Commons Sitting of 23 March 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely—

  London and North Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill.

  London and North Western Railway (New Railways) Bill.

  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  WOKING WATER AND GAS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR J. BAKER: Sir, I desire not to let this Bill go to a Committee of the House without some explanation. It is one of the very simplest of water Bills. It applies to a district containing 18,000 inhabitants,
  114
  and which has doubled its population in. 18 years. The company itself was established some 18 years since, and was simply for the purpose of providing for a great want in the neighbourhood. As a proof of that, I may mention that the shareholders for the greater part of the time have only received 3 per cent. for their investments, and have never received more than 4 per cent., and they have been moved to promote this Bill, first, by the pressure of the local authorities,. and, secondly, by the serious requirements of the military and civil service in connection with the camps at Bisley and Pirbright, the barracks and the Brookwood Asylum. I understand they are all pressing the company to promote this Bill. The difficulty which arose with the Guildford Corporation, I have been assured, and I have seen the documents, has been settled satisfactorily in this form, that if the Bill is allowed to go into Committee the terms upon which that settlement was arrived at will be continued in Committee. I understand the London County Council raises a rather stale objection—that is, the impossibility of allowing any further supply to be taken from the Thames. But the fact is that Woking has, as it were, a natural right to the water by reason of its position on the river Wey.
  HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No ‡
  SIR J. BAKER: Yes; it has been confirmed again and again in Acts of Parliament, that the locality has the right to the water in its own rivers: and, that being the fact, the only circumstance which could possibly arise would be that the water would be so low as not to give the supply which London has the right to possess. But the quantity of 1,000,000 gallons a day which is permitted to be taken by the company is so fractional, as against the 185,000,000 gallons which pass over the weir, that I can conceive that no opposition on the ground of the scarcity of water can arise. I trust, with these explanations, that the honourable Member (Mr. Sydney Buxton) who has put down a notice that, I understand, rejects the Bill on behalf of the London County Council will not be able to influence the House by it. Surely the Surrey County-Council have a right to be heard upon such a question as the sending of a Bill of this character before a Committee,

  115
  and they are unanimous on the point. All the local authorities are unanimous, the Government authorities are pressing upon this matter, and, as a proof that they are right in pressing it, I may say that last summer water had to be taken to the camps by tanks. Such a thing ought not to be in connection with a great public institution, and if this Bill is jeopardised, that scarcity will continue. I trust the Opposition will be withdrawn, and that this Bill may be allowed to go to a Second Reading.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,: I should not have risen after the speech made by the honourable Gentleman opposite, but I am bound to point out that this Bill has been brought forward under very exceptional circumstances. Of course, everybody will understand from what has fallen from the honourable Member that the large and growing population of Woking desires a proper supply of water, and no one, I am sure, in any part of the House would desire to stand between the population of Woking and a public improvement of that character. But I must point out that the whole course of this Bill has been exceptional from start to finish. In the first place, it is brought forward—by whom? By the honourable Gentleman opposite, who is an able advocate for the Bill, but who, I think, has no local connection whatever with Woking or with that part of the country. And the other name upon the Bill is that of my honourable Friend behind me (Mr. Cohen), who is equally unconnected with that part which he is desirous of benefiting, while my honourable Friend the Member for the Division is, I think, not even in his place. Yes, I see he is in his place, but his name is not on the back of the Bill. That is an exceptional state of facts. Looking to the course of the Bill, and as it stands before the House at this moment, I am, of course, bound to confine my observations to questions of principle. I do not desire to go into detail, but I must point out that the Bill as brought before the House is absolutely different from the Bill as it is to go to the Committee. The Bill as brought before the House contemplates in some dozen paragraphs different sources of supply for Woking,
  116
  and in the course of negotiation two-thirds of those sources have been abandoned. Something like a compromise has been come to, and as to the water proposed to be taken from the Thames about one-third of the original proposal remains. It is proposed that the town of Guildford, which is in my constituency, an urban district containing 20,000 people, should supply Woking six miles off from wells, one of which is within 250 yards of the borough boundary, and the other is actually inside the boundary of the borough, and inside the area which Guildford is bound to supply. As it is put before us at this moment, we are in this position—owing probably to sufficient causes—the other proposal which Woking has made, firstly, to take water from the Tilling-bourne, several miles distant, and then the water of private owners who had supplied themselves after Woking had refused to supply them; both had to be abandoned. In reference to the opposition of London, and the source of supply from the Thames to a large extent being a very limited number of gallons, I will not venture to give the House any opinion upon, but I think it is obviously one to be decided, not outside, but in Committee. Having done all that, they come to the borough of Guildford and take from inside the borough the sources of supply upon which the borough is dependent, and I confess if it had not been for the observations of the honourable Member (Sir John Baker), who states that at the last moment in the course of this morning the undertakers have consented to put a clause into the Bill limiting to 500,000 gallons a day what they will take from Guildford, and, therefore, at all events, justifying to some extent their right to a Second Reading and a discussion in Committee upstairs, I should have been bound to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I shall be glad not to take that course, but I must point out, in the interest of Bills that go to Committee in this House, that the House is not put in a proper position if wild-cat schemes are started, branching out in every direction, asking for powers which may or may not be necessary, which obviously are not well considered, after two-thirds of the scheme has been knocked out, the House is asked blindfold to send a Bill to Committee which is a totally different Bill from that which is actually lying on the

  117
  Table of the House. In addition to that, when a Measure comes forward without the support of the Member for the Division, or of local Members, but is in the hands of Gentlemen who may have an interest or no interest in the neighbourhood, but who have an interest in the Company which proposes to take the water, I think this House is placed in a very awkward situation. I shall not myself move the rejection of the Bill after what has fallen from the honourable Gentleman, but I still entertain the strongest feelings that the House has not been properly treated, and that the neighbourhood has been very badly treated. I trust that upstairs these points will be considered, and that the necessary supply for Woking will be obtained, not from the points where there is least resistance, which is the present position, but including the Thames, if necessary, from which a larger supply can be afforded.
  MR. LEGH-BENNETT: As my right honourable Friend (Mr. Brodrick) was at first under the impression that the Member for Woking was not in. his place, and subsequently remarked upon the fact that the name of the Member for Chertsey was not on the back of the Bill, I feel compelled to ask the House to let me make a few remarks. In the first place the Division which I have the honour to represent covers a very much larger area than the area which the Woking Water Company are entitled to supply water to, and there are proposals in this Bill which militate against the interests of other parts of that Division: consequently it will be readily understood how it is that my name is not on the back of this Bill. At the same time I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, not in the interests of the company, but in the interests of my constituents. The district of the Woking Water Company is a curious one in respect of its water supply. A great portion of that part of Surrey contains what is known as the Bagshot formation, which is very ill provided with spring water, and such water as is there is for the most part very unsuitable for domestic purposes, partly because it is tainted with iron and partly because the substratum is bog. Consequently, in the greater part of the district, which is one of increasing population, the water
  118
  supply must necessarily be provided by public methods of some sort or another. Now, the parish of Woking is one which it is well known has been growing with great rapidity. In the year 1891 the population of Woking was 9,776; it is now estimated at over 15,000. In 1891 the rateable value of Woking parish, which extends over nearly 9,000 acres, was £52,000; the rateable value is now £83,306. These figures, I think, are sufficient to show how rapidly this district has increased. The Woking Water Company have, of course, a monopoly there under their Act. They have to supply not only Woking, but also Merrow, which is a suburb of the borough whose interests my right honourable Friend has been so carefully guarding, and although that suburb of Guildford is in my Division and not in his, I am sure he would be willing to study the interests of the inhabitants of that place even though he is not able to secure their votes. But, Sir, there are other interests besides the interests of this parish of Woking which are of importance. There is the large Surrey Lunatic Asylum at Brookwood, which has been suffering from a want of water for a considerable time; there is the barracks; there are the National Rifle Association meetings at Bisley, where they hold their meeting in July, and there is the Guards' Camp at Pirbright, all of which require a water supply. What is the fact. Last year the whole of the arrangements of the Woking Water Company absolutely broke down. There were indignation meetings on the part of Merrow complaining of the water company. I believe that Woking itself suffered very severely from want of water. The National Rifle Association had very nearly to give up their rifle competition because they had the greatest difficulty in getting supplied, and the way in which they were eventually supplied was by having the water brought down in railway tanks from Waterloo Station. There is another point which I desire to bring forward, and that is that the Local Government Board have lately consented to this large and rapidly growing parish of Woking having a system of drainage for itself. That drainage, I understand, will be put partly into working within three months from now. The district which

  119
  has to be drained is a flat one, and it will be necessary to provide a large additional amount of water to that which is now used for the purpose of flushing the sewers. Not only that, but at the present time, owing to the want of a sewerage system, the sanitary arrangements around Woking Station are carried on on the earth system, and directly you have a system of sewers of course connections will be made and the earth system will be turned into a system of water. In that way, apart entirely from the fact that the population is growing very rapidly, the sanitary necessities of the place will be very greatly increased. I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, reserving entirely to myself any opportunity that may be given to me of expressing an opinion on other places from which a water supply may be obtained or which may be disturbed. Those, I conceive, are matters for Committee and not for Second Reading. I am aware that there are some matters connected with those points which require to be very carefully watched, and I hope with others to watch them with proper care; but at the same time it does seem to me that it is very difficult to find an argument by which a Bill of this sort, which is promoted not in the interests of investors, not in the interests of speculators, but in the interests of the inhabitants of a district which has already suffered from a water famine—it is difficult, I say, to conceive how any valid objections can be raised to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. BUXTON: I put down a notice in opposition to this Bill on the ground that it would have very seriously interfered, if the original proposal had been carried out, with the natural duties of the London County Council in other parts of London and close to London. My objection on that ground has now been taken away because this company have agreed not to sink their wells or carry their pipes across the particular district in question. But I am bound to say that that only raises in my mind a further objection to this Bill, which I take it should receive the very serious consideration of the House, and it is one on which I should like to have the opinion of the right honourable Gentle-
  120
  man the Chairman of Ways and Means. Because we had a Bill introduced to start with as necessary—and I entirely agree with what fell from the honourable Gentleman opposite who has just spoken, on that question—I do not think for one moment that the extension of the water works of the Woking Company is as great as is necessary for local requirements. To that we are all agreed, and there is no objection to the Bill on that ground. But I should like the House to consider the way in which the Bill has been introduced, and I should like to direct the attention of the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means to it, for the good order and consideration of this House in Private Bills and Private Procedure. This Bill as it was introduced into this House proposed to sink in certain parts of Surrey four or five wells, and it is proposed to take at certain parts of the day three million gallons from the Thames; and the Bill, as it now stands, and the Second Reading of which we are now asked to pass, is a different Bill. The three million gallons have been reduced to one million, and in addition to that the Thames Conservancy, very rightly I think, have insisted that this company shall not sell any water from its wells——
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANB: It is not reduced to one million; it is one million without restriction, and the other two millions to be taken when a certain amount goes over the weir.
  MR. BUXTON: That is one reason why they have reduced their demands. At all events, the company have abandoned three of their proposed pumping stations, and reduced the capacity of the remaining one to 500,000 gallons a day. The House is thus put in this position, that a private and speculative company, whose object is to make a profit for their shareholders, and who have been roving about the beautiful Surrey Downs endeavouring to find pumping stations on which they could erect hideous pipes spoiling the scenery, have come asking for powers greater than they are about to take. The House is entitled to know where it stands, and if my right honourable Friend (Mr. Brodrick) is willing to divide

  121
  against the Bill I will certainly support him. It is not right that notice should be given of one Bill, and that by a private arrangement the House on Second Reading should be asked to pass one totally different.
  MR. COHEN: I should like to assure the House that, although my name is on the back of the Bill, I have no pecuniary interest in the company; but I hope the House will pass the Bill, which is calculated to obviate possible frightful sufferings from scarcity in a district which is growing daily. The company cannot be justly described as a speculative one, as suggested by the honourable Member opposite. It has never paid a larger dividend than four per cent. on its capital, and for a great many years it paid no dividend whatever. My right honourable Friend described it as a speculative company.
  MR. BUXTON: So it is.
  MR. COHEN: At any rate, it is not a favourably speculative company. It is only when companies are successful that they are considered mischievous by some Members in this House. I don't think the House should reject this Bill when the districts are daily thirsting for water, and especially for the remarkable reason given by my right honourable Friend (Mr. Brodrick)—namely, that the promoters have removed every possible objection to it.
  MR. CUBITT: I should like to say that the promoters have withdrawn from the Bill the points on which my opposition to it was based, and I think after the strong protest which has been made the House might very well allow the Bill to go to the Committee upstairs.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,: The honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Buxton) said he was going to put to me a question; but I am afraid I have been quite unable to understand what the particular question was. He appears, however, to take exception to the whole Bill, because, as originally introduced, it provided a variety of sources of supply. But the promoters of the Bill found that objection was taken to a certain number
  122
  of sources being utilised, and they are going to strike out of the Bill those sources of supply. Then, said the honourable Member, because the promoters are reasonable, and were going to strike out certain sources of supply, the whole of the Bill ought to be rejected.
  MR. BUXTON: No. The object of my statement was that they should withdraw the Bill and introduce it in the form in which they intend the House to accept it. The Bill is so utterly different to what it was at first.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: That would mean the loss of a whole year. This Bill, as we have heard from those who are acquainted with it, is really of great importance, and I am sure that if the honourable Member for Guildford had still held office as Secretary to the War Office he would have been one of the loudest in his demands that the Bill should be instantly passed, because it is introduced chiefly in the interests and because of the increase of troops that go to Pirbright and Bisley Camp. That being so, I think we may say that "All is well that ends well." We know pretty accurately what it is the company are asking for. At all events, if the Bill goes before the Committee upstairs they will be most definitely informed of the exact proposals that are being made by the company—proposals that are supported by the neighbourhood and those on behalf of whom they are made, and under these circumstances I would beg the honourable Member not to press his opposition.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I should like to be allowed to say a word about the Thames Conservancy, as their action has been referred to in the discussion. The Conservators have examined into matters most carefully, and thought that the people living on the banks of the river had a perfect right to some of its water, and so they have agreed with the company. Under the agreement, it is true, as pointed out by the Member for Poplar (Mr. Buxton), they have agreed to take only one million gallons a day; but that is only because the flow over Teddington Weir was last year 200,000 gallons per day. The flow is very rarely as low as that, and the result is that the

  123
  company will, as a rule, be able to take three million gallons per day from the Thames. That seems a reasonable arrangement, and the Thames Conservancy, therefore, accept it, and are quite prepared to agree to the conditions of the Bill.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made—
  "That the Bill be read a second time this day sis months."—(Mr. Hedderwick.)
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I move that this Bill be read a second time on this day six months. The only grounds upon which I take this action are grounds, as I conceive them to be, of public policy, and I hope the House may consider them of importance enough to warrant me in requesting the indulgence of the House for a few moments. My objections to this Bill are twofold. In the first place, I object to the mode of procedure by means of which the promoters are seeking to obtain the powers from Parliament which they say they require; and, in the next place, I object to the Bill because of the district councils affected. I oppose the Bill for the very good reason that they themselves are about to provide the inhabitants of their area with electric light. I said that my first objection to this Bill is the mode in which the promoters are endeavouring to secure their ends. The House is no doubt aware that Parliament, in 1882, passed an Act under which the Board of Trade was empowered to grant provisional orders to certain bodies for the supply of electric light. In my opinion that was a very wise and valuable piece of legislation, because no doubt it was designed to secure the supervision of the Board of Trade, so that there might be some sort of guarantee that the schemes that might be promoted should be of a just and valid nature. Some years later this House passed another Act, which further provided that in no case should the Board of Trade grant a Provisional Order to people who wish to supply an area within a local
  124
  authority's jurisdiction with electricity except with the consent of that local authority, "unless," the Act goes on, "the Board of Trade should be of opinion that, under all the circumstances, such consent ought to be dispensed with." The mode of procedure by which these promoters are proposing to secure then-ends is by Private Bill, and not by Provisional Order. In point of fact their procedure is not only contemptuous of this House but of the Board of Trade, inasmuch as the promoters seem to be deliberately ignoring the powers which Parliament has conferred on the Board of Trade. Well, now, it might be supposed that in pursuing this course the promoters of this Bill were acting in ignorance of those Acts by proceeding with a Bill without first applying to the Board of Trade, as they might easily have done, for a Provisional Order. But if my information is correct—and I am glad to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place, for he will correct me at once if I am wrong—this company were actually in communication with the Board of Trade, and had inquired of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade would grant them the powers which they sought. I am also informed, that in reply to that communication the Board of Trade stated that there was no reason why they should not apply in the usual way for a Provisional Order, which would enable them to do what they wanted, providing they were empowered to expend the requisite funds in obtaining the Order, and in supplying the area they wished to supply. There, for some reason or other, the promoters stopped. There is one reason which suggests itself to my mind as being the reason why they did not press for a Provisional Order, and that is, that by the Act which I have cited, the Act of 1888, they could not obtain a Provisional Order from the Board of Trade unless they had first armed themselves with the consent of the local authorities. They knew they could not obtain the consent of the Walker Urban District Council. Now, what is the position of affairs? This urban district council, on whose behalf I crave the attention of the House, has proceeded in a regular manner. They have proceeded by that method which the House of Commons

  125
  itself has laid down as proper for all undertakings, whether by local authorities, private companies, or private persons who may wish to supply any district with gas, electricity, or water. This urban district authority have applied to the Board of Trade—they applied at the end of last year—for a Provisional Order to enable them to supply electricity within their own area, and I am informed—the President of the Board of Trade will correct me at once if I am wrong—that they have actually obtained the Provisional Order they re-required. If then this House proceeds to sanction what I must again say I consider to be the contemptuous disregard both of Parliamentary practice and the Board of Trade, what will occur will be this—the urban district authority of Walker, which has placed its plans before the Board of Trade, and which has obtained the sanction of the Board of Trade, will be placed within its limited area in competition with this company which already has the power of distributing gas over the whole of the area. Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell further on the facts. I think I have stated them to the House with sufficient fulness to enable the House to form a judgment upon them. Let me, in conclusion, add that in the interests of the Board of Trade, in the interests of local authorities, and in the interests of municipalities, I think this House would be doing an unwise thing if it were to sanction a departure of this sort, and were to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
  MR. CRUDDAS: Mr. Speaker——
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable Gentleman rise to second the Amendment?
  MR. CRUDDAS: No, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: There being no seconder the Amendment fails, and the Question is, that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  MENSTONE WATER BILL.
  (By Order.) Read a second time, and committed.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table and to be printed:
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  ILFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments and an amended Title (changed to "Ilford Urban District Council (Rates) Bill"); to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
  GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to be laid upon the Table and to be printed.
  MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the abandonment of a portion of the Oystermouth Railway or Tramroad; for the lease of the undertaking and of the Mumbles Railway and Pier to the Swansea Improvements and Tramways Company; and for other purposes."—[Oystermouth Railway or Tram-road Bill."[H.L.]
  OYSTERMOUTH RAILWAY OR TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions of Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT) BILL.
  Petitions against;—from London County Council; Hertfordshire County Council; and, East London Waterworks Company; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women;—from London (two); and, Enfield; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Galashiels, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—from Marple; Sheringham; and, Kendal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (CLOTHING FACTORY).
  Annual Accounts presented,—of the Royal Army Clothing Factory for the year 1897–8, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 125.)
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2,212 (by command); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 501 (by command); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE AND SHIPPING OF AFRICA.
  Copy presented,—of Reprint, with additions from the "Board of Trade Journal," of articles dealing with the trade, shipping, railways, and the economic condition generally of the various divisions of the African Continent and of Madagascar, with maps (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

  NORTH ATLANTIC WINTER FREEBOARD.
  Return ordered, "of the Report of a Committee appointed to consider the operation of the North Atlantic Winter Freeboard as prescribed by the Load Line Tables, to examine the present mode of assigning Freeboards to vessels of the turret-deck type, and to advise as to the extension of the present Load Line Tables for steam vessels not having spar or awning decks."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Return presented accordingly: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 126.)

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (SCOTLAND) (REPRODUCTIVE UNDERTAKINGS).
  Return ordered, "of the Water, Gad, Tramway, Electric Lighting, and other Reproductive Undertakings carried on by Municipal Boroughs in Scotland.—(Sir John Leng.)

  BREWERS' LICENCES.
  Return ordered, "of Accounts of the number of persons in each of the several Collections of the United Kingdom licensed as Brewers for sale, i.e. Common Brewers, Victuallers, Retailers of beer

  129
  to be drunk on the premises, Retailers of beer not to be drunk on the premises, and Brewers of beer not for sale, particularising each class in each Collection; and stating also the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., and sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., used by Brewers of beer for sale, and of malt and sugar used by Brewers not for sale, from the 1st day of October 1897 to the 30th day of September 1898.
  "Of the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged from the 1st day of October 1897 to the 30th day of September 1898, distinguishing Brewers for sale from other Brewers.
  "Of the number of Brewers for sale paying for Licences, from the 1st day of October 1897 to the 30th day of September 1898, separating them into classes: under 1,000 barrels, at 1.055 degrees gravity; 1,000 and under 10,000; 10,000 and under 20,000; 20,000 and under 30,000; 30,000 and under 50,000; 50,000 and under 100,000; 100,000 and under 150,000; 150,000 and under 200,000; 200,000 and under 250,000; 250,000 and under 300,000; 300,000 and under 350,000; 350,000 and under 400,000; 400,000 and under 450,000; 450,000 and under 500,000; 500,000 and under 550,000; 550,000 and under 600,000; 600,000 and under 1,000,000; 1,000,000 barrels and over; showing separately, in each class, the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., and sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., used; and stating also the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged in each class.
  "And, of the number of barrels of beer exported from the United Kingdom, and the declared value thereof, and where exported to, from the 1st day of October 1897 to the 30th day of September 1898, distinguishing England, Scotland, and Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 83, of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 127.]

  INLAND REVENUE (PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE GAME LAWS).
  Return ordered, "showing how many of the prosecutions brought by the Inland Revenue Board during the past season for offences against the Excise Laws relating to Game Licences, Game Dealing Licences, and Gun Licences in Ireland, were prosecutions arising out of offences detected in the first instance by the officers of the Board themselves; how many arose from offences detected by the Royal Irish Constabulary; and how many were brought upon the evidence of private individuals, or of officers of the Game Protection Association."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To make further provision for Local Government in counties in Scotland; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
  TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law of Teinds, and to abolish Fiars' Prices in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
  FARNLEY TYAS MARRIAGES BILL.
  "For legalising marriages heretofore solemnised in the Church of Farnley Tyas, in the West Riding of York," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
QUESTIONS.

  HANLEY POSTMAN'S COMPLAINT.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if it is possible to reduce the punishment inflicted on Postman Wayte, of the Hanley Branch Office, Stoke-on-Trent, for the omission to deliver certain registered letters which the clerk in charge is said to have forgotten to hand to him before he started his delivery; and if he is aware that Wayte, who has served 37 years, and has borne an exceptionally good character, has been deprived of three extra stripes recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,: The clerk in charge did not forget to hand these registered letter to the postman. The postman neglected to apply for them before starting on his second delivery, although told that there were such letters—and on his return he refused to take them out and deliver them, on the plea that the shops to which they were addressed would be closed. The superintendent took them out, found all the shops open, and delivered them. For this Wayte was not punished but cautioned. His length of service rendered him eligible for three additional good conduct stripes under the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee, provided his conduct was good. Unfortunately this was not the case, and the award could not, therefore, be made. He has since lost one of the three stripes he held in 1898 for his connection with gambling irregularities at Hanley Post Office?

  RURAL POSTMEN ON FIXED WAGES.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what increase has been made in the number of rural postmen on fixed wages since the introduction of Mr. Raikes arrangement for payment of wages on scale in 1891?
  MR. HANBURY: The increase in the number of rural postmen on fixed wages since the introduction of Mr. Raikes arrangement for the payment of wages on scale in 1891 has been from 481 to 980. The deliveries in rural districts have, of course, largely increased; and many of these rural postmen on fixed wages are men working for only parts of the day.

  RURAL POSTMEN'S PAY.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, why, considering that the Department admitted, through Mr. Lewin Hill, before the Tweedmouth Inquiry, that there were no sufficient grounds for paying rural postmen who started from a town office less than town postmen who worked in the town, rural postmen are paid 2s. per week less maximum wage than town postmen at the same offices?
  MR. HANBURY: The wages of rural postmen starting from a town office on a country walk are fixed at 2 s. per week less, at the maximum of the scale, than those of the town postmen at the same offices, on the recommendation of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, made after hearing all the evidence on the subject.

  NIGER CHARTERED COMPANY.
  MR. C. M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any further information as to the approximate date when the transfer of the Niger Territories from the control of the Chartered Company to that of the Imperial Government may be expected to take place, also as to the terms of the transfer and the position in which the Royal Niger Company will stand in relation to other traders after it is effected?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,: Nothing can at present be added to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answers of 16th February and 23rd February.

  MOUNTPOTTINGER POST OFFICE, BELFAST.
  MR. E. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that a Question was asked in this House two years ago with a view to having Mountpottinger Post Office, Belfast, made an office for delivery of telegrams; that about a year ago a memorial was signed by the principal inhabitants of Mountpottinger and lodged with the Belfast postmaster setting forth the urgent need of making Mountpottinger Post Office an office for delivery as well as despatch of telegrams; and that neither delivery from the head office, which is more than a mile distant, nor delivery from Connswater (sub-office), which is also situated at a considerable distance, will satisfy the residents of Mountpottinger; and whether he will make Mountpottinger an office for delivery of telegrams, which would entail a very trifling-outlay and confer a great boon on the inhabitants, and would, in a short time it is confidently believed, prove a source of revenue to the Government?
  MR. HANBURY: Representations have been made as to the delivery of telegrams at Mountpottinger. A Question on the subject was asked by the honourable Member himself in May of last year. Very careful inquiry has been made, but the maintenance of the present system at Mountpottinger is considered to be on the whole the more conducive to the public advantage.

  WAIMA.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the communication addressed to the French Government on 14th July, 1898, on the subject of Waima, to which no reply has been received, or any previous communication, contained any demand for a pecuniary indemnity; and, if, so, what was the amount asked for?
  MR BRODRICK: The communication in question alluded to the fact of pecuniary indemnity being claimed, but no fixed amount was asked for.

  BARBADOS SUGAR INDUSTRY.
  SIR C. DILKE: On behalf of the honourable Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the House will have an opportunity to express its opinion as to the contemplated loan of £100,000 to the Barbados sugar planters, to meet loans that they may have incurred in consequence of possible losses by the late hurricane, before such advances are made to them; and, if so, when?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: It is proposed that if the Colonial Loans Fund Bill becomes law, the loans of £50,000 each to the Governments of Barbadoes and St. Vincent shall be raised under its provisions and the Bill authorising these loans will be introduced as soon as the Colonial Loans Fund Bill is disposed of.

  SOUTH GROVE BOARD SCHOOL, BOW.
  MR. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that the London School Board recently purchased Nos. 32, 34, 36, 38, Albion Street, South Grove, Bow, for the purpose of enlarging the South Grove Board School, and, having decided not to pull down the houses, served the tenants with one week's notice to quit, the notice being dated the 18th February; that the tenants were told at the same time that, if they would consent to pay l1s. 6d. per week, instead of the rental of 9s. 6d. per week, which they had hitherto paid, they could stay; that the tenant of No. 38, Mrs. Halsey, has lived there for over nine years, and has never paid more than 9s. 6d. per week, and that when the School Board collector recently called to collect the increased rent her husband was lying dead in the house; and that the tenant of No. 36, Mrs. Dickinson has lived there for nine years at 9s. 6d. per week; whether he is aware that an appeal has been made to the Board to allow these tenants to remain,

  135
  and not to extract from them an increase of 20 per cent. in their rental, and that this appeal has been rejected; and, whether the Education Department have any power to interfere in the matter, or will make a representation to the Board?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST,: The Committee of Council have no information upon the matter referred to. As they have no power to interfere, they do not propose to make any representation to the Board.

  BOUNTY-FED IMPORTS.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Return promised last Session, showing the amounts of bounty paid by various Colonies on the exports of butter and other agricultural produce to the United Kingdom?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The replies to the Circular despatch sent to the Colonies on this subject on 20th August last have now been almost all received, and the information contained therein is being tabulated, and will be shortly given to the House.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that bounty-fed competition is beggaring the Irish farmers?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡

  THE PECULIAR PEOPLE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Senior, a member of the Peculiar People, who received a sentence of four months' imprisonment for neglecting to provide medical treatment for his child; and whether he will consider the
  136
  advisability of remitting the remaining portion of Senior's sentence?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. J. COLLINGS,: The offence of which Senior was found guilty was manslaughter. The case has received careful attention, but no sufficient ground has been shown for a remission of any part of the sentence.

  NEW YORK HOTEL FIRE.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the recent disastrous fire, attended by so many fatalities, at a large hotel in New York, has caused any inquiry to be made respecting the sufficiency of the means of exit, in the event of fire, from the huge hotels and mansions erected during recent years in this City; whether the plans of the internal arrangements of these buildings are examined by any competent architectural authorities; and whether there are statutory powers for enforcing arrangements for the safety of the inmates?
  MR. COLLINGS: The disaster referred to is so recent that no such inquiry as the honourable Member suggests has, I think, been made as a result of it. But I understand that the matter will be brought before the Building Act Committee of the London County Council. The London Building Act, 1894, contains provisions for securing the safety of persons living in the hotels and mansions referred to in case of fire; and the plans of such building are subject to examination by the district surveyor, who has power to require fire-resisting construction in cases where he may deem it necessary.

  MISSIONS TO PRISONERS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prison Commissioners have lately issued a circular to the chairmen of prison visiting com-

  137
  mittees, stating that the Commissioners desire to encourage mission services and religious addresses in prisons, and that they have framed rules for their regulation; whether these rules provide that, while moral or religious addresses may be delivered by members of other religious bodies, missions can be authorised only when they are under the auspices of the Established Church or of organisations connected with it; what is the ground for the distinction; and, will the Home Secretary make such representations to the Prison Commissioners as will lead to its abandonment.
  MR. COLLINGS: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The circular is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, in accordance with the Prison Act, 1865, which contemplates that the services in prison chapels shall be those of the Established Church, but makes provision for prisoners of other denominations being specially attended by ministers of their own persuasion. This appears to the Secretary of State to justify the distinction which has been made between religious services or missions and addresses. There has been, and is, however, no objection to the delivery of moral or religious addresses in the prison chapels, subject to the approval of the visiting committee.

  WORKHOUSE DIETARIES AND FOOD WASTE.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Bethnal Green Board of Guardians has reported that, having served out to the children under their care the exact quantity of food ordered by the Local Government Board, and having carefully collected and measured the surplus unconsumed, they found there was a waste of no less than 190 gallons of bread, meat, potatoes, and milk during the week ended 30th November 1898 alone, and that the waste of milk only for the last three weeks of December 1898 was shown by careful measurement to amount to 178 gallons;
  138
  and if he is aware that the Chorlton Board of Guardians has complained of waste in the same way, and reported that, by disregarding the orders of the Local Government Board for a certain period, a saving of 40 per cent. of food was effected without stinting any of the children in any way; and whether, as this waste is due to the want of regard paid in the recognised dietary to the individual appetites and health of the children, it is the intention of the Board to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Workhouse Dietary appointed by the Department on 30th June 1897, which Committee issued a detailed Report, indicating the line of reform to prevent such waste on 17th June last?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,: The attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the cases referred to in the Question. The Board propose to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Workhouse Dietaries, and the matter is now receiving their attention. It may be added, as regards the Bethnal Green case, that on 27th January last the Board informed the guardians that they were prepared to assent to the arrangements specified in paragraph 20 of the Report of the Committee (which deals with the service of food to children in schools) being adopted at the schools belonging to the guardians, provided that the guardians would give an assurance that the terms of the paragraph would be fully carried out.

  ST. CLEMENT'S CHURCH, BELFAST.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the churchwarden of St. Clement's, Belfast, who prosecuted a man for brawling, has been forced, in consequence of menaces, to give up his situation, and that, after he gave up his situation, certain persons threatened they would make a corpse of him before he left Belfast; and whether the Government intends to bring this state of things to an end?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,: I am informed that the churchwarden of St. Clement's Church who instituted the proceedings referred to in the Question was employed as a joiner in the shipyard of Messrs. Workman and Clark until the 11th February last, when he was paid off, with some 60 or 70 other joiners, as there was not work for them. So far as the police can ascertain, no threats were used towards him of the nature alleged in the Question. The churchwarden is now in England, but his wife, who still resides in Belfast, has informed the police that she never heard him say he had been threatened.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Miss Crangle, one of the witnesses for the prosecution of Johnston in the recent brawling case at St. Clement's, Belfast (together with her sister), was on that account dismissed from her situation in Steen's Mill; and also that other witnesses were dismissed from their situations for the same reason; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not the fact that Miss Crangle was dismissed from her situation in Steen's Mill. She failed to return to her work after the trial before the Recorder on the 2nd inst. Her place was kept open for a week, and then filled, as the did not return. Miss Crangle's sister worked in the same mill. After the conviction of Johnson some ill-feeling was shown towards her by some of the other female workers, who hooted and jeered at her. On this account the manager advised her to remain away for a few days until the ill-feeling should subside. She accordingly left, and has not since returned to the mill. So far as can be learned, none of the other witnesses have been dismissed from their situations.

  TELEPHONE BILL.
  MR. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, to name the boundaries of the London area under the Telephone Bill?
  MR. HANBURY: The London area under the Telephone Bill will be the area defined in Part I. of the Second Schedule of the Agreement of 1896 with the National Telephone Company, which was printed in Parliamentary Paper No. 128 of last Session. It includes, among other places, the municipal boroughs of Richmond and Kingston-on-Thames, and the urban district of Surbiton.

  NAVAL RESERVE MEN AND THE FIREMEN'S UNION.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Fireman J. K. Harrod, Royal Naval Reserve (Book, p. 3064), was engaged to serve on board the British steamer "Bivouac" at Swansea, on 9th March 1899, and was told to bring his stores and clothes aboard; that when he returned to the vessel, after having purchased his stores, he found that one J. Q. Battye, a union delegate, had supplied another fireman in his place, informing Harrod that he had no authority to ship on the vessel, as he was not a union man; whether Naval Reserve seamen are compelled to join a union before they can obtain employment in British ships; and whether the said J. Q. Battye holds a licence from the Board of Trade, under section 110 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to supply seamen?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,: I am making inquiries in the case to which the honourable Member refers, but as both the fireman named and the steamer "Bivouac" are at sea, I am not in a position to say whether the statements in the Question are accurate or complete. Naval Reserve men are in precisely the same position as other seamen as regards employment on British ships. The owner and master are at liberty to employ whom they please, whether members of a union or not. J. Q. Battye does not hold a licence from the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Act.

  TELEGRAPHIST MITTON'S GRIEVANCE.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a junior telegraphist, named Mitton, in receipt of £60 per annum, who, on 28th January 1899, was placed on counter duties at the Threadneedle Street Post Office, and on that day lost 9s. 6d. during the course of business; whether he was placed on these important duties without opportunity to thoroughly learn the routine, and against his protests; and, whether, under these circumstances, and considering his small salary and that no risk allowance is granted to him, the Postmaster-General will consider the advisability of refraining from compelling Mitton to make good the amount?
  MR. HANBURY: Mr. Mitton, who is 22 years of age, was, in common with other junior officers, selected by the Controller in the early part of last year to be trained in postal counter work, and has been engaged on the duty ever since. No protest against this appears to have been received from him. The duty to which he was allotted was, it is reported, a very simple one, which any junior with ordinary intelligence ought certainly to discharge satisfactorily, the stock of stamps in his charge amounting to £5 only. The Postmaster-General sees no reason to relieve Mr. Mitton from the responsibility of making good the amount.

  SORTERS' CHRISTMAS PAY.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the members of the staff of sorter-telegraphists who performed compulsory overtime in the sorting office during the Christmas pressure can now be paid the amount of money they then earned?
  MR. HANBURY: These officers were paid yesterday, the delay being due to its being found necessary to make special inquiry into the matter.

  MISCARRIAGE OF A MONEY ORDER.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a money order for £1, taken out at Binbrook on 27th August last by P. Kirrane, in favour of Mrs. Kirrane, Drymills, county Mayo, was paid through the Ulster Bank, Bally-haunis, on 17th September; and that Mr. Kirrane has complained that the order in question was not delivered to his wife and has been fraudulently cashed through the bank mentioned; and what steps, if any, have been taken by the Post Office authorities to discover the guilty parties to this transaction?
  MR. HANBURY: The facts are as stated. Every possible inquiry has been made by the local police and by the Post Office authorities, and while there is no recollection of the particular letter in which the order was enclosed, and which, as is usual with Mrs. Kirrane's correspondence, was called for at the local post office, the staff there are certain that no letter so addressed has been delivered, except to Mrs. Kirrane, or some member of her family. The order is found to have been paid through the banking account of a local tradesman, who was in the habit of cashing Mrs. Kirrane's money orders for her, and whose manager, in fact, wrote her name on it at the time, as being that of the person from whom he received it.

  BALLINDINE TELEGRAPH DELIVERIES.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why telegrams which were delivered free at Drymills (Irishtown) from Ballindine, county Mayo, some time ago, are now subject to an extra charge of 1s.; and if he can see his way to recommend the abolition of this charge?
  MR. HANBURY: Telegrams for Drymills are delivered free, but telegrams for Irishtown are properly charged 1s. for porterage, as it is over three miles from Ballindine.

  GIBRALTAR MAILS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether (as explained in Consular Reports, Nos. 350 and 1958) letters between England and Gbraltar, or other places in the South of Spain, still suffer 12 hours' delay in Madrid both going and coining; whether this delay could not be obviated by an adjustment of the hours of arrival and departure of mails in Madrid; and whether he will take steps to bring the matter before the Spanish postal authorities with a view of expediting communications between England and Gibraltar?
  MR. HANBURY: The delay referred to by the honourable Member still continues. There is only one fast service in the day between Madrid and Gibraltar in each direction; and it does not connect with the fast services between Madrid and this country. The Postmaster-General has made repeated representations on the subject to the Spanish postal authorities, but without any successful results; and he fears that any further representations would be equally fruitless.

  RATE LIABILITY IN IRELAND.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the landlord or the tenant is liable to pay the portion of the rates formerly paid by the landlord, in cases where an agreement for sale has been arrived at, but the sale has not been sanctioned by the Land Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Assuming the agreement to be an agreement to purchase under the Land Purchase Act, if such an agreement falls through owing to the refusal of the Land Commissioners to sanction it, the respective parties are remitted to their original position.

  PAY OF LABOURERS AT HAUL-BOWLINE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the labourers employed in the Army Ordnance Depart-
  144
  ment at Haulbowline only receive 16s. per week; and whether, in view of the fact that at no other station is so low a rate paid, the War Office will consider the desirability of raising the scale of wages at Haulbowline to the standard fixed for labourers at the Naval side of the Island?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,: There are labourers employed in the Ordnance Store Department at Athlone, Carrickfergus and Enniskillen who are paid at the rate of 16s. a week. From inquiries which have been made it appears that this is the rate current in the districts named for the class of labour referred to.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether so low a rate as 16s. is paid by any other public department?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: From inquiry made, it appeared that 16 shillings is the rate current in the districts for labour of the kind employed by the War Department.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the honourable Member aware that these labourers have to row themselves backwards and forwards to their work, as they live on the mainland?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: If they are employed on an island I suppose that would be so.
  MR J. WILSON: Is it not the practice to regulate wages by those current in the district?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order‡ The honourable Member is now raising a general question.

  SUMMONSES AGAINST DOG OWNERS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will give, following the information facilitated last year, the number of summonses in the year 1897 for offences under the Muzzling of Dogs Orders in England and Wales?
  MR. COLLINGS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. The information referred to as having been given last year was furnished by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and I can now state the corresponding figures for 1897. In that year 31,357 pensons were prosecuted, of whom 26,519 were convicted for offences relating to dogs. In these figures, as in those given last year, other offences are included besides infringements of the Muzzling Orders.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS.
  MR. FIRBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the regulation adopted by the Board Inland Revenue under clause 10 of the Order in Council of 15th August 1890, which came into face on the 31st March 1898, under which all officers who and attained the age of 63 years should be required to retire, provided they had completed 40 years' pensionable service and had attained the maximum of their class, and that on and after the 1st April 1899 the age for retirement should be 62 years, and that no departure from these rules would be allowed except upon public grounds, whether exceptions have already been made; whether he would give a Return giving the names of those officers whose services have been retained, and the circumstances under which it is desirable in the public interests to retain them; and whether the Treasury will take steps to insure that the regulation will be impartially enforced as from the 1st April 1899?
  MR. HANBURY: The Board of Inland Revenue, I am assured, have not made, and will not make, any exception to the rule, which will be strictly and impartially enforced. Extensions of service beyond the age-limit have been made, and will be made, only on public grounds. For example, the increase in the number of tax districts recently sanctioned renders it necessary to retain a certain number of officers who have passed the limit, as otherwise officers could not be supplied to the new districts.

  ALASKAN BORDER DISPUTE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a modus vivendi has been arrived at in the matter of the Alaskan border pending a permanent settlement of the question; and whether any information has reached the Foreign Office concerning collisions arising out of this disputed border?
  MR. BRODRICK: A proposal has been made by the United States Government, and is under consideration, for a modus vivendi in the matter of the Alaskan boundary. The answer to the second portion of the Question is in the negative.

  BRITISH NEW GUINEA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in position to give particulars of the claim for compensation made by the British New Guinea Syndicate in consequence of the disallowance if an ordinance passed by the Legislature of that dependency?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The British New Guinea Syndicate have submitted particulars of their claim to the Governor of Queensland through the Agent-General of the Colony, but I am not prepared to state the particulars while the matter is unsettled.

  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BUILDINGS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Conference as to the future of the Imperial Institute buildings, foreshadowed in his statement of 14th February, has yet been held; and, if so, with what results?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The Conference has not yet been held, the first meeting will be held on the 24th instant, and it is probable that several further meetings will be necessary.

  KHAIBAR PASS.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to withdraw the British troops from Lundi Kotal and to hold the Khaibar Pass by Khaibar levies; whether it is intended to complete the fort upon Suffolk Hill, above Lundi Kotal; whether a satisfactory water supply defensible in case of need has been obtained; and, whether the supporting force at Peshawar will be increased or rendered more mobile?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,: The answers to the first and last clauses of my honourable Friend's Question are in the affirmative The position and construction of the proposed fort on Suffolk Hill, and the question of its water supply, are still under consideration.
  MR. MACLEAN: Will the supporting force at Peshawar be instructed to support the native levies and hot leave them the lurch?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I do not think that question arises out of, or is in any way connected with, my answer.

  COUNTERVAILING SUGAR DUTIES IN INDIA.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the doubling of the Sugar Bounties by Continental nations in 1896, and the closure of the United States to bounty-fed sugar in 1897, caused a vast increase in the supply of such sugar to the Indian market; whether he can inform the House the weight of bounty-fed beet sugar landed in India in the years 1894–5 and 1897–8 respectively; whether the importation above alluded to caused an immediate shrinkage in the price of sugar, and also in the acreage under sugar cultivation in India; what was the acreage under sugar cultivation in the Provinces of Bengal, Bombay, and the Central Provinces in the years 1894–5 and 1897–8 respectively; and whether, inter alia, the results were also
  148
  disastrous to the neighbouring Colony of Mauritius.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am aware that a great increase in the imports of bounty-fed sugar into India took place in the year 1897, though I cannot state with certainty the causes which led to it. The amount of such sugar imported in 1894–5 was 282,000 cwts.; in 1897–8, 2,182,000 cwts. I am also aware that there was a great decrease in the acreage under sugar cane in India between 1895–6 and 1896–7; the figures for 1897–8 have not yet reached me. Great apprehension has been caused among the sugar growers in the Mauritius by the increasing importation into India of bounty-fed sugar, but I do not know that any disastrous results have as yet been produced.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a return of the mileage of railways under construction and in contemplation in India, with particulars of cost both actual and estimated; also a similar Return of waterways and irrigation works; and whether he can see his way to making this an Annual Return?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I will lay on the Table a Return giving the information for which the honourable Member asks, and I think it would be well to make it an Annual Return.

  ROYAL GUN FACTORY, WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can explain why workmen are now being discharged from the Royal Gun Factory, Woolwich Arsenal, in spite of the fact that they willingly consented to a system of booking short money, varying from 5s. to 2s. per week, in order to avoid discharge; whether work in the Royal Gun

  149
  Factory on the 6-inch gun has been stopped, while contractors are delivering the new 6-inch gun completed for the Inspection Branch; and whether he will consider the advisability, instead of discharging more men, of transferring them to the Royal Carriage Department, where overtime is now being worked?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Nothing is known in regard to the statement as to short booking in the first paragraph of the Question. The work on the 6-inch gun has not been stopped. In regard to the third paragraph, I must refer the honourable Member to my reply to a Question put by the honourable Member for Battersea on the 20th instant.
  SIR C. DILKE: On behalf of the honourable Member for Battersea, I beg to ask at the Financial Secretary to the War Once whether orders for guns, after being given to the Royal Gun Factory, have been cancelled and placed in contractor's hands; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds; and what is the relative value of gun orders given to the Royal Gun Factory and to private contractors during the past two years?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: No order given to the Royal Gun Factory for guns has been cancelled and placed in contractor's hands. The estimated value of orders for guns allotted to the Ordnance Factories in the two years 1897–1899 is £876,370. The value of orders given to the trade is £1,109,940.

  WAIMA.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in the negotiations with the French Government in regard to the settlement of the claims for compensation to the families of British officers killed by French troops at Waima in December 1893?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the previous answer I have given on this subject.

  EPPING SEWERAGE.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that for some time past great complaints have been made of the inadequacy of the system of sewers in the urban district of Epping; whether application was made to him more than a year ago by the district council for sanction to raise a loan for the purpose of carrying out further works of sewerage and sewage disposal; whether there is any reason why the loan applied for should not now be sanctioned, so that works urgently required in the interests of the public health may be proceeded with without delay; and, in case the urban district council neglects to proceed, what steps can the ratepayers take to oblige them to do so?
  MR. RUSSELL: The Local Government Board have received complaints on the subject of the sewage at Epping. The Urban District Council applied in November, 1897, for sanction to a loan for works of sewerage and sewage disposal, and also for a Provisional Order for the compulsory purchase of land for the scheme. This Order was confirmed last Session, but the district council state that they have experienced difficulty in acquiring the land, and they are considering a different scheme from that originally contemplated. The Board are communicating with the district council, urging them to proceed at once in the matter.

  HULME GUARDIANS ELECTION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. Bloomfield, clerk to the Chorlton Board of Guardians, and returning officer for the election of guardians for the township of Hulme, has, in spite of the request of the managers,. persisted in fixing St. Wilfrid's School as polling place for the election to be held on the 27th instant, although he could have obtained St. Michael's Board School, within 30 yards of St. Wilfrid's, without difficulty; whether he is aware that it was represented to Mr. Bloomfield that St. Wilfrid's School was in use outside school

  151
  hours as a committee room for the Roman Catholic candidate, and that to deprive them of their committee room on the day of election would seriously interfere with the election; and whether the Local Government Board will represent to Mr. Bloomfield the desirability of selecting some other polling station than St. Wilfrid's School?
  MR. RUSSELL: The attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the case referred to in the Question. Section 6 of the Ballot Act, 1872, as applied to the election of guardians, empowering the returning officer to use, free of charge, for the purpose of taking the poll or counting the votes at an election of guardians, any room in a school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament. The matter is not one in which the Local Government Board have any jurisdiction whatever, and it does not appear to them that they could intervene with regard to it.

  COMPULSORY SICK CLUBS.
  MR. H. S. SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Inquiry into the question of Compulsory Sick Clubs?
  MR. COLLINGS: The report referred to has already been presented to the House, as appears from the Votes and Proceedings for the 14th of this month. It will be in the hands of Members as soon as the printers can manage to issue it: I hope by Saturday next.

  INDIAN OPINION OX COUNTERVAILING DUTIES.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the Bombay and Kurrachee Chambers were among the important public bodies consulted by the Government of India in order to ascertain public opinion on the proposal to place a countervailing duty
  152
  on foreign bounty-fed sugar; and if those chambers expressed opinions adverse to the Bill which has now been passed into law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The text of the opinions of the various chambers of commerce on the sugar duties question has not yet reached me, but a telegraphic summary of the opinions received states that the Kurrachee chamber thought it a duty uncalled for on general theoretical grounds, but admitted they had no opportunity of noting the effect of imports on home industry. The Bombay chamber expressed somewhat similar opinions. I hope to receive and lay on the Table these and other Papers on the question within a few weeks.

  REGULATION OF PAILWAIS BILL.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state what course he proposes to adopt in reference to the Regulation of Railways Bills; and whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by a gentleman who introduced the deputation to him on Thursday last that, in his opinion, and, so far as he could gather, in the general opinion of the deputation, the Proposed inquiry should be by a tribunal in the nature of a Royal Commission and certainly not by a Select Committee of the House of Commons?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It is not proposed to take the Second Reading on Monday next. As the statement referred to was made to me it may be presumed that my attention was drawn to it, but the honourable Gentleman's version of the statement is not in accordance with my recollection.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Has the right honourable Gentleman seen the letter in the Press from which the second paragraph of my Report is taken almost verbatim?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir, I have not.

  SOUTH WALES COLLIERIES AND THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can say what schemes have been certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies for contracting out of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in the case of South Wales collieries; if he can give generally the terms of such schemes and the number of workmen who have contracted out; if there will be any considerable difficulty in giving a Return on the subject; and what opportunities were afforded the workmen of objecting to schemes before they were certified, and to what extent such opportunities were availed of?
  MR. HANBURY: Schemes for nearly all the principal collieries in South Wales have been certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and his Report, which was presented to the House and ordered to be printed three weeks ago, contains as required by the Act, full particulars of their provisions. There will, accordingly, be no necessity for a special Return. The schemes give compensation equivalent to that of the Act at the cost of the employer, and other benefits at the cost of the workman. The number of workmen who have contracted out is not known. In each case the scheme was exhibited in the colliery for the perusal of the workmen, with notice that any workman might forward observations upon it to the Registrar. The workmen did not avail themselves of the opportunity.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Were these schemes not exhibited during the great lockout, when there were few, if any, men employed at the collieries?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I think not, but I will inquire.

  COUNTY HISTORIES.
  MR. MORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have any official knowledge of the histories of counties about to be compiled, or in course of compilation, said to be under Her Gracious Majesty's ap-
  154
  proval, to mark the close of the present century; if he is aware that accounts of counties were compiled 100 years ago by the old Board of Agriculture; and whether he will recommend that these accounts of counties, compiled at the end of the last century, should be reprinted?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I have no official knowledge of the histories to which my honourable Friend refers, but I understand that, under very favourable auspices, there is such a history being prepared. I also believe that it will embody—as indeed it must embody—the information contained in the series of county histories compiled 100 years ago. These county histories were issued by the then local Board of Agriculture, but the Board of Agriculture was not a Government de-partment; it was an association subsidised by the Government, but not under Government control. I am further informed that they can be obtained without any great difficulty by those who are interested in the subject. In these circumstances it would be hardly desirable or possible to expend public money on the republication of these very interesting documents.

  BISHOPRIC OF MADAGASCAR.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the provisions of the Act of 5 Victoria, cap. 6, section 3, which provides that no person shall be consecrated a bishop in a Foreign country until one of the archbishops has applied for Her Majesty's licence authorising him to consecrate such person, nor until the archbishop has been fully assured of the sufficiency of such person in good learning, of his soundness in his faith, and of the purity of his morals, the Government have advised, or will advise, Her Majesty to issue such a licence to the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate the Rev. G. L. King, Vicar of St. Mary's, South Shields, a member of the English Church Union, as Bishop of Madagascar?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that the licence

  155
  to which the honourable Member refers can only be applied for through the Foreign Secretary; but I cannot conceive that, on the application of the Archbishop, any Foreign Secretary would refuse to further the licence.

  ATLANTIC CATTLE TRADE.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state what has been the loss in the series of Atlantic gales between 1st November 1898 and 28th February 1899 of live cattle coming to this country from British North America, the United States, Central and South America; and if, having regard to the fact that the immediate slaughter of cattle is insisted upon on landing in Great Britain, he can, with a view to the avoidance of suffering, do what is possible to urge that the animals shall be killed prior to embarkation, having in view also the great economy of space, labour, and money in the shipment of dead meat?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,: 2,072 cattle, out of a total shipment of 140,710, or 1½ per cent., were lost in course of transit across the Atlantic during the four months from November 1898 to February last. I have no means of influencing the conversion of this trade into a purely dead meat trade—a matter which is obviously, governed by economic considerations over which I have no control—but we shall continue to do everything we can to improve the conditions under which it is carried on.

  GALWAY VOTERS' LISTS.
  MR. KILBRIDE: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the condition of the voters' lists in the electoral division of the county of Galway: whether he is aware that in the Barnavilla, Kilconnel, district the Poor Law guardian of the division and the honorary secretary of the dispensary committee have been deprived of their votes, both resident in the dis-
  156
  trict and having their rates paid, that the names of minors have been put on the list, whilst the names of men who have been on for many years, and are still entitled, have been expunged; whether these changes were made after the lists passed through the hands of the clerk of the union; whether in the county of Galway the number of voters on the register do not equal or exceed the number of inhabited houses in the county; whether he is aware that the utmost dissatisfaction prevails in the district owing to the present state of the register; and whether the Local Government Board will investigate the matter and ascertain who is responsible?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have been in communication with the Clerk of the Peace for the County Galway and with the Clerk of the Ballinasloe Union relative to the condition of the voters' lists in the county, to which the Board's attention has been drawn by the honourable Member's Question. The Clerk of the Peace states he is not aware that any names were expunged from the lists save those to which objections were made in the usual manner at Revision Sessions, and that no changes were made in the lists, when revised, except to place the names in alphabetical order. The Clerk of the Union states he is informed that the names of some persons are omitted from the lists who should be included, but that these names were not omitted by him. Neither of these officials is aware that the names of minors have been placed on the lists. The statement in the fourth paragraph appears to be correct. The Local Government Board exercise no power or jurisdiction in respect to the preparation of the lists of voters, and they possess no means of further investigating the several matters referred to in the Question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Before making my Motion, it may be convenient to state here the course of business for the few remaining days on which business can be transacted before the beginning of the holidays. To-morrow

  157
  it is understood that we take the Division on the Second Heading of the London Government Bill. I hope it will not be necessary to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule, and I think that probably it will not be necessary. But I shall make inquiries in the course of the evening on that point, and if it is necessary I shall give notice at the adjournment of the House. On Monday we have first to get-through the small matter of referring the Food and Drugs Bill to the Grand Committee; and I anticipate the remainder of the night will be spent in discussing the Scotch Private Legislation Bill. I presume that that will be concluded on Monday night, and if it be, I should suggest that the House meet at 12 o'clock on Tuesday, for the purpose of discussing the Motion for Adjournment, and for no other business at all. I shall take some Supply on the Monday on which we return, which will be the first Monday after Easter Monday. On that Monday I shall either get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates or take Navy Votes. I do not think it is necessary to say anything more, because the statement of business is really the justification for the Motion which I now ask the House to accept.
  MR. DILLON: Before the right honourable Gentleman makes his Motion, might I ask him when the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As the first Order of Monday.
  MR. J. ELLIS (Notts.,: Can the right honourable Gentleman make any definite statement as to the Budget?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, but perhaps the honourable Member will put a Question on the Paper for tomorrow, and I will take care then to give him a definite answer.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the other Government Business have precedence to-morrow of the Committee of Supply."—(First Lord of the Treasury.)
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To omit '5' and substitute '4.'"—(Mr. Weir.)
    MR. WEIR: I regret that it is necessary to move this Amendment upon clause 3, but it does seem to me that the rate of interest for the money which it is proposed to borrow by this Bill is too high. I beg to move that the word "five" be left out in order to insert "four." It appears to me that, having regard to the fact that Consols are only paying 2¾ per cent. per annum, and that the Bank Rate stands at 3 per cent., we ought to reduce the percentage. We may be told that money might be difficult to obtain, but, in my opinion, in any great crisis, whether it be a war or financial crisis, this country would not have the slightest difficulty in borrowing money at 4 per cent. I think the time has arrived when 5 per cent. should be taken out of this Bill, and 4 per cent. should be substituted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,: I hope the honourable Gentleman will not press this Amendment to a Division. It is the usual clause, which is generally inserted in the Bill, and though I quite admit that 5 per cent. does seem to be a high rate of interest to pay—and in future I will take into consideration what the honourable Member suggests—the press-

    159
    ing of this Amendment to a Division would put the House to considerable inconvenience. I hope, therefore, the honourable Member will not press his Amendment.
    MR. WEIR: I have no desire, Sir, to put the House to any inconvenience, and the honourable Gentleman having promised to take my suggestion into consideration, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 3, and remaining clauses agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [21st March]—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words' no Bill dealing with the Local Government of the Metropolis will be satisfactory which, while disturbing the existing system, fails to simplify and complete it, and which at the same time renders more difficult the attainment of the unity of London."—(Mr. H. Gladstone.)
  Question again proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: When the House adjourned on Tuesday I was speaking with regard to the Amendment which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Leeds put down on the Paper, that no Bill dealing with the local government of the Metropolis will be satisfactory which, while disturbing the present system, fails to simplify and complete t, and which at the same time renders more difficult the attainment of the unity of London. As I explained on Tuesday evening, I am entirely in favour of this new Government Bill for London, that is to say, that we require very badly to have a new Bill bringing into touch the vast
  160
  areas of the metropolis one with another; but I am opposed to certain clauses in the Bill which, I trust, the Government will be prepared to alter, because the whole constitution of these bodies want to be brought to work together. The constitution of the new borough councils, in my opinion, if carried out on the lines of the Bill, would not work with that harmony with the London County Council which is so necessary. We look at Islington as a borough, and a large, important borough, much larger than any other borough in England, and it is necessary in reviewing this question to see how these two bodies will overlap. Last year there was a meeting held of the vestry clerks and other representatives from the suburbs and vestries, which represented about three-quarters of the rateable value of London; and at this meeting they decided, after the discussion was continued for a week, as to certain things which I consider most necessary for the future government of London. I refer particularly to the question of aldermen. What we want is a. connecting link connecting the borough council with the County Council. Now, at this meeting this question was thoroughly discussed, and it was decided first of all—and I think very rightly decided—that it would be most improper and was most inadvisable that we should have aldermen put upon the councils of these new boroughs. I will explain why. In the first place, if you add the number of aldermen which is proposed by this Bill, taking the new boroughs proposed—namely, 36, and the number of aldermen and councillors at 72—you would have 18 aldermen in each of these borough councils—18 multiplied by 36; you would have 648 aldermen in London. I think that would make the office hardly worth having, and I also think they would be of no assistance in the government of the particular boroughs. I do not like these co-optive aldermen at all. I do not like the co-optive aldermen of the London County Council. The conference held at Westminster also decided that it was advisable that the aldermen should cease to exist on the County Council, and in their place there should be a representative from each of these new councils placed on the County Council. Now, that is the principle that was adopted last year when dealing with

  161
  the question of Local Government for Ireland, and it seems to me that it is a most necessary course to adopt in this Bill, because it would have this great advantage. It is true that under this Bill there will be great powers handed over to these new municipal boroughs which do not come into contact at all with the work now carried on by the London County Council; but it is proposed by this Bill—and I myself agree with it—that it would be advisable to give over to the municipal councils of these boroughs a great deal of the work now done by the County Council. But if you have no connecting link connecting the one with the other you will be placed in a very great difficulty. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, in the Report of the Royal Commission upon which he sat, proposed the reverse course to what I suggest. He proposed in this direction that members should go from the County Council on to these bodies now to be created. but having been on the: County Council myself for some years, I think I may say we have none too many councillors there now, and, in my opinion, it would be a great and important addition to have 36 or 40 aldermen as representing these new boroughs sitting and advising the London County Council. The London County Council, again, would be more ready to hand over to these new boroughs certain duties, because all the aldermen—the 36 or 40 to whom I have referred—will be supplicating the London County Council to give them powers so that they could work for themselves; and I think this would be a good thing, because when one alderman was asking for these powers there would be 35 others looking after the one and saying how much money he should have, and so on. There is one most important thing in connection with this transference of powers, and that is, that the common fund must not be interfered with. The common fund means a contribution to the equalisation of the rates, and it is most important that when a borough is asking to take charge of any duties which have up to now been performed by the County Council, that it should be arranged by the County Council how much money is going to be given to the borough to carry out those duties. Consequently, as each borough
  162
  will be wanting to get as much as possible, the addition of these aldermen would be a good thing, because everyone of them would be watching the amount that the other required, and would take good care to prevent the council getting too much out of the London County Council. I think that would be a most wise course to suggest, because, as the Government themselves recognise in clause 5, sub-section 3, they do not intend by this Bill to force the County Council to give over any powers whatever until the County Council itself does agree to give these powers over to these boroughs. The clause says—
  "If the London County Council agree with any borough council for the transfer to the council of any power capable of being exercised by the London County Council within the borough, the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, make a Provisional Order for carrying into effect the transfer on the conditions specified in the agreement, either without modification or with such modifications as may be assented to by the County Council and the borough council."
  Now, that clearly points to the fact that the Government do not intend that this Bill should force the County Council to give over any duties to any municipal boroughs. But I think the mistake in this Bill is that if the London County Council does grant powers to one borough, then, and only then, any borough may make an application and ask the President of the Local Government Board to grant them a similar concession. That means that a continual fight goes on between these two bodies. I want, and I am sure, for the good government of London, it is important that these new bodies, which I hope will be called into existence, will work in friendly accord with the London County Council. It is no good setting up a lot of municipal bodies always overlapping and always at loggerheads with the central body. It is quite true that under this Bill you may have piebald boroughs. I do not object to that, because there must be some piebald boroughs, for the reason that in some boroughs there is work to be done, which is not necessary to be done in other boroughs; and conditions may render it necessary, and you cannot expect the County Council to give over to all boroughs the power which they give to some, and that is a reason why representatives of these new boroughs should come into the County

  163
  Council, so that they might answer any questions asked by the County Council in the way of business in respect to what was going on in any particular borough. I think it would tend to make things so much better with regard to the whole government on these points. Now, there is another question to which I wish to call the attention of the House, and that is that the First Lord of the Treasury has not told us yet what is the intention of clause 21. Might I ask the First Lord's attention to this question, which is most important, and upon which we have had no decided answer. It is as regards females. I quite understand that ladies are to have votes in respect to these new bodies, but is it proposed that they shall be aldermen? Again, I am aware that the term mère is very often applied to a lady, and I think we ought to have a definite answer to that, as to in what way it is to be spelt. Is it M-A-Y-O-R? May I ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury? That, again, is one of the difficulties attending this Bill. It does not say what is intended. The Government do not seem to have made up their mind yet. It is a great pity, I think. I think that is one of the clauses which should be dealt with—that we ought to know definitely who are to be aldermen. It is perfectly true that in clause 21 it says that the order of council is to give an appropriate name to the borough, and to fix the days and hours and times at which the council is to meet; but it neglects to say whether ladies are to be on the council, or whether they are to be aldermen or mayors. I may say I do not understand the policy of the Government in not declaring at once what they are going to do. How can we discuss a Bill when we do not know who we are going to have as aldermen? I am sorry I cannot draw an answer from the Front Bench.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If my honourable Friend wants an answer in order to construct his argument, I can tell him that there is no doubt whatever that women will have votes. There is no doubt whatever but what they will be eligible to sit upon the council; but it is not certain whether they can be aldermen or mayors.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I am much obliged to hear so far. And may I ask now, Sir, if the right honourable Gentleman will oblige by telling us his opinion as to what the intention of the Government may be in regard to that matter? We all know it does not say in the Bill whether they may be aldermen or mayors, and That is the very thing which we do not know, and the very thing which it is necessary that we should know; whether the Government intend that it shall be so. We know that the majority behind the Government is so large that they can leave it to the last moment to decide, but I think, this being the second day of the Debate, that the time has come when this question ought to be answered, and I hope that before the Debate is over the right honourable Gentleman and honourable Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House will devote themselves to that particular question and try and extract an answer from the right honourable Gentleman. It is necessary for the good government of London that we should get from the Front Bench the necessary information which we require. Now, I notice in clause I that it is left to be fixed by the ordinary council what the length of time is that these new aldermen and councillors are to exist. That, to me, is not thoroughly explicit in the Bill as to how it is to be done. It would be a good thing, in my opinion, if the first council was elected right off for three years, and that then one-third, that is, the lowest in each ward, should retire at the end of the first three years, the next one-third in the following year, and the last one third in the year after that. That is the system we have adopted in some of our large clubs—I refer to the Constitutional Club, where we kept the whole thing going for three years, and then one-third of the committee went out each year, and it worked very well. That is a suggestion which I would commend to the Government, and I will also suggest that the Government should adopt the sugestion which was advocated by the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington, and should accept the proposals that we should have representatives on the London County Council from the councils of these new boroughs, when there would be a chance to have a representative for the first

  165
  three years after the formation of these important new councils. Now, I wish to ask whether it is not possible, and whether the Government will not take into reconsideration the question of the powers to be given to these new boroughs to obtain loans. I think it is a very unfortunate thing for these boroughs to have powers to go and borrow money right and left at a heavy interest. I think that might be altered by putting in a clause that money might be borrowed from the County Council on consent of the Local Government Board. That is to say, subject to consent being given by the Local Government Board, the London County Council would lend the money out of its common fund at 2¾t., and there would not have to be any going about borrowing, and having to pay heavy interest before these loans were floated. I think that very often boroughs find a great deal of difficulty in getting loans granted to them under 3½t., whereas if they borrow from the County Council they would get the money at 2¾t. I think, myself, that it would be a most desirable thing to adopt that suggestion. Dealing with the question of audit, I think it would be desirable that we should have the same system of audit as we have in the London County Council; that is to say, that an auditor should be appointed who is not a ratepayer of London. Again, I am decidedly opposed—I said so on the First Reading—to the idea of these local authorities having power given to them to promote Bills in Parliament. I think it would be a very extensive liberty to give them, and would be very expensive to the ratepayers of London. Our rates are heavy enough, as we all know, now, and it seems to be a great pity as to that. Then I come to another question. I notice that the Government has. made it possible to cut off some portion of the County of London. I shall lose part of my constituency at Penge. Part of Penge will be handed over to Kent. It seems to me a rather ridiculous proceeding to make London smaller. London is expanding every day, and I think it would be rather more wise to take in some parts of Kent, Surrey and Middlesex into London than to do what is proposed, so that we might assist to equalise the rates and diminish the rates of East London. I cannot see why the suburbs should have to pay lower rates, while at
  166
  the same time they receive all the benefit of the London County Council. I think it would be well in this Bill to take powers, no doubt it could be done by Parliament afterwards, to deal with that important subject. Now, before I sit down, I must call the attention of the House to some areas of which honourable Gentlemen have spoken on the other side. I refer to the question that they complain that the Bill will interfere with the equalisation of rates. I think my honourable Friend the Member for Poplar spoke very strongly upon it, and I was very much struck by the fact that the honourable Member should not have grasped the intention of this Bill. This Bill does provide that any expense that is now paid for duties performed by the County Council will, if those duties are transferred to the new boroughs, be paid out of the common fund. Any municipality taking over the work will be paid out of the common fund. We are, every one of us, desirous, I am sure, that the rates in the poorest parts of London should not be increased at all, and we might provide in future that the whole expenditure should come out of the County Council fund, and then such boroughs will not suffer. Now, supposing that certain work was handed over to the borough of Camberwell to do and to look after, and that work cost £1,000 to do, that money would be allowed by the County Council to the new borough. It is the intention of clause 8 that all work taken over by the new boroughs should be paid out of the county fund, and I concede in no way that it can be to the detriment of any of the poorer divisions, or that there will be an extra expense put upon them by placing some of the powers of the County Council upon the shoulders of borough councils.
  MR. BUXTON: Who is going to fight the case of the maintenance of the roads?
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I need not trouble the House upon that matter; that is all laid down in the Bill. There is no doubt the Bill particularly regards that one thing: that the roads shall not suffer by being in a poor district. I consider it would be greatly to the advantage of the poorer districts. Complaints have been

  167
  made as to the formation of the new city of Westminster. Now, I rather rejoice that we are going to have this large city, because, in this large city, which it is proposed to create, the contribution to the County Council fund would be very much greater. I think it is most necessary that this Bill should bo passed, because I think it will assist in and tend to the better government of London, and I hope that the Government will see that everything shall be done which is possible to carry the Measure through.
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, which I imagine is largely shared on both sides of the House, that no Member of the Government should yet have risen to defend this Measure, not only against the most able and exhaustive indictment of my right honourable Friend the Member for Leeds, but against the hardly less damaging criticisms of candid and outspoken friends like the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. Such a course I believe to be almost, if not entirely, without precedent in the case of what is practically the principal Measure of the Session. In the few observations with which I will ask to trouble the House I shall not attempt to cover the whole ground, and I shall confine myself to the two or three salient and capital points which appear to me to justify the language of my right honourable Friend's Amendment. By way of preface I must say this, that it is hardly possible not to contrast the tone and temper of the speeches which have been delivered during this Debate from the opposite side of the House with the intentions professed and the language held little more than a year ago in that ill-starred campaign against the London County Council, of which this Bill is the belated and attenuated outcome. Nothing could exceed the sympathetic, almost deferential terms in which one Member after another on the opposite side has referred to the London County Council. The honourable Member for Chelsea, the noble lord the Member for Kensington—in a speech to which, perhaps I may be allowed to say, even those of us who dissented most widely from his arguments listened with unqualified admiration for the lucidity
  168
  and grace with which they were presented—and now, again, the honourable Member for Dulwich, each in turn has deprecated any intention whatsoever of hostility to or encroachment upon the province of the County Council. From that point of view, if we are to accept these honourable Gentlemen's representations, this is the smallest of small Measures. It takes away so little from the County Council. It adds so little to the powers and functions of the existing local authorities. And, as we have been-assured more than once, even those potentialities for future transfer which have excited not less apprehension on this side of the House are so certain not to be realised or exercised, in view of the common reluctance of both Moderate and Progressive members of the Council to derogate from the functions of the body to which they belong, that it would almost seem to be by some accidental oversight that this clause, which has been called the suicide clause, has been inserted in the Bill. I shall have something to say in a moment as to the accuracy of these representations, and as to how far they tally with the actual text of the Measure; but I cannot forbear asking the House to draw a contrast between this minimising and apologetic attitude and the defiant challenges which little more than a year ago proceeded from the same quarter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, no‡
  MR. ASQUITH: I will make good my words in a moment—and which were addressed to the municipal electors of London. The right honourable Gentleman opposite disputes the accuracy of this statement. Is it necessary for me to remind him of the language of the Leader of his own party, Lord Salisbury, who inagurated that campaign? I say, and I say it without fear of contradiction, that its object was to obtain from the electors of London a mandate to curtail and cut down the authority of the County Council. If that campaign had been successful a Moderate majority would have been installed at Spring Gardens with the direct instructions of the electorate to proceed, if not to the suicide, at any rate to the mutilation of the body to which they belonged. Is it necessary to remind the House and the

  169
  right honourable Gentleman opposite of the language of Lord Salisbury himself? Lord Salisbury told the electors of London that the County Council was suffering from the disease of megalomania, and he proceeded to enumerate its symptoms. He spoke of the time and labour which the council fruitlessly bestowed upon the public goods. He declared that their Debates were devoted rather to abstract questions which concerned advanced politicians than to those more prosaic and simple Measures upon which the happiness and welfare of five millions of people depend. What is that but an attack upon the County Council, and an invitation to the electors of London to clip its wings and fetter its limbs? Lord Salisbury was not content with pointing out the character and extent of the disease, but he also indicated the remedy. What was that remedy? He said, in words that deserved to be remembered—
  "We might have obtained a much more efficient machine if we had been content to look upon London as what it is, not as one great municipality, but as an aggregate of municipalities."
  And he said we should not solve the problem until we sought to give a large part of the duties which were now performed by the County Council to other smaller municipalities. Therefore, I have made good my statement. That was a direct invitation on the part of Lord Salisbury and the great Party he represents to the electors of London to transfer from the County Council powers which they were abusing or were incapable of exercising properly, and to set up in its stead, as the inheritor and legatee of these powers, a number of smaller municipalities. That was not the opinion of Lord Salisbury alone; the whole electoral and party machinery both of the Conservative and Liberal Unionist organisations were enlisted in the propaganda. Cabinet Ministers were sent almost for the first time in history into the untrodden recesses of Limehouse and Camberwell, opening the eyes of the electors of the south and east to the perils of megalomania, and telling them, not in one speech, but in a dozen, that salvation for London was only to be found, if not in the dethronement, in the denudation of the County Council, and in setting up as its
  170
  rivals—and not merely as its rivals—authorities which were to succeed to a large and substantial part of the existing powers of the County Council. That was the issue submitted to London and its electors, and it is a matter of history which cannot be disputed, that as lately as twelve months ago, in this very month of March, they then decisively and emphatically repudiated the invitation thus given them by the Government. What is the result? We have had, it is true, a year's delay, and though we have had as yet no express renunciation on the part of the Members of the Government of the opinion or language of 1897–98, we have before us this Bill, which makes no direct and open attack upon the County Council, and which is defended as it has been by the honourable Member for Chelsea with almost ostentatious professions of respect for that body.
  MR. WHITMORE: I have made the same professions which I have always made.
  MR. ASQUITH: I will leave this quarrel to the honourable Member to settle with his Leader. I have told him the language of the authorised spokesman of the Conservative Party. I am bound to congratulate one Member of the Government. I allude to the President of the Board of Trade, who is the real and original megalomaniac. It was he, and no one else, who betrayed his confiding colleagues and the unsuspicious Conservative majority behind him into creating this vast and formidable instrument which from that time to this his colleagues and followers have been endeavouring—I am glad to say, with a complete want of success—to belittle and to mutilate. Now I come to the two or three main provisions upon which this Bill is founded. I feel bound to say, speaking for myself, and I have no doubt that I speak the opinions of many other people, that, viewed as a constructive Measure of reform of London government, it leaves unmodified and unimproved the existing dualism between the City and the County Council. A Bill which does not deal, and which does not profess to deal, with the position, prerogatives, and powers of the City Corporation is a Bill which stands confessed upon the

  171
  face of it as a Bill whose authors are afraid to deal with the essence of the problem which lies before them. What is the Corporation of the City of London? It is a body which, as we know, has existed for many centuries, which has been associated in days gone by with some of the most stirring events in English history, and which, in its time, has struck many a blow in the cause of freedom and justice. It has, therefore, all the prestige of ancient historic associations. But what does it now represent? The merest fragment of a section of the population of London itself. Now, Sir, I lay down unhesitatingly as a sound proposition, both of constitutional law and common sense, that the Corporation of the City holds its property and its privileges in trust, not for that square mile of which the Guildhall is the centre, but for the 5,000,000 of people dwelling in the 2,000 miles of streets who now constitute the real London—the London which is entitled to regard itself;. a heir to the property, and to all those great traditions and associations of which the Corporation is the trustee. My honourable Friend the Member for Chelsea spoke of the ceremonial duties of the Corporation, and said it would be a pity to throw on the overworked shoulders of the County Council those very incongruous and ornamental functions. Sir, I do not agree with him. I believe that, on those great occasions when it is the traditional prerogative of the Lord Mayor to speak, in a sense, as the spokesman and mouthpiece of this great community, the recipients of the honours which the Corporation from time to time confers would feel that those honours had a much deeper meaning and significance if they came from the representative of these 5,000,000 of electors, and not merely from a Lord Mayor who was elected by a group of liverymen after a hole-and-corner fashion which is absolutely obsolete. At any rate, I do not think this proposition can be seriously controverted—that the unity of London in any real and deep sense is not only incomplete, but impossible, so long as the government of the City of London is not improved and reformed. I say this blot alone amply justifies the language of the Amendment. I pass from this omission to the actual changes which the Bill brings into opera-
  172
  tion. Its essential and cardinal feature is this: that it creates a number of new authorities under the designation of metropolitan boroughs, but which are municipalities in little else but name. I desire to make our position in reference to this matter—misunderstood and, I think, misrepresented—absolutely clear. I have always held—I have certainly expressed the opinion many times—that the reconstruction of London government will not be complete without the addition to the County Council of representative authorities to administer the local affairs of the various districts. The reform of those bodies was: begun by my right honourable Friend sitting beside me, the Member for Wolverhampton (Sir Henry Fowler), under the Local Government Act of 1894, when, for the first time, they came to be elected on a really popular franchise. We have always not only admitted but asserted that the necessary and logical corollary of that reform is a corresponding reform which will put the powers and functions now discharged by the vestries into the hands of authorities with a wider basis. The honourable Member for Chelsea quoted a passage from a speech made by me, I think, in 1894, in which I appear to have said that I thought that these new bodies should be of such a character as to attract the best energies of the best men in the district. I adhere to that language in every particular, but I am really surprised, because I have refreshed my memory as to what the object and purport of that speech actually were, that any phrase from it should have been quoted in support of the present Bill. Why, Sir, I find, as I expected, that the whole gist of my remarks was to support the recommendation of the report of the Commission of my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), and to denounce the scheme, known as tenification, which was then favoured by Lord Salisbury, for the creation of municipalities in the various districts of London. Nothing could be more absurd than to suggest that we are standing up for the vestries and maintaining that the present system of local government by local authorities ought to remain unchanged. I say it is possible, and I believe it to be possible, by an addition to the number and responsibility of their duties, to make them attractive to the best ener-

  173
  gies of the best people of the neighbourhood. For my own part, I adopt a sentence of the Report of the Commission in which it is said, "No duty should be thrown on the central body that can equally well be performed by a local body." Well, Sir, I may perhaps just remind the House in a sentence of what are the duties of the local authorities now. They have the paving, the draining, and the lighting of the streets. They have to look after overcrowding in dwellings; they have the provision and supervision of gardens and playgrounds; they have sanitary inspection, and they have the administration of the "adoptive" Acts. Now, Sir, I have no objection myself to the enlargement of those duties by all those duties which are enumerated in the first part of the second schedule of the Bill, with the exception of common lodging-houses, for I think that is a duty much better performed by the central body than by a local body. As regards the duties in the second part of the schedule—the functions, that is to say, which are to be concurrently performed by the County Council and the local authorities—I entertain very much more doubt. I doubt very much whether there is any precedent for this in our municipal law, and I am perfectly certain that in practice it will not be found that concurrent duties will be smoothly or easily performed. The tendency is for both authorities to neglect them, or perhaps, what is still worse, to wrangle as to the discharge of particular duties. But there are two in particular of the functions which it is proposed to transfer to the local authorities which I most strongly deprecate. I mean the application of the Act dealing with workmen's dwellings and the power of making by-laws under the Municipal Coroporations Act. I think those are two duties which ought not to be transferred. But, on the other hand, there is another very large class of duties which are purely local in their character which I cannot conceive why the Government are not handing over to them. I mean the administration of the Poor Law. I believe it to be a fact that in London, as one might very well expect, you often find upon the vestry and upon the board of guardians a very considerable proportion of the very same people. In other words, a man who is
  174
  interested in the administration of those duties which belong to the vestry is equally interested in Poor Law administration, and, being ready to give his services to the one, he is equally ready-to give them to the other. I think it would add very much, not only to the dignity and importance of these bodies, but to the smoothness and simplicity of London administration, if you transferred to them the function of Poor Law administration. Now, Sir, I say we have been most unfairly and unjustly charged with not being willing and anxious to see a large and generous transfer of power. I say that, if you have a body clothed with the functions which I have described, and exercising those functions within a reasonable area, I believe you would have a body which ought to excite the ambition and secure the services of every public-spirited inhabitant. They will have at least as much to do as most of the district councils of the country, they would not encroach by a square inch on the area, or functions, or authority of the County Council, and they would not present any obstacle to any further re-adjustment which experience might show to be necessary in the local government of London. If the question is put to me: "What would you have done in order to complete the system of local government," I say the answer is plain. The sound and statesmanlike course to take would be first to amalgamate the Corporation of the City and the County Council, so far as the Corporation has functions, property, and prerogatives in which London has a common interest. The next step would be to substitute for the existing vestries district councils acting within such areas and clothed with such functions as I have described. That, I say, is the simple and statesmanlike course which might have been taken. But what does the Bill do? It creates a set of new authorities, indefinite both in number and in area, which are to have the style and status of municipal boroughs. Sir, I said a few moments ago that I would not quarrel about a name, but when you call these new authorities municipal boroughs you are giving them a false name. It is a false name, and the mischief of it is this, that it proceeds on a false analogy and that it suggests a false ideal. What is a municipality as we here in England understand it? A municipality is a com-

  175
  munity of spontaneous growth, self-governed and self-contained; a whole in itself. There is only one community in the metropolis which answers that description, and that is London as a whole. I defy you, or any Boundary Commission, or any Legislature in the world, to draw any line of demarcation, at any point in the whole of the 120 square miles which constitute the metropolitan area, and say, "Here such and such a community begins, and here another ends." Sir, the whole course of our municipal life and municipal legislation has been in that direction. The whole theory of the Act of 1835 was that as a town extended its boundary the people outside were entitled to regard themselves as part and parcel of the community which they adjoined. The Government by this Bill are doing exactly the reverse. They take a community in which there are tens and hundreds of thousands sleeping in one quarter, working in another, finding amusement in a third, and the exercise of their social and philanthropic zeal in yet a fourth. Geographically, socially, industrially, politically, it is a whole; and there is a complete and unbroken continuity in that which you have parcelled out into a series of artificial sections and blocks, which, call them whatever you please, are nothing else than areas created by the ruler and the paint brush on the map. I will take as a crucial illustration Greater Westminster. You take the Strand, St. George's, Hanover Square, and St. James's, and lump them together. This hybrid body you artificially create, and by a kind of grand larceny you appropriate to it the historic name of Westminster. That is what I venture to call municipal jerrybuilding. What is the reason for it? Who asks for it? Who wants it? The Courtney Commission reported against it, and we are all aware that the London electors, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, when directly consulted on the subject, pronounced emphatically against it. As far as I know, it is only one or two of the richer vestries which have put forward any serious demand for the kind of legislation which the Government propose. But, Sir, these bodies if unlike the true municipalities in growth and structure, are also equally unlike them in their real functions and
  176
  powers. These boroughs are, in fact, shams and impostures. I will not detain the House on this point more than a very few moments, but let me show how this Bill will work. You may have different methods of administration of one of the most important of all the Metropolitan Acts—the Building Act. In the next place you may have different standards of rating, which may be enormously aggravated; and, further, you may have a body which will have the power of promoting Bills increasing-its own authority and opposing Bills which are sent to Parliament by the County Council with the consent of other authorities. Now, Sir, I confess that to my mind these are all very important matters. In the 13 areas scheduled in the Bill the Government have included all the wealthy parts of London, and have left all the poorer parts to be dealt with hereafter by the Commission. I do not say that in Westminster and in Marylebone there are not poor portions. Of course there are. Unhappily you will not find any part of London, not even the richest, in which there are not slums at the back of your rich streets and squares. Now, Sir, with regard to the crucial question of local administration, take the case of clearing insanitary areas. You will have one set of circumstances for the rich boroughs, to whom these things are so cheap, and another set for the poor authorities, to whom they are so difficult and dear. To show that this is not a mere academic matter, let me remind the House, by way of illustration, of what was called the Boundary Street Scheme in Bethnal Green. That scheme was carried out by the County Council at a cost of £300,000, and I remember it being pointed out at the time that if Bethnal Green had had to do this work itself that would have amounted to a rate of 6d. in the £ for Bethnal Green; whereas, the work being done by the County Council, it involved only an addition to the rates of London of l–14th of a penny in the £. How can you expect the representatives of richer boroughs on the Council, like Westminster, Paddington, and Marylebone, to consent to extra taxation for work done in other districts by the County Council when they themselves are doing the same work in their own districts at their own expense? Again,

  177
  there is the proposal to give to the new authorities power to borrow money without the consent of the County Council. I think that a most dangerous power. If the proposal comes through the County Council, the whole credit of London is involved, and the central government, as well as Parliament, is represented, for the County Council have to obtain the consent of the Treasury before their Bills are introduced into the House of Commons. We are as anxious as you can possibly be to give fresh life and authority in matters of purely local concern to the freely-elected and fully-responsible bodies which are chosen by and are answerable to the inhabitants. But we think we see—and I think I have given good reason for the belief—evidence of an unavowed but ulterior purpose underlying the Bill. We deprecate any scheme which, on the pretext of the exercise of powers which may not unfairly be given to particular localities, will yet take away from the central authority of the representatives of London as a whole that undivided power and authority which ought to belong to the central body alone. I do not wish in any way to exaggerate. I recognise the truth that the position of the Metropolitan community is exceptional and, indeed, unique. You have to face here very much the same problem as we have endeavoured to face before, and certainly may have to face again, in the wider sphere of Imperial politics. Just as in that sphere you have to settle the question how you are to reconcile general with local needs, how you are to get rid of the false and fictitious antagonism between the Imperial and national sentiment, so exactly in the same way in the more contracted sphere of London administration you have got to harmonise the recognition of the paramount title of a great and undivided municipality with a clue regard to the special necessities of different communities which differ as widely as the component factors of a kingdom. I am far from saying that if we had the prospect of full liberty of moulding it in Committee this Bill might not be transformed into an eirenicon of conciliation and even into a charter of local liberty. But we have to deal with it as it stands and under the conditions which exist. And inasmuch as, in our judgment, it is put for-
  178
  ward as a scheme to effect indirectly what, after the authoritative pronouncement of London opinion last year, no one would attempt directly to effect—to surround and buttress the unreformed City with a ring of sham municipalities; to impair and destroy in most material particulars the corporate and administrative unity of London as a whole—holding that view I say we are bound to protest against the Measure, not only as failing to satisfy, but as tending to delay and even in a. large measure to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of the greatest city in the world.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir B. FINLAY,: The right honourable Gentleman, in the somewhat impassioned sentences with which his speech closed, imputed to the Government a number of designs as underlying this Bill. I have the honour on behalf of the Government most emphatically to repudiate those designs. There is nothing behind this Bill, nothing concealed, nothing which is not expressed on the face of the Bill itself. In the opening sentences of his speech the right honourable Gentleman contrasted what he called the moderate tone adopted in regard to the London, County Council in the Debate on this Bill with the tone which, he said, prevailed some time ago in the Party to which I have the honour to belong. The right honourable Gentleman said that there was made at that time a dead set against the London County Council, and that it is only because they failed to carry the election of a majority of the Moderate Party at the general election for that body that a more conciliatory attitude has been adopted. He quoted in support of that statement a speech made by the Prime Minister at the Albert Hall, and he said that the Prime Minister has criticised with some freedom the character of some of the debates in the London County Council. Well, I have yet to learn that criticising the debates of a deliberative or executive assembly is an attack upon the assembly itself. It is open not only to the Prime Minister, but to every citizen of London to express his opinion with perfect freedom as to the debates of the London County Council or any other body. There is a sort of quasi-sanctity which some honour-

  179
  able and right honourable Gentlemen seem to desire to throw around the London County Council and to hold that to criticise it or its proceedings is a sort of petty treason. No one can criticise the debates of the London County Council without being accused of attacking the institution itself. But is a person who criticises, and with freedom, some of the Debates in the House of Commons to be regarded as attacking Parliamentary institutions? I think the right honourable Gentleman went on to say that the whole policy of the Unionist Party was at that time to endeavour to break up and destroy the London County Council; but really I think that when the right honourable Gentleman was referring to that subject he might have quoted a speech which was made just about the same time as the speech from which he did quote, by my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The right honourable Gentleman cheers, but when honourable Gentlemen opposite charge a Party with an attack upon the London County Council, surely they might look to the speeches which were made by those honourable Members who were engaged in that contest. I would like honourable Members to bear in mind what was said by my right honourable Friend, speaking on 24th November 1897——
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: Was it before or after the election?
  SIR R. FINLAY: Two days after the election my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade said—
  "But undoubtedly the London County Council had done much good work since its creation, and they hoped and believed that it-would do much more. The Prime Minister had been charged with a determination to smash the London County Council. Lord Salisbury never meant and never said anything of the kind. He did not believe that in the mind of Lord Salisbury nor any other Member of the Government was any such design contemplated, nor would any of them be a party to such a transaction."
  And in the course of the contest to which the right honourable Gentleman has referred, the First Lord of the Treasury made a speech at Stepney on 25th February 1898 in which this passage occurs—
  "We have been accused, I believe, in advocating this policy of a wish to destroy the London County Council—that is, the policy
  180
  subordinate municipalities. Well, we brought the London County Council into being, and I cannot imagine why we, of all people in the world, should wish to destroy it. I do not see why its stepfather, the so-called Progressive Party, are likely to be more careful of its life than we, the true authors of its being. The truth is, we do not wish to destroy the London County Council. We wish to perfect it, and we wish to make the government of London, as far as the peculiar circumstances of London will allow it, the most perfect example of municipal institutions which human ingenuity can hope to attain."
  Now, I submit for the consideration of the House that it is a somewhat strong thing in the face of these two authoritative statements made by my two right honourable Friends in the course of that contest—I say it is a strong thing to say. on the strength of some sentences quoted from a speech at the Albert Hall by Lord Salisbury, that the policy of the Unionist Party at that time was to destroy the London County Council. Sir, the policy of the Party must be judged of by what was said by those engaged in the contest, and I cannot imagine any expressions more clearly repudiating any such design than those I have just, quoted. But the truth is, Sir, that there is another change of policy to which the attention of the House must be directed. I cannot help thinking that the heavy fire which the right honourable Gentleman opened on the Government charging them with a change of policy was to a certain extent intended to divert retention from the change of policy which he himself and his friends have made. What a change of tone there has been in reference to this Measure since the Debate on the occasion of the First Reading of the Bill‡ It is idle to say that the Bill is now printed and is in the hands of Members. It is idle to say that, although honourable Members cheer that statement; and for this reason—that nothing could be clearer than the explanation of this Measure given by the First Lord of the Treasury when introducing it. I venture to say that for Second Reading purposes the House was then in possession of the gist of the Measure. I think I may say that though many points may arise in the course of Debate in Committee on which honourable Members may express various opinions, yet the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury put the House in possession of the materials for forming a judgment on the character of

  181
  this Measure, broadly speaking. The. Measure was then received with what may fairly be described as mild approval by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and by many of his followers. The tone was favourable, and favourable after the policy of the Measure had been clearly stated by the First Lord.
  SIR E. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Speaking for myself, I confined myself to asking some questions in regard to the Bill; and I expressed some satisfaction that it was not so bad as we expected.
  SIR R. FINLAY: I very well remember the expression of the right honourable Gentleman, and I was struck by the benevolence of his attitude. Of course I did not expect him in his responsible position as Leader of the Opposition to bless and commend the Government Bill in unqualified terms. But I thought that the right honourable Gentleman said as much in the way of expressing approval of the Bill as the Government could expect from him. Disapproval there was none, I think. I am now speaking of the broad policy of the Measure, and the right honourable Gentleman who interrupted me was in just as good a position to determine that point as any other. What a change is there now‡ Instead of mild approval, we have strong hostility. I do not refer to this change of tone merely with reference to what took place on the First Reading, because we can go further, and we can point to the express utterances of my right honourable Friend who has just spoken, the Member for East Fife. The right honourable Gentleman has attempted to explain what he said by stating that he was speaking against the creation of eight or ten municipal corporations for London. Yes, but what possible relevancy has that explanation to the present Debate? We are proposing to create eight or ten corporations.
  MR. ASQUITH: You are creating 20 or 30.
  SIR R, FINLAY: It is just the same, if there was any point in the explanation of the right honourable
  182
  Gentleman. Now, what was it that the right honourable Gentleman said? He said—
  "We propose to give them the stimulus of more attractive titles and of conspicuous positions that will create a more fruitful field for the best energies and the best efforts of the best men in the localities."
  And then the right honourable Gentleman proceeded to state what he meant—
  "They were to have a large common corporate life which brings with it the dignity of responsibility."
  And then he proposed to group areas which were in some respects irregular and too small. Now, I appeal to the House whether there could possibly be a more accurate description of the present Bill? We are not proposing to create 10 municipalities, we are proposing to create a large number of municipalities which it is perfectly patent he had in his mind. We propose to dignify and strengthen the life and being of the local boards. If I had wanted to describe the scope of the Measure which the right honourable Gentleman now denounces, I do not think I could have done it better than in the happy phrases which were employed by the right honourable Gentleman on that occasion. By this Measure no attack whatever is made on the London County Council, and when one sees the change of tone which now characterises the Opposition with reference to this Measure, one cannot but ask the question—What does it all mean? Is there behind this change of tone some design against the local municipal life of the various divisions which must always exist in so enormous a city as London? Is it intended that they are to be all swallowed up by the London County Council or some new body which is to represent it, and that there is to be no local life at all, except by way of delegation from the great central body? There has run through the Debate a curious mixture of ideas. Two strands have run through the Debate on the part of the opponents of this Measure. Sometimes it is said that these new boroughs will be very dangerous indeed; that they wall destroy the central authority which London must have. At other times they are belittled, and spoken of as weak and contemptible, and merely decorated with the trappings of municipalities. All

  183
  that I can say is, that these two arguments are mutually self-destructive. Some of the speakers have taken one tone, and some the other tone; but in the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, almost in, successive sentences, you sometimes found one idea and sometimes the other. I listened with interest and attention to what he said, and I cannot help being reminded of what in the "Anti-Jacobin" is put into the mouth of a speaker who was attacking the Government of the day. He described the Ministers, in one sentence, as "bold bad men," and in the next characterised their measures as "weak, as well as wicked." Sometimes these bold bad boroughs are going to devour the London County Council.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: What I said was that according to the language used by the Prime Minister, and at the First Reading, we understood that these subordinate corporations were to be armed with duties analogous to those now possessed by the great municipal corporations of the country.
  SIR R. FINLAY: My Friend was speaking, not of what the Bill does, but of some apprehended danger, but nothing that has been sail by the Prime Minister can affect the representative character of the bodies which are concerned in this Bill. I do not know what justification the Mover of the Resolution has for supposing that any such designs are going to be carried out.
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I quoted from the Prime Minister's speech.
  SIR R. FINLAY: No expressions were quoted which would justify the idea that these municipalities are to be invested with powers to the destruction of the powers of the London County Council. If there is a process of natural growth, by the consent of the London County Council and Parliament—for it is guarded in that way—I am sure no one would object. But I must say that the impression made by the whole speech of the right honourable Gentleman was that, while sometimes these "bold, bad boroughs" were to devour the London County Council, at other times he represented them as "poor, weak, and despised things," incapable either for good or evil. Now, the
  184
  Resolution which is before the House charges in the first place that the Bill does not simplify London government, and in the second place that it does not complete London government. I do not think that the charge that it does not simplify can seriously be made. For, undoubtedly, in some important respects it does simplify London government. And when it is said that the Bill does not complete London government, that presumably means that the Measure is not absolutely final. There is no absolute finality in legislation; but what we do say is, that this Measure is a long step towards the completion of the fabric of local government in London. The real point of the Amendment appears to rest entirely in its concluding phrases, where it is said that the Bill renders more difficult the attainment of the unity of London. Now, I would point out that the real question before the House is how you are best to achieve the good government of London. Some honourable and right honourable Gentlemen seem to elevate what they call the unity of London into a sort of fetish to which everybody must bow down, and to which every scheme is to be subordinated. They say that, except in size, London does not differ from other towns that are scattered throughout the country. But that exception is a very big one. The difference of the size of London makes all the difference with reference to this question of whether you can have only one central authority with proper local delegation, or whether it is necessary to have a set of local authorities so constituted as to draw to them the best talent available for the purposes of local self-government. It is the want of cohesion about London, with its enormous size and with differences between its various parts, which makes it perfectly impossible to dispense with the services of efficient local bodies. We are told that we ought to have a strong central authority. We all desire to have a strong central authority, but it is not a corollary from that proposition that the local authorities are to be weak. It is conceded on all hands that local authorities of some kind you must have, and that we should do wisely in making these bodies as effective as possible—to make them such as to attract to them the best men, and to put them in a position to develop in London that sense of

  185
  municipal responsibility which has done so much for the rest of the country. It would be a miserable policy to starve the local authorities in order that, by comparison, you should aggrandise the central authority. The local authorities have their work to do in their own sphere, and the central authority has its work to do in its own sphere. The central authority should be in some sense superior, but I cannot accept the criticism of my right honourable Friend in regard to the use of the term "borough" with reference to these local districts into which London must be divided. He said that boroughs must be separate units. But what would he say to the case—familiar to my right honourable Friend near me—of Manchester and Salford? My right honourable Friend opposite says that boroughs must be separate units, but I think he would find it difficult indeed to dissect Manchester and Salford, and say that one is independent of the other—and yet they are two boroughs. Take another case, which I daresay is more familiar to my right honourable Friend. Ho may occasionally go to Brighton, and may occasionally visit Hove. Hove has been made a borough, and Brighton is a borough, though it cannot be said that they are separate units. There are other instances that might be given, but it is enough for me to indicate that this arbitrary assertion that boroughs must be perfectly independent of one another is one that finds no countenance in the facts of the case. Why should power be grudged to these local bodies? Why are these boroughs, instead of having the full dignity of municipal life, to be mere district councils or vestries? Surely it is not a wise policy to belittle these local authorities, on which you must to a great extent depend for the efficient government of this metropolis. The right honourable Gentleman says that the great blot on this Bill—and it was the first point he made in his speech—was that it left the City untouched. He said that the population of the City was a mere trifle. Of course, if you take the night population of the City, it is very small; but you must, for this purpose, look to the clay population as well, and I cannot understand on what principle this attack on the City has been made. The whole question with regard to the treat-
  186
  ment of London is, What is the ideal you are aiming at? Do you desire to throw the whole metropolitan area into the melting pot—with one district presiding over the whole, and with various districts where you would have bodies exercising various powers by delegation from the central authority—one of which districts would, I suppose, be Westminster. Is it your aim to have one central municipality and district bodies of less dignity? That is an ideal which was substantially embodied in a Bill introduced by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouth in 1884. But surely that is an ideal which does not meet with the approval of this House or the country. It is an ideal which, if still cherished by some, can hardly count on any very enthusiastic reception nowadays. Surely the true ideal is that you are to have local municipal life, and that is the ideal which this Bill is intended to further. If you start from that point of view, will anyone suggest that the City would not be a natural area for having municipal institutions of its own? We are told that we do not deal with the City, and do not alter its functions as a governing body. We ask what is it suggested that we should do with the City? One great object of the Bill is to give greater dignity to the local authority. Is it suggested that the City has not dignity enough already, and that we should give it more by some clause introduced into this Bill? I heard with some regret the expression used the other night that the City is an "unreformed corporation."
  MR. BUXTON: Hear, hear‡
  SIR R. FINLAY: The honourable Gentleman cheers that expresson which was used the other night. I say that is one of those catchwords which are entirely misapplied in this connection. The term "unreformed corporation" was applied with perfect justice to the old close corporations which were dealt with by the great Measure of 1836. These were close corporations—self-elected bodies, with little or no connection with the inhabitants and the places which they governed. A term of that sort is totally inapplicable to the City, where you have a wide suffrage, where practically every ratepayer has a voice in the election of those who are to

  187
  administer the affairs of the City, and where you have a body which, whatever else may be said of it, does give you excellent administration.
  MR. BUXTON: The Commission of 1853 recommended certain specific reforms in the government of the City, and I do not think that one of the more important of these reforms has yet been carried out.
  SIR R. FINLAY: That does not make it an unreformed corporation. I am not saying the City is perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect. But I say that to endeavour, by the use of the phrase which the right honourable Gentleman has employed, to associate the City with the old close corporations, is to get on the wrong track altogether. The government of the City rests on a broad and popular basis. It has an administration subject to the most vigilant scrutiny, and no false step can be made by the government of the City without its enemies at once pointing it out. There are some features in the recent history of the City for which everyone must indeed be very grateful. Take what it did in reference to Epping Forest and the Tower Bridge. Many other instances might also be given, but in truth no attack is made or can be made upon the administration of the City. My right honourable Friend who has just spoken referred to the path taken by the Corporation in English history, and he said, in perfect justice, that it was the path to freedom. There is something in historic associations, and I confess I would look with great regret on the sort of panacea which honourable and right honourable Gentlemen opposite desire to provide for the City by sublimating, so that it should disappear in some larger body, and have a district council to administer the affairs of that portion now governed by the Corporation. My right honourable Friend went on to say, "Why have you omitted to confer on these boroughs the powers of administering the Poor Law? and he said that was a very great blot on the Bill. I would only ask the right honourable Gentleman and the House to consider whether that would not be a very serious matter indeed to introduce into this Bill. I do not say that there is not a great deal to be said
  188
  for a step in the direction he indicates, of having one body to administer all local affairs. But everyone who deals with the matter practically must feel that it would endanger the prospects of any Measure of reform of this kind, if we attempted to deal with that very large question in it. I am perfectly certain my right honourable Friend would look upon it in that way if, instead of making a speech against the Second Reading, he was engaged in drawing the Bill. Various points of varying importance have been referred to during the Debate. One which has been much emphasised is that there is a great deal of devolution, and that a great deal was left to be done by Order in Council. That is perfectly true, but I would remind the House that, in taking that course, the Government have not adopted any new or unusual expedient. Many honourable Members are familiar with what takes place when a charter is applied for a certain district in the country. A petition is presented to Her Majesty and the Privy Council deals with the matter. The charter is granted, and with it a scheme which deals with all matters connected with the reconstitution of the district. We have proceeded strictly on that analogy with reference to the constitution of these districts, and there is really nothing in the course adopted which is at all improper or new. Then an attack was made, particularly by the right honourable Gentleman who has just spoken, upon the areas into which it is proposed to divide the metropolis. I suppose there is no subject on which it is more difficult to find two men who absolutely agree than the exact division of the metropolis into areas for the purpose of local government. Having regard to the difficulties of the subject, and the number of considerations to be taken into account, it is rather surprising that more objections have not been raised, and it is remarkable, considering the local sentiment on which the Bill rests, that these districts scheduled in the Bill as ripe for incorporation have in the majority of instances not been disputed at all. Some very interesting remarks were made by my honourable Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley on Tuesday night with reference to the principle on which grouping should take place—remarks

  189
  which deserve the fullest consideration, and which show a very great knowledge of the subject, and a practical experience of all the considerations which have to be taken into account. Then it was said that we were creating cities of the rich and cities of the poor. I would remind the right honourable Gentleman who made that charge that the districts which he calls cities of the rich are already separated from the districts of the poor. We are not creating these districts. We are merely saying to them "You must have local life," and we propose to give them that incorporation which is desirable for the full development of this local life.
  MR. ASQUITH: Westminster.
  SIR R. FINLAY: The observation I have just made applies to very many places. With regard to Westminster, there are special considerations, which I shall deal with later. I really do not understand how the right honourable Gentleman could propose to deal with this question unless he could effect an alteration in the geographical situation of these districts. How is it possible to mix up the districts in London in the way he suggests, so that we may have an equal distribution of rich and poor alike. It is a physical and absolute impossibility. I entirely demur to the assumption of many honourable Members that many of the West End districts have not got a great many poor in them. Take Kensington. There is a very poor district indeed in Kensington, and the same observation applies to a great many of the districts in the Schedule in the Bill. But what I wish to point out is that the grouping which must take place by Order in Council under this Bill will tend to diminish the separation between the rich and poor. The effect of the Bill must be to unite in a great many cases districts varying to some extent in the character of their population, and whenever we do that we mitigate the evil which has been referred to of having the rich separated from the poor. The Bill tends in the direction of mitigating that evil, which necessarily arises from the geographical features which London possesses. In this connection my right honourable Friend opposite made a great
  190
  attack upon the proposal to give the power of dealing with the housing of the working classes to the corporations which are to be set up by this Bill, and his observations would apply to the housing of the working classes generally. I would point out, with reference to the instance which he gave of what was done in Bethnal Green, something in the opposite direction. Where you have got the housing of the working classes wanted, in such districts as Westminster and Kensington and other West End districts, and sometimes it is very badly wanted indeed, surely the right honourable Gentleman will say that those districts should pay for themselves, and if we confer powers with reference to such housing on the districts themselves it tends to mitigate the evil which otherwise would exist of calling upon the poorer parts of London to contribute to a rate for providing houses in the rich parts. I am told that the Bethnal Green case does not come under this part of the Act at all. The same sort of attack is made with regard to the equalisation of rates, and the House was asked to believe that the Bill in some way impairs the safeguards for the equalisation of rates. The Bill expressly preserves the Act for the equalisation of rates, and, so far as the granting under the Bill is concerned, it diminishes to some extent the very evil which that Act was designed to remedy. My right honourable Friend pointedly called attention just now to the question of the incorporation of Westminster. He made some remarks in his speech on that corporation, and I confess I do not understand the violence of the attack made on the proposal to erect the city of Westminster into a municipal corporation under the Bill. I cannot help thinking that underlying it there is a. sort of feeling that a great and important corporation of that kind would to some extent relatively diminish the importance of the County Council. That is a feeling which can hardly be avowed; but I confess that, looking at the arguments put forward in support of the attacks on this proposal, I am at a loss to understand what is the real motive behind them. One organ of public opinion which has attacked this Bill very strenuously refers to the case of the 300 deserving vestry-

  191
  men who are to be thrown out of employment at Westminster. Of course, one is very sorry that gentlemen who from a sense of public duty and public spirit have given their time to the administration of local affairs should be deprived of work in which they take an interest, and which they are highly qualified to perform. But at the same time, if it should appear that efficiency and economy will be promoted by the substitution of smaller bodies for larger districts, instead of larger bodies for smaller districts, surely we may rely on the public spirit and the sense of public duty of individual vestrymen and officials to lead them to merge their own feelings in the sense of what is best for the community. There was one very remarkable passage in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman who moved this Resolution, where he referred to the great public buildings which adorned Westminster, and in impassioned tones he asked whether Westminster was to keep all these good things to itself. But how are these things to be transported to other parts?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I asked whether these buildings were to be used for glorifying Westminster.
  SIR R. FINLAY: That is a kind of argument which I cannot understand. The buildings must be in Westminster, and if Westminster is the most suitable area, I cannot follow the train of thought which would grudge Westminster the enjoyment of them. They must be there, and nowhere else. I listened with some surprise to the right honourable Gentleman when he referred to what he called "the grand larceny" of attributing to Larger Westminster functions which are at present distributed among the various bodies which rule and control the districts which will constitute Greater Westminster. Is there nothing in history which shows that Westminster has historical associations and has existed for a very long time as a city? I admit that its municipal institutions have been in a somewhat rudimentary form, but when we are told that there is no foundation for connecting this borough with this Bill I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to go back to times even before the Norman Conquest.
  192
  We are not, however, going to set up this municipality upon any antiquated ground of that sort, although it should not be altogether disregarded. But if honourable Members follow Westminster through English history they will find it was always recognised. There is a certain historic unity about it which lends force to the proposal and invests it with fuller and more complete corporate life. There were a great many other proposals in the Bill criticised, but it seemed to me that many of the speeches were more suitable for Debate in Committee, and I do not propose to occupy the time of the House in discussing them now. I am not going to discuss the question as to how the municipal boroughs are to borrow, but I would point out that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them borrowing through the County Council. They will require the sanction of the Local Government Board, but that will not prevent them borrowing through the County Council, and therefore the apprehensions expressed on that point are unfounded. Stringent criticism has also been directed against the transfer clauses, but some power of transfer there must be. Any observations on that point can, however, be more appropriately made on the Committee stage. What I ask the House is to return to the broader aspect of the question, and to ask itself, Is this or is this not a Bill framed on legitimate lines for the purpose of developing legitimate local institutions? Is it a Measure which is called for by the local wants of London? Is it not a Measure on the same lines as were indicated in those speeches which I have already quoted, and which were made by right honourable Gentlemen opposite? Looking at the Bill in that light, I ask the House as a whole to take up the attitude which was adopted by the Opposition itself on the First Reading, when honourable Members had all the materials before them for forming an opinion on the policy of the Bill, and to give the Measure a Second Reading, as being calculated to take a long step towards the completion of the fabric of local government in London.
  MR. COURTNEY: I confess I have not listened to this Debate this evening with any degree of satisfaction. The character of the speech

  193
  of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife was not satisfactory. At the close of his speech he said that if the subject of this Bill could be a matter of free discussion it might be acceptable, not as a complete Measure, but an instalment towards something that might be a complete Measure. I wish he had remembered that remark throughout his speech, because the attitude of severe criticism and opposition he has adopted renders the possibility of an amicable discussion extremely difficult. Nor do I think that the speech of the Solicitor-General has removed that difficulty. In the few remarks which I will offer to the House I would desire to bring back the discussion to a more friendly temper, if not between honourable Members on both sides, at least towards the subject matter of the Bill, in order to see if we cannot in the end mould the Bill into a shape which all might accept so far as it goes. I would say at the outset that I speak in. this matter entirely for myself. I have had no opportunity of discussing the Bill with my colleagues who served on the Royal Commission, and, therefore, I speak entirely for myself. In the first place I would press the House to look at the Bill apart from the preconceptions and associations with which it has been connected. The Bill is not being condemned so much for what is in it as what is being read into it. The intentions of the Government are carried far beyond what the Bill itself contains. A malevolent purpose is ascribed to them which is admitted not to be warranted by the provisions of the Bill itself, but which is founded on something which happened before. Now, I quite admit that there is a good deal of ground for suspicion as to what was said in former years, and the Bill itself contains clauses which do not tend to allay that suspicion; but is it wise to approach the Bill with the purpose of making that suspicion real, and of converting it from a possibility into a practical fact, and of making the attitude of the Government towards the Bill something corresponding to what right honourable Gentlemen opposite suppose? I am free to speak in the matter of the declaration made by Ministers of the Crown last year and the year before in a way other Members could not possibly be expected to speak. I have no hesitation in saying that the speech of Lord
  194
  Salisbury at the Albert Hall was a most unfortunate performance. Everyone knew that, as soon as the speech was delivered; most of all perhaps the Moderate candidates at the County Council elections. A good many gentlemen did me the honour of speaking to me about it, and I ventured to assure them that there was no use in Lord Salisbury talking in that way, because in the nature of things what the Prime Minister was aiming at could not be done. The County Council is a fact the importance of which cannot be mitigated, and all the attempts, threats, and invectives will prove in the course of time to be in vain. I greatly admire Lord Salisbury, who has a great disdain for Parliamentary conventions, and says outright what he thinks; and when I read the speech of the noble Marquess and saw what an unhappy effect it might produce, my idea was simply this: "God help the man who has to address a mass meeting, especially a mass meeting on the eve of contested elections." Under such circumstances, the most prudent are apt to go astray, and those who are not always prudent may commit indiscretions which may be the subject of regret. But I ask the House to put aside all this, which is really past history, especially as Lord Salisbury's appeal did not prevail. The verdict was not indeed so decisive as it has been represented. Although what is called a Progressive majority was secured at the elections, a majority of the votes was given to the Moderates, but we need not dwell on that now. I want honourable Members to approach this subject free from that singular alarm which seems so often to pervade our ranks whenever we have to consider the position of the County Council and the City of London. I have been frequently amazed at the character of the attitude assumed by the House, especially on this side, with respect to the County Council. The County Council is responsible for a good deal. The foolish things which were said in its early years were enough to provoke alarm, and ever since, whenever the County Council proposes to do something, there is immediately a flutter of agitation and shrieking, which really reminds one more than anything else of the display of the occupants of a poultry yard whenever they see some enemy approaching whose power they fear. We

  195
  should not look at the County Council in that way any more than we should look on the City of London as an unalterable thing to be approached with reverence and with immense respect. Now, I have stated already what is my desire in speaking to the House upon this particular matter. I would ask the House to accompany me for a few moments upon a suggestion of what might have been. I know that as a rule nothing is more idle than speculating as to what might have been, but in this connection I think it will be perceived very soon that some really good results may flow from considering what might have been the course of legislation with respect to London. If the ideas, policy, and machinery now recognised and adopted with respect to growing towns had prevailed last century or the century before, what would have happened? The City of London, as its inhabitants began to settle on the grounds around it, and as surrounding villages grew into faubourgs and suburbs, would have come to the Crown for enlarged charters in the earlier period, and in later years would have come to this House and the other House and asked for the extension of its borders. That is what has happened every Session, and what has happened every year, with respect to the growing towns of this country, such as Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, which have outgrown their original limits, and they have come year after year at certain intervals, as the increase in the inhabitants compelled it, to Parliament, to ask for an enlargement of their borders, and to bring within their area the outlying growth of their own population. Of course, the Act of 1835 made a great extension in this way on a large scale. If this had been done, and repeatedly done, what would have happened? We should have had the Corporation of the City becoming a corporation with new wards and new aldermen, but with the same constitution. They would have taken in St. Giles, Bloomsbury, Clerken-well, and Islington, and you would have had a continually increasing great corporation governing and representing the whole City and the whole town. You would have soon found it necessary for strictly local purposes and administration to call into existence what I will call adjunctive bodies, such as the wards
  196
  are in the City of London, charged with affairs of their own, and quite independent in respect of those affairs, which would relieve the greater body of the special local matters which are better attended to by such local bodies. That is what would have been the natural growth if the City in past times had acted upon principles universally recognised and adopted now. It was not entirely the fault of the City that this was not done. There were difficulties in the way, and they were kept back from doing it. Just consider if that had happened what would have been the result? It is said now that the Lord Mayor occupies a peculiar and unparalleled position, that he is the almoner of the charity of the nation, which is perfectly true; that he is the sponsor of a new public spirit embodied in new projects of benevolence and education, which are frequently begun in the Mansion House under the auspices of the Lord Mayor; and, moreover, he is the person who receives in the name of the City the distinguished men of our own country, and the distinguished visitors who come from foreign lands, to whom he dispenses and regulates the hospitality which is demanded. But would not all these functions have been filled by the Lord Mayor of the Greater City which I have described? Would he not still have been the almoner of the nation's charities and the person to inaugurate new projects of benevolence and education? Would he not still have been the person to have received the distinguished men of our own country or distinguished visitors? To such a mayor there would have passed, as London grew, all the glory, all the traditions of antiquity, and all the pomp which is now associated with that office. The-original wards under his jurisdiction, like the other parts included in the area of Greater London which I have described, would have had their own administrations for purely local matters, but the great affairs which concerned the inhabitants of the whole metropolis, such as the dispensing of its hospitality, the administration of its great trusts, and the control of the markets, would have passed with the ancient endowments associated with it, and the pomp and tradition of the position of the Lord Mayor would have passed to the Greater

  197
  City which I have described. If that process had been followed in the past is there any honourable Member will deny that the result would have been better than it is now? Should we not have had this gradual and continuous development of the idea of civic life throughout London which you complain now does not exist, or which is only partially brought into existence. My honourable and learned Friend referred to the honour which was due to the Corporation for having saved Epping Forest and preserved Burnham Beeches, but would the Greater Corporation and the Greater Lord Mayor have been slow-to do such work‡ Would not all the surroundings of London have been looked after by them? As it is now, they are looked after by an imperfect institution, which, in some measure, has to perform the duties which should have been performed by such a greater corporation as I have described. I now go back from these considerations for the purpose of showing what did happen. The process I have imagined was not followed. Our machinery was imperfect, and our ideas were not sufficiently elastic, for they were the ideas of past generations, and the powers outside the City thwarted such disposition as might have been felt in the City to extend its borders. But, in spite of everything, you could not prevent something coming into existence which did represent, and continues to represent, the corporate life of the whole of London. Necessity compelled the invention, and compelled the discovery of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which passed to the London County Council, and which must continue to increase its functions. It was in the nature of things that this should be so. They could not remain with a stunted City and neglected outlying districts; it was necessary to bring into existence something which would do for the whole of London that which necessarily could not be undertaken by the several parts. There are things which concern the whole of London which in the very nature of things compel you to establish a central authority. Why, the London County Council has been created under the Act for which my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade was responsible, and since the London County Council has been created you have gone on adding
  198
  functions to that Council, and you cannot avoid it. If this is the case, some deductions of a consoling character may, I think, be drawn. Why should we be alarmed about this Bill? Even if it were so insidious as has been suggested, the County Council cannot be affected by it, and I do not think the City of London will be much longer preserved in existence in its present peculiar position if the Bill does, as it will, become law. It is suggested that by creating smaller municipalities around the City of London you will defend that City in its present position, but I think that is very doubtful. I should think that it would occur to these smaller municipalities after a time that they had become as important as the municipality of the City, for they had just the same work to do in looking after their streets and ordinary local affairs, and what the City has got in excess of what they had got really belonged to the whole of London, of which they were a part as much as the City itself, and which ought to be transferred not to the London County Council, but to some body which will represent the whole of London, of which they are a subordinate part. I do not believe that the creation of these subordinate or adjunct municipalities will strengthen the position of the City of London, and this argument cannot be trusted to at all. I think this is the view of the case which was taken by the Commission of which I had the honour to be chairman. Now, in what respect does the operation of the present Bill differ from the recommendations of that Commission? It differs in this important respect, that it does not go so far. But although it does not go so far, what it does may be accepted in some measure, subject to certain alterations, as a part performance of what that Commission suggested. We did suggest subordinate municipalities, and we scheduled a good many which we thought might be at once recognised. Some of them are included in the first schedule of this Bill, although not all, and there are some other municipalities included in that schedule which we did not schedule. Now, in what respect does the scheme of the Government differ from the scheme which we had in our minds? I do not say that our scheme was one which was

  199
  perfect in detail, but in what respect does the scheme of the Government differ from the scheme which we proposed? The Commission had thought that, sooner or later, we must bring about—or there must be brought about—that which I expected would have been brought about by the natural process I have sketched—that we should have one great body with the tradition, the weight and dignity of the City, which would, by such natural process, be charged with all the common, inseparable, and indivisible concerns of the whole town of London, whilst in connection with it there would have been subordinate municipalities taking care of special matters which could not be attended to with so much effect by the central body, and, as we said, everything should be transferred which could be as well done by the local bodies as by the central body. The Commissioners' method proposed that there should be local bodies receiving greater dignity and having a better status; and it was the essence of their plan that the new municipal bodies which would be called into existence, whilst following what may be called historic developments, and having regard to local history and local associations, should nevertheless be of such a size as could not in any degree be confounded in weight and in importance, or scope of operation with the greater central body. There were to be under-corporations adjunct and ancillary to the one corporation in the functions which they discharged. In respect to the schedule of this Bill as now put forward there are two suggestions which seem to me to require attention. In the first place, Wandsworth has an enormous area. The honourable Member for Wandsworth has urged with great weight the urgent call for the reconsideration of Wandsworth as a Parliamentary borough, and there certainly is reason for a similar argument in regard to its position under this Bill. I do not suppose that Greater Westminster is a project which must be accepted, and which cannot be eriticised, and I confess that I have a great apprehension with respect to it, for I do not think it will be a workable scheme to have a Greater Westminster charged with the duties which are proposed under this Bill. I
  200
  suspect that it will have to be divided into two, taking St. George's, Hanover Square, and joining with it the parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, and leaving the Strand, St. James's, St. Martin's-in-the Fields, and Soho to form a separate division. You will then have defined areas something more analogous to the other areas, and more likely to carry out the limited functions which are to be entrusted to them. I do not think it is at all necessary for me to allude to the several differences as regards aldermen in these municipalities. The recommendation of the Commission did not propose that there should be aldermen, simply because we found nobody in favour of aldermen. I have no particular feeling about aldermen, either one way or the other, but I think it should remain an open question for the Government to consider upon its merits. Then, as to the question of how the subordinate municipalities should be elected the Commission had rather contradictory evidence. I have already told the House last year the singular character of the evidence we had before us in respect to this matter. We had representatives of the municipal corporations who told us that the continuity of administration required to be safeguarded by partial elections every year, and that there should not be a reelection of the whole body every third year. On the other side, the necessity for the total re-election every three years was advocated. This question came up last year in connection with Irish local government, and there, I think, it was ultimately left to be determined by the people themselves, and if it has been left an open question in respect to Ireland, surely it cannot be a question upon which it is necessary to speak a final word upon the Second Reading of this Bill. But there is another question of much more importance, and that is the transfer of powers. Now, it is commonly admitted every power should be transferred which could be as well done by the smaller municipalities; and already a great number of powers have been agreed to be transferred from the greater to the smaller bodies. There is the power to make arrangements for the transfer of other powers, and that is one which I think ought to be a little more safeguarded, though I see no ob-

  201
  jection in principle to such transfers being made later on, if both the County Council and the municipalities concur thereto, and the transfer is approved by the Local Government Board, and then again approved by Parliament. With regard to clause 6, I confess that it is one which I fail to understand the reason of. This clause is one which gives power to the Privy Council to transfer under the Bill the powers under the Building Act, 1894, but there is no machinery as far as I can make out by which the Privy Council is to exercise this extraordinary jurisdiction. I suppose the various authorities will go before the Privy Council and argue their case, and then the Privy Council will determine whether these transfers shall take place; but to substitute the decision of a Committee of the Privy Council for the action of Parliament in such a well-considered Bill as the Act of 1894 does seem to me to be a matter requiring a very strong defence if it is to be maintained. It happened when the Commission were pursuing their inquiries that we had before us the chairman of the Building Committee of the London County Council, who was, at the same time, defending the clauses of this particular Building Act before a Hybrid Committee of this House, and, therefore we had to take it upon alternate days. He was one of the very best witnesses we had, and he was a Moderate, and a prominent member of the Moderate Party. We cross-examined him a great deal to see whether any change could be made in his proposal, and I am bound to say that we were very much persuaded that he made out a complete case for the provisions of the Bill which were then in the course of passing through Parliament, and which were substantially approved of by Parliament. To take a Bill of this kind, and make it subject to this clause was an eccentricity which requires some explanation. But these, after all, are comparatively minor matters. These smaller municipalities will have to be created, and I do not think they will seriously interfere with the work of the central authority, nor do I think that they will prove such a defence of the Corporation of the City of London as has been stated. The very nature of things will compel the maintenance and enlargement of the London County
  202
  Council. You may hesitate to call it a Corporation of the City of London; you may hesitate to transfer to it the functions of the present Corporation of the City in respect of those matters which really belong to the whole of London, and which the City at present maintains as an anachronism; you may hesitate to transfer the control of the markets and other matters which affect London as a whole, but eventually they will have to go. Therefore I do not believe that these smaller municipalities will constitute a defence of the City; and therefore I am not at all apprehensive in this respect, for I look upon it as a matter which will of necessity work itself out sooner or later. The Bill we know is imperfect, but, after all, even the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife, if lie were in office, would not be able himself to produce a perfect plan. He would have to conciliate the forces which were opposed to him, to make shifts here and abatements there, and in the end the Bill which he would put on the Table would certainly not be a perfect Measure; but yet the Bill might be a good Bill if Members were allowed to approach it in the spirit to which the right honourable Gentleman referred at the close of his speech, but which he did not bear in mind throughout the delivery of the whole of his speech. My right honourable Friend referred at the end of his speech to the conduct of the Bill in Committee, and this is the last word I am going to say, and I will not trouble the House after. I think this Bill in passing through Parliament will be somewhat of a test of our Parliamentary system. I believe if you have got a score of sensible men of both Parties—and you need not be particular as to the number from each—I believe that if you had 12 men of business from this side of the House and a. similar number from the other side to sit around this Bill they would be able to make a good thing of it. Of course I know that cannot be done, but I believe in that way they would take the Bill and make it a good practical Measure. I will go further and say that I think it is possible for a Grand Committee to make a good thing out of it. I do not know whether my right honourable Friend the

  203
  Leader of the House has ever sat on a Grand Committee, but I expect his other duties have prevented him from doing so. If this Bill went before a Grand Committee, where Members hear everything that is said, and where votes in some measure are modified by knowledge and by argument, there would be no recourse to external forces in deciding emergent questions. If to the deliberations upon the Bill the House could bring something of the atmosphere of a Grand Committee this Bill may be made a good Bill, and can be made acceptable as far as it goes. think it is a good augury that my right honourable Friend himself is in charge of this Bill. There is no man in the House so quick and no man so clear in the perception of facts and arguments, for the right honourable Gentleman is perfect in that regard. He is also possessed of the highest powers and authority, and he will bring to the discussion of the Bill good knowledge, the closest attention, and the possession of power, and the House will be spared that painful spectacle which we sometimes experience of a Minister struggling with limited powers sometimes in regard to authority and sometimes in regard to comprehension of the Bill under his charge. My right honourable Friend has every advantage, and if he will conduct the Bill in the spirit suggested; if he will watch the course of argument in the House and listen to what is stated here, and not trust entirely to force of votes; if he will trust to that, we may then work this Bill through, and make it, if not a perfect, yet a satisfactory Bill. My last word will be an appeal to my right honourable Friend to forget ail the nonsense talked about the past utterances of Ministers and the apprehensions of foul conspiracies, and to go into Committee on the Bill and approach it in the spirit which I have suggested, and then a good Bill may be expected. If I may venture to do so, I should advise my right honourable Friends opposite not to insist upon dividing on the Second Reading. The attitude which right honourable Gentlemen opposite have taken is a remarkable one, but they do not have the same mind together for a month, and sometimes there is a very small modicum of mind to make up. But let us look at the matter as com-
  204
  mon-sense business men as the project to be discussed in the spirit in which men would treat a serious subject, givng it serious attention, and then, with the help of my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House, I do hope we shall be able to carry this Bill in a satisfactory form.
  MR. THEVELYAN: The Solicitor-General has brought up again a complaint that the Opposition have changed their tactics upon this Bill. He said that we had begun with blessing this Measure, and that now we were cursing it. Now, in the first place, we, on this side of the House, are thankful for small mercies at the present time, and we are distinctly glad that the Bill which has been presented to the House was presented by the First Lord of the Treasury and not by the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, who had presaged a destructive Bill to the London County Council. The second reason why I think the attitude of the Opposition has changed is that this Bill, on the surface of it, is not a dangerous one, but that when we look into it more closely, when we examine its details, when we look at the Bills to which it refers, we begin-to understand more clearly the tendencies which it really denotes. Now, the right honourable Member for Bodmin has asked us not to get excited over this Bill. Well, it is generally the privilege of older years to be alarmed, but on this occasion I shall claim that it is the privilege of youth to be very much alarmed at the tendencies which this Bill denotes. And I hope, not merely by a general expression of opinion about this Bill, but by examining shortly the details of the Bill, to be able to show the House that its whole tendency is distinctly directed against the County Council, and that this Bill does nothing for the County Council, but carefully avoids doing anything for it. Now, I do not wish to say very much about the creation of the new boroughs, for there are some of us upon this side who, without going into any details upon the question, are not altogether averse to seeing strong local bodies created, strong in the sense of efficiency. With certain alterations which we want, such as the division of Wandsworth and the division of West-

  205
  minster, we think that these boroughs are, some of them, likely to be more satisfactory than the present vestries. We think that it is extremely probable that if a body of 72 men come together they will very likely be more capable of managing the local affairs of their districts than are the members of the numerous vestries. But the question on which we join issue with the Government is as to the powers of these new bodies. It is the matter from clause 5 onwards with which we disagree. Now, in the first place, the first objectionable tendency of this Bill is to hand over powers from the County Council, either to these bodies or to the Local Government Board. The mere handing over of powers from the London County Council is not in itself necessarily bad. We can quite conceive, on this side of the House, that there might be an advantage under some circumstances in handing over powers from the London County Council to the vestries. But I ask the House to consider what the powers are which it is suggested to hand over from the London County Council, and I say that every power which it is proposed to hand over is cither useless or else is positively harmful. I will take first some of the powers which, in my opinion, it is useless to hand over from the County Council. In clause 2 of the Bill it is proposed to leave it to an order in Council to settle what the wards of the new boroughs shall be. Now, it is the fact that the local districts of the metropolis have been divided up into wards hitherto by the action of the County Council, and there has been no complaint whatever on any ground or from any direction as to the action of the County Council in that respect. And yet it is proposed, for no apparent reason whatever, to take this power, which has been perfectly satisfactorily performed, out of the hands of the County Council. I do not say it would be worse done by an Order in Council. I say it is unnecessary to hand it over; and if by any chance there should be an advantage on one side or the other, the advantage is distinctly in the present system, because the County Council is much more likely to be able to know the local needs of the metropolis than are the people who will issue the Order in Council. Then, to go on to one or two things which are scheduled in this
  206
  second schedule of the Bill, it is proposed that the local authorities should exercise control over wooden structures put up in the streets. It is rather an unfair insult, I think, to the County Council to propose to take away that power which before the eyes of the whole country they exercised with such effect on the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee, when there was no loss of life, no injury to limb, owing to the successful manner in which the London County Council made regulations and enforced them upon that occasion. Then it is proposed to hand over the regulation of sky signs to the local boroughs of the metropolis. What is the use of that? As a matter of fact, there is a Bill in force which, as time goes on, is going to prevent the erection of any sky signs at all in the metropolis. But I pass from those duties which it is harmless to hand over from the County Council to those which we regard as harmful. The noble Lord the Member for South Kensington said the other day that all these things were matters of detail. All legislation, Sir, is mater of detail. I say there are many things contained in this Measure which it is proposed to hand over to these local authorities which are matters of detail, but which affect very nearly the health and happiness and the lives of the people, and therefore, though matters of detail, they are matters of very great importance. Now, I will take a small thing first. It is proposed in Schedule 2, Part 1, to hand over the regulation of dairies to the local authorities, and it is proposed later on in the Bill—I think in clause 7—to give the administration and inspection of these dairies to the local bodies as well. At the present time, at comparatively small cost and with very great efficiency, this duty is being carried on by the London County Council. I say it is almost certain that the first result of handing this duty over to the different local authorities will be to make the process more expensive, because if they do their duty at all they will have to have a good many more inspectors than the London County Council has at the present time. In the second place, it is very likely, it is nearly certain, that the inspection will be less efficient, because there will not be the same pressure on the inspectors to do their duty. There will be milk inspected in one borough which is sold in the next

  207
  borough, and if the man in the next borough finds that his milk is not what it should be, he has not nearly the same power of putting pressure on the authorities in order to obtain what he wants. The whole matter of inspection—and this matter of inspection applies to more than the question of milk—is a very serious one. There is a principle which underlies it, and it is this, that if you inspect through the means of small local authorities those local authorities are much more subject to the pressure of interested people than is a great and strong central authority like the London County Council. We begin more and more to recognise that inspection of this sort is of very vital interest to the health and life of the people of the land, and in the interests of the health and life of the people we object to such powers being taken away from the County Council. Then there is the question of the inspection of common lodging-houses, which is a comparatively cheap duty of the County Council at the present time; they do not spend, I think, more than £2,000 upon it. That is a very serious thing also. Common lodging-houses are places where vice and disease are very likely to be hatched if there is not sufficient and effective inspection. That is the sort of duty which ought to be performed by some body which can, more or less, terrorise the people who are to be inspected. It is much less likely that the small local authorities will be able to exercise the proper terror over the common lodging-house keeper than the County Council. Then there is the question of main roads. It is Proposed to hand over main roads of the metropolis, such as are controlled by the London County Council at present, to these new borough authorities. For my part, I think it would be a very good thing if the County Council had taken this opportunity of managing more of the main roads of the metropolis than it does at present. It is obviously in the interest of the great mass of the population that the great thoroughfares of London should be given into the control of this central authority, and if any alteration was to be made, I should have thought it would have been rather to compel the County Council to take over a good many more main roads than to divest them of the powers which they now possess. Throughout this Bill, from one
  208
  end to the other, there is the same policy of petty and irritating deprivation of the powers of the County Council, and nothing that shows a tendency in the other direction. If the Government were impartial in this matter, if they really wanted to put the right powers in the right place, their whole tendency would not be solely to take away powers from the County Council, but they would, at any rate, have offered the opportunity of powers being taken from the local authorities and put under the County Council. They have done nothing of the sort. If they wish to increase the importance of these bodies, as has been said before, they might have taken powers from other authorities rather than the County Council in order to dignify them. They need not have deprived the County Council in order to make these new boroughs even more important than the Vestries are now. They might have dignified them by putting under their influence the Poor Law, which in itself alone would have been a greater thing than anything which the vestries are now working at. But, to my mind, the second tendency of this Bill is even worse than the first which I have pointed out. The second tendency of this Bill is to put upon the poor districts of London the burden of the future, and to make it unlikely, and very likely impossible, for any greater equalisation of rates to come on than there is at the present time. One of the bases of rearrangement of the new boroughs is to be the rateable value of the different districts. That part of Clause 1 is put in in order that it may be possible for certain districts like Hampstead, with small population and great wealth, to be separated and independent of any of the poorer districts, which they ought to support. My honourable relative, the Member for Bow and Bromley was speaking the day before yesterday of the burden of the rates in East London, and how very hard it was that Bow and Bromley and Poplar should be combined together with no assistance, with a rate of something like 8s. in the pound, and should not be able to get assistance from any of the richer districts; and his suggestion, so far as I can understand it, was that a large number more of the districts of the Tower Hamlets should be joined to

  209
  Poplar and Bow and Bromley in order to support them. I have never supposed before that an accumulation of paupers would make a millionaire. That, apparently, is the argument of the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley. The truth is that, from one end of it to the other, this Bill seems to be conceived in a spirit of hostility to the County Council as it exists; that it goes against the powers of the County Council; and that it opposes one of the cardinal points of the policy of the County Council—that is, the matter of the equalisation of rates. But, Sir, it is not so much for what this Bill immediately does as what it is intended to prevent being done in the future that I feel most inclined to oppose it; because, in our opinion, the County Council of to-day, after all, is not so important as the, County Council, and the action of the County Council, of the future. It is because we believe that the County Council is going, with more powers, to be the making of this great city that we oppose at the very beginning the policy which the Government is now showing. And I think that some of the Members upon the other side have shown this in the speeches that they have made. A very fine speech, from the Conservative standpoint, was made the other day by the noble Lord the Member for Kensington, and at the end of the speech I think he let out what is really the motive of those who sit upon that side of the House with him. He spoke—I may not have exactly the words—of the abstract doctrinaires who were sitting on the County Council. Now, Sir, I do think that we on this side of the House, and those on the other side of the House, are meeting each other upon this great and fundamental issue. I believe that it is because the London County Council wishes for fundamental reform, because it does propose reforms which, in the opinions of my honourable Friends on the other side of the House, are fallacies, and are theories, and are not practicable—I believe it is because of this difference of opinion between us that this Bill is really being supported and is really being opposed. The reason why I oppose this Bill is because I see nothing in it which in the very least tends to do anything to deal with the great evils that exist in London to-day. It is because I see nothing in it to deal with the hideous
  210
  crowding in the centre of London, because I see nothing in it which tends to make it easier for the County Council or any other authority to enable the people of London to be less crowded in the centre of the city, and to live in the outskirts of the city instead of the slums. It is because I see nothing in it which in the least degrees is likely to make it possible to have the great reform which we are looking for—taxation of ground values. This Bill is directed against any great reform of this sort. It is directed against it because it is directed against the County Council, which is the exponent of those views. Now, Sir, these questions of the poverty of London and of the method of taxation and the like are the things which are most important to the country at the present time, and anything that in the least goes against progress in this direction I am bound to oppose, and most of us on this side of the House are bound to oppose. I do not mean to say that honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House do not care for the condition of the poor—do not care for improvement. The first occasion upon which I had the pleasure of hearing a speech from the First Lord of the Treasury was in Glasgow some time ago. On that occasion he spoke of the enormous importance of local government and city government, and of the way in which the populations were crowding into the towns, and he complimented the people of Glasgow upon the way in which they were managing their municipality, and I could not refrain from cheering the right honourable Gentleman. We are not surprised that the kindly nature of the right honourable Gentleman makes him interested in these things, but I am afraid the kindly and gentle nature of the right honourable Gentleman makes him rather kindly to the forces that are opposed to that sort of reform, and, perhaps, makes him too kind to the great monopolies and the great interests of the ground landlords, who are essentially the opponents of it; and I am not surprised that this sort of Bill should have been brought forward by the right honourable Gentleman and his adherents. It is because I oppose the fundamental principles of this Bill, and because I think it tends to weaken the County Council, upon which, in my view, the future of London depends—it is

  211
  because I believe this that I am opposed to the Bill and shall vote against it.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: The Bill which is now under discussion deals with a subject of vital importance, and one that is now ripe for legislation. In rising to speak upon the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to associate myself with other honourable Members in expressing my satisfaction that the Government should have taken up this important matter, and have demonstrated their earnestness by placing it first among the Government Bills of the Session. I feel perfectly convinced that in so doing they are only carrying out the aspirations of a very large number of people whom this Measure affects. There is no doubt, whatever honourable Members may think on the other side of the House, that this Bill deals with the most vital defects which are at present in existence in the government of London, and in order to make good one's advocacy and one's support of the principles of this Bill I think, perhaps, it is convenient that one should attempt, as far as one can, to find out what its defects are, and if the provisions of the Bill in any way arrest those defects. In my opinion the real defects in London government are due to the apathy of the London ratepayer. The apathy of the London ratepayer has been a byword and a reproach for many years past. I do not think more than 30 per cent. of the London ratepayers take the trouble to go to vote at any election for the County Council. I do not think anything like that number take the trouble to go to a School Board election, and no doubt the election for the vestries practically results in the self-appointment of a number of busy-bodies, leavened, it is perfectly true, with a sprinkling of gentlemen actuated by a public spirit and obligations, who undertake municipal government under the most unpromising and uncongenial environment. I think that proposition the honourable Member for Battersea will endorse. Now, Mr. Speaker, this apathy is no modern peculiarity. The name of Sir Benjamin Hall is handed down for all time in history as one more closely associated with London government and the improvement of London government probably than any man of the century, and it may be of interest to some Mem-
  212
  bers of the House to know that his name is perpetuated immemorially by "Big Ben." Perhaps Sir Benjamin Hall, when he promoted the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, anticipated that the Act would lead to contests at elections. Anyhow, there are embodied in that Act the most elaborate provisions for proceedings which are to be observed at elections. Well, Mr. Speaker, I daresay he anticipated that, but as things have turned out that anticipation was never fulfilled. When the elections first came into operation in 1855, there was a little inspiration on the part of the electors, but that soon palled, and although the institution of parish councils, and the broadening of the franchise and abolition of the rating qualification for vestries, somewhat galvanised the electors out of this lethargy, from that day to this that lethargy has once more been restored, and there is again dull apathy throughout the whole of London. I believe that this Bill, which is now before the House, will, in a very large measure, abolish this apathy. This apathy is due, undoubtedly, to the fact which was brought out most clearly in the speech which has been alluded to, the speech of the Prime Minister (Lord Salisbury), last year. He very clearly showed what was the chief reason why this apathy exists in London. He said—
  "Among the very favourable features which distinguish the population of this great community there is one unfavourable feature, and that is the singularly little interest they take in their own affairs. I believe this is the result of the machinery by which their affairs are regulated not being brought sufficiently closely under their observation, so that they and their friends are not sufficiently interested in its work."
  I believe that these remarks of Lord Salisbury are the keynote to one of the chief defects—the apathy of London ratepayers. The condition of London government is so confused, obscure, and complicated that a hundred Acts of Parliament would barely elucidate it. It has been compared to a Chinese puzzle, and the most experienced officials have discovered at every turn different anomalies. It is hardly to be wondered at then that the ordinary London citizen gives it up in hopeless despair, recognising its inchoateness and lack of organisation. That is one of the chief defects which, I think, this Bill will to a

  213
  large extent remedy. The indirect sys-tern of representation of the district boards of London is to be abolished, and there will be in many other directions a simplification of matters which it is not possible to dwell upon in a Second Heading speech. I will now pass to another point, which I conceive to be one of the chief reasons for the inaction of the London ratepayers. We have heard a great deal this evening from the right honourable Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill about the unity of this great metropolis. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Leeds, in his opening remarks, said he looked upon London as one great city, with several small towns within its area. But I do not think that this House really comprehends what a vast and enormous city London is. In my humble estimation it has far outstripped the ordinary bounds of a city or town. It has practically become a nation. Whether you take its extreme wealth, or its position as the centre of the Empire—the centre of the whole civilised world, it is practically a nation. It possesses a population larger than that of either Norway, Sweden, or Switzerland. It comes within measurable distance of the populations of Ireland, of our Australasian colonies, and of the Dominion of Canada. How, then, can it be wondered at that Londoners find it practically impossible to look upon the city as a whole? One honourable Member opposite suggested that the London County Council should practically have control of the whole of the government of this vast metropolis. I am not one of those who would for a moment detract from the efficiency of the London County Council. I believe that since the election of that body it has done admirable work. In point of open spaces, it has accomplished much for the happiness and comfort of the people, and whether we look to its work in connection with drainage, or in the matter of protection against fire, I undertake to say that the London County Council, although it may have made great mistakes, has certainly done excellent work. But when I have said that, I feel bound also to quote some remarks by Lord Salisbury about this body. He said he looked upon the London County Council as "a body with a ravenous appetite and a very bad digestion." I think its bad digestion is due to the
  214
  amount of work put upon its shoulders. The enormous work that it undertakes has, in consequence, to be left, not so much to those Gentlemen who form the Committees, but a great deal of it has to be entrusted to those permanent officials who should be the servants of the Committees, instead of, as they are in many cases, the masters of those bodies. I was surprised at one honourable Gentleman opposite taking up an attitude which I thought was rapidly dying away, and practically endorsing the sentiments of those aggrandising enthusiasts who think there should be no limit to the work of the County Council beyond that set up by geographical formation. I could not help feeling that in the expression of that view was to be discovered the voice of the chairman of the London County Council. We were told by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds that there was no mandate for this Bill, but I think that there could be no stronger mandate than the Report of the Unification Commission, which was instituted to report in an adverse direction. Line after line shows that the unity of London is to be recognised, and the Commissioners laid down the principle that the powers of local authorities should be enlarged, that their dignity should be increased, and that their general status should be enhanced. That is exactly what this Bill has been introduced to carry out. It is not intended to do anything to impair the greater work of the London County Council. It is not encroaching upon those legitimate, broader, and greater questions which must, in my humble opinion, be carried out by a central authority. Now, we are told, or rather, it has been insinuated, that this question is not really ripe for legislation. I humbly protest against that. So far from its not being ripe, I venture to assert that the Bill is not in any way premature. London has been waiting for it years and years. So far back as 1835, Lord John Russell, in a discussion upon a Municipal Corporations Bill, told Mr. Hume that he intended very shortly to bring in legislation for London, and since then several statesmen have dwelt upon the importance of this. Bills have been introduced, and time after time the question has been discussed, and repeatedly the recommendation has been made that there should be a devolution from the

  215
  central to local authorities, and that, to enable the latter bodies to carry out their duties on more satisfactory lines, increased status and dignity should be conferred on them. I should like to say one word with regard to the remark that has been made by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife. He laid down the proposition that London was a homogeneous entity. Now, with all possible respect to the right honourable Gentleman, I lay down the exactly opposite proposition that London is the most heterogeneous town that the world has ever seen. If I might be allowed, I should like to trace very rapidly the sources from which this gigantic city of ours originally came. London owes its system and governmental area to nothing more uncommon than a question of drains. As far back as the year 1426, in the reign of Edward VI., a Commission of Sewers was issued to London, and from that time to the year 1847 the London Government was carried on by seven Boards of Commission, two of which were given in the reign of Edward VI. In 1848 these Boards of Commission were amalgamated into one Board of Commissioners, and in 1885 it was put into the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but when that was done the area of the metropolis was extended. The outer fringe of the one hundred square miles in olden days was fields, hamlets, and villages; since that time the ceaseless march of the builder has steadily gone on, and what were small villages and hamlets in those days are now great centres of commerce. Not only has the builder distinguished himself by extending that 100 square miles, but he has overlapped it, and what were once villages and hamlets are now great centres of urban population. What I want to draw to the attention of the House is this—that you will find great municipal concerns like Wimbledon and Kew, which join London, have municipalities of their own, but inside the area of the metropolis you will find these large municipalities without corporate functions. Why should Battersea and other large districts just inside escape the dignity of having a mayor and corporation, while those districts just outside the area are to go on that principle? In 100 years hence you will find London will have extended to
  216
  Oxford in the west, and possibly to Brighton on the south. Now, the nearest analogy, perhaps—it is impossible to bring any true analogy—but the nearest analogy is in the county of Stafford in the district known as the Potteries. It has been said by the right honourable Member for Fife that there is no line of demarcation between these great popular centres in London, and they had no legal heritage. In the county of Stafford there cropped up by the development of the great industries great and thriving towns which run practically within each other, but which are all in the enjoyment of municipal and corporate being. At the same time the County Council of Stafford in no way resents the position, and she is the central board of the county. These great municipalities are thriving although they stand so close together; in the same way you might as well say there is no entity among these districts because there is no connection between the great district in the south and the-great district in the north, and that there-is no possible connection one towards the other. But take Lambeth. Lambeth has a greater population than Rotterdam or Cologne; Hackney is mere populous than Athens or Bucharest. Islington has 35,000 more population than that of Lisbon. Surely these places have a right to their own mayors and corporations. There is one thing which I should like to point out closely associated with what has been dealt with by the right honourable Member for Fife. There is one provision in the Bill which says that the building operations—the Housing of the Working Classes Act shall be put into operation by the municipalities. I am bound to say I associate myself in this case with the right honourable Member for Fife. With the knowledge that I have of this difficult and delicate subject I consider that you are conferring a power on these municipalities which the central authority is able to many out with much more efficiency than any local authority. I do not think it would be dealt with by local authorities, or could be properly dealt with by them. You find it is laid down that land may be leased, but may neither be bought nor sold. Now, those districts in which there will be required to be any rehousing done will

  217
  be the centre portions of the localities and the centre portion of London; and as they will not be able to go outside their area and buy land, they will find it difficult to find land in the centre for rehousing purposes. It has been laid down by the Commission that the housing and rehousing of overcrowded districts, and the general question of housing the poor should be dealt with by the central authority, and should be paid for by the county; all that would weigh very heavily with the municipalities if they had to undertake it, and the municipalities in the future that would be found to put this into operation would be those least able to bear it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that point will be reconsidered by the Government, and that they will look at it in a reasonable spirit, or eliminate it altogether from the Bill. There are many other points which will have to be criticised, and which will have to be altered when the Bill reaches another stage. In a Bill of the dimensions of this one I am sure that the Government are perfectly willing to meet any reasonable demand from this side of the House, but I do steadfastly hope that any of these vindictive Amendments—and there will be plenty of them in the Committee stage, which will be simply put down upon the Paper for the purpose of mutilating and killing this Bill—will be strongly opposed and ultimately rejected by the Government. The question of taking away the area of Westminster is one that requires consideration. Westminster, by historic tradition, is fully qualified to be raised into a municipality, and I hope that we shall be firm on that point. The question of promoting Bills by the municipalities is one which does not require much consideration; upon closer examination we shall find that the promotion of Bills by municipalities is more apparent than real. I believe we shall find that under the Borough Counties Act it will be rather of a more restrictive character than it apparently is. The Borough Counties Act lays down that before a municipality can undertake to promote a Bill in Parliament the Vestry must consider it, and must convene a meeting of all the ratepayers in the borough.
  MR. J. SAMUEL: Not the whole of the ratepayers; it must be a public meeting of the ratepayers.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Well, that is the same thing. What I mean is the ratepayers, if they like, can go and vote upon the question, and if it is one of unnecessary extravagance they can go and oppose it. Their consent must be obtained, and when that is obtained the municipality must go to the Local Government Board and also obtain consent from them. With all those restrictions it is very difficult for any Bill to be promoted at all by any municipality, and legislation will not be allowed where it is not absolutely wanted by the municipality itself. With regard to the proportion of the number of aldermen to be placed upon these bodies there are many on this side of the House who will agree that the proportion is rather a large one, and might be reduced to one-third or one-sixth, and then it would be quite adequate, having regard to the number of representatives on the councils. I also think it would be very much better with regard to the question of auditors if they were appointed by the Government instead of by the municipalities. That is a very important point, and, in my opinion, you ought to have the most skilled chartered accountants to fill that position. But these are all Committee questions, and the principle of the Bill stands clear, and must be patent to everybody who is not intoxicated with the exuberance of municipal aspirations. It must be patent to everybody that a Bill of this description is wanted and desired by London. I believe that under this Bill we shall find the county better administered by the London County Council, and that within the greater area of London we shall find large and flourishing towns and centres of commercial enterprise more efficiently governed by mayors and corporations. This Bill, in my opinion, should receive the support of everyone in this House. It ought not to be made a Party Measure. Everybody in this House desires London to be reduced to some sort of uniformity, and I wish this Bill all success, as I am convinced that its realisation will lend to the better government in all its vast and complicated details of the greatest city in the world.

  219
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval—
  MR. J. SAMUEL: It is with very great diffidence that I rise to take part in this Debate——
  Attention having been called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present, the House was counted, when 40 Members being present—
  MR. J. SAMUEL (continuing): It is with very great diffidence that I rise to take part in this Debate, because one not having a knowledge of the system of local government of London in all its intricacies must naturally arise with fear and trembling to take part in such a discussion as the present. But having some experience as a member of a municipal body, and also as a member of a county council, I do claim to have some knowledge of the merits of the system of local government in the provinces. This knowledge naturally gives one a right to offer some remarks upon this Measure, either in approval or disapproval of it. Now, the first thing which strikes anyone who is familiar with the administration and working of our municipalities in the provinces is the fact that in London—one is surprised to listen to and hear in this discussion—that either the County Council or the other bodies which govern this great city, seem to have a great fear as to the municipalisation of either gas, water, tramways, or other works of that nature in our metropolis. This Bill strikes me as being a bad one, because it lends to the contraction of London instead of its expansion, as it ought to be expanded. I think the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, in the very able speech which he delivered to the House this evening, indicated the right line upon which the Government of London should be when he said that the City Council of London ought to have grown with the growth of this great city, and should have expanded with the expansion of the City, but that has not been the case, and I am afraid that the powers of the City Council to expend that money which it has at its command will prevent for many years to come the great reform of the City Council of London.
  220
  It is, as the right honourable Member for Bodmin said—it is the policy of the great municipalities of this country to adopt the process of expansion, and take within their fields of operations all the adjacent districts which hem them in, and which are contiguous to their boundaries. The last time I had the pleasure of seeing the honourable Member for Strood, and of listening to his voice, it was when he was trying to prevent one of our municipalities expending its boundaries. But this policy of the expansion of the boundaries of the municipalities of the provinces is one that is going on year after year, and anyone knows who is accustomed to the Private Bills which are brought before the Committee upstairs. Now, there is no doubt of this fact—that in London we want a great central body. We have that central body. We also want a devolution from the central body of that work which ought to be managed by the various districts within the boundaries of Greater London. But I think it is a mistake, Mr. Speaker, to create a largo number of municipalities without that power and without that authority which our provincial municipalities enjoy. Now, this Bill does not say whether these new municipalities in London which are to be created are to be county boroughs or non-county boroughs. We all know that there is a difference in the provinces—that if a borough have a less population than 50,000 it is a non-county borough, and those boroughs which have a population above 50,000 souls is a county borough, possessing equal powers with the county council. This Bill does not say whether these boroughs which are about to be created by it are to be county boroughs or non-county boroughs. If they are to be non-county boroughs that is one thing, but if they are to be county boroughs then they will have equal powers with the County Council. Now, it may surprise the House to learn, in comparing these municipal boroughs which it is proposed to create by this Bill with some of our great municipal boroughs, that Leeds is larger, or equal, to the ten new municipal boroughs that you propose to create on the north side of the river. Leeds has an acreage of 21,552. It is equal

  221
  to the new boroughs of Islington, Hampstead, St. Pancras, Marylebone, Paddington, Kensington, Hammersmith, Greater Westminster, Chelsea, and Fulham; it is, in fact, nine times larger than what you propose to call Greater Westminster, which you are about to create without any of the powers which a town like Leeds possesses. Sheffield. on the other hand, has 19,000 acres, and is equal to Lambeth, Battersea, Camber-well, and Wandsworth, the four largest boroughs under this Bill. Liverpool is equal to eight of those new boroughs, and Birmingham, Nottingham, and Bristol each to five. But when we come to the question of the number of men who are to govern these boroughs—I have already pointed out that Leeds on the one hand and Sheffield on the other are equal in area to 14 of these new boroughs—these 14 new boroughs will have, if you put the average number at 66, 308 aldermen and 616 councillors, making a total of 924, while in Leeds and Sheffield combined they have only 32 aldermen and 108 councillors, making a total of 140. I have already pointed out that these two boroughs manage their own gasworks, their own waterworks, their own electric lighting, and their own tramways, and that neither of these powers will be handed over to the new municipalities. Now, another argument brought forward is this—that if these municipalities are created, there is a possibility that they will attract the best men in London. I do not understand what is meant by the term "best men," but my experience of municipal life is that you can get rich men who are very dull men, and that you can get middle-class men who are much abler; in fact, many a working man representative is equal to almost any of what you would term the best men, from a social point of view. It is no argument to say that a man is the best man because he happens to be higher in the social scale. The point is, whether that man is fit, whether he has the aptitude for the work he is elected to undertake. Now, if you want to attract the best men to these new bodies, you must give these bodies some work to do, and invest them with some authority. But these new bodies, so far as I have been able to ascertain—I have had no experience of municipal life in London—
  222
  will have no more power, although they are called municipal bodies, than a rural district council has in the provinces. Now, this argument reminds me of an experience we had when (the county councils were formed under the Local Government Act of 1888. We had a large number of men anxious to become county councillors. I remember one case where a man, in a very extensive way of business, was called upon:—he was a member of the Executive Committee dealing with contagious diseases of animals—ten examine and declare whether a pig-stye was an infected area or not. Now, these men soon get tired of the work. In all these new bodies you must give men work to do, otherwise you will not get them to attend to these functions. With reference to the details of this Bill—the transfer of powers, for instance, from the County Council to the new boroughs—I think that the speakers who have already preceded me on this side of the House have shown that there is a great danger in this part of the Bill. Now, it is a fact that under the Local Government Act of 1888 there' is a power given to the county council to transfer powers to The non-county boroughs. For instance, under section 11, the county council has the power to arrange with the local body to contract for the maintenance of main roads, and the county council can undertake to defray the cost. Then, under section 28, there are other powers which the county council can transfer to the non-county boroughs, but each of those powers is defined. Nothing is left to the caprice of the county council, neither is there anything left that the non-county boroughs can demand from the county council. Now, I heard a speech delivered on Monday evening and this evening by the honourable Member for Dulwich (Sir J. B. Maple) in which he proposed a most elaborate clause, under which, if these powers are transferred from the County Council to the boroughs, the County Council is to hand over the funds to these boroughs for the payment of the cost, whatever it may be. Now, this transfer of power and this expenditure of money without responsibility is leading many of our non-county boroughs and our county councils to very great extravagance. If you hand over certain powers

  223
  to these new bodies in London, And if the County Council is to find whatever money they expend, then I venture to say that these new bodies will expend their money in a manner that will tend to the increase of the county rate all over London. I think that if there is to be any transfer of powers, those powers ought to be clearly defined in the Bill, and the County Council should have no power to give any of its powers away unless they are defined. If the Government think it essential to create in London these municipal authorities, then, in my opinion, they ought to give them the same power that has been given to provincial corporations. It is futile to create these bodies without giving them these powers. Now, there is another matter to which attention has been called, which, from my experience, is of great importance, and that is the power given under the Bill to the County Council and the local bodies with reference to the borrowing of money. My experience of municipal corporations is that those corporations who have consolidated their loans into stock, and which they have to repay, say, at par 20 or 40 years hence, have great difficulty in finding an outlet for their sinking fund in the shape of reinvestments. The result of that is that we are paying three per cent. interest upon stock, while money is lying in the bank at two per cent. If we had the same advantages as the County Council of London to lend out money to the local authorities, then we should find that outlet which is essential to every corporation consolidating its loans into stock. I think this is a very dangerous provision to put in a. Bill, and, moreover, I hold that in a city like London, the County Council, the members of which are drawn from all parts of London, must have a greater knowledge as to the works which the local authorities may think fit to undertake, and for which they are asking borrowing powers, than even the Local Government Board itself. These powers, I quite grant, could not be given to the county councils in the provinces. I believe that in those cases it is right that the non-county boroughs, which are independent of the county council in the way of borrowing should go direct to the Local Government Board; but in
  224
  London, where the County Council and these districts are almost one, I think that the proper system is that these local bodies should go, as hitherto, to the County Council for sanction. Now, with reference to that part of the Bill dealing with the audit, I do think that there is great need for a change, not only in London, but also in our municipal bodies throughout the country. I am given to understand that in every new charter of incorporation the Privy Council insert a clause to the effect that the Government auditors must audit the accounts of these newly created bodies. Now, there is a striking difference between municipal bodies and these local vestries. In the Municipal Corporations Act the ratepayers are protected by two schedules. One schedule deals with the payments which can be made without the consent of the Council, and another with the payments which cannot be made without the consent of the Council. But even in some of our municipal bodies, I am sorry to say, there are some irregularities going on. I read the other by of one important municipal body, in respect of which an expenditure had been going on which was altogether irregular and contrary to Act of Parliament. But there is no person to take action against any one of those municipal bodies which disregard the Act in that way unless the ratepayers themselves undertake the responsibility. All these accounts should be placed under the authority of an auditor appointed by the Local Government Board. In fact, although many of our municipalities now have what are called elective auditors under the Act of 1882, a large number of municipalities, in addition, pay and engage professional auditors. Anyone who has had experience in county council work would see a striking change in this respect. If there are any irregularities in the expenditure of county councils. either upon the asylum committee or upon the county council itself, the auditor would call attention to the fact in the report to that committee or to the council. In London I think it is more essential still that this change should take place. It is quite evident that elective auditors in London are not in some parts doing their duty. I hold in my hand a report of the discussion.

  225
  which took place in the Marylebone vestry only last week. The paper I hold in my hand is dated 18th March, and this vestry has discovered the important fact that for a considerable period it has had lying at the bankers a credit balance of £50,000 or £60,000 for a number of years without any interest being paid upon it. Now, if the auditors of that body had done their duty as they should have done they must have discovered—at any rate they ought to have discovered—this great irregularity and loss to the ratepayers. I do hope that when we get into Committee the Government will consider this point and change the law in this respect. Now, I think that this Measure is one that is not for the good government of London. I believe, as I said at the beginning, that you are creating municipalities without power and authority, and you are simple making them mere sanitary authorities with the name of municipality. I believe that the effect of this Bill will be to break up London into fragments. There is no doubt, as has been said, it will also tend to support the City of London, and prevent a great reform being carried out in that body. Every provincial man who has read anything about the state of the government of London must be convinced that there is great necessity for reform of the City, 60 that its immense wealth may be utilised for the benefit of the people who belong to Greater London. I believe that this Bill will also tend to create local jealousies, and make it more difficult to complete a system of local government. I submit that this great City ought to work for a system of complete unity, so that it may become, as it ought to be, the leading municipality in this enlightened kingdom. I fear, however, that if you create these 15 or 20 smaller municipalities you will lose that unity which ought to be the proud heritage of every citizen of London.
  MR. COHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have followed attentively this Debate since it began on Tuesday afternoon, and the feature which has most impressed me has been the inconsistency of the speeches which we have heard from honourable and right honourable Members opposite with the vote
  226
  which we understand they will give at the close of this Debate. That inconsistency, Mr. Speaker, was accentuated in a very striking way in the speech to which we have just listened from the honourable Member opposite. He told us that he, like all the preceding speakers, was impressed with the groundless apprehension of the effort to deprive the London County Council of many of its existing powers and privileges, and yet he said it was not safe to confer upon the London County Council the power of choosing for itself what transfer of powers it should make to the local bodies. That is only one of the inconsistencies which we have detected in all the speeches to which we have listened. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Leeds told us that he would not have moved his Amendment if it were not for the fact that he felt convinced he could not import into this Bill in Committee what he regarded as a necessary Amendment. I presume he claimed for himself the right to decide what are necessary Amendments. Speaking for myself, I am desirous also of amending this Bill when we get into Committee, and that is precisely because I really am what honourable and right honourable Gentlemen opposite profess themselves to be, in favour of the simplification and unity of London government. Therefore, I am anxious to get to that stage of the Bill when we can import into it the Amendments which I believe are useful and which I think would also be accepted by my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House, who is in charge of this Measure. Because, Mr. Speaker, I do not share at all those misgivings which have been expressed by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife this afternoon, that it would not be possible to import any Amendment into the Bill. On the contrary, my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House, in receiving the other day a very representative deputation from Westminster and the Strand, invited those Gentlemen—and I think he would equally invite Members of this House, if only they could divest themselves for the nonce of that Party taint which they always try to import into municipal politics—to assist him in making this

  227
  a perfectly reasonable Measure. Certain it is, Sir, that two specific purposes to which honourable Members opposite profess themselves to be friendly will be accomplished by this Bill. It will simplify London government in a very important, and, I should have thought, a very welcome particular. It will certainly simplify the rates levied in London by London authorities. Clause 10, sub-section I. of the Bill, provides that all the expenses of the council are to be provided for out of a general rate, the separate sums required for lighting and paving are to be discontinued, and they are all to be merged into a general rate which is to be levied by one body, at one time, and at one demand. Well, surely that is simplification. Then we come to the question of unity. What is meant by the phrase in the Amendment that unity will be rendered more difficult? It cannot be what I should have understood by the word unity—namely, that there should be one uniform rate to run throughout London, because honourable and right honourable Gentlemen opposite, if they have read the Bill, must know that it strictly provides for the consolidation of the general and special rate in the county. Surely that is unity if anything can be called unity. I suppose what honourable Members complain of is that there is not the unity they have in their hearts and minds. I think the right honourable Member for Fife said that this Bill preserves the Corporation of the City of London which you want to destroy. Well, if you want to destroy it, why don't you say so? We don't shirk the issue; we court it. Let it be known throughout London that, whilst you want to destroy the City of London, we want to preserve it. But don't persuade yourselves that you can mislead the public by such phrases as I gathered from the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds, who said that the Corporation of London was dead to the higher impulses of the metropolis as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I challenge the accuracy of that charge. The traditions and the policy of the Corporation of the City of London show that, instead of being dead to the impulses of London, it has devoted itself to the welfare of London as a whole, and not even of London alone, but of the country at large.
  228
  Burnham Beeches, Epping Forest, and the Tower Bridge, though perhaps scarcely appreciated by the rich parishes which honourable Gentlemen seem to have got into their minds, are very much appreciated by the people of the East of London. The Tower Bridge was made out of the resources of the Corporation of the City of London, but it is not used for the inhabitants and ratepayers in the square mile only. The funds of the Corporation are held for the benefit, and have been applied for the benefit, of London at large, and therefore let us get rid of the myth that the Corporation of the City of London is to be done away with because of the alleged self-appropriation of funds which belong to it. Let us fairly and squarely join issue that you want to do away with the Corporation of the City of London, which has been, and will always remain, the model for every municipality. I would appeal to honourable and right honourable Gentlemen if it is not the best cleaned, the best drained, the best regulated district of all London. In saying that I do not wish to cast the least reflection on the management of the London vestries, although I think there could be some improvement there; and still less on the management of the London County Council, which, of course, I believe cannot be improved upon; with the exception of the only thoroughfare which they have in their charge—the Thames Embankment.' That is neither economically nor very efficiently managed. Therefore I say that the indictment brought against either the City or the London County Council cannot be sustained because in neither case has it a foundation in fact. I would pass from the City of London, which I do not represent in this House,. but which is so worthily represented by my honourable Friend who spoke the other day. I should like to say just a word on the other objections which have been made by the right honourable Gentleman this evening. The first of these objections is this perpetual myth about impairing the powers of the London County Council. I cannot expect that honourable and right honourable-Gentlemen opposite will accept from me assurances which they have not accepted from more illustrious and influential personages, that there never has been, and

  229
  that there is not, the slightest intention to impair the London County Council. But personally they will believe me when I say that, having been a member of that body—I do not say an efficient Member, for that would be conceited, but an industrious and devoted Member—since it was instituted, I can assure the House that if there was, or had been, the slightest intention to impair the privileges or limit the powers of the London County Council, I would not be found here this evening supporting this Bill, which I hope will pass its Second Reading. There is one right honourable Member present here who cannot, I think, join in the outcry about an attack on the London County Council; because my right honourable Friend the Leader of the Opposition—if he will allow me so to describe him—got up the night the Bill was introduced and sail—it will be in the recollection of the House, and it made a great impression on my mind—that—
  "There is one thing at which we are pleased, and that is that we are relieved to find that there is no attack on the London County Council in the new Bill."
  I was pleased at the right honourable Gentleman's relief, although I was very surprised and sorry that he had been the least anxious; but, at any rate, whatever anxiety he had he was chivalrous enough to acknowledge that it had been dissipated. Now, I challenge him or any other honourable Member, whatever they may say as to the description of the Bill conveyed to them by the opening statement of the First Lord of the Treasury—I challenge anyone to put their finger on any line, clause, or dot which in the least bit impairs the power or diminishes the dignity of the London County Council in any way. I cannot, of course, argue whether the Bill is different from what honourable and right honourable Members opposite imagined it would be, but I deny that it impairs the privileges or the powers which the London County Council at the present moment enjoy. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Leeds said that the London County Council had not been considered, as was promised by the President of the Board of Trade. I say that the London County Council has been considered in the most direct and complete manner,
  230
  because the framers of the Bill before they drafted what powers were to be transferred from the London County Council to the subordinate municipalities studied and almost transcribed the powers which the London County Council professed its willingness to transfer. It may be right, or it may be wrong, that these powers should be transferred; but I do say that the charge that the London County Council had not been considered is one that is absolutely contradicted by the facts of the case, and by the clauses in the Bill which deal with these powers. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, hope this Bill will pass its Second Reading, and I should like it to do so without a Division. If honourable and right honourable Gentlemen opposite are sincere in their professions—I should not like to cast a doubt upon it—that they are willing to simplify London government, and that they will promote the reform of London government in so far as a uniform rate will secure that object, I claim at their hands support of this Bill, which will accomplish these objects. Before I sit down I should like to point out two or three drastic points, although they are Committee points, wherein the Bill ought to be amended. I do so not so much for the purpose of elaborately discussing the Bill, but because I think it is of some advantage to those in charge of the Bill to know the objections to it, or some of its details, which are held by those who are not unfriendly to it, in order that they may see whether they can give effect to these objections. I said I challenged anybody to point out wherein the powers of the London County Council are going to be impaired. I will accept my own challenge, which I now apologise for having thrown out, because there is one important exception. I am quite sure that my honourable Friend the Member for Battersea will agree that I have not been backward as a candid friend of the London County Council. But that does not prevent me from testifying to the care, caution, and. on the whole, the success of the financial operations carried on by the London County Council. Therefore I view, so far as I am concerned, with regret the withdrawal of the financial control over the various local authorities, heretofore wisely exercised and never censoriously

  231
  exercised, or still less inquisitorially exercised by the London County Council. I have in my hands a return for the twelve years for which I have been a member of the Financial Committee of the London County Council, of the advances made by the London County Council to the borrowing bodies. In 1898 they amounted to no less than £480,000, and since the Council came into existence up to the 31st March last it sanctioned 495 loans, amounting to £3,199,012. It will be observed, therefore, that the Council has never either been backward in making these advances and in according sanction to them, and, still less, has never been inquisitorial in making them. It only satisfies itself as to the reasonableness of the demand and the life of the works for which advances are to be made. It has always required that the advances should only be made to cover the period of the life of the works for which they are advanced. We never met with resistence on the part of the borrowing bodies. These advances are six or seven times as large as those made by the Local Government Board, and I do think, therefore, that there is no reason for withdrawing a financial control which has been of advantage to London as a whole, and to hand it over to a body which has not had the experience in that respect which the Financial Committee of the London County Council possesses. There is another reason. It-will be recognised at once by Members that other large borrowing bodies in London—-the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the London School Board-are very large customers of the London County Council as borrowers. There was a little difference on this subject five years ago. I had the honour with Lord Lingen of going into conference with the London School Board. We then pointed out that to create a large number of Metropolitan stocks secured on the same rate could be of no advantage to the borrowing bodies, for it would lower the credit and increase the rate of interest. That is a very important consideration which people ought to bear in mind. I am quite certain that anything that is likely to induce these local councils to make their own loans separate from the London County Council would not be for the advantage of the borrowers or for
  232
  economy in the rates. There is another subject on which I want to speak for a moment. I do not like the overseers clause in the Bill. They would be gentlemen, no doubt, of absolute integrity and character, but they have no representative character to qualify them for the duty of levying and collecting the rates, which ought, in my opinion, to devolve upon persons directly representing the ratepayers and the electors who have to pay the rates. After all, that is not a question which is inconsistent with the principles of the Bill, and I only mention it to-day so that my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury may, perhaps, be gracious enough to take it into his serious consideration, and see whether he cannot deal otherwise with the overseers' clauses. There is only another point to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of audit and aldermen. I have an enormous respect for the aldermen of the City of London, and for those who are called aldermen in the London County Council, but I do not see that these aldermen—perhaps that is because I am not one—are any better than other members of the London County Council. What I do feel strongly is, that, as the right honourable Member for Leeds sugested on Tuesday afternoon, we should not trouble and embarrass London with these annual elections. I do certainly hope that these municipal councils will be returned, as the London County Council is, for three years. I have a natural affection, notwithstanding the incredulity of my honourable and gallant Friend, for the London County Council. I am a great believer in the perfection of its organisation, and although it has not always been constituted quite as I would like it, I do not attribute that failure to triennial elections. I think any conclusions which are drawn from comparisons with provincial councils are misleading in the extreme. The object of every true lover of the new borough councils must be to enlist for London government men of a class who, to their shame be it said, have heretofore held aloof. You will not attract, but you will deter that class of men by exposing them to the possibility of an annual election and probably to an annual contest. Why do it in this gratuitous way? Let us

  233
  have triennial elections, and let us enlist in the cause of London government men who would be absolutely deterred from taking part in it by the prospect of annual election. I do not refer to the report which has been circulated from what is known as the Local Government and Taxation Committee of the London County Council, because that Committee, although the House may not be aware of it, is a Party Committee, composed, to a great extent, of the Party of which I have not the honour to be a member. There is another reason why I do not refer to it, and that is because the points of objection taken by that Committee to the Bill were mentioned so absolutely almost in the same order by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Leeds in his speech the other night, that I cannot help believing that he must have had an advanced copy of that Committee's Report, and that he must have got information from Mr. Costello, the Chairman of the Committee. I do implore this House to address itself to this question, so important to London, not in a Party spirit. I ask them to believe that this Bill is an honest, sincere, and, in my opinion, a statesmanlike attempt to improve and simplify the government of London. I believe that in a short time, notwithstanding the fierce opposition which this Bill is now meeting from the right honourable Gentlemen opposite, it will be hailed with universal approval, and that the same compliments for having introduced it will be paid to my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House as are being perpetually showered on the President of the Board of Trade for his Act of 1888, and that when passed into law this Measure will be regarded as the crown of the work begun and carried on by a Conservative Government for the improvement and completion of the government of London.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: My honourable and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has taunted the leaders of the Opposition with having greeted this Measure with a note of welcome, and then with having changed their minds with regard to the character of its provisions. Well, we have had experience in recent years of the inscrutable character of municipal legislation. I doubt if any Measure is more entitled
  234
  than this one to the compliment which can be made to a proposal which cloaked under provisions of an apparently inoffensive character a design of very serious and grave importance. Honourable Members have repeatedly assured us that no intention to affect in any way the powers of the London County Council is present in the minds of the proposers of this scheme. Well, that assurance has been given with such fervour that one is tempted to retort with the quotation that "honourable Gentlemen protest too much." It is impossible to close our minds to the evidence at once extrinsic and intrinsic which establishes the direct opposite to that proposition. Various honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House have drawn attention to the declared policy of the Conservative Party with reference to the municipal government of London, and this Measure, brought forward by the responsible heads of that Party in the State, cannot be defended on the ground that it is not intended to give effect to the declared views of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House. I do not know that the views of Lord Salisbury can be more pithily stated than in the single sentence of the celebrated Albert Hall speech, to which a reference has already been made. Lord Salisbury then drew attention to the deplorable results of the too extensive system of municipalisation in Paris and in New York; and he counselled the London County Council to limit their functions and to reduce their area. He did this with the pregnant observation that possibly such a course might seem to be suicidal. Well, Sir, the London County Council, not having adopted the advice to put an end to their own existence, are being assisted to accomplish this same result by the Measure now produced by Her Majesty's Government. And, further, Lord Onslow, whose views in regard to the municipal government of London have been more than once quoted, has also given us some assistance in regard to the elucidation of this question, for I find that, in referring to the speech of Lord Salisbury, Lord Onslow said that practical effect could be given to that utterance of Lord Salisbury only by some curtailment of the excessive powers of the London County Council. What is there to be said on the other

  235
  side? My honourable and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, with a sigh of great relief, discovered that the President of the Board of Trade had given utterance to sentiments out of harmony with these sentiments of the Leader of his Party, and apparently had found some language of tenderness and sympathy used by the right honourable the President of the Board of Trade which mitigated the severity of the utterances of the Members of his own Party whose views were more austere. He had found some language of tenderness and sympathy for this institution, which up to the Debate on the Second Heading of this Bill has had few friends and few apologisers and few defenders on the other side of the House. But as I have said, the evidence is not merely extrinsic. The evidence of hostility to the functions of the London County Council is to be found in the provisions of the Bill itself. I accept the challenge of the Solicitor-General to approach the consideration of this question in a broad spirit, and I am quite content to apply as a test of the provision of this Measure what he describes as the ideal of perfection in local government—the ideal of perfection of local government which has characterised the legislation in regard to the municipality of London from the year 1855 down to the present time. I do not quarrel with the language in which the Solicitor-General has defined his ideal of the perfection of local government. I take it that the object of the local government in London is to secure the authority of the central body concurrently with the dignity and efficiency of the district councils which are subordinate to it; and from the year 1855 down to the present date every Act of legislation and every proposal of legislation has sought to accomplish that combination not by strengthening the jurisdiction of the district councils, but by adding to the authority of the central body. That tendency has had various foes to contend with, land the chief enemy has had many friends and representatives in this House. There has been no hostility so uncompromising as the City of London. We have had two significant speeches in the course of this Debate in reference to the connection between the City of London and municipal reform. The honourable Member who represents the City of London was
  236
  unstinted in his admiration of this. Measure, and in the benisons which he showered upon it; while the Solicitor-General, a Member of the Government, devoted a large portion of his speech to a eulogy of the City of London. The inspiring voice of which this legislation is the outcome is that of the unreformed, the antiquated, and the obstructive corporate body which is still found within the walls and the limits of the City. I yield to none of the Members opposite in my admiration of the historic position and the public services which the City of London has rendered to the people of this country. But can it be denied that it is an organisation which is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of modern municipal government? Can it be denied that while it retains within a very limited area the advantages of the very large municipal powers which it possesses, and while it remains exclusive and while it continues to resist every attempt to bring an antiquated organisation into harmony with modern organisation, it is impossible to regard the present position of the Corporation of London as a finality in our civic institutions? What has been the cause of this attitude on the part of the City of London? It is the resistance to all reform. It is because it wishes to perpetuate the anomalies of its own municipal existence by increasing the municipal anomalies around it. It wishes to prevent its absorption into the great area of the Metropolis by dismembering the body which threatens to absorb it, and hence from the year 1855 down to a modern period every successive proposal for municipal reform on the part of the City of London has evolved the creation of the large number of independent municipalities, so that its separate existence might continue unimpaired. We are being charged not only with enmity to the City of London, but the honourable Member for East Islington charged us with having infused Party spirit into this question. The origin of that Party spirit is, it is said, due entirely to those on this side of the House, while it appears that the credit of lifting municipal politics into a higher region belongs entirely to Members opposite. But the origin of that is obvious. It has been discovered by experience that while the individual opinion of sections of the

  237
  metropolis is Moderate the collective opinion of London is Progressive, and in order to give due weight to that section of moderation of view, you have a proposal which involves the dislocation of London and its sub-divisions into sectional areas. I approach this question from the stand point of the Solicitor-General, and therefore I trust I have succeeded in dismissing at once the little bias I may have had in considering the merits of this Measure. I shall regard it only as a proposal for pure municipal reform. what is its avowed aim? Its avowed aim is to increase the status and to add to the efficiency of the district councils of the metropolis—a most admirable proposal, provided it can satisfy one condition. That one condition is that in accomplishing that object you will not impair the efficiency of the central authority. If you can combine both, and if this Measure succeeds in that combination, then I shall be happy to vote against the Motion of my right honourable Friend the Member for West Leeds and to support the Second Reading of the Bill. But does it accomplish both these objects? In your effort to strengthen the district councils do you not. sacrifice the authority and efficiency of the central authority? Is it not the fact that the result of the successful operation of this Measure will be the dismemberment of London? Will you not by means of it destroy that community of sympathy and that sense of civic patriotism which unites all sections of this metropolis? Will you not strip the London County Council of many of its powers and confer them upon the district Councils? And by doing this will you not leave the district councils without any cementing bond, and without any auhoritative control, and leave the central authority to die of a sort of administrative atrophy without sufficient powers or functions to keep it in a condition of healthy animation, the result of its being plundered and plucked of its power? The design and effect of this Measure are indicated by an article which recently appeared in "The Times" newspaper, contributed by a correspondent, and which had the distinction of large type, and which was probably inspired by some honourable Member opposite now listening to my remarks. Let me read a passage from it which will accentuate
  238
  the issue which may be defined as dividing us from honourable Members opposite in regard to this question. The writer says—
  "It is important to inquire why the Front Opposition Bench should have given notice of opposition to the Bill on Second Beading. The reason is undoubtedly to be found in the hostility of the Progressive party at the County Council to any reform which will place local self-government in London on a secure basis; and that is what the Government Bill will undoubtedly do. Once let London be divided into boroughs with municipal councils, and the creation of an omnipotent central body such as that proposed by the Bill of 1884 will become an impossibility. The County Council may at some future time assume another shape and become the over-corporation of the metropolis in name as well as in fact, if the people of London decide that such a change will en-able them to realise more completely the existing unity of London. But it will always be surrounded, if the present Bill passes, by municipal bodies competent to repel any attack upon local autonomy and preserve the 'separability' of London."
  [Ministerial cheers.] I am delighted to find that in reading that extract I am not over-stating the views of honourable Members opposite. The main object, then, of this Measure is to maintain the "separability" of London by constituting district councils into municipalities, and by giving them the power of the purse to enable them to resist any attack which may at any future time be made upon the City. If I have not given correct expression to the views of some honourable Gentlemen opposite let me apply this criterion of municipal reform. Do you propose in any way to impair the efficiency of the central authority of London? Are you satisfied that experience has shown that the London County Council has furnished a most efficient institution? It has given you a body of most able administrators since 1855. I assume that the legal continuity between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the County Council will not be contested. The nucleus of the County Council had its birth 50 years ago, and slowly developed under the fostering care of municipal reformers on both sides of the House until now, endowed with the powers conferred on it by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, it is the crown of authority and efficiency. We have as a result of all that large and highly efficient instruction in local government in London a body of most able adminis-

  239
  trators a most economical administration of public funds, and large resources for the purpose of enterprises, with a view to further develop and advance local government. It has an expert staff which could not be secured by any smaller body, and it shows a spirit of enlightenment, not by the wisdom of a‡ mere section of the metropolis, but derived from the collective wisdom of the whole metropolitan area. The policy which seeks to detract from that efficiency and authority so slowly built up during 50 years is not a policy associated with the aims of Conservative statesmen. The scheme of the Bill which impairs and will ultimately destroy the authority of the County Council may be divided into three categories. In the first place the Bill proposes to give municipal form and dignity to district councils; secondly, it proposes to give financial independence to those councils; and, thirdly, it institutes machinery, the natural operation of which transfers to the district councils powers at present exclusively possessed by the County Council. Again, you propose to confer municipal forms and titles upon district councils. That, on the face of it, is an innocent proposition. Perhaps the hardest thing to be said of it is that it ministers to harmless human vanity. But is that all it does? Do you think that the class of citizens who will be attracted to civic service by decorations of this character is the class likely to prove the most efficient public servants in municipal administration? That observation, if you doubt it, will be strengthened by a comparison between the personnel of the Council of the City of London and the personnel of the Council of the County of London. In the Council of the City of London you have represented all that the allurements of civic dignity, civic emoluments, civic entertainments, and civic hospitality can attract, while on the County Council all these attractions to enter the service of the community are absent. And yet, I ask, which of these two classes of civic servants have rendered the most self-sacrificing and devoted attention to their duties, and to which would you say the highest need of praise belongs? There are two reasons why this proposal, innocent though it may be on the surface, is open to very strong objection. In the first place you cannot confer municipal
  240
  forms and titles upon a mere district‡council without generating and fostering a spirit of sectional patriotism—a merely parochial patriotism as distinguished from a spirit of patriotism embracing the whole community of which they form only a part. It may be said that sectional feling will increase administrative efficiency in the areas in which is generated, but it will operate also in creating a strong and bitter spirit of indifference and even of hostility between the central authority and these sectional areas, and you will only secure an advantage at the cost of a disadvantage which entirely outweighs it. As my right honourable Friend the Member for Fife pointed out in the course of his argument, why are you calling these municipal bodies boroughs? Can any man using the ordinary language of daily life describe any one of these sections of land by the term "cities?" And if they are boroughs, they must be cities. Why, Sir, they have not a single element of a city either in idea or definition. They have no nucleus of civic growth, no centre of civic life, no community of civic feeling; their boundaries are not the result of the natural expansion of urban communities, they have not that aggregation of classes, rich and poor, employers and employed, leisured and artisan, which we find in every community to which the name of city is given. In fact, they are, as my honourable Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire described them, blocks of property and blocks of population having no other claim to be dignified by the title of city than the claim conferred on them by the arbitrary terms of an Act of Parliament, and it is a strong argument against the attempt by means of statute to force them into such an unnatural position. The Solicitor-General gave us one or two illustrations which I thought were unfortunate. He said that Brighton and Hove side by side were both boroughs, and both harmonious. I have a somewhat vague recollection of an application from the district of Hove for a charter to constitute it a borough, and my recollection is that it was vigorously opposed by Brighton. The Solicitor-General also referred to Manchester and Salford, but while he was giving that illustration an honourable Friend told me that he was chairman of a committee appointed in connection with a Bill for a tramway

  241
  which proposed to pass through both towns which involved separate representation by separate councils of both those corporations, and the confusing and conflicting views and aims of these two bodies, which really ought to have corporate unity, sorely perplexed the Members of this House charged with the duty of considering this Bill. The first step is open to very great objection, because by municipalising these councils you introduce an element which in course of time will set up a feeling that the whole of the metropolis ought to be united. Well, the next stage is conferring upon these different district councils independent powers, and I need not dwell upon the importance of giving the power of the purse to any local authority. It may be said to a large extent they possess the power of the purse already, but it is fettered very much by the control of the County Council. By this Bill it is proposed to bring these new bodies into direct connection with the Government Department, and to establish between Hammersmith and Fulham and the Local Government Board the same relationship which at present exists between such towns as Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool and that Government Department. I need not dwell upon this part, because every Member on the other side has denounced the conferring of these powers by this Bill, and have declared their intention of moving Amendments, and I cannot imagine a Measure more likely to dissever sympathy amongst the various component districts of the metropolis than a Measure which disturbs the tie involved in the consent of the County Council. But there is a more important observation to make in regard to this part of the Bill, for not only is the fetter upon the power of the local bodies to borrow removed by the Bill, but the fetter on the part of spending is also removed. These municipalities get precisely the same powers of spending the ratepayers' money as is possessed by the great municipalities of the provinces. They have all the powers which are to be obtained by reference to the Borough Funds Act. The powers in regard to promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament have been referred to them. and they have also the power of assisting and resisting litigation as well as legislation, and they may oppose or may promote any legal proceedings which in
  242
  their view affect the interests of the inhabitants in the area with which they are connected. This is an exceedingly wide and extremely loose provision, and the width and grossness of it may be inferred from the fact that the House of Lords are considering the question in their judicial capacity whether or not a corporation may use the ratepayers' money for the purpose of opposing the granting of licences to public-houses, an act which will, no doubt, be received with favour by my honourable Friend behind me, but which may be looked upon with suspicion by honourable Members opposite. We have a suggestion in the pregnant extract which I read from the article in "The Times" newspaper a moment ago, that these municipalities are competent to repel any attack which may be made upon them by the central authority with a view to their absorption. In other words, having the power of the purse, you are to endow them also with the power of the sword, and they are to be able to-repel all attacks and all attempts to incorporate them which may be made by the larger central authority with a view to their absorption into the community of London. You do not imagine that this will not be the cause of friction, and a separatist feeling will be caused which will have its darker side, and a feeling of local jealousy and hostility will arise in these new bodies, existing side by side, and pursuing and exercising different functions; and thus you will have a fruitful source of litigation, expense, and extravagance in the future. With regard to-the transfer of powers, I think that is the last stage of this destructive process in its application to the London County Council. What is the object of the transfer of powers from the London County Council to the new bodies? Well, to use a phrase which was used earlier in the evening, it is a "denudation" of the County Council and of the central authority. If that be not its object, why is an elaborate provision made for it? If it be not intended to transfer by the operation of these clauses the functions of the central authority to the district councils, why this carefully elaborated mechanism with a view of accomplishing that result? It may be said that this mechanism is introduced with a view of readjusting powers between the central body and the district body. But if its object be readjustment, why

  243
  is the mechanism not reciprocal? If the object be not merely to denude the 'County Council in favour of the district council, but to allow the district council reciprocally to transfer its powers to the central authority, why are provisions enacted to transfer in one direction only? There is no power under this Bill for any district council to get rid of a power which it is unable to exercise and transfer it to the London County Council; and you find that the whole operation of this machinery must strip the County Council, and in no case reclothe it, and therefore I think you might put a marginal note in the draft of this Bill and write upon it nulla retrorarum, because it is obvious that it is a step which is intended to be of advantage to the district councils which are subordinate to it. One honourable Member who spoke a short time ago said that we need not fear the operation of this machinery of transfer because it would be a dead letter. He said there was no reason to suppose that the district councils would seek to transfer from the central authority any of the powers which it possessed. But if this is a dead letter, and would not be used, why in the world is it inserted in the Bill? Is it not obvious that while human nature remains as it is this machinery will be put into the most active operation, for have you not the very strongest motive on the part of the wealthy districts of this metropolis to obtain a transfer to themselves of powers which are at present being exercised by the central authority? They have a very strong motive for the diminution of rates in the districts in which they reside. One need not go through the financial argument, because the House will have already accepted it, but inasmuch as the richer districts contribute in accordance with their rateable value, and the measure of their contribution is judged by the extent of their population, the richer districts must contribute towards the expense of joint institutions in a much larger proportion than is contributed by the poorer districts with a larger population. Therefore, by severing from the central authority the maintenance of common institutions and appropriating them entirely within their own districts, they will be able to save very largely the cost of the maintenance of those institutions, and the first result which will follow the passing of this Measure will be a cry in
  244
  favour of the transfer to the wealthier districts of London of those institutions, which transfer must involve a diminution of their contribution by way of rates to the cost of the maintenance of those institutions. With a strong and definite motive of this kind there can be no doubt that this machinery will be put into very rapid operation, and if it is put into operation, it is obvious that the whole authority of the County Council will very quickly disappear. The Measure contemplates that after the transfer of a single function to a single district has taken place the transfer of the same function in regard to other districts will follow as a matter of course. Now I invite the House to study the extraordinary provision made by that clause. If any Members have not taken the pains to look at it closely, let me tell them in a word or two what is the nature of that machinery. When it is proposed to effect a transfer you must first obtain the consent of the district to which the transfer is to be made, and of the County Council which is to make it. Having once transferred that function to a particular district, the County Council loses all voice in the transfer of that function to all the other districts until a majority of the districts have elected to take the transfer of that particular power. Then when that has been done, all the rest follow, although the County Council protest, and although the district councils resist the attempt to transfer to them this power. That machinery can only be likened to the operation of bringing down a fabric by taking away the foundation on which it rests. You have only to get the consent of the council in a single district, and then all the other councils will have transferred to them by the operation of this provision in the Bill from the central authority the same function. I doubt very much whether the mere consensus which is the basis of this proposed transfer of powers is defensible on the grounds of wise legislation. Are we to allow the central authority of London to transfer the interests of a great body of the people of London to a district council because by an accidental—it may be a temporary one—majority in these two bodies there may be an approximation of views in regard to the merits of some particular proposal? The majority may exist to-morrow, and you may have agreement to-morrow, and the

  245
  mere fact that you have established a fortuitous agreement at a particular date declares for all time forth the interests of the inhabitants of other districts are involved in proportion. Of course, it is said that you have the Provisional Order system, but we in this House know how small is the practical value of a check of that kind. Where it occurs in the Bill that an agreement between two bodies is to be the motive because they effect a legislative and administrative change, the Government can operate with them to override the views of the two public authorities which complied with the condition specified in the section, and you will there fore have by the operation of this machinery a gradual transference of the functions one by one of the County Council, which will be stripped of many of its most beneficent powers. For a long time this machinery puzzled me, and would puzzle any dispassionate critic of this Bill; but after a very careful consideration it became clear to me that whenever a district obtained the extension to itself of a power which up to that moment was enjoyed by the central authority, that the central authority would consider that it should be natural and proper that the other districts should have extended to them the same power, not because the central authority thought that the original concession of the power was right, but because they would feel that you had by the concession in a single case destroyed the uniformity of administration for the whole of London, and if you give a power to Marylebone, or to Westminster, or to Poplar, you cannot call upon the County Council to administer the mere remnant of the metropolitan area which is left after you have cut out these important districts. Therefore, if you once allow concessions to take place in this matter, they will be followed by the wholesale abandonment of functions which are at present possessed by the central authority, and it is impossible to close our eyes to the practical result of machinery of this kind. You will have the richer districts in London seeking to emulate the exclusiveness of the City, and the City of Westminster has already appeared in the field. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has told us that the City of Westminster is ancient and historic, and the memorial
  246
  which has been read to us shows that they have pretensions to entire separation with regard to municipal and administrative powers. But the moment such exclusive power is given them it will be impossible to resist its claim to possess in an equal degree with the City of London all the municipal functions which pertain to municipal life. It will, equally with Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, say, "Why should you give to Manchester and Birmingham a control which you deny to us?" Having once established a municipal entity with strong claims to a separate municipal life and the functions attached to it, it must naturally follow that the claim for full incorporation is one which no Government Department is strung enough to resist. As the result of the operation of this machinery, the richer districts of London will manage to get rid of their obligation of contributing to the maintenance of the poorer sections of the metropolis. The Equalisation of Rates Act, to which reference has been made, is an adjustment which was devised by Parliament in reference to the existing state of things. It will be entirely insufficient to accomplish an equitable adjustment in regard to the state of things which will ensue after this legislation is pased, and without a very extensive alteration the contribution which is stipulated for under the Equalisation of Bates Act will be quite inadequate to meet the state of things under which you will have a large reduction of the common functions discharged by the central authority, a state of things arising from the transfer of those powers to the districts. At present you have the burdens of local government pressing lightly upon these districts which can bear them easily, and pressing heavily upon those districts which are least able to bear them. These features are fatal to this Measure—fatal not only in regard to the present state of society, but fatal in regard to the future. I have not heard any of the honourable Members who have addressed the House say anything in reference to the probable condition of local government in London after some 20 years have elapsed. If the extension of civic administration during the next 20 years is to bear any proportion to its development during the last half century, there are many functions which at the present

  247
  time are either not discharged at all or are discharged by private enterprise which will fall within the scope of municipal socialism, which is now the guiding policy in our local affairs, because the means of communication, the means of locomotion, the methods of lighting and watering, the supervision of health, safeguards against disease, and all the manifold forms of local Government are not stereotyped under the state of society under which we live. In future, when these powers will be much larger than they are at present, it seems to me of the utmost importance that we should take care that these powers are placed in strong hands, and in hands which will administer them equally throughout every section of the large urban areas among the population of this country. It is because I believe that the tendency of this legislation will be to weaken the whole of the County Council as a central authority upon the whole of London in regard to the administration of its functions of civic government, and because it will tend in their administration to destroy uniformity, and to give to localities separate and local administration apart from a harmonious and uniform system, that I think the Motion of my honourable Friend the Member for West Leeds is one which we ought to support, for the reasons which I have submitted.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I regret that my honourable and learned Friend appears to have paid no attention at all to the appeal which was made by my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin with regard to the conduct of this Debate. My right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin deprecated the expenditure of time in this discussion upon speculations of what the intentions of the Government were lying behind the Bill, or speculations upon questions as to who had been the adviser or inspirer of this proposed legislation. My honourable and learned Friend who has just sat down spent the first half of his speech in saying that he believed that there was at the back of this Bill an intention to destroy the London County Council, and in tracing to this Measure a defence of what he called the antiquated, the un-reformed, and the obstructive Corporation of the City of London as the direc-
  248
  tion which this legislation was taking. Apart from those two topics the whole of his speech was an argument against any Bill for the improvement of local government in London. Why, for the last 60 years it has been the accepted principle of all who have studied the problem of local government in London that there must be a division of London into local areas under some name or other, and that it is only by the division of a great area like London into smaller areas that you can expect to get from the people Jiving in London itself that activity and knowledge of public service which will enable them to do good under local government. There were one or two criticisms of my honourable and learned Friend upon certain special parts of this Bill. He said, first, that there was the division into local areas. Well, the division into local areas is the one thing that is desired by everybody who wishes to see a better form of local government in London. He said that there was a transfer of powers, and he used the word "denudation" as applied to the London County Council. But earlier this evening my right honourable Friend the Member for Fife had spoken upon this subject, and he had said that one of the things he desired to see was a large and generous transfer of powers from the central body to the local bodies. You cannot have the existence of effective local government in the various districts of London without giving to the persons whom you invite to take their share of the onerous burden of public work some work to do which will justify the devotion of their time to it. Really what is it that the Opposition here are discussing or challenging in this Amendment which has been proposed? Do they suggest that there should be no reform of local government in London at all? Surely they do not venture to suggest that, for both sides in politics and all parties have for many years agreed that there ought to be some amendment in this respect. Can they challenge the lines upon which such a reform shall take place? It has been laid down, and there has been practically no dissentient voice for a long time, until I come to the year 1894, when my right honourable Friend propounded a scheme upon which I wish to say a word or two presently. But let us start half a century ago. In the Report of the

  249
  Commission of 1854, which consisted of names not notable for belonging to the political Party to which I belong, there is at the close this passage—
  "We think that if an attempt were made to give a municipal organisation to the entire metropolis by a wider extension of the present boundaries of the City the utility of the present corporation as an institution would be destroyed, while at the same time a municipal administration of an excessive magnitude, and therefore ill adapted to the wants of the other parts of the metropolis, would be created. But we see no reason why the municipal institutions should not be extended to the rest of the metropolis by its division into municipal districts, each possessing a municipal government of its own."
  Now, nearly half a century has passed since that passage was written, and it has been a subject of universal agreement that London was too large for a single municipality, and that no single municipality could attempt to deal with the vast area and the varied characteristics of that great province of houses which we call London. And when we come to a later time, even in the year 1868, Mr. John Stuart Mill, who at all events was not a retrograde Tory politician, when he was speaking upon this subject, used words which were practically an echo of the passage I have read, and, after pronouncing against the idea of one municipality, he said—
  "There is a good deal to be said for having only one municipality for the whole metropolis, but the business entrusted to its management would be too great, and it would give it the control of too large an amount of area, and it would be useless to ask for the consent of the House to such a Measure, for it is better to have local municipal bodies for the different boroughs, and the central board should not be troubled with any business but such as is common to the whole."
  Now, those are the words of Mr. John Stuart Mill in the year 1868, when the extent of London and its population bore practically no comparison to the state of things which we have at the present time. Our metropolitan area, if we include the various areas dealing with various metropolitan matters, contains over 600 square miles, and over five millions of people. It has been calculated—and I saw the calculation only the other day—that if the same rate of increase goes on in future years as has gone on recently, in half a century's time we shall practically have a population of 15 millions in one continuous
  250
  area of buildings. Now, it is idle to talk about a population like that being governed by one municipality. It has not, indeed, been suggested, and the only thing which has been suggested in the way of a municipality which would include in any sense the whole area is the suggestion that was made by the Commission with which my right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin was connected in the year 1894. I do not want to enter into any controversy with regard to the formation and behaviour of that Commission. Each was equally doubtful. There was a very peculiar form of reference to that Commission, which, according to the interpretation of the Members of that Commission, disabled them from investigating the questions whether an amalgamation between the London County Council and the corporation would be desirable, because the terms of the reference made that the hypothesis on which they were to act; and I do not think the terms of reference were very creditable to the Government of that day. I think, also, that the Members of that Commission somewhat strained their powers in refusing to receive from the Corporation of the City of London and its representatives evidence on points which were afterwards dealt with in the evidence of the representatives of other bodies. Now, that Commission, which was limited by the terms of its reference, and which was certainly not inclined to favour the policy which I think was the right one, left upon record a Report which gives strength and support to the Bill which is now before the House. That Commission indicated 19 places in London which were so united, and so situated with regard to their suitability for Local Government, and the effective administration of those areas, that they were considered capable of at once being elected into something very much like independent bodies, and that Commission, if I remember rightly, suggested that the heads of those bodies should be called mayors. The question whether they would be called councils, district councils, or councillors of a municipality, is a matter to which I do not think we need attach much importance. I think if I wanted to obtain a justification for these bodies being called by the traditional and honoured name which is accepted throughout the

  251
  country in our municipal corporations, it would be furnished by the closing sentence of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife, who spoke of the corporate dignity with which the bodies in this country should be invested. So that on the main principle I say that there has been no divergence since the time of the Report which was made in 1854. It is true that the numbers have increased since 1854, when those Commissioners suggested that there should be seven municipal boroughs created in addition to the City. At a later date, in the year 1884. the Corporation of the City of London, in an elaborate and well-considered Report, pointed out that there were 10 places which were capable of receiving immediate incorporation. Then we come to 1894, when my right honourable Friend's Commission pointed out 19 places which were capable of immediate development into independent centres of local action.
  MR. COURTNEY: They were only considered ready for promotion.
  SIR E. CLARKE: Then the Commission indicated that 19 of those localities were ready for immediate promotion to that position which local bodies were to assume, and indicated that there were others which might by some process of adjustment be rendered fit for the purpose. So that upon this point there is no challenge, and we have the continued judgment of the country and of both sides in politics, extending over a period of 60 years, that it is in that direction that the work of the reform of London government should go. But the next step is this. If you are to give these areas a sort of independent existence—and I pass for the moment the question of the name by which they are to be described—what powers have you to give them? There is no difference upon this point—as the Report of the Commission of 1894 pointed out. There never has been a stronger expression of opinion than is to be found in that Report of 1894, that all the powers should be enjoyed by the local bodies which could not be more usefully exercised by the central body. That is to say, and it is a sound principle, that when you are calling upon men in the
  252
  different districts of the metropolis to enter into the laborious work of the administration of public affairs, you should reward them for their devotion to public service by entrusting them with the care of everything with regard to which it can reasonably be said that they are the fit persons to exercise authority upon it. [Opposition cheers.] There will be no division on the Second Reading if this goes on, and if we get much further in the way of agreement. This is entirely agreed, and I need hardly go to the next sentence to say that you discourage and dishearten men who are giving themselves to local work in any respect whether it be with regard to finance, or buildings, or any other detail of public affairs, if you put over them an authority which is not obviously necessary for the purpose of good administration. Everything beyond that is a derogation from the honour that they have, and the pleasure they derive from public life, and if you desire to induce men to do public work and to do it without pay, the least you can do is to give them the very fullest measure of independence. So now we have come to this point—there must be local authorities, and there must be local divisions, although my honourable and learned Friend is far behind the rest of the House apparently on this matter, for he protests against any local divisions at all, and calls them, "the dislocation of London into sectional areas."
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: I have never protested against anything of the sort, but what I did protest against was the establishment of any bodies which would interfere with the development of the central authority.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I would not on any account misrepresent my learned Friend. His exact words were, "The dismemberment of London and the dislocation of London into sectional areas." I would point out to him that if he objects to the division of London into sectional areas then he objects to any improvement in Local Government in London at all. Now, there was a very interesting part of my right honourable Friend's speech on which I should like to say a word, because in dealing with the questions which came before the Commission of 1894 he and his colleagues

  253
  made the suggestion that there should be a sort of large and extended municipality all over London, and that there should be other municipalities subject and subordinate to it. He stated this evening his opinion as to what he thought would be the true development of London if you treated London as you have treated every one of the other great towns of this country. The right honourable Gentleman threw out a challenge—and I do not think it will be very profitable to discuss what might have been, or to follow him in that discussion—and asked whether anyone would dispute that that would be better than what we have now. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do dispute it. I do not think it would have been better in any respect, and I think my right honourable Friend's view on this matter is not correct in its historical basis, and that it would not be advantageous in its results. In the first place, London is not one city that has grown from one centre. In the earliest time of which we have any record at all from which we may suppose that any city existed on the banks of the Thames in this place, it was not one city but two, the City of London and the City of Westminster, and the great Cathedral Church of London and the great Abbey of Westminster marked what were the centres of a certain amount of civic life long before two-thirds of the municipal corporations which now flourish in this country had been heard of at all. But not only that. London and Westminster were the twin cities, so to speak, from which this great province of houses, this great London of to-day, takes its rise. But they were disconnected. There were places not growing out of London at all. Islington did not grow from London, Kensington did not grow from London, Camberwell did not grow from London. They were places growing themselves, with the elements of local life in its various manifestations, while there were country fields between the places where they existed and London itself. And so it is an entire mistake to speak of London as one place, which has grown from one centre. Historically, that is not true. Historically, it is a place which consists of many centres of population, which have so grown up that now they are joining hands; and we, during the
  254
  last 20 or 30 years, have seen places once absolutely disconnected from London now indistinguishable from it, because now you can go I do not know how many miles without finding a break in your line of houses. And so, historically, I think my honourable and learned Friend is not correct. But I will say a word upon the other point. He asks, Did anybody say that it would not be better to have the state of things which would have existed if a single municipality had grown up and covered the whole than what we have at present?
  MR. ASQUITH: With subordinates.
  SIR E. CLARKE: Well, my right honourable Friend says, with subordinates. I do not wonder that the honourable Member jumps at that. He does not understand it, I think. That subordinates could be added now? But let us work it out. Suppose there had been this growth of London from one centre. Suppose there had been this great municipality. When would the subordinates have come in? Why, they would not have come in until this gigantic municipality had been tottering along under burdens too heavy for it to bear, and breaking down at every part of its administration because it could not cope with the duties that it had to perform. Now, supposing it had extended in that way. What is the first comment I should make upon it J It would be a. national danger. If you had now—if you could have: you cannot hay and so I am only following my right honourable Friend in discussing impossibilities—a single municipality erected, with a single body of aldermen and councillors and a mayor at its head, which effectively represented the whole population of London at this time, you would have a national danger. You would have a force represented by another body than Parliament with which Parliament would find it extremely difficult to deal. There are influences—the honourable Gentleman laughs, but I ask him to consider the point, just to imagine the strength that there would be if you could have—you cannot, I am glad to say—one homogeneous body representing the great population of this area, an area increasing, and, therefore, by the

  255
  hypothesis, increasing in strength from year to year. At the present time you would have a power with such authority that it would be dangerous to the free action, and effective action, of Parliament itself. Well, now, I confess that I take an entirely different view with regard to this matter. It is clear, of course, that there must be a central body. In a large area like this there are certain matters.—of course, the main drainage is obviously one of them—which must be dealt with by a separate body, and it interested me immensely to hear my honourable and learned Friend who just spoke talking of a central body having existed in London for the last 50 years. That is true, but who was it that was talking last night, or the night before, about the dishonoured grave of the Metropolitan Board of Works—I remember the phrase well. The Metropolitan Board of Works, it is true, was a. central authority to deal with matters of interest which were common to the whole community, and I think that the Metropolitan Board of Works was the best, the most economical, the most effective instrument of central government that this country has ever known. There were circumstances in the year 1888 which have served as an excuse to those who have known or cared very little about the history or the services of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to cast discredit upon that body as if it was a body that had not faithfully served London.
  MR. HALDANE: The attack on the' Metropolitan Board of Works came from your side of the House.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I do not see that it is relevant as to which side it comes from—I am quite content to accept it. In the year 1888, when the Local Government Bill was about to be passed, it so happened that through the misconduct of, I think, two members of the Metropolitan Board of Works and of one of its officials, there were some scandals connected with it, and an opportunity was taken—I think taken carelessly and recklessly—of putting an end to the Metropolitan Board of Works. I thought then, and I think now, that injustice was done to that body, and a mistake was made in putting an end to
  256
  an organisation which had served the country well; and I am bound, thinking as I do with regard to that, and having known a great deal with regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works, to enter this protest against any such phrase being used as the dishonoured grave of the Metropolitan Board of Works"—a body which gave to this metropolis advantages and benefits far exceeding anything that the London County Council has ever touched during its existence, and the history of whose administration was marked by the doing of great public works which ought to make us grateful indeed to the men who belonged to it. But let me pass from that. It is true that there has been for 50 years past in the Metropolitan Board of Works, and now in the London County Council, a body to deal with central affairs. Of course, some such power must always exist. We are all agreed upon that. I think we are all agreed upon another matter, and that is, that no power should be given or left to that body which can be effectively discharged by the local body.
  MR. ASQUITH: More effectively?
  SIR E. CLARKE: No, I beg your pardon; I did not say more effectively. If it were a question of competition between the two bodies, and a matter of doubt whether the power could be best exercised by the local or the central body, then I should say you would be bound to give it to the local body; the burden would lie upon you of showing that that was a power which ought to be taken away from those who are discharging the duties of Local Government. If that is so. is not there another way of looking at this question? Surely the idea of a gigantic municipality which is to have other municipalities under its enormous sway is something to which we have no parallel and of which we have no experience. I do not know of any municipality having municipalities under it in this country. It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. What you do want is effective municipalities to represent local interests and local aspirations, and you want a committee of these municipalities which shall deal with matters which are common to all. And here I come upon what I confess I do think is a defect in the Bill

  257
  with, which we are now dealing. I had greatly hoped that the Government would have seen their way to provide that each of these municipalities should send a representative to the London County Council, in place of the aldermen who are elected by the members of that Council. I think it would be most desirable that there should be some connection between the London County Council and the local bodies. It is idle to talk about connecting them by having each member of the London County Council a member of the local body. He has too much to do at the London County Council; and I hope I shall be forgiven for saying that there are a great many members of the London County Council who are elected because they are useful and valuable as political supporters on one side or the other, and whose presence upon the Local Government body would not be of very much advantage to it. But if you make the connection the other way there can be no possible objection to it. Let each local body, each municipality, send its best man, or its best two men, to sit upon the London County Council, and you will find them the most immediate and most effective check to that political Party spirit the effect of which you regret. When the Metropolitan Local Management Act was in force and (he Metropolitan Board of Works was in existence, who thought about the politics of the man who went from his vestry to the Metropolitan Board of Works? There never was a question of politics raised. I know the part of London in which I was living. I know the very capable men sent from that part to the Metropolitan Board of Works. One of them, by-the-by, if I mistake not, is now vice-chairman of the London County Council—Mr. Strong. I think he was in the Metropolitan Board of Works, and one of the best and ablest men that we have had for local government work. But there was no question of politics. Each vestry sent the best two men that it had, and it was bound to send them, because it wanted to have the interests of the vestry defended at the central council and advocated at the central council by the best men. And if the Government now see their way to provide that in place of the aldermen who now sit on the London
  258
  County Council there should be an arrangement by which representatives who are sent from the municipalities of London should sit there, I believe they would do a good deal, not only to improve the administration of London government, but to secure a steady harmony of working between the central body and the local bodies upon matters in which they are all interested. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to discuss details with regard to this Bill, although more than two-thirds of the criticisms that were lodged against the Bill by the right honourable Gentleman who proposed this Amendment, and by my honourable and learned Friend, the Member for Haddington, who spoke afterwards—and I am sure they will agree with me—were really directed to Committee points, and could be dealt with upon Committee, and must be dealt with upon Committee, in any Bill referring to London government which could be brought before the House. But I should like to say a few words upon one or two other matters. One is this matter of improvements. Now, it was said from the other side of the House that it would be a bad thing for London if the power of making improvements should be transferred to the local bodies, and it was suggested—I understood from the speech of the Solicitor-General, though the particular illustration was not quite appropriate—with regard to Bethnal Green, that if an improvement had been carried out there and at the cost of Bethnal Green instead of the whole of the metropolis, it would have imposed such heavy burdens upon the rates at Bethnal Green that that-community would certainly never have undertaken it. Yes, but there is a consideration which I think meets, and more than meets that. Why is it that the London County Council has notoriously failed during its term of office to carry out public improvements in London? Why is that these improvements, obvious improvements, which should have been carried out, or partially carried out, years ago, have now been allowed year after year to go untouched, and are becoming more and more costly with every year that passes? Well, the reasons I need

  259
  not discuss. The point which I was going to put to the House is this. A great many of these very important improvements, if they were taken promptly in hand, would cost very little money indeed. They can be dealt with by the locality in which the difficulty itself arises.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Under what power?
  SIR E. CLARKE: Under powers proposed in this Bill, as I hope and believe. I will meet the honourable Member. I hope and believe that the effect of this Bill will be not only to transfer the powers which are specified in the Bill, but to establish these local bodies with so much effective authority of administration that they will have further powers from time to time, and I believe one of the best powers that can be given to these local bodies would be the power of making improvements with regard to the widening of streets and the like, which I believe they would do very much more cheaply than the London County Council has done. Well, I do not know that there are other matters with which I need deal, but I will say just one word with regard to the question of finance. It is suggested that these local bodies ought to have no authority with regard to finance—with regard to raising loans, and so on. Why not? If, through the great power of the London County Council, and its being able to raise loans at a, very small rate of interest, the London County Council can raise these loans more cheaply than the local authorities can, you may be quite sure that the local authorities will be very glad to raise their loans through the London County Council. But the local authority ought to be in a position to deal with its own affairs, and, if it chooses, to deal with them without reference to the control of the London County Council. That is one of the ways in which I think the unnecessary control, the unnecessary subordination to the County Council, would go some way to diminish the advantage which you desire to have from the passing of this Bill. There is just one other matter I want to deal with, but I will not say very much this evening, with regard
  260
  to the City of London. The City of London has been defended by my honourable and learned Friend the Solicitor-General against the attack which has. been made upon it. But that attack is a monstrous and a wanton and a most unprovoked attack. The Corporation of the City of London is denounced as being an antiquated and unreformed and an obstructive corporation. Mr. Speaker, antiquated it is. It has a splendid antiquity. It has a grand history, and it has an unbroken history of public service properly and soundly rendered, and if you were to put the question to examination as to which body, the London County Council or the-Corporation of the City of London, had discharged its duties best, with the least noise, with the least friction, with the clearest desire and success in carrying out the practical work it has to do, I think the judgment would not be in favour of the London County Council. But I was interested to hear in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman who proposed this Amendment an attack, and a violent attack, upon the proposal to establish the Greater Westminster. He attacked it, because he appeared to say, from the sarcastic way in which he read out an address which had been written by someone in Westminster, that he did not recognise that there had been any great antiquity or historic splendour about the position of Westminster, and he spoke somewhat slightingly of it. If he thought it was necessary for the maintenance of a great corporation that there should be historic splendour, that there should be a long record of public service, he had only to look to the City of London, and he would have found it. It is an actual question, I think, whether the City of London or the Parliament of this country was the first to adopt the practice of first, second, and third reading of Bills; and the history of the City of London has gone on over all these centuries, and when there has been a question of inquiry into it, as there was in the year 1835—what was it that the Royal Commission of that year reported with regard to the City of London? I should like to read one passage from the Report of the Royal Commission on

  261
  Municipal Corporations in England and Wales, in 1835—
  "The Common Council of the City of London presents a striking exception to the system of self-election for life, and it affords a remarkable instance of the absence of those evils which were referred to. The Common Councilmen of this City are annually elected by a numerous constituency, yet changes seldom happen among them; the important requisites of experience and the power of control by the electors are there effectively united, and produce that efficiency and confidence which are wanting in most other corporate towns. The history of the Common Council of London is that of a body which has watched vigilantly over the interests of its constituents, and for a long series of years has studied the improvement of corporate institutions, with great earnestness, unremitting caution, and scrupulous justice."
  That was what was said of the City of London by the Royal Commission in the year 1835. Sixty years have passed since then, and those 60 years have been a history of 60 years of administration which would justify any Commission today expressing the same opinion with regard to the work that has been done by the City of London. It is called antiquated. I admit it. It is the pride of the City of London that its corporation is a corporation of great antiquity, dignified by its history as well as by its public services. It is called unreformed—unreformed because it wants no reform. There is no need for reform. The members of the Common Council are elected by all the ratepayers of the City; the Lord Mayor is elected, not by the same constituency, but by a constituency of 8,000 men, and for the position, for the intelligence, for the wealth of the men who belong to it, there is no constituency in the Kingdom that can compare with that constituency which elects each year the Lord Mayor of London. I do not want to go into details with regard to it, but I heard somebody use the word "audit." Is the honourable Gentleman who used that word "audit" aware that every year the accounts of the City of London are brought here and placed in the Library of the House of Commons, and that the auditing of many of the accounts of the City of London is performed under Acts of Parliament, that the accounts—all the accounts
  262
  —of the City of London are published every year? There is no secrecy of any sort or kind about them, and the most vigilant critic of the City of London, the most vigilant member of the London County Council, even in its time of fiercest antagonism, has never been able to find anything wrong with the audit of the City. And so, Sir, I venture to say that the City of London was entitled to consideration on the part of the Government. There is the other epithet, which I had nearly forgotten, that it is obstructive. The City of London is obstructive in what respect? The City of London has more than once proposed to bring within its boundaries, within the advantage of its corporate government, certain outlying areas, and with the full consent of the City of London I supported a Bill for bringing back effectively within its limits that part of Southwark which used to be associated with the City, and which is now only a nominal portion of its area. It would not have been at all unwilling to extend the boundaries of the City of London, and what has it done that it is obstructive with regard to this matter? All that I know is that in the year 1884 the City suggested the creation of other municipalities in London, and in that way suggested very much the policy which is being followed by the Government now. But I do want to put this question to those on the other side who attack the City of London as being antiquated and obstructive: What would you like to do with the City of London? Do you want to extend its area? If you want to extend its area, why not suggest it? It is possible to suggest it. It might be done. The City of London might be made an even more important corporation than it is at the present time, if you desire so to do. Well, I have never seen a suggestion of that up to the present. The Corporation of the City of London represents the greatest and most important community in the world. You talk of your square mile. It may be a square mile, but what a square mile it is‡ Take any hour of the day, and consider who they are within that area of a square mile, who

  263
  are carrying on their business, and who are working in the great industries—the financial industries, and the commercial industries—which have their home and centre in the City of London. I do not think I need go farther. The City of London will be left by this Bill discharging its duty, which it has well discharged for centuries, and, I hope, discharging great national duties. It has never dealt with those great possessions of which it has the stewardship as if they were the property of the square mile. It has dealt on very much larger principles, and with regard to the public weal. I do not agree with the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin that the carrying of this Bill will not secure the position of the Corporation of the City of London. I think it will. I think that when that old corporation is surrounded by other corporations of great influence and great authority, associated with it in the work of municipal government, it will be strengthened against any attacks which may be made upon it. That is one of the reasons why I am glad to 6ee this Bill. That is one of the reasons why I think in proposing this Measure Her Majesty's Government have done a great service to the cause of Local Government in London, and in carrying this Measure they will add to the great honours that have come to our Party in years past in connection with Local Government. It was our Party which in 1888 gave Local Government to England: it was our Party which, a little later, gave it to Scotland: and it was our Party which last year gave it to Ireland. I trust that the giving of a sound and effective system of Local Government to London may this year complete the work which the Government has to do in the direction of Local Government, and crown the successes which they have achieved in this direction.
  MR. LOUGH: The honourable and learned Member's eloquence is so persuasive that the House must guard against accepting his conclusions too implicitly. He says that these accounts are annually placed in the House of Commons Library. What
  264
  has this to do with the audit? No honourable Member of this House examines or certifies them. Take another remark which the honourable and learned Member made. He said that we had not one ancient city in London, but a number of cities of that description. But, Sir, the illustrations which he took were particularly unfortunate. He spoke of Camberwell, Islington, and Kensington. None of these would have existed except for London. They were small suburbs drawn out of London, one after another. Camberwell was one of those many interesting suburbs in the ancient times so styled, I believe, because there was a well there. At Islington, the dairy of London existed; and as far as Kensington is concerned, it was, and is, simply a place in which London goes to sleep. Therefore, these parts of London would not have existed except for the one great City of which they form a part. As I see the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin here, I should like to make one remark on the speech he made at an earlier hour of the evening. That speech possessed two characteristics which all the speeches of the right honourable Gentleman seem to me to possess. In the first place, it was most interesting, and showed great knowledge of the subject on which he spoke; and, secondly, it seemed to me that all the arguments of the speech were such as would have led anyone but the right honourable Gentleman to an entirely different conclusion from the one at which he arrived. He brought forward most powerful arguments in support of the Amendment, and then he said he would vote against it. He delivered a most smashing attack on the Bill, and then he said he would vote for the Second Reading. But the basis of the right honourable Gentleman's speech seems to me more extraordinary still. He said that municipalities throughout this country gradually extended their borders, and that London would some day extend its borders in the same way. Nothing of the kind. In every other place there was an unreformed corporation until 1855. In that year this House did its duty and enabled the provincial muni-

  265
  cipal centres of life in this country to get their corporations reformed. As a result of that Act, we have seen those centres develop throughout the provinces; but what is the reason that the Corporation of London was never reformed] The reason is that this House never did its duty to London, and that is what makes the present occasion so important. We have now got a great opportunity, and if we happen to take a wrong turn, it may be years, and even generations, before the people of London have another opportunity. Therefore, I think the right honourable Gentleman should not have treated this matter so lightly, but should have helped us to try and make this Bill a useful Measure. I quite agree with the criticisms which have been levelled at a good many speakers, that they have gone into details, instead of dealing with the great principle involved in the Bill. But perhaps, Sir, the reason is that it is extremely difficult to discover what that principle is. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill what is the principle? It seems to me that there is no definite principle in it. The Government are halting between tenification on the one hand and unification on the other. They are between two stools, and I wish the Government would choose which stool they are going to sit upon, for then we could address ourselves to criticism in a manner which would not be so much objected to in this Debate. Now, Sir, not only is there no principle in the Bill, but there is another fundamental objection to it. None of us can tell under what law we shall be governed in London. We shall be partly under the Metropolis Management Acts, and partly under the Municipal Corporation Acts; partly under Commissioners appointed under the Bill, and partly under schemes to be prepared by the Privy Council, the Local Government Board, or the new bodies which are to be created. I think this is a matter which ought to be taken into serious consideration when the Bill goes into Committee. I have said, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult to discover the principle of the Bill. However, I suppose we must try and get at it as well as we
  266
  can. As far as I can see, the principle is to establish in the Metropolis a number of municipalities independent of each other, in the first place, and in the second place, having no direct relation with the central municipality. There is no similarity with regard to the municipalities which are going to be established. They differ altogether from any other areas which exist. Some are large, like Westminster or Wandsworth; some are small with 70,000 or 80,000 population, like Chelsea. They do not agree with the recommendation of the Royal Commission of 1894 that the areas should correspond with the Parliamentary areas or with the County Council area, or, indeed, with any existing area. They are carved out according to some rule of which we know nothing whatever. Equally, Mr. Speaker, there is no uniformity between the proposed municipalities and the central authority. The right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill said at least half a dozen times that they could still borrow of the County Council. Well, if so, why are they also enabled to borrow from the Local Government Board or any other channel? No uniformity is established between the municipalities which are set up, and there is no direct connection with the central authority. Let us therefore ask, in the first place, whether it is practicable to set up these separate municipalities. Now, that brings me to the principal argument of the honourable and learned Member who has just sat down. The honourable and learned Member laid down the proposition that we could not establish a unified system throughout London without attacking the City. I agree that the unity of London will never be complete until we deal with the City, but there is a unity which we might secure in the Bill we are discussing without touching the City. A uniform principle might be adopted so far as possible in creating the areas which are to be constituted, and in establishing connection between them and the central authority. But no attempt is made under the Bill to do this. We could obtain some guidance on the subject if we did not argue so much between ourselves, but tried

  267
  rather to look upon it in the light that history has thrown upon it. The honourable and learned Member who has just sat down quoted a, Report of the Commission in 1854. I accept his description of that Report. That Report was followed by the Bill of 1855, which attempted under the name of Vestries or District Boards, to set up municipalities in London much in the same way that the right honourable Gentleman in charge of this Bill is trying to set them up to-day; and if the House would profit by the experience of 1855 it would throw a flood of light on what the Government is trying to do. The honourable and learned Member was perfectly right when he argued that the idea in 1855 was to set up municipalities. They were to be endowed with greater independent power in some respects than the municipalities which the right honourable Gentleman is trying to establish now. But even in 1855, as the honourable and learned Member admits, we had to recognise the necessity for a central council, and so the Metropolitan Board of Works was established. But it was a very cumbrous institution, and the intention of the Government was to make the central body small, insignificant, and unimportant, and the local institutions as strong and independent as possible. Now, the question I want to ask is, Did that attempt succeed? Any one who will allow his memory to run back for the last 40 years will see in a moment that the attempt failed just as it will fail now. During that period a great number of municipal duties have been conferred upon corporations everywhere. Let us see how they were distributed in London. Did Parliament give them to the local vestries or to the central authority—the Metropolitan Board of Works? In 1857, the question arose as to what authority should be entrusted with the duty of dealing with parks and open spaces, and this was allocated to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Then in 1860 there was the question of gas inspection. Surely, that would strike anyone as a power that the local authorities might exercise. But no; the power was given to the central authority. Then there was the ques-
  268
  tion of building the Thames Embankment. Why was this not entrusted to the local authority? Then fire brigades were created, and the management of these was given to the central authority, as also was the management of tramways and the duty of securing a constant supply of water. In 1875 the provision of artisans' dwellings, in 1877 the duty of freeing the bridges over the river, and in 1878 the care of the public in theatres, were all entrusted to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Finally, in 1885 the power of inspecting common lodging-houses was transferred from the vestries and undertaken by the central authority. What was the result? The result was that the central authority grew stronger and stronger until at last this House felt that its constitution must be reformed, and it became the London County Council; while the authorities in the localities remained much as they had been created in 1855. There is another way of looking at this question more interesting still. We have been speaking of municipalities, and the Solicitor-General made one or two fundamental mistakes in the analogies he drew in regard to London. He spoke of Manchester and Salford as a parallel case to the relations which might exist between the central authority and the municipal authorities which are to be created. The great right of a governing body is to levy rates, and so the local authorities that were created in London were given absolute power of rating, while the central authority was given at first only the small power of levying rates necessary for making the sewers. How did this right of rating develop? Gradually the Metropolitan Board of Works obtained the right of making a charge for all the services that I have mentioned. The great principle of the equalisation of rates was inaugurated in 1871, and was extended in 1888 and again in 1894. Thus in 1888 we find that a common rate is levied from the central authority of 4s. in the £ all over London. Now, the question which I want to put to the honourable and learned Gentleman is, Does the Manchester rate extend to Salford? The honourable and learned Member also referred to the case of

  269
  Brighton and Hove. Has Brighton the right to levy a 4s. rate on Hove? Of course not. There is, therefore, not the slightest parallel between these cases and the case of London, and so the learned Gentleman has been Working out an entirely false analogy. There is no place like London in these respects. Now, I believe I have laid my finger upon what is really the great defect in the proposal which the Government has brought forward. Instead of studying the growth of institutions in London, the promoters of the Bill have taken their analogy from the Municipal Corporations Acts. This is how they have got all the bad proposals which the Bill contains. There is not a single speaker who has taken part in the Debate on the Bill who approves of the provisions for auditing the accounts of the local bodies to be created in London. Where does the right honourable Gentleman get his ideas from? He gets them from the Municipal Corporations Act, and almost every mistake made in the Bill has been got through pursuing this wrong analogy instead of studying more closely the growth and development of our institutions in London. Is the attempt that the Government is making to set up these independent authorities in London practicable, having regard to the failure of previous attempts in the same direction? The right honourable Gentleman has not up to the present shown any determined hostility to a reasonable Amendment. We have listened with a great deal of interest to what the Solicitor-General said on that point this afternoon. He is generally put up when the Government has to turn some difficult corner, and as a Scotchman he may be trusted not to say too much. The only really pregnant remark that I discovered in his speech was where he agreed that many points that have been mentioned could have been dealt with by Amendment. Now, I quite agree that a great deal can be done by Amendment, and if we may gather from this remark that the Government will look upon Amendments with a favourable eye, a great deal may be done to improve the Bill in Committee. In the part of London which I represent this matter has always excited the
  270
  greatest interest, because everyone has got his conception of what the government of London means. Every citizen is conscious that there are two entirely different features of municipal government in the metropolis. One set of duties is discharged by the local authority; others of far greater importance by the central authority. The citizen has to look to both of these for all these services which are vital to their existence. This dual aspect of London government is a peculiar feature of London which does not exist anywhere else. There is only a single authority in every other city, and, therefore, this particular feature is one which the Government should have kept before their minds, but which I think they have neglected altogether in formulating the Bill. If it were fully recognised that we should establish harmonious relations between the central authority and the new bodies to be created, we should accept the conclusion that all experience teaches us, that the most important authority is the central authority, which is charged with all the greater duties. It is all very well to speak of creating these independent municipal boroughs in localities. They cannot discharge a single function which municipalities are expected to discharge. I have shown that three-fourths of the duties are now discharged by the central authority—the supply of water, open spaces, sewers, and the management of tramways, fire brigades, etc., are, and must still remain, in the charge of the central authority. I would remind the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House that while he has a great majority in this House, in the London County Council, which represents London in all these local matters, there is an equally great majority opposed to the policy which the Government is supposed to represent. I therefore appeal to the right honourable Gentleman not to press the ideas of the majority unduly. He will have to choose between two evils. He will either have to injure this Government or to injure London. I am quite sure that he does not desire either. I appeal to him, therefore, to consider the proposals which may be brought forward in as broad and generous a spirit

  271
  as he possibly can. This is a local matter on which the opinions of the people of London were invited a year ago. Every argument that has been presented to this House was presented 12 months since, and the people answered by saying that they trusted the present County Council to deal with the matter. Now, I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman—for he will doubtless carry the Second Reading of the Bill with the strong majority which can carry him through any difficulty—inasmuch as this London question is full of pitfalls, to be guided by the opinion of the London County Council. We have had as yet no indications that any concession will be made. Nothing to this effect was stated on the first night of the Debate, and the Solicitor-General has said nothing to-night. Unless, therefore, we find some broad and strong pronouncement made of a different character from anything we have heard up to the present, I believe that we shall have to fight this Bill, not on the Second Reading stage only, but in Committee, and that there will be very prolonged discussions upon it, because it is a matter of vital importance to London.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
  Debate further adjourned till tomorrow.

  QUEEN MARY'S SCHOOL, WALSALL (SCHEME).
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her graciously to withhold her consent to a scheme under the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and amending Acts, for the management of Queen Mary's School, Walsall, which was presented to this House on the 7th day of February last.—(Mr. Gedge.)
  MR. GEDGE: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to detain the House, if only for a few minutes, at this hour of the night, but, of course, it is well known to Members that this is the only opportunity that a Member has for presenting a statutory Address to the Queen against a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, and unless it is done to-
  272
  night, my time will be out before Easter. The question is a simple one, and if honourable Members will kindly give me a, few minutes' attention, they will see that the opposition of my constituents to this scheme is very reasonable. Once only before have I moved the rejection of such a scheme, and that was eight or nine years ago, with regard to Christ's Hospital, when I moved as a private Member and as a Governor of the hospital. I did not go to a division, because then the Government put on their tellers, and opposed me. I am glad to believe that that will not be. the case to-night, and that the matter will be judged on its merits. I would remind honourable Members that that scheme turned out to be exactly what was foretold, and the Charity Commissioners had afterwards to remodel it. This new scheme does not go as far as that, but I think it is objectionable, for the reasons I will state. The Queen Mary's Grammar School at Walsall is a secondary endowed (foundation school. It has been carried on very successfully, indeed, with marked success, during the last three or four years, under a very excellent scheme framed by the Charity Commissioners, after consultation with the Governors and the Corporation, in the year 1893, and they only wish that that scheme may be left alone. Before that scheme was framed there were two Acts of Parliament, passed in 1890 and 1891, for encouraging and assisting technical instruction, which is now so much wanted, especially in an important industrial town like Walsall, with its 80,000 inhabitants. According to these Acts, any local authority, either the local authority of the place where the endowed school is situated or any neighbouring local authority which has children in its district who can be best educated in technical instruction in this particular school, may make grants-in-aid of that instruction. Under these Acts, if a grant-in-aid be made by any local authority, you have to take the amount which is spent out of the income of the school by the Governors on technical education on one side, and the amount of the grant on the other, and then the local authority is

  273
  permitted to appoint representatives upon the governing body in the same proportion to the total number of the Governors as the amount of their grant bears to the amount which the Governors spend on technical instruction. For instance, supposing that in this school there were 15 Governors; supposing that they spent, we will say, £300 a year on technical instruction; that the local authority of their borough makes them a grant—because they, of course, have no power of rating, but only their endowment of £1,500 a year—of £100 a year; then the local authority would be able to put on five representatives for the purpose of the Act. Supposing a local authority in the county of Stafford, which has children in the immediate neighbourhood, does this, they would have five representatives; and supposing the local authority of Birmingham were to do the same, then there would be ten representatives. These men are put on according to this Act simply for the purpose of the Act—that is to say, they have a voice in the technical instruction, but they have no voice whatever in the other part of the education in the school. Now, in this particular case there are two schools, one for boys and the other for girls. The boys' school is a grammar school as well as a commercial school; it instructs in a great many subjects which have nothing to do with technical instruction. In the girls' school it is the same. They have not the smallest objection if they obtain the grant, which they very much want, to this representation, and if the Charity Commissioners would only leave matters alone there would be no difficulty. My Governors want to apply for a grant, I believe, but are prevented by this new scheme. It is a very short scheme of two clauses, and we have no objection to the second. The first runs—
  "The scheme of 1893 is hereby amended so as to give effect to the following provisions; There shall be added to the governing body such additional representative Governors, if any, as may be appointed for the purpose of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, by a local authority under that Act."
  In other words, when the local authority either within the borough or outside
  274
  the borough makes a grant, and claims to be represented under the Technical Instruction Act, the Governors so put on are to have a voice in the management of both schools, and that with regard, not only to the technical instruction, but also to all subjects of education given in the schools. Now, the local authority of the borough, the Corporation, are already well represented on the governing body of the school. The governing body consists of 15–12 gentlemen and three ladies. Seven of these are appointed by the Corporation, the local authority, four are appointed by the School Board, and the other four are co-opted by these 11. Consequently, if the seven who are appointed by the local authority choose to vote together, they may themselves select the four co-opted members. The Corporation have not done so, but they might. They have seven out of 15 Governors and the Corporation are perfectly content with the representation. They have no desire whatever to have any further representation for all purposes, though, no doubt, if they do make a grant-in-aid of technical instruction, they will very properly have a proportionate number of representatives taking part in the management of the school as regards that instruction. The county council of Stafford have been very anxious indeed to get a representative upon our governing body, and when the scheme was originally brought in a year and a half ago it provided that the county council of Stafford was always to have one representative Governor added to our 15. This was stoutly opposed by the existing Governors, and the Charity Commissioners have only recently been over-ruled with regard to a similar provision that they tried to enforce upon Newcastle-upon-Tyne That has been dropped, and is not now part of the scheme, and I only mention it to show the spirit in which the Charity Commissioners have acted towards the school. But when we remonstrated against this over-riding of the Act of Parliament by making these new Governors representative Governors for all purposes, when the Act of Parliament said, very properly that they should be appointed for the one purpose

  275
  for which they subscribe the money, and that purpose only, the Charity Commissioners met us by saying, "Oh, there is inconvenience attaching to Governors being in and out in this way." I suppose, like Irish Members having their own Parliament——
  DR. TANNER: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if this long explanation is really necessary?
  MB. SPEAKER: Order, order‡
  MR. GEDGE: I am sorry I used the illustration, if it offends the honourable Member; it was only to bring before the House the point. We do not believe that any practical inconvenience would be sustained; at all events, it seems to us that if that were so the Act of Parliament should be altered. Then the Charity Commissioners write and say, very coolly, "Oh‡ you need not have the money if you do not like this; and if you do not like this, do not take the money." But surely that is a very wrong way of putting it. We are in favour of taking the money if the local authorities are disposed to give it to us. Their children are being educated in our schools. Parliament desires technical instruction to be improved. Parliament made this provision in order that technical instruction might be improved. Our resources consist of only this endowment of £1,500 a year and the fees, and I ask, Was it right for the Charity Commissioners to attempt to override the Act of Parliament in this way, and to say, "You shall not receive the benefits that Parliament intended to give you," even after Parliament itself imposed this arrangement, because the Charity Commissioners chose to think it is inconvenient? They therefore impose a, new condition, and coolly tell us that if we do not like the condition we may go without the money. Yes, but what are the poor children to do? Then the next inconvenience is this, that under the new scheme these representative Governors are in all for a period of five years. No doubt under the Act this representation only lasts as long as the grant-in-aid lasts, but if this scheme is passed
  276
  the result will be this, that these gentlemen, having been put upon our governing body for all purposes, and not only for the purposes of the Act, will go on sitting as representative Governors under the scheme; and, therefore, even if the Act be withdrawn after a year, they will still be there for four years longer. The county councils of Stafford, Birmingham, and Wolverhampton, if they are giving a grant-in-aid, will be represented for all purposes upon this Board for five years, which clearly cannot be right. My right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council shakes his head. I do not profess to vie with him in construing an Act of Parliament, but I have had some experience of that sort in my life, and I cannot see my way out of that conclusion. Under the scheme it is said distinctly that the representative Governors are on for five years—that is the period that the new scheme says; that these people who are put on for the purposes of the Act shall have representative Governors and shall be put on for all purposes; and therefore I maintain, without fear of contradiction by a law court, if a case ever came to be tried there, that they will be on for five years. That is not, no doubt, a very large grievance, but it is a grievance, and I therefore submit to the House that we ought to be allowed to get this money on the terms which Parliament itself imposed in 1889 and 1891, and that we ought not to have a new and harsh construction put upon it; and the argument of the Charity Commissioners that it is now a common form, and has been applied in 200 cases, comes to nothing, for this reason, that these 200 cases mostly consist of small endowed schools scattered about the country. They are not in county boroughs. Now, the borough of Walsall, being a borough of nearly 80,000 people, and a very thriving industrial town, is very proud of its position as a county borough. It does not chose to be put in the position of small towns which are not county boroughs. This decision has been made by Parliament independent of the county council of Stafford, and we object to being put under them in this way by a few gentlemen sitting upstairs,

  277
  who, having failed to ruin St. Paul's School, now want to try their hands at smaller fry and see if they cannot work some mischief with regard to this school. I therefore, Sir, move the He-solution standing in my name.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODformally seconded.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (SIR J. GORST,: This is a very short and simple point, which I think the House will understand in a very few minutes. Really, this clause is a common clause which is now put by the Charity Commissioners into every scheme of this kind, and it has not been objected to by any people save those in the town of Walsall, which my honourable and learned Friend represents. The clause has been put in because of the practical inconvenience which was found to exist. As the honourable and learned Member explained to the House, if the Governors of an endowed school receive aid from any of the local authorities in technical instruction a certain number of Governors have to be put on to represent the technical instruction authority, and according to the Technical Instruction Act these Governors are only put on the governing body for the purpose of that Act. That includes a very large part of the school instruction, because honourable Members must remember that technical instruction in the Act does not mean what technical instruction does in the common use of language. Besides that, technical instruction includes every subject for which a grant is made by the Science and Art Department. It includes modern languages, and it includes what is called commercial education. Indeed, it includes almost everything that is taught in a school of this kind except the dead languages. Now, the House will very easily see that for these gentlemen to be Governors for this purpose, and not to be Governors for the purpose of instruction in the dead languages, makes it very difficult to tell at any time whether a man has a right to have a voice in the discussion which is going
  278
  on in the governing body or not. They are in and out, and they are in and out in a most inconvenient way, because it is almost impossible to say with reference to any particular subject, or at any particular time, whether these Governors who are put on under the Technical Instruction Act are on for the purposes of the discussion then going on, or are not. Therefore, to remedy that practical inconvenience the Charity Commissioners are now in the habit of putting into their schemes that those persons who are on as representing the local authorities under the Technical Instruction Act shall be on for all purposes, and not for the purposes of the Technical Instruction Act only. That clause has been accepted everywhere, not only in these little villages of Tamworth and Lichfield, but even in the great town of Wolverhampton, and it is only in Walsall that they seem to have made this objection. The answer to the objection is that you are not obliged to take aid from these local authorities. You are not obliged to take aid from the county of Stafford unless you like, and if you do take it from the county of Stafford, and if people are put on your governing body in accordance with the Act by the county of Stafford, it is much more convenient that the should be on for all purposes, and not for the purposes of the Technical Instruction Act exclusively. With regard to the second point which the honourable Member made, that these people, if they were put on, would be-put on for five years, I venture, with great respect, to say that he is mistaken. Certainly that is not the intention, and, I think, not the operation of the scheme. They would only be Governors so long as they were representatives of the local technical authority. As soon as they cease to hold that character, they would cease to be Governors. I hope, therefore, that the House will confirm the scheme, because this particular scheme has been found to be an extremely useful one. The scheme operates in the way I have described, and I am quite sure that no injustice would be done to the people of Walsall and the present Governors of this school if the clause-were adopted.
  MR. BILL: At this time of night I do not wish to go at any length into this matter, but I should like to say, on behalf of the county council of Stafford—and I am the only member of the county council of Stafford who has the honour of sitting in this House—that the council thoroughly approves of the scheme which has been proposed by the Charity Commissioners for this particular school. First, I should like to say, in answer to my honourable Friend the Member for Walsall, that he is quite in error in supposing that the county council of Stafford has been, as he says, very anxious to have some representatives on the governing body of this school. The clauses which have been proposed by the Charity Commissioners were put in by the Charity Commissioners without any consultation with us. I can assure the House that the county council of Stafford do not in the least wish to thrust representatives on the governing body of this school if the honourable Member for Walsall is unwilling to receive them. But if the Board accepts county money, the county council do claim that their representation on the endowed school should be an effective one. That is all that they ask for, and I hope that the House will not interfere with the scheme of the Charity Commissioners.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think it will be found that we were very careful in determining the conditions upon which, when this money is granted to a particular endowed school, representation should be given upon the governing body. Honourable Members will permit me to remind them that it touches a very important principle which runs through the question which we have to consider in respect to all endowments, and which we shall have to consider very closely when we come to consider the question of secondary education—how far public money is to carry with it the obligation of certain representation upon the governing body. Parliament was very careful at the time this Technical Instruction Act was passed. It said that money which was granted for technical instruction pur-
  280
  poses should entitle the local authority to representation upon the governing body of the school for those purposes, and those purposes alone. My right honourable Friend has said that was an inconvenient provision. Well, Sir, that may be, but it is the Act of Parliament. I hold the Act in my hand. I am not going, at this time of night, to trouble the House by reading out long clauses, but it is as clear as possible. What the House of Commons and Parliament agreed to was that when money should be granted, representation should be given for technical instruction purposes, and for those only. It really is not, I think, a sufficient reason—I say it with great respect—for my right honourable Friend and for my honourable Friend the Member for Staffordshire to come and say that it is a very inconvenient arrangement. That was a plea which ought to have been put forward when the Act was passed; but the Act was passed, and it definitely laid this down. My right honourable Friend says the Charity Commissioners and the Government, who do not care about Acts of Parliament, have treated this particular provision with contempt, and in a model clause—a very bad model, I should have said—have allowed that scheme to pass, certainly in contempt of the obvious intention of Parliament. I am very sorry that our attention was not called to this before; but on the present occasion our attention has been called to it in the most constitutional manner by the honourable Member, representing his constituents, coming to Parliament and representing to the House of Commons that this particular action, however convenient in the view of the Charity Commissioners and of the Government, is wholly unconstitutional, and contrary to the spirit of the Act of Parliament. I think the honourable Member for Walsall has made out his case, and we are not entitled to allow, merely for the convenience of the arrangement to the Charity Commissioners or the Education Department, or people with whom I have more sympathy, my honourable Friend and his county council, that the plain intention of the Act of Parliament should be overruled. I think that my right honourable Friend was conscious that his case was very weak, because he eked it out by trying to imply that the

  281
  whole of the education given in this school was technical education. It is clear that it is not only a technical instruction school. We have to deal with a plain issue, and it seems to me, as my right honourable Friend said, the simplest case in the world. Here is a case of injustice to which the attention of Parliament has been called. My honourable Friend, representing his constituents, comes to us for justice, and I think the House of Commons ought to give it to him.

  ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In moving the Adjournment of the House, it will be for the convenience of Members that I should state that we propose to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule to-morrow, not at all because I contemplate a late sitting, but because it may be convenient that for five or 10 or 15 minutes' discussion the House should not be restricted absolutely—be met by the dead wall of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, on the Second Reading of the Rill that we have been discussing.
  Question put—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her graciously to withhold her consent to a scheme under the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and amending Acts, for the management of Queen Mary's School, Walsall, which was presented to this House on the 7th day of February last."—(Mr. Gedge.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 52.—(Division List No. 69.)

  AYES.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Helder, Augustus

  Willox, Sir J. Archibald

  Bethell, Commander

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Malcolm, Ian

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Duncombe, Hon. H. V.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

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

  Percy, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sydney Gedge and Viscount Cranborne.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Gordon, Hon. J. Edw.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Havne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arrol, Sir William

  Horniman, Frederick J.

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Rentoul, J. Alexander

  Banbury, Frederick Geo.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. J.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Ryder, J. Herbert Dudley

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Maclure, Sir J. William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Killop, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  More, R. J. (Shropshire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Bill and Mr. Macdona.

  Gretton, John

  Moss, Samuel

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt, Wm.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I take it that I may assume that the right honourable Gentleman does not contemplate taking any other Government business to-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There is the first Measure I announced—nothing afterwards.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: Is the right honourable Gentleman able to say definitely what will be taken on Monday and Tuesday next?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I did state that at Question time to-day. I may repeat it for the convenience of the honourable Gentle-

  283
  man. The first Motion for Monday will be simply to send to Grand Committee the Food and Drugs Bill. The second matter is the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill. There will be some other Government Bills down, but that probably will take the whole evening. On Tuesday, the only Motion will be for Adjournment, which will be taken at Twelve o'clock.

BILLS DEFERRED.
  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [9th March] further adjourned till Monday next.
  CONSTRUCTIVE MURDER LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [23rd February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
    CLAUSE 1.
    Committee report progress; to sit again this day.
  UNIVERSITY DEGREES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 10th April.
  House adjourned at thirty-five minutes after Twelve of the clock.