LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.

HC Deb 15 May 1899 vol 71 cc608-85

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 9:—

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

On behalf of my honourable friend the Member for Huddersfield (Sir James Wood-house) I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, at end, to add— A borough council appointing under this Act any Committee, may from time to time make, vary, and revoke regulations respecting the quorum and proceedings of such Committee; and, subject to such regulations, the proceedings and quorum shall be such as the Committee may from time to time direct, and the chairman at any meeting of the Committee shall have a second or casting vote."—(Mr. Lough.) Question proposed— That those words be there added.

MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said the object of this Amendment was to make the procedure as to Committees the same as that of the County Councils Act of 1888, which regulated the proceedings of Committees in absolutely the same words as those which were now proposed.

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

said his impression was that this provision was not really wanted, because the Councils already possessed such power, but if on further inquiry they found that this was not so, the point would be considered and, if necessary, such provision would be included in the Bill.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

thought the undertaking given by the Solicitor-General was really all that they required.

MR. LOUGH

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea) moved an Amendment, providing that the future committee under the borough councils should have power to levy the full amount which they had been able to levy before. He said it might be objected that a committee ought not to have automatic power of its own to levy a rate, and he did not wish to press the Amendment in its present form. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, had also put down an amendment to a later clause which might carry out this object, and therefore he did not wish to press this Amendment on the Committee if it was proposed to deal with the matter at a later stage. He begged leave to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, at end to add— except that a Committee appointed for the purposes of the Libraries Acts, 1892 and 1893, may spend in any year a sum equal to the amount which would he produced in that year by the maximum rate winch, at the passing of this Act, could be levied in the district for which the Committee acts."—(Mr. Whitmore.) Question proposed— That those words he there inserted.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

I quite agree that this is a matter which ought not to be lost sight of by the Committee, but as the honourable Member indicated in his speech, the matter will be dealt with at a later stage. The power proposed to be given to these library committees to raise rates up to Id. in the £ without the control of the governing body, is much too extreme, and the subject can be dealt with on Clause 15, which offers a better opportunity for its discussion.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

agreed that the object of this Amendment could be better attained on Clause 15.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

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

said that a special Act was introduced not very long ago in order to enable certain Scotch counties to exercise similar powers to those contained in the Amendment which he was now proposing. He also wished it to be within the power of the borough council to have the power to co-operate with neighbouring boards of guardians to appoint joint committees to deal with matters in which they were jointly interested. The desirability of such power being granted was especially impressed upon his mind upon occasions when distress existed in the metropolis, and when it had been found necessary to provide some means of giving employment to those who would otherwise have remained unemployed. It had been found that the Boards of Guardians were not exactly the authorities best qualified to set men to work, for they had not the necessary machinery, whereas it had been found that the neighbouring vestry might very well carry out the object which was desired by a mere extension of the existing system. In those circumstances, he thought it would be very convenient to give the power which was sought by his Amendment, which be begged to move.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, after line 30, to add the words— Any two or more Borough Councils, or any Borough Council or Councils, and any Board or Boards of Guardians in the metropolis, may from time to time concur in appointing out of their respective bodies a joint committee for any purpose in respect of which they are jointly interested, and may confer on any such committee any power which the appointing Council or Board might exercise for the purpose for which the committee is appointed."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

Question proposed — That those words be there added.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I sympathise with the object which the honourable Gentleman has in view, but I do not think the words he proposes will do, partly because they introduce the Poor Law authorities, which I do not think should be included in this Bill. The honourable Member has probably in his mind the section of the Act of 1894 which dealt, in the case of the parish councils, with an analogous problem with which he tries to deal here. The question was then thoroughly threshed out, and I would suggest that he should move it in that form. If he will do so, I shall be able to accept it. It would be in the following form:— Section 57 of the Local Government Act of 1894, which relates to joint committees, shall apply to Borough Councils as if they were District Councils.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said he was much obliged to the right honourable Gentleman for his offer, but he could not accept his suggestion. In moving this Amendment, what he was really anxious for was power to bring in the boards of guardians to enable them to co-operate with the neighbouring council in times of distress. That was his main object, and he did not see how he could accept the right honourable Gentleman's suggestion unless he would incorporate what he had suggested with regard to boards of guardians.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Even if such an Amendment is in order, I think it really goes outside the scope of the Bill in spirit, if not in form.

MR. STUART

thought the proposal of his honourable friend was a very valuable provision, the necessity for which occurred at the time of very hard frosts, when the co-operation of the vestries and boards of guardians had been urgently desired by persons interested in philanthropic movements.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

asked the right honourable Gentleman to bring up the clause he had suggested upon the Report stage.

MR. LOUGH

thought the right honourable Gentleman would readily admit that both the guardians and the borough councils dealt very frequently with the same areas. Without pressing the matter too far, he thought everyone would feel that there were occasions on which these two bodies impinged a little on one another's duties. The proposal was that the two should be empowered to appoint a joint committee. There was a great deal of work which was common to the two bodies, and he should be glad to hear from the right honourable Gentleman whether the Government would recognise this principle at the present stage.

SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich)

asked if they might take it that the Government would propose the clause which had been suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury. He did not think that it was desirable that they should interfere with the boards of guardians at ail in this Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The arguments of honourable Gentlemen opposite have not altered my view upon this matter, which is, that we must leave to the boards of guardians the whole responsibility in connection with the administration of the Poor Law. I do not think any exception should be made, and I rather imagine that in certain exceptional cases those honourable Gentlemen who are anxious to see this change might confer informally with the local authority, and co-operate with them in some way not distinctly specified to give relief. I think, however, that the whole responsibility should rest with the boards of guardians, and I should be sorry to see any such change introduced into this Bill as that suggested by the honourable Member in his Amendment.

MR. STUART

desired to point out that the Amendment did not necessitate the handing over of the powers of the guardians to the local councils, which only arose when the vestry endeavoured to give employment to the unemployed. There was a difficulty in discriminating between the really genuine unemployed person and the loafer, and it was only by co-operation with the guardians that a movement of this kind could work satisfactorily. This proposal was to meet a specific case, and there was no desire to take over any powers out of the hands of the guardians and transfer them to the council, which was a matter upon which there would be a great difference of opinion on both sides of the House.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said he desired now to take the judgment of the Committee upon the question.

MR COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

thought that the object desired by the honourable Gentleman opposite was one of considerable value, and he thought it might be met by enabling a committee of the council to be appointed with power to add to their number. Although he did not think it was advisable to bring in outside members, he thought that in this particular case it might be appropriate to

give the council power to co-opt two or three of the best known members of the board of guardians in that particular district.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 94; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 144.)

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley	Palmer, SirCharles M. (Durham
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hy.	Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	Palmer, George W. (Reading)
Austin, Sir. John (Yorkshire)	Gurdon, Sir William Brampton	Paulton, James Mellor
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Hedderwick. Thos. Charles H.	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Baker, Sir John	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Pease, Joseph A. (Northum.)
Beaumont, Went worth C. B.	Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.)	Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)
Billson, Alfred	Horniman, Frederick John	Pirie, Duncan V.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Reckitt, Harold James
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Rickett, J. Compton
Burt, Thomas	Jacoby, James Alfred	Robson, William Snowdon
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Joicey, Sir James	Schwann, Charles E.
Caldwell James	Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire
Cameron, Sir Cnavies (Glasgow	Jones, William (Carnarvon)	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Kay-Shuttle w'th,Rt.Hn. Sir U.	Stevenson, Francis S.
Causton, Richard Knight	Kitson, Sir James	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Colville, John	Lambert, George	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Crombie, John William	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land	Thomas,David Alfd. (Merthyr)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Daly, James	Leng, Sir John	Ure, Alexander
Dalziel, James Henry	Lewis, John Herbert	Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Lough, Thomas	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Davitt, Michael	M acaleese, Daniel	Warner, Thomas. CourtenayT.
Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles	M. Arthur, William (Cornwall	Weir, James Galloway
Dillon, John	M'Kenna, Reginald	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Leod, John	Williams JohnCarvell (Notts.
Doogan, P. C.	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Fenwick, Charles	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Woodall, William
Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Yoxall, James Henry
Fitzmauriee, Lord Edmond	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	O'Connor, James(Wieklow, W.	Mr. Piekersgill and Mr. James Stuart.
Goddard, Daniel Ford	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Gold Charles	Oldroyd, Mark
NOES.
Acland-Hood Capt. Sir Alex F.	Blakiston-Honston, John	Curzon, Viscount
Aird, John	Boalnois, Edmund	Dalbiae, Colonel Philip Hugh
Allsopp, Hon. George	Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)	Denny, Colonel
Arnold, Alfred	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Dickson-Povnder, Sir John P.
Ascroft, Robert	Bullard, Sir Harry	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Campbell, Rt. Hn.J. A. (Glasg'w	Doxford, William Theodore
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy	Carlile, William Walter	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Baillie, James E.B.(Inverness)	Cecil, Evelyn (He tford, East)	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Baird, John George Alexander	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.	Fardell, Sir T. George
Balcarres, Lord	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Baldwin, Alfred	Chaplin, Rt. Hon Henry	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Monch'r	Chelsea, Viscount	Fisher, William Hayes
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Folkestone, Viscount
Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith-	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Fry, Lewis
Bartley, George C.T. [Hunts	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Gibbs Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lond.
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Giles, Charles Tyirell
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol	Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.	Gilliat, John Saunders
Beresford, Lorn Charles	Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Bethell, Commander	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Gunter, Colonel
Biddulph, Michael	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Bill, Charles	Cruddas, William Donaldson	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George
Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.	M'Calmont, H. L. B.(Cambs.	Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.
Haslett, Sir James Horner	M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W.	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Heaton, John Henniker	Malcolm, Ian	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Helder, Augustus	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Stavelev (Staffs,	Marks, Henry Hananel	Stanley, Henry M.
Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.	Stephens, Henry Charles
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Milton, Viscount	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)	Milward, Colonel Victor	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ
Howell, William Tudor	Morrison, Walter	Thorburn, Walter
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptf'rd	Thornton, Percy M.
Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Jessel, Captain Herbt. Merton	Newark, Viscount	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Webster, Sir R. E. (IsleofWight
Kimber, Henry	Percy, Earl	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Knowles, Lees	Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Lawrence, Sir E. Duming-(Corn	Purvis, Robert	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Pym, C. Guy	Williams, JosephPowell-(Birm
Leighton, Stanley	Rankin, Sir James	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Wodehouse, Rt Hon E.R.(Bath
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)	Rentoul, James Alexander	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Wyndham, George
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)	Wyville, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Lucas-Shadwell, William	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Macdona, John Cumming	Seely, Charles Hilton	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Maclean, James Mackenzie	Sharpe, William Edward T.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, after line 30, to add Section 57 of the Local Government Act' 1894, which relates to joint committees, shall apply to borough councils as if they were district councils."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed— That those words be there inserted.

MR. LOUGH

said that they had not yet received any explanation of these words.

MR. PICKERSGILL

contended that, his Amendment having been defeated, the proposal now made by the Government was out of order.

* THE CHAIRMAN

There is a substantial difference between the two motions, and this proposal is quite in order.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:—

An Amendment made.

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

said that on behalf of the honourable Member for Westminster, who was not in his place, he desired to move the Amendment on the Paper. This was not a general rate, and he thought it would be better to call it the borough rate, for the term "general" was too restricted. Upon those grounds he moved this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 10, page 6, line 33,— To leave out 'the general,' and insert 'a rate to be called the borough.'"—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)

Question proposed— That the words 'the general' stand part of the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As my honourable and learned friend has observed, this is simply a verbal Amendment, but I think the words of the Bill are more accurate than the words proposed in the Amendment, because the rate referred to is really not a borough rate, and therefore the word "general" is more accurate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH moved to omit from Sub-Section 1, in line 35, the following words:— But shall make provision for protecting the interests of the occupiers of any heredita- ment which is exempt from any rate or liable to he assessed thereto at a less amount than the occupiers of other hereditaments. He thought that this was a very large power to give to those who might be responsible under this Act. There were a great many anomalies in London at present with regard to rating, and surely the opportunity afforded by this Bill was a good opportunity to remedy them by Act of Parliament.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 35— To leave out the words from the word 'rate,' to the end of sub-section 1."—(Mr. Lough.) Question proposed— That the words 'but shall make provision for protecting the interests of' stand part of the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The honourable Gentleman expresses some doubt as to the intention of the four lines which he desires to omit. Surely that intention is quite clear. There are certain kinds of property which, for one reason or another, are exempted and founded upon statute with regard to part of the rates. We do not provide by this clause that those exemptions shall last in perpetuity, but we do provide in those four lines to which the honourable Gentleman objects that the interested occupier of those hereditaments shall be protected. I cannot imagine that the honourable Member seriously desires that those interests should not be protected, or that the privileges secured to these persons by Act of Parliament should be taken away by a single stroke of the pen without compensation.

MR. STUART

contended that the words as they stood did not make sense, and were not grammar. They read as a compound of two original ideas, one of which was that the occupiers of any heriditament should be exempted, and the other that the owner of the hereditament itself should be assessed lower than other occupiers. There were two broad distinctions to he considered in connection with the rating of London. First of all there were in London certain occupiers who had been allowed to deduct the sewers rate from the rent, and he supposed they wanted to protect those occupiers. That was one protection which was needed. The occupier was called upon for his rate, and he found he had to pay so much, and he had a statutory right to deduct a portion of that amount from the owner. Then they came to certain hereditaments, which when the assessment authority came to assess them, were to be assessed differently to the others, for it was provided that certain specified hereditaments were to continue to be exempt from the ordinary process of assessment, and consequently there were two interests to protect. It seemed to him that this matter was confused in the four lines before them, and if they meant the protection of the statutory right of the occupier to deduct a certain part of the rate from the owner, he thought that ought to be continued, but if it meant that certain specified hereditaments were to continue to be exempted from the ordinary process of assessment, then he thought they ought to be discontinued. He admitted that this did not affect a very large interest in London. There were some curious old Acts of Parliament which exempted certain houses from being assessed in the usual way, and those anomalies had continued under a state of things which had now very largely passed away, and he thought these cases ought to be reconsidered now. It was pretty clear that the sewers rate would under this Bill be thrown upon the occupier, and he would not be allowed to deduct it. There were two sewers rates—one charged by the County Council, and the other charged by the local authority. By a pure inadvertence, in the Act of 1888 the sewers rate levied by the County Council was thrown entirely on the occupier, who was thus deprived of his right to deduct it from the owner. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had admitted this inadvertence, and he had promised to introduce a Bill to rectify that mistake. But owing to circumstances of greater moment they had not yet got that Bill, and unless they took care at the present stage, this Act would take away the same right with respect to the local sewers rate, which sometimes amounted to as much as 6d. in the £, which the occupier had at present the right to deduct very often by agreement with his landlord. In many long tenancies the occupier had this right, but it would be taken away from him by this proposal.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Will the honourable Member explain how he gets this right of deduction?

MR. STUART

pointed out that Sub-section 2 provided that— After the appointed day the general rate and the poor rate shall be levied together as one rate, which shall be termed the general rate. He thought they would find that the sewers rate levied as it was now would be different under the Bill, and the occupier would be deprived of his right of deduction. He did not know whether the four lines referred to the retention of the statutable rights of certain existing occupiers to deduct certain rates, or whether they applied to the relief of certain hereditaments from special methods of assessment.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

pointed out that there were certain hereditaments which enjoyed total or partial exemption from certain rates, such as the lighting and the sewers rates. It would be very wrong, without providing for compensation, to undo that partial exemption, and the intention of the words alluded to was to preserve the exemption from rates enjoyed by the occupiers of those hereditaments until some fair arrangement was made to give them an equivalent. It did not necessarily imply that those exemptions should continue in perpetuity. He agreed that there should be some uniformity of rating, but that should not be established by inflicting an injustice.

MR. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)

said that he understood that, so far as the Bill was concerned, there was no proposal whatever to alter the incidence of rating. It appeared to him that the words which were proposed to be left out were essential to secure that, so far as the incidence of rating was concerned, the Bill should make no change at all.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

thought that some Members of the House did not understand this clause. He understood from the explanation of the Solicitor-General that it might be looked upon only as a temporary exemption.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

said that it was not necessarily temporary, for it would be very desirable by a fair arrangement that it should be perpetual. The object of the words was to ensure that the exemption should not be done away with without provision being made.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

saw no objection to this, but it should be remembered in regard to these exemptions that when these matters were reconsidered it should be taken into account what compensation, if any, was to be paid to these people. The Leader of the House had spoken of them as being statutory exemptions, and therefore it would be very difficult to interfere with them. He understood, however, that in a number of cases they were not statutory, and there ought to be words inserted which would exclude them from the operation of this clause.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said he quite agreed that unless injustice was to be done, the words of the sub-section were necessary. They would come within the ambit of the scheme, and it might be. possible to work out a system by which, ultimately, uniformity would be secured.

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

said that, so far as he knew, with the exception of certain districts, all rating exemptions were statutory.

MR. LOUGH

said the honourable Member for Poplar had suggested, and the Government had heartily accepted, his idea that his Amendment might be accepted here, and that on a later clause in the Bill an arrangement might be made for compensation. As the words now stood, he thought they went a great deal further than that. He would point out that hospitals and tithes in the City were exempt from rating, while outside of London they were not exempted. That was one of the grievances which those outside London interested in tithes complained of. They ought to take care to make an equal system in this clause, and if it was found to press hardly upon any particular person, let them introduce words into Clause 15 to provide compensation for anybody who was aggrieved. The object of his Amendment was that those exemptions and irregularities should be swept away, and if this clause was passed in its present form, such exemptions might continue for ever.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said the Leader of the House had stated that all these exemptions rested upon statute, and the Attorney-General had just stated that in many districts the exemptions were not statutory.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

said he stated they were statutory except in certain areas.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said that there were a very considerable number of these areas outside London in which these exemptions had been put an end to, and the question was whether this opportunity should not be taken to put an end to them in London also.

* COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

said the words proposed to be omitted referred to different rates, and the question whether A had a right to deduct anything from B was not raised, and might be dealt with hereafter. The clause provided for all the expenses of the borough council being levied out of the general rate. Therefore it was necessary to put in something so that the existing rights would be preserved. If certain Acts required to be repealed, that should be done specifically, for this Bill had been brought in with the idea of not disturbing those rights.

MR. STUART

said he was extremely desirous of bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. When they had secured a uniform rate, surely what they wanted to do, instead of putting in those four lines, was to state that all exemptions of a partial kind should hereafter cease, and then they could proceed to protect the interests of the present occupiers. It seemed to him that this clause was in the wrong place, and the word "occupier" was contrasted with "hereditament," and he did not know which was the real word. Really, they wanted to know what the sentence meant. Assuming that it meant the protection of the interests of the owners and occupiers of certain exempted hereditaments, the exemption in those

cases ought to cease, and along with it the protection of those concerned ought to take place.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the point raised by his honourable friend behind him was worthy of the consideration of the Government. The Government agreed that these exemptions should be extinguished, and that where they were extinguished there should be compensation. He suggested to the right honourable Gentleman the introduction of some such words as these:— Shall make provision for extinguishing the interests of the occupier, giving compensation where it, is desirable.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I quite agree that some alteration in the wording is necessary, as pointed out by the honourable Member for Hoxton, for it is not right to make "occupiers" balance "hereditaments," and we must make some verbal alteration. The honourable Gentleman does not differ from the Government in this respect, for he thinks that it should be made obligatory. He suggested that they might meet the object in view by making the clause read— But shall make provision for protecting the interests of the owners and occupiers of any hereditament which is exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments. That, I am aware, does not fully carry out the object of my honourable friend, but the difference is not very great, and I hope he will not require a Division.

MR. LOUGH

thought he might be allowed to say that a hint in the direction of extinguishing these anomalies ought to be included. He did not wish to draw a hard-and-fast line, and he admitted that there might be some cases where extinction would press very hardly upon the occupier. The general impression was in favour of establishing a uniform system.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 114—(Division List No. 145.)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Gilliat, John Saunders	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute
Beckett, Ernest William	Goldsworthy, Major General	Murra, Charles J. (Coventry
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)
Beresford, Lord Charles	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Newark, Viscount
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St. George's	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Biddulph, Michael	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford
Bill, Charles	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Blakiston-Houston, John	Gull, Sir Cameron	Pender, Sir James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Gunter, Colonel	Pierpoint, Robert
Boulnois, Edmund	Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bousfield, William Robert	Hamilton, Rt. Hon LordGeorge	Pretyman, Ernest George
Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.
Bowles. T. Gibson (Lynn Regis	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Purvis, Robert
Brassey, Albert	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Pym, C. Guy
Builard, Sir Harry	Heaton, John Henniker	Rankin, Sir James
Campbell, Rt, Hn. J. A. (Glasg'w	Helder, Augustus	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Carlile, William Walter	Henderson, Alexander	Rentoul, James Alexander
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward	Hermon-Hodge, RobertTrotter	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Ch. Thomson
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Chamberlain, J, Austen (Worc'r	Houstn, R. P.	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Howell, William Tudor	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J
Charrington, Spencer	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Chelsea, Viscount	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Clough, Walter Owen	Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Jollitte, Hon. H. George	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Stanby, Lord (Lanes.)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	Kimber, Henry	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Cox, Irwin Edwd. B. (Harrow)	Knowles, Lees	Sturt, Hon Humphry Napier
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUnv.
Cruddas, William Donaldson	Leighton, Stanley	Thorburn, Walter
Curzon, Viscount	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a	Thornton, Percy M.
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Denny, Colonel	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (L'pool)	Valentia, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akeis-	Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Win. Hart	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Webster, Sir R. E. (1. of Wight
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Macdona, John Cumming	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Maclure, Sir John William	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Fardell, Sir T. George	M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Finlay, Sir Robert Banuatyne	Malcolm, Ian	Williams Joseph Powell-(Birm.
Fisher, William Hayes	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Marks, Henry Hananel	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Flower, Ernest	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John	Wyndham, George
Folkestone, Viscount	Milton, Viscount	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Forster, Henry William	Milward, Colonel Victor	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Fry, Lewis	Monk, Charles James	Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Garfit, William	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Sir William Walrond and
Gibbs. Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lnd.	Morrison, Walter	Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Billson, Alfred	Causton, Richard Knight
Ambrose, Robert	Birrell, Augustine	Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hry.	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Colville, John
Atherley-Jones, L.	Burt, Thomas	Crombie, John William
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Buxton, Sydney Charles	Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Caldwell, James	Daly, James
Baker, Sir John	Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow	Dalziel, James Henry
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

MR. PICKERSGILL

said the object of the Amendment he now proposed was to prevent a repetition of the great injustice which was done under the Act of 1888, the effect of which, by incorporating the metropolitan sewers rate in the county rate, was to sweep away the exemption which occupiers had from the sewers rate, and to throw the burden of the rate upon them. The effect of the present Bill would be the same with regard to the local sewers rates, and therefore he had drafted this Amendment to prevent it.

Amendment proposed — In page 6, line 38, at end, to insert 'and shall also provide, that as between landlord and tenant every tenant who, if this Act had not been passed, would have been entitled to deduct against or to be repaid by his landlord any sum paid by such tenant on account of the sewers rate, shall in like manner be entitled to deduct against or to be repaid by his landlord such portion of the general rate as represents the sewers rate.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

Question proposed— That those words be there inserted.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

pointed out that even if he agreed with the Amendment this was not the proper place for it to be introduced. It was obvious if what was desired by the honourable Gentleman who moved it was to be done it would have to be done by some clause. The insertion of the words suggested would not have the desired effect. If the honourable Member desired to carry the matter further he would have to bring in a new clause. The Amendment could not be accepted.

MR. STUART

asked whether the Government would not see that the same thing did not occur under this Bill as occurred with regard to the metropolitan sewers rate. The supporters of the Amendment would be quite satisfied if a clause was introduced to protect the occupiers. Under the Act of 1888 the metropolitan sewers rate had been merged in the county rate, with the result that it was held to be all one rate, and therefore no deductions could be allowed. That would happen again under this Bill if care was not taken to prevent it. The occupiers ought in his opinion to be protected, and if the words suggested by the Amendment gave no adequate protection the Amendment might be withdrawn, but if it were he thought the Attorney-General ought to undertake to bring in a clause which would have the effect which it was desired to attain by the Amendment.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I have endeavoured to indicate that this is what must be done; but the first sub-section is not the place to introduce it. I shall be glad to look into the matter and see what can be done, but it must be done in Sub-section 2.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said he understood from his previous remarks that the honourable and learned Gentleman was against the Amendment, but if he admitted the point which had been put to him, then he(Mr. Pickersgill) would postpone the matter. If, on the other hand, there was any substantial difference of opinion, the question ought to be fought out now. The effect of the clause would be to merge the sewers rate into the general rate, and the burden would be put upon the tenants, who certainly ought to be protected against any such thing If there was any such difference of opinion between the honourable and learned Gentleman and himself, he should have to take the opinion of the Committee on the question. If there was not, then he should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE (Wilts, Cricklade)

thought that the only difference which existed was as to where the Amendment ought to come in. He suggested that any question on which a substantial difference of opinion existed might be met by enacting, if it were not enacted already, that if there were a sewers rate it should be properly defined, and deduction should be allowed. The Poor Rate included, for instance, many other rates besides the Poor Rate, with regard to which there were no exemptions at present, but if deductions already existed the Amendment might be accepted in a modified form.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

believed that there was already some statutory definition of the rates, but he maintained that whatever was done in this matter ought to be done on Sub-section 2 of the Bill, which provided that all the rates should be merged into one rate. His honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General had, however, suggested to him that it would be possible to add some words at the end of Sub-section 2 which would protect both landlord and tenant.

MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)

I agree with the right honourable and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. This is a matter of considerable importance, and there is obviously a substantial grievance. The tenant at present has a statutory right, except where he has bartered it away, to make this particular deduction with regard to the sewers rate. That rate is now going to be consolidated into a general rate, and it would be a great injustice if the, tenant's right of deduction with regard to the sewers rate should be annihilated.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The matter is one which may require consideration between this and the Report stage; but the view we take at present is that the objection might be met by the adding of some such words as "that this shall not affect any right between landlord and tenant as to the deduction of any rate." That expresses the intentions of the honourable Gentleman. The only question is whether those words are the best that can be found.

MR. STUART

said that all that was wanted was an assurance that the statutory right now vesting in the occupier should not cease to exist, which was only justice. It would have been impossible to conceive that such a difficulty could have arisen had it not occurred under the Act of 1888. A scheme might possibly be devised by which a fixed sum should be deducted from the general rate, in the future, as representing the sewers rate. It might be difficult to do, but it was not impossible to make such an arrangement. He pointed out that with regard to the previous Act the President of the Board of Trade was of opinion that a small Bill ought to have beeh brought in to set the matter right. He would rather the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would not commit himself to any words at present; he would much prefer that he would undertake to deal with the matter without doing so; besides which, he very much doubted whether the words suggested would cover the matter. What was required was that he would deal with the matter in some such way as was suggested by the Amendment as soon as he had satisfied himself as to what was the true position.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then, perhaps, we had better leave this question until we come to Sub-section 2. We are all agreed as to the object of the Amendment, and before we get to the end of Sub-section 2 the matter shall be considered.

MR. PICKERSGILL

expressed his willingness to postpone the matter until the end of Sub-section 2, but he had grave doubts as to whether the words suggested by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would meet the case. It did not seem to him that they did.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

MR. CRIPPS moved to amend the third section of the clause, which is as follows— Where a borough comprises more than one parish, the amount to be raised to meet the expenses of the borough council or other sums payable as part of their expenses shall be divided between the parishes in proportion to their rateable value. In discussing questions of valuation and assessment, it was important to make the Bill as simple and uniform as possible. The object of his Amendment was to introduce the borough itself in place of the parish. The advantage of that arrangement would appear by the reading into the rating clause the Amendments of which he had given notice. Under the proposal in the Bill there would be difficulty in the collection and levying of rates and appointment of overseers, but under his plan there would be the borough unit for the valuation and assessment and the council appointing the overseers. He did not think anyone would doubt that if a scheme of that kind was carried out it would be an immense improvement on the proposals in the Bill. In dealing with valuation and assessment the Government should see that they were absolutely fair for all purposes, both local and imperial. Everyone was aware that at the present time, according to the Valuation Act of 1869, the metropolis was far in advance of any other part of the country, because there was in the metropolis one basis of assessment, and the report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation was in favour of bringing the country up to the metropolitan level. Nor had any difficulty arisen in regard to unions which in London, as elsewhere, dealt with self-governing and overlapping areas, when once a fair basis was established. All he wanted was to have the best possible machinery for valuation and assessment in the simplest possible way. He begged to move to omit the words "where a borough comprises more than one parish.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 3, to leave out the words "Where a borough comprises more than one parish.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)

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

SIR R. B. FINLAY

said his hon. and learned friend would to a great extent carry the Committee with him as to the desirability of as far as possible getting rid of the complications caused by division in the parishes, but in its present form the Amendment would introduce great confusion in the work of Local Government. It could not, therefore, be accepted. If they were going to have a rated area in all the boroughs coincident with their boundaries they must so re-arrange their unions that they did not overlap out of one borough into another. But where there were four boroughs, comprising, say, four parishes with three in one union, and one in another union, they must retain the parish as the rating unit when they had to get contributions from that parish as a portion of another union. If they had the borough as the rating unit then they had not the materials for dealing with the contributions to be made to the Union of which one of the parishes in the borough formed part. But there were other difficulties. Under the provisions of the Equalisation of Rates Act, distribution of the money between the parishes was made according to their population, and the Agricultural Rating Act,1896, dealt with the distribution of the amounts where several parishes were under one spending authority, between parishes according to assessable value, and so a conflict would arise between the machinery of these sections, because, as Amended, the third section would read— The amount to be raised, to meet the expenses charged on the county rate, or other sums payable, shall be divided between the boroughs in proportion to their rateable value. For these reasons he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

MR. STUART

said he agreed that the subject was an extremely difficult one to deal with. He had had the pleasure of sitting on a Commission relating to the subject, and he would venture to say that the first Report of that Commission was one that deserved the most serious attention of the House. He also agreed that London was, in the matter of assessment, very considerably in front of the rest of the kingdom. So far as the circumstances allowed, the Commission agreed that London should be dealt with by the same principle that they desired to apply to the rest of the kingdom. But while he agreed with the hon. and learned Member in his desire that the parish should not be the unit concerned in the arrangements under this Bill, he did not think that he accomplished this purpose by the Amendment proposed. As it stood now, Sub-section 3 was a direction as to how the borough rate has to be dealt with within the four walls of the borough, when they came to deal with separate parishes in the borough. Where there were not separate parishes in the borough no difficulty arose, but where there were separate parishes in the borough they had, under Sub-section 3, directed how to deal with those parishes in raising the new borough rate, which included the Poor rate, the County Council rate, the School Board rate, and, in fact, all the rates that were to be charged within the borough. But if the proposal of the hon. and learned Member were adopted, only the County Council rate would be taken, and it would be a direction as to how that rate was to be divided among the different boroughs. That would be an absolute transformation of the sub-section. It might or might not be a reasonable way of dealing with the subject, but it would be matter for a separate section or clause.

MR. CRIPPS

said there seemed to be a misapprehension as to the effect of the Amendment. Under his proposal they might still raise what sums they liked from areas they called parish unions, boroughs, or counties; and that power would not be interfered with in the least. It was a mere question of assessment, and the most simple and uniform way in which to make it was the right way. Why should they not take the borough area as the most convenient and simple unit for the purposes of valuation and assessment? The second Amendment he had on the paper, that the amount to be raised should go to meet the expenses charged on the county rate, was an arguable point, and on reflection, he thought there were difficulties with regard to that. But if the words" where a borough comprises more than one parish, "were got rid of, the sub-section for the purpose for which it was inserted in the Bill went. He proposed to confine himself entirely to that, in order that the borough area should be taken as the proper area for valuation and assessment purposes, and that the borough council should appoint their overseers, or be the overseers themselves.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

said his hon. and learned friend instead of proposing the Amendment he did a quarter of an hour ago, was now proposing quite a different Amendment—namely, the omission of the third sub-section. He entirely objected to this new proposal, as he had done to the other, and for this reason, that they must under existing circumstances, have the parish as a unit for some purposes. They could not dispense with that. They could not make every borough one parish, much as for other reasons they should like to do it, until the machinery of the poor law was simplified, so that unions would not overlap into different boroughs. As long as they had different parishes in one borough there must be some provision for the manner in which the borough charges were to be distributed over the different parishes. The Amendment now proposed could not but be mischievous in its effects, and the discussion of it was merely a waste of time.

MR. ASQUITH

thought that his hon. and learned friend had led the Committee, with the best motives in the world, into a complete fog. If he had moved to omit the sub-section then they would have known where they were.

MR. CRIPPS

said he had dealt with the matter in the same way as was done in Bristol and other places, where for the purpose of certain Acts the borough was constituted one parish.

MR. ASQUITH

said that in order to understand the Amendment they had to look at other Amendments the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed on the paper. He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman's object was to allocate the county rate, but he appeared now to have some other object. They should be employing their time much more profitably by accepting the preliminary words of the sub-section, which indicated a case that must be dealt with, and then proceed to consider what was the best way to deal with it.

MR. L. R. HOLLAND (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

said it seemed to him that the assessment should be by the parish area, or the borough area, and that was conveniently raised by his hon. and learned friend by moving the omission of the sub-section. The objection that a borough might extend to two or more poor-law unions, or that a poor-law union might overlap into the borough was a kind of objection that could not be maintained. It could be met without any great difficulty by providing that the borough council should make a separate valuation list for each ward of the poor-law area, on which the poor-law guardians could easily raise the necessary amount by precept. Very serious objection could be taken to the proposal to have the assessment done by the parish, and not by the borough area. Of course, they knew this Bill did not provide for a uniform rate, but he thought the Committee would admit that whatever view might prevail on that subject, it was inexpedient to have a variety of rates that did not depend on any principle. For instance, in the case of Westminster, which would contain five parishes, if the proposal of Sub-section 2 was carried out there would be five rating authorities and five different rates, and five different contributions.

MR. STUART

advised his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his Amendment. He could then move to omit Sub-section 3, in order to substitute— That each borough should constitute a parish for the making and collection of rates. Then they could have a further Amendment moved for the distribution of the central rates, such as the hon. and learned Member proposed.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that the Amendment would not decide the question raised. He very earnestly suggested to the Committee to pass from this Amendment as soon as possible, and come to the important problems which the Committee had to decide. They ought to have a question put from the Chair on which they could vote "Aye" or "No."

MR. CRIPPS

said this was an extremely important matter. The way in which he moved his Amendment was, in his opinion, the most convenient form, and this was the most convenient stage of the Bill at which to decide whether they were to have the borough or parish as the unit. He was, however, quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, and substitute for it the omission of sub-Section 3.

MR. COURTNEY

was very loth to interfere on this question, for he was not quite sure if he were a perfect master of it; but he doubted whether the suggestion made was the best way out of the difficulty. The proper plan would be to withdraw the Amendment and leave Sub-section 3 untouched, and then to move to insert before the sub-section another sub-section which would deal with the simple question of the borough being made the assessment unit.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said the question of assessment had not yet arisen. The clause merely dealt with the division of the amount raised by the county council. They must have assessment by parishes, for different accounts had to dealt with.

MR. CRIPPS

begged leave to withdraw the Amendment in order to move afterwards the omission of Sub-section 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In Page 7, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (3.)—(Mr. Cripps.)

Question put— That the words 'where a borough comprises more than one parish' stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 129.—(Division List No. 146.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.	Ascroft, Robert	Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r
Aird, John	Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Balfour, Rt. Hn. GrldW. (Leeds
Allsopp, Hon. George	Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Banbury, Frederick George
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Baillie, James E.B (Inverness)	Barnes, Frederic Gorell
Arnold, Alfred	Baird, John George Alexander	Barry, RtHn AH Smith-(Hunts
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Baldwin, Alfred	Bartley, George C. T.
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol	Gilliat, John Saunders	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute
Beckett, Ernest William	Goldsworthy, Major General	Murra, Charles J. (Coventry
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)
Beresford, Lord Charles	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Newark, Viscount
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St. George's	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Biddulph, Michael	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford
Bill, Charles	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Blakiston-Houston, John	Gull, Sir Cameron	Pender, Sir James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Gunter, Colonel	Pierpoint, Robert
Boulnois, Edmund	Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bousfield, William Robert	Hamilton, Rt. Hon LordGeorge	Pretyman, Ernest George
Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.
Bowles. T. Gibson (Lynn Regis	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Purvis, Robert
Brassey, Albert	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Pym, C. Guy
Builard, Sir Harry	Heaton, John Henniker	Rankin, Sir James
Campbell, Rt, Hn. J. A. (Glasg'w	Helder, Augustus	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Carlile, William Walter	Henderson, Alexander	Rentoul, James Alexander
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward	Hermon-Hodge, RobertTrotter	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Ch. Thomson
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Chamberlain, J, Austen (Worc'r	Houstn, R. P.	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Howell, William Tudor	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J
Charrington, Spencer	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Chelsea, Viscount	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Clough, Walter Owen	Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Jollitte, Hon. H. George	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Stanby, Lord (Lanes.)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	Kimber, Henry	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Cox, Irwin Edwd. B. (Harrow)	Knowles, Lees	Sturt, Hon Humphry Napier
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUnv.
Cruddas, William Donaldson	Leighton, Stanley	Thorburn, Walter
Curzon, Viscount	Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a	Thornton, Percy M.
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Denny, Colonel	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (L'pool)	Valentia, Viscount
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akeis-	Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Win. Hart	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Webster, Sir R. E. (1. of Wight
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Macdona, John Cumming	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Maclure, Sir John William	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Fardell, Sir T. George	M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Finlay, Sir Robert Banuatyne	Malcolm, Ian	Williams Joseph Powell-(Birm.
Fisher, William Hayes	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Marks, Henry Hananel	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Fletcher, Sir Henry	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Flower, Ernest	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John	Wyndham, George
Folkestone, Viscount	Milton, Viscount	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Forster, Henry William	Milward, Colonel Victor	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Fry, Lewis	Monk, Charles James	Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Garfit, William	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Sir William Walrond and
Gibbs. Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lnd.	Morrison, Walter	Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Billson, Alfred	Causton, Richard Knight
Ambrose, Robert	Birrell, Augustine	Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hry.	Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Colville, John
Atherley-Jones, L.	Burt, Thomas	Crombie, John William
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Buxton, Sydney Charles	Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)	Caldwell, James	Daly, James
Baker, Sir John	Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow	Dalziel, James Henry
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Davitt, Michael	Lambert, George	Reckitt, Harold James
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land	Rickett, J. Compton
Donelan, Captain A.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Doogan, P. C.	Leng, Sir John	Robson, William Snowdon
Doxford, William Theodore	Lewis, John Herbert	Schwann, Charles E.
Dunn, Sir William	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Macaleese, Daniel	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Fenwick, Charles	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	M'Cartan, Michael	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	M'Kenna, Reginald	Steadman, William Charles
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	M'Leod, John	Stevenson, Francis S.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Hbrt. John	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorg. E.)
Gold, Charles	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)	Ure, Alexander
Gurdon, Sir William Brampton	Moulton, John Fletcher	Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.	Nassey, Thomas Willans	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)	Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T.
Holland, Wm. H. (York,W. R.	O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Wedderburn, Sir William
Horniman, Frederick John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Weir, James Galloway
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Oldroyd, Mark	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Palmer, Sir Charies M. (Durham	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Jacoby, James Alfred	Palmer, George W. (Reading)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Joicey, Sir James	Paulton, James Mellor	Wilson, John (Covan)
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Pease, Alfred F. (Cleveland)	Woodall, William
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	Yoxall, James Henry
Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.	Philipps, John Wynford	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Kearley, Hudson E.	Pirie, Duncan V.	Mr. Lough and Mr. James Stuart.
Kitson, Sir James	Price, Robert John

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward	Monk, Charles James
Aird, John	Finch, George H.	Moon. Edward Robert Pacy
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Allsopp, Hon. George	Fisher, William Hayes	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.	Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.
Arnold, Alfred	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Morrell, George Herbert
Ascroft, Robert	Flower, Ernest	Morrison, Walter
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Folkestone, Viscount	Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzBoy	Forster, Henry William	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Fry, Lewis	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness	Galloway, William Johnson	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Baird, John George Alexander	Garfit, William	Newark, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford
Baldwin, Alfred	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H (City of Lond.	Orr-Ewine, Charles Lindsay
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Penn, John
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Gilliat, John Saunders	Percy, Earl
Barnes, Frederick Gorell	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Pierpoint, Robert
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Pilkington, Richard
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants	Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J. (StGeorge's	Pollock, Harry Frederick
Beckett, Ernest William	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Pretyman, Ernest George
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Graham, Henry Robert	Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin
Bethell, Commander	Gull, Sir Cameron	Purvis, Robert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Gunter, Colonel	Pym, C. Guy
Biddulph, Michael	Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Rentoul, James Alexander
Bill, Charles	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l
Bond, Edward	Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Boulnois, Edmund	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Bousfield, William Robert	Heaton, John Henniker	Round, James
Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex	Henderson, Alexander	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)	Hermon-Hodge, Rohert Trotter	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Brassey, Albert	Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Saunderson,Rt. Hn. Col. Ed. J.
Ballard, Sir Henry	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Butcher, John George	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Campbell, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Glasg'w	Houston, R. P.	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Howell, William Tudor	Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Spencer, Ernest
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset
Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Charrington, Spencer	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton	Strauss, Arthur
Chelsea, Viscount	Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Clarke, Sir Edward(Plymouth)	Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H.	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Cochrane, Hon. Thos.H. A. E.	Kimber, Henry	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Knowles, Lees	Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G.(Oxf. Univ.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Thorburn, Walter
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Thornton, Percy M.
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Leighton, Stanley	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.	Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, A. (Cameron (Glasgow	Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.	Webster. R. G. (St. Pancras)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Webster, Sir R.E. (Isle of Wight
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vornon-
Cruddas, William Donaldson	Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.
Currie, Sir Donald	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Curzon, Viscount	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Williams. Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Macdona, John cumming	Williams. Jos. Powell-(Birm.)
Denny, Colonel	Maclure, Sir John William	Wilson. J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon	M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Donkin, Richard Sim	Marks, Henry Hananel	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Doughty, George	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.	Wyndham, George
Doxford, William Theodore	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart	Middlemore, John Throgmort'n	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas J.	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Elhott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Milton, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fardell, Sir T. George	Milward, Colonel Victor	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

NOES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Oldroyd, Mark
Allison, Robert Andrew	Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley	Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham
Atherley-Jones, L.	Grey, Sir Eilward (Berwick)	Palmer, George Wm. (Reading
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Gurdon, Sir William Brampton	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Baker, Sir John	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Banbury, Frederick George	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Philipps, John Wynford
Bartley, George C. T.	Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.	Pirie, Duncan V.
Billson, Alfred	Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Birrell, Augustine	Holland, Wm. H.(York, W.R.	Power, Patrick Joseph
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Horniman, Frederick John	Price, Robert John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Rankin, Sir James
Burns, John	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Reckitt, Harold James
Burt, Thomas	Jacoby, James Alfred	Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Joicey, Sir James	Robson, William Snowdon
Caldwell, James	Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Schwann, Charles E.
Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow	Jones, William (Carnarvon)	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Carmichael, Sir T. D Gibson-	Kitson, Sir James	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Causton, Richard Knight	Lambert, George	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfar)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Lamie, Lieut.-General	Spicer, Albert
Clark. Dr. G. B. (Caithness)	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land	Steadman, William Charles
Clough, Walter Owen	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Colville, John	Leng, Sir John	Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.
Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Crombie, John William	Lough, Thomas	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Trevelyan, Charles Phillips
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	MacAleese, Daniel	Ure, Alexander
Daly, James	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Wallace Robert (Edinburgh)
Dalziel, James Henry	M'Kenna, Reginald	Wallace Robert (Perth)
Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan	M'Leod, John	Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Malcolm, lan	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Donelan, Captain A.	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Wedderburn, Sir William
Doogan, P. C.	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Weir, James Galloway
Dunn, Sir William	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton	Morgan J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Williams, John Carvell (Notts
Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Fenwick, Charles	Morley, Rt.Hn. John (Montrose	Wilson, John (Goran)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith	Moulton, John Fletcher	Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Woodall, William
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Yoxall, James Henry
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	O'Brien, James, F. X. (Cork)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Goldard, Daniel Ford	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	Mr. Cripps and Mr. James
Gold, Charles	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Stuart.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said that under the present system, although certain rates were nominally equal throughout London, —for instance, the county rate and the education rate—as a matter of fact, owing to the loss entailed by collection, they worked out very unequally even in neighbouring parishes. He was anxious to see the loss to which he referred fall on the whole borough, and not on the separate parishes. He moved the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 5, after the word 'expenses,' to insert the words 'including the amount of the estimated cost of and loss in callection of the same."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

Question proposed— That those words be there inserted.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

said he understood the hon. Member to wish that the inequality which at present existed in different parishes should be removed, and that the cost of collection should be equalised by being thrown over the whole borough. He would suggest that such a proposal, although there was much to be said in its favour, should not be adopted at this period. They were dealing with boroughs which comprised several parishes. As the law at present stood the amount to be raised from each parish might be swollen by a certain amount to cover the cost of collection, and he did not think they ought to seize this occasion for making a change of the sort proposed in the Amendment, as it would alter the whole incidence of the charge. Their desire was now to simplify the machinery.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that most of his friends behind him thought the Amendment to be a practical and just one. He was glad to hear from the Solicitor-General that there was much to be said for making these charges metropolitan charges, and when they put down that Amendment they certainly did hope the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to accept it. If they came to the cases of individual parishes, they would find that in consequence of the different modes in which compound rates were taken and the different ways in which rebates were allowed, differences existed which ought not to prevail. In the case of Poplar he found the difference amounted roughly to about 3d. in the pound; and when they had three parishes comprising one borough he did not think that there ought to be any difference made with regard to the cost of collection, seeing that it arose from the way in which property was assessed.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said he should like to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill proposed that where a borough consisted of several parishes the same persons should be appointed to act as overseers for all the parishes. Surely, then, this was the proper place for the Amendment.

MR. STUART

said he regarded this as an extremely important Amendment. If they were going to constitute boroughs which should combine a variety of parishes, some poor and some rich, they ought certainly to do away with this anomaly. It was the case with London parishes that in proportion to their poverty the leakages were great; the richer the parish the smaller the leakage. He did not know whether the Solicitor-General recognised the fact that the leakages varied from about a ½d. rate to a 1s. 4d. rate. He did not think his hon. friend's Amendment went far enough: he preferred the words of his own Amendment—that "they shall be levied at an equal rate in the pound over the whole borough." He did not think that the Amendment of his hon. friend would cover the case of loss from empty houses, which certainly did not come into the cost of collection. He hoped the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment; suitable words could be framed later on. What they wanted to have was a uniform rate for the whole borough, and they did not want the wealthier portion of a borough to turn its back on the poorer portion. Why should the poorer part of a parish be punished by the imposition of a heavier rate in perpetuity? As he had pointed out, the variation was very considerable, and he knew of contiguous parishes in which the difference was as much as 9d. Personally he was entirely in favour of making this a metropolitan charge, but if they could not do that, let them at least make it a borough charge. This was one of the conditions of poorer life which made poverty its own punishment. Very much of the difference arose in the case of tenement dwellings, where the owner, in consideration of paying the rates, was allowed a certain amount off. This was found to be convenient to all parties, but as from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. was frequently allowed, it constituted an enormous addition to the cost of collection in the poor districts. He urgently pressed on the Government the consideration of this Amendment, which he submitted was a fundamental one as regarded the question of rating.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Government are far from denying that there may be a hardship in the poorer districts, arising from the fact that there is a leakage in the rate collected. This hardship, which varies in different localities, can only be dealt with by some scheme of equalisation of rates either in respect of the whole metropolis or as regards the subordinate areas of the metropolis. I strongly deprecate any attempt to deal with this question in the Bill. It seems, at all events on the face of it, it would be equitable to throw the loss on the whole of the metropolis where the County Council charge is concerned, to throw the whole of the loss on the borough where the borough charge is concerned, and to throw the whole of the loss on the union, where the union is concerned; but the plan of the hon. Gentleman to leave out the union and the County Conncil and to throw the whole of the loss on the borough does not appear to me to be a logical or fair way of dealing with the problem.

MR. STUART

The County Council rate would come in.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

But it is not equalised over the area of the county council. I would specially point out to the hon. Member that under the existing law there is power to make the parish coterminous with the borough, and to modify union boundaries, so as to prevent them overlapping. On the whole, I advise the Committee not to attempt in this Bill any transfer of the charge from one area to another, for that would raise the very difficult and complicated question of equalisation. I think that if I attempted to touch the fringe of this subject in the somewhat illogical, although well meant, method suggested by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, we should only be involving ourselves in a very complex question, which, in this Bill, it would be impossible for us to deal with in a broad and comprehensive spirit.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said that if they had equalisation over the boroughs of the loss with regard to empties, that would be an injustice to the poorer parishes in the borough, for it was well known that there were fewer small than large houses empty. Indeed, the loss on empties in most boroughs, and especially in those containing mixed parishes, arose to a great degree with regard to the larger class of property. Therefore, if the loss were spread over the whole borough, poor and rich would alike have to pay, instead of, as at present, the rich paying the greater portion.

MR. BARTLEY

said a great deal of the loss depended on the mode of collection. Islington was a parish which might be considered as very poor, and it certainly got the largest share under the Equalisation of Rates Bill. Yet their losses were, perhaps, smaller than those of any other parish, simply because they had a most efficient system of rate collecting. He held that it was of great importance that the same system should prevail throughout a borough, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.

MR. L. R. HOLLAND

said he understood the First Lord of the Treasury, when speaking on the question of the equalisation of the charges incurred for duties administered by the London County Council, to support the principle that those charges should be equalised over the whole county council area. That was precisely what this Amendment proposed, viz.,—that where special duties were cast upon a borough council, the cost of performing them should be spread over the whole borough area. As far as the county council rate was concerned, the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that it should be equalised.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I said it was a question which, in my judgment, should not be raised on this Bill. I admitted that there might be good reasons for throwing over the whole county council area any leakage occurring in regard to the county council rate.

MR. L. R. HOLLAND

said they were now considering the amount to be raised to meet the expenses of the borough councils, and he submitted it was clear that that amount should be equally borne by the whole borough. This was, of course a matter of detail, but it was important for the reason that it applied only to two of the scheduled areas. He supported the Bill on the assumption that these areas were suitable areas for homogeneous boroughs, but if they were to be separated in the matter of rate collection, etc., let them be separated in every way.

CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

said the idea of the Bill was to group together a certain number of parishes, taking it for granted that, by so grouping them, districts would be formed which could be better governed than they now were. The right hon. Gentleman had himself agreed to the application of the principle of the Amendment in the matter of the county council rate, yet he would not extend it to the boroughs. Did he not know that there were areas around London where more than one-third of the property consisted of tenement property, and where as much as 25 per cent. discount was allowed to the owner to facilitate the collection of rates? He hoped that in the interests of the poorer districts throughout London the right hon. Gentleman would give way.

MR. M'KENNA (Monmouth, N.)

said he should like to point out that in the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation this year a recommendation was made on exactly the same lines as the Amendment.

MR. LOUGH

said there was a very small, but, at the same time, a just principle involved in the Amendment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. It should be remembered that it was for the benefit of the whole borough that the rates were collected. It was in the poorer parishes that the greatest loss occurred in the collection of rates, and Government proposed to continue that loss, thereby

perpetrating a great injustice. He ventured to think there was no charge which could be more fairly spread over the whole borough.

Question put—

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 203. (Division List, No. 147.)

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Philipps, John Wynford
Allison, Robert Andrew	Gurdon, Sir William Brampton	Pirie, Duncan V.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Price, Robert John
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Hayne, Rt. Hon.CharlesSeale-	Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
Baker, Sir John	Hedderwick,ThomasCharlesH	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Robson, William Snowdon
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)	Schwann, Charles E.
Billson, Alfred	Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Burns, John	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfar)
Burt, Thomas	Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Spicer, Albert
Caldwell, James	Kearley, Hudson E.	Steadman, William Charles
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lambert, George	Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-	Laurie, Lieut-General	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Causton, Richard Knight	Leng, Sir John	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Channing, Francis Allston	Lewis, John Herbert	Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Trevelyan, Charles Phillips
Clough, Walter Owen	Macaleese, Daniel	Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Colville, John	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Crombie, John William	M'Leod, John	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)	Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Meinil, Sigismuod Ferdinand	Wedderburn, Sir William
Daly, James	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Weir, James Galloway
Dalziel, James Henry	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Davies, M'Vaughan-(Cardigan)	Moulton, John Fletcher	Williams, John Carvell(Notts.)
Davitt, Michael	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Wilson, John (Govan)
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough
Donelan, Captain A.	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	Yoxall, James Henry
Doogan, P. C.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Dunn, Sir William	Oldroyd, Mark	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham	Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Lough.
Fenwick, Charles	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
NOES.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.	Brassey, Albert	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Cruddas, William Donaldson
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Bullard, Sir Harry	Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Arnold, Alfred	Butcher, John George	Curzon, Viscount
Ascroft, Robert	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Dalkeith, Eail of
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Baird, John George Alexander	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon
Baldwin, Alfred	Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Doughty, George
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Balfour,Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r	Doxford, William Theodore
Banbury, Frederick George	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Barnes, Frederick Gorell	Charrington, Spencer	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart
Bartley, George C. T.	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Fardell, Sir T. George
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.	Finch, George H.
Beach, W. W. Bramston(Hants.	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Fisher, William Hayes
Bethell, Commander	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Bond, Edward	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Boustield, William Robert	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow	Folkestone, Viscount
Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Forster, Henry William
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Fry, Lewis
Galloway, William Johnson	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Garfit, William	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Gibbs, Hn. AGB (City of London	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Saunderson, Rt.Hon.Col. E. J.
Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Gilliat, John Saunders	Macdona, John Cumming	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Goldsworthy, Major-General	Maclure, Sir John William	Sidebottom, William (Derby)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Goschen, Rt. Hn G.J.(StGeorge's	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Spencer, Ernest
Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Graham, Henry Robert	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.	Stephens, Henry Charles
Gretton, John	Milton, Viscount	Stewart, Sir M J. M'Taggart
Gull, Sir Cameron	Milward, Colonel Victor	Stone. Sir Benjamin
Gunter, Colonel	Monk, Charles James	Strauss, Arthur
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld George	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.	Mose, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Hanson, Sir Reginald	Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm thsh.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Ox.Univ-
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Morrell, George Herbert	Thorburn, Walter
Heaton, John Henniker	Morton. A. H. A. (Deptford)	Thornton, Percy M.
Henderson. Alexander	Mount, William George	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray
Herman-Hodge, Robt. Trotter	Muntz, Philip A.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Valentia, Viscount
Hornby, Sir William Henry	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry	Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)	Webster,Sir R. E. (Isle of W)
Houston, R. P.	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay	Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Penn, John	Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.
Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Percy, Earl	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Pierpoint, Robert	Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm
Jessel, CaptainHerbertMerton	Pilkington, Richard	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wodehouse, Rt.Hon.E.R.(Bath
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Pollock, Harry Frederick	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Kimber, Henry	Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)	Wyndham, George
Lawrence, SirE.Durning-(Corn	Purvis, Robert	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Pym, C. Guy	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Rentoul, James Alexander	Young, Commander (BerksE.)
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Richardson, SirThos.(Hartlep'l	Younger, William
Leighton, Stanley	Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson
Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'nsea	Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye	Sir William Walrond and
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Round, James	Mr. Anstruther.

MR. STUART

said that he had an Amendment on the Paper to omit certain words in Sub-section 3 which he did not quite understand. That sub-section provided that— Where a borough comprises more than one parish the amount to be raised to meet the expenses of the borough council or other sums payable as part of these expenses shall be divided between the parishes in proportion to their rateable value. Was that meant to include the county rate, the precept from the school board, and other central rates, or not; or was it meant to apply only to the expenses incurred by the county council as such?

SIR R. B. FINLAY

pointed out that the other rates were already provided for by the Acts.

MR. STUART

understood that this clause only applied to the expenses in- curred by the county council as such, exclusive of the central cost of expenses in London.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

did not think that any such provision was wanted, because it was already provided for.

MR. STUART

said he regretted very much that this provision did not cover the whole of the rates, central and otherwise, for he thought they would find themselves in a still greater fog than they were in now. Apart from what might arise from loss of collection, he contended that there was no want of logic in his Amendment, which simply provided that all the inhabitants of the borough should be treated in the same way and on the same basis and pay the same general rate. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 7, line 5, to leave out the words from the words 'shall be,' to the end of the subsection, in order to insert the words 'levied at an equal rate in the pound over the whole borough."'—(Mr. James Stuart.)

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

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not know that I have much to add to what I have said before upon this point This question really ought to he considered in connection with the whole subject of leakage, and not in connection with this branch of the subject. I would ask the Committee to resist the very attractive proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, which I am convinced would lead us into difficulties and endless complications, and finally into an arrangement which could not be regarded as satisfactory settlement of this subject.

MR. LOUGH

pointed out that if the only difficulty was in connection with the poor law surely it would be quite easy to arrange a method by which this difficulty could be overcome, and it would be quite easy to carry out the Amendment which his hon. friend proposed. Islington was the largest parish in the Metropolis, and it was now going to be formed into a borough council. If Islington were divided like many other districts so that some of the poor districts would form parishes by themselves, then the loss there would be very great. The reason why the loss there was so little at present was because it was one poor law union and one parish and one borough council, and the loss which arose in poor localities was there spread all over the borough, and that was what they wanted to be the case in the boroughs throughout London.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

thought it was desirable to have an equal rate all over London, which should he defined in the Bill. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent there was the richer district of Regent's Park, and the very poor district of Somers Town, which was probably one of the poorest districts

in London. If they were going to form other parishes, they should be uniformly rated and assessed, and uniformly managed. Suppose he lived on one side of the street and his rates were 5s. in the pound, and he found that on the other side of the road his richer neighbours in a different ward were rated at 4s. 6d. in the pound, naturally he would consider that he was hardly living in the same borough. He thought this was a question upon which the Government might do something for the uniformity of rating.

MR. STEADMAN (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

said he rose for the purpose of obtaining some information from the Government. Under the Schedule Poplar was already scheduled as a borough council. Whitechapel, Mile End, St. George's, and Limohouse, were still left to be scheduled. Assuming that Mile End and Limehouse were scheduled as one borough they would then have two parishes with two Poor Law administrations. In Limehouse the rates were 6s. 4d., and in Mile End 6s. 8d. If they were made into one borough he wished to know would the rates remain the same? Then, again, the Mile End Union believed in granting outdoor relief, and paid £4,000 a-year in that way; on the other hand, Limehouse did not believe in outdoor relief, and the result was that the poor rate was much lower. Were they to understand that under this Clause Limehouse and Mile End would still continue to administer the poor rate in their own way? So far as the equalisation of rates was concerned it was based upon population, and if Limehouse and Mile End were made one borough Mile End would lose under the new borough council system unless the equalisation was going to be administered in accordance with the present state of things.

MR. McKENNA

contended that if they had different rating authorities they would never get any uniform rating at all.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 73.—(Division List No.

AYES.
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden	Ascroft, Robert	Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Barnes, Frederic Gorell
Arnold, Alfred	Baird, John George Alexander	Barton, Dunbar Plunket
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir Jn Eldon	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Beach, W. W Bramston (Hants.	Goschen, Rt. Hn GJ (St. George's	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Bethell, Commander	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsey
Blakiston-Houston, John	Graham, Henry Robert	Percy, Earl
Bond, Edward	Gretton, John	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bousfield, William Robert	Gunter, Colonel	Pierpoint, Robert
Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Pilkington, Richard
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.	Piatt-Higgins, Frederick
Bullard, Sir Harry	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Purvis, Robert
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Heaton, John Henniker	Pym, C. Guy
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Helder, Augustus	Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Henderson, Alexander	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r	Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd.)	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Hornby, Sir William Henry	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Houston, R. P.	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Spencer, Ernest
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Kimber, Henry	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Thorburn, Walter
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Thornton, Perey M.
Curzon, Viscount	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Dalkeith, Earl of	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Usborne, Thomas
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)	Valentia, Viscount
Donkin, Richard Sim	Lowles, John	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Doughty, George	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Webster, Sir R. E. (Isleof Wight)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Macdona, John Cumming	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Doxford, William Theodore	Maclure, Sir John William	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Milward, Colonel Victor	Wolff Gustav Wilhelm
Fisher, William Hayes	Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Wyndham, George
Forster, Henry William	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Fry, Lewis	Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh	Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Garfit, William	Morrell, George Herbert	Younger, William
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Morton, Aithur H. A. (Deptford
Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Mount, William George	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Gilliat, John Saunders	Muntz, Philip A.	Sir William Walrond and
Goldsworthy, Major-General	Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute	Mr. Austruther.
NOES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb't John	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Atherley-Jones, L.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Pirie, Duncan V.
Baker, Sir John	Gurdon, Sir William Brampton	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Bartley, George C. T.	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Robson, William Snowdon
Bryce, Rt Hon. James	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Schwann, Charles E.
Burns, John	Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.	Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)
Burt, Thomas	Horniman, Frederick John	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Spicer, Albert
Caldwell, James	Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a	Steadman, William Charles
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Jones, William (Carnarvon)	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Causton, Richard Knight	Kearley, Hudson E.	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.	Lambert, George	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Clough, Walter Owen	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Colville, John	Leng, Sir John	Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Lewis, John Herbert	Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.
Daly, James	Lough, Thomas	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dalziel, James Henry	Macaleese, Daniel	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	M'Kenna, Reginald	Wedderburn, Sir William
Davitt, Michael	M'Leod John	Weir, James Galloway
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Moulton, John Fletcher	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Doogan, P. C.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dunn, Sir William	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Fenwick, Charles	Oldroyd, Mark	Mr. James Stuart and Mr.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)	Robert Wallace (Perth)

MR. CRIPPS

said he thought the Amendment he had now to propose would make the rate quite general, although he did not think that it was a question upon which it would be necessary to divide the Committee.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 7, to leave out from beginning, to 'shall,' in line 9, and insert 'Where any rate is required to be levied over a portion only of a borough, such rate.'"—(Mr. Cripps.) Question proposed— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of clause.

SIR R. B. FINLAY

thought this was a point upon which opinions might differ, but they preferred the words in the Sub-section, which covered the whole ground, and were a little more precise.

MR. STUART

asked if he was right in supposing that the object of this Amendment was to enable the overseers appointed by the borough council to act in the various parishes under all circumstances?

MR. CRIPPS

replied that the hon. Member for Hoxton was quite right in assuming that that was the motive of his Amendment. He understood from the learned Solicitor-General's reply that all the cases were already covered, and under the circumstances he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:—

MR. LOUGH

, in moving to omit Sub-section (1), said he wished to substitute a more uniform system for the anomalous system which at present existed. He thought this Amendment would at any rate be a suitable opportunity for the Government to explain what they intended to do with regard to the question of the overseers. Practically, the whole matter was settled in this clause, and the first Sub-section gave the council of each borough the duty and power of appointing overseers. London was almost unanimous that the present system was not the best one to adopt, and that the borough councils themselves should be overseers. The effect of this Sub-section, if adopted, would be to establish several bodies of overseers with separate offices and separate staffs.

Amendment proposed— In page 7, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Lough.) Question proposed— That the words 'After the appointed day stand part of the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member who has just sat down has made an appeal to the Government to state their views upon this question. We quite agree that the overseers should be under the control of, and should be appointed by, and responsible to, the borough council. We also hold that they should be personally liable for the conduct of their important functions. The Local Government Board has always held this view very strongly, and, in so far as that Department is concerned, they have declined to allow personal responsibility to be merged in corporate responsibility. The advantage of that is quite clear. The duty of overseers is twofold, and with regard to both sets of their functions personal responsibility should be retained. They are responsible for the collection of the rates, and also for the preparation of the lists. So far as the collection of rates is concerned, it certainly seems right that there should be the power of legal remedy against persons responsible for these great financial transactions, involved in which are the personal rights of the individual ratepayer, and by a parity of reasoning it is most important that in the Imperial duty of the preparation of the lists there should be a remedy, not against the corporation, but against individuals, for wrongs done, or which might be done, to other individuals in their capacity as citizens, and as persons who had a right to take part in the direct government of the country. If the duty of collecting the rates and preparing the lists is in any way merged in the corporation, everybody knows that personal responsibility will entirely cease. That is the reason why the Government has not adopted the plan which exists in the case of one or two vestries in London at the present time—namely, the plan of making the vestry, or, in any case, the Board of Guardians, overseers, in their corporate capacity. We entirely agree with hon. Gentlemen who favour this Amendment in desiring that the functions and appointments of overseers and the management of their work should be put in the hands of the new borough councils. We do not wish to deprive them of any part of the functions and duties which they may desire to perform. I shall, therefore, be prepared, if it will meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, to make it obligatory that the overseers shall be members of the borough council. If that is done, it is clear that the overseers would practically be a committee of the borough council, personally liable, no doubt, to outside suitors for the performance of their duties, but as regarded the borough council, they will be a committee. I cannot see that that is in any sense derogatory to the borough council. It is well known to the Committee that borough councils in the provinces have only the management of their own police in the sense that there is a committee composed of their members, called the Watch Committee, which is responsible for the police, and for law and order within their area. The fact that there is a statutory committee dealing with such matters is not derogatory to the great provincial borough councils, nor do I see that it would be in any sense derogatory to the new boroughs which are being created if we were in a somewhat similar, though not absolutely identical, fashion to throw the duties of the overseers upon what would be a committee of the members of each council. By that arrangement we shall certainly preserve what the Local Government Board attaches great value to—namely, personal responsibility; and therefore I shall be quite satisfied to have this committee. On the other hand, I should have thought those hon. friends of mine who desire to see the borough councils thrown into closer touch with the work of the overseers would find in the solution I have provided a plan which would meet their wishes. I hope, if it does not give them everything they desire, they will recognise that, at all events, it is a step in the direction of their wishes, and that they will be content to accept the plan I place before them.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

thought that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was better than the proposal contained in the Bill, because under it it was obligatory for the overseers to become members of the borough councils. But, nevertheless, the overseers would still have everything in their hands; the power would not pass into the hands of the whole borough councils, but into a committee. He himself thought it would have been much better if the previous proposal had been accepted, because in 1894 the Local Government Board were given the power to transfer the powers of overseers to the vestries, and, as a result, at the present time it was in the hands of no less than 15 of the most important vestries in London. So far as he was aware, no difficulty had arisen with regard to the matter, and the only argument adduced against the power of the overseers being given to the new borough councils was that, as they acted in the corporate capacity, it would be difficult for an individual to obtain any remedy from them. That might be so, but at all events he would be able to obtain it through the town clerk, who is responsible, and so far as any action could be brought at all it could be brought against him.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

You cannot distrain on the town clerk.

MR. LOUGH

But you can distrain upon the rates.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

thought there was no case where an individual bringing an action against the town clerk could not recover. Looking at the fact that these powers were already in the possession of 15 vestries, he did not see that there was any reason for withholding them from the new bodies to be created by the Bill. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter. In his opinion the borough councils certainly ought to be the overseers, and having regard to the excellent manner in which the corporate capacity had worked he should support the Amendment if it went to a Division.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said the progress that had been made with the Bill was due to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had laid himself open to consider representations from both sides of the House. In this particular instance he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have regard to the views which had been expressed, and that he would reconsider this point before the Report stage. It was alleged against the proposal that a corporate body could not afford such security as an individual, but in his opinion the security which it could afford was much greater than any which could be given by an individual. Instances had been given in which it was shown that this power in the hands of a corporate body was most advantageous. A corporation could be indicted. He did not see that the matter in question could be in any way compared to a Watch Committee. The Watch Committee was an institution which no doubt worked well, but in this case, as he understood, there was not to be a committee of several members, but one or two persons only were to be responsible. The difficulty, in his opinion, would be to get councils to appoint men who would be personally responsible. All that he desired was that the matter should be reconsidered. This clause was a vital one to those vestries which already possessed the power. If it were allowed to go through in the present form, it would, in his opinion, cause a feeling of intense disappointment in the metropolis.

CAPTAIN NORTON

pointed out that power had been given to transfer these duties to the vestries, and it could not be denied that certain parishes did exercise them with great satisfaction and advantage, and where the duties were not performed by the vestry, four gentlemen, who were not paid, were appointed for the purpose. He thought that when the new boroughs came into existence it would be impossible for the councils to appoint a sufficient number of persons whose knowledge of the borough was such that they could undertake those functions. He certainly thought these duties should be performed by the boroughs themselves, and the responsibility could, if necessary, be fixed on the town clerk. He believed that in a large number of parishes the overseers had been influenced by large local interests, with the result that certain property had been under-rated. The practice was rampant, and for years the public-houses in many parishes had been under-rated to a scandalous degree. The voters' lists were simply copies of the rate book and nothing more, and in certain parts of poor parishes where the property was principally tenement property, where the compounders were supposed to make an annual return, either a most imperfect one, or none at all was made, in consequence of which hundreds of voters were disfranchised. Having regard to the important duties which devolved upon the overseers, he thought those functions ought to be performed by the local governing body. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter and place the responsibility for those duties where it ought to be—namely, in the hands of the popularly elected bodies of the districts.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said the difficulty which would have to be faced would be the opposition of those vestries which had undertaken the duties of overseers. In some cases the power went back to 1818, and those who had exercised those powers for many years were not likely to forego them without a struggle. There were, no doubt, many objections to independent overseers. As soon as they were appointed they could do just what they liked for a twelvemonth, and if the vestry or anybody else spoke to them as to the way in which they performed their duties, their reply simply was that they were elected for that period and they would do as they pleased. Nobody could see what they were doing. He did not suggest that they would do anything wrong, but, after all, overseers were only human like other people. If the councils were called upon to perform the duties of the overseers, the chief of which was to make the rate, they would feel a very much higher responsibility than any vestry. They would be responsible for their own part, and for the explanation of the other part. Those vestries which had possessed these powers for many years would be loth to give them up, and it would be a great improvement in administration that these independent borough councils should make the rates and be responsible for them, rather than that half-a-dozen individuals should do so who were absolutely irresponsible. It had been contended that most of the objections to this clause would be met by there being a statutory committee of the council; but in the one case the borough council would be responsible, and in the other the gentlemen forming the committee would be responsible to no one, not even the borough council. They could meet when they liked, and the council could ask them no questions. The duty of the borough council was to govern the borough, and they could not do so properly unless they exercised the functions of the overseers of the borough direct.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said that if the announcement of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the overseers' clause was to be regarded as the final decision of the Government, it would cause the greatest disappointment to both sides of the House, and also to the public at large. What was the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman now submitted, and which he asked the House to accept in place of the Amendment lower down on the Paper? In the first place the overseers were to be members of a borough council. That was a very small concession; in fact, no concession at all, because in practice overseers were, as a rule, members of the vestry now. Then, in the second place, the overseers were to be a committee of the council, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman also said that they were to be under the control of the council. But if they were to be under the control of the council it was clear that that was altogether inconsistent with personal responsibility on the part of the overseers. It would be impossible to impose upon the overseers a statutory responsibility, and at the same time to place them under the control of the council. They would naturally say if the council passed their resolution under which they objected, "It is impossible for us to accept your resolution, because responsibility is placed by law upon our shoulders, and we must, decline therefore, to do as you tell us, lest a worse thing should befall us in incurring the heavier penalties of the law." If personal responsibilities were to be imposed, the overseers could not be in any real sense of the term a committee of the council. The right hon. Gentleman attached too much importance to merging personal responsibility in corporate responsibility, He ventured to think that up to the present time the value of personal responsibility had been very slight. It was notorious that in many cases the overseers discharged their duties in a most inadequate and negligent way. In how many cases had proceedings been taken against overseers? In how many cases had an attempt been made to enforce the responsibility of which so much was made by the light hon. Gentleman, and in what percentage of the cases brought had the overseer been held to be liable? He ventured to think that the cases could be numbered almost upon the fingers of one hand. With regard to the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman as to the taking away of the personal responsibility, he pointed out to the Committee that the House did not entertain them. The House contemplated the powers, duties, and liabilities of overseers being transferred to a corporate body. Only a few years ago, by the Local Government Act of 1893–4, Section 33, Parliament enacted as follows— The Local Government Board may, on the application of the council of any municipal borough, make an order conferring upon that council any powers, duties, or liabilities of overseers. What was the answer to that? The answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave was that as a matter of fact the Local Government Board had not in a single instance exercised those powers. Very great complaints from all parts of the country had been made against the Local Government Board, and the fact was that the Local Government Board were assuming a power which a mere administrative department ought not to assume. In 1893–94 Parliament clearly contemplated that there were cases in which it would be right to transfer the powers, duties, and liabilities of overseers to a corporate body. The Local Government Board said, "No; there are no cases in which we will transfer those powers." He therefore ventured to say that the Local Government Board were now really flying in the face of that Act of Parliament. He cited this section of the Act as showing that Parliament did not fear what the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself as so much afraid of—namely, the merging of personal responsibility, because Parliament always contemplated that there might be cases in which it might be proper that the personal liability should he merged in a corporate liability. It was apparently suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that Parliament would be helpless in the face of a corporate body which failed to do its duty. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten the writ of mandamus, which would bring the most obstinate body very rapidly to its knees. In fact, he did not hesitate to say that a writ of mandamus against a corporate body would-be more rapid in its effect than an action against overseers. But one of the strongest arguments against the Bill as it stood was that there were more than a dozen vestries in London which were already entitled to exercise, and which did exercise, the functions of overseers; and he spoke the more freely upon this point because a parish in Bethnal Green, a part of which he represented, was one of the vestries which was entitled to exercise the duties of overseers. He submitted that the proposals of the Bill ware distinctly retrograde. The vestries which were already entrusted with powers had good right to complain if the powers which they had enjoyed so long, and in the exercise of which they had not, so far as he knew, incurred any censure, were taken away from them. So far as the financial operations were concerned, surely the responsibility of a corporate body was far more effectual and far better security than that of an individual. As to the question of expense, the Bill expressly indicated that it should be the duty of the borough council to provide and maintain the office of the overseer. It must be obvious that the expense of providing and maintaining a separate office for the overseers would be considerably greater than the expense which it now incurred when the duties of overseers were performed as part of, and along with, other duties which the vestry had to perform. On all these grounds he hoped the decision of the Government was not final, and that, yielding to representations from both sides of the House, they would accede to the substance of the Amendment standing lower down in the Paper.

MR. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

ventured to join in the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. If they were to collect and analyse the opinion of the provincial boroughs, which had been so largely quoted in the course of the discussion, they would find they were unanimously against the perpetuation of a system which ought long ago to have been obsolete, and which had been found in practice disadvantageous from every point of view. He held in his hand a letter from the controller and auditor of the Borough of Liverpool, in which he strongly supported the proposal to make the important changes suggested by the Amendment. The Town Clerk of Wakefield wrote him in a similar sense, and the whole of the municipal boroughs throughout the country urged the reform in the direction of the Amendment. As had been urged by several speakers, they could quote practice in support of the proposal. No fewer than 13 metropolitan authorities—and those the most important and progressive and best managed of the Local Authorities of London—had for a long time enjoyed, under certain local Acts, the privilege of making the rates directly by the vestry. In the case of Shoreditch, the privilege had been enjoyed for nearly 100 years; and the opportunities he had had for comparison convinced him that the advantage was all on the side of the vestry, which had the powers vested directly in itself. He could easily imagine that if they duplicated offices they doubled expenses. He did not see why they should want to perpetuate an anomaly in place of securing throughout London a very important reform. He ventured to say, as against any sentimental objection, that the practical advantage of the proposed reform was so manifest that it ought to have weight with the Government.

SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)

begged to associate himself with hon. Members opposite, and many hon. Members on his own side of the House, in making a strenuous appeal to the Government to listen to their suggestions with regard to the question of overseers. The compromise that the Government had suggested was, in effect, that they would allow the Local Government Board to appoint certain overseers, provided those overseers were members of the borough council. Without going back in any way upon what they had laid down in that clause, he suggested to the Government that they might utilise a subsequent clause in the Bill, namely,—Clause 15, Sub-section c, which provided that a Committee of the Privy Council might have powers to exercise the duties which the Local Government Board exercised in the past. It was generally understood that the unanimous desire of all the London boroughs was that they should have the control of the overseer's themselves; and if the Committee of the Privy Council, when they were working out their scheme for the future, approached the boroughs, he was perfectly certain that that would be found to be the fact. The Privy Council might very well be left to decide the matter.

* MR. SHARPE (Kensington, North)

said his constituents were very strongly in favour of the borough council obtaining the power which was now exercised by the vestry. He must say that he did not regard the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury about the personal responsibility as a fatal objection. It seemed to him that pressure could be brought by mandamus against the corporate body, and would have as much effect as against individuals, and he hoped the Government would see their way to allow the change proposed. Next to that, the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to open the way for conciliation between those holding opposite opinions, namely, that the councils should appoint overseers from their own bodies. It had been suggested to him that there would be a difficulty as to whether members of the council would be willing to act as overseers. However, if the statutory obligation were thrown upon them, he could not but think that the members of the council would have sufficient local patriotism to rise to the occasion. He thought that if it were provided that the overseers should not be too numerous, the views of hon. Members on both sides might be harmonised, but he trusted that whatever might be done, the selection of overseers would be confined to the council itself.

MR. W. F. D. SMITH (Strand, Westminster)

desired to associate himself with the remarks made on both sides of the House as to this question. He hoped very earnestly that the Government would be ready to reconsider their decision. He hardly liked to say it, but he really did not think the proposal that the Government had made could, in effect, be called much of a concession at all. The committee which the Government proposed to appoint would not report their proceedings to the council, but they were to have the whole management of the duties of overseers in their power, without reference to the council of which they were members. It really seemed to him that they might as well not be members of the council. Reference had been made to the various vestries which already had the power, and he confessed that if the Government had brought forward one single instance of fraud in levying rates, or in the preparation of the voters' list, he would have been prepared to take up a different position. But no such case had been brought forward.

MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

said he quite concurred in the criticisms which had been made, and agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the object he desired to obtain. He ventured to suggest, however, that a much more simple way of achieving the object which seemed to be desired would be by adopting the phraseology of the Government clause, and making a series of very simple verbal alterations, instead of the long clause which the hon. Member had so carefully prepared.

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

said that while there had been quite exceptional unanimity amongst the London Members in favour of the abolition of overseers on the new borough councils, not a single argument had been adduced in support of the retention of overseers as they at present existed. The institution of overseers was an antediluvian office, without honour, without distinction, and almost without utility. There was no duty which the overseers now perform which the new borough councils could not perform equally well, and, perhaps, with greater usefulness. He sincerely hoped that the Government would see their way to make some substantial and useful concession to the body of opinion on both sides of the House. This was not a question which involved a high political principle, but it was a matter of extreme importance to the proper discharge of the duties of the new councils. Both sides of the House were practically unanimous, and the Government would be wise to give way.

* SIR T. G. FARDELL (Paddington, S.)

said that under an old Act of George IV. the overseers in Paddington had always been members of the vestry, and, having been himself a member of the vestry for 22 years, he could say that it had answered perfectly well. As an illustration that it was an advantage to have overseers in place of a committee he said that two years ago, when there was a wide difference of opinion in regard to the manner in which the list of voters had been prepared, the revising barrister had the overseers up before him, and threatened to inflict all sorts of pains and penalties upon them. He believed that when they had important duties to perform, it was not so well to appoint a committee of the council, as to elect two or three to represent the body. He believed what the First Lord of the Treasury had in his mind was expressed in an Amendment by his hon. friend the Member for Bow, that it should be the duty of every borough council to appoint certain numbers of their members to act under the direction and authority of the council in all matters relating to the duties of overseers.

MR. L. R. HOLLAND

could not understand how the Government considered that these duties would be better discharged by overseers than by the borough councils. There were 13 vestries now in London which discharged the duties of overseers, and no one could say that their duties had not been well discharged. The opinion of the Local Government Board must not be allowed to overrule the practically unanimous opinion of those who were interested and took part in local government work, and certainly it ought not to be allowed to interfere with the actual efficient working of this Bill. The Bill was intended to promote simplification, but it would promote further complications. It was intended to reduce the number of subsidiary bodies, but it would, in many districts, increase their number. It was intended to increase the powers and dignity of the borough councils, but the tendency of the Bill was to strip many of the vestries of many of the powers which they at present possessed. He believed the opinion of the Local Government Board on this matter rested on a very shadowy basis. The overseers at present had no appreciation of their duties, and no appreciation of the pains and penalties which might be inflicted on them. In many of the districts the overseers were small shopkeepers, on whom it would be absurd to distrain, and therefore the safeguard to which the Local Government Board attached such value was quite unreal. As a matter of fact, now the duties of the overseers were performed, and would continue to be performed, by the officials of the borough councils. It was clear, therefore, that those officials should have no divided loyalty, but that their services should be devoted to the borough council, and not to a separate body.

* MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said that the House was absolutely harmonious, the London Member's were unanimous, and on a matter of London government the voice of London's representatives should be hoard when they asked for an arrangement which had been proved to be economical and in every way advantageous. There were countless reasons which could be given in support of the Amendment, and he had been perplexing his mind what could be the reason for the Government refusing it.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

The Local Government Board.

* MR. COHEN

Oh! he dismissed the Local Government Board. He did not think the Local Government Board should be heard on a question of local government when it had been shown to be in absolute and diametric conflict to the voice of the representatives of London. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that he desired to have councillors as overseers, not in their corporate capacity, but as individuals who could be held responsible. He did not think there was much in the argument.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What I said was that, of course, the overseers would remain exactly as they are, personally responsible. But, as they will all be appointed by the borough council from the members of the borough council, they would, from the point of view of the borough council, be practically a committee of the council.

* MR. COHEN

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation, but he still remained perplexed. This was an arrangement which did not give the right hon. gentleman what he wanted, namely, the individual responsibility, while it did not give the representatives of London what they wanted, the corporate responsibility in the management of their affairs. This was no capricious desire on their part. The arrangement had been tried, and proved to be successful. He had a return before him which showed that out of a rateable value of over 25 millions the rates on 15 millions were made and collected directly by existing vestries; and that the average in the £ of the rates so collected was 5s. 10¼d., as against an average of 6s. 4½d. in the parishes where the rates were collected by overseer or other bodies.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Which are the richest vestries?

* MR. COHEN

said the return did not show that, but those that were the lowest were St. George's-in-the-East, Plumstead, Bermondsey, Camberwell, Mile End, Rotherhithe. His right hon. friend might be assured that the return was made up less according to the wealth of the various parishes than according to the rateable value which assured their income. But he did not press this matter soley on the ground of economy, but because it was almost the unanimous desire of London expressed through its representatives.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said the objections of the Government to the Amendment were rather theoretical than practical, and until it was shown that it was easier to deal with individual overseers than with the different vestries, the objection would remain theoretical. When they imposed public duties on these public bodies, reliance ought to be placed on their public spirit. The Government should give way to the unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the London representatives, as well as those vestries and people who were practically acquainted with local government.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER

said he wished to add his voice to the chorus of opinion in favour of the Amendment. The local authority of St. Pancras, which returned four supporters of the Government, carried out the duties of overseers by a finance committee, and they did their duty very well. They were told that the finance committee had not personal responsibility. He should like to ask if the overseers were really responsible. In some cases they collected as much as a million sterling of rates, and he ventured to say that, if called upon, they could not pay £500. If the overseers, or overlookers, who had overlooked every duty they had had to perform, were absolutely abolished, the duty could be carried out by thoroughly efficient officials. Why should hon. Members pay £100, or £200, every year for registration expenses instead of the work being done by Government officials, as was the case in Scotland, and in some parts of Ireland? He wondered why the Government in this matter did not take into their counsels some of their supporters in the east and south, or even the north, of London.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am bound to say that the unanimity of the London Members, when they are unanimous, is marvellous, as Sheridan observed on a similar occasion. While I have listened to a great number of speeches on both sides of the House, all pointing in the same direction, I confess they do not seem to me to grasp the real point. Remember that London in this respect is not in any sense peculiar. Lists have to be prepared and rates collected in other places besides London. Over the whole of England, municipal and non-municipal, the system of personal responsibility, which is that which I desire to maintain in the Bill, is maintained practically intact. To tell me that London Members are unanimous is not to tell me quite enough. This is not a matter peculiar in London. If we say that in London every borough is to be the authority for the purpose of the collection of rates and the preparation of lists, of course the case is given away for the whole of England.

AN HON. MEMBER

Hear, hear.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My hon. friend who wants that change very naturally cheers the sentiment, but nine-tenths of the members who are listening to me are Members for London constituencies and are not members for England—outside London. This question cannot be decided on a debate confined to London. Hon. Members for London practically desire to settle a controversy in which all England is as much concerned, and as directly concerned, as they are. That, it will be admitted, is a very strong argument for consideration. It is perfectly true that there have been a certain number of private Acts giving to individual bodies the power now desired to be given to all London, but the option has been endorsed by no general Act applying to all cases. The only power at all approaching this which the House of Commons has given to any body is the power given by the Act of 1894 to the Local Government Board, and which was a power, not of making local bodies overseers, but only a power of appointing overseers.

MR. STUART

said that by Section 33 of the Act of 1894 local bodies might be made overseers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I have got the section, and I read it in a different sense from the hon. Member. I rather think that the Local Government Board also have interpreted it in a different sense. The power thus conferred on the Local Government Board six years ago has never once been used in giving to any body the duty of the overseers. I think that everybody must feel that, taking so great an initiative on a large scale, of making the overseers a corporate body with no personal responsibility, is taking a departure which ought only to be taken after the fullest reflection, after the most careful examination of its effect, both in the country and in London, and after opinion in the country, as well as opinion in London, has been consulted. I cannot consent, at the present stage of the Bill, to accept the opinion which has been so unanimously pressed upon me by my hon. friends. I admit that that unanimity is a fact which the Government cannot ignore. It must, however, be taken into most careful and deliberate consideration, and I am sure the London Members will feel for me that I am not unduly obstinate or unduly wedded to the opinions I have expressed to the House when I say that in view of the general and national bearings, on England, at all events, and the decision which the House of Commons is asked to give to-night, they must give me time between now and the Report stage to consider the opinions expressed. I can promise them that I will give it—with the assistance of such advice as I can obtain from the Local Government Board—the most impartial consideration. In the opinion of the Local Government Board personal responsibility has proved a great check in the past. I shall examine that very carefully; and I am sure if I can show the House that personal responsibility in this matter is a vital and important question over a large portion of the country, it will feel with mo that this change should be made not only for London alone, but for the country at large. If I find this is an academic point which may look very well on paper, But which is seldom employed in practice, I shall be very glad to give way. I fully recognise that the proposal is almost the unanimous wish of the London Members, and the Government will consider it without any foregone conclusion. If hon. Members will consent to refer the final decision on this question until Report, it shall receive the fullest and most partial consideration of the Government.

MR. STUART

said he desired to point out that the point had been raised without any party feeling and with practical unanimity. He would not say the House had been unanimous, but London had been unanimous for the reform suggested, and there had not been a voice raised from the rest of the country to protest against it. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if it, were done for London it would decide the question for the rest of the country, but the whole question of overseers was bound up with that of assessment and valuation, and the law for London under the Metropolis Valuation Act and Amending Acts was essentially different from the valuation law of the rest of the country, and had been so for thirty years. He had been a member of the Royal Commission which recommended that it should be extended to the rest of the country, but it had not yet been done, nor was it likely to be done. If the reform were made for London they would only be adding one more change to the many others which existed in the valuation law between London and the provinces. Even if the question were now to be decided for the rest of the country, all the evidence showed that the rest of the country would welcome the decision. They had not had one word in defence of the proposal in the Bill except that it would give personal responsibility, but in all the most important vestries of London, such as Kensington, Paddington, Marylebone, St. George's, Hanover Square, St. James's, Westminster, St. Pancras, and Islington, whose government was sound and successful, they had the arrangement of being themselves the overseers, and the system had been in force for close on a hundred years. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill was intended to give additional power to the vestries, but if the proposal in the Bill were adopted, they would take away from the most im- portant and successful vestries a power which practically would counterbalance in its effect many of the powers to be given to them. This was not a party question, as was shown by the names of the vestries he had mentioned, and he echoed the appeal of the hon. Gentleman the member for East Islington for the reform now proposed. The only argument against it was that it might prepare the rest of the country for that reform also. He had shown there was no reason to believe or imagine or expect it would do so, and even if it did the country would welcome it.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said he wished to meet the argument of individual responsibility on the part of the overseers. The responsibility of the overseers would be greatly diminished under the Bill. They could not even draw cheques or pay their own expenses, and the office where they would transact their business would be provided by the borough councils. He did not think that overseers would take office if they were shorn of their powers in such a manner. Why should they disturb the fifteen large vestries who now were overseers themselves, or the desire of the other vestries to have that power? The new overseers shorn of their power would be merely dummies. In his opinion the proper course would be that a committee of the borough council should be responsible as overseers, the difference being that the borough councils could remove the committee at any time, but if they appointed half a dozen men as overseers they would have no control over them, and the only knowledge the ratepayers would have of their existence would be a demand note for the rates.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If I may interrupt my hon. friend, he will have noticed that the whole of my point from the beginning to the end of the discussion has been to maintain the view which I believe to be the view of the Local Government Board, that personal responsibility must, in some way, be maintained. I do not know whether the Committee would accept my hon. friend's view. Personally I have no objection to it, but I would strongly urge that the question should be deferred.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that the Leader of the House stated he could not accept the Amendment because it would involve a change of the law for the rest of the country. He did not see why London should be damnified and placed in a worse position than it was before, because of the question of the law affecting the rest of the country. As regarded assessment and rating, London was always,and must be always, different from the rest of the country. Therefore he did nut think that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman should stand, and he advised his hon. friend to take a Division. It was not a party question, and they had the unanimous support of the London Members.

SIR ALBERT ROLLIT

said that before the Report stage he would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that provincial opinion was not unanimous in regard to this matter. In matters relating to rating and the right to vote they did not want different authorities, they wanted one well-known authority able to deal with the question.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said he had never seen so good a champion for so bad a cause as the right hon. Gentleman. Why had he not left it to the President of the Local Government Board to take on himself to argue for the personal responsibility he advocated? His answer to the right hon. Gentleman was, where was the President of the Local Government Board? He had involved the Leader of the House in a difficulty, and he now asked that he be produced. As he did not see the President of the Local Government Board present, he would give one or two reasons why they should have a decision on the subject now. The Committee had been struck by the practical unanimity of the London Members, and he had in a very compact form the view of his district on the matter, and it was that the powers, duties, and responsibilities of overseers should be transferred to the borough councils. Why did Battersea want to get rid of the overseers? For precisely the same reason as the right hon. Gentleman desired to retain them. They wanted responsibility. They had now a clique of gentlemen who acted as overseers. They were not always the best men of the parish, who were generally men on the Parliamentary and finance committees, and he believed that if the duties of the overseers were transferred to those committees, the work would be better done and there would not be that dissatisfaction with the way in which the duties were now discharged. He now came from the general to the particular. The House of Commons dearly loved a precedent, and while the right hon. Gentleman was finding one in one direction, he found another in the opposite direction. In the Local Government Act of 1894 all the powers and duties of overseers of parish councils had been transferred to a committee of these councils, and the churchwardens of every rural parish ceased to be the overseers. If the right hon. Gentleman had ever seen churchwardens and overseers jobbing and mal-administering charities he would not have such sympathy for them, and would exclude them on this clause, and not defer their punishment until the Report stage. If the reform were necessary for ordinary parish councils, how much more necessary was it for districts like Westminster and Battersea. The London overseer's sat in private, never reported, and many of the chief committees had to adopt their warrants and accept their whims and idiosyncrasies. In preparing the list of voters the primary responsibility ought to be fixed on the clerk of the new borough councils, and the duties of the overseers should be discharged by the finance committee. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to defer the consideration of the matter until the Report stage. It would only give the London Members an opportunity of accumulating more arguments. If the question was deferred, and if the President of the Local Government Board were in the House, it would take him two days to reply.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should suggest that the discussion be dropped, or that we should divide. I think it will be admitted on all sides that I have done my best to weigh the arguments, and under the circumstances it will be wholly undesirable to press the matter to Division. Parish councils can only appoint overseers, they have no power to act as overseers themselves, and therefore the deliberate intention of Parliament in the matter was certainly, in 1896, not to give these powers. Little can be gained by further prolongation of the debate.

MR. SHADWELL (Hastings)

said he entirely supported the line adopted by the Metropolitan members. He, however, asked the hon. Member not to press the matter to a Division after the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter before the Report stage.

MR. LOUGH

said he desired to direct the attention of the Committee to the most extraordinary Parliamentary situation they had ever witnessed. No one had risen on either side of the House to support the view which the First Lord of the Treasury wanted to press down the throats of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman asked them to postpone the matter until the Report stage. That appeared on the surface a reasonable request, but the whole point was raised a fortnight ago, and the Solicitor-General then asked them to postpone the matter until Clause 11, and they were told that they should then hear the views of the Government, and now on Clause 11 they were asked to postpone it until the Report stage. He did not think that was a reasonable request. Every point had been argued out, and he thought some decision should be come to. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficient attention to the experience of London, which claimed to be the greatest municipality in the kingdom, and which had as large a population as all the other municipalities put together. The Metropolitan Board of Works invariably sent its precepts to the vestries, but in the Act of 1888 an arrangement was put in at the instigation of the Local Government Board that the precepts should be sent to the overseers. They had had 30 years' experience of the precepts going direct to the vestries, and only 10 years' experience of the precepts going to the overseers direct. The right hon. Gentleman said if the precepts went to these bodies there would not be any question of responsibility. He wished to examine that argument. When the precept of the Metropolitan Board of Works went to the bodies, the Board could, if necessary, collect, but when the precepts went to the overseers and was not collected, there was nothing left but distraint on the furniture of the overseers. Therefore the argument that there was better security in the collection of the rates by the overseers direct was absurd. The right hon. Gentleman now suggested a concession which was worse than the clause, and which was unworkable, namely, that certain members of the new council should be appointed overseers. He would give one instance. Wandsworth had five great parishes. How could the suggestion be carried out there? Would there be five committees of two each, one for each of the five parishes, or would there be only one committee of ten? If only one committee, then the system would be unworkable. He acknowledged the fair spirit shown by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and he inquired why was he so obstinate now. The reason was that he had got the President or the Secretary of the Local Government Board near him during the Debate. The Local Government Board was always the devil's advocate when London questions were raised. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to put aside the evil counsels of the Board. If there were to be a Division let it be a Division of London members only, as it was a London question; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman not to vote them down by the mechanical majority of the Government.

MR. MARKS

said he accepted the conciliatory proposal which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and he earnestly appealed to hon. Members on the other side not to go to a Division. By so doing they would only be courting an adverse verdict on a matter in respect to which at a later stage they might hope for a satisfactory solution. The undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman had been most uncompromising, and he earnestly hoped there would not be a Division.

MR. STUART

said, that as he saw the President of the Local Government Board present, perhaps he would let the Committee know what was the difficulty which the Board had found in carrying out the system proposed.

MR. BARTLEY

asked if was intended that they should go on amending the clause, or would it be withdrawn temporarily.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My hon. friend has addressed a very reasonable question, and I will answer it. I think the clause should be passed as it is pro formâ. Everyone who desires the rapid progress of the Bill will accept that,because it is distinctly understood that no one is committed by assenting to that course to any line of the clause on the Report stage, and every Member will be as free on the Report stage as if the discussion had never taken place.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said that if hon. Members persisted in fighting the matter to a Division after what the Government had said they would be doing more harm than good. A great many Members who believed in the Amendment would, after the statement of his right hon. friend, feel bound to support the Government. He would therefore ask hon. Members not to press the matter to a Division.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

I think the course proposedby the right hon. Gentleman is hardly an entirely reasonable one, nor a course in accordance with the ordinary practice in Committee of this House. It has been suggested that the clause should be withdrawn, and if the clause is going to be a subject of consideration on the part of the Government, surely the best course is not to express an opinion on the subject at the present stage. If the clause is persisted in, my hon. friends on this side who entertain so strong an opinion on the subject will be obliged to carry the Amendment to a Division. Undoubtedly that Division would not represent the general sense of the House, because a large number of Members on the other side will regard it as merely a formal matter, and they will support the Government, not meaning what they vote for. That is the condition under which such a Division would be taken, and it seems totally new in our practice. It may occur without being declared publicly; but on this occasion you would be going into the Lobby with the public declaration that it all meant nothing whatever. The most regular, proper, and convenient course would be that the right hon. Gentleman, without in any way compromising his position, should withdraw the clause and allow the whole matter to be considered de novo on the Report stage.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I only rise now to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee is, to a certain extent, in a difficult position. I think the best course is to pass the clause pro formâ. He thinks the best course is to omit the clause altogether, but neither course is without objection. Against mine, it may be urged that the House of Commons has apparently assented, at this stage of the Bill, to the clause as it stands; but if this course is adopted it will appear as if we were dealing with a topic not to be dealt with in the Bill. I therefore still think that the course I suggested is the better one, and I trust hon. Gentlemen will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, seeing that it would not express the general views of the House.

MR. ASQUITH

I should like just to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of procedure, that if the course he suggests is adopted we should go on amending this clause, because, on the assumption that the clause stand part of the Bill, those Amendments will have to be properly discussed and divided on. If the suggestion of my right hon. friend be adopted, a great deal of time will be saved, and we will have, on the Report stage, the amended proposal of the Government for discussion.

* COLONEL HUGHES

said he believed that the Committee had arrived at a point of agreement, and he would therefore propose to add to Clause 11 the following— After the appointed day a borough council shall appoint a committee of their body, which committee shall discharge the duties and powers of overseers.

MR. LOUGH

said if they postponed the clause until the Report stage, it would be assumed that the Committee was not able to deal with the question. He suggested that the matter should be postponed, not till the Report stage, but simply to a later stage.

MR. COURTNEY

asked whether a way out of the difficulty had not been suggested by the hon. Member who had just spoken—namely, not to postpone the matter till the Report stage, but to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee, and then postpone the consideration of the clause to a later stage in the Committee. They would, by that means, get rid of the difficulty in which they now were, and they should reserve the consideration of the clause in Committee.

SIR. J. BLUNDELL MAPLE

said he was going to make a similar proposal. He would ask the Government to adjourn the whole Debate on the Bill until after Whitsuntide.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not think my hon. friend's suggestion is a very practical one. What has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, however, might be carried out. If the Amendment is withdrawn, I have no objection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause postponed.

Clause 12:—

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 24, to leave out 'rest of the parishes,' and insert 'boroughs.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Qustion proposed— That the words 'rest of the parishes' stand part of the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Clause 12 was originally introduced into the Bill in the hope of arriving at some financial arrangement between the Corporation and the County Council. I understand that the London County Council are not prepared to accept any real financial advantage from the proposed arrangement. The Committee is aware that it has never been the intention of the Government to interfere with the autonomy of the City in any respect, and as there is no chance of the County Council accepting the financial arrangement proposed, I see no ground for pressing this clause further. It was put down in the hope that some agreement would be come to by the high contracting parties; but as they have not been able to agree we must leave the matter where we found it, and let them settle their affairs in their own way. I therefore propose to withdraw the clause.

MR. STUART

said that the County Council had not expressed any opinion on the matter, but if he had been asked what he thought of it his advice to the County Council would be not to accept the financial arrangement with the City. The method of bargaining between two corporations for the practical handing over for pecuniary considerations of the management of certain affairs, which, according to the traditions of local government, ought to be in the hands of the central authority, was not a proper step to take. The sum proposed to be paid by the City might be very gravely called into question by the City rate-payers. He ventured to say that no pecuniary consideration ought to allow two corporations to bargain as to what their powers should be. They had in the Bill already a clause under which objection could be taken by the City or the County Council, and that seemed a very reasonable way of dealing with the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause disagreed to.

MR. L. R. HOLLAND

proposed in Clause 13, line 35, to leave out— Where the whole of a Poor Law Union is within one borough. He said the object of the Amendment was to provide that there should be, if possible, one assessment committee for each borough. The clause provided that where the whole of a Poor Law Union was within one borough the assessment committee should be appointed by the borough council instead of by the board of guardians, and where the borough comprised the whole of two or more unions, there should be only one assessment committee for those unions. The difficulty arising out of overlapping might be met by providing that a borough council should make a separate valuation list for each part of each Poor Law area which came within its boundaries. As the clause at present stood there might be two assessment authorities within a borough, which would surely not be desirable. The principle of the clause, he took it, was that the borough council should appoint their assessment committee. It raised the greater part of the rate, and seemed to be the right body for the purpose. He had no doubt the Government desired to have only one assessment authority in each borough area, and therefore he hoped his Amendment would be accepted.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 35, to leave out from the beginning of the Clause, to the word 'the,' in line 36."—(Mr. Lionel Holland.)

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

SIR R. B. FINLAY

hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. The appointment of the assessment committee would, in many cases, naturally rest with the guardians, in order that the valuation of the several parishes might be on the same basis. It was now proposed that where the whole of the Poor Law Union was comprised within a borough, the borough council should have the right of appointing the assessment committee. The case was different where the union extended into other boroughs. There the guardians possessed the right to appoint the assessment committee, and he asked the Committee not to dispossess them of that right. He thought they might hope that the result desired by the hon. Member would be attained. There was power under the law, as it existed at present, to re-arrange and group parishes generally, and it was hoped that any discrepancy which might exist between the area of the unions and the boroughs would disappear.

MR. CRIPPS

said he had a similar Amendment on the Paper to the one moved by the hon. Member for the Bow and Bromley division of the Tower Hamlets. One of the most prominent recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, by whom the question of overlapping was thoroughly considered, was that the assessment committee of a borough should be appointed, not by the guardians, but by the borough council. He asserted, without hesitation, that the right principle was to make the local authority the assessing authority. If the hon. Member pressed his Amendment to a Division he would support him.

MR. STUART

said he thoroughly supported the view taken by the hon. Member who had just spoken. He maintained that they would never do right in this matter until they divorced assessment from the question of the Poor Law. It was a pure entanglement of the whole work of local authorities that they should have anything to do with assessment or rating. They should be clear of that, and devote themselves entirely to Poor Law relief. The Royal Commission, composed of persons of different political views, were absolutely unanimous on this point. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, as, by not accepting it,he would be delaying the reforms which the Commission appointed by his own Government had unanimously recommended.

* COLONEL HUGHES

thought that until the borough councils could do all the assessing throughout London it was better to avoid a mixed jurisdiction, and leave matters as they were.

MR. LOUGH

suggested that this clause might also be postponed. There was, he said, quite as much unanimity on the other side as on his side of the House, with regard to the course which ought to be adopted. He did not think the process proposed in the Bill would work in London. The object of the Bill was to simplify

matters, and if the Government had accepted the Amendment it would have resulted in simplifying the question of assessment and securing the adoption of the method upon which everybody was agreed.

MR. L. R. HOLLAND

said he would not press his Amendment.

Leave to withdraw the Amendment being refused,

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 99.—(Division List No. 149.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Maclure, Sir John William
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Finch, George H.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)
Arnold, Alfred	Fisher, William Hayes	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	Melville, Beresford Valentune
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Baird, John George Alexander	Flower, Ernest	Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. John
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r	Folkestone, Viscount	Milton, Viscount
Balfour Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Forster, Henry William	Milward, Colonel Victor
Banbury, Frederick George	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Monckton, Edward Philip
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Garfit, William	Monk, Charles James
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol	Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lond	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Bethell, Commander	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Morgan, Hon. Fred. (Moa.)
Bigwood, James	Gilliat, John Saunders	Morrell, George Herbert
Blakiston-Houston, John	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford).
Bond, Edward	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Mount, William George
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Muntz, Philip A.
Bowles, Capt. H.F (Middlesex	Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bate
Brassey, Albert	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Graham, Henry Robert	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Butcher, John George	Green, Walford D. (Weds'bury	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)	Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury	Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Green, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Percy, Earl
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Gull, Sir Cameron	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r.	Gunter, Colonel	Pierpoint, Robert
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Pilkington, Richard
Charrington, Spencer	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Chelsea, Viscount	Hermon-Hodge, RobertTrotter	Purvis, Robert
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)	Pym, C. Guy
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Rankin, Sir James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Rentoul, James Alexander
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick	Richards, Henry Charles
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton	Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool
Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow	Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow)	Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn	Round, James
Cross, Herb't Shepherd (Bolton	Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Lea, Sir Thos.(Londonderry)	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Curzon, Viscount	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dalkeith, Earl of	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham	Leighton, Stanley	Sidebottom, William (Derbys.
Denny, Colonel	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Dis a li, Coningsby Ralph	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dorington, Sir John Edward	Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham	Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)
Doughty, George	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpl.	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Stephens, Henry Charles
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Fardell, Sir T. George	Macdona, John Cumming	Thornton, Percy M.
Tollemache, Henry James	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray	Whitmore, Charles Algernon	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Valentia, Viscount	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)	Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Warr, Augustus Frederick	Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Webster, Sir R.E. (Isle of Wight)	Wilson, J. W. (Woreesters N.)	Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-	Wyndham, George
NOES.
Allen, Wm. (Newe. under Lyme	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.	Pickorsgill, Edward Hare
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Pirie, Duncan V.
Atherley-Jones, L.	Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton	Rickett, J. Compton
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Balnbridge, Emerson	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	Robson, William Snowden
Baker, Sir John	Hazell, Walter	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.	Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Holland, Wm. H. (York.W.R.	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Billson, Alfred	Horniman, Frederick John	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfar)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Broadhurst, Henry	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Spicer, Albert
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Joicey, Sir James	Steadman, William Charles
Burns, John	Jones, William (Carnarvon)	Stevenson, Francis S.
Burt, Thomas	Kearley, Hudson E.	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Kenyon, James	Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Caldwell, James	Kimber, Henry	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Lambert, George	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumbland	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Causton, Richard Knight	Leng, Sir John	Ure, Alexander
Cawley, Frederick	Lough, Thomas	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Lowles, John	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Channing, Francis Allston	Macaleese, Daniel	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Wedderburn, Sir William
Clough, Walter Owen	M'Kenna, Reginald	Weir, James Galloway
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Colville, John	M'Leod, John	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Wilson, John (Govan)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Marks, Henry Hananel	Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough
Daly, James	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-
Davitt, Michael	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Yoxall, James Henry
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Donelan, Captain A.	Oldroyd, Mark	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Doogan, P. C.	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)	Mr. Lionel Holland and
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	Mr. Cripps.
Galloway, William Johnson	Philipps, John Wynford

The next Amendment on the Paper was— In page 8, line 40, at end, to add 'appointed by the borough council, but no councillor shall be eligible to sit on such assessment committee who has acted as overseer, or otherwise, in the primary valuation of the property.'"—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)

* THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the question was dependent upon the decision the Committee had recently come to, and that the Amendment was therefore out of order.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill.

MR. STUART

said the clause was dead in the teeth of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and as a member of that Commission he could not assent to the passing of the clause.

Question put.

The Committee divided—Ayes, 170 Noes, 78.—(Division List No. 150.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol)	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn	Bethell, Commander	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.
Arnold, Alfred	Bigwood, James	Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Blakiston-Houston, John	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bond, Edward	Charrington, Spencer
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Chelsea, Viscount
Baird, John George Alexander	Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Brassey, Albert	Coghill, Douglas, Harry
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Burdett-Coutts, W.	Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Banbury, Frederick George	Butcher, John George	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Pierpoint, Robert
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Hughes, Colonel Edwin	Pilkington, Richard
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow	Jettreys, Arthur Frederick	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Purvis Robert
Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Pym, C. Guy
Curzon, Viscount	Kimber, Henry	Rankin, Sir James
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn	Rentoul, James Alexander
Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Richards, Henry Charles
Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm	Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry	Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l
Denny, Colonel	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dorington, SirJohn Edward	Leighton, Stanley	Round, James
Doughty, George	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liv'pool)	Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lowles, John	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Sidebottom, William(Derbyslh.
Finch, George H.	Lucas-Shadwell, William	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Macdona, John Cumming	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fisher, William Hayes	Maclure, Sir John William	Stanley, Edwd.Jas.(Somerset)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Fletcher, Sir Henry	M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)	Stephens, Henry Charles
Folkestone, Viscount	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Forster, Henry William	Marks, Henry Hananel	Thornton, Percy M.
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)	Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.	Tollemache, Henry James
Galloway, William Johnson	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Garfit, William	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Valentia, Viscount
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Milbank, SirPowlett Chas. J.	Webster, R.G.(St.Pancras)
Gibbs, HnA.G.H.(CityofLond.	Milton, Viscount	Webstor, SirR.E.(IsleofWight
Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Milward, Colonel Victor	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Monckton, Edward Philip	Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.
Goldsworthy, Major-General	Monk, Charles James	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Gordon, Hon. John Edward	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morgan, Hn.Fred.(Monm'thsh.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh.N.
Graham, Henry Robert	Morrell, George Herbert	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sbury	Merton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford	Wyndham, George
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)	Mount, William George	Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)	Muntz, Philip A.	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Gull, Sir Cameron	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Gunter, Colonel	Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)	Young, Commander(Berks, E.)
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George	Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Hanson, Sir Reginald	Nicol, Donald Ninian	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hermon-Hodge, RobertTrotter	Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford	Sir William Walrond and
Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol	Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Mr. Anstnither.
NOES.
Allen, Wm.(Newe.under Lyme	Gurdon, Sir William Brampton	Pirie, Duncan V.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Rickett, J. Compton
Atherley-Jones, L.	Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Hazell, Walter	Robson, William Snowdon
Bainbridge, Emerson	Hedderwick, Thus Charles H.	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Baker, Sir John	Horniman, Frederick John	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Sinclair,Capt.John (Forfarsh.)
Billson, Alfred	Joicey, Sir James	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Broadhurst, Henry	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Spicer, Albert
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Kearley, Hudson E.	Steadnian, William Charles
Burns, John	Kenyon, James	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Lambert, George	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Caldwell, James	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Leng, Sir John	Ure, Alexander
Causton, Richard Knight	Macaleese, Daniel	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
Cawley, Frederick	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Warner, Thomas Courtney T.
Channing, Francis Allston	M'Kenna, Reginald	Wedderburn, Sir William
Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.)	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Weir, James Galloway
Clough, Walter Owen	M'Leod, John	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Colville, John	Morgan, J. Lloyd Carmarthen	Williams, John Carvell(Notts)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.	Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Daly, James	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Wilson, John (Govan)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Oldroyd, Mark	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Doogan, P. C.	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.	Philipps, John Wynford	Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Lough
Goddard, Daniel Ford	Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress: to sit again to-morrow.