HC Deb 09 May 1899 vol 71 cc159-221

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 (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. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

submitted that this was really the stage 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 DILKE

thought they had no option but to accept the promise of the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that he would introduce words to meet the case, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

entirely 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. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

suggested 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,) Inverness Burghs

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 BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

admitted 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 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. STUART

said 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 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 CHAIRMAN

said 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. STUART

said 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 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 CHAIRMAN

ruled 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. PICKERSGILL

said 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 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. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

said 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 MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)

said 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 BUXTON

agreed 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 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 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. STUART

asked 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. STUART

said 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. STUART

said 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, HUGHES (Woolwich)

pointed 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 BUXTON

was 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,) Croydon

Provisional Orders require to be confirmed by Parliament exactly in the same way as Private Bills.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

contended that the House often passed them without knowing what they really were. He was 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. STUART

said 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 MAPLE

thought 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 NORTON (Newington, W.)

thought 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 BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said 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. STUART

pointed out that some time ago the London County Council agreed that certain powers should be transferred, and was it now suggested 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. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

thought 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. FINLAY

thought 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. MOULTON (Cornwall, Laun ceston)

said 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. LOWLES

said 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. FINLAY

said 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. STUART

said 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 BUXTON

regretted 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 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 BUXTON

desired 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. FINLAY

pointed out that Clause 8 dealt with those powers.

SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE

wished 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 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. STUART

thought 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. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said 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 BURNS (Battersea)

said 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 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. FINLAY

appealed 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. LOUGH

remarked that that would be a very invidious duty for the County Council.

MR. STEADMAN (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

said 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 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. LOWLES

said 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 BURNS

said 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 MAPLE

said 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 HUGHES (Woolwich)

said 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. STUART

said 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 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. FINLAY

said 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 BURNS

said 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. FINLAY

said 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. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

inquired 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 BURNS

said 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 BURNS

said he was anxious to ascertain from the Solicitor- 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. STUART

proposed 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 (Wilts, Cricklade)

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. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said 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 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 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 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. 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 BUXTON

said 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. ROLLIT (Islington, E.)

said 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. LOUGH

said 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 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. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)

hoped 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 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. SAMUEL (Stockton)

wished 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 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 HUGHES

said 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 BURNS

said 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 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. STUART

said 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. STUART

said 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- 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. LOWLES

said 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. LEUTY (Leeds, E.)

said 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. STUART

proposed 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. 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 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. FINLAY

said 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 BURNS

thought 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 BURNS

thought 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. COHEN (Islington, E.)

welcomed 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 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 BURNS

asked 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. STUART

proposed— 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. HALDANE (Haddington)

said 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 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. HOLLAND (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.)

strongly 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 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. HOLLAND

said 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. FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)

thought 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. WEBSTER

said 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. SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

said 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 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 BUXTON

said 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 BUXTON

said 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 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. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said 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 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. BOUSFIELD

said 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. FINLAY

said 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. WEBSTER

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment put, and negatived.

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 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 moved— In Clause 8, page 6, line 9, at beginning to insert 'provided that at any interval of not 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 regard that as meaning that I will not undertake to favourably consider it, perhaps he will not press his Amendment.

MR. STUART

said 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 MILWARD (Warwick, Stratford-on-Avon)

said 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. HOLLAND

said 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 the matter they would be benefiting the richer districts at the expense of the poorer districts.

LORD E. FITZMAURICE

said 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 BURNS

said 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 LUBBOCK (London University)

said 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 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 HUGHES

thought 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. STUART

urged 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 BUXTON

said 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. WEBSTER

pointed 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 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. FINLAY

said 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 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. FINLAY

hoped 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. PICKERSGILL

said 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. LOUGH

said that as this section now read it provided that every committee should report their proceedings to the council, and to the extent to which 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 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. FINLAY

opposed 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. STUART

pointed 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. LOUGH

contended 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 HUGHES

said 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 BURNS

pointed 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. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

said 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. SAMUEL

pointed 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.