HC Deb 08 May 1899 vol 71 cc61-127

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2:—

Amendment again proposed, after the words last added, to add to the words— (b) The Local Government Board may, on request made by a borough council in pursuance of a resolution of the council passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present at a meeting of the council duly convened for the purpose, make an order directing that the whole of the councillors shall retire together on the ordinary day of election in every third year, and may on like request rescind any such order."—(Captain Jessel.)

Question again proposed— That those words be there added.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.) moved as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out on the first line "may," and insert "shall." He said that the words of the Amendment as it stood hardly fulfilled the expectation formed by the promise of the First Lord of the Treasury. He knew that in an Act of Parliament "may" ought to mean "shall," but he did not think it was so in this case. The objection to keeping in the word "may" was that the Local Government Board would decide whether the election should be annual or triennial. It was clearly understood that the councils should themselves decide the point.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed— That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment.

THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

said that the word "may" occurred in the Act of 1894, which gave the county council power at the request of the local authorities to make an order. That was a precedent, and in such cases it was much better to keep the word "may." It was conceivable that there might be instances in which it would be very wrong and in which an order should not be made, and the Local Government Board should not be liable to a mandamus.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

Can the right honourable Gentleman suggest an instance in which the Local Government Board would be justified in refusing to make an order?

SIR R. B. FINLAY

I admit that such cases are not likely to occur often. But, suppose that the majority of a borough council have declared for triennial elections, merely for the sake of prolonging their own tenure of office!

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

It is a case which is quite impossible to happen, if they were to adopt the triennial system on its merits.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

I thought I had done a great deal to meet the wishes of both sides of the House, in adopting the scheme of the Act of 1894. The Local Government Board will never interfere unless under circumstances which it may be difficult to foresee; and certainly what they would do would not imply any limitation of the true liberty of the borough councils. I hope the honourable Member will not press the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.) moved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert the words "and voting" after the word "present." In support of his Amendment he would use the same argument as the Solicitor-General had used in opposing the last Amendment. The right honourable and learned Gentleman said that the Government desired to follow the precedent of the 1894 Act. This Amendment followed the 1894 Act. As he understood, the First Lord of the Treasury said that the Local Government Act of 1894 provided that a two-thirds majority must be necessary in order to substitute annual for triennial elections. That was a misapprehension. So far as he had been able to ascertain, and so far as the enacting section went, it provided that a bare majority might carry a resolution. He did not see why a different rule should apply to the new boroughs from the Boards of Guardians.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "present," to insert the words "and voting."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

Question proposed— That the words 'and voting' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I recollect the discussions which took place in 1894. I cannot conceive that the intention of the framers of the Act was that a very small number of persons out of the total number present should carry this important change. If the honourable Gentleman's Amendment were carried, to take an extreme case, supposing the whole council were present at a meeting and supposing that only 6 out of the 70 members chose to vote, then four persons present would carry this great change. That seems to me to be rather a comical result.

MR. PICKERSGILL

conld see nothing comic about it. The gist of the Amendment was that due notice was given, and if those present did not choose to vote, the purpose of the provision was obtained without them.

MR. LOUGH

thought that the words were harmless. Suppose there was a quorum present, the decision should be taken by those who actually voted.

* CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, South)

hoped the Government would not adopt this insidious Amendment. If the suggestion of the honourable Member was adopted, it would have the effect of making it possible to carry a resolution in favour of triennial elections by a less majority than was necessary in the case of resolutions on other points.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

thought it was only common sense that a resolution should be carried by a majority of two-thirds of those voting on the resolution. It would be very difficult to decide whether at a particular moment there were two-thirds of the members present or not, whereas the matter could be decided at once if the votes were actually recorded. He could not see anything insidious in the proposal.

MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

held that, under all circumstances where a vote could be legally taken, the question ought to be decided by two-thirds majority of those voting. He did not know of any case where a question like this had to be decided by a majority of those present, whether they voted or not. From a long experience on local bodies he could say it was very difficult to declare how many persons were present when a given vote was taken. The only determining fact was the numbers taken down by the tellers. He did not see why this Bill should differ from the Act of 1894, which stated that a resolution should be carried by a two-thirds majority of those voting.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said that, in the House, when a Division was taken everyone present must vote. He did not think they ought to pay much respect to those members of council, who, being present when a question was put, did not take the trouble to vote.

MR. DILLON

said that the only people whose rights the honourable Member for St. Pancras sought to safeguard were those who, being present in the room, declined to vote. How could they consider the matter under discussion of great importance if they refused to vote? It seemed to him that there was substance in the Amendment, and it might prevent the greatest possible difficulties and disputes.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

asked the Solicitor-General whether the word "present," used in this sense, meant those who were present at the voting, whether they voted or not. He had always understood that the word present meant those who were "present" and voted.

SIR R. FINLAY

said that the word "present" meant "present"; that was to say, the Chairman would have to ascertain whether two-thirds of those present were voting, and he would count them.

LORD E. FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)

said that the responsibility of taking a vote of this kind rested with the Chairman. It seemed to him that if they took the words as they stood the advantage would be on the side of the Amendment. If they took the persons actually voting there could never be a question afterwards as to the legality of the vote, for the numbers would speak for themselves.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said it seemed to him that his honourable and gallant friend opposed the Amendment with the object of preventing the proceedings being gerrymandered. That object could be obtained by agreeing to a majority of two-thirds of those present and voting, provided that such a majority was not less than a certain proportion of the whole council.

MR. R. WALLACE (Perth)

saw no reason why they should depart from the Act of 1894. If it were necessary to safeguard the position it would be possible to add other words making it necessary that one-half of the council should vote. That would prevent a snatch vote being taken.

MR. STUART

could not see why they should depart from the precedent before them, which was perfectly clear. The honourable and gallant Member had not had the same experience of the business of local government bodies as some other Members, and he could assure him that it was extremely difficult at times to decide who was present at a particular moment. He urged on the First Lord of the Treasury that this Amendment was for the advantage of no particular party, but simply to avoid disputes and discussions as to what had actually occurred. It was most desirable that there should be something definite and that there should not be squabbles afterwards as to what had happened.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The only danger I want to guard against is a danger that may not be imminent, but which might arise. There might be a large number present at the discussion, but only a small number might vote. My right honourable friend the Member for Bodmin seems to think that I object to the Amendment out of regard for the people who do not vote. My sole object is that this considerable change in the mode of electing the councils should be carried only by the solid and determined will of an emphatic majority. I do not attach myself much importance to the difficulty as to the counting, and the reason is that no act of the council can be legal without a quorum being present, and the counting would come up in every case.

MR. COURTNEY

said that the counting by the vote would show whether there was a quorum present or not.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am quite ready to leave all that, and to adopt the suggestion of my honourable friend the Member for Hallam that the resolution must be carried by an absolute majority of the council.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

thought the proposal a fair one. An important decision like that ought to be adopted by a majority of the Council.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

thought that the honourable Gentlemen opposite ought to accept this very conciliatory proposal. He would put it in concrete shape, and move to insert after the words "convened for the purpose" in the proposed Amendment the words "provided that such majority is not less than a majority of the whole council."

MR. STUART

said they should have the two Amendments put separately.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, after the word "purpose" to insert the words— Provided that such majority is not less than the majority of the whole Council."—(Mr. Cohen).

Question proposed— That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment.

MR. DILLON

said that under the cloak of giving a concession to the honourable Member who had originally introduced the Amendment, the Government had now introduced a greater barrier. As the Clause stood, a quorum was to be one- third of the council, and the resolution could be carried by two-thirds of the quorum. The new Amendment, under the guise of a concession, was to make it necessary that the resolution should be carried by a majority of the whole council.

MR. STUART

said that the Tramways Act was worked by a majority of those who took over the tramways. If two-thirds of the council voted, a curious position might arise, inasmuch as a person by voting against the proposal might facilitate its being carried, but the object was perfectly clear. If two-thirds of those voting were to be the majority, he could understand the position, but to say the majority should be two-thirds of the entire Council was to try and find something which did not exist in any Act.

MR. MARKS (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

pointed out that in a council of seventy-two members, of which a majority was thirty - seven, it would be in the power of sixteen members, by absenting themselves from the meetings of the council, to prevent in perpetuity any resolution from being carried. He could not think that was the intention of the Government.

CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfar)

said this was proposed to be a concession, and all that the Committee was doing was proposing that something could be done by

a majority of the council which could be done without any enactment whatever. He could not see the object of this particular Amendment.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St Pancras, East)

thought that as the matter stood there must be thirty-seven members to vote for a proposal, so that if fifteen of the council stayed away the whole thing became void.

SIR H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to follow the precedent he had made in making these concessions, and to follow the Clause which the then Government was compelled to insert in the Act of 1894. That Clause was perfectly just and fair, and its meaning was perfectly intelligible. The words were "provided that the County Council may, on a request made by resolution of an urban district council, passed by two-thirds of the members voting on the resolution." That seemed to him to afford all the precaution that was needed.

SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)

thought that there should be at least two-thirds of the council present to deal with any question which might arise. He was of opinion that the suggestion of the Government was the best solution which could be arrived at.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 117.—(Division List No. 120.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Bolitho, Thomas Bedford Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D.
Allsopp, Hon. George Bond, Edward Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Cox, Irwin Edward B.(Harrow)
Arrol, Sir William Bousfield, William Robert Cranborne, Viscount
Ascroft, Robert Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex) Cripps, Charles Alfred
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Brassey, Albert Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Bailey, James (Walworth) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Curzon, Viscount
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) Brown, Alexander A. Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh
Baird, John George Alexander Burdett-Coutts, W. Dalkeith, Earl of
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Butcher, John George Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.) Doughty, George
Banbury, Frederick George Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Barnes, Fredk. Gorell [(Hunts') Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith- Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Bartley, George C. T. Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Fardell, Sir T. George
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Chelsea, Viscount Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane'
Beach, W.W. Bramston (Hants Coddington, Sir William Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Coghill, Douglas Harry Fisher, William Hayes
Beresford, Lord Charles Cohen, Benjamin Louis FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Bethell, Commander Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.
Bill, Charles Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Fletcher, Sir Henry Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Flower, Ernest Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Round, James
Folkestone, Viscount Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Fry, Lewis Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Galloway, William Johnson Lowe, Francis William Seely, Charles Hilton
Garfit, William Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John Seton-Karr, Henry
Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lond Lucas-Shadwell, William Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Macartney, W. G. Ellison Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Gilliat, John Saunders MacIver, David (Liverpool) Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Malcolm, Ian Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Maple, Sir John Blundell Spencer, Ernest
Graham, Henry Robert Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Gunter, Colonel Melville, Beresford Valentine Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M. Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hardy, Laurence Milward, Colonel Victor Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Haslett, Sir James Horner Monk, Charles James Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Ox. Univ.
Heath, James Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. Thorburn, Walter
Heaton, John Henniker Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Helder, Augustus Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hickman, Sir Alfred More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Usborne, Thomas
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Morrison, Walter Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Hornby, Sir William Henry Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Howard, Joseph Mount, William George Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Howell, William Tudor Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Webster, Sir R.E.(Isle of Wight
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Myers, William Henry Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Hudson, George Bickersteth Newark, Viscount Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hughes, Colonel Edwin Newdigate, Francis Alexander Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) Williams, Joseph Powell(Birm)
Johnston, William (Belfast) Pender, Sir James Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Percy, Earl Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Wodehouse, Rt Hon E.R.(Bath)
Kenyon, James Pierpoint, Robert Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Pilkington, Richard Wyndham, George
Kimber, Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Knowles, Lees Purvis, Robert Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Lafone, Alfred Rankin, Sir James Younger, William
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Rentoul, James Alexander
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Richards, Henry Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Leighton, Stanley Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Sir William Walrond and
Llewellyn, Evan H.(Somerset) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Allen, W. (Newe. under Lyme) Dunn, Sir William Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)
Allison, Robert Andrew Ellis, John Edward Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth
Asher, Alexander Farquharson, Dr. Robert Labouchere, Henry
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Fenwick, Charles Lambert, George
Baker, Sir John Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumber.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair(Claek. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Leng, Sir John
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lewis, John Herbert
Billson, Alfred Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. J. Lloyd-George, David
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Goddard, Daniel Ford Lough, Thomas
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gold, Charles Macaleese, Daniel
Buxton, Sydney Charles Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Caldwell, James Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) M'Ghee, Richard
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Kenna, Reginald
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Haldane, Richard Burton M'Leod, John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Maddison, Fred.
Causton, Richard Knight Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Maden, John Henry
Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.) Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Clough, Walter Owen Horniman, Frederick J. Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)
Crombie, John William Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)
Daly, James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)
Dillon, John Jacoby, James Alfred Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Doogan, P. C. Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)
Moulton, John Fletcher Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Ure, Alexander
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Robson, William Snowdon Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Wedderburn, Sir William
Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Weir, James Galloway
Palmer, George Wm. (Reading) Souttar, Robinson Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Paulton, James Mellor Spicer, Albert Wills, Sir William Henry
Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Perks, Robert William Steadman, William Charles Wilson, John (Govan)
Philipps, John Wynford Strachey, Edward Wilson, Jos. H.(Middlesbrough
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) Woods, Samuel
Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Tennant, Harold John Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Reckitt, Harold James Thomas, Alfred (Glamorg. E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr) Mr. James Stuart and Capt.
Rickett, J. Compton Trevelyan, Charles Phillips Sinclair.

Words, as amended, added.

MR. TREVELYAN (York, W. R., Elland)

proposed to add to the Clause:— Provided that any person possessing the necessary qualification for the election as a member of one of the metropolitan borough councils shall be qualified to be elected either as councillor, alderman, or mayor of any borough council within the administrative county of London. He said that he moved the Amendment, which received the support of a great many people outside the House, in the hope that the Government would accept it. The Bill as it stood would exclude many men who would make most desirabl members of the new councils, and whose interests were or might have been largely concerned with the borough, who lived outside the boundaries of the borough. Another class of men was that class who had lived and spent the greater part of their lives in the borough, but who after having made their wealth would move to another part altogether, and thus disqualify themselves from acting as councillors in the district where they had spent their lives. Everybody agreed that it would be a very great loss if that class of men were disqualified. With regard to the other side of the Amendment, there were frequently men coming from the outside of the borough who possessed very great knowledge of the different districts, who under present circumstances would be disqualified as the Bill now stood which would be a very unfortunate thing for the borough. It was to include persons interested in the borough, whether they reside inside or outside the boundaries, that he moved his Amendment, and his object in this Amendment was to provide that they should be eligible for election as members of the councils.

Amendment proposed— After the words last added, to add the words, 'Provided also that any person possessing the necessary qualification for election as a member of one of the metropolitan borough councils shall be qualified to be elected either as councillor, alderman, or mayor of any borough council within the administrative county of London."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Question proposed— That those words be there added.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think there is something in what the honourable Member says and in the principle he advocates, but I think the Amendment carries that principle a great deal too far. The local element would, in my opinion, be deprived of its proper position if we adopted so sweeping a proposition as that now made. I shall be prepared, however, so far to meet the honourable Member's views as to suggest that, if the councils desire it, they may go outside their own district for aldermen. But that point will, perhaps, be better raised on an Amendment which stands lower down the upon the Paper in the name of the honourable Member for Chelsea.

MR. STEADMAN (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

said this was an Amendment which he sincerely hoped the Government would not accept, because the dignity and personnel of the council were at stake. It assumed that there were not enough men in the locality to form a council, and that therefore there was a power to elect from outside the borough. He believed that an Amendment had been carried which precluded aldermen being co-opted from outside the district. He regarded the Amendment as a direct insult to hundreds of men who had given the best years of their life to administrative work in London, and therefore he trusted the First Lord of the Treasury would not accept it.

* MR. MARKS

ventured to submit that the adoption of this Amendment in the Bill would have the effect of qualifying every resident in London to sit on any London borough council, and it would defeat one of the main objects of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced it was stated that one of the chief features was to give additional dignity to municipal life in London and attract to the service of the proposed municipal boroughs a class of men which had not been attracted previously to the service. It was admitted that there was great room for improvement in the service of parochial institutions, but the principal safeguard for the proper discharge of the duties of those institutions was surely to be found in responsibility to and dependence upon the consideration of the people among whom they lived of the men who sat on the borough councils. The welfare of each district should engage the attention of the best men resident in it. No one with any knowledge of local government could doubt that the proper discharge of local duties was best attained by those of intimate local knowledge. The proposed new boroughs would have power to levy rates amounting to two and a half millions a year—a considerably larger sum than either the County Council or the School Board—and power to spend their own funds, and those who had to vote upon the raising of the rates should be people who had to share the burden of the rates when levied. He thought that every alderman should be resident in the ward he represented. No doubt there would be some desire to turn a borough to political use, and it might be easy to have a sort of flying squadron to facilitate matters, but it would not add to municipal dignity if these boroughs were turned into miniature County Councils, and so into ante-chambers for the discussion of party politics and the promotion of partizan interests. If people were to be brought into a borough from east, west, north, and south, it might be taken for granted that they would be attracted not so much by local interest, as by the wider political interests which they would desire to serve.

MR. J. SAMUEL (Stockton)

desired to oppose the Amendment, and expressed surprise that it was moved from the quarter whence it came. What right had a man to become councillor, alderman, and mayor, without having a rating qualification in the district he represented? So far as the provincial municipalities were concerned, the honourable Member showed that if a man was an occupier and lived within seven miles of a borough he was eligible to be mayor, alderman, or councillor, but if he lived beyond seven but within fifteen miles of the borough, Section 10 of the Municipal Corporations Act provided that to be qualified to be mayor, alderman, or councillor, he must be rated at £50 to the poor, if the town had four or more wards, but if it had four wards only he must be rated at £15 or possess real or personal estate to the value of £500. He protested against the Amendment, and thought it would be an insult to the new municipal boroughs in London if men from outside were allowed to vote away the ratepayers' money who had no share in the burden of the rates in those boroughs.

CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed. There were many arguments against it. It would be possible under such an Amendment for any number of people to go from one district to another and sweep out municipal government altogether. The man living in the locality would not be able to give voice to the aspirations of the persons among whom he lived. He thought the fundamental principles of the Bill would be undermined if the Amendment was allowed to pass.

MR. STUART

said he agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury on this subject.

MR. TREVELYAN

said he had brought forward the Amendment because many outside the House shared his opinions on the subject. He was surprised that he had not received more support from his own side, because he thought it was one of the principles of democracy that the people should choose whom they wished, provided they got the best men. Under the circumstances, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

asked, upon a point of order, whether, if all the Amendments were negatived, it would cut out all discussion on aldermen?

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea) moved to omit the words, "either as borough councillors" in order that the "aldermen" might be left for discussion. He was opposed to persons from outside the proposed municipal areas being elected as councillors. It was said that such a suggestion was an insult to the borough councillors, but in his opinion the insult was given by those who imputed such foolishness to the boroughs, as that they would elect these young bloods, who it was suggested would come down and carry the council by storm. But when he wished to hear scorn poured upon a democratic body he always went to a democrat. He saw no reason why the boroughs should elect men from outside, though there were good reasons why aldermen should be chosen. The only object the local authority would have in exercising the power would be to have the assistance of a man whose knowledge, experience, and ability would add strength and efficiency to local administration. In many districts there were men who were not qualified as voters who had devoted much time to district affairs, and no doubt they might be co-opted as aldermen. Then again there was the tradesman who had made money in his district, and who had been identified with the progress of the district, and served upon the Vestry, and who retired and went and lived in the suburbs. He retained his interest in his old borough and his years of experience in municipal work. There were many cases of that kind where such a man would be most useful on the council of the borough. If he thought for a moment that the Amendment could have the effect which some gentlemen imputed to it he should oppose it, but he thought its operation would be entirely different.

Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "either as councillor" and the words" or mayor.

Question proposed— That the words 'Provided also, that any person possessing the necessary qualification for election as a Member of one of the metropolitan borough councils shall be qualified to be elected alderman of any borough council within the administrative county of London' be there added.

MR. STUART

did not think the discussion turned upon the meaning of the words "as councillor," but really what the result would be of extending this privilege to "aldermen and mayors." Every argument which had been used in favour of extending the privilege told more extensively the other way. There were men in different parts of London who were anxious to act on the councils of one of the new boroughs, and it was open to anybody to select them. The question was whether it should be open to the general body of electors to select them. He was against the wider view that was now suggested. What was the ground for letting certain persons have any qualification at all in connection with local or general work? A Member of Parliament was required to be a man with a stake in the county, and in the County Council a man was required who had a stake in the county. The only great exception to the otherwise universal rule of qualification was in the election to the School Board. For the School Board there is no qualification necessary at all, though that Board at the same time levies taxes and deals with local interests. The honourable Member was unable to say why that alteration was made, but he thought that in all probability it was felt in that case it was desirable to sweep into the School Board expert opinion. That being the case, he did not see the desirability of breaking through the established rule in this particular instance without some very good ground for it, though there was a great deal of truth in the suggestion that a man interested in London as a whole was interested in all parts of it. London as a whole is governed by a central body, but in each of the boroughs, so far as they are boroughs, the men who had to govern them were only interested in that particular locality. The rates which they had to deal with are the remainder after the general rate for general purposes, and therefore it was a matter for them alone. He could quite understand those who argued that there should be no qualification for the borough councillors and aldermen, although he did not agree with them. But when it was suggested that they should be ratepayers of London as a whole, that was a thing he was unable to understand. It was unnecessary to labour the point, as the arguments were so well known. On the other hand there was the confidence in the Local Government body to be considered. By these elections there might be people elected who were not interested in the borough, and as representatives of the borough they might not get its support, because they would not have its confidence. If this non-representative element was brought in, the Committee would have to remember that it was brought in for six years, and that in placing these men on these councils the councils would be deprived of confidence to which they were entitled. He believed that the grand success of this Bill depended upon not introducing any foreign element in the sense that was proposed. He should give his vote against the extension of the principle.

MR. GOULDING (Wiltshire, Devizes)

, said that he thought the object of the Bill was to create greater interest in localities and to strengthen the Local Government body, and he considered the Amendment before the Committee would rob it of anything that could be said in its favour. He himself should oppose the Amendment, and he should have thought that the experience of his honourable friend as a member of the London County Council would have shown him that the majority of that body selected their own aldermen, and that in nine-tenths of the cases they had been mainly selected on political grounds. Exactly the same thing would happen in the East-end of London. Even if these emissaries did come from the Fabian Society and Toynbee Hall and other places—they would not be elected. He had confidence in the working-men, and he was certain that the introduction of these emissaries from other districts would be viewed as an insult by the constituencies.

MR. BARTLEY

thought that London was in many respects so different from other places that it was going absurdly strictly into the matter to say that only those who resided in that district should be aldermen for the borough of that district. It was not necessary for an alderman to live in his borough, and as London was subject to a different law to the provincial boroughs, he did not think the rule should be so rigidly enforced. He instanced the case of a street dividing a borough, and characterised it as absurd to say that a man living on one side of the street was entitled to be an alderman while a man residing upon the other was not. He thought it was rather a strong order to suggest that any council having already sixty men would turn their attention to selecting all the most unreasonable people they could find as aldermen. He did not think that the privilege would be much used in any case, but at all events he favoured giving the council a right to select their aldermen from where they pleased, and if they did happen to select gentlemen coming from Toynbee Hall and other places, it might not be so bad a thing for the council after all.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

was indisposed to yield to the vague terror which seemed to have seized Members on both sides in connection with this Amendment. Why fears should prevail that outside candidates would enter the councils in the form of representatives of the Fabian Society, the Primrose League, or of a large contractor, he did not know. They must trust to the good sense of the constituencies to make the most suitable selections. He was in favour of the Amendment. He wished to see the power of selection applied to the best advantage, and to provide that the best talent would be available, from whatever part of London it came.

MR. H. S. SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

opposed the Amendment, because he firmly believed that if London was divided into a series of boroughs, it was very desirable to inculcate local feeling in the borough so far as possible, otherwise the Bill would be absolutely useless. He thought that aldermen should be qualified by rating for the district in which they sat, and under the circumstances it would be ridiculous to allow an alderman to be elected who was not so qualified. He sincerely trusted that the First Lord of the Treasury would not accept the Amendment, which was subversive of everything that the Bill aimed at bringing about. That was the view that he believed was held by a great number of the poorer classes.

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

expressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. He did not think there would be any temptation to select unduly people who did not reside in the locality; on the contrary, he thought the temptation was the other way, and that only when the candidate was very strong indeed, would he be selected in preference to a local man. He thought that councils should be allowed to elect from as wide a field as possible in order to obtain the services of the best men. In asking himself what was the true underlying motive for much of the disapproval that was felt towards the Amendment, he could not help coming to the conclusion that there was a certain jealousy of these new bodies on the other side of the House, and that some honourable Members were unwilling to accept any Amendment which would induce good men to serve. If they were satisfied that better people would come from the other parts of London to be aldermen or councillors, they ought to give the electoral bodies the fullest freedom to select them with a single eye for the good government of their respective districts.

CAPTAIN NORTON

said that if the argument of the noble Lord were worth anything, any men resident in the United Kingdom, not merely in London, should be admissible. Why should not those who happened to reside at Richmond or West Ham be able to take part in the local government of other portions of London? An honourable Member had asked why they had any fears. They had fears because they had in London great knowledge of wire-pulling. There were a large number of men who in certain localities were so well known that they were able to obtain municipal honours. They had not the confidence of their neighbours, but having wealth at their disposal, they could, with comparative ease, succeed, although unsuited for local government, in planting themselves upon the poorer constituencies in the East End. It was a remarkable fact that almost every Member who had spoken, who hailed from the East End or represented a poor constituency, had been definitely against the Amendment. He regarded that as one of the strongest arguments against it. If the object of the Bill was to interest localities in local government, it was only proper and right that those who belonged to them should have the honours and dignities attached to the successful performance of the duties.

* MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

said the argument that a man should not be disqualified because he lived on the further side of the road, along the centre of which the borough boundary ran, was very easily disposed of. If he were so disqualified he would not contribute to the rates of the district over which he might be called to legislate. He hoped they would exclude from the representation of the borough councils anybody who had not a direct interest in the boroughs themselves, and who might have an interest in voting for expenditure to which he did not contribute.

* MR. MARKS

said that if it were a good thing that they should elect for the borough councils members from London at large, they could hardly have too much of it, and the rule should apply to councillors, aldermen and mayors. The success of experimental legislation must depend in a very large measure upon the spirit in which it was taken up by the people whom it most directly concerned. After what had taken place in Committee, those who composed the borough councils would be justified in saying: "In the opinion of the House of Commons there is no reason why we should go outside our boundaries to find councillors. We are good enough to serve in the ranks; but when it comes to the question of appointing officers, when it comes to the question of the dignities, when it comes to the question of distributing the plums, then these things will not be for us in the limits of the borough, but for those great and good men who came from the west, or the south, or the north." If the Committee had practically decided that it was not a good thing to go outside the boundaries of a borough for councillors, but that it was a good thing to go outside for the one-sixth who would constitute the aldermen, a very peculiar position was created, because that one-sixth in a large number of cases, if not in the majority of cases, would hold the balance of power on the Council, and vital questions affecting the locality, which would come up for decision before those Councils, would depend upon the ultimate judgment, not of the members who represented the localities, but of the imported carpet-baggers from other parts of the Metropolis. When it was remembered that the county councils had to levy rates, that they had to vote upon various questions of local importance, and that many questions would arise as to the apportionment of the cost of improvement between one council and another—and frequently between adjoining districts, the difficulties were numerous and considerable. It was perfectly true that there might be a good many more competent men residing in one part of London than another, but where these men were really competent, where they really desired to serve on these borough bodies, they would be wanted in their own constituencies. He could not help thinking that the acceptance of the Amendment would have the result of suggesting—whether rightly or wrongly he would not stop to inquire—that it was not intended to give to these new municipalities the full advantages of the enhanced dignity which had been claimed for them, but that these were to be reserved for the inhabitants of the more wealthy and distinguished parts of London.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have listened with some interest, but I must confess with some surprise also, to the Debate. My inclinations are rather in favour of the Amendment, but whether I am right or wrong I cannot understand the subject being made one of heated disputation. Honourable Members on both sides of the House, I think, have talked as if the poorer constituencies of the Metropolis would regard this as a slight deliberately planned by the Government and inflicted by the House upon them. Well, Sir, I need hardly say that if this Amendment were carried, that would not represent either the intentions of the Government or of the House of Commons. I do not believe that in one case out of 100 these constituencies would think of going outside their own area to find assistance. The intention of the Bill is undoubtedly to confer a greater dignity upon these local bodies, and one method of doing that is to create the office of aldermen, which may form the object of local ambition. That, I am sure, will be the view taken by the borough councils, and there will, therefore, be no temptation to go outside their own numbers, except in those very rare cases where an individual has, for some special reason, made himself a persona grata in the locality. We have, I think, the strongest confirmation of that view in the action of the borough councils in the provinces. I doubt whether half a dozen cases could be produced of aldermen in the provincial councils.

MR. H. S. SAMUEL

They must have a rating qualification.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The point is whether the Council, once elected, are to go outside their own members for aldermen.

MR. H. S. SAMUEL

They do so. I can give several cases, one of which is that of the honourable Member for South-east Durham, who has served as councillor before.

MR. A. J. BALFOUE

Then the honourable Member, broadly speaking, agrees with me. I do not see why the London borough councils should be different from provincial borough councils. I think they should be exactly the same. The operation of this Amendment, if carried, will be very insignificant. But, of course, after the strong expression of opinion from the Members for East London on both sides of the House, I shall not make a Government question of the Amendment. Personally I retain my predilection for the elasticity which the Amendment would give.

SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE

said he was glad the Government were not going to make this a party question. He felt it was the greatest possible mistake for councils to go outside their own body for aldermen, as it encouraged party politics inside the chamber, and did not lead to the selection of the best men.

* COLONEL HUGHES

believed that the substance of the Amendment was already embodied in the Bill, for under the London Government Act of 1888 there was power given to elect aldermen from any part of the County of London and from outside the county, provided they were freeholders. That provision was carried into this Bill in Section 2, Sub-section 3.

MR. R.G. WEBSTER

pointed out that if aldermen could be elected from all over London it was to a body which had to deal with the whole of London, whereas now they were dealing with the constitution of purely local bodies. Ten aldermen were to be elected for St. Pancras, and he protested strongly against their being chosen from outside St. Pancras, as there were plenty of suitable men in the constituency. He could understand very well the position taken up by his honourable friend the Member for Chelsea. He had the honour of being an alderman of the London County Council, and was one of those gentlemen who wished to rule the whole of London. He did not think it would be in the interest of local self-government to make the selection from outside.

MR. GODDARD (Ipswich)

said that no doubt there were many cases in which provincial municipal boroughs had elected aldermen from outside the council. In Ipswich he could recall many instances. But was there not a great difference between that case and the case of London? Gentlemen elected as aldermen in municipal boroughs had certain qualifications locally, and there would not be the same objection to a similar system applying in London if the aldermen selected resided in the district included in the borough. But the amendment would enable them to be chosen from any part of London to sit in any particular borough council, and that was where the injustice came in. The First Lord of the Treasury had somewhat complained that the argument on the point had been heated, but he seemed not to know how people objected to have their local influence over-ridden by gentlemen from outside.

MR. HUBBARD (Lambeth, Brixton)

, said he thought the opposition to the Amendment was founded on a fallacy. The honourable Member for East St. Pancras expressed a fear that ten gentlemen from Chelsea would go down to his constituency to manage local affairs there. But he overlooked the fact that if they did go it would be not at their own wish but at the request of the council. Every Member who had spoken against the Amendment had argued as if it were proposed to take away from the borough councils the power of choosing the aldermen, and he did protest against what was an actual privilege being interpreted as a

slight and indignity on the Council. It was only giving the freest expression and liberty to that democratic choice which every council should possess. Suppose a council went outside its own body and selected the right honourable Baronet the Member for the University of London as an alderman, would he not be a source of strength to the council?

MR. H. S. SAMUEL

hoped honourable Members from the East End of London would fight this question as a matter of principle. The law, so far as London municipal councils was concerned, was quite different from that affecting provincial councils. In this matter they ought to be guided by the Law Officers of the Crown. As had been pointed out, sub-section B of section 10 of the Municipal Corporations Act required that anyone elected as an alderman should possess certain rating or occupying qualifications in the borough, and surely no man who had not such a qualification ought to be allowed to sit on a council and spend the ratepayers' money. Yet that was what this Amendment proposed. He hoped the Committee by its vote would affirm the principle he had cited from the Municipal Corporations Act.

MR. COHEN

said the Amendment gave the borough councils exactly the same facility as that which the right honourable Gentleman proposed to give honourable Members in voting upon it—full liberty of action. Honourable Gentlemen opposite who were members of the London County Council had in the past shown their readiness to avail themselves of this power of electing aldermen from outside the council.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes, 221. (Division List, No. 121.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Barton, Dunbar Plunket Buxton, Sydney Charles
Anstruther, H. T. Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-
Arnold, Alfred Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)
Arrol, Sir William Beresford, Lord Charles Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bond, Edward Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Baird, John George Alexander Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds Brassey, Albert Charrington, Spencer
Banbury, Frederick George Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Clarke, Sir Edward(Plymouth)
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Bryce, Rt. Hn. James Coddington, Sir William
Bartley, George C. T. Butcher, John George Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hudson, George Bickersteth Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Hughes, Colonel Edwin Priestley, Sir W.O.(Edinburgh
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Rankin, Sir James
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thompson
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D. Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cranborne, Viscount Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Round, James
Cripps, Charles Alfred Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Donkin, Richard Sim Keswick, William Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.
Doughty, George Knowles, Lees Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lafone, Alfred Spencer, Ernest
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Fisher, William Hayes Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lowe, Francis William Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)
Folkestone, Viscount Macartney, W. G. Ellison Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Garfit, William MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lon. Maclure, Sir John William Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Gilliat, John Saunders Malcolm, Ian Wanklyn, James Leslie
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Middlemore, John Throgmort. Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. (Kent)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Monckton, Edward Philip Warr, Augustus Frederick
Graham, Henry Robert Monk, Charles James Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Gunter, Colonel Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Haldane, Richard Burdon Mount, William George Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath) Wylie, Alexander
Hardy, Laurence Myers, William Henry Wyndham, George
Haslett, Sir James Horner Newark, Viscount Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford Young, Commandr (Berks, E.)
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Hornby, Sir William Henry Penn, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitmore and Mr. W. F. D. Smith.
Howard, Joseph Philipps, John Wynford
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
NOES.
Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir. Forster, Henry William
Allan, William (Gateshead) Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc. Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Allen, W.(Newc. under Lyme) Channing, Francis Allston Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.
Allison, Robert Andrew Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh) Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Allsopp, Hon. George Clough, Walter Owen Galloway, William Johnson
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)
Ascroft, Robert Coghill, Douglas Harry Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.
Asher, Alexander Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Goddard, Daniel Ford
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Godson, Sir Augustus F.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Compton, Lord Alwyne Gold, Charles
Bailey, James (Walworth) Crombie, John William Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bainbridge, Emerson Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley
Baker, Sir John Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)
Balcarres, Lord Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Gurdon, Sir William Brampton
Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair(Clack. Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Hanson, Sir Reginald
Barlow, John Emmott Currie, Sir Donald Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Barnes, Frederic G. [Hunts Curzon, Viscount Heaton, John Henniker
Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Helder, Augustus
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Dalkeith, Earl of Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Daly, James Hickman, Sir Alfred
Beckett, Ernest William Dalziel, James Henry Hoare, Ed. Brodie(Hampstead
Bethell, Commander Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)
Billson, Alfred Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Horniman, Frederick John
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Dillon, John Howell, William Tudor
Bousfield, William Robert Donelan, Captain A. Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex Doogan, P. C. Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Dunn, Sir William Kearley, Hudson E.
Burns, John Egerton, Hon. A. de Tattoe Kemp, George
Caldwell, James Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Kenyon, James
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow Ellis, John Edward Kimber, Henry
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Farquharson, Dr. Robert King, Sir Henry Seymour
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth
Causton, Richard Knight Fenwick, Charles Lambert, George
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man. Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Newdigate, Francis Alexander Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land Nicol, Donald Ninian Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Leng, Sir John Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Lewis, John Herbert Nussey, Thomas Willans Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Steadman, William Charles
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Stephens, Henry Charles
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) O'Malley, William Stone, Sir Benjamin
Lough, Thomas Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham Strachey, Edward
Lucas-Shadwell, William Palmer, George W. (Reading) Strauss, Arthur
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Paulton, James Mellor Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Macaleese, Daniel Pearson, Sir Weetman D. Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Macdona, John Cumming Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington) Tennant, Harold John
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Pease, Joseph A.(Northumb.) Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall Pender, Sir James Thorburn, Walter
M'Ghee, Richard Percy, Earl Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin. W.) Perks, Robert William Wallace, Robert (Perth)
M'Kenna, Reginald Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Pilkington, Richard Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
M'Leod, John Power, Patrick Joseph Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Maddison, Fred. Price, Robert John Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Maple, Sir John Blundell Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight
Martin, Richard Biddulph Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Wedderburn, Sir William
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Purvis, Robert Weir, James Galloway
Melville, Beresford Valentine Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Reckitt, Harold James Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. Jn. Rickett, J. Compton Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Milward, Colonel Victor Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wills, Sir William Henry
Molloy, Bernard Charles Robson, William Snowdon Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Moore, Arthur (Londonderry) Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse) Wilson, John (Govan)
Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.
More, Robt, Jasper(Shropshire) Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, Jos. H.(Middlesbrough
Morley, Charles(Breconshire) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Woods, Samuel
Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose) Seely, Charles Hilton Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd) Seton-Karr, Henry Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire Yoxall, James Henry
Moss, Samuel Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Moulton, John Fletcher Souttar, Robinson TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Marks and Mr. Goulding.
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Spicer, Albert
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR

said the next Amendment which stood in his name was to insert words providing that the poll should be kept open until 10 o'clock at night. He held that this extension was necessary to meet the needs of classes who had to go long distances to work and to return again at night. Many of the working classes did not leave work till seven at night, and they had the greatest difficulty in getting to the poll by eight o'clock.

Amendment proposed, after the words last added, to add the words— Provided that at every election of councillors under this Act the poll (if any) shall commence at eight o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open till ten o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and no longer,"—(Captain Sinclair.)

Question proposed— That those words be there added.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. No doubt there was a precedent for it in the case of the election of guardians in London, where, by order of the County Council, the hours could be extended, but the present arrangement had hitherto worked satisfactorily, and as it was in accordance with the general law he thought it should be maintained.

MR. STUART

supported the Amendment, on the ground that many working men had to leave their homes before the poll opened and could not get back by 8 p.m. The polling booths were always very crowded during the last hour. He had made careful inquiry in the district with which he was more particularly connected, and he had found that the extension would benefit both political parties equally. He understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to create a larger amount of interest in the elections, and he believed that the Amendment would enable large numbers to vote who were now excluded by the closing of the poll at 8 p.m.

* MR. SPICER (Monmouth Boroughs)

said that as one who had lived in London all his life, and knew something of the conditions of the employment of the people, he was convinced that if the closing hour remained at 8 p.m. a large number of clerks and shop assistants would be disfranchised. No doubt daily work commenced later in London than in the country, but it also ended later, and hence it was desirable to keep the poll open till 10 p.m.

MR. BARTLEY

believed that however late the poll was kept open a certain number of people would refrain from voting until the last moment. It should be remembered that they had a staff of clerks engaged in the polling booths from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and it would be very hard on them to make them work 14 hours. In Parliamentary elections, in which the poll closed at 8 p.m., 90 per cent. of the electors registered their votes, and the same percentage ought in municipal elections to record their votes in the same hours.

MR. SOAMES (Norfolk, S.)

said he should be surprised to hear of any place in which 90 per cent. of the electors polled.

MR. BARTLEY

In some Parliamentary divisions in London we certainly get 90 per cent.

MR. SOAMES

said he should like to see the figures. It was all very well to argue that it would be unfair to the polling clerks to make them work more than 12 hours a day; but how about the working men who had to do it every day? If they asked these men's wives they would be told, "My husband leaves home before eight in the morning and will not be back till after eight at night." He submitted it was absolutely necessary to extend the hours, and he hoped that under the circumstances the Leader of the House would leave his followers free to vote as they liked.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said the matter was an important one, and could not be dismissed in the cavalier manner which the honourable Member for Islington had adopted. He certainly should like to know of any Parliamentary division in which 90 per cent. of the electors polled. It assuredly was not the case in the East End of Loudon, where hundreds were simply disfranchised by the early hours of closing the poll. He thought they were entitled to something more than the perfunctory reply given by the Solicitor-General. London was a city by itself, and country precedents could not be applied to it.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

declared that though, no doubt, skilled and unskilled labourers might be able to vote between five and eight o'clock, there were thousands of clerks, warehousemen, and railway employees working many miles from home who did not leave work till 7 p.m. They were the ones who were disfranchised. He knew that in his own district at Clapham and Brixton hundreds were unable to vote in the School Board and Country Council elections because they did not leave their work in the City until after 7 o'clock. He hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury would agree to extend the hour to 10 o'clock, or at least to 9.

MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

thought that the balance of argument was very strongly in favour of an Amendment in the sense of that moved by his honourable and gallant friend. This was, admittedly, not in any sense a party matter, and he could not help hoping, therefore, that the Government would make some response to the appeal addressed to them. It was impossible in this case to ignore the fact that London had been already treated as a place which required exceptional legislation in matters of this kind. If there had been a uniform rule as regards the hours of poll, then he would admit that there might be a prima facie objection to the change. The conditions of London labour were exceptional, and required exceptional legislation to enable large numbers of people to exercise the vote. He could not see any ground, either of principle or expediency, for preventing the extension of exceptional treatment to London on this question.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said this was not a party matter at all Many Members on his side of the House would regret that it should go forth to London that a party division was taken as to whether the poll should be kept open an hour or two longer. In fixing the hours of polling regard should be had to the convenience of the large majority of voters. The convenience of the large majority differed in different parts of London, and he ventured to suggest as a compromise that it should be left as a matter of local option, having regard to the circumstances of the particular locality, to extend the hour to 9 o'clock. He represented a portion of London where a large number of working men could not get home in time to vote before 8 o'clock, and the extra hour would enable an increased number to record their votes over those who did so at present. He agreed with the Government that 8 o'clock should be the normal hour, and he thought that 10 went too far in the other direction.

CAPTAIN NORTON

most heartily supported the Amendment of his honourable and gallant friend, because that gentleman had considerable knowledge of the subject, not only in connection with the London County Council, but with philanthropic movements in the East End. He himself had had considerable experience as to the hours when working men returned to their homes at night, and he could say that to fix the close of the poll at 8 o'clock would be to disfranchise a large proportion of working men. Further, when the elections took place in the summer months a large proportion were disfranchised because they had to go to their work outside the radius of London. Honourable Members had pleaded against the Amendment that it would cause the staff to be employed two hours extra, but the staff might very well work an hour later when they were highly paid for it. The same honourable Gentlemen had spoken of 90 per cent. of the voters in London going to the poll. This was preposterous. The highest percentage was in Woolwich, where 72 per cent. voted, but that was at a Parliamentary election, and the voters were resident on the spot. In other parts of London, even in Parliamentary elections, it depended frequently on whether a man succeeded in catching a 'bus, a tram, or a train as to whether he would be able to vote or not. If the object of the Bill was to create an interest in local government, surely they ought to provide for bringing as large a number of voters to the poll as possible. With the present hour there was always an unseemly rush of people to the poll at the last moment. Returns in regard to the School Board Elections in one district showed that up to 1 o'clock 210 had voted, at 5 o'clock 397, at 6 o'clock 456, at 7 o'clock 544, at 8 o'clock 820, and at 9 o'clock 926. These figures demonstrated the extreme importance of the extension of the polling. Where the poll had been extended to 9 o'clock there had been nothing approaching riotous proceedings, and even if a very small proportion went to the poll under the influence of liquor, that was no reason why the majority of the constituency should be deprived of their votes.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

said the Committee had forgotten the extent to which London had been treated exceptionally in this matter. Long ago, when Parliamentary elections closed at 4 and 5 o'clock in the rest of the United Kingdom, London had already an 8 o'clock poll. He had personally investigated the subject, and found that even after the hours of polling had been extended to 8 o'clock large numbers were disfranchised. It was also found, after litigation, that those who had got into the polling room could not vote when the hour arrived. So far as he knew, the only reason which had been alleged against the extension of the hour was the work of the clerks. As matters stood it was an exceptional day's work for a highly trained staff. Moreover it was proved that some of the staff were generally employed at the counting, and the counting frequently went on to midnight or 1 o'clock in the morning. If the staff were able to conduct the business of counting after the work they had done in the polling booths, he submitted that this exceptionally trained staff would be quite able to carry on their work at the poll for an hour or two longer.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

asked whether the Solicitor-General or the Leader of the House could give any substantial reasons why the proposed extension should not be made. The only reason he had heard was that it would impose extra work on a few officials. Well, that meant only once in three years, and their convenience ought not to stand in the way of the convenience of the electors.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is quite clear that this is a question on which, from the nature of the case, considerations may be adduced on both sides. It can only be decided on the balance of the argument. So far as the two most important elections in London are concerned, namely, Parliamentary and County Council, Parliament has decided in favour of the poll closing at 8 o'clock, although, no doubt, in the case of the School Board election, the poll was extended to 9 o'clock. In the case of vestries the polling is also from 8 in the morning to 8 at night. It is possible, I do not deny it, that even the twelve hours during which the poll is open may be insufficient, but I would point out to the right honourable Baronet that since the twelve hours' polling has been fixed by Parliament the hours of labour have been considerably diminished. If 8 o'clock was a suitable hour for closing the poll when Parliament last discussed the question, it is still more suitable at the present time, when the fact is taken into account that there has been this diminution in the hours of labour. If the hours are to be changed for London elections, they should be changed for all London after a careful enquiry in regard to all London. I do not think it would be desirable in regard to this Bill to make an exception to the decision which the House deliberately came to with reference to the more important elections.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said the House ought to be well up in the facts. In regard to School Board elections, both parties agreed that the hours should be extended from 8 to 9. That had been done on two occasions, and the result was that from 8 to 9, more voters polled than between 7 and 8. The Boards of Guardians had asked the London County Council to extend the hours from 8 to 10, and this had been done to the great satisfaction both of the electors, and of the candidates of different views. If that could be done with the School Board and the Boards of Guardians, it surely could be done in the case of the new councils, in which even more interest would be taken. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to recognise another fact. The Vestries had frequently changed the election day from an ordinary working day to a Saturday, so as to give a large number of clerks and warehousemen an opportunity of voting. The effect had been to materially increase the number of voters going to the poll. If the First Lord of the Treasury were to declare that henceforth all those elections would take place on Saturday, there would be no reason to extend the hours from 8 to 10. But if he could not do so, then in the face of experience, and the complex conditions of London life, the hours of polling should be extended as proposed in the Amendment.

MR. STEADMAN

appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to grant this moderate concession. The right honourable Gentleman said that the hours of labour had been reduced, and that working men had time to vote in the twelve hours at their disposal. But that applied to a very small section of the working classes. In the East-end of London men were employed in warehouses till 7 in the evening. Many of them were glad to get home, and if after a cup of tea they rushed to the polling-booth, the consequence was the crowd of voters was so great that they could not record their votes. The First Lord of the Treasury himself deplored the apathy in London in regard to elections at the present time. The only way to decrease that apathy was to enable every voter to record his vote. He would like to take the First Lord down to Mile-end on the 17th of this month, where he would find that from 8 o'clock in the morning to 5 in the afternoon the presiding officers and their clerks had nothing to do but to sit and smoke their cigars. If inquiry were made all over London, it would be found that the great majority of the people were in favour of an extension of the polling hours both of Parliamentary and municipal elections.

MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside)

pointed out to the First Lord of the Treasury that the decrease in the hours of labour applied in London in quite a different way from out of London, and he knew from experience of both. In the skilled trades, for instance, a man might be living in Camberwell and working in Woolwich. Warehousemen and clerks also had to leave their homes before 8, and therefore could not vote in the morning; and they returned so late as to be unable to vote even at the last moment. If the right honourable Gentleman could not go the whole length of 10 o'clock, he could assure him that 9 o'clock would make an enormous difference. This was a real grievance, and he assured the First Lord of the Treasury that he was now resisting one of the most reasonable appeals that had been made to him.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said he desired to amend the Amendment by inserting after the word "till," the following words— Eight o'clock, or nine o'clock in the evening, if the Council shall previously so decide. He did not think the Government had realised the importance of this matter, or what it meant to them if they treated the question in this way. If they went solid for eight o'clock the effect would be that an agitation in favour of elections on Saturday would be started, and then instead of the working classes being disfranchised, some of them would be disfranchised. He thought the Government would make a great mistake if they fixed the hour at eight o'clock, because a large number of people in London could not record their votes before that hour.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment— To leave out from the word 'till,' to the end thereof, in order to add the words 'eight o'clock or nine o'clock in the afternoon if the council at a previous meeting shall so decide.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)

Question— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.

Put and agreed to.

Question put,— That the words 'Provided that at every election of councillors under this Act the poll (if any) shall commence at eight o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open till ten o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and no longer' be there added.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 161.—(Division List No. 122.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Griffith, Ellis J. Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Gurdon, Sir William Brampton Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Haldane, Richard Burdon Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Baker, Sir John Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Power, Patrick Joseph
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Rickett, J. Compton
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Horniman, Frederick John Schwann, Charles E.
Burns, John Howard, Joseph Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, William (Carnarvonsh) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Souttar, Robinson
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lambert, George Spicer, Albert
Causton, Richard Knight Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Steadman, William Charles
Channing, Francis Allston Leng, Sir John Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Clough, Walter Owen Lewis, John Herbert Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Crombie, John William Lloyd-George, David Tennant, Harold John
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Lough, Thomas Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr)
Daly, James Macaleese, Daniel Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan M'Ghee, Richard Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Kenna, Reginald Weir, James Galloway
Dillon, John Maddison, Fred Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Donelan, Captain A. Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose) Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Doogan, P. C. Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Fenwick, Charles Moss, Samuel Woods, Samuel
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Norton, Capt. Cecil William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Mr. M'Arthur
NOES.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Barnes, Frederick Gorell Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Arnold, Alfred Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts) Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.
Arrol, Sir William Bartley, George C. T. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.
Ascroft, Robert Barton, Dunbar Plunket Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Bailey, James (Walworth) Beckett, Ernest William Charrington, Spencer
Baird, John George Alexander Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth
Balcarres, Lord Big wood, James Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r Bond, Ed ward Coddington, Sir William
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John Coghill, Douglas Harry
Banbury, Frederick George Burdett-Coutes, W. Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hudson, George Bickersteth Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hughes, Colonel Edwin Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsey
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Penn, John
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D. Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Percy, Earl
Cranborne, Viscount Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Pilkington, Richard
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Kemp, George Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Curzon, Viscount Kenyon, James Purvis, Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of Keswick, William Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kimber, Henry Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Donkin, Richard Sim King, Sir Henry Seymour Round, James
Doughty, George Lafone, Alfred Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn Seely, Charles Hilton
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert. V Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Lock wood, Lt-Col. A. R. Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fisher, William Hayes Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lowe, Francis William Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Folkestone, Viscount Lucas-Shadwell, William Stone, Sir Benjamin
Forster, Henry William Macartney, W. G. Ellison Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Macdona, John Cumming Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Galloway, William Johnson MacIver, David (Liverpool) Thorburn, Walter
Garfit, William Maclure, Sir John William Tritton, Charles Ernest
Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lond. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Gilliat, John Saunders Melville, Beresford Valentine Webster, Sir R. E.(Isle of Wight)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Goldsworthy, Major-General Middlemore John Throgmorton Whiteley, George (Stockport
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Milton, Viscount Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Milward, Colonel Victor Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Monckton, Edward Philip Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Graham, Henry Robert Monk, Charles James Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wylie, Alexander
Haslett, Sir James Horner Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Wyndham, George
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Helder, Augustus Morrell, George Herbert Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Henderson, Alexander Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Hoare, Edw Brodie(Hampstead Mount, William George
Hornby, Sir William Henry Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Howell, William Tudor Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Sir William Walrond and
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Myers, William Henry Mr. Anstruther.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed— That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

MR. PICKERSGILL

drew the attention of the Committee to Sub-section 3, and said it was impossible to determine what it really meant. The Bill was mainly based upon the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and was referred to through the Local Government Act, 1888. Surely the proper course would be to refer directly to the Act and insert the necessary modifications. Some of the provisions applied to the country at large and some to London, and it was difficult to know to which reference was made. With regard to Sub-section 4, it was provided that the law relating to the proceedings of the administrative vestry should apply to the new boroughs. That law was contained in the old Metropolis Local Management Act, which was very antiquated, and certainly not in harmony with the common forms of local government which they had been introducing lately.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

pointed out that the clause as it stood was quite clear and much shorter than it would have been if the provisions of the Act of 1882 had been set out in this clause. With regard to aldermen, he did not think that any doubt could arise, because they had cleared up that point by saying that the number of aldermen was to be one-sixth. As to Sub-section 4, the Government desired to keep intact what related to the constitution and the proceedings of the vestries. The provisions of the Metropolis Management Act were perfectly well understood in the Metropolis, and he thought it would be better to adopt that course instead of trying to draft fresh clauses.

MR. STUART

thought that when their friends outside came to put their heads together to find out what this meant, they would fall into the same difficulties as the Member for Woolwich and himself had fallen into. No one was more intimate with this subject than the hon. Member for Woolwich, who had taken a different view to the Solicitor-General. If the Solicitor-General feared that, by setting this clause out fully, ingenious persons would take advantage of it by putting down Amendments, he would ask him to set the clause out fully when the Bill went up to the House of Lords. He was not pleading that anything unpleasant should be done to the Bill, but he was desirous that it should be made more self-contained, and he hoped the Solicitor-General would take his suggestion into consideration. When he tried to understand this clause he had ten different volumes of statutes before him, and he found that it was necessary to go through them all, before he could manage to probe to the bottom of what it meant.

Clause 2, as amended, added to the Bill.

CAPTAIN NORTON

in moving the next Amendment contended that its importance had been increased on account of the decision of the Committee not to extend the hours of polling. Many of the arguments brought forward against Saturday polling did not apply to London. The stock argument was that it would be highly inconvenient for seaside towns, because Saturday was their busiest day. Their object ought to be to fully ascertain the feeling of the electorate, and to bring the largest possible number to the poll, and the best day to accomplish that was the day on which the majority of the voters had the largest amount of leisure. He would be told that that day was Sunday, and that was the case in most continental places. English people, however, did not desire to have elections on Sunday, and he maintained that the next day upon which the majority of them were most free was Saturday. It had been argued that Saturday would be inconvenient for business men who had to leave for the country, but he thought that they might vote early in the day. It had been said that the working man received his weekly wage on a Saturday, and not infrequently took the opportunity of having a drink, and, consequently, was not in a fit state to go to the poll. That was a very unjust argument towards by far the larger portion of working men.

THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

Nobody has brought forward that argument.

CAPTAIN NORTON

replied that it had been frequently urged that if the elections were held upon a Saturday it was likely to lead to riotous proceedings, which would necessitate a large force of police being brought into certain districts, and that was an unfair imputation against working men as a class.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Hear, hear.

CAPTAIN NORTON

said that large numbers of builders and mechanics had to go out into the country to work, and did not arrive home except on Saturday in sufficient time to go to the poll, and consequently they would be disfranchised unless the poll took place on that day. Not only would this class be debarred from taking part in the election, but as to a very large proportion of the best class of men who influenced their fellow-men, who were active workers, and who generally devoted three or four hours after returning home on Saturday to bring up their mates to the poll, their services would be lost if the poll did not take place on Saturday.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, after the words "held on," to insert the words "the Saturday next following."—(Captain Norton.)

Question proposed— That those words be there inserted.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said it was quite impossible for him to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member had stated that some Member of this House—he did not remember his name—or some orator whose name was lost to history, had stated that Saturday was an improper day, because a good many of the working men of London on that day were incapacitated by drink from going to the poll. All he could say was that he did not believe there was a single Member on this side of the House who ever used that argument. When the hon. Member for West Newington made a suggestion of that kind, he should furnish the name of the hon. Member who made the charge. He hoped the House would remember that this suggestion came from an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House. In reference to Saturday polling, he claimed to know as much about the East End of London and the working classes as the hon. Member opposite, and he was quite satisfied that Saturday was in the populous parts the busiest day of the week. Then there was a large class who ought to be considered, and that was the Jewish population, who would be to a large extent disfranchised by Saturday polling. Under the circumstances he did not think there was any reason whatever for adopting a hard and fast rule that Saturday must be the day.

MR. STUART

thought the arguments of the Attorney-General were rather thin. With regard to the Jews, there were specific arrangements made for them which covered that question. The County Council elections had been taken on Saturday, and there had been no difficulty experienced in that respect. With regard to the preparation of the list of voters the Amendment would give a few days longer. There was no doubt that the generality of the working classes of London had more leisure on Saturday than upon any other day. The Attorney-General had said that he was well acquainted with the East End of London, but perhaps he had not had so much experience of local elections as other Members had had. Unhesitatingly he said that Saturday was freer than any other day, and that was illustrated by the fact that they had had a larger poll generally throughout London on Saturday than upon any other day. As to Saturday being inconvenient for shopkeepers, he would point out that they were not very seriously engaged on Saturday mornings, although they were later in the day. He did not think the Attorney-General had brought any arguments of weight against Saturday polling.

MR. COHEN

said that reference had been made to the members of his own community, but he wished to say that where the requirements of the Jewish community in any way conflicted with those of the general community he should be the very last person to urge that their requirements should prevail. Tolerance had been shown towards the Jewish community by a special arrangement with regard to Saturday, but in spite of this he did not think that Saturday polling could be defended on the plea of convenience for the community at large. There were a great many boroughs who would prefer any day of the week but Saturday, and there were many sections of London where Wednesday or Saturday was an early closing day. He wished to protest against the plea that they could dogmatise generally, and say that Saturday was the best day. He hoped the Government would adhere to their decision upon this point.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said the hon. Member who had just sat down forgot that if the Government had conceded an extension of the polling hours, Saturday would not have been pressed as the alternative which was now proposed. The object of every municipal reformer should be to get the greatest number of persons to the poll to record their votes. He thought exceptional arrangements were requisite for polling in London, for the overwhelming bulk of artisans, both skilled and unskilled, and at least 90 per cent. of the persons who earned under £4 a week had some part of Saturday between two o'clock and eight available for voting. The convenience of the largest number ought to be considered, and Saturday gave a larger number of men better facilities for voting than any other day in the week afforded. If they had the election on Wednesday or Thursday, which were the early closing days, that would only give to a limited class in the neighbourhood a special facility for voting, and that class would be the shopkeepers and their assistants. In Islington and Battersea, shopping did not really begin to any appreciable extent before 12 o'clock on Saturday, and therefore this allowed part of Saturday morning, when the shopkeepers or their assistants could go out for 10 minutes to record their votes. On the ground that he wanted this Bill to create an interest in local life, which could only be done by meeting the wishes of the majority, he should support Saturday as a day on which the shopkeepers and their assistants could vote, and because 90 per cent. of the voters in this big city had a better opportunity of voting on Saturday than upon any other day. The experience of the County Council elections, and those held in connection with vestries and guardians, had proved that on a Saturday they had a larger proportion of voters who went to the poll, and he believed they would stimulate local life and rouse more enthusiasm in every section of the community by fixing Saturday as the polling day.

MR. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said the 90 per cent. of the electorate spoken of as having Saturdays free only represented about 10 per cent. of the ratepaying element. He made a special study of the question at the last County Council election, and he ventured to declare that nine-tenths of the street traders, i.e., costermongers, who had stalls in the streets on Saturdays, as well as the small shopkeepers, were practically disfranchised by Saturday polling. This was surely a question in which the ratepayers' interests ought to be considered, and in constituencies like his own, where the small shopkeepers were most affected by the increase in the rates, it was right that their interests, even if they only represented—which he did not admit—10 per cent, of the electorate, should be considered. He ventured to think that they would not be considered if Saturday polling were made a sine quâ non of the Bill.

CAPTAIN NORTON

said he frankly admitted that in certain districts and in certain trades it might be inconvenient to choose Saturday, but they ought to look at the matter from the point of view of the entire electorate. It had been conclusively proved that Saturday gave the heaviest poll, and if the object of the Bill was to create an interest in local elections, the point required no further argument. He had made special inquiry with regard to the question of the Jews, and was informed that it was of little moment to them, and that the number of Jewish voters throughout London was very small. As regarded the shopkeepers, all the middle class shopkeepers closed their establishments early on Saturday. It was only the small shopkeepers who kept open late at night, but these did not do much business on Saturday morning. It was not until after two in the afternoon that they were busy.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

, as representing what might be called a railway constituency, said he knew that railway men were more busy on Saturday than any other day of the week. There was no doubt a very large number of electors in London who did not want to dawdle around polling booths on Saturday afternoons, but preferred to go into the suburbs, probably to play football at Battersea or Kennington Oval. It was absolutely incorrect to say that the working men of London received their pay on Saturdays. He was informed that nine-tenths of them received their pay on Fridays. Meetings were never held on Saturday afternoons or evenings, for the reason that they could not get the people together. If they could not get them together, how could they get them to the poll? He ventured to think there could not be a worse day for polling than Saturday.

* COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

said he was prepared to admit that more people might go to the poll on Saturday than any other day of the week, but at the same time Saturday was a very inconvenient day for a great number of people, viz.: the women voters and the tradesmen. Others liked to spend their Saturday afternoon as a half-holiday, and to go to football. The advantage, therefore, of fixing the 1st of November was that sometimes the election would come on Saturday and sometimes on Friday, and, in fact, any day of the week, so that they would all have a turn at some time or other. Still, he was prepared to say that the poll would be heavier on Saturdays, not so much because the working men could not vote on any other day, but because on the Saturday afternoon they had an opportunity of turning out and bringing voters to the poll. Whatever day was fixed would be an inconvenience to some class of voters.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 173. (Division List, No. 123.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Goddard, Daniel Ford Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley Moss, Samuel
Austin, Sir John (York hire) Griffiths, Ellis J. O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Baker, Sir John Gurdon, Sir William Brampton Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Bayley, Thomas (Derby-hire) Haldane, Richard Burden Power, Patrick Joseph
Billson, Alfred Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Hogan, James Francis Rickett, J. Compton
Burns, John Horniman, Frederick John Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hughes, Colonel Edwin Schwann, Charles E.
Caldwell, James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Joicey, Sir James Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Spicer, Albert
Causton, Richard Knigh Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth Steadman, William Charles
Channing, Francis Allston Kitson, Sir James Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-h.) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan. E.)
Clough, Walter Owen Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Thomas, David Alfd. (Mefthyr)
Crombie, John William Leng, Sir John Trevelvan, Charles Philips
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Lewis, John Herbert Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, s
Daly, James Lloyd-George, David Weir, James Galloway
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Lough, Thomas Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles Macaleese, Daniel Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Dillon, John M'Arthur, William (Cornwall Wilson, Jos. H.(Mddlsbrough)
Donelan, Captain A. M'Ghee, Richard Woods, Samuel
Doogan, P. C. M'Laren, Charles Benjamin
Fenwick, Charles M'Leod, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Maddison, Fred. Captain Norton and Mr. James Stuart.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt John Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)
NOES.
Allhusen, Augustus Hny. Eden Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Howell, William Tudor
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn
Arnold, Alfred Cruddas, William Donaldson Hudson, George Bickersteth
Arrol, Sir William Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Jebb, Richard Claverhouse
Bailey, James (Walworth) Curzon, Viscount Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Baird, John George Alexander Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Jessel, Captain Herbt. Merton
Balcarres, Lord Dalrymple, Sir Charles Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Denny, Colonel Kemp, George
Balfour, Rt Hon Grld. W.(Leeds Donkin, Richard Sim Kenyon, James
Banbury, Frederick George Doughty, George Keswick, William
Barnes, Frederick Gorell Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kimber, Henry
Barry, R. Hn AH. Smith-(Hunts Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. King, Sir Henry Seymour
Bartley, George C. T. Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Lafone, Alfred
Barton. Dunbar Plunket Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd. Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol Finch, George H. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Beckett, Ernest William Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Fisher, William Hayes Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bigwood, James Flower, Ernest Long, Rt. Hn. Wltr.(Liverpool)
Bond, Edward Folkestone, Viscount Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Bousfield, William Robert Forster, Henry William Lowe, Francis William
Brassey, Albert Foster, Colonel (Lancaster; Lowles, John
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Galloway, William Johnson Lucas-Shadwell, William
Burdett-Coutts. W. Garfit, William Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Cecil, EVelyn (Hertford, East) Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lnd. Macdona, John Cumming
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Gibbs, Hn. Vicary(St. Albans) MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r Gilliat, John Saunders Maclure, Sir-John William
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk Marks, Henry Hananel
Charrington, Spencer Goldsworthy, Major-General Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Melville, Beresford Valentine
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Coddington, Sir William Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton
Coghill, Douglas Harry Goulding, Edward Alfred Milton, Viscount
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gull, Sir Cameron Monckton, Edward Philip
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George Monk, Charles James
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Haslett, Sir James Horner Moon, Edward Robert Paey
Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Helder, Augustus More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D. Henderson, Alexander Morrell, George Herbert
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Hoare, Ed. Brodie(Hampstead) Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford
Cox, Irwin Edwd. B. (Harrow) Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) Mount, William George
Cripps, Charles Alfred Howard, Joseph Murray, R Hn. A. Graham(Bute
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Myers, William Henry Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Newdigate, Francis Alexander Sidebottom, William(Derbysh. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Nicol, Donald Ninian Skewes-Cox, Thomas Williams, Jsph. Powell-(Birm.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath
Pilkington, Richard Stock, James Henry Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Stone, Sir Benjamin Wylie, Alexander
Pollock, Harry Frederick Strauss, Arthur Wyndham, George
Purvis, Robert Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'd. Unv. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Richards, Henry Charles Thorburn, Walter Young, Commander(Berks, E.)
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson Tritton, Charles Ernest
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Warr, Augustus Frederick TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Round, James Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) Sir William Walrond and
Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Webster, Sir R.E. (Isle of W'ht. Mr. Anstruther.

MR. STUART moved the substitution of May for November as the date of the elections. He pointed out that the elections for the vestries had for a long time been held in May, and the experience to be derived from London elections was decidedly in favour, having regard to the comfort of all concerned, of holding them in that month.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, to leave out the word "November," in order to insert the word "May."—(Mr. Stuart.)

Question proposed— That the word 'November' stand part of the Clause.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said it was impossible for the Government to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. There had been a disposition throughout the country for years that the municipal authorities should come into office in November. Apart from that, the Government desired to assimilate the date of the election for the new municipal boroughs to the same date as in boroughs in other parts of the country, and there was no reason why the representatives should not come into office all at the same time.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

was sorry that the Attorney-General had decided that there was no possibility of an alter-

native date other than November. There was no practical reason why November should be adopted.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

considered that it was very desirable to select those times and seasons which were most convenient to the great majority of electors, but he really thought November was a better month than May. In May a great many people were out of town. In November London had settled down, and the great bulk of Londoners were in residence.

MR. LOUGH

thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would get into trouble if he insisted too much on observing the analogy between the new municipal boroughs and the corporations in the country. It had always been recognised in this House that in London a system should be adopted which was suitable to itself, and the proposal contained in the Amendment was one of those very points where it would be much more convenient to depart from the practice of the provinces. He thought the proposal would commend itself to London men, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided. Ayes 189; Noes 84. (Division List No. 124.)

AYES.
Allhusen, August. Henry Eden Baird, John George Alexander Bartley, George C. T.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Balcarres, Lord Barton, Dunbar Plunket
Arnold, Alfred Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man'r Beach Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Beckett, Ernest William
Arrol, Sir William Banbury, Frederick George Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Barnes, Frederic Gorell Bigwood, James
Bailey, James (Walworth) Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts Bond, Edward
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Bousfield, William Robert Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Morrell, George Herbert
Brassey, Albert Goulding, Edward Alfred Morton, Arthr. H. A. (Deptford
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Mount, William George
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gull, Sir Cameron Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grahm. (Bute
Butcher, John George Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Haslett, Sir James Horner Myers, William Henry
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Helder, Augustus Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r Henderson, Alexander Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Charrington, Spencer Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead Pease, Herbrt. Pike(Darlington
Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Howard, Joseph Pilkington, Richard
Coddington, Sir William Howell, William Tudor Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Pollock, Harry Frederick
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hudson, George Bickersteth Purvis, Robert
Collins, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hughes, Colonel Edwin Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Richards, Henry Charles
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Round, James
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw T. D. Johnston, William (Belfast) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow) Kemp, George Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kenyon, James Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Keswick, William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Kimber, Henry Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Curzon, Viscount King, Sir Henry Seymour Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Lafone, Alfred Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn Stock, James Henry
Denny, Colonel Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Donkin, Richard Sim Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset Strauss, Arthur
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R. Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Doughty, George Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Thorburn, Walter
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lowe, Francis William Tollemache, Henry James
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lowles, John Tritton, Charles Ernest
Fergusson Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lucas-Shadwell, William Warr, Augustus Frederick
Finch, George H. Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Webstor, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Macartney, W. G. Ellison Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Fisher, William Hayes Macdona, John Gumming Whitmore, Chas. Algernon
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- MacIvor, David (Liverpool) Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Flower, Ernest Maclure, Sir John William Willox, Sir John Archibald
Folkestone, Viscount Marks, Henry Hananel Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Forster, Henry William Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R. (Bath
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Melville, Boresford Valentine Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Galloway, William Johnston Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Wylie, Alexander
Garfit, William Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Wyndham, George
Gedge, Sydney Milton, Viscount Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond. Milward, Colonel Victor Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Monckton, Edward Philip Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Gilliat, John Saunders Monk, Charles James Younger, William
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Goldsworthy, Major-General Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Channing, Francis Allston Goddard, Daniel Ford
Allan, William (Gateshead) Clark, D. G. B. (Caithness-sh.) Griffith, Ellis J.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Crombie, John William Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshre) Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Haldane, Richard Burdon
Billson, Alfred Daly, James Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hogan, James Francis
Burns, John Dillon, John Horniman, Frederick John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Donelan, Captain A. Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Caldwell, James Doogan, P. C. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Joicey, Sir James
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Fenwick, Charles Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.
Causton, Richard Knight Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth
Cawley, Frederick Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Kitson, Sir James
Lambert, George Norton, Capt. Cecil William Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cnmb'land O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Palmer, George Wm. (Reading Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr
Leng, Sir John Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Trevelyan, Charles Phillips
Lewis, John Herbert Piekersgill, Edward Hare Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.
Lloyd-George, David Power, Patrick Joseph Weir, James Galloway
Macaleese, Daniel Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
M'Ghee, Richard Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.) Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
M'Kenna, Reginald Pickett, J. Compton Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees) Wilson, John, (Govan)
M'Leod, John Schwann, Charles E. Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough
Maddison, Fred. Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Yoxall, James Henry
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport Spicer, Albert TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Lough.
Moss, Samuel Steadman, William Charles

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:—

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER moved in page 2, after "council" to insert:— Who shall also fix a corresponding date for the first elections for mayors and aldermen,

Amendment agreed to.

MR. TREVELYAN

, said that the Amendment he now moved would settle the day and the hour at which the first meeting should he held. He wished that the first meeting should be held in the evening, after six p. m., as a very large class could not possibly attend before that hour. The chief class concerned was the working men of the metropolis, who in nine cases out of ten could not attend earlier. Another class also deserved consideration, namely, civil servants, who very often took considerable interest in local government. If the first meeting were held after six p. m., the borough councils would be able to settle the subsequent meetings for themselves, but he thought it was clear that an opportunity should be given the working men to attend the first meeting.

Amendment proposed, in page 2 line 24, at end, to insert— The first meeting of all the newly elected borough councils shall be held within three weeks after the election, and in the evening after the hour of six p.m. "—(Mr. Trevelyan.)

Question proposed— That those words be there inserted.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. He did not see why it was necessary to say that the first meeting should be held at any particular hour. If necessary, pro- vision could be made under Section 21 or by Order in Council for the first meeting. It seemed entirely out of place in this section.

MR. BOUSFIELD

asked how was the first body to be brought together.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

said that when the body was formed it would, of course, arrange to meet.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said that in the Act of 1894 a similar provision was inserted.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said that he did not see why the Solicitor-General should not accept the Amendment. In the Act of 1894 it was provided that the first meeting should not be held earlier than six o'clock. He would suggest that the Amendment be accepted. The vestries included in Schedule A now met between six p. m., and 7.30 p.m., which showed that experience was against an earlier meeting. The argument might be used that that hour was not convenient for shop keepers. As a matter of fact, it would be very convenient for London shopkeepers, as it would be found that the majority of the Schedule A vestries met on Wednesday or Thursday evening, both early closing days, and as the overwhelming bulk of working men, civil servants and others could not get to the council meeting before six, he saw no reason why the first meeting should not be fixed after that hour.

MR. LOUGH

appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point, because if he did not it would seem as though there was some prejudice against giving the working men an opportunity of attending the first meeting. It was well known that in many cases working men had had to lose half a day's wages in order to attend the local meetings.

MR. LOWLES

said he was in favour of giving the working men a chance, but it was a matter for the convenience of the local bodies themselves.

MR. STUART

said there was nothing in the Amendment that prevented the local bodies fixing the day of the meeting.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is rather a small point, which really comes under Section 21. I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Gentlemen who supported, are not right in saying that something must he put into the Bill as to the first meeting; but the proper place is in Clause 21, and the matter will be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BOUSFIELD moved, in page 2, line 24, after "council" to insert: All members of elective vestries and district boards in the County of London in office on the first day of January in the year 1900 shall continue in office till the appointed day.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said the Government would accept the Amendment as far as the principle was concerned. Clause 3 was not, however, the proper place to move it, as it had nothing to do with elections.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STUART WORTLEY moved— In Clause 3, page 2, line 27, at end, to insert: 'The ordinary day of election of the mayor and aldermen shall be the ninth day of November, or if that day he a Sunday, then the following day. '

Amendment agreed to.

* CAPTAIN JESSEL

, in moving a new Sub-section (3), said he thought it was impossible under the Bill that the work could be accomplished by the 20th of October, or that candidates and agents would have sufficient time up to the 1st November in which to put the electoral machinery into working order. He proposed to extend the time by five days, by providing that the list should be published on the 16th of October. It might be said that that was not very much, but when it was remembered that the total time given by the Bill was only ten days he thought it would be a considerable concession if an addition was made of five extra days. The part of the Amendment dealing with the functions of revising barristers was inserted in order that their work should be finished by the 1st of October, so that the returning officer would have the list earlier, and be enabled to do his portion of the work by the 16th instead of the 20th of October. He also proposed that they should change the name from "Parochial Register" to "Borough Register," as being more in harmony with the spirit of the Bill. He wished that every possible means should be taken to ensure that the list of voters should be as perfect as possible.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (3) in order to insert— (3) The lists of Parliamentary voters, including the ownership lists of voters, and the lists of county electors, shall, in each year after the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, he revised in every metropolitan borough between the eighth day of September and the thirtieth day of September, both inclusive, and shall he revised as soon as possible after the seventh day of September. Such revised lists shall be printed, and signed, and placed on sale by the town clerk appointed under this Act before the sixteenth day of October, and shall come into operation as the register of borough electors on the first day of November next following, and the law relating to the register of electors shall, with the necessary modifications, apply accordingly.

Question proposed— That Sub-section (3) stand part of the clause.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said the Amendment raised two important points: one as to revision, the other with regard to the publication of the lists. The information he had received with regard to the work likely to be required to be done in London led him to conclude that the time provided was sufficient. It was quite possible, however, that his hon. and gallant friend might be right, and he would undertake to make further inquiries into the matter. He thought himself the work could be well done, without any difficulty, in the time provided. With regard to the five days he suggested, he would point out that for all practical purposes the work he referred to would be done to a very large extent from the lists as deposited, but it might be desirable to make arrangements to have the lists printed at an earlier date. The difficulty was one of printing, not of revision. He would undertake to make further inquiry if his hon. and gallant friend did not press the matter now.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said, as he understood it, the Amendment aimed at accelerating the publication of the lists. He thought that the Attorney-General forgot, when he said there was plenty of time, that in London a large number of service and lodger voters were not included in the old municipal franchise. He was prepared to accept the undertaking of the Government that something would be done to accelerate the publication of the lists, and he hoped that when they were published they would be found to be correct and properly revised.

MR. STUART

said that after the lists were considered and altered by the revising barristers they were re-set altogether, and a large expense was incurred. The matter had often been brought to his notice, and he had been asked to bring it before the Committee in order to see whether some arrangement could not be come to to avoid the re-setting of the whole lists.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

thought there was a great deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch. He had often heard it stated that after the lists had been set up in the first instance they were altered again and again, at great expense. The points that had been mentioned would receive consideration.

MR. LOUGH

said that the Attorney-General had admitted that Sub-section (3) was very unsatisfactory, and he thought they ought not to allow it to stand in the Bill unless they got some definite promise about it. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, London lost about £10,000 a year by having the lists which were already in type set up again. That loss should be avoided, and one list should be available for all purposes. He did not see why the two lists should not come into operation on the same day.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said they had no power in the Bill to alter the day on which the Parliamentary lists were published.

MR. LOUGH

submitted that, as the overseers who prepared the lists would be officers of the borough council, it would be within their power to enact that the list, for all purposes, should come into operation on a certain date; otherwise they would have double printing and much waste.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said the revision would undoubtedly be very heavy, but that difficulty might be met by having a sufficient number of revising barristers. Under the present system there might be a parliamentary election in November or December, which would be on the old list, although there was a new list printed and brought up to date. Another difficulty was that the clause stated that the town clerk was to publish the list, but the town clerk would have to be elected by the council.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

pointed out that that was just one of the matters to be dealt with under the transitory provisions in Clause 21.

MR. LOUGH

said he thought the point ought to be dealt with now. He could not understand why the lists should not come into operation on the same date.

THE CHAIRMAN

You cannot, by this Bill, alter the law with reference to Parliamentary elections. It is not within the scope of this Bill.

An amendment made.

MR. BOUSFIELD moved— In Clause 3, page 2, line 28, to leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 29, and insert 'after the appointed day.'

He said that the sub-section provided that in each year after 1899, that was in 1900, the lists should be printed and signed by the town clerk before the 20th of October, but on that date there would not be a town clerk. Of course, under Section 21 provision might be made for 1900. The clause was widely misunderstood outside the House, and he suggested that it would be better to amend it by saying each year after the appointed day.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said that 1900 would be dealt with under Section 21.

MR. STUART

thought there was a good deal to be said for the Amendment on the ground that the appointed day would undoubtedly in some instances not take place until after November 1st, 1900. It would be necessary to say that if the new authority was not constituted the list should be drawn up by the old authority, if it existed. He thought something would have to be put at the end of the clause to show what was to be done if the new body was not constituted.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said he quite appreciated that for 1900 arrangements would be made under Section 21, and that, therefore, the clause must refer to some year after 1900, and either "after the appointed day" or "every year after 1900" should be put in; but to say that Section 21 would provide for 1900, and then in Section 3 to say that the town clerk might do something also in 1900, seemed a contradiction.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he was quite willing, if the hon. Member would move, to leave out 1899 and insert 1900.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question— That '1899' be left out in order to insert '1900'

put and agreed to.

MR. FREDERICK COOK (Lambeth, Kennington)

who had on the Paper the following Amendment— In Clause 3, page 2, line 29, to leave out 'twentieth' and insert 'first. ' —said it was very important that more time should be given to correct the lists. There were two objects mentioned in the Bill. One was to set up a number of municipalities and to give them greater power and dignity, and the other was to increase the interest of the people themselves in the municipalities; and unless the various associations had time to revise the lists he did not think the people would go to the trouble to poll. However, as the Attorney-General had promised to look into the matter, he did not propose to move the Amendment.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS moved— In Clause 3, page 2, line 31, to leave out parochial' and insert 'borough. '

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he was not quite certain whether the word "borough" was preferable to "parochial." If the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment he would move to insert after "register" the words "for the purpose of a borough election."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER moved— After "register" to insert for the purpose of a borough election.'

Amendment agreed to.

Question— That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

put and agreed to.

Clause 4:—

MR. STUART moved— In Clause 4, page 2, line 36, after 'appointed day' to insert, 'which shall be the same in all cases.'

He said the object of the Amendment was to secure that the Act should come into operation all over London at the same time, otherwise they would have different forms of government and different powers in different parts of the metropolis for a very extensive period. There would have to be local investigations and perhaps Petitions, which in some cases might have to come before Parliament, and considerable opposition might arise; and therefore in some places the appointed day might be a year, or perhaps two years, from the appointed day in other places.

SIR R B. FINLAY

said that that appeared sufficiently clear in Clause 76, which said that for the purposes of the Act the appointed day should be the day on which the members of the borough councils came into office. It was undesirable to raise the point now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH moved— In Clause 4, page 2, line 35, after 'board,' to insert 'and every body of overseers and other bodies discharging the duties of overseers as regards the making and collection of the rates. '

SIR R. B. FINLAY

submitted that a clause which dealt with the transfers to borough councils of powers from vestries and other local bodies was not the place to move an Amendment dealing with overseers, which could be dealt with in Clause 11.

MR. LOUGH

said the object of the clause was to do away with these local bodies and to transfer their duties to the new councils. The duties of the vestries included the duties of overseers.

* THE CHAIRMAN

Clause 11 specifically deals with the appointment and duties of overseers. That is the proper clause on which to raise the point.

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS

understood that there had been considerable difficulty in some cases in regard to the custody of documents. He suggested that some words should be added to the clause to make it clear as to who should have the custody of the documents.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

hoped that his hon. friend would not press his Amendment, as it was quite unnecessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH moved the following Amendment— In Clause 4, page 3, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'and the clerk of the council shall be called the town clerk. ' He thought it was obvious that these boroughs would be different from the municipalities, and that a better title would be "borough clerk."

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

We have determined that the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act should be followed, and I see no reason why we should depart from the general line of policy adopted. It seems to me that, as we have put these boroughs in precisely an analogous position to the provincial boroughs, we should adopt the name so well and honourably identified with the clerks of the boroughs.

Amendment negatived.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE moved the following Amendment— In Clause 4, page 3, line 3, to omit the words: 'Provided that in the case of borrowing powers so transferred the sanction of the Local Government Board shall be substituted for the sanction of the London County Council. ' In the days of the Metropolitan Board of Works the Treasury promoted the Finance Bill of the Board, which included loans to various vestries. Since the institution of the London County Council these loans had been made by the London County Council. At every conference at which the future government had been considered there was some difference of opinion on this question among the local authorities; but at every one of these conferences there was a majority in favour of leaving the question of finance with the London County Council. The London County Council had always had upon it financial authorities of the very highest experience, and in this respect it had the confidence of every one in London. On the conservative principle of leaving well alone, he thought that the London County Council should continue to finance the local authorities. The Royal Commission presided over by the right hon. Member for Bodmin recommended that the matter should be left as it at present stood. The proposal of the Government was to reverse matters. If that were done it would undoubtedly cause a greater cost in obtaining loans than at present. It could not be said that the London County Council had been lax in regard to the matter of loans. It had exercised effective supervision on the character of these loans, and it had trained up a financial staff which had now the confidence of all local bodies in London. The most highly conservative vestries had, indeed, made strong remonstrances against this change. He could not conceive why this change had been proposed, unless the Government had been scared at the mere name of the London County Council. The Amendment had the support of many members on the Government side of the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The result of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would be to leave in the hands of the London County Council practically absolute control over the borrowing powers of the new boroughs created by the Bill. I am one of those who think that the London County Council has managed extremely well the financial business in connection with the metropolitan loans entrusted to it. I hope to conciliate all parties, and in what I have to say in defence of the view that the London County Council ought not to have absolute control in finance over these new boroughs, it must not be supposed that I desire to make any reflection on that body. But it is evident that if the municipalities are to be supreme and unfettered within their own sphere of action they must hare as unfettered powers of borrowing as are possessed by the other municipalities in the country. That seems to me to be axiomatic. If you allow the London County Council the powers which it already exercises—well as they have been exercised—it would always be in the power of the London County Council to control all the actions of these municipalities which are dependent on their power to borrow money. The Committee will feel that it would be entirely antagonistic to the fundamental principle of the Bill to put these municipalities entirely under the control of the County Council. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. At the same time I am fully alive to the importance of the arguments addressed to the House on the second reading of the Bill by him and, amongst others, the hon. Member for Islington. They hold that it is very important, for financial reasons, that as far as possible the debt of London should be a consolidated debt, to be contracted by a single body, having as its security a single mass of property. It seems to me that these two views could be reconciled if we left it to the London County Council in the first instance to make the loan, and only gave the local bodies the power of going outside the London County Council if the London County Council had attached conditions to that loan or had forbidden it. The power of the London County Council would still remain unimpaired. If the time should ever come, as I hope it will never come, when by the mutations of public, party, and municipal life, there shall ever be a contest, a controversy, between one of these new municipalities and the central authority over some scheme of local improvement; if the London County Council should attempt in an evil moment to abuse the great powers they have hitherto so admirably employed, the local authority should have the power to pass on one side, and appeal to some independent tribunal to decide whether the loan it desired should be granted or not, and under what conditions. There are Amendments I believe on the paper, in the name of my hon. friend, which carry out in the main the view which I have been endeavouring to express to the Committee. Perhaps the best form of words would be to make the paragraph read as follows:— Provided that if the London County Council refuse their sanction to a loan, or attach conditions to their sanction, an appeal shall lie to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final. That generally, I think, coincides with the view expressed by one or two of my hon. friends. It leaves the London County Council, probably for all time, with the control of the great metropolitan debt, but provides that in case these powers under changed circumstances should be abused, the local authority should not thereby suffer, but should retain the independent power of borrowing possessed by all the sister municipalities in the kingdom.

* MR. COHEN

thanked his right hon. friend for the just and generous tribute he had paid to the way in which the London County Council had managed its finances. He thanked him also for the generous way in which he wished to meet the views of the members of the London County Council who shared the opinion that it was as much for the advantage of the borrowing bodies as for that of the ratepayers of London, that the control of the London County Council should continue. At the same time he did not think the friends of the London County Council need further resist the proposal of his right hon. friend, because he believed that the provision he had made would result in the London County Council having control nearly as complete as it was at this moment. He doubted, however, whether the phrase in reference to conditions made by the London County Council might not lead to complications. If the Committee would allow him, he might say that since the London County Council had been in existence, three and a-half millions had been granted in loans, and that these loans numbered 470. Further, that during the ten years only 18 loans had been refused. The refusal was not merely approved of by all the members of the London County Council, but the wisdom of the refusal had been acquiesced in by the Treasury, to whom he would like the appeal to lie. In one instance it was decided that the borrowing body should be precluded from raising a loan because it was outside the powers of the local authority to raise money for the specified purpose. In the second instance the local authority wanted a loan for a term longer than the life of the works to be made with the loan. The Treasury recognised the necessity of the conditions made by the London County Council. He could claim for the London County Council that it had never sought to impose conditions or to exercise its powers in any inquisitorial or censorious way, but only in the interest of the economic finance of the whole of London. He believed that those powers had really been exercised by the London County Council to the advantage of the local bodies and of the debtors of London.

MR. STUART

said he did not quite understand what the meaning was of imposing conditions on the London County Council. He would like to know what was to be barred out by the words in the Clause as it stood. It was scarcely possible to grant a loan except under conditions, and the Clause would give an appeal which would render the matter extremely complicated. The existing machinery had worked thoroughly well for all concerned. There had been no friction. Out of 500 loans, only four difficulties had arisen, and these had arisen with the parish of Islington, although they were not of a serious kind. The First Lord of the Treasury said that the new boroughs ought to have the same borrowing powers as the other boroughs. That was impossible. As the borrowing which had to be made by the London County Council depended upon the financial security of the whole of the parts of London put together, it was absolutely essential that there should be some control by the London County Council. He desired to see the Treasury rather than the Local Government Board as the body to whom the appeal ought to be made. The whole of the finance of the loans from 1855 had been in the hands of the Treasury, rather than that of the Local Government Board, and it seemed to him to be a great mistake to hand over the general control now to the Local Government Board.

MR. LOWLES

wanted to know whether the local authority would have power to borrow in the cheapest market. He knew of a case where a local authority borrowed from a local bank at ¼ per cent. lower than they could have borrowed from the London County Council.

SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE

thought it was most important that all the loans should pass through the London County Council, and if the London County Council refused the loan without any proper cause, the Local Government Board should order the London County Council to sanction the loan.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said, as regarded the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, the mere imposing of conditions would not in itself necessitate an appeal. He was satisfied that the financial arrangements between the London County Council and the local bodies would be carried out as successfully after the passing of this Bill as they had been before. They did not contemplate any conflict between the London County Council and the local authorities; but it was possible that onerous conditions might be imposed by the London County Council, or that loans should be refused to the new boroughs altogether. What was intended was that the new boroughs should not be absolutely in the power of the London County Council, although, no doubt, in 99 cases out of 100 they would be in the hands of the London County Council. An hon. Member had raised the point that the appeal should be to the Treasury, and not to the Local Government Board. But he would remind him of the position of the Local Government Board in regard to district and urban authorities, all over the kingdom. All loans for public improvements and sanitary matters were now sanctioned by the Local Government Board, after inspection made by their own inspectors, and it seemed to the Government that the Local Government Board was, therefore, the proper authority to deal with any questions which might arise between the London County Council and the new borough authorities. When the loan was sanctioned the local authority would be allowed to borrow in the cheapest market. He thought that in 99 cases out of 100 the County Council would be the cheapest medium.

MR. ASQUITH

I congratulate my right honourable friend the Member for the Forest of Dean on having drawn the declaration we have heard from the Treasury Bench. I certainly think there are abundant grounds for maintaining the power as a normal power in the hands of the County Council. Everybody admits that the London County Council have exercised these powers with great efficiency on behalf of London as a whole. I do not think myself the Local Government Board would arbitrarily or capriciously interfere with the way in which the County Council exercises its discretion.

MR. JOHN BURNS

expressed the opinion that no local authority should be allowed to vary the period of years for which a loan was granted by the Couuty Council.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER moved the insertion of the words— Provided that if the London County Council refuse their sanction to a loan, or attach conditions to their sanction, an appeal shall lie to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOUGH moved to add at the end of Sub-Section 2 the words— and the Council shall have, and exercise the powers of any such Act over the whole area of their borough. His object was to provide that there should be a uniform system with regard to the adoptive Acts over the whole area of the borough. If the change were not made now, he thought it would be very difficult to make it hereafter.

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 12, after the word 'council,' to insert the words, 'and the council shall have and exercise the powers of any such Act over the whole area of their borough. "—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed— That those words be there inserted.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, which could not possibly be accepted. The effect would be that if Kensal Town, where there were Free Libraries, were joined to Paddington, the whole area would have to adopt Free Libraries, whether the ratepayers liked it or not.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said the Government had refused, at every stage of the Bill, to face the difficulties which they had got into by breaking up the continuity of the existing districts. The Kensal Ward of the Parliamentary Borough of Chelsea had been provided with magnificent Baths and a very fine Library. The district itself was quite unable to keep up the Library or its Baths. What was going to happen? Queen's Park and the district of Kensal Town were going to be attached to the Borough of Paddington. In Paddington there was no Library rate. For anything he could see, if the matter was not thoroughly guarded, the Library in Kensal Town would be closed because there would be no power to pay for it out of the rate. The matter was one of extreme dfficulty, and ought to be taken into consideration.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he thought everybody was agreed that the proposed Amendment should not be accepted. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the matter would have to be carefully considered, but he could not ask the Committee to adopt an Amendment which dealt only with libraries.

MR. ASQUITH

I think the Government might very well extend the application of the Amendment from public libraries to any institution under the adoptive Act. It would be a shocking state of things if a library or a wash-house establishment in a small district should be put an end to by the absorption of such a district in one of the new boroughs.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said it was something of the kind which he had in his mind. The matter, however, could best be discussed under Clause 15.

MR. LOUGH

said there appeared to be a general idea that the Amendment in its present form would not entirely meet with approval, and he would therefore withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow.