§ As amended, considered.
§ MR. MOON) (St. Pancras, N.I think that the attitude of those who have oft-times the control of public records is hardly so sympathetic as it should be, and they do not take that care and interest in them which they should. I think, therefore, that the Amendment I have on the Paper is necessary, especially the last portion empowering new borough councils to spend money in the proper registration of their records.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order The hon. Member cannot, move the last portion, as it clearly involves a charge upon the rates.
§ MR. MOONThen I beg to move the first portion of the clause down to the word "for their preservation."
New clause—
No person shall be eligible as borough councillor who bolds any office the salary of which is paid either wholly or partly out of funds provided either directly or indirectly out of the rates or out of the county fund. It shall be the duty of every new borough council formed under this Act by the incorporation of a single parish to take effectual measures for the care and preservation of all vestry minutes, rate books, valuation books, maps, and all other records belonging to the civil parish, and in cases when a new borough council is formed by the incorporation of several parishes or district boards, it shall he the duty of the new borough council to collect the records belonging to the said parishes and district boards, and to take measures for their preservation. And it shall be lawful for any new borough council to expend money out of the rates fir the preparation and printing of inventories and calendars of such documents which may be deemed to be of historical or public interest."—(Mr. Moon.)brought up, and read the first time.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That the clause be read a second time.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester E.I am in hearty sympathy with my hon. friend. I think indeed, a question has already been put to me in the House on the general subject, and that I have given a specific answer. I do not think it would be desirable to attempt to deal with the preservation of ancient records in a clause of this kind, simply in reference to the case of London, and not in reference to the country at large. I think it is true that all over the country we have a very imperfect record of historic documents, and probably the people who are day by day in occupation of their office do not devote that attention and money that is required in order to keep in order valuable and historic documents which throw a very useful light upon the past. I do not think that anything will be gained for the object which my friend has in view by adopting even only the words he is allowed to move. He cannot move the latter part of his proposed Amendment because that would be out of order, and with regard to the other portion I think the whole matter is amply safeguarded by present legislation. The whole subject is at present under investigation, and a Report will shortly be represented upon which practical steps will, probably, be taken, applying to the whole of the country.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)After the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman I do not propose to support the Amendment. I hear with great pleasure the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and, as he realises the importance of the matter and is only deterred from dealing with it by the fact that it should be dealt with comprehensively, I hope that when he does deal with the matter, having regard to the great importance of the question, he will precede any step which he intends to take by having a systematic inquiry.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
462§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)The object of the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper is to provide an easy, expeditious and cheap method of dealing with any questions of law that may arise with reference to this Bill. The proposed clause is merely a reproduction of Clause 8, which was put into the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894. In both cases, but especially as regards the Act of 1888, that clause has been largely availed of and has been found very useful. I do not think anyone can object to the clause, because it does not make this mode of raising a question exclusive, but merely provides that it shall be raised in accordance with the precedent I have referred to. I beg to move the clause.
New clause—
If any question arises, or is about to arise, as to whether any power, duty, or liability is or is not transferred by or under this Act to the council of any metropolitan borough, or any property is or is not vested in any such council, that question, without prejudice to any other mode of trying it, may, on the application of the council, be submitted for decision to the High Court in such summary manner as, subject to any rules of Court, may be directed by the Court; and the Court, after hearing such parties and taking such evidence (if any) as it thinks just, shall decide the question."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)brought up and read the first time.
§
Motion made and Question proposed—
That the clause be now read a second time.
§ THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)I doubt whether this clause will be as necessary as the one in the Acts of 1888 and 1894; at the same time I have no objection to it whatever.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read the first and second time, and added.
§ SIR R. B. FINLAYThe Amendment I now propose is a drafting Amendment, and at the same time rests upon the principle which I understood the House and Committee adopted, namely, that the whole of the county outside the City is to be comprised in the Schedule of the Bill. That being so, the wording of the section is not very applicable to the case, and this Amendment is merely to make it applicable.
§
Amendment proposed—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 20, after 'administrator,' to insert 'and to establish and incorporate a council for each of the boroughs so formed.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)The object of these Amendments taken altogether is to get rid of any friction that is likely to arise in the creation of areas outside London. That is one of the objects for which the Bill was introduced, and I am bound to say that the most extraordinary state of things that was ever seen in this House occurred on the last evening of this discussion, when we had about 17 areas scheduled in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury cut and carved out the rest of London at his own sweet will. What was done was done, I am glad to say, in a very satisfactory manner, and I do not propose to oppose this Amendment. I am glad now that there is so little left for the Commissioners to deal with, and I think we ought to ask the Government whether, under the circumstances, it is necessary to appoint special Commissioners.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURIt seems to me the hon. Gentleman is rather hard to please. He first congratulates the Government on carving up the boroughs, and then he objects to the way in which it is done. The arrangement has been eminently successful. It was impossible to lay down a hard and fast proposition, and I think we have approached the limit of perfection as nearly as poor human nature can be expected to approach it. We may confidently expect that when the Schedule does appear it will embrace nearly all London. I think this Amendment should he accepted.
§ *COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)The whole of London is included, except, perhaps, Stoke Newington.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWe have arranged for that.
§ *COLONEL HUGHESIf that is to be a separate borough, I think it ought to be so decided.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLThe Solicitor-General said that his Amendment was to adapt the Bill to the Schedule. The Schedule is not complete, and I do not think there is anything relating to the way in which Stoke Newington is to he dealt with. That being so, I do think the Committee is entitled to ask the Government now how they intend to proceed in that matter.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI should suggest that that should be reserved till we reach the Schedule, when it will be open to hon. Members to discuss this matter and modify the Schedule; in which case we shall have to remodel the Bill.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Other Amendments made.
§
Amendment proposed—
In Clause 1, page 1, line 21, to leave out sub-section (b)."—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
§ *COLONEL HUGHESI want to know what is going to be done in Stoke Newington. I do not see how such cases as Stoke Newington can be dealt with if this sub-section is taken out. If Stoke Newington, with a population of only 30,000 or 40,000, is to be made into a borough, why should not Plumstead, with a population of 62,000, have the same privileges?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy hon. friend will, I think, see that if I complied with his desire I would be gradually dragged into a most inconvenient discussion on the Schedule. My hon. friend will have full opportunity on the Schedule of explaining his views in regard to Stoke Newington and Plumstead, and I very earnestly hope that he will reserve to that occasion any controversial matter he may desire to bring forward.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)In discussing this question of the eligibility of women to serve as aldermen or councillors in the new borough councils, I hope that the House will remain in the same good temper which prevailed when the subject was under discussion on a former occasion. I believe it is admitted on all hands that it is neces- 465 sary that in the Bill this question should be settled by express words. As the Bill now stands there arc various opinions as to what it effects. Some hold that women are clearly eligible to sit as councillors, but not as aldermen; while others hold that women are not only eligible to sit as councillors and aldermen, but are eligible even to become mayors. I think it is well to dismiss the question altogether of the interpretation of the Bill as it stands, and to decide expressly whether women shall be eligible to sit as councillors and aldermen. These councils which we are now creating will take over with very little alteration the work of the existing vestries. It may be that in the future that work will be enlarged, and I shall be glad to see every opportunity seized to increase the scope of the work; but I do not think that the work will be seriously enlarged for sonar time. Now, on the vestries as at present constituted women sit. They are eligible to be elected, and they are elected. I find there is a large concurrence of opinion from those who have had practical experience of the work of women on vestries that there is much appropriate work for them to do, which cannot be discharged with equal qualifications and ability by the male members of the councils. The most important work of the new borough councils for a long time will be sanitary work; and in relation to the provision of sanitation, the revision of existing deficiencies, suggestions for the amendment of sanitary legislation, and, above all, sanitary inspection and supervision, women have shown themselves in the vestries to be pre-eminently qualified. I am aware that in some vestries—at least in one vestry—a motion has been carried against the admission of women to the councils. We should take that for what it is worth; but against the significance attached to the fact that the adverse motion had been carried by a majority in the Kensington Vestry, I would put this circumstance, that even while the Bill has been passing through the House there have been elections to the vestries all over London, and that a woman has been elected to sit in that particular vestry, and in the case of other vestries women have been elected. The electors therefore have attested their desire that women should be eligible to sit in vestries and councils. When the House considers the character 466 of vestry work, the experience we have had of women sitting on the vestries, and this happy state of opinion on the part of the electors, that they at least desire that women should remain eligible, would it not be a very strong action on the part of the House to declare that, although they had been eligible and had served with usefulness, and even with distinction, in the past, they should be no longer eligible? I call scarcely believe that a majority in this House will, under these circumstances, take away the franchise and the eligibility which have been found to be a valuable element in the constitution of the vestries. We now come to the question of aldermen, which is a different question, because hitherto the vestries have had no aldermen. There are several Members in this House who object to aldermen altogether, but we cannot enter on that question now, since the House has decided to accept the principle that aldermen are to form part of the new boroughs. But the question arises whether women as well as men should be eligible to serve as aldermen. Now I hold that the work to be discharged justifies the eligibility of women as aldermen as much as councillors. There is this difference only between the two eases. Women as councillors might have to undergo contested elections, whereas women as aldermen will obtain their position by the co-option of the elected members of the council. I could conceive many Members objecting to women having to face the exigencies and experiences of a contested election, but that argument, whatever it is worth, does not at all apply to women being declared eligible to serve as aldermen. Many are quite ready to have women as aldermen who would hesitate to have them as councillors, and I cannot see any possible reason why those who want women to be councillors can object to women being aldermen. My proposal goes no fort her than that. Some desire that women should be eligible as mayors, but I make no such proposition. There is one substantial reason why the line should be drawn at mayors, and that is, that the mayors of the new councils will be ex officio justices of the peace. Now, what reason is there why women who are now eligible as vestry-women and councillors should not be aldermen? The only reason alleged, that I know of, is the suggestion that if this 467 provision is introduced into the constitution of the metropolitan boroughs it will be necessary to carry their eligibility into all the municipal boroughs throughout the length and breadth of the country. I see no necessity for carrying that eligibility further than is now proposed, unless it is found that the experiment now suggested works well, and if it works well I do not know why it should not be so extended. But the reason for adopting the proposal here is, it is something that stands by itself, and does not require that the experiment should be carried further than it is now proposed to be carried. The question of the boroughs in the country may be considered in the future if the experience of London warrants making the same proposal in respect to these country boroughs. I beg to propose the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 2, by inserting after the word 'councillors,' the words 'and no person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected or being an alderman or a councillor.'"—(Mr. Courtney.)
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ *MR. E. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)I do not at all quarrel with the decision which has placed my right hon. friend in front of me, because he has put the issue before the House in a form which, if different from mine, is, at all events, a definite issue, and one on which the House can come to a decision, and set the matter at rest. The House will recollect that the question whether women should be eligible as councillors, aldermen, or mayors was practically left at the close of the debate in the state precisely where it was when the Bill was introduced. There were three Divisions taken in Committee, each contradicting the other, and the whole question was left in a hopeless tangle from which my right hon. friend the Leader of the House promised to extricate it on the Report stage. I should like to remind the House that on the Second Reading of the Bill the First Lord of the Treasury, in answer to a question, said there was no doubt that under the Bill women could sit as councillors, but that, there was considerable doubt as to whether they could sit as mayors or aldermen. 468 But I am anxious that they should not sit either as councillors or aldermen. I am aware that the action which I have taken in this matter is not approved of by that portion of the fair sex which set up a claim to be on an equality with men in most things, if not in all, and who are everlastingly proclaiming to the world their rights and their wrongs. On the other hand, I feel satisfied in my own mind that if the House were to reject the proposal before it the bulk of the women in the country would be glad. The proposal to drag them and their sisters into municipal and political warfare—because it must come to this—is not regarded with favour by the great majority of women throughout the country. I read with some interest the report of a meeting held the other day by the Women's Liberal Federation, at which one of the speakers, a woman, denounced as "venomous persons" those who are opposed to the women's franchise. I am bound to assume I am one of those "venomous persons" whom these ladies would like to see out of Parliament; and I have no doubt my punishment will come in due course when the Government sees fit to dissolve Parliament. My right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin has said that women are eminently qualified to undertake the duties which would be imposed on the councils of these new boroughs. He alluded to only one duty, the supervision of sanitation. But I should like to ask my right hon. friend, what do women know about building operations, street and road-making, drain-making, sewer-inspection, rate-making, and the assessment of houses? I could enumerate an infinity of other duties which, it is clear to my mind, a woman cannot discharge. It is true, I admit, that women already sit on some of the metropolitan vestries, and my right hon. friend says they have served with distinction. Well, that is not my experience. I could count on my fingers the women who sit on vestries in the metropolis, and my experience is that they are failures, and, in addition to that, they are practically nonentities.—["Oh! oh!" and "Hear! hear!"]—I quite understand that those hon. Members who are in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition object to my describing these women as "failures" and "nonentities," but that is, of course, my personal opinion. We do not want these ladies on the borough 469 councils. I believe the majority of the Members who desire to see this Bill effective want to have men elected on these new councils who have business capabilities, who have been trained to public life, and who would bring to bear on the deliberations and decisions of these councils practical experience. I am aware that women sit on boards of guardians throughout the country, and am perfectly willing to admit that they do very good service on these boards. There are duties in connection with the working of boards of guardians which women can very properly undertake, especially amongst the women and children in the workhouses, and on the outdoor roll. But, because on some of these bodies women are doing good service, is that any good reason why they should be admitted to other spheres where, in my view, they would be altogether out of place? I venture to say that, if their claim to sit on the new borough councils is admitted, and the House this evening says by its vote that they shall be eligible for these councils, their ambition will lead them to still higher flights. They will want the Parliamentary franchise, and even other higher privileges. At the risk of producing another shudder in the breast of the Leader of the House, I must repeat that if the House grants the privilege to women of sitting as councillors or alder-men in these councils, there is no logical! reason whatever for excluding them here-after from the House of Commons itself. At a meeting which was held in London within the last few days of a great number of ladies who are in favour of this privilege being accorded to them, and where some gentlemen more or less prominent in Parliament were present, the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth made a characteristic speech, in which he said that the House of Commons was a curious body (which we all admit, of course)—that one day it passed a law against gambling, and the next day it adjourned for the Derby. And the hon. Baronet went on to say that if women sat in Parliament they would do nothing so inconsistent as that. He added that women were as fit as males were to sit in Parliament. Sir Arthur Arnold, at the same meeting, said he believed strongly that the office of Archbishop of Canterbury should be open to women. I think that reduces the matter almost to an absurdity. So that if the women themselves do not 470 aspire to priestly office, there are some men who would claim that for them. If we admit women as councillors to the new boroughs, it is practically impossible to exclude them from the offices of aldermen and mayor. All I can say is that if in addition to the House allowing women to sit as councilors they also allow that they should be eligible as mayors and aldermen, then the whole thing will be reduced to an absurdity and a farce. I only know one case where a woman has been elected as a mayor, and that was in New Zealand, where women have the franchise and other privileges. I hold in my hand a letter in which it is stated:—
There has been only one Lady Mayor in New Zealand. She was Mrs. Yates, and she held office in the town of onehunga, near Auckland, in the year 1894. The proceedings at her local Council were often ill-tempered and disorderly, and though she has since asked the ratepayers to re-elect her they have not done so.Well, I do not want myself to see an imitation of that kind in this country. The great argument which I venture to use against women being admitted is that they do not at present sit on the provincial municipalities, nor on the London County Council; but I cannot for a moment believe that the House of Commons, having admitted women into active public life in the borough councils, could deny them the privilege of sitting in provincial municipalities. For my part, I sincerely hope that the House will come to a definite issue upon this subject, and that they will resolve that women are not entitled to be either councillors, aldermen, or mayors.
§ *SIR H.H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)I hope the House will allow me to say a word or two on this question, because I can claim some responsibility for the legislation which at present prevails with reference to the rural districts, the urban districts, and London, because I think it was by the Act of 1894 that all these steps were taken. There is no doubt this question with reference to the position of women requires to be dealt with rather more straightforwardly than it has been by this House. There has been a desire, perhaps not an unnatural desire having regard to some considerations, to shirk the question, and the House has adopted a variety of methods from time to time of postponing anything like a 471 straightforward decision upon the question, which, after all, is of great importance; and I think it is due to the country and to the House of Commons, if the House has views, whether they be adverse or favourable, that they should state them in the open. I would draw a line in the first instance, in what I have to say to-night, between administrative and legislative work. The first step in what is called the enfranchisement of women, but what I would rather call the first step in the State availing itself of the services of women, was in the constitution of school boards, and I do not think that anybody who has served on school boards and knows any-thing of the working of school board education would deny the fact that the presence of women on school boards has been of very great value with reference to female education. Personally, I go so far as to say that I do not think a school board is properly constituted unless there is a woman upon that school board. And I am satisfied that, strong as men may be, and wise as men may be, they never will be able to get that control over female education which an efficient school board ought to have unless they are assisted by ladies in carrying out the administration. Well, Sir, when I went to the Local Government Board I found that there was a considerable difference of legal opinion as to whether women were capable of being elected on boards of guardians. The Local Government Board had avoided, I think under legal advice, giving any very definite opinion upon this question, but I felt so strongly on the point that I issued a circular to the various boards of guardians strongly recommending the election of women on boards of guardians. I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman has just uttered with reference to the great value—I may say the inestimable value—of women upon boards of guardians. So long as you have pauper children, and so long as you have pauper women, you are bound to have women placed in a position of responsibility and control with reference to the management of workhouses and the relief of the poor. The next important step was when, in the Act of 1894, we extended the powers, or rather altered the constitution, of boards of guardians, and made them, in fact, rural councils, reconstructing the whole system of urban councils at the same time. I do not remember that there 472 was any strong debate upon the subject, but at all events Parliament affirmed the principle that women might be upon parish councils, rural district councils, boards of guardians, and urban councils; and it is a narrow line dividing urban district councils from municipal boroughs. But by that Act the whole system of urban district elections was applied to London vestries, who then were the responsible local authorities in London. We are now asked to say that what we did in 1894 was wrong, when women were allowed to serve on the vestries like those of Paddington, Islington, &c., and that women are not competent to serve on those new bodies which are to have the duties of the original authorities. When we are asked to make a change such as this, the onus probandi is upon those who ask that that change may be made. The first question is, Has the election of women been a failure? I do not think the evidence that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has given is at all conclusive upon that point. He has been rather severe on the qualifications of the ladies, and on the manner in which they discharge their duties. So far as I have been able to form an opinion, they have discharged their duties with great efficiency and success, and to the advantage of the health of the people of London, who, with almost unanimity, will welcome the presence of women on these new governing bodies. Under these circumstances, I think we should prefer that a very strong case should be made out before we reject services which have been already rendered with efficiency and success. My right hon. friend time Member for Bodmin would exclude women from the office of mayor, recognising that there must be a line drawn somewhere in reference to the extent of female public work. I am bound to tell the House that women are eligible as chairmen of urban district councils, though the House accepted my suggestion specifically prohibiting women from becoming magistrates during their term of office. I now come to a point on which I should like to speak very plainly. While I advocate most strongly the presence of women on these administrative bodies, while I believe they are capable of rendering the greatest service to boards of guardians, urban councils, and district councils, and, I believe, to the councils in London, I am 473 not prepared to go further in that direction. I am prepared, in fact, to steadfastly and persistently oppose any attempt to convert women either into mayors, or magistrates, or archbishops, or heads of police, or generals in the Army, or Members of Parliament. I believe that what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said on thy last occasion when this question came before the House represented the opinion of a vast majority of the people of this country and all sides of politics, viz., that the presence of ladies in this House would on public grounds be intolerable. I think we ought to talk plainly on this point. While we advocate that the fullest scope should be given to fema1e efficiency and female assistance in public work, we ought not to keep in the background that it is our firm and unalterable determination not to proceed in a direction that would render Parliament ridiculous and the administration of public affairs in this country impossible. I think it right to say plainly, intending as I do to support the motion of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, that I do not regard this as a link in a long chain of events leading to something else. There is a line to be drawn, beyond which I do not believe the people of the country will ever go; but that is no reason why London should be deprived of the great advantage of services rendered by ladies in local administration.
§ MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)As a matter of right and justice, and in the interests of making these new borough councils as successful as the vestries which they going to supersede, I earnestly hope that this House will by a very large majority pass this Amendment.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I, like my right hon. friend the Member of for Wolverhampton, am logical in these matters. I have voted on all occasions not only against women being members of councils and of the House of Commons, but against them having votes at all, and I always contemplate doing so as long as I have the honour of being a Member of this House. At the present moment you do not allow women to sit on municipal bodies in the country. Why, then, should an exception be made in the case of London? If you admit women in Loudon, the precedent would be followed 474 in the provinces, and the next step would be a claim for women to sit in the House of Commons. I can see the thin end of the wedge in this proposition. Let hon. Members be firm. Let them be men. I will yield to none in my admiration for women. Woman is the right person, provided she is in her right place. There are some who have not been successes as members of their own sex, and who like to muddle and meddle in politics in the hope that they may be successes as men. Although there are weak men on the Opposition side of the House, I am glad to see stalwarts on the other side. The majority of women will not approve of this proposal. The few women who come forward and make a great noise are never supported by their own sex. The right hon. Member for Bodmin was not logical, because he himself does not propose that women should be eligible for the office of mayor. He passed that point over insidiously with a long joke. Can the right hon. Gentleman promise that he will always vote against women being eligible for the office of mayor or for membership to the House of Commons? I hope the House will decide that in the important councils of the nation men, and men only, shall sit.
§ *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)Hon. Members opposite have made a distinguished convert in the hon. Member who has just spoken.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI beg my hon. friend's pardon. I was opposed to women having votes before half the hon. Gentlemen opposite were born.
§ *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSYes, but the hon. Member, who is supposed to be a great Radical, has used the most familiar of Tory arguments against all reform. It is that if something were conceded something else would be forthwith demanded. My hon. friend is affrighted at the prospect of women sitting in this House. The First Lord of the Treasury says that the idea is intolerable, but I will venture on this prediction—that if the time arrives when the electors of this country desire to send women to this House the right hon. Gentleman will look upon this question in a very different light. Hon. Members opposite admit that the services of women 475 on school boards and boards of guardians have been valuable. Let me remind the House that there was a time when the appearance of women on those boards was quite a novelty, and when the pre- diction was freely indulged in that their presence would be injurious. That feeling has now entirely disappeared, and no one wishes to exclude them from those boards. The principle on which I should decide all these questions is the principle of freedom—freedom on the part of those who aspire to positions of public importance, and freedom on the part of the constituencies to send whom they please to Parliament or to other public bodies. The proposal to exclude women is, in my opinion, one the would be unjust to the women of this country and injurious to the country as a whole.
§ MR. HEY WOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)Surely if the people wish to be represented by women, and if they think that their interests would be served by women representatives on the newly created
§ boroughs, they should be permitted to have them. No woman would be compelled to serve or to come forward as a candidate. We recognise that women can fill very useful positions, and I shall certainly vote for this Amendment, which puts it in the power of the electors themselves to choose whether they will or will not be represented by women. But, apart from that, I should vote for this Amendment on the grounds of humanity. If I know anything of the history of municipal life, I am inclined to think that the newly created boroughs will celebrate their incorporation by banquets to which Members of this House will probably be invited, and it is very desirable that they should have the guiding hand of women in these matters. I sincerely hope that women will be elected to the borough councils, believing, as I do, that they will discharge good and serviceable work.
§ Question put—
§ The House divided. Ayes, 196; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 171.)
477| Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose.) | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Morton, Edw. J. C. (Dvnpt.) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Whiteley, George (Stockport) |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Shaw, Thomas {Hawick B.) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) | Williams, JohnCarvell(Notts.) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Spencer, Ernest | Wills, Sir William Henry |
| O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. | Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull) |
| O'Connor, J. (Wicklow,W.) | Stanley, Henry M.(Lambeth) | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Steadman, William Charles | Wilson, Hen. J. (York, W.R.) |
| Pease, H. P. (Darlington) | Stevenson, Francis S. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Pender, Sir James | Strauss, Arthur | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Pickard, Benjamin | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Woodall, William |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) | Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Hudd'f'd) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Talbot,Rt.Hn.J. G.(Oxf'd Univ | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Price, Robert John | Tennant, Harold John | Wylie, Alexander |
| Purvis, Robert | Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E) | Wyndham, George |
| Reid, Sir Robert Threshie | Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E.) | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) | Young, Commander(Berks,E.) |
| Robertson. Edmund (Dundee) | Thornton, Percy M. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Robson. William Snowdon | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Tritton, Charles Ernest | Mr. Heywood Johnstone |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) | and Mr. Cohen. |
| Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm) | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F. | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Engledew, Charles John | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Ferdell, Sir T. George | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Bagot,Capt.Josceline FitzRoy | Followes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Finch, George H. | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. | M`Donnell,Dr.M.A.(Queen'sC |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Barry,RtHnAH.Smith-(Hunts | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Bathurst, Hn. Alien Benjamin | Flower, Ernest | M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.) |
| Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol) | Folkestone, Viscount | M'Ewan, William |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Garfit, William | Maple, Sir John Blundell |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Gibbs,HnAGH (City of Lond. | Marks, Henry Hananel |
| Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme | Gibbs, Hon. V.(St. Albans) | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Bowles, T.Gibson (King'sLynn | Godson, Sir Augustus F. | Meysey, Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Brassey, Albert | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Goschen,RtHnG.J.(StGeorge's | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Gretton, John | More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire) |
| Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.Glasgow | Gunter, Colonel | Morgan,Hn.Fred(Monm'thsh. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton | Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derby.) | Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Myers, William Henry |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm. | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm. | Palmer, George W. (Reading) |
| Chamberlain,J.Autsten(Worc'r | Hardy, Laurence | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Charrington, Spencer | Henderson, Alexander | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth | Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter | Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Pym, C. Guy |
| Coddington, Sir William | Howard, Joseph | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Howell, William Tudor | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth) | Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil | Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlep'l) |
| Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G. | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T. |
| Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. | Jollilfe. Hon. H. George | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley |
| Rigby, John K. D. W.- | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fredr D. | Kitson, Sir James | Savory, Sir Joseph |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Knowles, Lees | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Labouchere, Henry | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Doxford, William Theodore | Lafore, Alfred | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Lambert, George | Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset) |
§ M. PICKERSGILLThe Amendment I have to move is—
To leave out in Clause 2, page 2, lines 5 and 6 the words 'that number being divisible by three.'In the debate on this question in Committee the Government found itself obliged to make a concession, which provided that any representation sent to the Local Government Board by a borough council supported by a two-thirds majority in favour of triennial elections would be considered. Whatever the rule is, it ought to be uniform over the whole of London; and by the omission which I propose triennial elections could be obtained. I have no doubt that a substantial majority on the newly created councils will be in favour of triennial elections, but it is not reasonable to suppose that, having regard to the severity of the conditions, all the councils will pass the necessary resolution. It would be absurd to have triennial elections in one district and annual elections in another, and I hope the Government will favourably consider the Amendment I now move.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'that number being divisible by three.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill).
Question proposed—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
§ Silt R. B. FINLAYThe proposal made by the hon. and learned Member is, I take it, to leave out these words in order afterwards to insert other words providing for triennial elections over London. When this matter was discussed in Committee a certain solution was arrived at, and I have come to the conclusion that it is better, after considering the views of hon. Members on both sides, that we should adhere to that arrangement.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONThe House will remember that there was a considerable feeling in favour of triennial elections, and ultimately the Government made the proposal now in the Bill. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to adhere to that compromise. I quite agree that the wording may require some alteration, and I hope the Government will accept an Amendment I propose to move in regard to it. If proper option is given to adopt triennial elections, they will be universally adopted, and therefore the desire we have in our minds will be achieved.
§ MR. STEADMAN (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Bethnal Green. I unaware of the compromise arrived at when the Bill was discussed in Committee, but although the borough councils may vote by a two-think majority in favour of triennial elections, representations must afterwards be made to the Local Government Board for their consideration. I believe the same provision was made in the Local Government Act of 1894. Previous to that Act, the elections for Poor Law guardians in London took place annually, but the moment the hoards of guardians had the opportunity for deciding whether they should have annual or triennial elections, they universally decided in favour of the latter. There we have a practical illustration of the feeling in London on this question; and, that being so, why should we not at once make provision in the Bill for triennial elections, without putting the borough councils to the cost of deciding for themselves, when we know by past experience what their opinions will be? There is another important point attached to this Amendment. The chief object of this Bill is to induce the electors to take an interest in local affairs. In the year 1900 this Bill will come into operation. In November we shall have the first elections for the new boroughs, and in the same month we shall have the elections 481 for the London School Board. In March, 1901, we shall have the London County Council elections; in the following month the elections for boards of guardians in London, and possibly in the summer we may have Parliamentary elections, and if this Bill is allowed to stand in its present form we may have in November of that year also the animal elections for the borough councils; so that in 1901 we shall have certainly three, and possibly four, elections. When we ask the people to vote in such a number of elections, they will tell us that they are sick and tired of voting. The School Board, the London County Council, and the new borough councils are bodies of such an important character that we are anxious for the electorate of London to take in interest in their election by voting. My own experience in these local matters is that where you have a constant recurrence of elections you cannot get the people to take an interest in them, and for that reason I will support the Amendment.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)These numerous elections are very expensive, and the benefit conferred by this Amendment would be very much appreciated in the divisions referred to. Upon this point I desire to claim the attention of the House, because I am sure that this matter requires more consideration than has yet been given to it. The clause deals with the number of councillors which shall be allotted to each ward. Take my particular division. It has five wards, and the number for each ward are to be selected having regard to rateable value and population. That would be extremely difficult, but we might get over it. But mark the other condition—that the selection of the number must be divisible by three. It must be either three, six, or nine, and you cannot have four, five, seven, eight, or ten. It is hard enough to observe the conditions with regard to population and rateable value, but when you divide by three you put a burden upon the people which will prove to be very onerous. This is no fancied argument, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who has all through adopted a conciliatory attitude, will give it careful consideration. The Solicitor-General was not very strong in opposing this Amendment, and he approached it in the way which he generally adopts when he wants to draw a little more opinion from the House. In every ward you prevent a number of 482 councillors that might be suitable, because the number must be divided by three. Everyone is agreed that in most of these divisions the triennial system will be adopted. We are now trying to ride both horses as the Bill stands, and therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this proposal his careful consideration.
§ *SIR E. CLARKE (Plymouth)I hope my right hon. friend will not be induced by compliments passed upon his conciliatory disposition to abandon what is really an important part of this Bill by accepting what is a very unreasonable and a somewhat ungracious Amendment. The question was fully argued when the subject of triennial elections was discussed, and strong opinions were expressed on both sides. I hold myself a very strong opinion in favour of annual elections, and, as so much has been said about a larger public interest being aroused by triennial elections, I cannot help remembering the mischief that has been done by the constant intervention of political organisation. There is really nothing in the objection that has just been made, and which my right hon. friend is so solemnly exhorted to take into consideration. The boundaries will be fixed with due regard to population and rateable value in such proportion as will make them fairly equal. The Government made a great concession by inserting a clause under which it was left to the borough council to have an opportunity of addressing the Local Government Board, when that application represented the opinion of a majority of the whole council, to have the election once in three years. That was a considerable concession. It was a compromise which has been frankly accepted by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and surely it is very unreasonable, under the cover of compliments, to endeavour now to upset this decision.
§ MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)I was very strongly in favour of triennial elections when the question came up, but in view of the fact that the Government made a concession in Committee in favour of triennial elections, I feel it my duty upon this occasion to support the Government.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 172.)
479| AYES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glas'w) | Hatch, Ernest Frederick G. |
| Allen,Wm.(New.underLyme) | Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. B | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles S. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Crombie, John William. | Heath, James |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) | Heaton, John Henniker |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Curran, Thomas B.(Donegal) | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Curzon, Viscount | Hickman, Sir Alfred |
| Asquith,RtHonHerbertHenry | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead) |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dalziel, James Henry | Hobhouse, Henry |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan | Holden, Sir Angus |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, V.) | Davitt, Michael | Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow) |
| Baird, John Geo. Alexander | Denny, Colonel | Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.) |
| Baker, Sir John | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Horniman, Frederick John |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r) | Dillon, John | Hughes, Colonel Edwin |
| Balfour. Rt Hn. G.W. (Leeds) | Doogan, P. C. | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Douglas, C. M. (Lanark) | Johnson-Ferguson JabezEdw. |
| Barton,Dunbar Plunket | Drucker, A. | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Duckworth, James | Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH. |
| Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull | Dunn, Sir William | Kimber, Henry |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Ellis, John Edward | Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth |
| Bhownagree, Sir M.M | Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Evershed, Sydney | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land) |
| Birrell, Augustine | Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Leng, Sir John |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Fenwick, Charles | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith) | Llewelyn, Sir P. (Swansea) |
| Bryce, Et. Hon. James | Finlay, Sir Robert B. | Lloyd-George, David |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) |
| Bullard Sir Harry | Fisher, William Hayes | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller |
| Burns, John | Fison, Frederick William | Lough, Thomas |
| Burt, Thomas | FitzGerald, Sir Robert P.- | Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Butcher John George | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lyell, Sir Leonard |
| Fry, Lewis | MacAleese, Daniel | |
| Caldwell, James | Galloway, William Johnson | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Cartan, Michael |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Gold, Charles | M'Ghee, Richard |
| Carvill, Patrick G Hamilton | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | M`Iver, Sir Lewis (Edith W.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Goulding, Edward Alfred | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Cawley, Frederick | Gourley, Sir Edward T. | M'Killop, James |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Graham, Henry Robert | Maddison, Fred. |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Haldane,Richard Burson | Montagu, Hn. J. S. (Hants.) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Harwood, George | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel |
| Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose.) | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Morton, Edw. J. C. (Dvnpt.) | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Whiteley, George (Stockport) |
| Moulton, John Fletcher | Shaw, Thomas {Hawick B.) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Simeon, Sir Barrington | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) | Williams, JohnCarvell(Notts.) |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Smith, Samuel (Flint) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Nussey, Thomas Willans | Spencer, Ernest | Wills, Sir William Henry |
| O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. | Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull) |
| O'Connor, J. (Wicklow,W.) | Stanley, Henry M.(Lambeth) | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Steadman, William Charles | Wilson, Hen. J. (York, W.R.) |
| Pease, H. P. (Darlington) | Stevenson, Francis S. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Pender, Sir James | Strauss, Arthur | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Pickard, Benjamin | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Woodall, William |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) | Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Hudd'f'd) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Talbot,Rt.Hn.J. G.(Oxf'd Univ | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Price, Robert John | Tennant, Harold John | Wylie, Alexander |
| Purvis, Robert | Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E) | Wyndham, George |
| Reid, Sir Robert Threshie | Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E.) | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) | Young, Commander(Berks,E.) |
| Robertson. Edmund (Dundee) | Thornton, Percy M. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Robson. William Snowdon | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | Tritton, Charles Ernest | Mr. Heywood Johnstone |
| Royds, Clement Molyneux | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.) | and Mr. Cohen. |
| Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm) | Warr, Augustus Frederick | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F. | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. | Laurie, Lieut.-General |
| Anstruther, H. T. | Engledew, Charles John | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Ferdell, Sir T. George | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Bagot,Capt.Josceline FitzRoy | Followes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Finch, George H. | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. | M`Donnell,Dr.M.A.(Queen'sC |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Barry,RtHnAH.Smith-(Hunts | Fletcher, Sir Henry | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Bathurst, Hn. Alien Benjamin | Flower, Ernest | M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.) |
| Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol) | Folkestone, Viscount | M'Ewan, William |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Garfit, William | Maple, Sir John Blundell |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Gibbs,HnAGH (City of Lond. | Marks, Henry Hananel |
| Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme | Gibbs, Hon. V.(St. Albans) | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Bowles, T.Gibson (King'sLynn | Godson, Sir Augustus F. | Meysey, Thompson, Sir H. M. |
| Brassey, Albert | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Goschen,RtHnG.J.(StGeorge's | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Gretton, John | More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire) |
| Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.Glasgow | Gunter, Colonel | Morgan,Hn.Fred(Monm'thsh. |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton | Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derby.) | Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Myers, William Henry |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm. | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm. | Palmer, George W. (Reading) |
| Chamberlain,J.Autsten(Worc'r | Hardy, Laurence | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Charrington, Spencer | Henderson, Alexander | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth | Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter | Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Pym, C. Guy |
| Coddington, Sir William | Howard, Joseph | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Howell, William Tudor | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth) | Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil | Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlep'l) |
| Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G. | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.) | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T. |
| Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. | Jollilfe. Hon. H. George | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley |
| Rigby, John K. D. W.- | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fredr D. | Kitson, Sir James | Savory, Sir Joseph |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Knowles, Lees | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Labouchere, Henry | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Doxford, William Theodore | Lafore, Alfred | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Lambert, George | Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset) |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) | Vincent, Col. SirC. E. Howard | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Stewart, Sir Mk.J.M'Taggart | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H. | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Stock, James Henry | Wanklyn,James Leslie | Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R (Bath) |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Thorburn, Walter | Webster, R. G (St. Pancras) | |
| Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Tully, Jasper | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Banbury. |
| Valentia, Viscount | Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm. |
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F. | Fardell, Sir T. George | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edw. | Lowles, John |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Finch, George H. | Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent) |
| Arrol, Sir William | Finlay Sir RobertBannatyne | Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Hen. | Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Lucas-Shadsell, William |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | fisher William Hayes | MacIver, David (Liverpool) |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Fison, Frederick William | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy | FitzGerald,SirRobertPenrose- | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | M'Arthur,William {Cornwall) |
| Baird, John George A. | Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. | M'Calmont, H.L.B.(Cambs.) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | M'Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim,E.) |
| Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manchr) | Fletcher, Sir Henry | M'Ewan, William |
| Balfour, Rt.Hn. G.W.(Leeds) | Flower, Ernest | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.) |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Folkestone, Viscount | M'Killop, James |
| Barnes, Dunbar Plunket | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. | Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J. |
| Beach, RtHnSirM.H. (Bristol) | Fry, Lewis | Maple, Sir Join Blundell |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Galloway, William Johnson | Marks, Henry Hananel |
| Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull | Garfit, William | Melville, Beresford Valentine |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Gedge, Sydney | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M. |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Gibbons. J. Lloyd | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton |
| Bethell, Commander | Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(CityofLond | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Giles, Charles Tyrell | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Goldsworthy, Major-General | More,Robt,Jasper Shropshire) |
| Bowles, T. G. (Kings Lynn) | Gordon,Hon.John Edward | Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'ths.) |
| Brassey, Albert | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Morton, Ar.H.A.(Deptford) |
| Bryce, Rt.Hon. James | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Muntz, Phillip A. |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Gretton, John | Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G.(Bute) |
| Burt, Thomas | Myers, William Henry | |
| Butcher, John George | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Campbell, RtHnJ.A.(Glasgow | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading) |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Hanbury,Rt. Hon. Robert W. | Pender, Sir James |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Hardy, Laurence | Penn, John |
| Cavendish, VCW(Derbyshire) | Hatch, Ernest F. George | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Heath, James | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Heaton, John Henniker | Price, Robert John |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. | Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm. | Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) | Purvis, Robert |
| Chamberlain, J. A (Worc'r) | Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow) | |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Holland, W. H. (York, W. R) | Quitter, Sir Cuthbert |
| Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) | Howard, Joseph | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Howell, William Tudor | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil | Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matt. W. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Robertson,Herbert(Hackney) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice- | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) | Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter |
| Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd) | Round, James | |
| Corbett,A.Cameron (Glasgow) | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Round, James |
| Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H. | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Jolliffe, Hon H. George | Rutherford, John |
| Curzon, Viscount | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley | |
| Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh | Kearley, Hudson E. | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Keswick, William | |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Kimber, Henry | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Denny, Colonel | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Knowles, Lees | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- | Lafone, Alfred | Smith, Hon. W.F.D.(Strand) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lambert, George | Spencer, Ernest |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D. | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Spicer, Albert |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lawrence, W. F.(Liverpool) | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Doxford, William Theodore | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset) |
| Drucker, A. | Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Llewelyn, Sir D-(Swansea) | Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart |
| Elliot, Hon. A. RalphDouglas | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R. | Stock, James Henry |
| Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan) | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Evershed, Sydney | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) | Strauss, Arthur |
| Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley | Wanklyn, James Leslie. | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Warr, Augustus Frederick | Wodehouse, RtHnE.R.(Bath) |
| Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G. (Ox. Uni) | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.- |
| Tennant, Harold John | Webster, SirR.E.(L of Wight) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Thorburn, Walter | Wharton, Rt. Hon J. Lloyd | Wyndham, George |
| Thornton, Percy M. | Whiteley,George (Stockport) | Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy |
| Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray | Whitmore, Charles Algernon | |
| Tritton, Charles Ernest | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) | Young, Commander (Berks,E.) |
| Williams, Joseph P.- (Birm.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir | |
| Valentia, Viscount | Willox, Sir John Archibald | William Walrond and |
| Vincent, Col. Sir. C. E. H. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) | Anstruther. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham,William(Cork,N.E.) | Gold, Charles | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Gourley, Sir Edward T. | Pickard, Benjamin |
| Allen, Wm.(Newc.underLyme) | Gurdon, Sir William B. | Richardson, J.(Durham, S.E.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Harwood, George | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Baker, Sir John | Holden, Sir Angus | Samuel,J. (Stockton on Tees) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Holland, W. H.(York, W. R.) | Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford) |
| Beaumont, Wentworth, C.B. | Horniman, Frederick John | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Jacoby, James Alfred | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Kinloch, Sir John George S. | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Kitson, Sir James | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Langley, Batty | Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen, E.) |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Thomas, A.(Glamorgan,E.) |
| Burns, John | Leng, Sir John | Trevelyan, Charles Phillip |
| Caldwell, James | Lewis, John Herbert | Tully, Jasper |
| Cameron,SirCharles(Glasgow) | Lloyd-George, David | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Carvill, PatrickGeo Hamilton | Lough, Thomas | Weir, James Galloway |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lyell, Sir Leonard | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Charrington, Spencer | MacAleese, Daniel | Williams, John C. (Notts.) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | MacDonnell, DrMA(Queen'sC | Wills, Sir William Henry |
| Davies, M. V.-(Cardigan) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull) |
| Davitt, Michael | M'Cartan, Michael | Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk) |
| Dillion, John | M'Ghee, Richard | Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Kenna, Reginald | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Maddison, Fred. | Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough) |
| Douglas, C. M. (Lanark) | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitech'l) | Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(H'dd'rsf'd) |
| Duckworth. James | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | |
| Dunn, Sir William | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Young Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. |
| Ferguson, R. C. | O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork) | Steadman. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
§ Other Amendments made.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONThis clause was practically taken from the Local Government Act of 1894, and the words I now move to omit are words which do not find any place in that Act. They seem to me to restrict the possibility of boroughs having full liberty to adopt the annual system. in an extreme case, if a certain proportion of the 70 members were to stay away they could prevent the adoption of the system of triennial elections. I am afraid that if these words are left in they might put considerable difficulties in the way of the adoption of this provision. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In Clause 2, page 2, line 33, to leave out from 'purpose' to 'make' in line 34."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
Question proposed—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI trust the House will retain the Bill as it now stands. I ought to say that at the time this clause was adopted I expressed grave apprehensions at the determination which the London Members had arrived at to adopt a system which certainly could not prove acceptable if extended to the provinces. But the general opinion was so strong among London Members that I made a concession, and we arrived at a compromise which was this—that the councils themselves should have practically the power of adopting the triennial system in preference to the annual system, but it should be done only on the condition that a distinct and absolute majority were in favour of it. It will be observed that if the hon. Member's Amendment is carried and the words in the Bill to which he objects are left out, it would be possible 487 for one-third of the Members to make this great change. That would not be carrying out the intention of the House, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon a division.
§ MR. STUART (Shoredich, Hoxton)I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to adopt this Amendment, but I rise to call his attention to another point upon which I will not make a motion, but which is closely associated with this question, and which the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to deal with in another place. It bears upon triennial elections, and the point is that it would be extremely in the interests of London electors generally if, wherever a triennial election was ordered by the Local Government Board, it could be ordered for the year 1900, or one of the three years dating therefrom.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. COURTNEYThe Amendment I now beg to move is one which was submitted to the House in Committee, and after a slight discussion I withdrew it. The object of the Amendment is very simple. We all know that the experience of municipal contests shows that the power of appointing aldermen has often been abused, first of all by the wire-pullers of the party securing the election of all the aldermen, and then by those aldermen joining in the election of subsequent aldermen. The Amendment I propose is very simple in its operation, and will insure the election of aldermen by the minority to an extent corresponding to the position which that minority holds. It can best be explained by an example. A council should never exceed 60 members, so that with the aldermen one in 10 the council should never exceed 70. The common council of 60 comes to elect its aldermen, and under the present system the majority of 31 could elect the whole 10 aldermen, thus converting a majority of 2 in the entire council into a majority of 12. Now, what I propose is that in the first election, where 60 will have to elect 10 aldermen, that when 6 of the councillors join together they shall be able to nominate one alderman, and that all those six councillors shall immediately retire from taking any other part in the election. The result of that would be, that if there was a majority of 14—that is to say, if the council was com- 488 posed of 36 members on the one side and 24 on the other, the 36 would elect 6 aldermen, and the 24 four, which would give each side proportionate representation. Under the present system the experience in many of our boroughs has shown us that the election of aldermen has been a matter of great jealousy, and this has also been the case in the London County Council. In the London County Council a simple majority have always had the power of electing the whole of the aldermen. By this alteration it would limit the number which the majority of a council have power to elect, and give a choice to the minority. The matter is so simple that nobody could pretend to misunderstand it, and the machinery is so simple that it could not go wrong. It would secure the end which we all have in view, which is the addition to the members of the council of an entirely new element, and it would be a simple means of solving what is acknowledged to be a difficult and delicate question, and one which raises an undesirable feeling at the beginning of the career of every council.
§
Amendment proposed—
In Clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end to add—
(c) 'At the first election of aldermen after the passing of this Act any six councillors may agree in nominating one person as alderman. and thereupon such person shall be declared elected as alderman, and the six councillors nominating him shall have no further part in such election; and that every subsequent triennial election of aldermen any twelve councillors may agree in nominating one person as alderman, and thereupon such person shall be declared elected as alderman, and the twelve councillors nominating him shall have no further part in such election.'"—(Mr.Courtney)
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI see no reason for altering the view which I expressed on a former occasion at an earlier stage of the Bill that this Amendment should not be accepted. I agree with my right hon. friend that his scheme has the great advantage of being exceedingly simple, and I do not think that there would be any practical difficulty in the way of its working properly. I also agree that it has the great merit of preventing the election of aldermen being used as it machinery in favour of any particular party, but whether it will secure that the councils will obtain 489 a better class men as aldermen I gravely doubt. The practical result will be that a party of six councillors who would vote, or who would meet together to select their alderman, might exercise their choice in favour of individuals for whom no party would be responsible in its collective capacity. On the whole, I am disposed to think that the responsibility which must attach to the organised action of a party must produce better results than the relatively irresponsible action of groups of six gentlemen who would like to elect their own friends. On these grounds I feel constrained to adhere to my former decision, and if my right hon. friend thinks it necessary to divide the House I shall feel obliged to go into the lobby against him.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. COURTNEYThe Bill as it stands provides that, to be qualified to act as an alderman in a borough, a man must be qualified for election to the county council in that particular borough. My desire is to enlarge that qualification so as to extend it to any one who is qualified to be elected as a councillor for any metropolitan borough and enable him to act as an alderman in any other metropolitan borough. Why should we limit the choice of the electors to nominate an alderman, seeing that the aldermen are chosen by the electors and, of course, would be responsible to them? Persons who are qualified to be elected as aldermen elsewhere surely should be qualified to be elected as aldermen in any particular borough. It is well known that in some parts of the City there are men who have peculiar qualifications for this work who would not be eligible as the Bill now stands. In the interest of the freedom of voice of the electors, I think this would be a great benefit, while on the other hand no harm could be done by it. It simply enlarges the power of choice, and if that is extended it will only be used in the rarest of cases. I beg to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 37, at the end of Clause 3, to insert the words, '(d) A person shall be qualified to be elected as alderman in any metropolitan borough who is qualified to be elected as councillor in the same or any other metropolitan borough.'"—(Mr. Courtney.)
Question proposed—
That these words be there inserted".
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURPerhaps I might remind this House of what occurred with regard to this matter on a previous occasion. When this question was brought forward, I did my best to induce the House to accept the proposal, but the House, after by no means a brief discussion, came to the conclusion that it would not be an improvement to the Bill. I do not wish to withdraw from the position that I then took up, and under the same circumstances I should take the same course again. I would suggest to my right hon. friend that it is hardly worth while to divide the House again upon the subject.
§ LORD H. CECIL (Greenwich)I hope the House will see its way to accept this Amendment. It is quite true that it was raised on another occasion, but it is an Amendment of great importance, and since that time many representatives may have changed their opinions upon it. The kind of man who would make a good alderman might very well live in another part of, London and still by reason of his business connection have a very real interest in a particular district. He might have a real capacity for public business and an earnest desire to interest himself in that borough. So far as I can see I cannot discover any reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. It will only be applied in cases where there are very strong reasons for going outside the borough, and surely you are not going to say by statutory enactment that a borough shall not be able to go outside to elect its aldermen, when by so doing they might find ideal men to fit the position.
§ MR. STUARTI should have been content to give a silent vote on this matter if there had been a desire to discuss the question. I am against it for the reasons that this proposal is against the whole principle of local government in England. The only exception is that of the London School Board, in which, no doubt, there was a reason for breaking the precedent, as what was desired in that case was to get experts in education on the Board. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is no necessity for going outside the area of the borough. I gave the whole argument against this proposal on a previous occasion, and therefore there is no reason for entering into it 491 now. The boroughs of London do not ask for aldermen, and have expressed general dissatisfaction at the idea that they are going to be put upon them, and if you are going now to allow aldermen to elected from the outside you will create greater dissatisfaction than already exists.
§ *SIR E. CLARKEI see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted at once if what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has suggested is all that can be said against it. The only argument which he appears to have adduced is that if you go outside the boroughs the electors may elect the wrong man. I am sorry he has so little faith in the electors. It may be that there are persons who by long residence or business were once connected with the borough, although they now live elsewhere, who on their retirement from business are taking great interest in public life. Yet, as the Bill now stands, you would refuse any such persons, although the brough councils might recognise that if they could obtain this experience and this knowledge that he would be just the person to be desired.
§ SIR J. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)I desire to call attention to a fact which must be obvious to everybody who studies the reorganisation of large businesses of the present day. In the manufacturing parts of London large businesses are being turned into and worked by limited companies. Now, if this Amendment is not carried the man whose interest is entirely centred in the locality in which his business is will find himself debarred from any share of management in public affairs. All these are good business men, and yet they will be excluded from any share of local government. I desire to support the Amendment.
§ MR. E. A. GOULDING (Wilts, Devizes)Various arguments have been used in favour of the Amendment. It has been put that it would afford rich men, or single men who want some purpose in life, an opportunity of doing service to the East End districts. Again, it was said that it would enable business men, who could not give time to work a contested election, to be brought in as aldermen. Now we are told that it is a scheme to bestow upon the East End of 492 London the patronage of men from Chelsea and the West End, who would come to the East to air their fads. We have seen the evil of that system in the case of certain aldermen in the London County Council, who were brought in not because of their knowledge of municipal affairs but because of their political services. I most sincerely hope the same canker will not be introduced in the new municipalities, and I trust that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment to a division. The matter was decided in Committee in a very large House, and the vast majority of the London Members voted against the scheme of the Amendment.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)Surely the reply to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth as to those who are so very anxious to serve in certain areas, in which they have large interests and in which they have lived in former times, is that an outlay of £10 will give them a qualification to enable them to sit on the borough council.
§ *MR. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)If this Amendment is not carried, the new boroughs will, I think, be debarred from choosing some men as alderman who are eminently suited for that position. I have a striking instance in my own constituency of this. The gentleman in question is not of my way of thinking; he was a Progressive member of the London County Council, and served the district well. But his business has been turned into a limited liability company, and he does not now reside in the district. Therefore, unless this Amendment is carried, this gentleman, who has been connected with the place for twenty-five years and who is thoroughly capable of being an alderman, will be prevented from serving the district in which he is so much interested.
§ *MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)The main argument on which the Amendment was decided against in Committee was that every man who is a councillor or an alderman is put in the position of administering the funds of the locality, and should be, at least, one of those who contribute to these funds. The plea about hardship to a man who converts his business into a limited liability has no place against the argument, for the double reason that when 493 a man is going to convert himself into a limited liability company he should think of what effect it will have; and in the second place, if he wants to retain his qualification as a ratepayer, it is very easy for him to retain some of the property in his own hands. In all the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the mover of the Amendment, or of those who followed him on the same side, not a shadow of answer was given to the statement that it would induce irresponsible persons to come into the councils from the outside and squander the money to which they had not contributed. Moreover, if an outsider were allowed to be elected, a mail who lived, perhaps, on the other side of the street down the centre of which ran the boundary of the borough might be co-opted to the borough council, and there urge the expenditure of money upon that very street to the benefit of his property, although he would not pay a penny of the rates for it. One of the great objects of the Bill is to enable localities to manage themselves in local affairs; but if the Amendment is carried there is no reason why certain carpet baggers, whose strings are pulled by political associations, should not be elected all over London into half a dozen contituencies to work for these politicals associations.
§ *MR. J. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)I voted against this Amendment in Committee, but I confess I have since changed my mind. I am still opposed to the principle of the Amendment, but,
§ looking upon the matter from a purely practical, utilitarian point of view, I think it should be adopted. There is, for instance, the chairman of the Shoreditch Board of Guardians, one of the best administrators and exponents of the Poor Law that the borough ever had. He is non-resident and would be disqualified, as the Bill stands, from serving on the borough council. My hon. friend who shares with me the representation of Shoreditch knows perfectly well that many of the leading businesses in that borough have been turned into a limited companies—not for bogus purposes, but for expansion—and their owners would now be rendered ineligible. The best men from a purely local point of view, who spend ninetenths of their time and their money freely in the locality, and who know better than most men what the needs of the public are, would be excluded from taking part in local government. I confess frankly that that would be a great mistake, and I hope that on this occasion the House will reverse its judgment, and give the borough councils the permissive power to elect men—not political carpetbaggers—but men who are part of the real life of the district, and are best qualified to represent the district, although for the reasons stated they may be technically not on the rate board individually.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided. Ayes, 67; Noes, 139. (Division List No. 173).
495| AYES. | ||
| Anstruther, H. T. | Fisher, William Hayes | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute |
| Arrol, Sir William | Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Garfit, William | Price, Robert John |
| Balfour,Rt.Hn. A.J. (Manch'r) | Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(CityofLond | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Balfour,Rt.Hn. G.W.(Leeds) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Rirchie,Rt. Hon. C. Thomson |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Gorst,Rt.Hon. SirJohn Eldon | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Hayne,Rt.Hon. Charles Seale- | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) |
| Beach,Rt.Hn.Sr.M.H.(Bristol | Hill,SirEdwardStock (Bristol) | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Bethell, Commander | Horniman, Frederick John | Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G.(Ox.Univ. |
| Bigwood, James | Howard, Joseph | Tomlinson, Wm Edw. Murray |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Bryce, Rt.Hon. James | Knowles, Lees | Webster,SirR.E.(IsleofWight |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Lafone, Alfred | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Lewis, John Herbert | Williams, JohnCarvell(Notts.) |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Liverp'l) | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lowles, John | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart- |
| Charrington, Spencer | Macdona, John Cumming | Wyndham, George |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Young,Commander(Berks, E.) |
| Corbett,A.Cameron (Glasgow) | M'Killop, James | |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. | Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J. | TELLER FOR THE AYES— |
| Courtney,Rt.Hon Leonard H. | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Sir Edward Clarke and Sir |
| Doxford, William Theodore | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | John Brunner, |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannanyne | Muntz, Philip A. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton | Purvis, Robert |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Hamilton, Rt. Hn.LordGeorge | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hanbury, Rt.Hn. Robert Wm. | Richardson,SirThos,(Hartlep'l |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Harwood, George | Ridley,Rt.Hn.SirMatthew W. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. | Heath, James | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Heaton, John Henniker | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Billson, Alfred | Hoare, Ed. Brodie(Hampstead | Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees) |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Holland, Wm. H.(York,W.R.) | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Howell, William Tudor | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Hutchinson,Capt. G. W. Grice- | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Burns, John | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Caldwell, James | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Campbell J. H. M. (Dublin) | kearley, Hudson E. | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton | Keswick, William | Steadman, William Charles |
| Cawley, Frederick | Kimber, Henry | Stock, James Henry |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Lambert, George | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Stuart, James (Shoreditch) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Leng, Sir John | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Llewellyn,Evan H. (Somerset) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Llewelyn,Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a | Tully, Jasper |
| Cook, Fred, Lucas (Lambeth) | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Usborne, Thomas |
| Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | MacAleese, Daniel | Walrond, Rt. Hon. SirWm.H. |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Maclure, Sir John William | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Curzon, Viscount | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh | M'Ghee, Richard | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | M'kenna, Reginald | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Maddison, Fred. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Wharton, Rt. Hon.John Lloyd |
| Doogan, P. C. | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Milward, Colonel Victor | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Drucker, A. | Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel) | Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.) |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | More,RobtJasper(Shropshire) | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk) |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan | Morgan,Hn.Fred.(Monmthsh, | Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. E.) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Morrell, George Herbert | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonp't | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Finch, George H. | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Wilson,Jos.H.(Middlesbrough |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Woods, Samuel |
| Flower, Ernest | O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Forster, Henry William | Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) | |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Penn, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Mr. Goulding and Mr. |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Pickard, Benjamin | Marks. |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | Pickershill, Edward Hare |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR R. B. FINLAYI beg to move an Amendment providing that the duties in connection with registration should be discharged by the town clerk. In the boroughs generally the duties of registration are thrown on the town clerks and overseers. In London there is no town clerk at present, and the duties of registration are discharged by persons who ordinarily perform the duties of returning officer and are named by the Sheriff. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that in the boroughs the duties relating to registration shall be discharged by the town clerks on the borough council.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 24, after the word 'town clerk,' to insert the words, 'and shall be the
496
town clerk within the meaning of the Acts relating to the registration of electors.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. STUARTI have an Amendment on the paper providing that registration matters may be dealt with by the town clerk or his assistant. I do not want my Amendment to be ruled out of order by the passage of the Solicitor-General's, and therefore probably I shall be in order if I were to move that in the Amendment proposed by the Solicitor-General, after the words "town clerk" the words "or his deputy" should be inserted. It might possibly happen that the town clerk may take a strong political line, and 497 consequently not be trusted in respect to the transaction of registration business, and I therefore suggest that the words "or his deputy" should be added. I do not wish to go outside the right hon. Gentleman's arrangement or compromise. It seems to me his object is to get personal responsibility in respect to the making up of the register, and if this Bill creates the town clerk a responsible authority, as it does, we should get out of a very serious difficulty if we put in the words "or a registration officer appointed by the borough council for that purpose." I do not wish to weaken the right hon. Gentleman's compromise. I accept it; but I propose to get out of the difficulty connected with it by substituting for the town clerk the town clerk or his deputy.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed
Amendment—
After the word 'and,' to insert the words 'he or the registration officer appointed by the borough council as hereinafter provided.'"
—(Mr. James Stuart.)
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment.
§ *MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)It seems to me that the First Lord of the Treasury, in making the town clerk supremely responsible in these matters, has done everything we could reasonably hope for. The greater includes the less, and the town clerk, having been made responsible for the voters' list and the overseers' work, would necessarily be responsible for any deputy appointed to discharge a section of the work. I have no fear that the town clerk will allow political gerrymandering to sway him to any material extent, but if inclined to be operated on in that direction, the loss he would incur by being found out, and the penalty he would have 498 to pay, would be so great that, apart from inclination, there would be a tremendous deterrent. May I point out to the hon. Member for Shoreditch that economy and efficiency are opposed to such a multiplicity of officials. If the responsibility for all those duties is fixed on the town clerk, I believe the money will be saved to the ratepayers, and if the First Lord of the Treasury could suggest some means by which polling officers should have less than the two guineas a day they now receive, I should strongly support him.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)I entirely agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Battersea, and I sincerely hope that the town clerk, when appointed, will be like Cæsar's wife—above suspicion. I did not put down any Amendment, such as I did to the London County Council Bill, making town clerks ineligible to sit in this House, because it was pointed out to me that it would be unnecessary, because these gentlemen would probably not be amenable to political influences. I thoroughly support the proposal of the Solicitor-General. I think it is necessary for us to give these powers exclusively to town clerks, and it is very desirable that they should be solely responsible and that there should be no devolution to anybody else.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. In the first place, I do not think it necessary, or that it is based on a right principle, because it picks out one particular part of the duties which would 499 fall on the town clerk and gives him special authority to appoint a deputy to discharge them. I have been anticipated by the hon. Member for Battersea in many of my objections to this Amendment. My own opinion is that some words may be necessary to enable the borough councils to give the town clerks assistance by way of deputy or otherwise, but the responsibility for the work should in my judgment remain with the town clerk.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4:—
§ *CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)As the House knows, sanction must be given by the London County Council, or for certain purposes by the Local Government Board, for loans to local bodies. The Vestry of St. Pancras, which is in the division I represent, complain very much of the time taken by the London County Council in sanctioning loans. If the House will permit me, I will give one or two examples. In December, 1892, a loan of £30,000 for an electric installation was asked for. Of that sum £15,400 was received in March, 1894, and the remainder was not paid till January, 1895. A period of three years elapsed before we got all the loan. On another occasion we applied for a loan in November, 1895, but only got £6,540 in January, 1897, and £2,945 in June of the same year. Delay in that case was owing to the London County Council going into the whole of the past expenditure. On another occasion a loan was asked for in July, 1897, but the greater portion of it was not paid till March, 1898. The delay in this case, again, was caused by the inquiry made by the London County Council into the expenditure and valuing up of the mains, which I maintain is not necessary in order to get the sanction for the loan. The last occasion was in May, 1898, when a loan of £23,000 was applied for. £12,000 was received on 16th March, and the balance is waiting at the present moment. The result of this is that the Vestry of St. Pancras has been obliged to borrow money from the bankers at the rate of 4 per cent., whereas the London County Council could have got it for 500 them at 2¾ per cent. I complain that, at present, the London County Council mix up the question of sanctioning the loan with the question of lending the money, and I maintain that the two are entirely different questions. If the Amendment is accepted by the House, it will result in advantage to the borough councils and to the London County Council itself, and for this reason: In the first place, they could always refuse if they think it right, in which case there would be a prompt appeal; and, in the second place, the London County Council would not be granting money for works already completed. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Amendment proposed—
In Clause 4, line 21, to insert 'or do not, within six months after application made, give their sanction.'"—(Captain Jessel.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERFor the reason given by the hon. Gentleman I think this a reasonable Amendment, as I understand there have been considerable delays. I think six months is long enough in all probability. If any question of real necessity arises the Local Government Board would consider the matter.
§ MR. STUARTThe Attorney-General knows very little about the relations of the local authorities, and the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras has been so confused that he has been greatly misled. There have been upwards of 400 loans made by the London County Council to the local authorities, and I do not believe, except in the three instances to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, has there been any complaint whatever with respect to the sanctioning of the loans. I want to point out that there is a difference between asking for the sanction of a loan for a parish and getting the money. Now, what the whole of this clause refers to is not the providing of the money by the London County Council, but the sanctioning of the loan. The first step which has to be taken is to settle whether the local body is justified in requiting the loan for the purpose stated, and that has to be inquired into. When that is done, and the decision given favourably, the local authority can 501 go and ask for the loan. If they take it from the London County Council they get it at 2¾ per cent. There is no proof is concerned, that there has been any delay at all; but if there was delay there was very good reason for it. I regard the suggestion that the London County Council must give their sanction to loans within six months, or that then the matter will be taken out of their hands, as an insult to the London County Council. As I have said, if the London County Council delay longer than six months in giving their sanction, there is a right good reason for it. Under these circumstances I do trust that there will not be an endeavour made on the part of any person in this House to attach any stigma to the London County Council in this matter.
§ SIR R. B. FINLAYI can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no desire to attach the slightest stigma to the County Council in this matter. No part of the business of the London County Council is better done than that relating to loans. The hon. Gentleman has not given any reason why we should not accept this Amendment. If we provide that in the case of a refusal there shad be an appeal from the London County Council to another authority, it is obviously necessary that there should be the same appeal to the Local Government Board if assent is not given within six months.
§ Clause 6:—
§ MR. PICKERSGILLI beg to move to omit Sub-section 6. This sub-section gives power to the borough councils to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament, and it seems to me to be a matter of such extreme importance that I propose to appeal from the judgment of the Committee to the judgment of the House. This clause touches a side of the Bill which, I think, has not perhaps received sufficient attention from the House—I mean the financial side. There can be no doubt that one effect of this Bill will be to undoubtedly increase expenditure and to raise the rates.
§ MR. CRIPPSTo promote economy.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLThe Bill will raise the rates directly, because it pro- 502 poses to transfer the discharge of central functions from the central to the local body. I also think its inevitable effect will be to promote expense indirectly. If I am right in this, then I say it would be most unwise to open such a flood-gate of expenditure as this sub-section would do. It seems to me that the form of expenditure which is grudged more than any other is expenditure upon litigation, whether it be in courts of law or in Parliament, because, in these cases, whoever wins, the public has to pay the costs on both sides. Of course, I know very well that litigation, in the sense in which I use the term, is inevitable, but surely it is only common sense to restrain it within as narrow limits as possible. My case against this clause is, that there is no necessity for it, and that, as the law stands, the borough councils will have quite sufficient powers for the promotion of their own interests. It may be said in theory that this clause puts all on an equal footing. As a matter of fact it does not. It will place the poorer districts of the metropolis at a serious disadvantage compared with the richer districts. You may say that the law courts are open to all. But the man with the longer purse has the advantage, and what applies in the case of individual litigants applies equally to public bodies who indulge in litigation. I do think, having regard to the importance of this question, we are justified in appealing to the House to omit the sub-section.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 5, line 32, to leave out sub-section (6), of Clause 6."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
§ SIR R. B. FINLAYI hope that the House will take the same view as that adopted by the majority of the Committee on this question. It is perfectly right and reasonable that the same powers should be conferred on these borough councils in the metropolis as are enjoyed by all the town councils throughout the country. Of course, the County Council may deal with Bills relating to the metropolis as a whole, but there may be many matters affecting the health or comfort of the inhabitants of a particular district in regard to Which it is desirable that the borough council should have the 503 power of promoting or opposing Bills, or of enforcing their rights by legal procedure.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONI regret that the First Lord of the Treasury is absent, because he might have been induced by the arguments of my hon. friend to have met us in regard to this matter. This really is the last blot on the Bill in connection with the position which the borough councils will hold against the County Council. The Solicitor - General has argued this question on the analogy of the large borough councils in the country, but these metropolitan borough councils can never be in the same position in regard to their internal relations as the large boroughs throughout the country. We know that for years past—in fact, ever since the London County Council has been in existence—the County Council has promoted Bills for the benefit of all parts of London, and there has been no objection found on the part of the vestries themselves. I think the onus lies on the Government, and those who propose the change, to show that the system which has prevailed up to the present moment has not been successful. I believe that in every case in which the vestry—which is practically now the borough council—has had a desire to have some legal question promoted by the London County Council that question has been promoted and carried through by the County Council to the satisfaction of the local body. I think, therefore, that as regards the actual working of the scheme we ought to have some argument from the Solicitor-General, or from the Attorney-General, to show that it has not been successful, has not worked properly, and that, therefore, there is some reason for the change. I think there is considerable force in the remark with regard to the cost of these powers. Unfortunately the cost of promoting Bills in Parliament under the present system is an expensive one. Since it came into existence the County Council has had to expend a sum of £20,000 or £30,000 in this direction. I look, therefore, with some trepidation at the probable expense which will be involved when we have 20 or 30 borough councils promoting their own bills. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that the cost will fail heavily on the poorer districts, and that 504 the richer boroughs will be able to promote their Bills with greater advantage, because they will have plenty of funds to draw upon, whereas the poorer districts, with equal interests involved, will not be able to carry them through. I think also we ought to look on the matter from the point of view of the House of Commons itself, and I must say I view with great trepidation the large amount of time that will be devoted by this House to the consideration of these Bills. That is a practical difficulty which I really think the Government have not given sufficient attention to.
§ MR. LOWLESI hope the Government will retain the clause as it is. I am really astonished at the jealousy manifested by the London County Council throughout the whole proceedings in connection with this Bill. I can only conceive that the object of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is to enable the County Council to keep its grip over the local authorities. I venture to say that if the local authorities are left to themselves we shall not have that reckless expenditure in promoting Bills which has been predicted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Where, purely local interests would require power under the section it would be usefully and rightfully used. I therefore hope the House will resist the proposal, which has been made entirely in the interests of the London County Council.
§ *MR. McKENNA (Monmouth, N.)Whether this Amendment be accepted or not, the members of the various borough councils can promote Bills in Parliament. Their only risk, if the Amendment is carried, is that if their Bill is unsuccessful they will have to bear the cost themselves. In every case where there is a legitimate and proper demand for a Bill by a borough council, they can get their measure through the General Powers Bill of the County Council. It is only when there is strong opposition that any difficulty is likely to arise. If the members of the borough council introduce a measure not acceptable to the general feeling of London, they will do so at their own risk, and that risk will be that a Committee of this House might refuse them costs. There could be no real hardship, because the arbiters in every case would be a Committee of this House. All the Amendment proposes is to give 505 that Committee the power of deciding whether the promotion of a Bill by a borough council was wanton and reckless, and that if it were the members of the council ought to pay the costs themselves. The general power the London County Council now has to include in its Bill any proposal put forward by a borough gives every opportunity to the boroughs to get cheaply what they require.
§ *SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)I have some experience in the working of the Borough Funds Act, which provides a most salutary check, and, although some change in the machinery may be desirable, I am perfectly sure that until we have that improvement we ought to retain the Act as it stands. The functions of the new councils will be executive and administrative, not legislative. The object of the Act is to check the tendency to promote legislation and to indulge in wasteful expenditure. I believe it protects the interests of the subject, and I therefore suggest the importance of retaining it.
§ MR STUARTI do not think that my hon. colleague in the representation of Shoreditch has any right to say that the London County Council regards this Bill in the spirit of jealousy. I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether I, for one, as largely representing the London County Council in this House, have not done my very best to amend this Bill in a non-partisan spirit. That is shown by Amendments suggested by myself and by others having been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. When the Bill first came before the House I ventured to say it was a disintegrating Bill. It has ceased largely, but not wholly, to be a disintegrating Bill. There still remain disintegrating clauses in the Bill, but this is the most disintegrating clause of all. It appears to me that if we grant these powers we shall be taking a great step towards the disintegration of London. London is one, and ought to be regarded by this House as one. That we have maintained throughout the whole of this discussion. There is no advantage that I can see in any way whatever in allowing these different portions of London to act 506 on their own account in this House. Their interests are too much combined and united to make that desirable or useful. The clause is a bad one, and part of the old spirit in which the Bill was framed—viz., of opposition to the unity of London—a spirit, however, which the discussions on this Bill have largely caused to evaporate.
§ SIR E. CLARKEI really cannot allow the statement just made to pass unchallenged. The hon. Member said that this clause remains in the Bill in antagonism to the London County Council. He talks about the Bill as a disintegrating Bill, and he says that he and his friends have been insisting on the unity of London. There is a certain amount of truth in that. They have been seeking to secure for one body which they represent authority over all parts of London. They have in that contention, as far as this Bill is concerned, absolutely failed, and I do not accept for a moment the claim they are making now inside and outside the House, that they have been supporting the Bill and sympathising with its objects. They have been defeated in this sense, that the House recognised, on the second reading, and recognises now, that London is not one, but a collection of places entitled to have separate municipal existence and authority apart from the authority and interference of the London County Council. The object of this Bill has, I think, been to put the London County Council in its proper place, and when it passes I think the hon. Member and his friends will be obliged to admit outside, if not here, that very much has been done in spite of them to give proper municipal life to London
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 57. (Division List, No. 174.)
507| AYES. | ||
| Arrol, Sir William | Gedge, Sydney | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Gibbons, J. Lloyd | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gibbs, Hn.A.G H.(C. of Lond. | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G (Bute) |
| Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manch'r) | Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) |
| Balfour, Rt.Hn.G. W. (Leeds) | Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Percy, Earl |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bethell, Commander | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. | Purvis, Robert |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W. | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Heath, James | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T. |
| Brookfield, A. Montagu | Heaton, John Henniker | Robertson, Herbert(Hackney) |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol) | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) | Saunderson,Rt. Hn. Col. E. J. |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Howell, William Tudor | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Clarke, SirEdward(Plymouth) | Hutchinson, Capt.G.W.Grice- | Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Knowles, Lees | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Lafone, Alfred | Stock, James Henry |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd) | Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a | Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv |
| Corbett, A.Cameron(Glasgow) | Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Liverp'1) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cornwallis,FiennesStanley W. | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Lowles, John | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Curzon, Viscount | Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent) | Usborne, Thomas |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Valentia, Viscount |
| Denny, Colonel | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Macdona, John Cumming | Webster, R.G. (St. Pancras) |
| Doxford, William Theodore | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Webster, Sir R. E.(I.ofWight) |
| Drucker, A. | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L) |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | M`Killop, James | Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Marks, Henry Hananel | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh,N.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne) | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Wyndham, George |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Milner, Sir Frederick George | Young, Commander(Berks,E.) |
| Flower, Ernest | Milward, Colonel Victor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | More, Robt. J. (Shropshire) | Sir William Walrond and |
| Garfit, William | Morrell, George Herbert | Mr. Anstruther, |
| NOES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Fenwick, Charles | Provand,Andrew Dryburgh |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire) | Gurdon, Sir William B. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.) | Steadman, William Charles |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Horniman, Frederick John | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Burns, John | Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Caldwell, James | Leng, Sir John | Tully, Jasper |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lewis, John Herbert | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | Lloyd-George, David | Weir, James Galloway |
| Davies, M. V.- (Cardigan) | MacAleese, Daniel | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Davitt, Michael | M'Cartan, Michael | Williams, John C. (Notts.) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Ghee, Richard | Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk) |
| Dillon, John | M'Kenna, Reginald | Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Doogan, P. C. | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Douglas, C. M. (Lanark) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Pickersgill and Mr. James |
| Evershed, Sydney | Price, Robert John | Stuart. |
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONThe Amendment I now propose relates to the financial basis between the London County Council and the new borough councils, and it is one which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said he would consider before the Report stage. I do not want to enter into the arguments with which I troubled the House upon the last occasion, but it does seem to me necessary that we should provide for some sort of revision. Under these circumstances, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this into his favourable consideration, although I do not wish to press it unduly upon him.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 12, after the word 'order,' to insert the words, 'provided that, at any interval of not less than five years, the London County Council and the borough council may revise and alter the amount of the contribution, or, in default of agreement, the Local Government Board may, on the application of either party, if it think fit, revise and vary the existing arrangement.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am afraid that the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite will hardly do, because they divorce too obviously the responsibility of expenditure from the responsibility of management. If the local authority is ready to take over the duties, it should, no doubt, be ready to take over the expenditure which is associated with those duties, and which is necessary to carry those duties into effect. If I could find a thoroughly satisfactory form of words which would make it possible to have a revision in those cases in which public necessity requires an immense extension of the duties originally made the subject of agreement, I should be very glad to consider it. I can well imagine cases in which some power of going hack over the original decision would be desirable in the public interest, although I confess that the words of this proposal are rather vague, and I do not think that we could accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. There is, of course, still time in another place to insert words which would meet the case, and I shall be glad to consider them if the hon. Member can think of a satisfactory form of words.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONUnder the circumstances I will not press my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Other amendments made.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLThe object of the Amendment I now beg to move has been discussed before, and when it was mentioned in Committee the Leader of the House advanced one objection to it, and, so far as my memory serves me, one objection only. He said that it would be inconvenient in reference to the administration of sanitary law, because in those cases it was sometimes necessary, at all events, to take action upon an emergency. Seeing that there was considerable force in that objection, I have met it by the consequential Amendment which stands in my name. I propose by a subsequent Amendment to exempt from the requirement of approval any Committee appointed for the purpose of the Public Health Act. I do, therefore, hope this will not be opposed by the Government. There are two precedents for this—one is that of the municipal corporations, and the other the district councils. As these precedents are on our side, I think I have fairly met the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I trust that he will consent to adopt this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 6, line 28, to leave out the word 'report,' in order to insert the word 'submit.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ instead thereof:—
§
Question proposed—
That the word 'report' stand part of the Bill.
§ SIR R. B. FINLAYI hope the House will not accept this Amendment, which will require, with the one exception mentioned in a subsequent Amendment, that the act of every committee shall be submitted to the council. Surely the provision of the Bill as it stands is much more reasonable, for it provides that:
Every committee shall report their proceedings to the council, but to the extent to which the council so direct the act and proceedings of the committee shall not require the approval of the council.I fail to see what sense there is in confining that power to one particular class of cases.
§ MR. STUARTThe arrangement under the Bill proposes to give a certain power to these metropolitan municipalities which does not exist in any other committee, either on county councils or municipalities. It is a great pity that you should enable a body to shuffle off its responsibilities upon committees. I shall support this amendment, because I believe it will bring the law in London in uniformity with the law which is in force in other places.
§ MR. LOWLESFrom my own observations I can only say that the committees already existing do very good work in this regard, and take great interest in it. The only check upon their work is that they are subordinate to the local governing body themselves, and to take away the check is a very dangerous thing. By this Bill the power of re-vision by the Council by whom they are appointed will be done away with, and I think to take away such a wholesome check will be very dangerous indeed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROur point is that if this Amendment is carried, it will throw a great deal of unnecessary labour on the council. On the other hand, under the clause as it stands the possibility of abuse is reduced to a minimum, because when a committee is suspected of abusing its powers it can be dispossessed of those powers at a moment's notice by the body to which it is subordinate.
§ MR. LOWLESUnder this clause?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYes. And under the circumstances I am sure that my hon. friend will feel that no independent body is set up which can set its parent body at defiance.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. CRIPPSI propose now to move the Amendment standing in my name at 512 the beginning of the Paper. The object of my Amendment is simply to introduce a scheme which would be of great convenience in dealing with the difficult and complex subject of rating, and would not affect the incidence of rating either as regards individuals or areas. What I seek to do is to make the borough the unit for assessment purposes, for making the levy, and for the collection of rates, as against the parish which is the unit at the present time. What the Government have done in Sub-section 10 is to make the duties of the overseer vest in the council of the borough, which is not only clumsy but is in itself an absurdity, because although the borough council is made the overseer of each parish in its area, the parish is kept alive as a rating unit. My proposal is that, instead of having this complex machinery, instead of making the borough council the overseer, we should have one overseer for the borough unit, and that for rating purposes it should be constituted a parish. It is not only a question of machinery; it goes outside; it is also a matter of expense. It goes over the whole borough, and you can afford to have the work properly done, and then it can be supervised by the council. I hope the House will appreciate what I mean. You want a borough unit, and you want to know whether property is being assessed at a proper amount. The best way to arrive at that is to take the larger entity, and give the overseer a skilled assistant, through whom the work can be properly done. It is a great advantage to have a larger rather than a smaller entity. If you deal with the matter on this principle you get greater simplification and far greater certainty in every assessment, and that is the matter with which we have to deal. As I shall not have another opportunity of speaking on this subject, allow me to say a word as to the objection raised by the Solicitor-General on the last occasion. He suggested that my scheme might interfere in some way with the liabilities of various areas throughout the borough. I would point out that this does not deal with any question of the kind. All we are doing here is to find out the best basis of assessment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 7, line 1, after the word 'parish,' to insert the words, 'it shall be constituted a parish for the purposes of assessment, and for the making, levy, and collection of rates, and.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI recognise at once the clearness and ability with which my hon. and learned friend has stated his case; and, although I do not pretend to have the experience which he has had on the Royal Commission, this is a subject that I have a very great experience of. I quite agree if some scheme could be arrived at whereby for rating, valuation, and all other purposes, the borough could be made one parish it would be a great help; but it is not possible to do that in the way he proposes. The difficulties in the way are almost insuperable. We have to deal with the question of a borough comprising more than one parish, and we shall also have to deal with a parish which is in more than one union. I hope my hon. friend will not misunderstand me. I am pointing out that the simple amendment which he proposes to put into this Bill will not be sufficient to bring about the uniformity which he desires to obtain. I am not so clear upon this, but I think there would be considerable difficulty in the question of the equalisation of rates, unless you had certain consequential amendments put in, because at present the equalisation of rates is arrived at by means of population, and not by boroughs. We have approached this question with the object of seeing whether, either by a clause by itself or by some amendment in the Bill, some such scheme as that which my hon. friend suggests could be adopted; but I am afraid there are great difficulties in the way. It is not because we do not sympathise with his Amendment that we do not adopt it, but because the consequential amendments would be so serious. I am not sure whether all that the hon. Gentleman desires to be done in this Bill could be accomplished by his Amendment, even if it were agreed to; and, at the same time, we are not in a position to accept it without grave consideration as to its effect on existing Acts of Parliament.
§ SIR EDWARD CLARKEMy hon. and learned friend has made a very sympathetic speech in reply to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stroud, whose object was to make, for the purpose of assessment, the borough a unit. My hon. and learned friend said he sympathised with that object, and, no doubt, in that respect he is in accord with all other Members of this House. The subject is a complex one, and I only rise because the Attorney-General, at the end of his speech, said that there was a possibility of constructing a scheme by which this object could be carried into effect. We are all of us agreed that the object which the hon. and learned Member has is a good object, and one which it is desirable to carry out. I would, therefore, ask if it is not possible that, between this stage and the discussion of the matter in another place, certain amendments might be made in this clause which would effectuate that object
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI entirely admit that my hon. and learned friend who has just sat down, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment, have not misconstrued the views of the Government when they say that we regard the object with most sympathetic interest; but the real difficulty is that we cannot make the area of the borough coincide with the area for assessment until we have brought the union area into coincidence with the borough area. There is machinery for doing that under the Local Government Act, and I hope that by that machinery gradually, but not less effectually, the end which my hon. and learned friend, in common with the Government, has in view will be carried into effect. To do it directly and immediately by a provision in this Bill introduced in another place is more than I am in a position to promise, the difficulties involved being so considerable. If it can be done nobody will rejoice more than myself and the other members of the Government who are responsible for this measure.
§ MR. CRIPPSHaving regard to what has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney-General, I will not press my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
515
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 7, line 23, after the word 'borough" to insert the words, 'and of churchwardens of every parish within their borough except in so far as these relate to ecclesiastical purposes.'"—(Mr. James Stuart.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Other Amendments made.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 8, line 5, after the word 'clerk' to insert the words, 'upon such date or within such period as the Local Government Board may prescribe, so that all the rates collected in a metropolitan borough from any person may be included in one demand note.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Other Amendments made.
§ MR. CRIPPSI beg to move an amendment in Clause 12 providing that in all cases, whether the Poor Law union is one borough or not, the assessment committee shall be appointed by the borough council instead of by the board of guardians. This will bring the Bill into conformity with the recommendations of the Local Taxation Committee. I am anxious to anticipate an objection that may be raised based on the Attorney General's last argument. He suggested that we should have overlapping of union areas. That is no difficulty whatever. At the present moment throughout London we have an assessment not only for unions and certain Poor Law areas, but also for Imperial purposes; and it is one of the greatest advantages of assessment in the metropolis that it it available for Imperial as well as for local purposes. Supposing we have an assessment good enough for Imperial purposes and sound and just in itself, what does it matter whether the area over which the assessment committee have authority provides the basis of the assessment or not? At present we have not got the areas of local government coincident with the areas of the spending authorities, and I venture to prophesy they will not be for 100 years. If the Attorney-General's argument holds good, we may postpone the whole question of 516 rating reform. If the basis of assessment is fair and sound, it is wholly immaterial whether it is made by the spending authority or not. That is done every day in London as regards our Imperial taxation, and also with regard to certain matters of local duties, and there is not the slightest reason why we should postpone rating reform until the spending areas are coincident with the local government areas. This matter was especially recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. It is an admirable and necessary reform, and does not require any consequential amendment. The Attorney General is thoroughly conversant with all rating questions, and I hope he will be able on behalf of the Government to accept this great reform, which will not in any way be affected by the bogey, if I may say so, of the overlapping union areas. I beg to move.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 8, line 33, to leave out the words 'where the whole of a Poor Law union is within one borough.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Blil.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERIt is quite impossible at this particular stage to accept this Amendment, as the Government have gone as far as they ought in this direction already. Apart from the difficulty of overlapping, which is much more serious than my hon. and learned friend thinks, his Amendment would dispossess the guardians of their right to appoint the assessment committees in all cases, even where the areas were not conterminous with the borough or controlled by the borough authorities. I do not see any uniformity of assessment or other advantage that would be obtained in that case. We have accepted my hon. and learned friend's principle as far as we possibly can by making it apply in analogous cases, and we are not prepared to accept this Amendment.
§ MR. LOUGHI have got the same Amendment on the paper, and I am very sorry that the Attorney - General has not seen his way to deal with it more sympathetically. I would direct the attention of the Government to a further proviso I have put down, which, 517 I think, would meet the objection of the Attorney - General. It is as follows: "Provided that where the boundaries of one or more unions are not conterminous with the area of a borough, a scheme under this Act shall settle any question arising over such overlapping of areas." This really would settle the whole matter. Let us have a scheme under the Act which would settle any difficulty suggested by the Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to preserve the authority of the board of guardians in this matter, but the primary object of the board of guardians is to relieve the poor. Why, then, should they have anything to say to assessment? It is a duty which could far more appropriately be given over to the borough councils, and I believe that if my proviso were considered by the Government it would be seen that every difficulty would be met by it. The Attorney-General says that he has accepted the principle of the hon. and learned Member's amendment in all cases where the Poor Law union is conterminous with the borough. In Islington we are all right, as the Poor Law union and the borough cover exactly the same area. Therefore I am quite unselfish in this matter, and I really put down my proviso to meet the objections raised by the Attorney-General. It would enable us to adopt a uniform system in London, and would be a great improvement on the clause as it stands.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think the hon. Gentleman must know that no scheme under this Bill could possibly meet the difficulty, as it could not alter either the area of taxation or the power of taxation. The difficulty arises from the fact that the most important rates which the ratepayers have to pay are the rates raised by the Poor Law guardians. There is no ground for dispossessing the existing assessment committees, and the only way to get over the difficulty is to make the unions conterminous to the boroughs. That is an object to be attained gradually. There is power in existence to enable it to be gradually obtained, but it cannot be obtained in any rough and ready manner under this Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Other Amendments made.
518
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 8, line 38, after the word 'unions,' to insert the words 'and the town clerk shall be the clerk to such assessment committee.'"—(Colonel Hughes.)
§
Question—
That those words be there inserted,
§ put, and negatived.
§ Other Amendments made.
§ MR. STUARTI appeal to the Attorney-General and to the Solicitor-General to accede to the Amendment I now rise to move, because I submit it will accomplish the object which I have in view. We have a large number of local Acts in operation in London, and these will have to be repealed. I think we ought to secure that all these Acts should be repealed by one statute. As the Attorney-General well knows, the difficulty of laying your hands on these Acts and knowing whether they exist or not is very great. I am sure that this proposal I am making is a very practical one, but I will not press my Amendment if I can get some satisfactory assurance that the matter will be considered.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 10, line 14, to leave out paragraph (e), of sub-section (1), of Clause 15."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTERI would remind the hon. Member opposite that the Bill follows exactly the precedent of the last Local Government Act. It is absolutely necessary in every Bill of this kind to consider the number of local Acts, to modify them and repeal them in some way, and there are a large number of local Acts which will have to be dealt with. It would be convenient, no doubt, that these should be embodied in one statute, and I will consider what can be done in this direction. But there are other considerations which might make such a course very inconvenient, for some of them have a very wide application. I agree that there should be some 519 convenient method provided of getting at the Act, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not overlook the point. I think he will see, however, that we cannot possibly omit the sub-section altogether.
§ MR. STUARTAfter what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Other Amendments made.
§ *MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)I am still in the dark as to what the Government propose to do under the Bill in regard to the district which I represent. I have acknowledged in Committee before the courtesy which I have received from the First Lord of the Treasury, and the great consideration he gave to the matter. The conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman came to has certainly pleased one part of my division very well, but it has displeased the other part. It so happens that Stoke Newington is the only district which stands outside the Bill, and which has not been scheduled. What I propose to insert is a provision the object of which is to make it quite clear that the question of dividing a parish, for the purpose of transferring part of it for local purposes from one area to another, is still within the competence of the Boundary Commission, and may be done, notwithstanding the fact that the area has been scheduled. I have in mind the portion of Hackney which is in my division. I represent North Hackney, which is made up of Stoke Newington and a portion of the parish of Hackney. I pointed out how one part of my division was to be joined with South Hornsey, and the Government were good enough to give way so far. There then still remains the question as to whether the other portion of my division should go with it, and all I desire is to make it quite clear that this matter has been left open. I quite recognise that I cannot ask this House to come to a final decision upon such a point when there is a conflict of opinion; but I do ask the Government to recognise that they should not come to an adverse 520 decision on this point, but still leave the matter open. I ask that these words may be inserted in order that the question may be left open for the Boundary Commissioners to decide and to adjust the boundary. It is agreed on all hands that wherever it is possible it is important that the boundary of the new municipal boroughs should be conterminous with the boundary of the Parliamentary borough, and I wish the Commissioners to be left free to decide between the differences in local opinion in following out that principle. It is eminently desirable that you should have the right sort of spirit in local boroughs, and that it should not be divided for parliamentary purposes. I do not ask the Government for a decision on this matter at this moment; all I ask is that it may be shown on the face of the Bill that this is a matter which will have to be hereafter determined. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 10, line 40, after the word 'borough' to insert the words 'notwithstanding the inclusion of the parish in the first schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI can heartily sympathise with my hon. friend in respect to the hot water in which he finds himself, because I myself, though I do not represent London, have got into hot water also over the question of areas and boundaries which cannot be settled. My hon. friend suggests an Amendment which has no other object than to enable the parish of Hackney to be cut in two. We have already decided that it shall not be cut in two, and therefore I think it is superfluous to introduce in the clause an Amendment intended to facilitate an arrangement which we do not intend to promote. I hope the Amendment will not be passed.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. BOUSFIELDAs to the Amendment I now rise to move, this is a matter in which I hope to meet a better fate than I experienced in the last Amendment I proposed. There was, 521 no doubt, a strong opinion in South Hornsey before the matter came before this House that the insular part of South Hornsey must come into Stoke Newington, but there is a difficulty in arriving at a correct estimate of the population. Since then South Hornsey has considered its position, and, finding it must partly come in, desires to come in as a whole. What the Government should do now, having got the voice of the inhabitants of South Hornsey upon the matter, is simply to insert in the schedule "South Hornsey and Stoke Newington." I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury has considered that, or it might be dealt with in the alternative, and South Hornsey added to the rest of the County of London.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the words relating to population, in order to insert "is part."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAfter the statement made by my hon. friend, I see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *CAPTAIN CHALONER (Wilts, Westbury)The Amendment which stands in my name has been framed with a view to prevent a danger which, in the opinion of the Executive Council of the Union of Poor Law Associations of England and Wales exists in regard to this Bill—a danger which would affect not only London but the whole of the United Kingdom. Under a case tried last year, under the Local Government Act, 1888, between the parish of St. Saviour's and the Dorking Union, it was decided that where a parish was subdivided into two or more parishes the Poor Law settlements were extinguished in the divided parishes. We are advised that the same thing would happen under the present Bill. We therefore appeal to Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment, to avert what we think a real danger. If this is impossible, I hope, at any rate, that the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance, either 522 that he is satisfied that our fears are ungrounded or that something will be effected to prevent harm being done.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 11, line 33, at the end of line 17, to insert the words—
'If, under or by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or of any Order in Council made in pursuance thereof, any parish or place maintaining its own poor shall be divided into two or more parishes or portions of parishes, such division shall not destroy the settlements which poor persons may have therein at the date of such division, but every person who has at the date of such division a settlement in any parish or place divided as aforesaid shall be deemed to be settled in the new parish which shall contain the house or other place or places in which the settlement, acquired or derived by such person, shall have been gained. Provided always that no such settlement as aforesaid shall be retained if it was gained under or by virtue of a residence partly in one of the new parishes and partly in another.
'If, under or by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or of any Order in Council made in pursuance thereof, any parish or place maintaining its own poor shall be divided into two or more parishes or portions of parishes, such division shall not destroy a status of irremovability acquired by virtue of a residence in the union of which the divided parish shall have formed part or consisted, but such status of irremovability shall be deemed to have been acquired in the parish which shall contain the house or other place in which the person having such status of irremovability shall be resident at the time when such division shall take place, or if he shall then be in receipt of relief in the parish which shall contain the house or other place in which he was resident at the time of becoming chargeable.'"—(Captain Chaloner.)
§
Question proposed—
That those words be there inserted.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURI think my hon. and gallant friend was perfectly justified in bringing this matter forward. It does appear that there are eases where parishes were divided—not under the Act of 1888—and where the evil which my friend fears had actually occurred and the Poor Law settlement has been destroyed. If that were a possible result of this Bill, I agree it must be carefully guarded against. But I do not think my hon. and gallant friend need be alarmed. As a matter of fact there is power given in this Bill to provide, by scheme, against that danger, and it has been the practice of the Local Government Board, acting under the Act 523 of 1888, whenever a parish is divided, to take care that the settlement is not thereby destroyed. I can assure my hon. friend that every care and precaution shall be taken, by scheme, to prevent the result which he very justly says would be most disastrous if it occurred. It is neither necessary nor desirable to introduce into this Bill this very elaborate Amendment, and perhaps my hon. friend will be content to take from me the assurance that the question will be considered, and that, in so far as parishes are divided under this Bill, schemes shall be provided so that settlements shall not thereby be destroyed.
§ *CAPTAIN CHALONERAfter that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. CLOUGH (Portsmouth)The object of the next Amendment standing in my name is to bring the Inner and the Middle Temple into line with the rest of the City under the new arrangements. These have been generally considered extra-parochial; they are not a parish by themselves, but have been generally considered as within the City. The Assessment of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple is, in point of fact, made under the provisions of Clause 59 of the Metropolis Act of 1855, by the Assessment Committee of the Corporation of London, and they could, if they wished, be represented on the committee. Their present assessment value, though not rateable value, is: Inner Temple, £23,483, and Middle Temple, £14,500. There are other four Inns of Court—Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, Staple's Inn, and Furnival's Inn, which were under the Metropolis Act of 1855 put on Schedule C by themselves. Whenever any question of rating arises there is always a difficulty in regard to making them pay their ratio, and hitherto the City has never been able to get them to pay the Consolidated and Sewers Rates, though they do, in fact, pay the Police Rates—
§ MR. BOUSFIELDI rise to a point of order. Is this Amendment within the scope of the Bill?
§ MR. SPEAKERI think the Amendment would make places rateable which are not now rateable.
§ MR. CLOUGHThat is my intention.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat cannot be done under this Bill.
§ Amendment ruled out of order.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 12, line 30, after the word 'churchwarden,' to insert the words 'or sidesman.'"—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words 'or sidesman' be there inserted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)It is consolatory to me to reflect that the Amendment I now rise to move is not one which is likely to raise much discussion, for no one could conceive a more inopportune moment to raise a contested point. I hope, late though the hour be, that there may be some exercise of forbearance while I try to compress my remarks into as brief a compass as possible. The Bill removes from the ecclesiastical vestries all civil powers and authorities. There remains to them, therefore, nothing but the authority relating to Church affairs, which is safeguarded under Clause 21. There is, therefore, what may be called a disestablishment of the Church in regard to local matters. It follows that when Church affairs have to be dealt with it is only right and reasonable that the body to deal with Church affairs under the Act should be, not the body of public citizens at large, but the body of Church members. The next question is, Who are the Church members? More than one answer has been given to that question, but my answer is that those only ought to exercise authority in Church matters, among the laity, who are by the law of the Church communicant members. I think there is no dispute about the meaning of the rubric referred to in the Amendment; all parties in the Church are agreed on that. In point of law there can be no doubt that it would be decidedly improper to allow that those who disobey the law of 525 the Church should exercise government within the Church. It would seem to me a very fatal thing to do. Then comes the further matter, Is it an expedient course? It is very often reasonably complained that the laity of the Church of England have not that share of influence that ought properly to belong to them. I think that if the true cause of that want of influence were carefully sought, it would be found in the fact that the laity are an indeterminate body. It is very difficult to know what the Church of England really thinks, but supposing this Amendment is carried that difficulty will be in a large measure removed; we shall have a number of bodies all entitled to speak in the name of the laity of the Church. I do not think that there is anything which would weigh with the House on the other side except the argument that this is a revival of the old principle of the Test Act. But I do not think it is at all reasonable to say that this proposal contains the same principle as the Test Act. What person who is not a communicant is at all likely to meddle with the ecclesiastical vestries? I do not conceal from the House that the motive I have in moving the Amendment is to face that most difficult question, what is a lay member of the Church of England.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 12, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'the inhabitants of the parish,' in order to insert the words, 'Such inhabitants of the parish as shall have obeyed that rubric of the Book of Common Prayer which is printed at the end of the Order of the Administration of the Holy Communion, and which requires that every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter is to be one.'"—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
§
Question proposed—
That the words 'the inhabitants of' stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI will not enter into the argument with my noble friend as to whether the Amendment is open to the objection often brought against the Test Act, but I will ask him whether he cannot imagine cases in which the administration of some office carrying with it local authority, dignity, and some small measure of local power would give rise to contention wholly unworthy of religion. My noble friend does not conceal from the House that his chief motive for bringing forward the Amendment is, I will not say to raise a discussion, but to turn men's attention to the problem of what constitutes a lay member of the Church of England, with a view, not to the local government of London, but to some future measure under which increased authority may be given to the laity of the Church. I am one of those who desire that the laity should have greater influence in matters ecclesiastical, and no doubt whenever, if ever, the ideal which I entertain on the subject takes practical shape, no question of greater importance can come up for discussion. But, Sir, I would make two observations upon the suggestion of my noble friend. One is that the definition of a layman in the Church of England is far more rigid than the definition which has been found satisfactory in the case of the Church of Scotland, even in a matter so important as that of the choice of a minister. The second observation that I would make to my noble friend is that from his own point of view this surely is a most inopportune and inexpedient moment to choose for discussing a question which we should approach in a mood different perhaps from that in which we 527 have discussed the secular problems which have occupied us to-night. It is surely unwise to ask the House to divert its mind from questions of assessment, questions of rating, questions of area, and all the other important problems connected with the London Government Bill, and suddenly to come to a determination upon a question avowedly brought before us, not for the purpose of dealing with any problem of London government, but apparently with the object of preparing the way for some ecclesiastical reform. Nothing can exceed the importance of the question raised by the Amendment; but why should we be required to come, under most unfavourable circumstances, to a decision—which must affect and prejudice any further discussion which the House may have on some future occasion—in dealing with a Bill which only by accident in one corner, in one stray fragment, touches in some remote degree the ancient ecclesiastical constitution of the country?
§ It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed on Thursday.