Commons Sitting of 9 May 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
    BRISTOL FLOODS PREVENTION BILL. [Lords.]
    Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
    As amended, to be considered upon Friday.
    SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    As amended, considered; An Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
    WALLASEY TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL. [Lords.]
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    ST. ALBAN'S GAS BILL. [Lords.]
    Read a second time, and committed.

    BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL (by Order).
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bradford Tramways and Improvement Bill to especially consider the Clauses of this Bill authorising the inclosure of any part of Baildon

    137
    Moor, and to report whether, having regard to the provisions of The Commons Act, 1876, and to the increase of the population in the neighbourhood, such inclosure is expedient.—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

    LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.
    Order [14th February] referring the London, Walthamstow, and Epping Forest Railway Bill to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson).
    METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (HARROW WEALD) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.
    A Petition of Richard Hill Dawe for leave to the proper officer of the House to attend the sitting of the Railway and Canal Commission to produce the deposited plans in relation to the Grimsby Docks Act, 1845, and the Great Northern Railway Amendment Bill (No. 2), 1851.
    Leave given to the proper officer to attend accordingly.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    COALVILLE URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL. [Lords.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
    Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16).
    Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts 1882 and 1888, relating to Broadstairs, Christchurch, and district, Guildford (Extension), Newport (Isle of Wight), Sandown and Shanklin, and Westgate and Birchington, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
    "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Broadstairs, Christchurch and district, Guildford (Extension), Newport (Isle of Wight), Sandown and Shanklin, and Westgate and Birchington," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]
  PETITIONS.
    BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872
    Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Acton;—and, Lincoln; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
    Petition from Leicester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition from Ullapool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    MIDWIFERY PRACTIONERS.
    Petition of the Midwives' Society, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
    MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
    Petitions in favour;—From Reservoir;—Netherseal;—Wells Way;—Tyning;—Clandown;—Writhlington;—Huish;—Camerton New;—Camerton Old;—Foxcote;—Kilmersdon;—Ludlows;—and, Bentinck and Teversal Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
    OWLER, ANN.
    Petition of George Owler, for inquiry into the cause of her death; to lie upon the Table.
    PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Petition from Brighton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
    Petition from Auckland, against; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petitions in favour;—From Stockport (two);—Haverton Hill;—and, Bolton; to lie upon the Table.
    TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour;—From Aberdeen;—and, Chirnside; to lie upon the Table.
    VACCINATION ACTS 1867 AND 1898.
    Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Oldham;—and, St. Mary, Islington; to lie upon the Table.
    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
    Petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.

    HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Copy presented,—of Fifteenth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    140
    Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

    TEMPORARY LAWS.
    Register of Temporary Laws for the Fifth Session, Twenty-sixth Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, pursuant to Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866; to be printed. [No. 186.]
    RAILWAYS IN IRELAND (STATE ADVANCES).
    Return ordered, "of the total amount of money advanced by the State by loan or grant for the construction of railways in Ireland, showing the separate amounts advanced on the different lines now in the possession of the existing companies; the amount of principal and interest repaid by railway companies to the Treasury, segregated amongst the existing companies; the net amount of the baronial guarantees paid by each Irish county to railway companies, any recoupment made by the Treasury being deducted from the gross amount; the amount presented and passed for this purpose during the year 1898, and the companies to whom it was paid."—(Mr. Field.)
  PUBLIC BILLS.
    NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2).
    Bill to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alexander Cross, Sir Walter Foster, Sir Charles Cameron, Sir William Priestley, Sir William Arrol, Dr. Farquharson, and Mr. Nicol.
    BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT.
    Bill to amend the Baths and Washhouses Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bigwood and Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894," presented, and

    141
    read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 14th June, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

    BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Baths and Washhouses Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 185.
QUESTIONS.

  IRISH RAILWAY RATES FOR THE CARRIAGE OF FISH.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the last report of the Congested Districts Board, in which it appears that the Board paid the Arran fishermen for spring mackerel £2,861, and to railway and steamship companies for freight £2,676; to Cleggan fishermen £2,516, and for freight of same to railways £1,884; to Doonloghan fishermen £191, and to railway companies for freight of same £162; whether he would state the weight of fish carried in each case, and the charge per ton per mile; and what steps the Congested Districts Board propose to take to secure reasonable freights for the haulage of fish from the West of Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The figures mentioned in the question are correctly quoted from the last report of the Congested Districts Board, but it is necessary to observe that market charges and salesmen's commission are included in the amounts under the head of freights. I am afraid I cannot give the freight charges per ton per mile, but a statement of the through rates per ton to English markets has been forwarded to the hon. Member for his information. The Congested Districts Board having been in communication with the carrying companies on the subject of a reduction in the rates, the companies have recently agreed to equalise the charges for one and three ton consignments this season. The Galwav Steamboat Company have made a reduction of about 14 per cent. in their charges.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that over 47,000 tons of fish were landed on the Irish coasts in 1898, exclusive of crabs, lobsters, and oysters; and that of this amount only 14,364 tons, inclusive of crabs, lobsters, and oysters, were carried by the Irish railways in 1898; and, considering that more than two-thirds of the fish landed on the Irish coasts have not been conveyed to market by Irish railways, whether he will direct the inspectors of Irish fisheries to make inquiry at the different Irish fishing ports into the causes which prevented the sending to market by railways of such a large proportion of the fish landed on the Irish coasts, and issue a return of the result of the inquiry.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The figures quoted in the first paragraph are taken from a return recently laid before; Parliament. As regards the second paragraph, it is the fact that steamers are mainly employed in the conveyance to England of fish caught off the Irish coasts. The reasons for the adoption of this mode of transit are already well known, and it is unnecessary to make the further inquiry suggested in the question. These reasons may be stated briefly as follows: Carriage by sea is cheaper than by land and sea combined; the boxes in which the fish are packed receive less handling than they would if sent partly by rail and partly by sea; the fish are more easily kept cool in the hold of a steamer, and consequently they reach England in better condition.

IRISH POLICE FORCES.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the serious difference which exists in the constitution, pay, promotion, and local control of the Irish Metropolitan Police and the Irish Constabulary, as compared with any other police force in the three kingdoms, a Commission will be appointed to inquire into and report upon the different systems.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is not proposed to appoint a Commission for the purposes indicated in this question.

IRISH POLICE FORCES.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY CADETS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland whether an examination is about to be held for Royal Irish Constabulary cadets; how many vacancies for the position of district inspector are to be so filled; whether each appointment thus made stops four promotions in the rank and file, those of head constable, sergeant, acting-sergeant, and constable; how long it is necessary for a cadet to serve before being placed in charge of a district; and what has been the average period of service of head constables promoted to that position; and in what respect the qualifications of a cadet fit him for precedence.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The examination for cadetships will take place on the 29th inst. The candidates are nominated for places, but the vacancies have not yet arisen. Gentlemen successful at this examination will only fill half the vacancies as they occur. No promotions to which head constables, sergeants, acting sergeants, and constables are entitled, under the existing regulations, will be stopped by the appointments above referred to. A cadet usually undergoes five or six months' instruction before he is considered fit to be placed in charge of a district. The average period of service of the twenty-one head constables last promoted is twenty-three years ten months. Cadets, who are highly educated and pass a severe competitive examination, are soon fitted for the position of district inspector, and after a few years' experience become officers of high efficiency.

  ARMAGH AND DOWN LAND COMMISSION COURTS.
  MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the applications to fix fair rent in the counties of Armagh and Down, whether he will state the number of such applications made to the county court judge, and also the number made to the Land Commission Court in each county since the 1st day of May 1898, and also the number disposed of by either court in each county.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The number of fair rent applications received by the Land Commissioners in the period men-
  144
  tioned was 2,074 from the County Armagh (inclusive of four cases transferred from the Civil Bill Court) and 1,418 from the County Down. The number of applications disposed of by the Commissioners in the same period was 2,258 cases from Armagh, and 1,606 from Down. As regards applications to Civil Bill Courts, the number received in Armagh was six, and the number disposed of in that county two, the other four cases having been transferred to the Land Commission. No applications were received or disposed of by the Civil Bill Court in Down within the period stated.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION; APPEALS.
  MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state the number of sittings of the Chief Land Commission held at Armagh and Belfast respectively since 1st January, 1898: And, at how many of these sittings at Belfast and Armagh respectively Mr. Commissioner Morrogh O'Brien was a member of the Commission sitting there.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Land Commission Court has sat twice at Armagh and five times at Belfast since the 1st January, 1898. The latter paragraph of the question appears intended to mark an invidious distinction between different Members of the Land Commission and the Commissioners decline, and I think properly decline, to answer it.

  HOWTH FISHERIES.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to his statement that the Howth fishermen, who have been complaining of the destruction of their nets and lines by steam trawlers, were unable to give any clue to the detection of the offenders, whether he has subsequently ascertained that the Fishery Commissioners were informed that on Tuesday, the 25th March, a trawler, named the Peter Johnson, registered at Aberdeen, deliberately ran into and destroyed lines to the value of £6; if so, whether any inquiry has been made into the truth of this statement; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds? and whether any action will be taken now in this case either by the Fishery Commissioners or by the Government.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed by the Inspectors of Fisheries that no trace can be found in the records of their Department of the receipt of the complaint referred to in the question, nor was any such complaint made to the Coastguard at Howth and Baldoyle. The Coastguard have been instructed to make local inquiry into the matter.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN MONAGHAN.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how much of the grant of £40,000, voted by Parliament in 1890 for the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland, lies to the credit of the Monaghan District Council in the books of the Postmaster General; and will the amount still be available should the Monaghan District Council decide upon receiving a representation and adopt a scheme for the erection of two or more cottages.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The share of the grant lying to the credit of the Monaghan District Council is £205 0s. 4d., which sum will be available in reduction of any loan that the council may contract for the erection of labourers' cottages in the district. The amount could not, however, be issued in anticipation of the making of an improvement scheme.

  IRISH BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended, in connection with the Board of Agriculture and Industries Bill, to reconstitute the Irish Fishery Board, and enable it to accomplish similar good results which were obtained under a different system of management and endowment by the Scotch Fishery Board. I beg at the same time to ask whether it is intended, to establish and endow a veterinary college in Dublin in connection with the Board of Agriculture and Industries Bill.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: With respect to these questions, I stated yesterday, when introducing the Measure, that it was proposed to transfer the powers and duties of the Fishery Inspectors to the new department, and that the Bill provided for the expenditure of a capital sum on the Royal Veterinary College in
  146
  Dublin. For further details I must ask the hon. Member to await the circulation of the Bill which, I hope, will be in the hands of hon. members to-morrow.

  PAY OF DISTRICT INSPECTORS IN THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the pay of senior district inspectors in the Royal Irish Constabulary is £330 a year, whilst the pay of senior head constables is but £104 a year; whether each senior district inspector receives an annual allowance of £50 far the keep of a horse, £45 for a servant, and £40 for lodging expenses, whilst a senior head constable receives but £2 10s. a year as a contribution towards his lodgings; whether an ordinary constable in many English towns is paid on a higher scale of remuneration than a head constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary receives; and, as the Irish head constable is next in rank to the district inspector and has frequently to perform the higher duties, will anything be done to remove the disparity existing in regard to their respective salaries.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The pay of a first-class district inspector of the Constabulary is at the rate of £300 per annum. This rate can only be attained after many years' service. The salary of a district inspector of the third class is £125, and of a senior head constable £104 a year. The various allowances to officers and head constables will be found fully set forth in the Estimates. I have no official information as to the rates of pay in the English force, but I doubt whether the statement in the third paragraph is correct. There is no disparity between the salaries of a head constable and district inspector not justified by differences of position and duties, and the answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  IRISH BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
  MR. ARTHUR MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is to be the annual income of the proposed Board of Agriculture, whether this income includes the present income of the Congested Districts Board, and what fresh charge is made on imperial funds for the proposed Department of Agriculture and Industries.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No income is provided for the proposed Agricultural Board as distinguished from the Department. The income of the Congested Districts Board is not affected by the Bill. There will be a fresh charge on imperial funds in connection with the establishment of the new Department amounting to £78,000 a year, exclusive of any fresh charge that may arise from the establishment of the Department and the exercise by it of the powers and duties proposed to be transferred to it.

  CONVOCATION.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have sanctioned the issue of writs that will enable the two Convocations of Canterbury and York to sit together in future; and whether there is any precedent for such a course since the reign of King Henry VIII.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There is no truth in the rumour which the hon. Member has heard, and to which he has given expression in the first paragraph of his question.

  ASCENSION DAY.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to move the usual resolution this year, under which the numerous and important Committees of the House now sitting would be precluded from meeting before two of the clock on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I intend to follow the immemorial practice.
  SIR JOHN LENG: Will it be the first business to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  APPRENTICES ON BRITISH VESSELS.
  SIR FORTESCUEFLANNERY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which one of the apprentices on board a British ship died at Diego, and to the correspondence that has passed between the Board of Trade and the late captain
  148
  and officers of that ship; whether he has considered the possibility of a captain in a foreign port exercising his authority to work members of the crew and young apprentices excessive hours in discharging cargo and supplementary duties; and whether, having regard to the conditions of climate in the tropics and of apprenticeship on British vessels, he will introduce legislation or make regulations under existing Statutes to limit the hours of labour in discharge of cargo at foreign ports to be worked by apprentices who are under the factory age standard, and who correspond in that regard to young persons who come under the provisions of the Factory Act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the case to which my honourable friend refers, in which an apprentice (Mr. R. King), of the Khyber, died of fever in the hospital at Diego Suarez. The Board of Trade have been in communication with the owners of the vessel, and have obtained statements from the master, officers, and several of the crew, including the apprentices. It appears to be usual at a port like Diego (where labour is scarce) to employ the crew and apprentices in discharging cargo, the lightest work being allotted to the apprentices. From all I can learn, Mr. King was not in any way ill-treated, but his work was, no doubt, trying, and he does not appear to have been sufficiently robust to bear the strain of it in a hot climate. I greatly regret the sad occurrence, but the Board of Trade have no power under existing Statutes to make regulations limiting the hours of labour of ship apprentices, and I am not prepared to propose legislation on the subject. I may mention that Mr. King was sixteen years of age, and, as my honourable friend is aware, a certificate of fitness under the Factory Acts is only required in the case of young persons under sixteen.

  TWERTON LEVEL CROSSING.
  MR. BARLOW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the facts that the level crossing over the Great Western Railway at Twerton, near to Bath, is dangerous, from its being an extensively used channel of communication between two populous districts; that a large number of

  149
  express trains pass daily, several of them without stopping at Bath, at high rates of speed; and that the parish council, the county coroner, and the coroner's jury have all concurred in this opinion, but that the Great Western Railway Company, though frequently approached, have always refused to construct a footbridge at this point, the Board of Trade have power to compel the railway company to erect a footbridge; and, if not, whether the Government will seek to obtain such power.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir, the Board of Trade have no power to order the company to erect a footbridge, and I am not prepared to propose legislation to confer such power upon the Department. The Board of Trade have had considerable correspondence with the company on the subject of the bridge, and I shall be happy to supply the honourable Member with a copy. It is worthy of observation that there are already two overbridges, each only 150 yards distant from this crossing.

  RIFLE RANGES AND THE LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will grant a Return of the rifle ranges which have been closed to the firing of full-charge ammunition since the issue of the Lee-Metford rifle.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Secretary of State will grant the Return.

  WAR OFFICE—SALISBURY PLAIN.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether he will inquire into the delay of the printing of the Supplementary Paper on the purchase of Salisbury Plain by Her Majesty's Government, ordered by this House in February last, and laid upon the Table on 12th April; and, whether he can inform the House when this Paper will be in the hands of Members.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State has no control over the printing of Sessional Papers; but I understand that copies of the Return will be available to-morrow.

  THE FOOT GUARDS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the three battalions of Foot Guards present in Hyde Park on 1st May were first for service; whether, out of a paper strength of 2,800, 1,500 were on parade; and how many men in the 3rd Grenadiers, 2nd Coldstreams, and 1st Scots had passed musketry, and how many are under six months' service.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The 3rd Grenadiers and 2nd Coldstreams are first on the roster to relieve the 2nd Grenadiers and 1st Coldstream at Gibraltar. For active service the brigade of Guards regulates its own roster. In reply to the second paragraph of the Question, I cannot add to the statement given in answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 5th instant. In reply to the third paragraph, I must remind him of my statement in Debate on the 3rd March—namely, that information as to the services of men in particular battalions could only be given to hon. Members on condition that the battalion should not be publicly specified.

  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from the School Board for London suggestions for an amended rule as to religious instruction in the Board's Industrial schools, which propose to practically apply the provisions of the Education Act of 1870, in lieu of the Industrials Schools Act, 1866; and, if he intends to sanction such alteration without legislative authority, or proposes to introduce a Bill to deprive children in Industrial Schools of denominational education.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY,): Rules for some of the London School Board's Industrial Schools are now under consideration. As I have stated before, I have no intention of approving any rules inconsistent with the principles of the Industrials Schools Acts; nor should I think of introducing a Bill such as that suggested by the hon. Member.

  TREATMENT OF DEBTORS IN PRISON.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of

  151
  State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Judge of the Birmingham County Court on 1st May, in connection with the circular which he had received from the Home Office, acquainting him with certain important alterations coming into operation that day on the treatment of debtor prisoners; whether debtors under the new rules, instead of being allowed to obtain their own food, drink, and bedding outside, will be restricted to the allowance of food prescribed for offenders of the first division who did not maintain themselves; whether they will now be required to work either at their own trade or profession, or at work of an industrial or manufacturing nature, and will receive their earnings subject to a deduction for the cost of maintenance and for the use of implements when furnished by the prison; whether a debtor will now be confined to his cell at all times except when at chapel or exercise, and will be allowed to receive only one visit and to write and receive only one letter per week; whether the Judge is correctly reported as having stated that it appeared to him that the alterations made the punishment much more severe, and brought debtors more closely to the status of criminals, and that he thought that twenty-one days under the new rules would be about equivalent to forty days under the old; is he aware that the Judge accordingly restricted the period of committal in cases of judgment summonses to twenty-one days; and, whether he will lay the Home Office circular referred to by the Judge upon the Table of the House.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have no reason to suppose that the County Court Judge's observations are incorrectly reported. There is no objection to laying a copy of the circular referred to on the Table, and this shall be done. I will also take this opportunity of laying on the Table the general circular respecting the rules made under the Prisons Act, 1898, which has been issued to the Chairmen of Petty Sessions.

  VIVISECTION CERTIFICATES.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether certificates are issued to persons holding licences under the Cruelty to
  152
  Animals Act, 1876, allowing them to make experiments on living animals without anæsthetics except during the initial operation; whether during later stages of the experiment the holder of such certificate would be at liberty, should he so desire, to keep the animal alive without the further use of anæsthetics for the purpose of conducting observations and dissections; and whether he still adheres without qualification to his former official statement that certificates of exemption from the compulsory use of anæsthetics are only given for such operations as inoculations or hypodermic injections, which are of a comparatively painless character.
  SIR M. WHITERIDLEY: The nature of the certificates referred to would be more accurately described as follows: Under the terms of Section 3, Sub-section (3) of the Act certificates are granted, the effect of which is to exempt the holder from the obligation to kill the animal experimented upon before it recovers from the influence of the anæsthetic, when killing the animal would necessarily frustrate the object of the experiment, and provided that the animal is killed as soon as that object is attained. I would add, with reference to the second paragraph, that the sole use of the certificate is to authorise the keeping alive of the animal after the influence of the anæsthetic has passed off for the purpose of observation and study. I should certainly not allow any certificate involving dissections or painful operations without the fresh use of anæsthetics. The statement mentioned in the third paragraph, to which I adhere without qualification, had reference to a different class of certificates from those just dealt with, viz., certificates granting total exemption from the compulsory use of anæsthetics.

  UNITED STATES HIGH LICENCE SYSTEM.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the financial results of the system known as the high licence system in the United States; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made by the officers of his Department, with the view of estimating approximately what would be the financial effect of the adoption in this country of the same or some

  153
  similar system, whereby the duties on licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be made to correspond more nearly to the value of such licences.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): Evidence on this subject has been given before the Licensing Commission, and pending the Report of that Commission it is not desirable to institute independent inquiries as to particular points connected with the Licensing Laws.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Has the evidence to which the right hon. Gentleman refers been published?
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Yes, sir.

  THE WINE DUTIES.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, under the proposed re-arrangement of wine duties, still wine of over 42 degrees of proof spirit will bear a smaller duty if imported in bottle than if imported in the wood,
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It would be so in theory, but I do not think the point will arise in practice. It could only arise in the case of wine above 42 deg. and under 45 deg., as above 45 deg. it would be taxed as spirit, and the saving of 3d. or 6d. a gallon in duty would not cover the extra cost of importing in bottle.

  FRENCH TRAWLERS IN RYE AND HYTHE BAYS.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the fact that on Thursday and Friday nights last no less than 30 French boats were trawling in Rye Bay and 16 in Hythe Bay, all within one and a-half miles of the shore; and, whether he will obtain the services of a gunboat to watch their operations, as otherwise, while the wind keeps in its present direction, they may continue their illegal encroachments.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and a gunboat has been ordered to proceed forthwith to the locality in question.

  SCOTTISH EDUCATION GRANTS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the statement that a sum of £26,000 per annum was required to be advanced out of the Imperial Exchequer in order to keep up the Fee Grant to 12s. per head, and the estimate having since been proved to have been overstated by upwards of £20,000, a sum of only £5,000 being taken for the purpose in this year's Education Estimates, the Government will reconsider the amount of the grant payable to Scotland under the said Act.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): Owing to the contingent balances available for Fee Grant having been larger than was expected, the additional amount required from the Imperial Exchequer has not reached the estimate formed. But as the average attendance increases, the amount required will become larger, and the Government are not at present prepared to re-open the arrangement made in 1897.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he can state the amount of Probate Duty Grant available for distribution for the years ending 31st March, 1898, and 31st March, 1899, under the provisions of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1891, as amended by The Education and Local Taxation (Scotland) Act, 1892: and, what balance, if any, was applied as an addition to the fee grant during each of the said years.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: For the year ended 31st March, 1898, the amount of Probate and Licence Duties available for distribution was £637,327. The balance of this amount applied as an addition to the fee grant was £16,202. In respect of the year ended 31st March,1899, the final payments into the grant have not yet been received, but the last payment made brings the amount up to £620,000.

  THE CONSTANTINOPLE MASSACRES OF 1896.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether compensation has yet been obtained from the Porte for the losses sustained by British subjects at Constantinople during the massacre of August, 1896.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): I regret to say that no compensation has as yet been obtained for the sufferers of any nationality, but the subject has not been lost sight of.

  THE YANG-TSZE VALLEY.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in the exchange of Notes between Russia and the United Kingdom, the Basin of the Yang-tsze has been defined; and, if not, do the Government intend to define it; whether the Government claims the same rights in the Yang-tsze Basin as Russia claims north of the Great Wall; and, whether the treaty rights of the United Kingdom under the treaty of Tien-tsin are in any way abrogated to the north of the Great Wall in China.
  Mr. BRODRICK: The Yang-tsze Basin has been defined as the provinces adjoining the Yang-tsze river, and Ho-nan and Chekiang. I am unable to state what the exact claims of Russia may be as regards Manchuria. What Her Majesty's Government claim as regards the Yang-tsze Valley is that no portion of the territory shall be leased, mortgaged, or in any way alienated to any other Power. The answer to the third question is in the negative.

  THE PACIFIC CABLE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the action of the Province of British Columbia involuntarily undertaking to contribute one-ninth of the cost of constructing the Pacific cable, thereby reducing the contribution originally proposed to be borne by the Imperial Treasury to a comparatively small amount, Her Majesty's Government will re-consider the scheme formulated in his letter of April 28th, and endeavour to bring it into harmony with the wishes of the Canadian and Australasian Governments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): We have not yet received the replies of the Colonial Governments; but if any representations are made to us on their behalf in reference to
  156
  the offer of Her Majesty's Government they will be carefully considered.

  GOVERNMENT CHURCHES IN INDIA.
  MR. WALFORD GREEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the purport of the new regulations issued by the Indian Government concerning the use of Government churches in India for Presbyterian and Wesleyan services.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The only alteration made in the rules issued last year is defining more accurately the religious bodies who may hold service in the church in question, and in substituting in the appeal from a Bishop's decision the authority of the Metropolitan for that of the joint authority of the Bishop and the civil or military power. In all other respects the rules remain unchanged.

  INDIAN RAILWAY CONTRACTS.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government have given the order for the Goktiek Viaduct, containing 5,000 tons of steel, to an American firm; will he explain why the chief English bridge builders were not asked to tender for it; and, whether he will give instructions in future that tenders shall be invited from the chief British makers.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: My honourable friend has evidently been misinformed about this matter. The order for the Goktiek Viaduct was not given by the Government of India, who have nothing to do with it, but by the Burma Railways Company. The company invited five English firms and two American firms to tender. Of the five English firms four refused to tender; but one English firm which had not been invited asked leave to tender, and was allowed to do so. Consequently two English and two American tenders were sent in. The most favourable English tender required three years for the work, at a cost of about, £116,000. The most favourable American tender required about one year for the completion of the work, at a cost of £60,125. In these circumstances the company, with the concurrence of the Government director (who represents the

  157
  Secretary of, State) accepted the American tender. The Indian railway companies give preference in all these contracts to British makes, but I am sorry to say that this is not the first contract in which there has been a marked difference both in price and time of delivery between British and American tenders.

  INDIAN SUGAR DUTIES.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given private notice—whether, in view of the disclosures in the Blue-book as to the real source and origin of the Indian Sugar duties, he will agree to fix a day for the discussion of this subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I am to interpret the question of my hon. friend by the letter he has sent to me indicating his desire, I may say he has fallen into an error in the interpretation he puts upon the Blue-book; but without dwelling on that point, I must say at this time of the year especially public time is extremely valuable, and unless there is a demand which the Government could not ignore from the authorised leaders of the Opposition, I do not think it would be possible to find the time my hon. friend, and I may say the Government themselves, desire to give to the discussion of this interesting subject.
  SIR H. H. FOWLER: To clear the atmosphere, I may say that it is my intention to give notice to move an Address praying her Majesty to be pleased to disallow the Indian Tariff Amendment Act, 1899.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And in order to complete the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, I beg to ask him if he will give a day for the discussion of my right hon. friend's motion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I shall be very glad to give a day. The actual day perhaps had better be a matter for mutual arrangement.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: As this is the subject of a motion down for Tuesday next, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to take that day away?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have promised a day for something practically equivalent to a vote of censure on the Government to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and under the circumstances I do not think we should have a preliminary canter on a subject nearly the same.

  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in accordance with a private notice I have sent to him, whether, in view of the immense interest felt in the Church Discipline Bill appointed for discussion to-morrow (Wednesday), and the certainty that many Members anxious to take part in the debate would be shut out by the half-past five rule, the right hon. Gentleman will agree to suspend the Wednesday rule.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am convinced I should spread universal dismay through the House if I were to answer the question in the affirmative. It is evident that if a concession of that kind were made in regard to one Wednesday, then whenever a Bill exciting general interest, which is often the case, is down, a similar demand will be made, and I do not know at what period we might expect to separate.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. SCHWANN: What is the business for Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I had better make a general statement. Friday, under ordinary circumstances, would be devoted to Supply, but the Secretary to the Treasury is not yet able to be in his place, and though I am glad to think my right hon. friend is nearly recovered, a heavy night's Estimates would be beyond his powers. Under the circumstances, I will ask the House to depart from the usual practice, and continue the discussion of the Finance Bill, should that not be finished on Thursday. On Friday, next week, I propose that after the evening sitting the House shall adjourn for the Whitsuntide holidays, the Votes in Committee of Supply set down for that day being of a non-controversial character. I intend to propose that the House shall meet after the holidays on the Wednesday week following. On the Thursday and Friday after reassembling I propose

  159
  to take Votes in Supply, Wednesday being a private Members' day, so that hon. Members mainly interested in legislation can prolong their holidays over the fortnight.
  SIR H. CAMPBELLBANNERMAN: What will be taken on Friday should the discussion on the Finance Bill close on Thursday? Will the sitting on Friday week be of the ordinary character?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The sitting on Friday week will be an ordinary sitting, and should the discussion on the Finance Bill close on Thursday, Friday will be devoted to the London Government Bill.
  MR. CHANNING: When will the Government move the adjournment for the holidays?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Probably at the commencement of the Friday's sitting.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 4:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 12, after 'council,' to insert, 'and the scheme shall provide, in the case of any detached part of a parish containing a public library, or public baths or washhouses, being annexed to an adjoining borough, for the maintenance of the public library, or public baths or washhouses, by the council of such borough, and for the proper adjustment of the liabilities which attach to the public library, and of the cost of its maintenance.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
SIR CHARLES DILKE SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean) moved the above Amendment, for the purpose of eliciting an expression of opinion in regard to it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the question should be decided on this clause, but if the right honourable Gentleman wishes an expression of opinion from me as to whether public libraries should be maintained by the new councils, I am happy to give him the assurance that I shall consider a form of words that may secure that which he and I both desire.
MR. STUARTsubmitted that this was really the stage
160
where they should settle this question, because this difficulty arose, that the scheme under this Act abolished a commission and transferred their powers to the new council. There were a great many instances in which difficulties of this kind would occur, and they ought to to know how these difficulties were to be met. There were something like 40 instances in London where the adoptive Acts have been adopted, and a large number of these districts would have to be coupled up with other local districts which had not adopted the Acts. There were on the Paper Amendments providing four different methods for meeting the difficulty. One was that of the right honourable Baronet, placing upon the councillors the necessity of dealing with the matter, but without indicating the exact method. Another was to exclude from the management of the particular adoptive Acts in the district, any other borough councillors who might not represent these particular districts. A third method was to restrict the management to the ratepayers of the district. And finally there was what he believed was the only real method of meeting the difficulty, that of the honourable Member for Islington, who proposed that at one stroke the Bill should oblige all London to adopt the adoptive Acts. It was certainly a Procrustean method, but it was a way of solving an extremely difficult question otherwise. He did not see that it was necessarily inconsistent with the Amendment of the right honourable Baronet now before the House, but the difficulty had arisen from the endeavour to unite various districts together. When the first clause of the Bill was being discussed, he warned the House that not only this difficulty would arise, but others, as for instance in relation to debts and assets. Then there was electric lighting, which was a most complicated question, and had been made more complicated by the whole system of the Bill. How were they to deal under this Act with the rights and privileges of the existing electric light companies, and the power of the local authorities to deal with them? The matter ought to be dealt with by the Government now.
SIR CHARLES DILKEthought they had no option but to accept the promise of the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that he would introduce

161
words to meet the case, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. PICKERSGILLentirely agreed with the honourable Member for Hoxton, and pressed the Government to deal with the question now. It was a great mistake to postpone all these specific questions, which really dealt with the machinery of the Bill. They ought to have some indication from the Government as to how they were going to deal with the question.
MR. BOUSFIELDsuggested that only those borough Members who represent a district where an adoptive Act had been adopted should join in administering it, but he would be quite content to leave the matter to the Government.
THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,)said he had only one word to add to what had been said by the First Lord of the Treasury. The Amendment proposed by his honourable friend and that moved by the right honourable Baronet opposite approached the subject from two different points of view. The one seemed to contemplate the taking over of public libraries, baths, and washhouses, and that these should be supported from the local rates. The other proposed that only those who represented the particular districts where the baths, washhouses, or libraries were situated should join in administering the adoptive Acts. These were two very intelligent points of view, which had received very careful consideration. If honourable Members would look at Clause 15 they would see it was provided that a scheme under the Act might make provision "for such adjustments as may be required for carrying into effect any of the provisions of this Act, or for preventing any injustice with respect to the incidents of any rate or the discharge of any liability or otherwise." He suggested that the proper place for the whole of this matter to be considered was when they reached Clause 15.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONadmitted the complexity of the question, and he was inclined to agree that Clause 15 was the best place to deal with it. He hoped the
162
Government, before they got to Clause 15, would prepare some general scheme to deal with all cases that might arise.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The pledge which I have given had reference only to what the right honourable Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean has said, but the Government, with a full knowledge of the difficulty, are perfectly prepared to consider the question most carefully, and to deal with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—
"That Clause 4 as amended stand part of the Bill,"
put and agreed to.
Clause 5:—
Amendment proposed—
"Toadd to Sub-section 1 the words: 'Provided that in all cases where power under the Public Health (London) Act, and The Common Lodging House Act, 1851, is transferred, the transfer shall be made subject to the power of the London County Council to make bye-laws and regulations.'"—(Mr. Stuart.)
MR. STUARTsaid the object of his Amendment was very simple—it was to preserve to the London County Council the power of making bye-laws on those matters affecting the Public Health Act which were transferred to the local bodies. He might say that the whole of those powers were discussed between the local authorities and the London County Council in 1896, and the provision he had just read was adopted by a conference, on which the London County Council's re presentatives did not vote. The London Public Health Act had made the London County Council practically the responsible authority for making bye-laws, while it left the administration of the Act in the hands of the local sanitary authorities. The object was perfectly clear, that they should have a uniform system throughout London. He could not see how the change of circumstances which this Bill would bring about could change the extremely urgent requirements of public health. He was not asking that the power should be taken clean out of the hands of the local bodies, but only that the making of the bye-laws, and securing obedience to them, should be with the London County Council. The report of the Royal Commission, of which the

163
honourable Member for Bodmin was the Chairman, stated that even those most strongly in favour of the aggrandisement and independence of the local bodies recognised the practical inconvenience of having the administration of the Public Health Act different in one locality from another, and in order to obtain uniformity, the central authorities should frame the bye-laws under which the local bodies should act. If that were done, some of the functions now in the hands of the central authority might be entrusted to the local authorities. The London Public Health Act was well thought out, and had done an immense deal in making London one of the healthiest and most wholesome cities in the world. Now they were going by this Bill to hit or destroy one of its most important features, namely, the uniformity of the system under which it was carried out. He contended that the bye-laws framed by the London County Council had never been regarded as oppressive, and no serious complaint of any kind had been made against them. He reminded the Committee that 50 per cent. of the inhabitants who would come under the jurisdiction of the new district councils lived in one or two-roomed houses, which showed the necessity for uniformity and efficiency of administration.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought that what the honourable Gentleman wanted was already provided for by the Bill. If he looked at the last paragraph of the first part of the Second Schedule, he would see the words "power and duty of executing the Acts relating to common lodging-houses, except the power of making regulations under Section 9 of the Common Lodging House Act, 1851." If there were any other sections of that Act to which the honourable Member referred, the proper place to raise the question would be on that part of the second Schedule.
MR. STUARTsaid that the power to make bye-laws was not preserved to the London County Council in respect of the Public Health (London) Act. The reason why he had moved his Amendment on Clause 5, and not on another part of the Bill was, that it was quite possible other powers might be transferred in the first part of the Second Schedule, and he wished this limitation as to bye-laws to cover the
164
whole of the powers conferred. He would like to obtain from the Government the assurance that the transfer of any powers under the Public Health Act from the central to the local authorities, should be subject to the reservation that the immensely important power of making bye-laws should remain in the hands of the central authority. His Amendment covered a great general principle, and he asked the right honourable Member for Bodmin for his powerful support in his appeal to the Government in this matter.
THE CHAIRMANruled the Amendment out of order at this stage. The honourable Member could move to insert it in the first part of the Second Schedule where the particular powers were transferred.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 1, to leave out 'Sub-section 3.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he objected to this Sub-section, which set fort forth that
"If the London County Council agree with any borough council for the transfer to that Council of any power capable of being exercised by the London County Council within the borough, the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, make a Provisional Order for carrying into effect the transfer on the condition specified in the agreement, either without modification, or with such modifications as may be assented to by the London County Council and borough council."
It was clear that if that proposal was carried, and came into operation, there would be an end to anything like uniformity in London, for they would have one borough council exercising a power which was not enjoyed by other borough councils. But the proposal of the Bill did not stop there. When the agreement between the London County Council and one borough council to transfer power came into operation, it would be in the power of the Local Government Board to transfer the same power to any other borough council, upon its application, without the concurrence of the London County Council. Then it was further provided that when a majority of the boroughs exercised a particular power the Local Government Board might, on the application of the London County Council, impose the same power on any other borough council. He used the word "impose" because it was obvious that in the third case to which he referred a

165
power might be transferred to a borough council against its own will. He desired by his Amendment to obtain the opinion of the Committee on the whole question of these proposals to transfer. Many outside the House felt that if there was to be any transfer of existing powers from the London County Council to the borough councils, the transfer ought to be made by the authority of this House.
MR. WHITMOREsaid that he and other honourable Members desired to facilitate in every way the transfer of power from the London County Council to the borough councils, but they desired that it should be done at the right time. Some of them feared that the scheme set up by the Government in the Bill would rather retard and hinder than facilitate the transfer of these powers.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid that this was a very difficult question to deal with. Firstly, when a transfer of powers was made there must be naturally an increase in the expense. It was very important that the new boroughs should not be put to the expense. If work were put on the new boroughs, the money to carry it out should come from the common county fund. Supposing the new borough of Camberwell was to take over the public park, which cost £60,000, it was only right that the cost of keeping the park up should be paid out of the common county fund. In handing over powers it was not necessary to be uniform, because they could not be uniform. In some neighbourhoods there were shops and factories where inspectors would be wanted; in other neighbourhoods there were only private residences, and therefore the cost of the transfer of the powers would depend on the locality. He thought Sub-section 3 was perfectly advisable and in order, but that Sub-section 4 should be done away with.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONagreed that certain powers might be legitimately and properly transferred from the London County Council to the boroughs. But there was an alternative that certain powers already in possession of the local authorities might be re-transferred to the London County Council. All this gave rise to the suspicion that there might be some ulterior motive at work. The clause
166
had been called the "suicide clause." If the Bill passed without any amendment the powers would not be transferred without due publicity and in the sight of all parties, but when the first transference was made the London County Council would cease to have any power over future operations under the clause. A suggestion he ventured to make on the Second Reading of the Bill and which met with considerable favour—was that the transference and re-transference of the powers should be made not by the Local Government Board, but by the ordinary means of a Bill introduced by the London County Council itself into Parliament and passed by Parliament, so that the House of Commons might have a voice in the decision of the question. That would allay any feeling of suspicion in the matter. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that this clause had excited very unnecessary alarm. Their suspicions might have been erroneous, but the Government had a very easy means of allaying the alarm by adopting the method he had suggested. He appealed to the right honourable Gentleman to make some suggestion to the Committee either in the direction he had indicated or in some other, so that they might come to an agreement in regard to it. Otherwise he should vote with his honourable friend behind him, because he considered it was very pernicious, and would do a great deal of harm.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The honourable Gentleman has quoted words of mine in which I am supposed to have said that this clause would arouse a great deal of unnecessary suspicion and alarm. I think it has caused a great deal of unnecessary suspicion and alarm. I think it has been pointed out by the honourable Baronet the Member for Dulwich that if the clause was to remain as it is the arguments against any agreement being come to between the County Council and the single borough would be so overwhelming that, as a matter of fact, no such agreement would be made. The clause as it stands would compel the County Council not merely to consider the propriety of this, but they would be compelled to consider the whole problem at once. I wish this clause to be a reality and not a sham, as I am afraid it will be unless we modify it. I am disposed to think that the simplest plan would be to substitute

167
for Sub-sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, a single sub-section as follows:—
"The Local Government Board may, if they think fit, on the application of the London County Council and of the majority of the borough councils, make a Provisional Order for the transfer to all the borough councils of any power exercisable by the County Council or for the transfer to the County Council of any power exercisable by the borough councils."
That alteration gets rid of the objection which has been felt by many that the scheme in the clause is not a bi-lateral scheme. It also meets really the objection that the clause would be inoperative owing to the natural reluctance of the County Council to enter into a bargain with the borough councils, the full results of which they could not foresee. I think, further, that it will promote uniformity of administration over the whole of London, to which I am aware those most conversant with the administration of London attach great importance, although I confess I have never been thoroughly impressed with the value of that principle. I have often cross-examined people as to what evil results from some differentiation in the functions of these bodies, and I have never yet had a thoroughly satisfactory reply. And yet the consensus of opinion among all classes has been so great that I confess myself reluctant to set up my judgment against theirs. I do not attach any very great importance to the result of the Amendment I have proposed. I am inclined to believe that by the simple sub-section I have proposed and the withdrawal of the rather complicated sub-sections I have mentioned we may come to a rapid agreement upon this thorny question.
MR. STUARTasked if he was right in assuming that the right honourable Gentleman suggested that Sub-sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 be withdrawn, and that this new sub-section be substituted in its place.
MR. A J. BALFOUR: Yes.
MR. STUARTsaid in that case he did not object.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg leave to move that Sub-sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, be struck out.
Amendment put, and agreed to
Amendment proposed—
"That the following new Sub-sections be added. The Local Government Board may, if they think fit, on the application of the London County Council and of the majority of the borough councils, make a provisional order for the transfer to all the borough councils of any power exercisable by the County Council or for the transfer to the County Council of any power exercisable by the borough councils."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. STUARTsaid these words were a great improvement upon the words which had been omitted. At the same time they did not meet exactly what they desired. They did not desire the relations between the central and the local authorities in London to be made the sport of Provisional Orders. They objected to the Local Government Board dealing with this question, and if they wanted to settle the powers as between the local and the central body they should do it in the ordinary way by Act of Parliament. He proposed, therefore, to move an Amendment that this could only be done by a majority of twothirds of the bodies voting, and that when an agreement was come to in this way the London County Council should be obliged to bring in a Bill for that purpose.
COLONEL, HUGHESpointed out that the honourable Member would have an opportunity of disputing anything to which he objected when it came up for confirmation by Parliament as a Provisional Order.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONwas very glad the Government had made this concession, which really met all the objections they had raised except one. He thought there was some force in the point raised by his honourable friend as to the necessity of dealing with this question in the ordinary way instead of through the Local Government Board. The control of the House of Commons over Provisional Orders was practically non-existent.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Provisional Orders require to be confirmed by Parliament exactly in the same way as Private Bills.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcontended that the House often passed them without knowing what they really were. He was

169
ready to accept the suggestion which had been made, but reserved his right on the Report Stage to deal with the words which had just been read to the House.
MR. STUARTsaid that he regarded as one of the chief improvements made by the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury the fact that they would get uniformity. One of the great objections to the Bill as introduced was that they would never know what Act was being administered or what power existed in a given district in London.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEthought there was a great deal in what his right honourable friend below him had said. What would be the result when they wanted a transfer? Why, every single borough must agree, or at least a majority of them must agree. That was a very difficult thing, because it might be advantageous to transfer powers to certain boroughs and not to others. He thought it was right to have the safeguard exercised by the Local Government Board in transferring these powers to different boroughs without granting them to all.
CAPTAIN NORTONthought the right honourable Gentleman had met them very fairly, for it was now quite clear that Provisional Orders brought matters before the House in the same way as other legislation, and he was satisfied.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that as an outsider he thought the proposed plan was defective because it laid down that the transfer was to be made to all or none. He did not think it was wise to apply a hard and fast rule to all of them, and he suggested that the words should be "any or all." He believed that they would never find a majority of the borough councils and a majority of the London County Council agreeing upon the transfer of powers, and the effect of this new sub-section would be that there would never be any transference of powers at all. His view was that there should be the possibility of a transfer of such powers not merely to all the boroughs but to some of them in particular.
MR. STUARTpointed out that some time ago the London County Council agreed that certain powers should be transferred, and was it now suggested
170
that there was to be opposition to this course? All they had been arguing against was the method by which it was to be done.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would remind the Committee that in the Bill as it stands this clause would be inoperative, and that is the reason why I have suggested this new sub-section.
MR. LOUGHthought that at this stage of the Bill the words might be accepted, as they had been offered in a good spirit, and would remove a great many of the objections which were felt towards the Bill. He earnestly hoped that the idea of allowing partial transfers to some boroughs would not be adopted.
MR. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Hagger-ston)thought that if a rule of this kind prevented the introduction of improvements in the various localities it would be a great misfortune. It was all very well to say the Council had agreed to certain transfers, but the County Council were exceeding jealous of any interference with their control over the local bodies. He was afraid that this new sub-section would not help to bring about that development of local life which they had all wished to see. He moved the insertion of the words "or any" after the word "all."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "all" in line 3, to insert the words "or any."—(Mr. Lowles.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
SIR R. B. FINLAYthought it was extremely undesirable that those words should be inserted, and he hoped the honourable Member would accept the suggestion which had been made at the present stage.
MR. MOULTONsaid that when the Bill was first brought in he regarded this clause as the most dangerous one in the whole Bill. But in the form in which this new sub-section had been proposed there was both equality and symmetry, and it would be very much better to accept it just a it stood.
MR. LOWLESsaid that on the understanding that the Government would consider the point he had raised between now and the Report stage he would consent to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Original Amendment agreed to.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid what had just been passed rendered an alteration necessary with regard to the seventh subsection, which was not applicable to the section as it now stood. He moved the omission of Sub-section 7, and the substitution of the following words:—
"The Local Government Board may also on the joint application of the London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London make a provisional order transfering any power from the County Council to the Common Council or from the Common Council to the County Council."
The effect of this would be that the City would be dealt with separately, and by itself.
MR. STUARTsaid that he thought something ought to be said with regard to the two-thirds majority. He thought if a transfer were to be made between these two important bodies it should be safeguarded by some terms. He rather thought that there was a clause which practically covered that matter in the Bill of 1898. He saw that there was the protection of a Provisional Order, but, at the same time, a Provisional Order Bill passed through the House under very different circumstances to other Bills, and he would much prefer in the case of these important bodies that there should be the safeguard of a two-thirds majority.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONregretted that he could not welcome the Amendment, because he foresaw some danger in it. He did not desire to discuss the matter at that moment, because it depended very much on the wording of the Amendment. All he desired to do was to reserve liberty to himself to oppose it on the Report stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Committee will perhaps permit me, though not
172
strictly in order, to make a statement in connection with Clause 6. It was introduced into the Bill in order to complete the theory of the Bill, so far as the transfer is concerned. The theory of the Bill is that we should transfer from the county council to the borough council all the powers those two authorities have agreed to transfer, and not go further. Some of the powers agreed to be transferred are dealt with in Clause 6, and some are dealt with in the schedule of Clause 7, but there remainsome powers under the London Building Acts, and these cannot be transferred by schedule or clause, or by any other process, because of the interference with the Building Acts which necessarily ensues. Clause 6 was an attempt to circumvent the herculean task of amending the Buildings Act. It was the best attempt that could be made, but it is an attempt which, I am bound to say I consider was, from the first, foredoomed to failure. I do not think it is possible to leave it, as this clause proposes to leave it, to be dealt with by a Provisional Order Bill, and to deal with an amendment of the Buildings Act and the transfer of the provisions of that Act to the new authorities does not come within the province of a London Government Bill. It must be done, I think, by a detailed arrangement with the borough councils and the county councils, and the consideration of the Building Act by this House as a whole. I am sorry that this should be so, because to that extent it mars the symmetry of the measure, because we shall not be able to transfer to the borough councils all the powers agreed to be transferred. Inasmuch as it is impossible to realise that idea by this Bill, the Committee, I trust, will permit me to move that this Clause be omitted.
Question:—
"That Clause 6 be omitted"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour),
put and agreed to.
Clause 7:—
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONdesired some information with regard to the third subsection, which he thought was not quite clear. If the main road was transferred to the borough municipality without contribution, he wished to know whether it would still be maintained by the central body. He further noticed that while main roads came under one sub-section, highways came under another.
SIR R. B. FINLAYpointed out that Clause 8 dealt with those powers.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEwished to know whether it would not be as well to put in the words "tramway lines" after the words "roadway" in Sub-section 2. He moved that that sub-section should be amended so as to read "roadway, tramway road, and footway."
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the words of the honourable Member would make sense; the words in the sub-section are, "by reason of its being a roadway or footway of a bridge"; and if we put in "tramway road" I am afraid it would not make sense.
MR. PICKERSGILL MR. PICKERSGILL moved to omit Sub-section 3 of Clause 7, which provides that the power of a borough council to close or stop up a street, under Section 84 of the Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862, shall not require the sanction of the London County Council. It was clear that if they removed this power it might easily happen that two adjoining boroughs, acting independently, might stop up at the same time two parallel streets, causing great inconvenience to traffic.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 9, to leave out 'Sub-section (3).'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed—
"That Sub-section 3 stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The objection brought against the sub-section by the honourable Gentleman has very little substance. He is afraid lest the borough councils should permit two parallel thoroughfares to be blocked up at the same time. After all, the borough councils are entrusted with the care of the street, the paving and lighting, and they are the bodies most directly and immediately interested in the proper arrangements for the traffic. Therefore, if any body is to be trusted to take care that two adjacent thoroughfares shall not be blocked at the same time, I think it is the borough council. Under the circumstances, I hope the honourable Gentleman will not press us to make this change in the Bill.
MR. STUARTthought there were the very strongest reasons for not altering the law. The power of the central authority was given by the amendment of the Metropolis Management Act. The Metropolis Management Act of 1855 did not give this power, and in consequence of the difficulty that arose Parliament introduced the Act of 1862, which gave the requisite authority to the then Metropolitan Board of Works. There was no difficulty at the present time, but if they removed the central power there would be nothing to prevent two boroughs from stopping up the ends of two parallel streets at the same time, to the general inconvenience of the public.
MR. COURTNEYsaid he did not think his right honourable friend the Leader of the House quite appreciated the question of convenience involved in this matter. His honourable friend who had just sat down spoke of the extreme inconvenience caused before the existing law was introduced, and he (Mr. Courtney) could not help thinking that there should be some machinery by which the public should be protected from the inconvenience of two streets being "up" at the same time. This might happen from mere thoughtlessness or want of agreement between two neighbouring boroughs.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was not particularly anxious that the sub-section should be struck out, but if it was so worded as to provide for the notification of the intention of the borough council to close a given thoroughfare, such notification to be made to the adjoining borough or the engineer of the County Council, the whole difficulty would be obviated.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think we may fairly leave this matter to the borough council. The suggestion of the honourable Member for Battersea is, however, worthy of consideration as far as the adjoining borough is concerned. My honourable friend the Solicitor-General has hastily drafted these words for insertion—which I venture to submit for acceptance:—
"Provided that before closing or stopping any such street the borough council shall notify the fact to the council in a contiguous borough."
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"To add at the end of Clause 1, the words: 'Provided that before closing or stopping any such street the borough council shall notify the fact to the council in a contiguous borough.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Question—
"That those words be there added,"
put and agreed to.
MR. PICKERSGILL MR. PICKERSGILL moved the omission of Sub-section 4 relating to bye-laws and regulations with regard to dairies and slaughter-houses. It was not desirable that the enforcement of these bye-laws and regulations should be entrusted to the large number of borough councils into which London would be divided. There ought to be a uniform adminstration of them, and the only way to insure uniformity was to entrust their enforcement to one central body.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 13, to leave out Sub-section 4."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed—
"That Sub-section 4 stand part of the Clause."
SIR R. B. FINLAYappealed to the Committee to retain the sub-section. Surely the local authority was well aware of the circeumstances of the locality, and had every opportunity of seeing to the enforcement of bye-laws in which its own district was primarily interested. In the event of the default of the local authority to enforce the bye-laws, the County Council might step in and bring the Local Government Board into operation against it.
MR. LOUGHremarked that that would be a very invidious duty for the County Council.
MR. STEADMANsaid this was an Amendment which he had hoped the Government were going to accept. At the present time the London County Council had the enforcement of the bye-laws. They had an excellent staff, and every person was treated in a fair and impartial manner. With regard to the provision at the end of the clause to the effect that if an inspector did not do his duty an appeal
176
should be made to the County Council to do it for him, he desired to draw the Solicitor-General's attention to the fact that at the present time every vestry and district board had a sanitary staff, whose duty it was to visit the various houses of the district and see that they were in a good sanitary condition. He happened to know that the men who were elected on the local boards were owners of property in their respective districts and sanitary inspectors were practically intimidated by them not to carry out their duties in an honest and satisfactory manner. If that applied at the present time in reference to the Public Health Act, it would apply to the enforcement of the bye-laws in reference to dairies and slaughter-houses. There was another point. If they were going to put these extra duties upon the borough councils, they would impose extra expense upon them, because in many cases the local authorities were under-staffed. That being so, an extra staff would be required to carry out the extra bye-laws. An extra staff would mean extra expense, increasing the already heavy burden on the ratepayers in the East-end and other parts of London. He hoped, therefore the Government would reconsider their decision in this matter.
MR. LOWLESsaid the plan of the Government, he was sure, was to make the powers given to the local bodies as real and independent as possible. He thought the fears expressed by the last speaker were groundless. In his own locality each dairy was already regularly visited by the sanitary officer, so that no extra expense would be incurred. He hoped the Government would adhere to the sub-section, and reject the interferene of the County Council wherever possible.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid there must be a central body in the Metropolis to see that the laws of sanitation were uniformly enforced. The County Council ought to be the metropolitan supervising sanitary authority, and it ought not to be cut out from some control over the making and enforcement of the bye-law and regulations.
SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he entirely agreed with the sub-section, because he thought it was desirable to put all matters of sanitation in the hands of the boroughs.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid he should vote against the amendment. He held that it would be for the County Council to see that the local authorities thoroughly carried out the bye-laws respecting this matter.
Question put.
The Committee divided. Ayes, 238; Noes, 131. (Division List, No. 125.)

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Currie, Sir Donald

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Curzon, Viscount

Kemp, George

Arnold, Alfred

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon, James

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Arrol, Sir William

Denny, Colonel

Keswick, William

Ascroft, Robert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kimber, Henry

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

Donkin, Richard Sim

Knowles, Lees

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Baird, John George Alexander

Doxford, William Theodore

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Baldwin, Alfred

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Banbury, Frederick George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lowe, Francis William

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Finch, George H.

Lowles, John

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Beckett, Ernest William

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bethell, Commander

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Macdona, John Cumming

Bill, Charles

Fletcher, Sir Henry

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Folkestone, Viscount

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Bond, Edward

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh W.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Fry, Lewis

M'Killop, James

Boustield, William Robert

Galloway, William Johnson

Malcolm, Ian

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

Garfit, William

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

Gedge, Sydney

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Brown, Alexander H.

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

Middlemore, John T.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gibbs, Hon.Vicary (St. Albans

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Butcher, John George

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Milton, Viscount

Carlile, William Walter

Gilliat, John Saunders

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Monckton, Edward Philip

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Morrell, George Herbert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford).

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mount, William George

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

Graham, Henry Robert

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

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.

Green, WalfordD. (W'dnesbury

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gretton, John

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Charrington, Spencer

Gull, Sir Cameron

Myers, William Henry

Chelsea, Viscount

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Newark, Viscount

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Coddington, Sir William

Hardy, Laurence

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pender, Sir James

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Penn, John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Heaton, John Henniker

Percy, Earl

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Pierpoint, Robert

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Pilkington, Richard

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Houston, R. P.

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Cranborne, Viscount

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Richards, Henry Charles

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Stephens, Henry Charles

Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Willox, Sir Jonn Archibald

Savory, Sir Joseph

Stock, James Henry

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh.N)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Univ.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Thorburn, Walter

Wylie, Alexander

Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr.

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Wyndham, George

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

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

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Spencer, Ernest

Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight

Younger, William

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gourley,Sir Edward Temperley

Paulton, James Mellor

Allen, Wm. (Newc. under Lyme

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Allison, Robert Andrew

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Asher, Alexander

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hazell, Walter

Price, Robert John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hedderwick, Thos Charles H.

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hogan, James Francis

Rickett, J. Compton

Baker, Sir John

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clakm.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Robson, William Snowdon

Barlow, John Emmott

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Billson, Alfred

Jacoby, James Alfred

Schwann, Charles E.

Birrell, Agustine

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire).

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Broadhurst, Henry

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfarshire

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Burns, John

Lambert, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burt, Thomas

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Souttar, Robinson

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington

Spicer, Albert

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Lenty, Thomas Richmond

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cawley, Frederick

Lough, Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

Channing, Francis Allston

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-shire

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Clough, Walter Owen

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Colville, John

M'Ghee, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crombie, John William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert (Edinb.)

Daly, James

Maden, John Henry

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Dalziel, James Henry

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds,S.

Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dillon, John

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Duckworth, James

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

Dunn, Sir William

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, John (Govan)

Ellis, John Edward

Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudd'rsf'd

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Woods, Samuel

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Steadman.

Gold, charles

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Question put and agreed to.

MR. STUARTsaid he now proposed to raise the question of bye-laws, by moving the addition, at the end of the sub-section, of words providing that nothing in the sub-section should affect the power of the London County Council
180
to make bye-laws and regulations under the Public Health and other Acts. He said he had already put before the Committee his arguments in favour of this proposal, and he would not trouble them with any further remarks.
Amendment proposed—
"In Page 5, Clause 7, line 22, At the end to insert 'Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the London County Council to make bye-laws and regulations under the Public Health and other Acts.'"—(Mr. Stuart.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid there was no necessity to insert these words. The sub-section stated that it should be the duty of the borough council to enforce within their borough the bye-laws and regulations for the time being in force. It said nothing about the power of making bye-laws, and therefore the suggested proviso was quite unnecessary.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he agreed with the Solicitor-General that the County Council had absolute power to make bye-laws. But he would like to know if the Council had a concurrent right of entry with the local authority to ascertain if the bye-laws and regulations were observed.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he understood power was given, in the first instance, to the local authority, and then, if there was any default, the London County Council would act under the Public Health Act.
MR. DILLONinquired how the default was to be ascertained. Would the officers of the London County Council continue to have the power which they now possessed to enter upon and inspect the premises, so as to ascertain for themselves whether there had been any default?
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I think the Council would have the power of entry.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it was the opinion of Dr. Shirley Murphy, the Medical Officer of the Council, that the powers of entry possessed by the Council under the Bill would be less complete than those possessed by the borough councils.
THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this amendment.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was anxious to ascertain from the Solicitor-
182
General what were the exact powers the Council would possess. Would it, supposing it had information that a default was likely to occur, be able to send its inspectors to the premises before the default actually occurred? If not, it might be possible to spread disease very widely by the distribution of milk, which was a common source of contagion. It certainly seemed to him that the County Council ought to have concurrent powers of entry, especially in the case of dairies.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! That question certainly does not arise on this Amendment.
Question put and negatived.
MR. STUARTproposed the insertion of the words—
"That nothing in this section shall affect the powers of entry and inspection by London County Council officers."
LORD E. FITZMAURICE: Will the Solicitor-General undertake to look into this matter before we reach the Report stage, and see if the power of entry is saved?
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I am quite prepared to do that. Personally I think it is, but I quite agree that this is a matter which requires attention.
MR. STUART: I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid the Amendment which he had to propose was somewhat consequential on a decision which was arrived at earlier in the evening. He wished to omit the words, "with the consent of the Local Government Board." This clause really gave power to alienate property with the consent of the Local Government Board, and without any reference to the Board from which the authority had practically to borrow the money to carry on their work. When the local authorities wanted loans they had to go to the County Council, which, before granting them, made inquiries as to the rating value of the district, the desirability and cost of the project for which the money was required. Surely, then, it would be better that it

183
should be left to the same body to inquire as to the advisability of allowing the local authority to alienate property, instead of calling in the Local Government Board.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 7, page 5, lines 23 and 24, to leave out 'with the consent of the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)
Question proposed—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the honourable Member will probably see the propriety of not pressing this Amendment. The clause carries out a practice which, I believe, is universal in this country. There ought, evidently, to be some safeguard for preserving the rights of future generations. It is quite proper that, before property is alienated, some expert and impartial authority should be called in to decide as to the wisdom of the alienation. I do not think there could be a better authority than that chosen in the Bill, and I hope the Committee will accept the provision as it stands.
SIR CHARLES DILKE*SIR CHARLES DILKE moved the omission of Sub-section 6, on the ground that the promoting of Bills in Parliament would be a fruitful source of waste of the funds of these new municipalities. He could not imagine any purpose for which they would require to promote Bills; if any matter required legislation, it would be better to proceed by provisional order than by encouraging them to promote Bills of their own in Parliament. The 6th Sub-section could not have been thought out, for it used language entirely inadequate to the circumstances. The power of opposing Bills vestries now had, but the draftsman on this subject had been misled by the supposed analogy between these boroughs and municipalities throughout the country, and had introduced the principle in a form altogether inapplicable to London. The words imported into London law in this clause were to be found in the Borough Funds Act, which stated that all cost in connection with promoting or opposing Bills required the consent of owners or ratepayers, to be expressed by resolution in the manner provided by the Local Government Act of 1858. The latter Act, however, had
184
been repealed by the Public Health Act, which had no application to London in this respect. The machinery to be adopted from the Borough Funds Act for the promotion of Bills was extraordinarily costly and cumbersome, and in many boroughs had become a dead letter. Some of the curious provisions set forth in the third schedule of that Act had, in fact, never been put in force. It was now proposed for the first time to introduce this cumbersome machinery into London. It would be much better simply to leave to the vestries their present power of opposing Bills, for it would merely be a temptation for the new councils to engage in costly conflicts one with the other.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 30, to leave out sub-section (6)."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed—
"That the words 'A borough council shall have the same powers of promoting' stand part of the clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be better from our point of view for us to carry out the general principles which we find applicable to boroughs outside London. The right hon. Baronet suggests that municipal boroughs ought not to have the power of promoting Bills in Parliament, but that they ought to have the power of opposing them. I am unwilling to inflict a stigma on these new boroughs by depriving them of a privilege which their brethren of the extra-metropolitan area have now possessed for a great number of years. That, of course, is in strict conformity with the general principles we have advocated from the very inception of this measure. There only remains the question of whether we should remove limitations in the case of the new boroughs which would put them in a better position as regards the promotion of Bills than the extra-metropolitan boroughs. I do not think we ought to do that, although I do not at all hold that the existing Borough Funds Act is a very convenient instrument, or one incapable of reform, or one, indeed, that it is not very desirable to reform. I think, probably at no distant date, Parliament will take in hand the system which the right hon. Gentleman very justly describes as cumbersome, and will effectively simplify it.

185
That reform would, of course, apply to the London boroughs, as it would to the county boroughs. I do not think we can in this Bill attempt to begin this system of reform; I should prefer a general Act to be passed applicable to all boroughs. I certainly fear the complications that might ensue if we were to attempt a reform on a great scale in regard to the new boroughs, while leaving the old boroughs exactly where they are. I will therefore suggest to the Committee that, as far as it is possible—and roughly speaking I think it is possible—we should assimilate the new boroughs with the old boroughs in this particular. That is the policy we shall pursue, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid this was another instance of the difficulty which arose from endeavouring to treat these London boroughs in the same way as municipal boroughs. He was afraid that the Government had already placed a considerable number of stigmas upon these boroughs, and one of those stigmas consisted in the refusal to allow them to exercise the ordinary hospitalities of municipalities. As far as he could see, they would have these local bodies quarrelling not only among themselves, but with the county council, with regard to Bills promoted by the county council and by themselves. He thought honourable members were already very tired of the number of Bills promoted by the London County Council, for a considerable amount of time was occupied in discussing them; and surely if that were the case, it afforded a very strong argument indeed against allowing 25 municipal bodies in London to promote Bills. The London County Council already spent hundreds of pounds yearly in promoting Bills, and he must say that, as a Member of that House, he should look forward with great trepidation to the time when 25 London boroughs, in addition to the County Council, had the power to promote Bills in Parliament. The First Lord of the Treasury had told them that these powers ought to be given to the new boroughs because municipalities in the country possessed them. But he would point out that it would be practically impossible to apply the Borough Funds Act to London. On the ground of economy and efficiency he protested very strongly against this power being given to the new London boroughs.
SIR A. ROLLITsaid the Amendment of his right hon. friend contained two proposals, one of which he was in favour of, and the other of which he objected to. As to the proposal to prevent municipalities from promoting Bills, he thought it would be a great misfortune to commence the history of these boroughs by differentiating them in such a way from the general boroughs of the country. He had had some experience of boroughs, and was able to say that they had generally exercised this power reasonably and with great advantage. He could not see the distinction which had been so often drawn in those debates between London and other boroughs. He agreed that the Borough Funds Act was not applicable to the new boroughs. But then no one could denounce too strongly the machinery of that Act. But why should they prevent the new councils from exercising their discretion in these matters? He thought the matter might well be left to the councils. If the right hon. Baronet had merely proposed to omit the latter part of the clause, which introduced the obsolete and obstructive machinery of the Borough Funds Act, he would have had very great sympathy with the proposal. But he was not prepared to differentiate the new from the old boroughs in regard to a matter as to which the old boroughs had exercised their powers with advantage to the country.
MR. LOUGHsaid they would like to know the mind of the First Lord of the Treasury. What they wanted was an interpretation of the words "necessary for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of this borough." If those words meant the protection of the interests of the inhabitants in a sense that would apply to all the rest of London, they were most dangerous words. But if they applied only to objects within the borough they ought to be limited. The First Lord of the Treasury intimated that he would accept some Amendments. He humbly drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Amendment standing in his name. It was a good and reasonable Amendment; for as the clause stood it was very bad. He could imagine cases in which it was desirable that the councils should have power to promote a Bill. Some of them have electric light installations which it

187
would be necessary to enlarge, and yet they could not do that unless they could promote a Bill in Parliament. Of course it was said that the councils could get the London County Council to do it in their General Powers Bill. At any rate, they had heard nothing in favour of the section as it stood.
MR. RICHARDShoped the Government would not accept any of the suggestions from the other side of the House which would bind the new boroughs hand-and-foot to the London County Council. The London County Council endeavoured on three occasions to put a Bill through the House regarding the Tower Bridge approaches which was disapproved of by all the representatives in the south of London. The Bill was successfully resisted for two years, and the hon. Member for Blackburn wrote a letter to show the scandalous way in which the ratepayers' money had been wasted.
SIR R. B. FINLAY, in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Islington as to the meaning of the words "necessary for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their borough," said these words occurred in the Borough Funds Act, and therefore there was respectable precedent in their favour. The words meant exactly what they said. If, in the opinion of the governing body, legal proceedings were necessary for the protection or promotion of the interests of the inhabitants of their district, they were at liberty to take such proceedings. In regard to the application of the Borough Funds Act, he would point out that that Act contained stringent precautions against abuses, and the Committee might be assured that the wanton promotion of or opposition to Bills would not be allowed. Consent was required from a public authority, which exercised its discretion. The Local Government Board and the Secretary of State required to be consulted before promotion was allowed, and there was no danger of the ratepayers' money being squandered in that way. Whatever justice there might be in the criticism of the right hon. Baronet as to the machinery of the Borough Funds Act, it was not desirable that the Committee should take in hand, on this occasion, the task of amending its provisions. Surely the proper way of dealing with it was
188
by a general reform of the law with reference to all the boroughs to which the Act applied, and to put the new boroughs on the same footing as the other municipal boroughs throughout the country, in regard to the power to promote Bills. The power of promoting Bills was not on the same footing as that of opposing them, and for this reason—that there was a saving clause in the Borough Funds Act as to the existing lights of other bodies, and it had been held that these words had the effect of allowing any body to resist a Bill which was levelled at its existence, or at any of its essential rights, without going through the formalities prescribed by the Act. So that no uneasiness need be felt as to the powers of the Act being used for the purpose of recklessly promoting Bills.
MR. J. SAMUELwished to disabuse the mind of the Committee of the idea that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean represented the views of the municipalities on this question. He knew there was some difference of opinion, and he also knew that the hon. Member for Islington was president of the Association of Municipal Incorporations. But he understood that that Association was principally composed of town clerks, who were very anxious that their municipal bodies should promote Bills in Parliament. Many of the municipal bodies, however, had sent resolutions, and instructed their delegates to oppose any alteration of the law. He held that the law was a check on the reckless promotion of Bills. A large number of councils had promoted Bills, but when they went before the electors and explained the object of the Bills, the ratepayers refused to give consent to their promotion. The Bill promoted by the Municipal Association did not altogether represent the views of the Association. The Bill said that the consent in writing must be obtained of a twentieth of the ratepayers. In some towns that meant that a thousand ratepayers would be called on to sign a paper in absolute ignorance of what was contained in the Bill, because there was no provision in the Bill for a previous public meeting at which the Bill would be explained. The great safeguard of the Borough Funds Act was that there must be a public meeting of the ratepayers to

189
discuss the objects of the Bill, and to take the sense of the meeting as to whether the Bill should be promoted or not. That Act had been a great protection in different municipalities against the reckless promotion of Bills which otherwise might have passed as Provisional Order Bills.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid that the necessity for the new boroughs having power to promote Bills had been conceded by the London County Council, and they did that in order to get rid of the trouble of promoting legislation for different parts of London. If a new borough council wanted Parliamentary power to regulate markets, the London County Council would say, "Hand the market over to us; we ought to be the market authority," but he held that the boroughs were entitled to hold the markets for their own benefit. It seemed to him that Parliament ought to give those new councils some power of their own to promote Bills, and that they should not be compelled to go to any other body for the purpose.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down evidently wanted something different from the cheap and easy way of getting Parliamentary sanction to local improvements through the aid of the London County Council. The hon. Member said that if they wanted a market at Woolwich the London County Council would probably turn round and say they would not give a market as readily as some local improvement. The Metropolitan Board of Works and the London County Council spent altogether half a million of money on Woolwich ferry, and that money had been contributed by all London. What had that expenditure done? It had reduced the price of coal in Woolwich 1s. to 2s. per ton, and had also reduced the price of foodstuffs of all kinds. It seemed to him that if London as a whole was taxed to the extent of half a million, in order to provide communication between North and South Woolwich, on the principle that they who paid the piper had the right to call the tune, the markets should be in the hands of the Central Authority. Take the case of Covent Garden Market. Supposing the new Westminster borough were to get that market it would be at the
190
expense of all London, which made their purchases there. That would be a monstrous thing. Some people wanted metropolitan profits for local purposes. He could conceive no reason in a single case why the local authorities should be invested with power to promote Bills. The clause was unreasonable and unjust, and he trusted in the interests of economy that it would be withdrawn. As to the housing of the poor, they had only to put in force the Housing of the Poor Act, and they would get all they wanted.
MR. STUARTsaid that in the conference between the local authorities and the County Council the local authorities proposed that they should have leave to promote Bills concurrently with the London County Council for improvements, and it was agreed to provide those improvements within the area of the local body promoting them, without assistance from the county funds. That was a definite proposal, to which they had no objection, and the local authorities did not seek for the greater powers of promoting Bills, and it was perfectly clear where the difficulty would arise if there was a general promotion of Bills by all the general authorities of London. He feared very much that the determination to regard these new metropolitan boroughs as absolutely identical with the great municipalities of England had caused all the trouble. He thought it would be better to exclude definitely from this Bill the power to promote Bills on subjects which referred not only to the special borough concerned, but also to the rest of London. He desired to move the addition of the words—
"with the exceptions of Bills referring to water, gas, tramways, and markets."
There were other subjects, but those were very great central questions, and it would be extremely inconvenient if the local bodies were to promote Bills in respect to them. He wished to ask whether he should be in order in moving those words at the end of the Clause.
The CHAIRMAN: There will be no objection to moving it at the end.
MR. STUARTsaid he had had a great deal to do with the Bills of the London County Council, which had not generally met with much opposition in the House, and they had been very favourably re-

191
ceived and dealt with by the Committees. He looked simply with horror at the prospect of having to promote Bills in this House, with the possibility of those measures being traversed by the new local authorities in London. The whole position would be one of enormous expense. Town clerks were well known to be great promoters of Bills, and they would have the new town clerks of these new boroughs eager to promote Bills. He looked with terror at the expense, the waste of time and the hopelessness of getting Bills through this House, and the entanglement in which all their legislation would be involved if this proposal was adopted. It had been said that it was desirable to make these new bodies as much like other boroughs as possible, but why should they stick to this resemblance upon this particular point, when the essential difference between them was that there were a large number of subjects which wore taken out, and ought to be taken out, of the hands of these borough councils, because they belonged to the central government of London? He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would not pre-suppose that there would be any antagonism between the boroughs and the County Council, for he should do his best to encourage good relations between them.
MR. LOWLESsaid he was in favour of giving local authorities the power to establish small markets. The street traders were a standing source of trouble to the police and to the local authorities, and a great many localities would be glad to have small markets for these street traders where they could be placed, instead of selling in the thoroughfares and obstructing the streets.
MR. LEUTYsaid he gathered that the objection to alter the Bill was the desire of maintaining the analogy between these new boroughs and
the existing boroughs, but he desired to point out that the analogy which it was proposed to maintain did not exist. The city that he represented was divided into five Parliamentary divisions, and he could not conceive the confusion that would arise if all those five divisions were able to apply for Parliamentary Bills. On Private Bill Committees of this House he had seen something of the confusion that did arise, and the waste of money involved, by small authorities fighting with each other on trifling matters in which their interests ought to be one. It was a great pity to perpetuate this evil by sticking so much to the independence of these boroughs. They were told that the Government shrank from making reforms, but it was not true, for reforms had already commenced in London. The difficulties of administering the Borough Funds Act did not operate in London, but the Government were now going to make it operate. As a matter of fact, they were dragging back that cumbersome system which London was congratulated upon having got rid of. These new boroughs were not like the country boroughs, which were towns and cities in themselves, but they were only sections of one great town, and it was a thousand pities that that state of affairs had not been fully recognised. The analogy did not exist, and the result of the attempt to make an analogy when there was not one existing, would be that confusion would occur, and the difficulties would increase; whereas it would be easy, if this Amendment were accepted, to increase their powers if it was found desirable. If, however, they found that many Acts of Parliament had been obtained, and many other interests had grown up, it would be extremely difficult to get order out of the confusion created.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 68. (Division List, No. 126.)

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Arrol, Sir William

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Ascroft, Robert

Beckett, Ernest William

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bethell, Commander

Charrington, Spencer

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bigwood, James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Bousfield, William Robert

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

Baldwin, Alfred

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

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

Bowles,T.Gibson (King's Lynn

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Myers, William Henry

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hamilton, Rt.Hn. Lord George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Perey, Earl

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Philipotts, Captain Arthur

Cross, HerbertShepherd(Bolt'n

Heaton, John Henniker

Pierpoint, Robert

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (H'mpste'd

Pilkington, Richard

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Houston, R.P.

Richards, Henry Charles

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

Curzon, Viscount

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dalbiac, Colonel philip Hugh

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Robinson, Brooke

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon, James

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Donkin, Richard Sim

Kimber, Henry

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Knowles, Lees

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Doxford, William Theodore

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sidebottom, THarrop(Stalybt-

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lowe, Francis William

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lowles, John

Stock, James Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Fisher, William Hayes

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Tritton, Charles Ernest

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Macdona, John Cumming

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Flower, Ernest

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Folkestone, Viscount

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinbur'h W.

Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight

Forster, Henry William

M'Killop, James

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Galloway, William Johnson

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Williams, Josph Powell- (Birm-

Garfit, William

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wylie, Alexander

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Monckton, Edward Philip

Wyndham, George

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Allen, W. (Nowc. under Lyme)

Hogan, James Francis

Pirie, Duncan V.

Asher, Alexander

Horniman, Frederick John

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Rickett, J. Compton

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Baker, Sir John

Lambert, George

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Billson, Alfred

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Schwann, Charles E.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Leng, Sir John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Burt Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cald,well, James

Lough, Thomas

Souttar, Robinson

Causton, Richard Knight

Macaleese, Daniel

Spicer, Albert

Clough, Walter Owen

M'Ghee, Richard

Steadman, William Charles

Daly, James

M'Kenna, Reginald

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Davies, MV aughan-(Cardigan)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Donelan, Captain A.

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E

Doogan, P. C.

Moss, Samuel

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Dunn, Sir William

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Woods, Samuel.

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Oldroyd, Mark

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. John Burns.

Hazell, Walter

Philipps, John Wynford

MR. STUARTproposed an Amendment limiting the power of the boroughs in promoting Bills to those
"For making improvements wholly within their districts and not intended to be paid for wholly or in part out of county funds."
194
He pointed out that he proposed by the Amendment to limit the power of promoting Bills to those which had been agreed upon at the conference which took place three years ago. In the Bill there were some

195
powers which were proposed to be transferred which were not discussed at the conference. It was proposed at the conference that the borough councils should have concurrent powers with the County Council for promoting Bills for effecting improvements; but the Improvement Committee proposed that it should be limited to improvements within the districts of the local bodies. He thought that was a useful restriction, and it was upon that ground that he moved the Amendment, which was practically what was proposed at the conference.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 31, after the word 'promoting,' to insert the words 'Bills in Parliament for the purpose of making improvements wholly within their own districts, and not intended to be paid for either wholly or in part out of county funds.'"—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid there were ample provisions to be found in the Borough Funds Act for restricting these powers within due limits. Of course borough councils would make improvements relating to their own districts. If one borough had any special interest in any Bill, it would fall within such a Bill as the Local Government Board or borough might promote. He therefore thought the Amendment was unnecessary, and hoped it would not be pressed.
MR. JOHN BURNSthought that some concession would have been made with regard to this matter. Bills of every kind for every conceivable object could be promoted under the Borough Funds Act.
SIR R. B. FINLAY: A resolution must be passed in the special form prescribed.
MR. JOHN BURNSthought that it would always be possible to get enough people to justify the promotion of any
Bill. In his opinion, it was undesirable that these borough councils should have any such powers at all. If they had these powers, there appeared to him no reason why Clerkenwell should not promote a Bill to appropriate a part of Smithfield Market for its own use. That would immediately bring them into conflict with the Corporation, and he desired to see no conflicts. Such subjects as water, gas, markets, tramways, subways, docks, and matters of a like kind should be dealt with by a central authority and not a local body. Under no circumstances whatever ought the borough councils to be allowed to promote Bills with regard to subjects affecting the metropolis as a whole. He should, for instance, very much object to Bethnal Green getting up an agitation for the purpose of acquiring and doing away with Columbia Market. That would be a matter upon which all the ratepayers should be consulted. The Amendment made the clause sensible and workable in confining the ambitions of the local authorities to their proper areas and proper needs, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would press it to a Division.
MR. COHENwelcomed this new-born solicitude for the pockets of the London ratepayers on the part of the hon. Member for Battersea. He did not think that the example of the London County Council was the one to follow in these matters. For the last ten years that body had spent, not hundreds, but thousands a year in promoting Bills which never passed and in opposing Bills which always did pass. He was sorry that the London County Council had been held up as a pattern, because a more wanton and wicked waste of money could not be imagined. He thought that these powers might very properly be confided to the borough councils.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 67; Noes, 148. (Division List, No. 127.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.

Baker, Sir John

Clough, Walter Owen

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Billson, Alfred

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Allen, Wm. (Newc.under Lyme

Caldwell, James

Donelan, Captain A.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Causton, Richard Knight

Doogan, P. C.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.

Dunn, Sir William

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moss, Samuel

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gurdon,Sir William Brampton

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Souttar, Robinson

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Steadman, William Charles

Hazell, Walter

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Hogan, James Francis

Oldroyd, Mark

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Horniman, Frederick John

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Philipps, John Wynford

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Joicey, Sir James

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshre

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Kitson, Sir James

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Leng, Sir John

Rickett, J. Compton

Macaleese, Daniel

Roherts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

M'Ghee, Richard

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Mr. James Stuart and Mr. John Burns.

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Schwann, Charles E.

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Moore, William (Antrim, N)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Flower, Ernest

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness

Folkestone, Viscount

Myers, William Henry

Baldwin, Alfred

Forster, Henry William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Galloway, William Johnson

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Garfit, William

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbs, Hn. A.G. (City of Londn

Pierpoint, Robert

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

Pilkington, Richard

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Giles, Charles Tyrell

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Beckett, Ernest William

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Bethell, Commander

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Richards, Henry Charles

Bigwood, James

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir Jn Eldon

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

Bond, Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Ch. Thomson

Bousfield, William Robert

Greene, Henry D. (Shrews)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

Robinson, Brooke

Bowles, T. Gibson(Lynn Regis)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Round, James

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld George

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Charrington, Spencer

Helder, Augustus

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)

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

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

Houston, R. P.

Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Stewart, Sir M J. M'Taggart

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Stock, James Henry

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hutchinson, Capt G. W. Grice-

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Strauss, Arthur

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Kenyon, James

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Keswick, William

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow

Kimber, Henry

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Knowles, Lees

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Webster, R.G. (St. Pancras)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of W)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Curzon, Viscount

Lowe, Francis William

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Lowles, John

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Denny, Colonel

Lucas-Shad well, William

Wylie, Alexander

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Macdona, John Cumming

Wyndham, George

Donkin, Richard Sim

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Doughty, George

Maclure, Sir John William

Young, Commander (Berks, E

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)

Doxford, William Theodore

M'Killop, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Malcolm, Ian

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Fardell, Sir T. George

Milward, Colonel Victor

MR. STUART MR. STUART moved to add at end of Clause 7—
"Provided that nothing in this section shall enable a borough council to promote a Bill relating to water, gas, tramways, markets, subways, docks, or any other matter affecting the general interests of the metropolis."
His object in moving the Amendment was that there might not be cross purposes in promoting Bills in the House.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 38, at the end of the clause, to add the words, 'But in this section shall enable a borough council to promote a Bill relating to water, gas, tramways, markets, subways, docks, or any other matter affecting the general interests of the metropolis.'"—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there added."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Amendment cannot be accepted.
MR. JOHN BURNSasked whether the right honourable Gentleman really thought the local authorities ought to have the power to promote Bills for the specific purposes mentioned in the Amendment? If so, Battersea, for instance, might bring in a Bill to promote a little tramway of its own, or to start a local market.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is extremely improbable that any of the local authorities will acquire these powers. I should be greatly surprised if they asked for them. But if they do acquire the powers and exercise them improperly, the Committee may depend upon it that the House will very rapidly quash them.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 157. (Division List, No. 128.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Allen, William (Gateshead)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Philipps, John Wynford

Allen, Wm.(Newc.underLyme)

Hazell, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Baker, Sir John

Hogan, James Francis

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Barlow, John Emmott

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bilson, Alfred

Joicey, Sir James

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Burns, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Burt, Thomas

Kitson, Sir James

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Caldwell, James

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Souttar, Robinson

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh

MacAleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clough, Walter Owen

M'Ghee, Richard

Thomas Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Colville, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Dillon, John

Moss, Samuel

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Donelan, Captain A.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Doogan, P. C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Dunn, Sir William

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Steadman.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Bethell, Commander

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bigwood, James

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

Arrol, Sir William

Bond, Edward

Coghill, Douglas, Harry

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bousfield, William Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Baldwin, Alfred

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Butcher, John George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Banbury, Frederick George

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Cox, Irwin Edward B.(Harrow

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Charrington, Spencer

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Beckett, Ernest William

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Curzon, Viscount

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Houston, R. P.

Richards, Henry Charles

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

Denny, Colonel

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Donkin, Richard Sim

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Robinson, Brooke

Doughty, George

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Round, James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon, James

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Doxford, William Theodore

Keswick, William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Kimber, Henry

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Knowles, Lees

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sidebottom, William(Derbys'e

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lowe, Francis William

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Flower, Ernest

Lowles, John

Stock, James Henry

Folkestone, Viscount

Lloyd, Archie Kirkman

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Forster, Henry William

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Strauss, Arthur

Galloway, William Johnson

Macdona, John Cumming

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Garfit, William

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Maclure, Sir John William

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh,W

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

M'Killop, James

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Malcolm, Ian

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Webster, Sir R. E. (IsleofWight)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Milward, Colonel Victor

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Monckton, Edward Philip

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Gretton, John

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Wylie, Alexander

Gull, Sir Cameron

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Wyndham, George

Hamilton, Rt. Hn..LordGeorge

Myers, William Henry

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Parkes, Ebenezer

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington

Heaton, John Henniker

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Helder, Augustus

Pierpoint, Robert

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

Pilkington, Richard

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 8:—
MR. STUARTproposed—
"To leave out on page 6, line 2, from 'amount' to end of clause, and insert 'as shall be proportionate to the population in the district.'"
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I honestly confess I am unable to understand this Amendment, but I feel sure that the honourable Gentleman will agree with me that the amount of the contribution of the County Council should be proportionate to the work done by the borough councils, and in no sense proportionate either to acreage or to population.
MR. HALDANEsaid there was no doubt a good deal to be urged from a technical point of view against the Amendment, but whose fault was it that it had been moved in its present form? The principle of the clause was to leave it in the hands of the Local Government Board to apportion the amount of the
202
contribution. They were not told, however, to go on any particular plan, and no indication was given them that they were to observe the principle of the equalisation of rates. That principle the First Lord accepted, and said he desired to keep intact; and surely this was a matter in which he should see that it was put into operation. If the Government would, at a later stage, consent to the introduction of this principle, he did not think his honourable friend would desire to press his Amendment.
MR. L. R. HOLLANDstrongly protested against the allocation of the money on the basis of population. The Amendment practically proposed that the cost of the upkeep of the Embankment should fall upon the inhabitants of Westminster; when really it should be borne by London generally. Instead of the Amendment benefiting the poorer districts, it would fall on them in the hardest possible way. That would be notably the case in regard to the maintenance of the main roads, the cost of

203
which, instead of being distributed, as now, over the whole of London, would fall mainly on the poorer districts.
Amendment put, and negatived.
MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid the next Amendment which stood in his name raised a very important question. As the hon. Member for Hoxton had pointed out, no direction was given to the Local Government Board as to the basis upon which they were to proceed in distributing the money. Were they to take the present net cost of the services to the London County Council as the basis, or were they to proceed upon the probable future cost to the borough councils, after the transference had been effected? It seemed to him that the only absolutely fair way would be for the whole cost of the central service to be charged against the county rate, and then it could be left to the Local Government Board to settle, as nearly as possible, what would be the probable cost to the new councils when they had taken over the duties. Any mistake that might be made could easily be rectified by having a revision every three orfour years. The present net cost of these services was between £18,000 and £20,000, but it was impossible to predict exactly what would be the increased cost to the borough councils when they took over the administration. It was perfectly manifest that there would be an increase. Experience had shown what was likely to be the result in other matters, for, in regard to the Shop Hours Bill, while the City spent upon it £121 per year, the London County Council expended £352. If the new borough councils were going to expend at the same rate as the City, the result of the transference would be that each one would be spending £100 per year, but would only be receiving, as their share from the County Council, about £10 per year. It was clear there would be great injustice to the borough councils if they found, as he feared they would do, that many of the powers which were transferred to them would be a considerable burden to them, and largely increase their necessary expenditure.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 8, page 6, line 2, after 'annual' to insert 'calculated upon the probable cost to the borough council of administering any power or duty so transferred.'"—(Mr. L. R. Holland.)
LORD E. FITZMAURICEthought that these words were not strictly necessary. The points raised by his honourable friend were precisely the ones which the Local Government Board would go into. Under the second subsection of Clause 2 of the Local Government Act, 1888, urban councils very often had to make some kind of agreement with county councils for the repair of main roads in their districts, and if any difference of opinion arose between them the Local Government Board came in as arbitrator.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid he could not agree with his hon. friend who moved the Amendment. As had been pointed out, the work now being done by the County Council would probably be more expensively done by the new borough councils. Of course, he hoped that that would not be the case, but he thought it would be bettor, in the interests of economy, that they should come to an understanding in the matter, and take the last three years of the expenditure of the London County Council as the basis on which to apportion the contribution. He believed the new boroughs would not spend more than they could help, as it would be to their advantage, under such an arrangement, to carry out the duties as cheaply as possible. He begged to move an Amendment accordingly.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"Line 1, leave out from 'the' to 'council' in line 2, and insert "average cost during the last three years to the London County Council.'"—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. H. S. SAMUELsaid he had an Amendment down on the Paper in almost exactly the same terms. It seemed to him that the new corporations would desire not to feel, in any way, at the mercy of the London County Council. If powers were transferred to them, the expense of which had been defrayed by the London County Council in the past, there should be no doubt whatever that the new corporations would lose nothing by the transference. He therefore supported the Amendment

205
to the Amendment, which certainly gave them something definite to go upon. The question of main roads was one of great importance to the East End of London, in which were situated six out of the eleven miles under the control of the London County Council. Very recently an attempt was made by the London County Council to transfer from themselves to the vestries the duty of maintaining these roads, and it caused a good deal of trepidation amongst the members of vestries, many of whom petitioned Parliament to prevent the transfer. They had only to substitute the corporations for the vestries, and the same feeling would arise again. Much anxiety would exist as to the amount of money that would be forth-coming, and he therefore earnestly appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to adopt some plan which would make it clear that the new bodies would not in any way lose through the transfer.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he viewed this section with some concern, because there was nothing in it to indicate the basis upon which the contribution should be allocated. Every Member of the House, of course, desired that it should be fair and just, and the question was, what was the best basis. No doubt, in the matter of main roads, it would be easy to arrive at a specific sum which would be fair to all parties; but there were many other matters in which it would be very difficult indeed for the Local Government Board to arrive at a conclusion, unless some specific directions were given to it. Could not the right honourable Gentleman suggest words which would relieve them from considerable anxiety with regard to relations which might lead to great friction?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wonder why this great increase of burdens is feared. Why should there be any additional cost?
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he should like to point out that, in regard to some of the duties proposed to be transferred, there were matters of inspection which must involve a considerable increase of local rates, and unless there was a fair contribution from the central body, the cost would fall heavily upon the poorer districts.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that I do not even now understand why
206
the transfer of these powers will be more costly to the poorer districts. We have before us two plans for giving directions to the Local Government Board, both supported nominally in the interests of the poorer districts. These plans are absolutely contradictory, because while the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley says it is not what the cost has been in the past, but what the cost is estimated to be in the future, my honourable friend the Member for Limehouse says we are not to take into account what the new duties are to cost in the future, but what they have cost on the average in past years. I would suggest that the plan in the Bill is the plan which really best enables a sound verdict to be come to with regard to all the facts of the case. It appears to be the opinion of Gentlemen opposite that this is a novel responsibility which we are throwing upon the Local Government Board, and that the Local Government Board, without direction, would be quite incapable of giving a just decision. But, as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, this clause is framed upon the 11th Section of the Local Government Act, 1888.
MR. J. SAMUEL: That only refers to main roads.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is so. There is power to transfer main roads from one authority to another; there is a provision that an agreement may be come to between the two authorities as to the cost of those main roads; and there is a further provision that in default of an agreement the Local Government Board shall give a verdict on the question. That is a strict and accurate parallel to the proposal in this Bill. I venture to suggest that the Local Government Board is quite capable of taking into account all the circumstances of the case, and it would be hampered and not assisted by any attempt to set out in detail all the considerations which it is to take into account before it comes to its final decision.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid his recollection was that in the provision as to main roads, to which the First Lord had referred, there was no absolutely fixed amount, but the sum was determined from year to year. It struck him it was not necessary that an agreement under this section should finally fix the

207
amount. The agreement might be made upon the basis of determining the amount in a definite way. Let them take the case of the main roads. It might be arranged that the cost should be calculated every year, and that the County Council should pay seven-eighths of the actual outlay. It must be borne in mind that the amount varied from year to year, and in many cases it was very difficult to get at the probable cost.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is an Amendment on the paper which suggests variations of payment, and that will be open to discussion.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he would like to have the opinion of the Solicitor-General whether, under the clause as it now stood, the amount might be made, not a fixed amount payable for all time, but a variable amount from year to year, to be determined in a certain way by the parties to the agreement.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid the Bill contemplated either a capital sum or an annual sum that should be fixed once for all.
MR. BOUSFIELD: But, would it be possible for the local authority to agree with the County Council that that body should pay seven-eighths in each year of the actual cost?
SIR R. B. FINLAY: Yes. I think they might agree as to that.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Amendment put, and negatived.
MR. HALDANE MR. HALDANE moved to insert after "Board," in line 6, page 6, Clause 8, the following words:
"Provided that in determining such amount the Local Government Board shall, in such cases as it thinks appropriate, have regard to the proportion existing between the population and rateable value of such boroughs."
The object of the Amendment was to give more latitude to the Local Government Board, while leaving them discretion with regard to the provisions of the
208
Equalisation of Rates Act. He wished the Committee to consider the concrete instance of the inspection of common lodging-houses. In the case of a poor district with a large population, it was obvious that in making a contribution to such a borough, account should be taken of the proportion between population and rateable value. Where the work was heavier, the contribution should be greater. He did not propose to limit the Local Government Board to any hard-and-fast line. He did not say that the words he moved were the best, but if the Government agreed to the principle which underlay his amendment, he should be perfectly content with an undertaking on their part to consider the matter before the Report stage.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The principle of the equalisation of rates is a very excellent principle, but surely this method of attempting to apply it is wholly irrelevant and inexpedient. The hon. Gentleman assks me to consider the question before Report. I am perfectly ready to consider it, but I cannot hold out any hope, unless some new and sudden light—some great illumination either from within or without—comes to me, that I can accept the Amendment. Does it bear argument in the case of main roads or in the case of common lodging-houses? In carrying out the duty of dealing with common lodging-houses in the poorer districts, where such houses are directly required, the County Council would have to pay more than it would in the richer districts; that is an obvious point which would be considered by the Local Government Board. It is a point which any umpire must take into account, but to lay down a principle which is very proper if we are dividing a lump sum between different areas of the Metropolis, and to attempt to apply it to the carrying out of different duties, is a perversion of the principle of the equalisation of rates which does not bear close examination. I am quite willing to give the pledge asked for by the honourable Gentleman, but I am unable to hold out any hope that the judgment I have formed on the spur of the moment will be any different from that formed after consideration.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON MR. SYDNEY BUXTON moved—
"In Clause 8, page 6, line 9, at beginning to insert 'provided that at any interval of not

209
less than three years the London County Council and the borough council may revise and alter the amount of the contribution, or, in default of agreement, the Local Government Board may, on the application of either party, if it think fit, revise and vary the existing arrangement.'"
He said it was possible that a particular decision might not be just, and that some alteration might be necessary. All he suggested was that there should be power on the part of the borough council or the County Council to reopen the question of the contribution if either side conceived it not to be fair, and that under such circumstances they should have an opportunity of arguing as to the future amount, and that if they were unable to agree the Local Government Board should arbitrate between them. It was right and just that there should be an opportunity from time to time, if the two parties desired it, to revise the amount.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there is some force in the contention of the honourable Gentleman, but I look with a certain amount of suspicion on the propriety of the suggestion he makes. In any case three years is altogether too short a time. In my opinion it should at least be quinquennial, or even for ten years, but that is a detail on which we shall have no difficulty in coming to a proper decision. The danger to be avoided is that a borough council might be extravagant in expenditure for local purposes, and might then throw the cost over to another body. I can imagine the County Council carrying out some function for the last ton years at a cost of, say, £1,000 a year. The matter is then handed over to the local authority, and they find they cannot do it under £1,500 a year. Then at the end of five years the local authority might say to the Council, "You did this for £1,000; we spend £1,500. We must ask you for the extra £500." Then, perhaps, emboldened by success, they might ask for £2,000 at the end of another five years. I regard that as a danger. We hand over to these local bodies, absolutely without control, the management of this particular function, whatever it may be, and if we divorce the cost from the responsibility of carrying out the duty, very serious danger may arise. I will give the fullest consideration I am able to the Amendment, and if the honourable Member will
210
regard that as meaning that I will not undertake to favourably consider it, perhaps he will not press his Amendment.
MR. STUARTsaid that unless the Amendment were considered the clause would be a damnosa hereditas to the poorer districts. Take the common lodging-houses. There was a great deal to be done in respect to them. At present the County Council had the responsibility of doing these things, and paying for them out of the common rates all over London, and if the responsibility were handed over to the local authorities, the new system would fall very heavily on the poorer districts. If they followed a hard and fast line, and gave a certain sum to such objects, the whole of the extension of the good work he had referred to, which was really beneficial to all London, would fall on the poorer districts.
COLONEL MILWARDsaid that, under the Act of 1888, any Order made when a local body was parting with its powers was for perpetuity. The County Council was now asked to part with certain of its powers; and, if they followed the Act of 1888, the Order made by the Local Government Board would be for perpetuity.
MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid it seemed to him that they were going to shackle the local authority with increasing expenditure. He believed the County Council was now able to conduct the inspection of common lodging-houses with four or five inspectors. They were going to transfer that power, and there would have to be a very much larger number of inspectors. The instance of the main roads was not applicable. The exact amount that had to be spent on their upkeep could be ascertained, and that amount could be paid over to the local authority; but, as regarded the other matter, it was merely taking a leap in the dark as to what the future expenditure was to be. Take the case of Poplar. It was absurd to contend that the small contribution now paid by Poplar to the County Council for the inspection of common lodging-houses would be equal to the expenditure it would have to incur when it undertook that duty for itself. It seemed to him that unless some concession were made in

211
the matter they would be benefiting the richer districts at the expense of the poorer districts.
LORD E. FITZMAURICEsaid the argument used by the honourable Member for Stratford-on-Avon was one that the Committee ought not to accept. It was perfectly true that in a case which came before the Derby Commission there was a fixed payment for ever, but that was a case where the area of the county had been entirely altered, and where there had been a dissolution of partnership.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the honourable Member for Bow and Bromley was one of those Members on the other side of the House who wore strongly in favour of dignifying the boroughs by transferring to them from the County Council powers which, in his opinion, were more cheaply and efficiently administered by the central body. The honourable Member was, however, now face to face with the fact that these borough councils could not exercise these powers either as cheaply or as efficiently. Take the case of lodging-houses. The County Council had three or four inspectors for the 700 lodging houses of the Metropolis. If the duty of inspection were transferred to Bow and Bromley from the County Council, they would want at least one inspector for a fortieth part of London. The honourable Member admitted that, but he should have considered it before he voted to transfer such powers from the County Council. There was one thing they might do, and that was to extend the principle of the equalisation of rates to lodging-houses, and also to main roads, and if the First Lord of the Treasury was not prepared to go so far, he would be confronted with the fact that the local authorities would have to enforce their new powers at treble the cost, or refuse to face the cost, and leave the lodging-houses to sink down where they were twenty or thirty years ago.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid that if the Committee adopted the suggestion of the honourable Member for Battersea, and allowed certain local bodies to spend the money that came from the central authority, he was afraid that they would find that the increase of rates of which they had complained in the past would be even exceeded in the
212
future. Those who incurred the expenditure should find the money for the expenditure, and until they adopted some principle of that kind they would find their rates continually increasing. He ventured to submit to the Committee that the principles enunciated by his right honourable friend the Leader of the House were really the right ones, and that they ought to leave the responsibility of finding the money to those who were going to incur the expenditure.
COLONEL HUGHESthought that, as there was a fresh valuation every five years, it would be better if the revision and alteration of the amount of the contribution took place quinquennially rather than triennially.
MR. STUARTurged that constant reorganisation and central supervision were necessary. By transferring powers at present exercised by the central authority, they were casting considerable additional burdens on the poorer districts. They had therefore not only the danger that these matters would cost more to the locality, but the additional danger that they would not be so efficiently done.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, as the First Lord of the Treasury had promised to consider the matter before the Report stage, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—
"That Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
put and agreed to.
Clause 9:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 21, to leave out Sub-section 1."—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)
Mr. R. G. WEBSTERpointed out that Clause 1 provided that any committee appointed by a borough council for the purpose of the Libraries Acts, 1892 & 1893, or of any of their other powers or duties, might consist partly of persons not members of the council. He thought the provision giving a borough council power to elect gentlemen from the outside to sit on these committees was one of the most remarkable provisions that

213
had been put in any Local Government Bill brought before the House of Commons, and one which would not commend itself to honourable Members. If they were going to put superior persons on these bodies from the municipal associations, the Primrose League, or from the other wire-pulling associations, he must say he preferred the better system by which the ratepayers of London directly elected the people to carry on their municipal work. He therefore moved to omit Sub-section 1.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he was ready to meet the honourable Member by striking out the words, "or of any of their other powers or duties."
MR. JOHN BURNS: Then will the superior persons not be elected?
SIR R. B. FINLAY: They will be confined to the libraries committees.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STUART MR. STUART moved to omit Sub-section (2), because he did not see the use of it. It provided that every committee should report their proceedings to the council, but to the extent to which the council so directed acts and proceedings of the committees should not require the approval of the council. This proposal would destroy the unity of action of the council, and would encourage the council to be idle and to allocate its powers to committees. He thought no
committee should be allowed to spend money except with the sanction of the council direct, and that every committee should be required to report their proceedings to the council.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (2)."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
Question proposed—
"That the words 'Every committee shall' stand part of the clause."
SIR R. B. FINLAYhoped the Committee would allow the sub-section to stand. It prevented unnecessary waste of time and trouble by having to secure the sanction of the council for every act of the committee. There was a provision in the sub-section that a committee should not raise money by loan or by rate, or spend any money beyond the sum allowed by the council.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that in the case of Municipal Corporations every act of every committee had to be submitted to the council. As the Municipal Corporations Act had been held up as a great example throughout the whole of the discussion, he failed to see why in this particular matter they should not follow the provision made in the Municipal Corporations Act.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 78. (Division List, No. 129.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Denny, Colonel

Arrol, Sir William

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Charrington, Spencer

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chelsea, Viscount

Doughty, George

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balfour Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Banbury, Frederick George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fardell, Sir T. George

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Beckett, Ernest William

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bethell, Commander

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Fisher, William Hayes

Bigwood, James

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

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

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Bond, Edward

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Bousfield, William Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Folkestone, Viscount

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Forster, Henry William

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Galloway, William Johnson

Butcher, John George

Curzon, Viscount

Gedge, Sydney

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macdona, John Cumming

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Killop, James

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Malcolm, Ian

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Marks, Henry Hananel

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Gretton, John

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Gull, Sir Cameron

Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Stanley, Lord. (Lancs.)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Stephens, Henry Charles

Hardy, Laurence

Milward, Colonel Victor

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Heaton, John Henniker

Monckton, Edward Philip

Stock, James Henry

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Strauss, Arthur

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Morrell, George Herbert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Houston, R. P.

Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Unv.

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tollemache, Henry James

Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice-

Myers, William Henry

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Webster, Sir R.E. (Isleof Wght.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Kenyon, James

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Keswick, William

Percy, Earl

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Kimber, Henry

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Pilkinton, Richard

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wylie, Alexander

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, George

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Rankin, Sir James

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Leigh-Bennett. Henry Currie

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Richie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

Long, Rt. Hn, Walter (L'pool)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Robinson, Brooke

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Lowles, John

Round, James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Hbrt. John

Philipps, John Wynford

Asher, Alexander

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hry.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Pirie, Duncan V.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Baker, Sir John

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Reckitt, Harold James

Balfour, Rt Hn J. Blair(Clackm.

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Hogan, James Francis

Rickett, J. Compton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Horniman, Frederick John

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Billson, Alfred

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees).

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Joicey, Sir James

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sinclair, CaptJohn(Forfarshire

Burns, John

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Thomas, Alfd. (Glamorgan,E.)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr)

Causton, Richard Knight

Macaleese, Daniel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cawley, Frederick

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Ure, Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Ghee, Richard

Wedderburn, Sir William

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Maden, John Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Clough, Walter Owen

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Colville, John

Morton, Ed.J.C. (Devonport)

Williams, John Carvell(Notts.)

Crombie, John William

Moss, Samuel

Wilson, John (Govan)

Daly, James

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Doogan, P. C.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES,

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

O'Malley, William

Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Steadman.

Dunn, Sir William

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

MR. LOUGHsaid that as this section now read it provided that every committee should report their proceedings to the council, and to the extent to which
216
the council so directed the acts and proceedings of the committee should not require the approval of the council. He did not think any argument could be

217
adduced in support of the clause as it now stood, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment he now moved. If this Amendment were adopted the sub-section would road:—
"Every committee shall report their proceedings to the council, and the acts and proceedings of the committee shall require the approval of the council."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 26, to leave out the words from the word 'council' to the words 'the Acts' in order to insert the word 'and,'—(Mr. Lough)—instead thereof—
Question proposed—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR R. B. FINLAYopposed the Amendment, and expressed the hope that the Committee would not agree to it. It was intended that if the council chose to give to the committee the power to act without their sanction the committee should so act; but that if, on the other hand, the council reserved to themselves the right to sanction, the committee should not act without the council's sanction. As the clause now stood, he submitted it would be better than as amended by the honourable Member.
MR. STUARTpointed out that the clause as it stood departed from the two precedents the Government had been endeavouring to follow. The power of allowing the borough councils to cut themselves free from responsibility for committees did not exist in the case of the County Councils or the Municipal Corporations or Metropolis Management Acts. He held that there ought to be a joint responsibility in the governing body. By this sub-section they were allowing the councils to contract out of their responsibilities.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The honourable Gentleman is technically justified in moving his Amendment, but I do seriously thing the Committee ought not to spend much more time upon it. In the first place the honourable Gentleman is incorrect in saying there is no precedent. He will find a precedent in the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, under which a sanitary authority may appoint a committee for the purposes of the Act.
MR. JOHN BURNS: But is not that to prevent an epidemic? Those are exceptional cases.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But there is a precedent and a good precedent for the proposal we have made. However, I do not rest it on precedent. Where there is a free library, is it not absurd that the local authority should not be able to delegate certain powers to a library committee? The sub-section appears to me an eminently rational and reasonable one.
MR. LOUGHcontended that all the best precedents were on their side. Under the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, all committees appointed by the vestries were bound to report their proceedings to the vestries. The majority of the precedents were in their favour, but if there was no precedent, then let them make a good one now. The reporting of the committees need not necessitate any trouble or waste of time; it was merely a formal matter. If these committees were allowed to transact their business without the cognisance of the council, all responsibility would be lost. There would be no means of knowing what they were doing, and none of that useful criticism which prevented these bodies from making mistakes. Moreover, there would be more purity of administration if the acts of the committees were reviewed from time to time by the council.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid that unless a Horse Committee, for instance, had power to spend money they could not go to market for the purpose of buying horses, as no dealer would let them have a horse on condition that the council approved of the committee's action in purchasing it.
MR. JOHN BURNSpointed out that as a general rule the Committee who went to purchase horses were accompanied by the surveyor, the horse-keeper, and the veterinary surgeon. They selected the horses, but no money was paid, not even a deposit. Dealers were always pleased to sell their horses to public bodies, and no difficulty such as that mentioned by the honourable and gallant Member would arise. If the committee were allowed to go to Barnet Fair with £700 or £800 in their pockets, they would probably make bad bargains and buy the worst old screws that were for sale.
MR. BONDsaid there were several precedents for the proposal in the Bill. The Technical Education Board of the London County Council had a quasi-independent existence, and had large sums placed at their disposal, in the expenditure of which they had not to secure the approval of the County Council.
MR. J. SAMUELpointed out that even library committees, although they had powers to co-opt members, were bound to receive the sanction of the council to any expenditure they might propose. There was not a single committee in any of the
borough councils which was not compelled to report direct to the council and obtain their sanction for every penny expended. This practice prevented the friction which would be certain to occur if committees had power to decide questions of expenditure. He hoped the honourable Member for West Islington would press his amendment to a Division.
Question put.
The Committee divided—Ayes, 170; noes, 71. (Division List, No. 130.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Fisher, William Hayes

Marks, Henry Hananel

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Arnold, Alfred

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Arrol, Sir William

Folkestone, Viscount

Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Forster, Henry William

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Galloway, William Johnson

Milward, Colonel Victor

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerad W.(Leeds

Gedge, Sydney

Monckton, Edward Philip

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Beckett, Ernest William

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Bond, Edward

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Myers, William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bousfield, William Robert

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Green, Walford D.(Weds'bury

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Butcher, John George

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Pease, Hrbt. Pike (Darl'gton)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pilkington, Richard

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Charrington, Spencer

Hardy, Laurence

Pretyman, Ernest George

Chelsea, Viscount

Heaton, John Henniker

Rankin, Sir James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Cochrane, Hon.Thos. H. A. E.

Houston, R. P.

Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W.Grice-

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas.Thomson

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Robinson, Brooke

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Round, James

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow

Kenyon, James

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Keswick, William

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Ed. J.

Cox,Irwin Edward B.(Harrow)

Kimber, Henry

Savory, Sir Joseph

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Curzon, Viscount

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sidebottom, William (Derby's

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Denny, Colonel

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.

Stephens, Henry Charles

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liv'pool)

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stock, James Henry

Doughty, George

Lowles, John

Strauss, Arthur

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sturt, Hon Humphry Napier

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macdona, John Cumming

Tollemache, Henry James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Mgrray

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

M'Killop, James

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Webster, Sir R. E. IsleofWight)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Wyville, Marmaduke D'Arey

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Young, Commander (Berks E.)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wylie, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Williams Joseph Powell-(Birm.

Wyndham, George

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Austruther.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cheshire)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Richardson, J. (Durham S. E.)

Asher, Alexander

Hayne, Rt. Hon. CharlesSeale-

Rickett, J. Compton

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon Charles H.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Baker, Sir John

Horniman, Frederick John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair (Clakm.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfars)

Billson, Alfred

Joicey, Sir James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvon)

Steadman, William Charles

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumbland

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Burns, John

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Buxton, Sydney Chas.

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Caldwell, Jamesi

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

Cawley, Frederick

M'Ghee, Richard

Ure, Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wedderburn, Sir William

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Maden, John Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Clough, Walter Owen

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Colville, John

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Crombie, John William

Moss, Samuel

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Daly, James

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Govan)

Doogan, P. C.

Pearson, Sir Weeman D.

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Philipps, John Wynford

Dunn, Sir William

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Provand, Andrew Dryburn

Mr. Lough and Mr. Jonathan Samuel.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Reekitt, Harold James

It being after midnight, the Chairman left the chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

SCOTTISH EDUCATION.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRrose to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying her to withhold her assent to a Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated 27th day of April, 1899, providing for the distribution of the sum available for Secondary and Technical (including Agricultural) Education, under Section 2, Sub-section 4, of the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898."
MR. BANBURYobjected to the motion being proceeded with at that hour.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR, on a point of order, submitted that this was a Minute under the provisions of the Act passed last year, in which it was provided that the money should be distributed in accordance with the conditions on which the Minutes of the Scotch Education Department were submitted to Parliament.
222
He wished to know whether the Minute did or did not come under the Standing Order of the House and within the definition of "proceedings made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament or Standing Order."
MR. SPEAKER: The proceeding which the honourable Member is proposing to take is to move an Address. That is not, ordinarily speaking, a procedure under an Act of Parliament. When it is provided by a Statute that an Address shall have a particular effect if it be moved within a certain number of days, moving such an Address has been held to be a proceeding under the Statute; but whether that is not a somewhat strained construction of the Standing Order I will not now inquire. This is not such a motion. The Statute says that certain Minutes shall be laid on the Table, and there is nothing providing that an Address moved within a certain time shall have a particular effect. It is simply stated in the Minute itself that it shall not take effect until forty days have expired. It would, therefore, be going beyond the clear meaning of the Standing Order if I were to say that the Address which the honourable Member proposes to move is a proceeding under an Act of Parliament.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid that on 27th February, 1893, an Address was moved in exactly similar circumstances. But, in view of the Speaker's decision, he would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury. The last paragraph of the Minute declared that no action should be taken on it until it had been laid upon the Table of both Houses for one calendar month. That showed that the Department had done all it could to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Minute.
MR. BANBURY: Is not the hon. Member contravening your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in arguing the matter?
MR. SPEAKER: I should have stopped the honourable Member if I had thought he was doing so. I understand he was making an appeal to the Minister.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,), in reply to the appeal made, said he would tell the House what he had already told the honourable Member privately—that, knowing that unless objection was taken within a month the Minute would become law, he had secured from the First Lord of the Treasury a day for the consideration of the Scotch Estimates within the statutory period. Objection, however, was taken to the day fixed—last Friday—by the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore honourable Members opposite had to thank that right honourable Gentleman for being deprived of an opportunity of raising the question. The whole matter, however, could be raised upon the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of the Scottish Education Department.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRexplained that they were utterly ignorant that this motion was out of order.

SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BLL.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKexpressed the hope that the House would permit this Bill to be read a second time that night.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Bill was similar to the one which applied to Scotland only, and which passed the House of Commons unanimously. He hoped this Bill would pass, and receive a better fate than the Scotch Bill in another place.
MR. ASQUITH: I think we are entitled to ask what is the opinion of the Government on this Bill, because a similar Bill, which was passed unanimously in this House, was rejected in the other House, without a division, at the instance of the Prime Minister.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONsaid he heard the speech of the noble Marquess at the head of the Government upon the Scotch Bill with great regret. He supported the Bill now before the House, and hoped it would be read a second time.
SIR W. WALROND: In view of the question put by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, I think this matter must be considered by the Government, and I therefore object to the immediate progress of the measure.
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.

EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—
Committee report progress; to sit again upon Thursday, June 1st.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve of the clock.