldermen were not responsible to the people, but if they were chosen from the representative

    737
    men of the constituency, although they might not be directly responsible, the fact that they were elected from their own district would be a check and a restraint upon them in the performance of their public duties. They would, at least, be answerable to and dependent upon the opinion of the people among whom they live. But what became of that restraint if the aldermen came from a distance to serve in a district where they were not known, and where they had nothing in common with the residents of the borough upon whose council they served?
    MR. BURNSadmitted that he shared some of the views of the honourable Member who had last spoken as to the disadvantage of having peripatetic aldermen, but he was going to vote against all aldermen, lock, stock, and barrel, from either the north, south, east, or west. The Member for St. George's-in-the-East said this Bill would attract a, better type of men than could now be secured. This Measure would reduce the number from 120 to 70, and if they brought in the co-opted person and the peripatetic aldermen from outside, they would find the humbler, industrious men who possessed local knowledge and took an active interest in the work, would be out-voted by vagrom aldermen from the West End. The local life of a district was not the kind of work which the aldermen of their provincial boroughs indulged in. The type of aldermen whom they had elected were men who had lived in the district and who had served for a long time as councillors, and consequently they possessed a minute knowledge of the local affairs of their district. The conditions of local life in London did not tend to the production of the same type of aldermen, because it was possible for a man to know nothing of Mile End, and yet know a good deal about drainage, markets, electric lighting, and other matters with which provincial councils had to deal. What they had to recognise was, that if local life was to be stimulated, it could only be done by attracting the best men in the locality themselves. If the peripatetic aldermen were encouraged he knew what it meant, for they would be used by the electric lighting companies to get Provisional Orders through. Those young
    738
    gentlemen of light and leading from the West End would not be understood in local life, but would be used by large metropolitan vested interests in pulling the councillors the wrong way, and their service would not be based upon local knowledge, but upon metropolitan interests perhaps of a suspicious character, which the local authority ought to have nothing whatever to do with. He thought this proposal was detrimentally opposed to the interests of local life, and was not for its improvement in any shape whatsoever.
    MR. COHENreminded the Committee that the East End of London had elected quite a number of distinguished men as County Councillors who came from other parts of London, and he did not know what fault the honourable Member for Battersea had to find with the votes of those gentlemen. He thought that was conclusive evidence that the people of the East End, far from resenting the inclusion of persons outside their division, were only too grateful when they could get persons of great influence and education to concern themselves in the administration of the local affairs of the East End of London.
    MR. BURNSpointed out that the distinguished gentlemen mentioned had been through the ordeal of a popular election.
    MR. COHENsaid they were nevertheless people outside the division. He denied altogether the charge that the aldermen of the London County Council had neglected their duties on the committees of that body, and the honourable Member for Stepney was singularly unfortunate in the illustration he had chosen. Some of the best member and some of the most industrious men on the Council had been aldermen, and he was quite sure that if his right honourable Friend accepted the Amendment to be moved by the Member for Chelsea, which, while enabling aldermen to be members of the borough council, no matter where they resided, it would be conferring a very great boon, of which the council would take advantage.
    MR. BILLSONsaid the whole object of the Bill was that local wants should be properly looked after. Therefore it seemed most natural and proper not only that every councillor should be required to have a qualification in the

    739
    constituency, and that every alderman should not only have a similar qualification, but should also previously have been a member of the council itself. At a later stage he should propose that this be provided for in the Bill.
    Question put—
    "That the word 'aldermen' stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 140.—(Division List, No. 103.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Aird, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Arrol, Sir William

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Doughty, George

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Baird, John G. Alexander

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

    Kemp, George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Doxford, W. Theodore

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

    Kimber, Henry

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

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    Knowles, Lees

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

    Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

    Lafone, Alfred

    Banbury, Frederick Geo.

    Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornwall)

    Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Finch, George H.

    Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

    Beach.Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Fison, Fredk. Wm.

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Lopes, Henry Y. Buller

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Biddulph, Michael

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Bill, Charles

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Forster, Henry Wm.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

    Fry, Lewis

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Bond, Edward

    Garfit, William

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Boscawen, A. Griffith-

    Gedge, Sydney

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Maclure, Sir J. William

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gibbs, Hn. A.G. H. (C.of Lond.)

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    McIver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    McKillop, James

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Marks, Harry H.

    Butcher, John George

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Carlile, Wm. Walter

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

    Gordon, Hon. J. Edward

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Cayzer, Sir Chas. Wm.

    Goschen,RtHnG.J.(St.Geo.'s)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.)

    Goulding, Edw. Alfred

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Monk, Charles James

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Moore, Wm. (Antrim, N.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    More, R. J. (Shropshire)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Gretton, John

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Gunter, Colonel

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

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Halsey, Thos. Fredk.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo

    Myers, William Henry

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Heath, James

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Henderson, Alexander

    Northcote, Hon.Sir H. Stafford

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

    Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead

    Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Penn, John

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

    Percy, Earl

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Houston, R. P.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Howell, William Tudor

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Howorth, Sir H. Hoyle

    Platt-Higgins, Fredk.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

    Hughes, Col. Edwin

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Webster,SirR.E.(I.of Wight)

    Purvis, Robert

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Smith, J. P. (Lanarks)

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

    Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Spencer, Ernest

    Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

    Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Willox, Sir J. Archibald

    Round, James

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Russell,Gen.F. S.(Cheltenham)

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

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

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Ryder, J. Herbert Dudley

    Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

    Wylie, Alexander

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Thorburn, Walter

    Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Younger, William

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Valentia, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

    Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

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

    NOES.

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

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Asher, Alexander

    Harwood, George

    Price, Robert John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

    Hazell, Walter

    Reid, Sir Robt. Threshie

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Hedderwick, T. Chas. H.

    Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

    Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

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

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

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Horniman, Fredk. John

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

    Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

    Samuel, J.(Stockton-on-Tees)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Billson, Alfred

    Joicey, Sir James

    Scoble, Sir Andrew R.

    Birrell, Augustine

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Shaw, C. Edw. (Stafford)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHnSirU.

    Shaw, T. (Hawick Burghs)

    Burns, John

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Burt, Thomas

    Kinloch, Sir J. Geo. Smyth

    Spicer, Albert

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Kitson, Sir James

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Caldwell, James

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Steadman, William Chas.

    Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Strachey, Edward

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lloyd-George, David

    Tennant, Harold John

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Lough, Thomas

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Crombie, John William

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

    McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

    Trevelyan, Chas. Philips

    Daly, James

    McKenna, Reginald

    Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    McLeod, John

    Wallace, Robt. (Perth)

    Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Maddison, Fred.

    Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Chas.

    Maden, John Henry

    Warner, T. Courtenay T.

    Dillon, John

    Mappin, Sir Fredk, Thorpe

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Weir, James Galloway

    Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

    Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Duckworth, James

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Morley, Charles (Brecknock)

    Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

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

    Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Woodall, William

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

    Woods, Samuel

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    O'Connor, A. (Donegal)

    Young, S. (Cavan, E.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Gold, Charles

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

    Pease, A. E. (Cleveland)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Grey, Sir E. (Berwick)

    Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

    Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Lowles.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Another Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 27, after the word 'councillors' to insert the words 'provided that no woman shall be eligible for any such office.'"—(Mr. Boulnois.)
    Question put—
    "That those words be inserted."
    MR. BOULNOISsaid he might seem ungallant, but someone must have the courage of his convictions in this matter, and although it might be unpopular for him to take this line, if not in that House, at all events, out of doors, he felt very strongly on the subject, and hoped the House would take advantage of that occasion to come to some definite conclusion upon it. The reason why he thought women should not be allowed to sit on these new borough councils was that women were not adapted to the work which those new councils had to carry out. Much of that work would necessarily be distasteful to them. The elections to the borough councils would be conducted largely on political lines, and the proceedings of the councils would also be to a great extent political, and, in his opinion, it would be a pity to drag women into the turmoil of an election on political lines and cause them to live afterwards in a political atmosphere. It was all very well, and, indeed, quite proper that women should devote themselves to work on boards of guardians and school boards, where they could do excellent womanly work. If they once allowed women to sit on these new councils they would not be able to withhold from them the Parliamentary franchise nor the right to sit and to vote in the House. Women had not at present the right to sit on provincial corporations, but if they were once allowed to sit on these new metropolitan councils a similar privilege would have to be extended to women in the provinces.
    SIR C. DILKEsaid he agreed with the honourable Member in the discreditable circumstances of the contradictions of former Acts, which left in the hands of the courts of law matters which Parliament ought to have dealt with. He maintained that Parliament was now bound to settle this question in clear and emphatic language so that none of those doubts could possibly arise after-
    744
    wards which had arisen under other Acts of Parliament. The honourable Member said that women made excellent members of boards of guardians and of school boards, but they could never make suitable members for sanitary authorities. But the very powers which the honourable Member had read out to the Committee were merely the ordinary powers of sanitary authorities which existed not only in London, but throughout the whole of the sanitary authorities in the country, while women were found to be doing most excellent work as district councillors, and were exercising the whole of these sanitary powers throughout the rural districts of the country at the present time. Parliament had already given women the right of membership, not on town councils, but on other bodies exercising precisely similar functions. They were elected by popular vote to these bodies, of which they made most useful members; no question of principle was involved, and he was bound to ask the Committee to extend to London the same eligibility of free choice to the electors that they had extended towards the rural districts. He would give reasons why he believed that under the Bill as it stood at present women were eligible not only as councillors, but also for the higher offices of mayor and aldermen in the proposed metropolitan boroughs. The Government were relying on clause 2, sub-section 3, of the Local Government Act of 1888, under which a woman could not be chairman or alderman of a county council, applying to this Bill. But the Local Government Act of 1888, by section 2, sub-section 1, and section 75, applied the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. By section 15, sub-section 1, of that Act, the mayor was chosen from "aldermen, councillors, or persons qualified to be such," and, by section 14, sub-section 3, an alderman must be "a councillor, or qualified to be a councillor." Thus, anyone could be mayor or alderman of a borough or chairman or alderman of a county who was "qualified to be a councillor" of the borough or county, and the only reason why a woman could not be chairman or alderman of a county council was that given by the judges when they decided that Lady Sandhurst was not qualified to be a councillor. He submitted that clause 2, sub-section 3,

    745
    could not make the qualification to be mayor or alderman of a metropolitan borough, depend on the qualification to be a county councillor, that was, the being "burgesses" or "county electors." There were no burgesses or county electors for metropolitan boroughs. The sub-section would be held to mean that, just as county chairmen and aldermen must be persons qualified to be county councillors, so the metropolitan mayors and aldermen must be persons qualified to be metropolitan councillors. This included women.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I rise on behalf of the Government, not to give any guidance to the Committee on the subject, but to say that the Government, as a Government, are incapable of giving any guidance upon it. As a matter of fact, when the Division conies it will be found that this Bench does not always go into the same Lobby, and there is a difference of opinion on the subject, which it has never been found possible to bring within the ordinary rule and compass of Party Divisions. My own view, for what it is worth, is, on the whole, against the Amendment of my honourable Friend. I entirely agree with him and the right honourable Baronet that the question should be put out of doubt one way or the other, and the Bill was introduced in its present shape, not because we supposed in that shape the question was decided in a clear and specific manner, but because we were distinctly of opinion that it was expedient not to lay down any line in the Bill for the reason I have already indicated, but that the House should be left to determine one way or the other what the position of women was to be on these future borough councils. The House ought to lay that down, one way or the other in the most explicit manner and ought not to leave it to the chances of the courts of law to interpret what the right honourable Gentleman has told us is a very obscure question. Of that I think there can be no doubt. If the state of the law with regard to the existing vestries had been similar to the law with regard to borough councils outside London, I confess I should have been disposed, on the general line adopted in drafting the Bill, to follow the example set by the borough, councils outside London, and I should not have
    746
    thought it necessary or desirable to make any change in the position of women in connection with them. But, as a matter of fact, Parliament has, to a, certain extent, prejudged this question. No longer ago than the year 1894 we deliberately resolved that women were proper persons to exercise the administrative functions which, in the main, are the very administrative functions which are to be given to these borough councils. If, therefore, we adopt my honourable Friend's suggestion we, rightly or wrongly, go back upon the decision to which we have already come, and this Bill would be so far a disfranchising Bill. I should be rather reluctant that this Measure should be in any respect a disfranchising Measure. We have to deal with a state of things already in existence and already working satisfactorily. I am rather reluctant, therefore, to make any change in the backward direction, just in the same way as I should have been rather reluctant to make any change in the forward direction had we found that the privileges of women in regard to London vestries had been identical with the privileges on these borough councils outside London. I am the more reluctant to make the change because I am given to understand that where women have been elected on vestries, the work they have done has been very effective and most beneficial; and it does seem rather hard that when the sex have been engaged in a particular work and have carried out that work in a satisfactory manner the House should take the occasion of a great reform to restrict their sphere of usefulness where their action has been so satisfactory' up to the present. That is the broad ground upon which, personally, I shall vote against my honourable Friend's Amendment. But he threw out one argument upon which I think I ought to say a word, though perhaps it is not a proper argument for this House to deal with in detail. My honourable Friend said that this was the thin end of the wedge, that the maintenance of women in the privileges they have already got in the case of the vestries would practically facilitate the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women, and ultimately to the power of obtaining seats in this House. I do not argue whether it is right or wrong that women

    747
    should have the Parliamentary franchise, or a seat in this House, but I am inclined to think that the granting of the privilege of a seat upon these new municipal bodies is rather antagonistic to the claim of women to the Parliamentary franchise, and would rather militate against their obtaining that franchise than otherwise. The reason I think so is this. I am in favour of extending the Parliamentary franchise to women, but I have always felt that one of the dangers of that course is that upon the possession of the franchise women might found a claim for a seat in this House—a state of things which, personally, I should regard as absolutely intolerable. It is quite evident that every case in which the House having already granted the franchise to women adds to it the right of women to sit in the bodies for which they vote makes the argument which frightens moderate women suffrage advocates like myself all the stronger, and, while I do not think the House should be unnecessarily influenced by the effect of that argument, personally, I think the admission of women to seats on these borough councils does very much frighten the more timid and weak-kneed of the supporters, among whom I rank myself. I have not the slightest idea how the Committee will vote on this Amendment. I have not been able to form the slightest conjecture as to how the balance of opinion on the question goes within these walls. But if my honourable Friend is defeated, it may be some consolation to him to think that the effect of that defeat will probably be to weaken the support of many of those who are in favour of the extension of the political franchise to women. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more on the subject. As I have said, I have spoken simply as an individual, and in no sense as the representative of the Government, and the Committee must decide this important and interesting question without the advantage or disadvantage—I do not know which it is—of Government assistance.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am glad to find myself on this occasion in agreement with the First Lord of the Treasury, because in days gone by we had taken many different views—I do not know that either of us have changed our
    748
    minds upon the subject—as to the expediency of granting the Parliamentary franchise to women; and I take a note for further use of the important admission of the right honourable Gentleman that, though he is in favour of extending the Parliamentary franchise to women, he cannot contemplate with anything but horror the presence of women as colleagues in the House.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Hear, hear!
    MR. ASQUITH: I think the position of the right honourable Gentleman in the matter was illogical, and I take a more logical view, I think. If women were qualified to vote, they ought to be qualified to be elected; and, sharing as I do the right honourable Gentleman's terrors in regard to the prospect of female competitors for seats in the House, I take the best course to prevent that state of things by opposing the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women. That being so, I wish to say as to the Amendment, that I cordially agree with the right honourable Gentleman that it would be intolerable to have women sitting in this House. I think if it were carried it would be reactionary in its character, because it would dispossess women of a right they at present enjoyed, and which they exercised with advantage to the community; and believing, as I do, that it is most desirable and most useful in every way to have the influence of women in municipal work, I shall vote with what I believe to be the great majority of this House in favour of the Amendment.
    EARL PERCYsaid that in his opinion, if the female element was imported into the borough council, the effect of that would be to make the Act absolutely ridiculous. It had been pointed out in the course of a discussion that the desire was to assimilate the new boroughs to existing corporations, and bring the whole system of the corporations of London into line; but in none of those corporations were women allowed to sit at the present time. There were only three broad grounds upon which the introduction of the female element into these new councils could be allowed. One of those reasons was

    749
    that by excluding them, women would he deprived of a right that they already possessed. A second was that they had some peculiar fitness for discharging the duties which they would have to perform, and the third was that suffrage and representation ought to go together. The third reason was not arguable, in his opinion, because it was not followed in practice; and he instanced the fact that the clergy were allowed to vote for Parliament, but that they were not allowed to sit in the House; and the same reason applied to the county councils. With regard to the first suggestion, that they would deprive women of a right which they at present possessed, that was an argument against most of the reforms that had been brought about during the past half-century. The only real strong argument for rejecting the Amendment was that women had sonic peculiar qualification for the discharge of municipal duties. He had great sympathy with that view, and he thought that women had performed very good work upon the vestries in the past in various ways, and if it were thought inadvisable to deprive them of the opportunity of rendering public service on the new councils, there was no reason why they should not be co-opted on various committees, such as the library committee and the public health committee. There were two very strong arguments against the direct election to the borough councils. He failed to see if women were elected to the council how they could prevent them from being appointed aldermen or mayors. The really strong argument in support of the Amendment was that direct popular election, whatever it might be in the case of men, was not the best method in the case of women to secure those best qualified for service. It might very well be that women who were well qualified to perform these duties, whose modesty would not permit them to go though the turmoil of a contested election, and those women would be disqualified altogether. If it was proposed to elect them as aldermen, he could see no reason why they should be directly elected. He hoped that the majority of the Committee would vote against the inclusion of women by direct elections in favour of their inclusion by the more indirect process of co-optation.
    *MR. COURTNEYwas afraid that he was unable to agree with the noble Lord. It appeared to him that the noble Lord's speech was governed more by sentiment than by reason, and he hoped he would be forgiven if he said that the noble Lord in his remarks was too much the slave of logic on the one side, and a little wanting in experience of elections in which women took part on the other. The noble Lord had admitted that women had done good work in local affairs in the past, and he was not disposed to do anything to make their position in that work more difficult. He was not disposed to interfere with the organisation of school boards, still less would he interfere in any way with their election to boards of guardians, and in these matters it was absolutely essential that women should go through all the difficulties of a contested election, and that they should obtain the suffrage of their fellow citizens. Did not experience, therefore, dissipate the anxiety he had that the fair reputation of women would be injured by their participation in these contests in order to arrive at the work they did upon these bodies? The noble Lord admitted that he would not say a word against those who had gone through a contested election, and had been successful, and all that he could urge was that there were other ladies equally, or perhaps better, suited to fulfil the positions, who shrank from contests, and who would be unable to take a share in the municipal work if they were required to go through this ordeal. He claimed, when he had the privilege of submitting to the House an Amendment, that no woman should be disqualified from being chosen as an alderman, the vote of the noble Lord, and if by that vote his Amendment could be carried, they would secure places both for women who were capable of facing the contest, and for superior ladies who were unequal to the struggle of a fight. The noble Lord said if women were made eligible to serve as aldermen under this Bill, then it would have to make them eligible for the position of mayor. That was a question which, he thought, would have to be determined by utilitarian arguments drawn from experience. The advantage on the one side would have to be balanced with the disadvantages on the other. The noble Lord admitted

    751
    the expediency and desirability of making women eligible as aldermen by co-optation, but he disapproved of them being made mayors. That fact alone showed that his logic was faulty in assuming that because they were eligible for aldermen they must be eligible for mayors. There was one really good reason why women should not be eligible to be made mayors, and that was that a mayor was a justice of the peace, and had therefore totally different functions and totally different duties from those appertaining to either an alderman or a councillor. Looking at the matter logically, he thought that women should be eligible both as elective members and non-elective members of the new bodies. He was glad that this Amendment had been brought forward, because it was necessary that the matter should be cleared up. In the Bill as it stood he had good reason for believing that women were eligible to serve both as aldermen and mayors. In the Act of 1894 there was an express provision that no person should, by reason of sex or marriage, be disqualified from acting as a councillor, and if the provision under that clause as it now stood applied to aldermen as well, there was a strong presumption for the conclusion that under the Bill as it now stood no woman would be disqualified from acting as an alderman. He wanted to have the matter made plain, and he hoped that an opportunity would be given by-and-by of voting upon the question. He recalled the experience of 1894, when the Government of the day endeavoured to deal with this question, as the Government were doing now, by frankly declining to express their opinion on the subject. On that occasion a direct instruction was moved and carried against the Government that no person should be disqualified by reason of sex or marriage. The experience they had had since demonstrated the wisdom of that act. They need not go into any a priori arguments, nor need they talk about sentiment, or what women were fitted for according to the conception obtained from books. They had got experience of women in actual life, and they proved their own use, and they were now going to try and take away the capacity for work which they had already got, and which they had exercised so much to the good of the community and themselves. But they could
    752
    not take away what had been already given. And the real question was whether they should be eligible as aldermen as they were eligible under the Bill, and as they would continue to be under the Bill, as councillors. When the question came up again, he would look with confidence to the Committee agreeing by a large majority to the proposition that women should be made eligible to sit as aldermen as well as councillors of these new borough councils.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir K. FINLAYsaid he did not rise to discuss the legal question involved as to whether women should be eligible to sit as aldermen and mayors, and he thought it would be an inexcusable waste of time for the Committee to argue the question. It would be absurd for the Bill to go out in a form in which any subsequent doubt could arise, and therefore it was not perhaps out of order, as this Amendment covered the whole ground of councillors, aldermen, and mayors, to say a few words with reference to those positions. With regard to councillors, they found the women in possession, and he was told that they had done very good work, and that they had done it well. If they had been starting afresh, he would say, perhaps, it would have been better that women should not be eligible, but he was not so strong upon that subject as to say that he should vote for their being turned out of positions which they had occupied for some years, and where according to the confession of everybody, they had done good work. The only objection he had heard to the service of women on these bodies was that of his noble Friend the Member for Kensington, who said it would be unbecoming that they should stand the racket of a contested election.
    EARL PERCYsaid what he had pointed out was that some women would be qualified to stand it, and others would not.
    SIR R. FINLAYsaid that objection would not apply to their being aldermen, if there was a power of co-opting aldermen. He thought his noble Friend's argument went to show that there was no substantial objection to

    753
    their being aldermen if they could come on by co-optation. He confessed that there was a certain grotesqueness in the application of the term "aldermen" to women, but after a few years he supposed they would get used to it. It would certainly be a little ridiculous if women could be councillors and could not be aldermen. He agreed with his right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin that different considerations were involved in the case of the mayor, who was a magistrate ex officio. It seemed to him that the simpler course would be to say that women should not be qualified to become mayors, although they should be qualified to be councillors and aldermen. Under all the circumstances, he intended to vote against the Amendment, but he certainly was not prepared to vote in favour of women being admitted to the rank of mayor.
    MR. HALDANEsaid he thought they would be well advised in keeping the controversy within the narrowest limits. There was one observation of the Solicitor-General with which he entirely agreed. Whatever view might be taken as to the legal construction of the Bill, they could not shut their eyes to the fact that women were in possession, and that the Amendment proposed to turn them out. The local government of London, as far as the field which they were trying to cover by this Bill was concerned, was at present to a very large extent in the hands of women. They sat upon the vestries, they took their part on the district boards, they sat upon the school boards, and if the Amendment were adopted they would be disfranchising women to a very large extent. What they had to decide was whether they would or would not accept an Amendment that would deter women from a number of the functions, they were at present performing, which was quite a different question from the much larger one of the franchise, which had been debated in the House with great diversity of opinion, and which seemed to involve still larger considerations than those which were before the Committee. What reason was there why they should turn women out of the functions they were performing? Had those functions
    754
    not been performed usefully? The work that had been done by women, on the school boards especially, had been of the very best description.
    MR. BONDsaid he held very strongly to the view that the Parliamentary franchise should not be granted to women, but he did not on that account consider that, women were, or should be, disqualified from performing certain public services, which, he thought, they could perform with great advantage to the community. He would be ungrateful if he, who had been a School Board member and had had the opportunity of seeing how zealously and efficiently lady members performed their duties, did not lift his voice and say that, for certain branches of public work, they were admirably qualified. With regard to sanitary matters, which his honourable Friend the Member for Marylebone seemed to think the delicate mind of a woman would never be brought to give its attention to, if his honourable Friend would carry his mind back to the details of his own household administration he would find that the greater part of the work was really guided and directed by the women of the household. Their public spirit carried them through whatever was disagreeable in connection with these matters, and they were admirably fitted to go into the tenement dwellings in London, and where anything was wrong put the law in motion and use their personal influence in getting the occupants of those dwellings to set matters right.
    *MR. SPICERsaid it had been admitted in Committee that night that every position which women had already been elected to fill had been filled with discretion, judgment, and tact. This was not only the case in connection with local government, but there were a large number of other bodies where in recent years women had been admitted, and had been allowed to occupy positions, and where their influence had been distinctly good. The duties to which allusion had been made as unsuitable for women were, after all, simply analogous, to what

    755
    the great bulk of women were carrying on every day of their lives, and doing with great advantage to themselves and the community. They would be robbing the new boroughs of great opportunities of usefulness if they deprived the electors of the right of electing women. They wanted, whether they approved of every clause of the Bill or not, to draw out the best of the local life of the proposed new districts. He maintained that in the metropolis there were a large number of women who were qualified by their training to render very effective service. In fact, there were some great social evils in connection with the metropolis which would never be even minimised until they had more women on their local bodies, who would go into those matters and bring wholesome and healthy influence to bear. He believed that the advent of women to those municipal boroughs would not only lead to the strengthening of those boroughs, but would infuse life and wholesome influences which would be very much for their advantage. They would be depriving those bodies of a great source of usefulness if they deprived the electors of the right of electing women.
    *SIR A. ROLLITsaid he thought the Committee were indebted to the honourable Member for Marylebone for enabling them to come to a clear decision on the question, instead of leaving it to the judges to say what they thought Parliament meant. Anyone who knew anything about the existing forms of local government in which women were able to take part knew that their services had been much appreciated. Upon what ground was it sought to place this disability upon women? Women were called upon, with other citizens, to pay rates and contribute to the burdens of local government, and why should they not be allowed to take their own part, not indirectly through them, but directly and through themselves, in the administration of local affairs? All the same objections had been raised to the right of women to vote in local affairs, but the vote had been conceded, for it seemed to him to follow as a corollary that they should have the right to administer local matters in their own districts when they
    756
    fulfilled the same conditions as men and had similar legal and proper qualifications. Objection had been taken that the work to be performed was not suitable for women, but the chief work was sanitation, and the source, the unit, of good sanitation was, after all, the home, the house in which women were the most potent factors in relation to such matters.
    *MR. HUBBARDthought it was impossible for honourable Members to say that this was only a matter of detail. It had been said that women were in the position of councillors at the present moment. But that was not the case. Women were allowed to sit on vestries, but not on municipal councils, and it seemed to him that there was a great distinction there. It was impossible for anyone who was cognisant with the organisation of the political bodies in the metropolis to ignore the fact that the new municipal bodies would, whether honourable Members liked it or not, be run on political lines. He entirely agreed with those honourable Members who had borne testimony to the excellent work that women had done as members of boards of guardians and other public bodies, and he was prepared to recognise that fact by allowing women to remain eligible by co-optation for any particular committee on which they might wish to serve, and on which their assistance might be specially useful. But it appeared to him that if the Amendment were rejected it would be regarded outside the House as a deliberate affirmation of the principle that women should enter political life. He was one who viewed with the utmost reluctance—he might say with horror—the intrusion of women into political life. Moreover, he did not think it right to impose on women duties which he did not believe the great majority desired to perform.
    Question put—
    "That these words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 127.—(Division List No. 104.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

    Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Morton,ArthurH. A.(Deptford)

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Finch,George H.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Arrol, Sir William

    Flower, Ernest

    O'Connor,Arthur (Donegal)

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Garfit, William

    Percy, Earl

    Barry,RtHnAH.Smith (Hunts

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(City ofLond

    Phillpots, Captain Arthur

    Bartley, Gorge C. T.

    Gibbs,Hon.Vicary (St.Albans)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Beach, RtHnSir.M.H.(Bristol)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Priestley,SirW. Overend(Edin.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Green, Walford L.(Wednesbury

    Purvis, Robert

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

    Hamilton,Rt.Hn.Lord George

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon.Chas. Thomson

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. M.

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

    Heath, James

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r

    Henderson, Alexander

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hill,Sir Edward Stock(Bristol)

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Clarke, Sir Edward(Plymouth)

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Collings, Rt. Ron. Jesse

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Stock, James Henry

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Tomlinson,Wm. Edw. Murray

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Knowles, Lees

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cox,IrwinEdwardB. (Harrow)

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornwall)

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Long,RtHn.Walter(Liverpool)

    Williams, JosephPowell(Birm.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Doughty, George

    Macartrey, W. G. Ellison

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Marks, Harry H.

    Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Hubbard.

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert B.

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    NOES.

    Allisen, Robert Andrew

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Kemp, George

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Kimber, Henry

    Baird, John George Alexander

    FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

    Lafone, Alfred

    Baker, Sir John

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Balfour,RtHnGeraldW(Leeds)

    Fry, Lewis

    Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'land

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

    Bethell, Commander

    Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

    Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Bigwood, James

    Gold, Charles

    Lloyd-George, David

    Burns, John

    Korst, Rt. Hn Sir John Eldon

    Lowles, John

    Burt, Thomas

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Gourley, SirEdwardTemperley

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Caldwell, James

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    McKillop, James

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    McLeod, John

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Harwood, George

    Maddison, Fred.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

    MiddlemoreJohnThrogmorton

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw.T. D.

    Hedderwick, Thos. C. H.

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H

    Hogan, James Francis

    Monk, Charles James

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Morton,Edw.J. C.(Devonport)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

    Northcote, Hon.SirH.Stafford

    Daly, James

    Hornimam, Frederick John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Houston, R. P.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Denny, Colonel

    Howell, William Tudor

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Dillon, John

    Hutton, Alfred E.(Morley)

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Dunn, Sir William

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Dyke, Rt.Hn.SirWilliam Hart

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    758

    759

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T(Hudd'rsf'ld)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Woods, Samuel

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Younger, William

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Spicer, Albert

    Weir, James Galloway

    Mr. Bond and Mr. Lough.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Williams John Carvell (Notts.)

    On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interal—
    Another Amendment Proposed—
    "Clause 2, Page 1, line 27, after 'councillors,' insert 'Neither sex nor marriage shall be a disqualification for election or appointment to any office under this Act.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
    MR.LOUGHsaid it was agreed by everybody in the Debate just before the adjournment that words should be inserted here to make the meaning of the House clear in regard to the position of women in those boroughs which they proposed to create. He thought the wores were, perhaps, the best that could be suggested for that purpose, and they had also been put down on the Paper from the other side of the House by his honourable Friend the Member for Hackney. They raised the issue clearly, and dealt with women not only as councillors, but as aldermen and mayors, and as eligible for all appointments under the Bill, The honourable Member for Marylebone was treasurer of the London Municipal Society, which had officially stated that its policy was to include the eligibility of women to serve on municipal councils; and he thought it strange that the honourable Member should have moved an Amendment in the opposite sense. It had been pointed out that they might prejudice the question of the Parliamentary franchise for Women by deciding the issue in the Bill before the Committee. He did not think any attention should be paid to that fear. He did not suppose that those who opposed the Parliamentary franchise for women did so as much on principle as from expediency. There was another principle than expediency in giving women the full municipal franchise. He would like to remind the Committee that in the English Districts Councils Act of 1894 women were made eligible
    760
    for these boards, and even to be appointed chairmen of the boards, although a clause was inserted which precluded them from being justices of the peace when elected chairmen. If necessary, some such clause could be inserted in the present Bill. The Irish Local Government Act passed last year also admitted women practically to the same rights which they asked for them in London. He found that under that Act four women had been elected to urban district councils, and 27 on rural districts councils, and 82 as poor law guardians. Therefore, all the precedents were in favour of adopting the course he now suggested.
    Attention having been called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present, the House was counted, when 40 Members being present—
    MR. LOUGHwent on to say that several women had been appointed in Ireland as chairmen and vice-chairmen of councils under the recent Act. There were already 17 women serving on vestries and district boards in different parts of London, and he did not believe that there could be found in London 17 more efficient representatives. There were large departments of work in the new borough councils in which women could render the greatest possible service—for instance, in the development of baths and wash-houses, one of the most excellent institutions which the vestries had planted in London.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESdid not think the honourable Member need devote himself to that part of the question. The Committee had already decided that women were eligible as members of the councils; the only question now was the form of the wores in which the decision of the Committee was to be put.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he accepted the suggestion of the Chairman, and he would simply move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. FINLAYsaid that, of course, as the First Lord of the Treasury has stated in the Debate on the last Amendment, this was not really a Party question in the ordinary sense of the word, and in anything he might say he was not speaking on behalf of the Government, but only expressing his individual opinion. The Committee had just negatived an Amendment which would have excluded women from holding any office whatever under the proposed Act, but it did not follow from that decision that women should be eligible for all these offices. So far as his own individual opinion was concerned, he agreed with the honourable Member for Bodmin that it was not desirable that women should hold the office of mayor. He thought that the office of mayor should be reserved for the male sex only, and he suggested that the Amendment should run—
    "No woman shall be eligible for the office of mayor; but neither sex nor marriage shall be a disqualification for the office of alderman or councillor."
    MR. WEBSTERsaid that women might be very useful in regard to bath-houses and libraries, but he ventured to think that the new borough councils would be in rather an anomalous position according to English ideas if women were to be admitted to either the office of mayor or alderman. They had gone so far in America that he understood there was one corporation in which there was not a single man. He hoped that the Government, in the interest of their Bill, would take steps to prevent women being either aldermen or mayors, and he would move to exclude them from the office of alderman as well as mayor.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid he could not for the life of him draw a distinction between the position of women as councillors and as mayors. The principle adopted should be, Trust in the good sense and discretion
    762
    of the electors. If the electors were fortunate enough to have among them a woman fit to be a mayor, he did not see why Parliament should deny them the right to appoint her a mayor. Whenever a woman was fit to occupy a public office, or to discharge a public duty, the law should not interfere to deprive the woman of the opportunity of doing This was a Measure for the extension of Governmental rights, and it ought not to be made use of as a means of depriving women of offices in the new boroughs which they had already occupied in existing bodies.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
    "At the beginning, to insert the words 'no woman shall be eligible for the office of mayor, but:'"—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
    MR. STUARThoped the words would remain as they were in the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member for Islington, so as to leave all the offices open to women. One of the grounds on which they allowed women to remain as councillors, and therefore as aldermen, was that they were at present eligible as councillors. There was a general opinion expressed in the House that they should not disfranchise women, and that eligibility as a councillor carried with it the right to be an alderman. One reason why it was peculiarly suitable that women should be elected as aldermen was that there were many cases in which some women who could do good work on the councils would not go through the turmoil of an. election. He would remind the Committee that under the law at present women were eligible as chairmen of vestries and local boards, which were now about to be turned into borough councils. He quite admitted that a larger question was opened up by the fact that those who were mayors of the new borough councils would have a right to sit on the bench as justices of the peace. But under the present law, women, were excluded from sitting on the bench, although they were chairmen of the local bodies. The same exclusion could be carried into the new

    763
    borough council, leaving the women, although deprived of the right to sit as justices of the peace, to retain the right of taking the chair and acting as mayor. The Amendment asked that women should be eligible for the various offices under the Act, but they had very little specific information as to what women were doing on the London vestries and in offices other than those of aldermen and councillors. He did not know whether the Solicitor-General was aware that in the vestry of St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark, there was a lady inspector who had been appointed for measuring up and carrying out the registration among the lowest class of houses, and in seeing that the regulations known as the tenement by-laws were carried out. She had been at work for a couple of years, and the result, as far as he was informed, was that she had abundantly justified the action of the vestry concerned in appointing her. She had been very successful in the overcrowding cases, and she had been obliged to take only ten overcrowding cases into court, and in every case she obtained a conviction. He could not see why the position of mayor should not be filled just as well by a woman as by a man, especially when they saw the class of work the women on the vestries had been carrying out. Under exceptional circumstances a lady might be a most suitable chairman. In the parish of St. Martin's a lady was one of the most respected members of the vestry. She served on the general purposes, the parliamentary, the finance, and the lighting committees, and she had been appointed by the vestry as an overseer. There was also an extremely important committee upon which ladies had sat with great advantage called the reception house committee, the house being a building for those families who came from one-and two-roomed tenements while their rooms were being disinfected. The system used to be very hateful to the inhabitants, and was objected to just as much as the workhouse until it was conducted by the women on the vestry, who had made such arrangements now that it was readily used by the people concerned. Those were a few instances of the work of ladies on the vestries. In London there were something short of 20 women on the various vestries, and
    764
    in all cases he thought they had the complete confidence and esteem of those on the vestry.
    SIR R. FINLAY, interposing, said he thought the question of other officers was rather out of order in the discussion of the clause dealing with the constitution of the councils.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The only question now before the Committee is the Amendment to the Amendment, that is to say, whether women may become mayors.
    MR. STUARTargued that if the Amendment to the Amendment was before the Committee he would not be in order in supporting the original Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN COMMITTEES: I have only put the Motion that no woman shall be eligible for the office of mayor.
    MR. STUARTsaid if his remarks were not in order in reference to the other offices he would not continue his criticisms, but would resume them later on. In the vestries and district boards they had already admitted that the women were not to be struck, off, and he did not see why they should now exclude them from being mayors; but whilst leaving that point open let them attach to the position the same disability which was attached to it at present, namely, that they should not be justices of the peace by virtue of that office. He hoped the Amendment would not be carried, and that upon the new bodies this question would be left as it was at present.
    MR. BARTLEYthought this was a most revolutionary House of Commons, because what they were proposing to do practically meant the changing of the whole system of election. They were now in the extraordinary position of debating whether a woman might be a mayor. It seemed to him most extraordinary that they should introduce such a proposal in this extraordinary fashion. He supposed if a woman was fit to be a mayor she was also fit to be a town clerk, a parish constable, or anything else they liked

    765
    to name. It seemed to him to be absurd to raise those questions. He hoped this Measure would raise the dignity of the position of the local authorities of the metropolis, but he thought it was bringing the question almost to ridicule to discuss seriously whether they were going to have lady mayors. They would next be asked to discuss whether Mr. Speaker should be a woman.
    SIR J. WOODHOUSEsaid they wore not going to decide whether women were to be eligible or not, because the Bill proposed to apply the same qualifications as the existing vestries already possessed, and under the law as it at present stood a woman might be the chairman of a vestry. Under these circumstances, what reason could there be for saying that because they set up a borough council and called the chief officer of that body a mayor the law should be altered? He respectfully submitted that the First Lord of the Treasury, by his own argument, had himself disposed of the question whether a woman should or should not be eligible to fill the chair of the council.
    MR. LOUGHstated that he fully recognised what had been said, and he did not want women to be mayors. What he did want was that anybody whom the councils thought fit to choose should be made mayor. He did not want to impose any disabilities upon them at all. Why should they make any restrictions with regard to women? This argument had already been laid before the House at considerable length, and he would not further discuss it beyond saying that on the whole it placed a disability on women, and therefore he could not accept it.
    MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)said the honourable Gentleman asked why they should impose a disability on women. He contended that it would be absolutely impossible for a woman to conduct the business of a mayor in a municipality. As they were all perfectly well aware the work was one of great difficulty, and one which required great knowledge of men, and an acquaintance with all matters which came forward, and it would be
    766
    absolutely absurd to suppose that any woman could carry out such duties in these new municipalities. The object of this Measure was to improve the government of London, and they did not want to jeopardise the success of the whole Bill by making this new departure. It would, in his opinion, be impossible for a woman to discharge the functions of a mayor, for they must have a man for the office who could control and manage the whole body of the council.
    COLONEL MILWARDwished to add one word in favour of the argument of his honourable Friend, and that was that he desired to know how far they were going that night. They were going to change the vestries of London into municipalities, and what had been proposed was being done by a side issue. They were proposing, in the course of a few minutes Debate, to make this enormous change in the law for the metropolis, and if they did so they would be called upon to make the same change in regard to the municipalities and county councils all over the country, and he was sure that that would not be a wise policy. It had been decided that women were not eligible for county councillors, and if they were going to make this great change, at all events they should give time to the municipalities and the county councils to consider what they were now proposing to do.
    MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid the Debate which had taken place illustrated to a certain extent the disingenuousness of the whole aspect of this Bill. They had this Amendment before them to exclude women from being mayors, and they had been told from the opposite side that the proposal to allow women to be mayors was absurd, and that they ought to exclude the possibility of such an absurd thing happening by this Amendment. He submitted that if this was a perfectly absurd idea surely the Government who were setting up those authorities could trust the authorities themselves to settle the matter from their own point of view. If it was absurd, then those who voted for this Amendment were practically voting for

    767
    the proposal of the Government to set up authorities which they could not trust, and he submitted that the whole argument was one which marked the proposals of the Government as disingenuous.
    MR. BAYLEYcontended that when once they established the principle that women were to be allowed to have seats upon these councils they must allow them to be aldermen, or alderwomen, whichever they like to call it. He hoped his honourable Friend would go to the Division, and if he did he should support him.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid he desired to correct the Member for North Islington upon one point, for he had
    stated that this Amendment handed over the government of municipalities to women. It did nothing of the kind, for it simply allowed the municipalities to exercise their own discretion, which the honourable Member desired to deprive them of.
    MR. MCKENNAheld that whoever might be the candidate for the mayoralty, the council themselves were the best judges whether or not a woman should be selected.
    Question put—
    "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 77.—(Division List No. 105.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Howell, William Tudor

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Doughty, George

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Balfour,RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Kemp, George

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Kimber, Henry

    Barry,RtHnAH.Smith-(Hunts

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Knowles, Lees

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Finch, George H.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Beach,RtHn Sir M. H. (Bristol)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Cornwall)

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Flower, Ernest

    Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry)

    Bethell, Commander

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Forster, Henry William

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Bigwood, James

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Garfit, William

    Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Liverpool)

    Bond, Edward

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gibbs,HnA.G.H(City of Lond.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lowles, John

    Butcher, John George

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

    Gourley,SirEdwardTemperley

    McArthur, William (Cornwall)

    Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    McKillop, James

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Marks, Harry H.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gunter, Colonel

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Collings, Rt. Hon Jesse

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Hardy, Laurence

    Monk, Charles James

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Cox, IrwinEdwardB.(Harrow)

    Heath, James

    More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Henderson, Alexander

    Morton, Arthur H. A(Deptford)

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hill, Sir Edard Stock (Bristol)

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Denny Colonel

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Percy, Earl

    Seeley, Charles Hilton

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Webster,SirR.E.(Isle of Wight)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Priestley,SirW.Overend(Edin.

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Williams, JosephPowell (Birm.

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

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

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh, N.)

    Purvis, Robert

    Stock, James Henry

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Pym, C. Guy

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Young, Commander(Berks,N.)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Strauss, Arthur

    Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomas

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

    Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G(Oxf'dUniv

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Thorburn, Walter

    NOES.

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Baker, Sir John

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Balfour,RtHn.J.Blair(Clackm.

    Harwood, George

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hedderwick,ThomasCharlesH.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Hogan, James Francis

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Billson, Alfred

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Spicer, Albert

    Burns, John

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Steadman, William Charles

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Caldwell, James

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Kinloch, SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Colville, John

    Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'land

    Ure, Alexander

    Cotton-Jodrell,Col. Edw.T. D.

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Walton,JohnLawson(Leeds,S.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Daly, James

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Williams,John Carvell(Notts)

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    McLeod, John

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Maddison, Fred

    Wilson,Frederick W.(Norfolk)

    Dillon, John

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Hudd'rsf'd

    Dunn, Sir William

    Morley,RtHn.John(Montrose)

    Woods, Samuel

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Morton, Edw.J.C.(Devonport)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Moss, Samuel

    Younger, William

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Yoxhall, James Henry

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Gold, Charles

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Gourley, SirEdwardTemperley

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Lough.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Another Amendment proposed to the Amendment—
    "To leave out the words 'election or appointment to any office under this Act,' and insert the words 'the office of alderman or councillor,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
    Question—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment"
    Put, and negatived.
    Question proposed—
    "That the words 'the office of alderman or councillor' be added to the proposed Amendment."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Amendment—
    "To leave out the words 'alderman or.'"—(Mr. E. G. Webster.)
    MR. WEBSTERsaid that the very term alderman implied a man, and did not apply to a woman, and although the House of Commons could do many things it could not change a woman into a man.
    Question put—
    "That the words 'alderman or' stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 155.—(Division List No. 106.)

    AYES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Gold, Charles

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Baker, Sir John

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

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

    Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Balfour, RtHnJ.Blair(Clackm.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Harwood, George

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bigwood, James

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Billson, Alfred

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bond, Edward

    Hogan, James Francis

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

    Spicer, Albert

    Burns, John

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

    Steadman, William Charles

    Burt, Thomas

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Caldwell, James

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Thomas, Alf'd (Glamorgan,E.)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Jones,William(Carnarvonshire

    Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Kemp, George

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Colville, John

    Lafone, Alfred

    Ure, Alexander

    Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.,

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Leuty, Thomas Richmond

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Wills, Sir Henry William

    Dairymple, Sir Charles

    Lough, Thomas

    Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

    Daly, James

    Lowles, John

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T(Huddersf'd

    Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Woods, Samuel

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wylie, Alexander

    Dillon, John

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    McArthur,William(Cornwall)

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Dunn, Sir William

    McKenna, Reginald

    Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    McLeod, John

    Younger, William

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Maddison, Fred

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Fry, Lewis

    Monk Charles James

    Mr. Herbert Robertson and Mr. W. F. D. Smith.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Morley,Rt.Hn.John(Montrose

    Gladstone,Rt. Hn.Herbert J.

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Moss, Samuel

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex. F.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Forster, Henry William

    Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Garfit, William

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Cornwallis,Fiennes StanleyW.

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(CityofLond.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Cruddas, William Donaldson

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Barry,RtHnAH.Smith-(Hunts

    Denny, Colonel

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Goschen,RtHnG. J. (StGeorge's

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Beach.Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Bristol

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Green, WalfordD.(Wednesbury

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Doughty, George

    Greene,HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

    Bethell, Commander

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Gretton; John

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Gunter, Colonel

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Gurdon,Sir William Brampton

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Butcher, John George

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Hamilton, Rt.Hn.Lord George

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Hardy, Laurence

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.

    Finch, George H.

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Chamberlain, J.Austen(Worc'r

    Fisher William Hayes

    Heath, James

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Henderson, Alexander

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Hill, Sir Sdw. Stock (Bristol)

    772

    773

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Howell, William Tudor

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

    Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Sidebotham, J.W. (Cheshire)

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Jessell, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Morton Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Stock, James Henry

    Kimber, Henry

    Myers, William Henry

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Knowles, Lees

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Strachey, Edward

    Lawrence, Sir E.D.(Cornwall)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Strauss, Arthur

    Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Talbot,RtHnJ.G.(Oxfd Univ-

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Thorburn, Walter

    Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Percy, Earl

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Webster, Sir R. E. (IsleofWight)

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    Lowe, Francis William

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Purvis, Robert

    Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)

    McKillop, James

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Marks, Harry H.

    Russell, Gen. F. S.(Cheltenham

    Mr. R. G. Webster and Mr. Boulnois.

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Question—
    "That the words 'the office of councillor' be added to the proposed Amendment to the Amendment"
    Put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed—
    "That the words 'no woman shall be eligible for the office of mayor, but neither sex nor marriage shall be a disqualification for the office of councillor' be here inserted."
    MR. T. H. ROBERTSONsaid the question had been reduced rather to nonsense, and he suggested that the whole Amendment should therefore be negatived.
    MR. DILLONsaid he did not think the British House of Commons had ever appeared in a more ridiculous light. A noble Lord at an early stage in this absurd discussion brought forward as his chief argument against the admission, of women to these so-called boroughs—they were really district councils—that lie did not desire to see them subjected to the disagreeable incidents of a popular election. That was recognised by most Members of the House as the strongest objection to the admission of women on the borough
    774
    councils. But what had the House of Commons now done? It had closed the one door by which women could get on to those borough councils without submitting to the unpleasantness of a popular election. In the whole history of the House of Commons nothing more idiotic had ever been done. If women were qualified to discharge the proposed functions, as had been proved, then the House of Commons had stultified itself by saying that they should not be allowed to act as aldermen when it had already decided that they might act as councillors. One speaker the other night thought he had summed up the question when he pointed out that if they had a woman as mayor she might require to have a mayor-consort. Was it so very ridiculous that there should be such a thing as a mayor-consort in a country that was proud to live under a Queen whose duties were shared by a Prince-Consort? When the woman question was introduced the House of Commons seemed to lose all touch with logic, reason, and common-sense.
    MR. DUNCOMBEquite agreed that the House of Commons had never before appeared so ridiculous, but that was because of the endeavour to place women in a position in which they ought never to be found.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid he agreed with what had been said by the two speakers who immediately preceded him. Although those gentlemen differed in their conclusions they were, he hoped, agreed in condemning what had happened during the last two hours. He did not wish to exasperate the position or intensify the sense of absurdity of what had happened. The matter was perfectly explicable. They had a Debate rather early in the evening and then a Division about half-past eight upon an Amendment altered at the last moment, and as regarded which it might be said that a great many Members did not quite understand what they were voting upon.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There was no alteration.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid that at any rate they had a Division and now they had had a further Division, the numbers taking part in which showed how considerable had been the increase in the course of the last ten minutes. Out of those who came in to add to the Division how many knew what they were voting about? He ventured to say the real issue was lost in the confusion. Those who came in at the last moment were quite uninformed and hurried to the Lobby one way or other according to chance. All he ventured to suggest at that moment was this—this was not the the last word to be spoken on the question in relation to the Bill. When they came to the next stage they might hope to have an issue, clear, distinct, and definite. They would then be well prepared; before then they should know exactly what they were going to vote for, and he for one would be quite prepared to face the verdict of the House of Commons when the issue was so presented. He would only suggest at that moment that they might agree with the conclusion, however lame and impotent some of them might think it to be, at which successive votes had arrived, and then await the next, the inevitable stage, when Members would be able to understand the question that would have to be voted upon with a clearer appreciation of what was before them, and when they might hope to have a real expression, not merely of
    776
    the votes, but of the mind of the House of Commons.
    MR. BURNSsaid two hours ago the House of Commons was almost unanimous that women should be councillors. They were less agreed that women should be aldermen, and they were less agreed still about women being mayors. What did they find now? They found that women as mayors had been eliminated, and women as aldermen had been rejected. He sincerely wished that the House of Commons would not make a fool of itself any longer. It would have been better to have voted upon a clear issue, and to have stated boldly and frankly that, in the opinion of the House of Commons, women were unfit to be mayors, aldermen, or councillors. Not having the courage to do that the House of Commons was now in an ungracious and ungallant way, going to secure by a temporary majority what the mind of the House of Cormmons was directly opposed to a few hours ago. If they did not like women in the sphere of municipal politics, honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House who mostly took this view should be logical, and have the boldness to say they would also deny them the right of election on councils at all. He appealed to the House of Commons to recognise that they were shutting the door to some of the best citizens that they had in that vast city. In many districts in the East End, where one-room tenements prevailed, it was not only not proper, but it was not decent at certain times for male councillors to enter. In regard to disorderly houses, and in regard to many questions of public health administration, women were not only better suited than men, but in many cases they were the only persons qualified to carry on the work. The House of Commons had decided that women should not be dragged through the turmoil of a political struggle, but by being deprived of the right to be aldermen they were subjected to that turmoil. Women were already in the turmoil of political life. What was the Primrose League? Women were now used as the auxiliaries of men in political elections in a way that did them more harm than if they were on local vestries. At the last General Election

    777
    one would have thought that Battersea was the Court of King Arthur, and that he was Sir Galahad with all the noble dames anxious to help or oppose him. Women were useful to grind the axes of political mediocrities or to help titled nobodies to oust men who devoted their time and interests to municipal life; but when they asked that women should take their proper place in local municipal life they were told that they were degrading English womanhood. That was not true. The curse of English municipal life was that women did not take that interest in local life they ought, but if they were given an opportunity of voting for the ablest of their sisters their apathy and indifference would be broken down. Women had never been identified with jobbery or maladministration, and he asked the House of Commons, on behalf of hundreds of wealthy women with leisure, means, and inclination, who only wanted the opportunity to help their poorer sisters, to rise to its true level and to put underneath the young bloods who, to the permanent belittlement of women, wished to prevent them taking a part in local municipal life.
    SIR. E. CLARKEsaid that, much as he regretted the difficulty the Committee had got into, he did not think that it had fairly exposed itself to the affronts offered to it by the honourable Member for Battersea, and he thought he would be showing more respect to the Committee if he left some of the honourable Member's observations absolutely without reference. But his right honourable Friend had made a much more serious and practical contribution to the discussion. He did not agree with him, however, that the Committee in the last two Divisions was unaware of the opinion it was expressing. He thought that the majority of the Committee was of opinion, and deliberately desired to express it, that municipal offices could not usefully be filled by women. He, for one, should be extremely glad if the Amendment were now withdrawn, and if the deliberate expression of the opinion of the Committee would be reserved until the Report stage, when there would be plenty of time to consider it. It was perfectly true that a very great deal of work in connection with the administration of affairs in London could best be done by women,
    778
    but the women who could do that work best and with most devotion and sincerity were precisely the women who would never stand as candidates at the elections, and who had no desire to hold official positions connected with administrative work. There was plenty of opportunity for all local bodies to obtain for themselves the loyal, self-sacrificing, and devoted work of women. They should lose nothing whatever by keeping to the opinion which he thought the majority of the Committee strongly entertained, namely, that it would be a great mistake to permit the candidature of women at municipal elections. He sincerely hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn in order that the matter might be considered on Report.
    MR. HALDANEsaid that the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth had spoken in a very reasonable and temperate way in asking that the ultimate decision of the question should be deferred. He would, however, remind the Committee that there was much more in the Amendment than the mere question of transferring new powers to women. Clause 4 abolished vestries and district boards, but on those bodies women were doing, and had been doing for many years, most difficult work, and it appeared to him that if the Amendment were carried it would not only shut out women from the new councils, but would deprive them of the opportunity for work which they had exercised for the good of London. Women had a record of splendid work on school boards, vestries, and district boards, and they ought not to be deprived of the positions they at present occupied to the great advantage of their fellow citizens. He thought it would be well that this question should be reconsidered, and he entirely reciprocated the sentiment of the honourable and learned Member for Plymouth, that the Amendment should be withdrawn until the Report stage.
    *MR. MARKSsaid that the honourable Member for Battersea, in his extreme enthusiasm, had allowed himself to be carried away some considerable distance from the point. The honourable Member, he was sure unintentionally, misled the Committee with reference to the vote on the Amendment of the

    779
    honourable Member for West Marylebone. He said the Committee dealt with it almost unanimously, but it was carried only by a majority of 26. He also said that the vote was given under a misapprehension, but in his opinion the issue was perfectly well understood. It had been contended in the course of the Debate that the bodies which the Bill proposed to create should not be called boroughs. He quite admitted they should not be called boroughs unless they were going to be boroughs. If they were to be then the restrictions which applied to other similar bodies should also apply to them. In the provinces there were no lady mayors or lady aldermen or lady councillors. If they are given a constitution out of keeping with the existing boroughs there will be something more than a colour of foundation for the statement that they were never intended to be boroughs in fact, but were called by the name in order to conciliate a certain body of opinion, and to gild a pill not otherwise easily swallowed.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As I have already stated, on the question of substance the Government can give no guidance to the Committee, and I am not sure that the Committee is not all the better for it. On the question of form, I do not think there is anything to be gained by prolonging this discussion. It is clear, after the last Division, that the real decision on this subject cannot be arrived at at this stage, but must be reserved for the Report stage, because whatever the decision of the Committee on the Amendment now before us may be, it is impossible for the Bill to stand as it is, for the reason that it leaves the decision whether women can be aldermen to the decision of a court of law. Manifestly that cannot stand. If we mean to exclude women, we must definitely my that women are not to be mayors, or aldermen, or councillors, or we may say that women may be councillors but not aldermen or mayors, or that they may be councillors and aldermen but not mayors. Whatever we say, we must say distinctly, but by the last Division we have precluded ourselves from saying that on the Committee stage. It is obvious that with such a strong division of opinion the subject must come up again,
    780
    and after the last Division any further discussion on this stage cannot be final or conclusive, and cannot even help to a final and conclusive decision on the next stage. I should, therefore, earnestly suggest to the Committee either that the Amendment should be withdrawn, or that we should now divide on it. Perhaps some honourable Gentleman may object to its being withdrawn, but let the Amendment be either withdrawn or let us divide, as it is clear that any further discussion is really only a waste of time.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not surprised that the right honourable Gentleman has risen, because the Committee finds itself in a position of considerable embarrassment and, indeed, bewilderment. We quite understand the reservation that the right honourable Gentleman makes on behalf of the Government as to the opinion of the Government on the merits of the question itself; but the right honourable Gentleman now proposes that we should not continue the discussion any longer, and that we should divide on the Amendment, or allow it to be withdrawn. I would venture to make a strong appeal to the Committee to follow the latter of these two alternatives. I think if we were to vote in our present frame of mind we should do so with the knowledge and intention that our decision would be reviewed and possibly reversed at a future stage. If it is the general opinion of the Committee that neither side to the controversy would accept a decision come to now as final and definitive, then it would be much more dignified and a much more reasonable course to allow this Amendment to be withdrawn, and that we should postpone the whole question, without committing ourselves one way or the other to a later stage. I venture to urge this on the Committee from the perfectly impartial position of one who, being somewhat astonished at the strange regions into which the discussion of the Amendment has drifted, has not taken part in any of the Debates.
    Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In clause 2, page 1, line 28, to leave out 'an Order in Council under this Act,' and insert 'the London County Council.'"—(Captain Norton)
    CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that the greater part of the duties set forth in the section were now performed by the London County Council to the entire satisfaction of the areas concerned without friction of any kind. Moreover, those powers were inherited by the London County Council from the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Council now objected to being deprived of those powers which they had successfully performed. The Council had put those powers into force in the City, and had reduced the wards in connection with the Board of Guardians from 94 to 50, with the entire concurrence of the Local Government Board, and with a. general acknowledgment that it was a step in the right direction. The Council also acted at Clapham to the complete satisfaction of all concerned, and was in the habit of dealing with the various wards of outlying vestries. Surely there could be no body better suited for the work than the County Council, which consisted of elected representatives from every part of London. It was proposed in the Bill to substitute the Privy Council for the County Council, and he thought he was justified in asking what the Privy Council in that instance meant. He presumed it meant that a Committee of the Privy Council would appoint Commissioners to carry out the work. He thought they were entitled to know whom they were to be. Were they to be briefless barristers, roving from one part of London to another, or were they to act collectively. There would be no appeal from the decision of such Commissioners, though there would be an appeal from the County Council's decision to the Local Government Board.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    SIR R. FINLAYsaid that the Committee had already decided that the Committee of the Privy Council should determine the question of boundaries, and the proposal of the honourable and gallant Member was that when
    782
    the new boroughs were set up they should be divided into wards by another authority. He put it to the honourable and gallant Member that that was an extraordinary proposal to make. If the Committee left it to an Order in Council to fix the boroughs, they might surely leave it to the same authority to decide how the boroughs should be divided into wards. The Amendment could not possibly be accepted.
    MR. BUXTONsaid there was a great deal of force in what fell from the Solicitor-General, but he thought there was some force also in the Amendment. When they came a little further on in the clause the Committee would then have an opportunity of discussing whether, where boundaries had to be altered, greater elasticity should not be given. He asked his honourable and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment now, but to move it later.
    MR. LOUGHthought that the Solicitor-General did not entirely appreciate the argument of his honourable and gallant Friend. The Amendment did not really conflict with the original setting up of the boroughs by Order in Council. What the Amendment referred to was not the constitution of the boroughs, but that the internal arrangements should be left to some permanent authority familiar with local details. That was really the point in vogue. An Order in Council was very well to do definite work, but it did not continue in existence, and it would not be ready to adjust necessary internal boundaries.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICEasked what was the intention of the Bill as it stood. The Committee decided, rightly or wrongly, that the Privy Council should have the fixing of the boundaries. He quite agreed that the authority which in the first instance fixed the boundaries should be allowed to settle the wards, but he could not make out from the Bill what was proposed with regard to any subsequent alteration that might be rendered necessary.
    SIR R. FINLAYsaid he would be rather anticipating a discussion which would arise later by entering into that subject at present. The Amendment had reference to the best authority

    783
    for dealing with alterations after the boroughs had been constituted, and that would be a matter for subsequent consideration.
    MR. ASQUITH: There is in the Bill no provision or machinery for subsequent alterations. I would, however, recommend my honourable and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment, but I reserve the right to make or support suggestions on the point later.
    CAPTIAN NORTONsaid he withdrew his Amendment on the understanding that Amendments further down would not be prejudiced.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Clause 2, page 1, line 29, to leave out from 'wards' to 'and' in page 2, line 1, and insert 'each of which wards shall elect one councillor.'"—(Mr. H. Robertson.)
    MR. H. ROBERTSONsaid that the Amendment remedied two defects. He felt convinced that if the Government could see their way to divide the districts into single-member wards there would be much more interest in local elections, and each member would have a greater interest in the part of the constituency which he represented. The acceptance of the Amendment would also do away with the election of a third of the councillors every year, and would compel triennial elections. At present they had vestry elections, elections for guardians, elections for the school board, county council elections, and usually a Parliamentary election thrown in, and he was quite convinced that that was one of the reasons which prevented people taking an interest in them. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would see his way to have elections only once in three years. He also hoped that the number of councillors in each particular ward would be decreased.
    SIR R. FINLAYsaid he did not propose to enter into the question as to whether elections should be held triennially or whether a third of the councillors should be elected every year, as that would be directly raised by another Amendment. The proposal in the Amendment was that each borough should be divided into as many wards as there were members of the council.
    784
    Surely that was a startling proposal. If there were 50 or 60 councillors in a borough it meant that number of wards. He would suggest that the proper way to deal with the question was to leave it to be dealt with after local inquiry by an Order in Council.
    MR. STUARTsaid that in one of the boroughs which they were creating—Hampstead—there were 10,000 rated houses and 54 councillors, which gave a little over 200 rated houses to each member. In Chelsea there were 12,300 rated houses, which it would be found would give about 240 rated houses to each councillor. To have such a small electorate as that was not a reasonable or hopeful method of procedure.
    Another Amendment proposed—
    "In page 1, line 30, to leave out from the word 'ward' to the word 'regard' in page 2, line 1.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
    MR. BUXTONsaid that the object of the Amendment was to raise the question whether the whole of the members should go out triennially or only a third every year. It was not a Party question, or a question involving principle. It was purely a question as to the best method by which the municipalities could carry out their work efficiently. The proposal in the Bill was taken from the Municipal Corporations Act. Since that Act was passed there were other Acts passed in which the subject had been dealt with, and the tendency of the House of Commons since had been in the opposite direction. Under the Education Act of 1870 the whole of the members were to be elected for three years. In the Local Government Act of 1898 the House of Commons again decided that it would be better for the County Council to go out every three years instead of having annual elections. What was still more significant was that, under the Act of 1894, guardians were allowed the option of having annual or triennial elections, and he believed, at all events as regarded London, that every single board of guardians adopted the triennial system. Only the other day the House of Commons, without discussion or opposition, gave the same option. The honourable Member for Hackney had well pointed out that there were

    785
    too many elections in London, with the result that the amount of public interest shown in them was very small. The ratepayers no sooner got out of one election than they were in the midst of another, and the apathy manifested on the part of electors at election times could be traced to the multiplicity of elections. It was needful that some method should be devised to reduce their number. In 1894, for instance, there was a Parliamentary election, a school board election, a county council election, the guardians elections, and the vestry elections. He was aware that the arguments used in favour of the present system was that it conduced to continuity of policy, but this continuity of policy not infrequently meant opportunities for jobbery. The ratepayers should have the opportunity to reverse this continuity of policy on occasion. If honourable Members would take the trouble to read the Debates which took place on the County Council Act of 1888, they would there find that the arguments used by the Government in favour of aldermen was that by their appointment continuity of policy would be secured. Everyone would admit that in the majority of local bodies there was always a sufficient number of the older members left after the election to carry on that continuity of policy which was to the advantage of the locality. Moreover, the existence of aldermen would secure sufficient continuity it had been estimated that the official expenses in connection with the whole of the elections would be something between £10,000 and £15,000. The probabilities were that it would be considerably larger, and in addition there were, of course, the expenses of the candidates themselves. On the ground, therefore, of the saving of cost, both to the rates and to the candidates, he submitted that triennial elections would be an improvement. In moving his Amendment he trusted the Government would treat this as a non-Party question.
    *MR. WHITMOREopposed the Amendment, but with diffidence, as he felt that it raised a question which it was very difficult to come to a conclusive opinion upon. He admitted the strength of the arguments in favour of triennial elections. He could not con-
    786
    trovert those arguments, but there were other arguments which, he submitted, in their combined weight rather told in favour of annual elections. If the County Council election took place each year they might get a smaller number of electors to come to the poll, but they would not get a smaller number of electors who were interested in the questions involved. For one thing, if they had a triennial election there was great temptation to make it a means for political propaganda on both sides, and for political agencies to bring their forces to bear and to raise larger issues than ought to be voted upon at these local elections. Again, suppose there was some great wave of popular feeling on one particular question. Surely it would be a pity to get rid of the whole body on account of it. It would be better that in each year any particular subject should be discussed and its value gauged, and that only one-third of the body should be affected by the discussion. The result of triennial elections in the selection of aldermen was another important consideration. There would be much more probability of their being chosen for Party reasons. Triennial elections would give a great impetus to outside agencies and political cries and discourage the quiet men from standing. The County Council election had already become practically a political one, and he did not want the political element to be imported into the elections for the municipal councils. No doubt if the elections were triennial a larger number of voters would be got to the polls, but they would not be got there by legitimate means or for proper purposes, and in that way great damage would be done to that which they all should have at heart—namely, the return of the best men, irrespective of Party politics.
    MR. BANBURYsaid he could not agree with his honourable Friend who had just spoken. He supposed the object both sides had at heart was to promote local feeling, and the question was, what was the best way of doing it? London was at present overwhelmed with elections, and when a voter was asked to go to the poll he invariably replied, "I have no time; I am always voting." By annual elections the apathy of the electors would be perpetuated, but

    787
    with triennial elections there would be some chance of getting them to take an interest in local matters. There would be no difference in electioneering motives if the elections were triennial. In the majority of the constituencies the annual elections were always governed by politics.
    LORD E. FITZMAURICEreminded the Committee of the discussions upon this point in connection with the Bill of 1894. That Bill went backwards and forwards several times between that House and another place, and the arguments in favour of the retirement of all the members of a council after three years were felt to be so strong that a compromise was accepted, and power was given to the councils to decide the point themselves. In the county with whose administration he was connected—Wiltshire—every rural council had adopted the privilege given to them, and they did so at once, and with practical unanimity. He believed that very largely the same state of things prevailed in other counties. That, surely, was a strong proof that retirement of the whole body of members every third year was an exceedingly popular and democratic measure. A good deal had been said about continuity, but the whole argument on that point told in favour of the Amendment. Anyone who had to do with the administration of affairs in rural and urban districts would agree with him that when one-third of the body retired every year they always had the terror of the November election dangled before them, and large and absolutely necessary schemes for the benefit of the locality were constantly liable to be wrecked owing to the enormous temptation to postpone them until after the election; whereas, if the election was triennial—he wished it could be for five years—the candidates would be able to put a policy before the whole of the electors, and, if returned, carry out that policy without obstruction and opposition. The argument with regard to the cost of the elections was also an important one. It cost almost as much to return one-third of the members as it did to return the whole body. The urban council of which he was a member, by the adoption of triennial elections, had
    788
    saved the ratepayers a sum equal to a rate of a halfpenny in the £. He thought all the arguments were in favour of his honourable Friend's Amendment.
    THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: I have listened with astonishment to the speech just delivered. The noble Lord says that under the Bill we are going to make an appeal every year to the electors, and he asks us to think what the result will be. The result will be that the electors will have an opportunity of criticising and pronouncing upon the policy of the local authority once a year, and he complains of that.
    LOAD E. FITZMAURICE: No.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Then what on earth does the noble Lord mean by popular local government?
    LORD E. FITZMAURICE: Is this House elected every year?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, it is not, but I understand a great man honourable Members opposite are in favour of its being elected every year. It does seem to me a most striking contention on the part of the noble Lord that this proposal is to be rejected because it gives the people an opportunity of pronouncing upon the work of the local authority once in a year. There are two other objections made against the proposal, but, having regard to the experience of town councils in the provinces, I cannot see any ground for them. I deny that it would be possible, as suggested, to make a clean sweep of a council. The utmost you can hope to do is to change two or three places. It leaves open the possibility of continuity, but there is not the temptation to those politicians who regard local government as purely a sphere for political operations. The present; system has been in operation for 60 years, and I do not believe there is anyone connected with municipal government who wishes to change it. With regard to the cost, you would have fewer

    789
    contests under the system of annual elections than under the system of triennial elections, when every seat would probably be contested. Speaking from some provincial experience, I do not believe there is anyone who would wish to change for the system proposed by the honourable Gentleman opposite.
    *MR. McKENNAsaid he had been consulting the opinions of great men who had spoken on this subject in former times, and amongst others he had turned to the right honourable Gentleman who had just sat down. He found that in 1888 the Secretary for the Colonies had thus expressed himself—
    "The experience of the United States showed that when the people were constantly being called upon to vote at elections, the whole matter fell into the hands of caucuses and machine politicians, a state of things which had never happened in this country, and which he, for one, would extremely deprecate."
    The experience of the right honourable Gentleman on matters of local government was more recent in 1888 than it was to-day, and he should therefore prefer to accept the opinion of 1888 rather than the directly contrary one which had just been expressed.
    CAPTAIN JESSELsaid it was possible that if the elections were triennial more people would take an interest in them. The Local Government Act of 1894 gave boards of guardians the option of deciding whether their elections should be annual of triennial, and every board of guardians in London decided in favour of triennial elections. It had been decided by the Committee to have aldermen, and he thought the mere fact of aldermen being on the boards would ensure continuity of policy. He could not conceive any circumstance by which every old member of a board would be defeated at the election. It was certain that, if not a majority, at any rate a great many of them would be re-elected. It could not be denied that all the municipal elections in London were fought on political lines,
    790
    and he did not see how they could be more political if held every three years than they were now. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, or allow the district boards of the new boroughs the option of choosing for themselves.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  On the Order for the adjourned Debate on the Second Heading of this Bill,
  SIR W. LAWSONasked whether the Government intended to make any progress with the Bill or not, for it had now appeared on the Order Paper for many-weeks.
  MR. CALDWELL: Will it be taken before Whitsuntide?
  THE. FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My learned Friend the Attorney-General is anxious that it should be taken as soon as possible. But I cannot give a, definite answer on a matter to which I have given little attention myself.

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    CLAUSE 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday 14th June.
  BUSINESS DEFERRED.
    OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL.
    Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [22nd March] further adjourned till Thursday 11th May.
    UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Adjourned Debate on Second Reading, [9th March] further adjourned till Monday next.
    FINANCE BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    FARNLEY TYAS MARRIAGES BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
    TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
    Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
    PENSIONS (OLD-AGE) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 11th May.
    OLD-AGE PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 11th May.
    OLD-AGE PENSIONS (No. 3) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 11th May.
    OLD-AGE PENSIONS (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 11th May.
    TANCRED'S CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    LIMITATIONS BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

    PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
    House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.