Lords Sitting of 6 August 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Municipal Corporations (Local Bills) (Ireland)* (255); Marriages Validation* (256); Statute Law Revision (No. 2)* (258).
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) (238–257).
Committee—Report—Forest of Dean Turnpike Trust (232).

PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1885.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether tenants desirous of purchasing their holdings under the provisions of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885, are compelled to borrow a substantial portion of the purchase money, although they were desirous of paying the whole sum themselves, and are under no necessity to contract a loan; and whether, if this be so, they will take steps to remove this impediment to the working of the Act, said, that he himself wished to purchase a certain farm which was held by a tenant for life through the means of the machinery of the Land Purchase Act, because that method was more simple and cheaper than purchasing in any other way. He communicated the

  1637
  facts to the Land Purchase Commissioners, and they informed him that it was absolutely necessary that he should borrow a substantial sum from them in order to purchase the farm. He replied that he would borrow a trifling sum, although he was under no necessity to borrow any of the purchase money; but they insisted that a substantial portion of it should be borrowed in compliance with the terms of the Act of Parliament. If this was really so it seemed a very singular thing. He felt sure that there were many thousands of tenants in Ireland who were perfectly able to buy their holdings, and that they would do so if peace and quietness were assured; and if they were certain that an end would be put to the perpetual interference by Acts of Parliament between them and their landlords, upsetting their contracts and disturbing everything. This was especially the case in the North of Ireland; and he was quite certain that if this difficulty in reference to the necessity for borrowing a substantial portion of the purchase money had been brought before the Royal Commission which had inquired into the working of the Irish Land Acts, and of which he was a Member, unquestionably they would have recommended its removal. While on the subject of the Land Purchase Act, he could not refrain from expressing his earnest hope that nothing would be allowed to interfere with the working of this most beneficent Act. He could recollect a great many other Acts passed relating to land in Ireland, and, while he would not say that none of them had done any good, he would say that this was the only one with which everyone was satisfied. North and South, East and West, from all classes of the community, the testimony in its favour was most remarkable, and it would be little short of a calamity if it were allowed to drop just as it was getting a fair chance by the establishment of law and order in the country.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, the facts of the case mentioned by the noble Earl were previously unknown to the Irish Government, and they were not aware of the grounds upon which the difficulty to which he had referred was raised. The facts of this case having now been laid before the Government, they would investigate the
  1638
  matter and give the noble Earl an answer on a future occasion.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No 238.)
(The Lord Balfour.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No 238.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, many Amendments were necessarily made in a Bill of this kind, which had been discussed at great length in "another place." It was also necessary at the last moment to insert a considerable number of merely verbal or drafting Amendments. He had not put these on the Notice paper at this stage, because to do so would have made it very laborious for their Lordships to go through them all and find out which Amendments arose through imperfect drafting, and those which were of importance. The drafting Amendments would be nearly 140 in number, and it was proposed that they should be put in at a subsequent stage of the Bill. Nothing but verbal Amendments had been postponed, and he hoped their Lordships would approve that arrangement.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committe upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Title and Preamble postponed.

PART I.

  COUNTY COUNCILS.
  Constitution of County Council.
  Clause 1 (Establishment of county councils).
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 11, after ("Chairman,") insert ("Deputy Chairman").—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  Lour BALFOURsaid, he was sorry he was not able to accept this Amendment, and to insert it in the place in which it was proposed to put it. It seemed better that the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act should be followed, and that Statute gave no power for the appointment of a permanent Deputy Chairman.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that there was no provision in the Bill by which a Chairman or Councillor could resign without paying a fine.
  LORD BASINGsaid, he wished to enter a protest against the extreme detail with which the Municipal Corporations Act had been followed in this Bill, as the conditions of rural districts were necessarily different from those of the towns.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that Parliamentary duties might take the Chairman away, and then it would be desirable that, as at Quarter Sessions, the Deputy Chairman should take his place.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)pointed out that the Deputy Chairman had no existence until he became Chairman. It was not a serious question, but the words as they stood would fulfil all requirements.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Composition and election of council and position of chairman).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he begged to move an Amendment in Section 6 of the clause extending the qualification for an Alderman of the Council "to a Peer owning property in the county, or a son of such Peer, or of a county elector." As the clause was drawn, Peers would have been excluded from sitting on the County Council in respect of property within the county, and that, of course, was not the intention of the Government. Inasmuch as sons could be qualified by giving them a 40 s. freehold, it was better that they should be qualified directly rather than circuitously.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 24, after ("is") insert ("a peer owning property in the county, or is a son of such peer, or of a county elector, or is").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he hoped the noble Marquess would reconsider his Amendment, which took in, not only the eldest son, but all the sons. Suppose as in a well-known case a man had 22 sons. The privilege of an eldest son rested upon property. To make all sons equally eligible was to create a favoured caste. In his opinion the qualification should be restricted to Peers and their eldest sons.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was a great advocate of primogeniture, but he really saw no reason why if two or more sons of a Peer could obtain election they should not be able to sit. They would probably be good members.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that when the Government was formed he objected to the noble Marquess occupying both the positions of Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. Now, the noble Marquess was assuming the rôle of an independent Peer in the House in moving Amendments in a Government Bill which was in charge of another noble Lord.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the noble Earl was strict in his etiquette. He had constantly put Amendments to Government Bills in charge of some other Member of the Government. This seemed to him a more convenient plan than sending them in a circuitous fashion through a Colleague, but he was quite sure that his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) would consent to move his Amendments, if that would soothe the noble Earl.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was quite aware that the noble Marquess had done so, but that he was not aware that any other Prime Minister had done so. Their course had been, if they wished for alteration, to bring it before the Cabinet, or the Departments which had charge of the Bill. He only wished to know how the matter stood. He had observed some difference between the noble Marquess and his Colleagues.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was opposed to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the Amendment proposed a serious innovation, and he did not see any reasons for it. There might be little objection to it in the case of Peers, but this qualification ought not to be given to the sons of burgesses.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to amend the Amendment by making it applicable to eldest sons only.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that to give this qualification to the sons of county electors would be an innovation which should not be allowed; and, therefore, he proposed to omit the words which included them.
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment, leave out ("or of a county elector").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, although he did not attach much importance to the Amendment, he could not understand why the son of an owner or occupier competent to sit on the County Board should not be as competent as his father, and he believed that the practical convenience of such an arrangement would be considerable. If they got a class of country gentlemen to sit very much on the Councils, he believed that it would be the sons rather than the fathers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if the Boards were to be entirely composed of country gentlemen and their sons there might be something in the argument of the noble Marquess; but this Bill gave the right to the sons of every burgess to be elected. They had gone a very long way in these matters, but hitherto they had stopped at something like household suffrage.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, he was certainly in favour of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley).
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, it would be invidious to allow the sons of the Peers to sit on the Councils, and not the sons of other owners of property in the county.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONthought it would be better to leave out sons of Peers as well as of other persons.
  LORD BRABOURNEprotested against the sons of Peers being treated as if they were better than anybody else. It would be a great mistake if their Lordships made an Amendment which would indicate that this was their opinion, for, though they were doubtless a most estimable Body, the country would hardly endorse such an opinion as that indicated by the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that all property qualification for Members of Parliament had been long since abandoned, and he did not see why it should be required for a County Councillor. As, however, there was a general objection, he would not press the Amendment beyond that part which gave the qualifications to election to Peers.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD BASINGsaid, he proposed to insert—"And the county aldermen shall be selected from the justices of the county." He thought this would simplify the proposals in the Bill, and effect that which everyone wished to see done—namely, the due admixture in the County Councils of the new and past administration. He repudiated the suggestion that this was intended to draw an invidious distinction between one class and another. There would be practically no change from what they had already, and they would secure the continuity of policy. He thought it was a reasonable proposal, and he begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 30, at the end add ("and the county aldermen shall be selected from the justices of the county.")—(The Lord Basing.)
  LORD BRABOURNEsubmitted that nothing could be more invidious than the adoption of such an Amendment, which, moreover, would, in his opinion, do a great disservice to the County Justices themselves, who would be heavily handicapped if they stood as elective members, and would be told to keep themselves for the position of Aldermen, which had been exclusively reserved for them. On this and other points, the more the electors were trusted in the exercise of the powers about to be conferred upon them, the more likely would they be to answer expectations. Nothing could be more unfortunate than to begin by hampering the choice of the persons concerned by confining it to the particular class of county gentlemen. Moreover, there were within his knowledge many persons of the same calibre and fitness as County Justices who, for some reason or another, were not in the Commission of the Peace. Why should such men be excluded? This Amendment would be represented in the country as an attempt to restore by a side wind that influence of which the County Justices feared they would be deprived by this Bill. But he (Lord Brabourne) had no such fear. He had faith that those of the county gentlemen who came forward for election would be elected if they were deserving of election, and that their influence would be greater as a representa-

  1643
  tive Body than even at present as a non-representative Body.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, it would not be possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. The County Aldermen were to be of the number of one-third of the County Councils, and that number had already been looked upon with some jealousy, and if it were enacted that the County Aldermen were to be chosen from the Justices of the Peace alone, the objections entertained to the position in which the County Aldermen were placed would be very much strengthened. The Bill proceeded on the principle of leaving the County Councils as untrammelled as possible in the selection of Aldermen, and he was convinced their Lordships would do the County Justices a great disservice if they put them in the privileged position contemplated by the Amendment. It would put a premium on those who were loss energetic taking the easier course of entering the Council by this door rather than by the door of election, and its effect would be to put them in a position of much less influence and importance than if they were elected. On these grounds he sincerely hoped their Lordships would not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, he begged to move an Amendment providing that the County Councillors should be elected for the term of six years, and that the half should retire every throe years. In that way he thought they would obtain continuity of work in the Council, without the Council losing touch of the constituents. Their Lordships ought not to be solely guided by the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, but if they thought it desirable that the County Councils should have a longer term of office they should express that opinion.
  Amendment moved,
  In sub-section (d), page 2, line 1, to leave out from ("of") to the end of the sub-section, and insert ("six years; of the first county councillors one-half shall retire on the ordinary day of election in the third year next after the passing of this Act, and the remaining half shall retire on the ordinary day of election in the sixth year after the passing of this Act, and their places shall be filled in each case by a new election").—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. The term of three years was the longest for which any members were elected for any representative Body in this country, School Boards, Local Boards, and the like. He could not help thinking that the change proposed would not tend to efficiency.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he concurred with the noble Lord who had just sat down. He thought it desirable that at the end of three years the electors should have an opportunity of considering and revising the work which had been done.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the opinion of the constituency could be ascertained by the retirement of one-half just as well as by the election of the whole Council. He was not sure that the experience of School Boards had been so very satisfactory as to make it desirable to follow that precedent strictly. The work of the County Council, too, was such as required a considerable amount of experience, and it was a great mistake when that experience had been gained to run the risk of having it unnecessarily frittered away.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he trusted that this Amendment would not be accepted. The argument of continuity of policy had been brought forward in its support; but it must be remembered that continuity of policy might not always be a very desirable thing, especially if the policy was against the feeling of the constituent body. He ventured, therefore, to think that six years was far too long. With regard to the argument of continuity of experience in county matters, that would be secured by the system of County Aldermen; and, besides, it was probable that those who had gained experience on the Council would be reelected when the time came, unless the constituency was strongly opposed to their policy.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 72; Not-Contents 29: Majority 43.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he begged to move the omission of the words pro-

  1645
  viding that one County Councillor only should be elected from each electoral division. They were all anxious that the best candidates should be elected to the County Council, and for this purpose it was undesirable that a restriction of this nature should be retained. It was very important not to localize the areas too much, and he could fancy nothing more calculated to parochialize County Councils than this restriction.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, lines 6 and 7, leave out "and one county councillor only shall be elected for each electoral division."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, he should support the Amendment. In his opinion it was very desirable that the County Councils should consist of a considerable number of members within reasonable limits. There must be a considerable increase in the numbers of the Councils, or there would not be room for the different classes whom it was desired should be represented.
  LORD HERRIESsaid, he thought that as the Bill stood there would be great difficulty in arranging the electoral divisions. He hoped that the Amendment would have the effect of meeting the difficulty by giving the Quarter Sessions greater latitude in arranging the electoral districts.
  LORD BASINGsaid, he did not understand that the Amendment would have the effect of increasing the number of members of the different Councils. If it had the effect of enabling a larger number of County Councillors to be elected he should agree with it, as he did not think the proposed numbers sufficient. The Quarter Sessions could arrange the electoral divisions with much greater ease if the Government departed from the principle of single-member districts.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYtrusted the Government would not accept the Amendment. One of the great advantages of small divisions would be that there would not be so much necessity for canvassing and addressing the electors, and electioneering generally. He thought it was better to have uniformity in the matter, and that it would be inconvenient to have one division returning one member and others returning more.
  LORD HENLEY, in supporting the Amendment, said, he did so because a large number of Councillors would be required in each county—say, 60 for Northamptonshire. It would be inconvenient to divide the county into so many divisions, and therefore better to take some existing divisions, such as the Petty Sessional divisions, and to elect several Councillors for each division.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment. Some noble Lords thought that the number of Councillors would be too large, and others that they would be too small; but he wished to point out that the matter was provisional in this way—that any representation made to the Local Government Board would be considered, and he did not think it right that the burden of deciding the question should be laid upon the Quarter Sessions. It was the opinion of the Government that a system of single-member districts gave a better chance than larger divisions would for a fair representation of all opinions in the county and for minorities being represented.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHhoped that the Government would accept the Amendment of his noble Friend near him (Earl Beauchamp), as he thought the Council would be more free from Party bias—i.e., the constituencies would elect men free from Party considerations. There was no analogy between County Councillors and Members of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he hoped the House would think very carefully before it adopted the Amendment. He should not have been surprised if such a proposal had proceeded from the other side of the House, but that his noble Friend behind him should have made it puzzled him very much indeed. It was almost a commonplace of politics that scrutin de liste was a Radical thing and that scrutin d' arrondissement was a Conservative thing. In proportion to the smallness of the constituency was the amount to which local knowledge and personal connection operated on an election. This Amendment was really in favour of the election of carpet-baggers, to whom it would give a power which in any single-member constituency they never would have. If they did not have single-member constituencies they would have constitu-

  1647
  encies of all sorts and sizes. Then they would get rid of all idea of local knowledge and local connection, and then would come in Party organization and the inviting of strangers from a distance to become candidates. He hoped their Lordships would reject the Amendment.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he was opposed to the Amendment.
  EARL STANHOPEasked for information as to the size of the divisions.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONthought the Government ought to give some guidance before the House voted on this question.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the House was mixing up two questions—the constitution of the Council and the number of members to be returned for each division. He hoped their Lordships would vote on one question only.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that the Local Government Board would gladly receive any representations on the subject. The present intention was that as nearly as possible the electoral division would average 3,000 population.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYhoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, that, according to the statement just made by the noble Lord, the number of members of the Council in Sussex would be nearly doubled.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he differed entirely from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to the effect of the Amendment. It had reference simply to the single-member system, and none to the numbers on the Council. His object was to secure the representation of local opinion and the full representation of the county, and particularly of the property of the county. The smaller the constituency the greater the value of local knowledge; but if the area were very small the inferior man within the area might be preferred to the better man outside. It should be remembered that the object was not the representation of Party opinion, but the administration of county affairs. The Amendment would not in any way favour carpetbaggers.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that in all counties the exact proportion of County Councillors would not be precisely the same. In mentioning 3,000 he meant the lowest number. In Lancashire and
  1648
  the populous districts the constituencies would be larger. It was obvious that if a definite proportion of Councillors to population could be fixed it could have been done by a clause in the Bill; but it was not possible, and it must be left to be fixed by the Local Government Board according to the wishes and the varying circumstances of different localities.
  LORD BASINGsaid, he had understood that the Local Government Board had settled the numbers on each Council.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he had stated that any arrangement made by the Local Government Board was provisional only. The Board would be glad to receive suggestions.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD BRABOURNE, in moving an Amendment to the effect that the Chairman of a County Council should be elected for three years instead of one, as provided by the Bill, said, that in the Bill as first introduced there was a slavish adherence to the provisions of the Municipal Act of 1835, and the new Chairman of a County Council was to be called a Mayor. That had been given up, but still it was proposed to follow the precedent of annual election as in the case of Mayors. But the Mayor of a corporate town was in a different position. He was moving in a comparatively limited area, was known to all his constituent body, and persons of his type were, as a rule, easily found to fill his honourable office. The Chairman of a County Council would have much more work to do and much more to learn, especially if new duties were to be cast upon the Councils, as seemed to be generally anticipated. In his opinion, the Chairman should be elected for three years, the term for which the Councillors were to be chosen, and they would be more likely to get good men to fill the office if the period for which it was to be held was extended. He doubted whether any suitable person would undertake the office if it exposed them to an annual election.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 32, leave out ("one,") and insert ("three").—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  LORD BELPERsaid, he agreed that continuity was desirable in the case of Chairmen of County Councils, who would differ entirely from Mayors.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYtrusted that the Government would not depart from their original proposal and would not accept the Amendment. If a Council desired to have the same Chairman after a year it could re-elect him, whereas it was unfair to force him upon them for three years.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that the general idea of the Bill was to apply the Municipal Corporations Act to counties except in certain specified points. One of those points was calling the head of the County Council Chairman instead of Mayor. He hoped the House would not accept the Amendment, as Her Majesty's Government held that the Bill as it stood would give greater freedom. If a Chairman were thoroughly competent, and desired to continue in office, he would almost certainly be re-elected.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that his own impression, taking one thing with another, was that a Chairman was likely to be re-elected in the ordinary course if the election were annual.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, at end of Clause, add as a new Sub-section (6):—"(6). The lord lieutenant and the chairman of the quarter sessions shall be ex officio members of the county council."—(The Earl of Powis.)
  LORD KENSINGTONsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment, because it was introducing the objectionable element of ex officio members. If the County Chairmen wished to be members of the Council, they should stand the test of an election on their merits like all others.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he objected to the Amendment, on the ground that there were no ex officio members of the Council provided by the Bill, every proposition of that character having hitherto been resisted by the Government.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Powers of County Council.
  Clause 3 (Transfer to county council of administrative business of quarter sessions) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Transfer of certain powers under local Acts) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Appointment of coroners by county council).
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he had a number of Amendments, almost entirely verbal, to propose to the clause, the intention being to make more clear the language of the clause, which was inserted at a late stage of the proceedings in Committee in the other House.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, after Sub-section 2, insert as a new Sub-section—"Provided, nevertheless, that if a person who holds the office of coroner is elected as a county alderman or county councillor for the county for which he is a coroner, he shall not act as county alderman or county councillor unless he vacates his office of coroner."—(The Earl of Powis.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought that the words proposed would not have the effect which the noble Earl wished, and he had arranged with the draftsman of the Bill as to words which would simply void the election. If the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment he would himself move the insertion of the words—
  "A person who holds the office of coroner shall not be qualified to be elected as county alderman or county councillor for the county in which he is coroner."
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment (The Lord Balfour) agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Council may purchase existing bridges).
  On the Motion of Lord BASING, Amendment made in page 4, line 36, after ("purchase") by inserting ("or take over on terms to be agreed on").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Transfer to county council of certain powers of justices out of session) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Reservation of business to quarter sessions).
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he had an Amendment to move providing for the appointment of a barrister of not less than 10 years' standing to be a Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County, on the Petition of the Court of Quarter Sessions. The position of county magistrates was very

  1651
  much changed by this Bill, and it could not be expected that large numbers of magistrates would always come together, when there was no county business to do, to attend the trial of a few prisoners for larceny, and cases might arise, especially in small Welsh counties, when there might be considerable difficulty as to a Chairman.
  Amendment moved,
  After Clause 8, page 5, insert as anew Clause—"(A.) If a court of quarter sessions petitions Her Majesty in that behalf, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to appoint a barrister of not less than ten years' standing to be paid chairman or deputy-chairman of the quarter sessions for the county."—(The Earl of Powis.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, the Amendment was entirely outside the scope of the Bill; the Bill did not touch the judicial powers of Quarter Sessions in any way. It might or might not be desirable to appoint some such paid officers as the noble Lord desired, but the question was one which ought to be decided on its own merits, and in a Bill brought in for the purpose. It was extremely undesirable to overload this Bill with matters not germane to it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Powers as to police).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he did not wish to move any Amendment, but to throw out some considerations for Her Majesty's Government. This clause provided for the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Justices and the Quarter Sessions being in future vested in a joint committee of the Quarter Sessions and County Council. He doubted very much whether such an arrangement could ever work satisfactorily. There must be a considerable amount of friction between the two Bodies, but he objected to the arrangement on the larger ground that there should not be divided authority with the management of the police force. Of all bodies in the world the police force was the one which could least stand divided authority. Under distinct management the police acted fairly and firmly, and nothing whatever should be allowed to shake their discipline. If there was any difference in the orders which emanated from headquarters the police would unquestionably act irresolutely. Moreover, questions would from time to time
  1652
  arise which deeply affected the public mind, such as the tithe question. In that case, some of the County Councils might hold different views from the Quarter Sessions, and the result must inevitably be that the police would act with irresolution. If this plan of joint control were proposed to be applied to the Metropolis no one would defend it. What he would suggest to the Government—though he did not suppose they would accept it—was that if they were really prepared to make this great change as regarded the police, then the only safe and satisfactory change they could make was to transfer the control of the whole force, not to a joint committee, but to the Imperial Government. That would enable the police to be employed in any part of the country where they were required, and would be productive of economy, for so large a force would not be requisite if the whole strength could be applied whore it was necessary. Practically, that was done in the most important districts in the Metropolis and in Ireland. The subject, he thought, was worthy of the consideration of the Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the noble Earl advocated the most serious and dangerous change which could be made in our system of government—that of placing the whole of our police in the power of the Central Government. No doubt, they were obliged to centralize the police in Ireland, but anyone acquainted with the evils connected with the management of that force by the Imperial Government, and the scenes which it constantly gave rise to in the other House, must look upon the change proposed by the noble Earl as most unfortunate. He hoped that in this country we should not depart from our ancient system, and put into the hands of the Government the whole machinery of the police. If that course were adopted the result would be that every single incident that passed, and the conduct of the police in every part of the country would be made the subject of fierce political discussion, and anything more disastrous he could not conceive.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he confessed that on the great question as to whether the police should

  1653
  be in the hands of the Central Government he sympathized rather with his noble Friend behind him than with his noble Friend opposite. He believed that we were slowly developing from the Dogberry and Verges position into that of a highly perfected system of organized police, which prevailed in every country but our own. He believed that we should ultimately get it. He should be glad if we were able to shorten the journey; but he could not accept any such proposal in the present Bill, because the practical difficulties in the way of doing so were obvious. He desired to say that Her Majesty's Government were not responsible for the clause as it stood. As the clause was introduced in the House of Commons the arrangement was that all the maintenance of the police should pertain to the County Council. The Chief Constable, however, was to be appointed, controlled, and dismissed by the Quarter Sessions, and he would have the entire control of the force. The clause now said that the powers, duties, and liabilities of Quarter Sessions and of Justices out of Sessions in respect of the county police should go to the County Councils. That meant that the power over the county police was entirely taken away from the Justices. It entirely rested with the joint committee. He confessed that that did not appear to him to be a wholly satisfactory arrangement. Of course there were counties and counties. Many used to get on very well with the old parish constable, and might get on with him very well still; but in other counties disorder occasionally arose, and the question was who was to have the command of the police for the purpose of repressing that disorder. No doubt it was quite true that in boroughs that power was exercised very well by the Municipal Bodies, but those Bodies had existed for a very long time and had been educated in this duty by a long course of history. No doubt the County Councils would reach that point in due time, but they had not reached it yet. They must think of what would be the effect in some counties if the whole management of the police in the case of disorder was placed in the hands of purely elected members. He thought, in regard to certain social questions, that might seriously compromise the in-
  1654
  terests of law and order in the county on some conceivable occasion. He had thought of substituting the power of the Secretary of State over the Chief Constable in place of the joint committee in cases of riot and disorder; but there were obviously many difficulties and objections to that arising from local feeling. He proposed to counteract to some extent that phrase—
  "The powers, duties, and liabilities of the Quarter Sessions and of Justices out of Session shall be left to the County Council"—
  by providing that—
  "it shall be the duty of the Chief Constable or other constables in an county to obey the lawful order of the Justices in Petty Sessions to prevent the occurrence of riot and disorder in that county."
  He was sorry that the House of Commons had changed the arrangement which was originally proposed in the Bill; but, still, he thought it bettor on the whole to leave the clause in the state in which it came from the other House, merely providing in the way he proposed for cases of riot and disorder.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he could hardly imagine that it should ever have been intended to take away the powers of the Justices in regard to riot and disorder. The Justices were liable to indictment for misdemeanour if they did not take every necessary step for the purpose of putting down riot and disorder, and these functions could not possibly be performed by a joint committee. He thought, therefore, that in order to make this provision workable, it was essential to provide that nothing therein contained should alter the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of the Justices as conservators of the peace. The best way would be simply to provide for the continuance of the power to preserve the peace now vested in the Justices.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord was perfectly reasonable. It was a matter of such importance that he himself desired to introduce some precautionary words, and the proposal of the noble and learned Lord seemed to meet the case. The Government, however, would consider the question before Report.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was personally unacquainted with the details of English local administration.

  1655
  But there seemed to be considerable confusion as to the ultimate power of directing the police to enforce the law. There seemed to be some confusion on the subject; but he was glad to hear from his noble and learned Friend that the duty of preserving the peace was now cast on every Justice. In Ireland and in some parts of England and Wales he regretted to see that resistance to the law was becoming not uncommon. In the matter of tithes, for example, such resistance was not infrequent in Wales, and there seemed to be a doubt as to who could issue orders to the Chief Constable. In the Hebrides and other parts of Scotland the collection of school rates was getting to be a difficult matter.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was old enough to remember disturbances in some parts of the country, and he might mention the Swing riots in his own county.
  LORD BASINGthought the language of the clause wanted revision. He would move to omit certain words at the end of Sub-section 2, as he was of opinion that it should be clearly expressed that the only powers transferred to the County Councils were those that were now exercised by the Police Committees. He would also move to omit Sub-section 3.
  LORD BALFOURhoped the noble Lord would not press his first Amendment. The Government were willing to omit Sub-section 3.
  Sub-section 3 struck out.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, in his opinion the more the police were controlled by elective bodies the stronger would be their action in the restoration and preservation of order. On the other side of the Atlantic, as they knew, the police acted with great vigour under popular control. If they acted in a manner which led people to complain, then they could go to those who controlled the police—namely, the people themselves. It was with the people the responsibility rested for the action of the police. The more they brought the police under Executive control the more they weakened their power, and, instead of strengthening the Government, they enormously weakened it. The farther they removed the control of the police from the Central Authority the more cer-
  1656
  tain were they of safety in the enforcement of the law. Even the blunder of a single constable, at a time of electioneering excitement, might give rise to complications that would endanger the existence of a Government here or turn the elections, and he had no desire to see the Government of this great country depend upon the outbursts of popular feeling arising from popular elections.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was valuable to have the opinion of noble and learned Lords, and he did not widely differ from some of the comments which had just been made; but the noble and learned Lord had left out of view the value to the Central Authority of having the control of the police at times when the danger was concentrated in a particular centre. Then the Central Authority could concentrate their strength, which would not be the case if the police were under the control of a large number of elective bodies. He confessed that the attitude of the Government towards the disturbances in the Highlands in the last few years was not entirely satisfactory, as in sending the Marines he thought there was something grotesque. If they could combine the police of adjoining counties or divisions of counties and concentrate them on a given spot it would render these abnormal efforts unnecessary.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Transfer to county council of powers of certain Government departments and other authorities) agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Entire maintenance of main roads by county council).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 6, line 38, insert as a new Sub-section—"Provided that the county council may, if they think fit, levy a special rate on any parish through which a main road passes, towards the expense of its repair and maintenance, such special rate not to exceed one-half the total cost of maintaining such road within the parish in any one year."—(The Lord Herries.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, which would, he held, be going back on a principle which had been adopted for a number of years. The Amendment would give the County Council arbitrary power to select for special burdens particular parishes. To this he must object.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of The Lord BALFOUR, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  "A main road, and the materials thereof, and all drains belonging thereto, shall vest in the county council, and where any sewer or other drain is used for any purpose in connection with the drainage of any main road the county council shall continue to have the right of using such sewer or drain for such purpose, and if any difference arises between a county council and any highway or sanitary authority as respects the authority in whom the drain is vested, or as to the use of any sewer or other drain, the council or the highway or sanitary authority may require such difference to be referred to arbitration, and the same shall be referred to arbitration in manner provided by this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Roads and tolls in Isle of Wight) agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Adaptation of Act to South Wales roads) agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Power to county council to enforce provisions of Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876) agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Council to have power to oppose Bills in Parliament).
  THE EARL OF JERSEYpointed out that County Councils would have power to oppose Bills in Parliament, but not to promote them. He moved that they should have the latter power also.
  Amendment moved, in page 10, line 17, after ("opposing,") insert ("and promoting").—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSthought that the power should be given subject to the check of the ratepayers.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was opposed to the Amendment. It was desirable that these new and untried Bodies should learn to walk before attempting to run.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that the power of promoting Bills stood on a different footing from the power of opposing, the latter being sometimes necessary for the protection of interests which were threatened, whereas the power of promotion was not necessary at the outset. On the general ground, therefore, that it was premature to give the Councils the power of promoting Bills at present, and that it was not necessary for the protection of any interest of their con-
  1658
  stituents, he hoped the House would not consent to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, he would not press the Amendment, though he thought the power sought would soon be granted.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSproposed to give the County Council the power of promoting Bills and other schemes in Parliament, subject to the control of the ratepayers, in the same way as the Municipal Bodies were controlled under the Borough Funds Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsubmitted that it would be much better to give no powers of promotion at present, whether with or without the consent of the ratepayers. He thought Parliament should wait a little time and see how the Councils worked, and, besides, it was always easy for Parliament to give them the necessary powers.
  EARL FORTESCUEremarked, that it would be a cumbrous and expensive process to consult the ratepayers in a large rural area as compared with a compact area like a municipal borough.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Power of county councils to make bye-laws) agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Power of county councils to appoint medical officer) agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Qualification of medical officers of health).
  LORD TRURO LORD TRURO moved to omit the words allowing the Local Government Board to dispense, in cases where they might see fit, with the necessity for the medical officer being legally qualified for the practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery. He contended that the words added no significance to the clause.
  Amendment moved, in page 11, line 23, leave out from the beginning of the clause to ("no") in line 25.—(The Lord Truro.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he did not think it desirable that these words should be struck out. There were special cases known to the Local Government Board in which it was necessary for them to exercise this dispensing power, without which great hardship might be caused. There were cases of men who had the

  1659
  ability and experience qualifying them to hold these appointments, who, nevertheless, had not all the technical qualifications. On the authority of the Local Government Board he could state that in their opinion it was absolutely necessary to retain this dispensing power.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he begged to move the omission of the words which confined the necessity of legal qualifications for an officer of health to the cases of those appointed for a borough or district of over 50,000 inhabitants. It had only been by an accident that an Amendment to this effect had not been brought up in the House of Commons, and it had been understood that it would have had a fair chance of being accepted. What was contended was that small localities should have the same guarantees of fitness in the case of candidates for the post of medical officer as was the case in the larger communities. Petitions had been presented from various very distinguished Medical Corporations remonstrating against the proposal to which he now objected.
  Amendment moved, in page 11, line 32, leave out from ("districts") to ("unless") in line 34.—(The Lord Truro.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that it was not possible to accept this Amendment. It was true that the effect of the clause was to impose higher qualifications in the case of medical officers of large communities than in that of smaller ones. Some of the diplomas, however, had not long been in existence; and if the necessity were imposed of holding these diplomas in the case of candidates for smaller communities it would be absolutely impossible to fill up vacancies as they occurred, and the expense would in many other cases be seriously increased.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Power of county council as to report of medical officer of health) agreed to.
  Financial Relations between Exchequer and County, and Contributions by County for Indoor Paupers.
  Clause 20 (Payment to county council of proceeds of duties on certain licences) (local taxation licences) agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Grant to county council of portion of probate duty) agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Distribution of probate duty grant) agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Application of duties on transferred licences, local taxation licences, and probate duty grant) agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Payments by county council in substitution for annual local grants out of Exchequer in aid of local rates) agreed to.
  Clause 25 (As to Secretary of State's power respecting efficiency of police) agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Grant by county council towards costs of officers of union) agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Supplemental provisions as to local taxation account and Exchequer contribution account) agreed to.
  General Provisions as to Transfer.
  Clause 28 (General provisions as to powers transferred to county council).
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, he begged to move the omission of the words authorizing the County Council to delegate any power or duty transferred by this Act to it in respect of the execution of the Act relating to contagious diseases of animals.
  Amendment moved, in page 21, line 16, after ("1875") leave out ("or of the Act relating to contagious diseases of animals").—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that it would be necessary, if these words remained, to put in words on the Report stage for the purpose of protecting the existing powers of delegation to a committee composed partly of Justices and partly of persons who were not Justices. He thought that that would be the best way of meeting any difficulty.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Summary proceeding for determination of questions as to transfer of powers) agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Standing joint committee of quarter sessions and county council

  1661
  for the purpose of police, clerk of the peace, officers, &c.) agreed to.

PART II.

  APPLICATION OF ACT TO BOROUGHS, THE METROPOLIS, AND CERTAIN SPECIAL COUNTIES.
  Application of Act to Boroughs.
  Clause 31 (Certain large boroughs named in the schedule to be treated as counties) agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Adjustment of financial relations between counties and boroughs) agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Provision as to police and rateable value) agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Application of Act with modifications to county boroughs) agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Application of Act to larger quarter sessions boroughs not treated as counties) agreed to.
  Clause 36 (General application of Act to boroughs with separate commission of the peace) agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Application of Act to quarter sessions boroughs hereafter created) agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Application of Act to smaller quarter sessions boroughs with population under 10,000).
  On the Motion of The Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made, after ("1882") in sub-section (b), by inserting as a separate paragraph—
  "The council of the borough shall be a highway authority, and the borough a highway area within the meaning of the Highways and Locomotives Act Amendment Act, 1878."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Application of Act to boroughs with population under 10,000).
  On the Motion of The Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 33, line 22, at end of line, by inserting as a separate paragraph—
  "(1.) The urban authority for any borough or town with such population as above in this section mentioned shall cease to be the local authority under the Acts relating to explosives, and the county council shall have the like authority under the said Acts in the said borough or town as they have in the rest of their county."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Application of Act to Metropolis.
  Clause 40 (Application of Act to metropolis as county of London) agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Position of city of London) agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Arrangement for paid chairman and sitting of quarter sessions for London).
  On the Motion of The Lord THRING, Amendment made, in page 38, after ("area,") by inserting—
  "Upon the hearing of any appeals in relation to property in the city of London, such two members of the court of quarter sessions of the city of London as may be appointed by that court for the purpose shall be entitled to attend and sit as members of the quarter sessions for the county of London."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving to leave out ("recorder,") and after ("judge") add—
  "And from and after the next vacancy no recorder shall exercise any judicial functions unless he is appointed by Her Majesty to exercise such functions,"
  said, he thought the City of London had been somewhat severely dealt with in the House of Commons with regard to the appointment of Recorder. He thought it hard that because it was considered desirable to remove the judicial powers from the Recorder, therefore the Corporation should lose the power of appointing the Recorder, an officer required for other duties in the City than that of Judge at the Central Criminal Court. He proposed this Amendment which, he thought, would do only justice to the Corporation. With regard to the Common Serjeant, the City did not attach so much importance to the office as they did to that of the Recorder, and they were not disposed to press their views in opposition to the views of the House of Commons.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 39, line 4, leave out ("recorded,") and after ("judge") add ("and from and after the next vacancy no recorder shall exercise any judicial functions unless he is appointed by Her Majesty to exercise such functions.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD HERSCHELLasked what other duties did the Recorder discharge besides those of a judicial nature? He did not object to the Amendment of the noble Marquess, if the duties to be discharged were to be limited as suggested.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, the Recorder attended as Law Officer on the Corporation, and discharged a great many other duties besides those connected with the Central Criminal Court. The Amendment would only secure for the City the right which every other Municipality had of appointing a Law Adviser.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Grant by London county council to poor law unions) agreed to.
  Clause 44 (Transfer of duties under 32 and 33 Vict. c. 67, of clerk of metropolitan asylum managers) agreed to.
  Clause 45 (Adjustment of land as to slaughter-houses in the metropolis) agreed to.
  Application of Act to Special Counties and to Liberties.
  Clause 46 (Application of Act to certain special counties).
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOLsaid, he moved to insert "and the eastern and western divisions of Suffolk," thus creating two separate administrative counties in Suffolk for the purposes of the Act.
  Amendment moved, in page 40, line 30, after ("1865") insert ("and the eastern and western divisions of Suffolk").—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he might, perhaps, be allowed to make some remarks on the Amendment moved by his noble Friend behind him, as he had been Chairman of Quarter Sessions for the Eastern part of the County of Suffolk for more than 18 years. He would not follow the noble Marquess into the historical part of the question. This was purely a matter of sentiment; he respected it; but this Bill appeared to him to be peculiarly inapplicable in dealing with the matter of sentiment, as it did away to a great extent with the power of Quarter Sessions—a most ancient institution. No one of their Lordships would, however, for a moment bring such an argument forward as an argument against the passing of the measure. The question of the division of Suffolk was one of great local importance. He would go as shortly as he could into the practical history of the case. In East
  1664
  Suffolk the opinion was unanimously in favour of one County Council for the whole county. The opinion was in favour of the Bill as it was introduced by the Government, and as it was passed by a majority of 27 in the House of Commons. The noble Marquess had spoken of the number of Petitions he had presented in favour of the division. He had presented many Petitions from East Suffolk—from Samford, from Ipswich, Hartismere, Hoxne, Lowestoft, Blything, Woodbridge, and the Stow market Local Board. The noble Marquess spoke of the Stow Board of Guardians being in favour of his proposition. The proposition had been three times before the Board, which carried a resolution against it once, then reversed it, and a few days ago were equally divided. All the Members for East Suffolk and the Members for Ipswich were in favour of one County Council, the Court of Quarter Sessions the same, and, in fact, all East Suffolk were in favour of this view; while West Suffolk were not unanimous. Near Ipswich they were in favour of the view held by East Suffolk, and one of the Chairmen for West Suffolk—Major Barnardiston—was strongly in favour of the view he (Lord Henniker) took. At the outset he would say that the inhabitants of East Suffolk had only one object—the benefit of the whole county. When he said that, he meant the great majority, which was even greater now than in 1881, as the population of East Suffolk was increasing, while the population of West Suffolk was decreasing. Even in 1881, the population of West Suffolk had decreased in 10 years by 2,064; while East Suffolk had increased by 7,580. He must explain that Suffolk was not like Lincolnshire. There was only one Commission of the Peace, the Courts of Quarter Session were held by adjournment from one place to another, the Court being held on the statutable day at Ipswich. Some years ago there were four Courts of Quarter Sessions and four areas of taxation; but Beccles and Woodbridge combined with Ipswich, and, although the same arguments were brought forward now as then, no inconvenience had arisen. On the contrary, the change had been a great benefit to all concerned. There were now several joint committees between the two divisions, and since the date of the amalgamation he had mentioned there

  1665
  was only one police force for the whole county. In all these matters the West Suffolk Court had been simply a Court of Record, and, if the Motion was carried, that would be continued. He wished to show the result of the partial amalgamation. Take the police for the first 13 years of amalgamation. East Suffolk saved £1,600 11 s. 4d., and West Suffolk £4,487 12 s. 0d. The rate in 1867–8 for East Suffolk was 1¾d. in the £1; in West Suffolk, 2½d. in the £1. In 1880–1 the East Suffolk rate was 1⅛d.; in West Suffolk, 1⅝d. in the £1. That proved how much West Suffolk profited. Again, the coast line was the improving part of the county; while West Suffolk was purely agricultural—decreasing, as everyone knew, in value—so amalgamation must be of service to West Suffolk, as they would profit by the increased rateable value. At one time there were three gaols in Suffolk, which cost £4,680 a-year. Now there was only one, which cost £2,662, or less. But he went further. He believed joint action was a great saving, as the force of example was of great service. What had been the result of this small amalgamation? In 1867–8 the rate in East Suffolk had been 2d. in the £1, in West Suffolk 3d. In 1873–4 2½d. and 2d.; and in 1880–1, 1½d. and 1¼d., so that one division benefited in 1873–4 and both divisions profited in 1880–1. Whatever the causes were, it was fair to say joint action had done good. However, he looked more to the principle and the example than to figures. Some years ago there was a partial amalgamation of two Unions. Sentiment came in there, but was set aside. The amalgamation had been successful. These were both small amalgamations, but were fair arguments to bring forward in favour of the one County Council he and those who acted with him wished to see formed. He was not in favour of too large areas, too much centralization; but to show that he was not speaking without consideration, he would compare Suffolk to other counties. In Suffolk there was a population of 356,863 by the last Census, where there were two Courts of Quarter Sessions. In Essex, a neighbouring county, there was a population of 575,930, with one Court; in Norfolk, another neighbouring county, a population of 444,825, with one Court for county affairs and two for criminal business; in Stafford, 981,385 popula-
  1666
  tion, with one Court. In 1882, there was called in Suffolk a general Court of Quarter Sessions; a committee was appointed to consider the question of amalgamating the county of Suffolk. This committee was appointed to please the West Suffolk magistrates, and they had a majority upon it. They were convinced that the proposal was a right one, and so reported to Quarter Sessions, where the report was carried. However, there was an Act passed to serve Suffolk, at the instigation of the then Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Mr. Austin, the well-known Parliamentary lawyer, in which it was laid down that a resolution should be carried at each Court in favour of amalgamation, so as to make sure that the separate rating of the different divisions should not be in the way. That Act had never been used in any case since; but it defeated the majority of the inhabitants of the county, as the small number of magistrates around Bury, and the small number of inhabitants who had taken the matter up, refused to pass a resolution—a Resolution which was only necessary for county affairs. This was the position up to now. One word as to general convenience and distance he might be allowed to say. Of course, if one place was pointed to, Ipswich, the great county town, must be the place of meeting. So many went there from all parts of the county that the inconvenience would be little; but, after all, the number of County Councillors would be small, and surely they would be ready to make some sacrifice in the public service to reduce the rates for the benefit of everyone in the county. As to distances, there were many convenient trains to and from Ipswich to West Suffolk, and that had more to do with the matter than the actual distance now-a-days. Ipswich was a railway centre, the most important centre on the Great Eastern Railway; it was 26 miles from Bury St. Edmunds—one hour by train at most; Lowestoft, now in the Ipswich Quarter Sessions district, 48 miles. No inconvenience had been complained of in this respect. New market was 40 miles only from Ipswich, and was the most extreme point of West Suffolk; in fact, partly in Cambridgeshire. The question of distance was not one of any importance. It was said that the business would all

  1667
  be managed on one side of the county; but their Lordships knew quite well that the business always fell to the lot of a few of the best business men to transact. There was a safeguard, too, that if the county was rated at one particular place, the whole county would be rated, and so no injustice as to expenditure could be done. He must repeat what he had said before—there was no desire except to benefit the whole county. The proposition now before the House was one to retain all that could benefit West Suffolk, without thought of East Suffolk. For example, it was proposed to take part of East Suffolk into West Suffolk by altering the boundaries, giving to West Suffolk an extra £50,000 of rating basis. However, if sentiment was to prevail, East Suffolk hoped to be entirely separate from West Suffolk, except so far as the County Lunatic Asylum was concerned, as the Western Division had a property in this. The East Suffolk people wished the boundaries left as they were; but he (Lord Henniker) hoped their Lordships would not alter the Bill or the decision of the House of Commons.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that the noble Earl who was so shocked earlier in the evening at the Government leaving the matter an open question would be again horrified when he stated that the same thing was going to happen again. This point was an open question in their Lordships' House as it had been in the House of Commons. Though the noble Lord who had just sat down was a Member of Her Majesty's Government, he should be under the necessity of voting in the opposite Lobby. He did not intend to argue the question, which was an absolutely local matter; but he might say that he had received two deputations, one from East and the other from West Suffolk, who had argued the question at much greater length than it had been discussed there. Under these circumstances he had formed the best judgment he could, and, considering the existing difficulties of access, and, he might add, the peculiarities of the Great Eastern Railway—his own railway—he thought that his Friend the noble Marquess had made out his case.
  LORD GWYDIRopposed the Amendment. He said that a large majority of
  1668
  the inhabitants of North, East, and South Suffolk were practically unanimous in favour of retaining the unity of the county, while only a small minority of the residents in West Suffolk were in favour of separation. The great bulk of residents of all heads of political opinion were opposed to the separation. He maintained that no good or substantial reason had been shown for the proposition.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, that, as a landowner in Suffolk, he had gone into this question with considerable interest. The bulk of his land was in East Suffolk, but it was far from him not to recognize the strong claims of West Suffolk to individual county machinery. He trusted that their Lordships would take the opportunity of amending a serious local error in the other House and would agree to the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)pointed out that, as regarded the magistrates, Suffolk was divided into three parts, and not two.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 59; Not-Contents 20: Majority 39.
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETER, in moving that the soke of Peterborough and the residue of the county of Northampton should be respectively separate administrative counties for the purposes of the Act, said, that there was no Opposition of any kind to this proposition in the county.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 40, line 35, at end of line, insert as a separate paragraph.—"The soke of Peterborough and the residue of the county of Northampton shall be respectively separate administrative counties for the purposes of this Act referred to as divisions of the county of Northampton."—(The Marquess of Exeter.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Earl of CRAWFORD, Amendment made, at the end of Sub-section 5, by adding—
  "And subject as aforesaid the position and salary of any such chairman or justice (in the county of Lancashire) shall not be affected by any provision of this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 47 (Saving for Manchester Assize Courts Act, 1858).
  Sub-section 2 omitted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 48 (Saving for salaried chairman of quarter sessions in Lancashire) struck out.
  Clause 49 (Merger of liberties in county).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 44, line 9, after ("this Act") insert—(5.) "Provided always, that if before the 31st day of December, 1888, application is made to the Local Government Board by the quarter sessions of the county of Kent, and by the town councils and local boards of such of the Cinque Ports, and their liberties and members as are situate within the county of Kent, or any of them, that a separate county should be formed for the Cinque Ports, the Local Government Board may make a Provisional Order forming such county, which shall be called 'the county of the Cinque Ports,' and which shall include such of the Cinque Ports as are situate within the county of Kent, and such of the liberties and members of the same, and such parts of the county of Kent adjacent to such Cinque Ports, liberties, and members, as may seem necessary or proper to the Local Government Board for the purpose of making the area of the county of the Cinque Ports self-contained and convenient for administrative purposes.
  With the consent of the quarter sessions of the county of Sussex, and of the town council of the borough of Rye, such Order may include within the county of the Cinque Ports the borough of Rye and such parts of the county of Sussex adjacent to the said borough as to the Local Government Board may seem necessary or proper.
  The Provisional Order may contain such provisions as may seem necessary or proper for regulating the first election of the county council, for providing that the area proposed to be included in the county of the Cinque Ports should continue to form part of the county of Kent, or the county of Sussex, as the case may be, until a date named in such Order, for the adjustment of property and liabilities between the county of the Cinque Ports and the counties of Kent and Sussex respectively, and generally for making the provisions of this Act applicable to the county of the Cinque Ports."—(The Earl Granville.)
  LORD BALFOURregretted that it was not possible to accept the Amendment. The Cinque Ports were not contiguous to each other, and there was no bond which united them, and their case was not analogous to the two divisions of Suffolk, or the Soke of Peterborough, which had just been before them. The proposed area would take an undue proportion of the rateable value of the county of Kent. Nor did the noble Lord propose to take all the towns, as some of them were situated in Sussex. The proper course to take would be to apply for a Provisional Order under
  1670
  Clause 8 of the Bill, but he did not hold out any hope that it would succeed.
  EARL GRANVILLEregretted that the Government could not accept his Amendment. There was much to be said in favour of not absorbing the Cinque Ports into the county. For more than 500 years they had been separate, and 11 out of the 15 boroughs in Kent were in the Cinque Ports. The opinion of all who were most competent to give an opinion was that there never had been any difficulty with regard to the administration of the Cinque Ports, and that no difficulty was anticipated if the Amendments were carried. It was difficult for those who did not reside in the Cinque Ports to understand the amount of feeling that existed in view of the proposal to absorb them in the county. The Justices of Kent had expressed themselves in favour of the Amendment, believing that if the Cinque Ports were created a separate county, it would be of advantage for themselves and the whole of Kent.
  LORD BRABOURNEstrongly supported the claims of the Cinque Ports to be made a county of themselves. He felt all the more bound to do so because he had studiously refrained from taking part in the local agitation upon the subject. He earnestly begged their Lordships' attention to this point. If the proposal of the Bill had been to merge the Cinque Ports entirely in the county, and, saving present rights, to abolish this separate jurisdiction, the issue would have been comparatively simple. On the one side there would have been the strong local opposition to the abolition of an ancient institution, whilst upon the other it would have been urged that considerations of practical utility and of economy pointed to the consolidation of separate jurisdictions in the same county. But that was not what was proposed. The ancient jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports was to be preserved, so that whatever of inconvenience now existed on account of the clashing of authorities, would continue to exist, whilst for the first time the inhabitants of the Cinque Ports would be liable to county rate and to serve on county juries, so that the proposal of the Government was really not one in the direction of consolidation but confusion. Take, for instance, the question of Police; as the Bill stood, Sandwich and Hythe, with populations under

  1671
  10,000, would have county police—whilst Dover, Ramsgate, Margate, and Folkestone would have their own police. How much better and more simple it would be to have an amalgamated force, one Cinque Port county police and one Cinque Port county rate. The Cinque Ports had already an organization of their own, and the Government were proposing really to alter matters, not in the way of consolidation, but in a manner that could be productive of no final settlement of the question. Moreover, whilst the sentiment in the Cinque Ports themselves was strong and undoubted, what had been the action of the County Authority outside the Cinque Ports? He (Lord Brabourne) had that day presented a petition from the Justices of Kent signed by the Chairman of General Sessions, praying that their Lordships would adopt the clause of the noble Earl. Now, if the Government wished the Bill to be workable, they must endeavour to make it popular, and seeing there was a strong local sentiment in favour of the claim now made, he saw no reason why it should not be conceded. The only valid reason for which so strong a local sentiment could be opposed would be founded upon considerations either of symmetry, of economy, or of convenience. As far as symmetry was concerned the Government had cut the ground from under their feet, not only by concessions made to other counties, but by the fact of their having taken Canterbury out of the county, and Hastings, one of the Cinque Ports themselves, out of the county of Sussex. As to economy, who were so well able to judge of the probable economical results as the Justices of the county of Kent, who had hitherto had the management of the county finance, and who had actually petitioned in favour of this clause. Moreover, if its adoption should cause any expense by the creation of new officers, that expense would fall upon the Cinque Ports, who would have no right to complain, and who were perfectly ready to undertake it. As to convenience, surely the inhabitants of the localities affected should be the best judges, and these were the people who desired the adoption of the clause. Therefore, alike on the grounds of symmetry, economy, and convenience, he maintained that the position taken up by the Government could not be defended.
  1672
  In assenting to this clause—which was merely a permissive one—the Committee would not be going so far as had been done in the case of the county of Suffolk or in that of the county of Northampton. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Bristol) had spoken of the diversity of interests between sea board towns on the West Coast of Suffolk and the interior of the county. It was the same in Kent, and the Cinque Port Coast towns and the interior part of the county felt alike that they ought not to be united. Under the proposed clause nothing could be done unless the Authorities, both of the county and Cinque Ports, agreed to apply to the Local Government Board, and every opportunity would be given for so forming the Cinque Port county as to make an intelligible and workable arrangement. His noble Friend (Lord Henniker) had deprecated sentiment on such matters, but he (Lord Brabourne) hoped the day was far distant when England would be governed only by stern logic to the exclusion of sentiment. He had only lately been reading Lord Palmerston's speech at his inauguration as Lord Warden, in which he said that nothing dignified men more than an honourable attachment to ancient institutions. This was the sentiment of the inhabitants of the Cinque Ports, and it was one which was honourable to them, and to concede to which would be no dishonourable concession.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEstated that he was not surprised that the noble Earl and the noble Lord below, who had represented a cinque borough for so many years, had brought this Amendment forward. The noble Earl was under a misapprehension, for the question had never been before Quarter Sessions. A Parliamentary Committee had been appointed to map out and arrange electoral districts, and this Parliamentary Committee had no authority from the Court to petition Parliament; so that it was a mistake to say that the Justices were unanimous. He would be content to rest his vote on what fell from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. The objections on geographical grounds, as well as the fact that this Amendment would take away from the county a large amount of rateable value, were, in his opinion, insurmountable.
  EARL GRANVILLE, with all respect to the noble Viscount, submitted that

  1673
  his individual opinion was hardly worth that of all the magistrates who were present at Quarter Sessions and signed the Petition.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, the Parliamentary Committee no doubt authorized the Petition, but not the Quarter Sessions. Though the clause was only permissive, it was a permissive clause of a very extensive character, and he was not prepared to assign to the Local Government Board the absolute control in this matter.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, it was only fair that the action of the Kent Quarter Sessions should be rightly understood. They had appointed a special committee in April last to watch and consider this Bill, and on June 29th they had re-appointed the committee, and authorised them to take such additional steps as such committee might deem urgent, and the committee had deemed it necessary and urgent to petition in favour of the proposed Clause 7, and during the whole of this time and at the meeting on June 29 it had been perfectly well known that the agitation in favour of making the Cinque Ports a separate county was going on. There was, therefore, plenty of time and opportunity for anyone to have objected, and he thought it rather hard for noble Lords to come down now and disavow the action of their regularly appointed committee.
  LORD BALFOURobserved, that the noble Lord had stated that the proposed clause would be merely permissive; but for his own part he thought that it would practically amount to a somewhat peremptory direction. What they were now asked to make into a county had never been an administrative area. With regard to the question of expenses, one of the great objections to this proposal was that a district containing a large amount of the rateable value of the county would be taken out of it, and the proposal would thus be unfair to the remainder of the county.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he was always unwilling to put their Lordships to unnecessary trouble, and he knew that it was running his head against a wall to go to a Division against the Government; but he was encouraged by the fact that the noble Marquess had announced that this was an open question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In these circumstances, he would ask their Lordships to divide upon the question, as he hoped that noble Lords would decline to follow so inconsistent and illogical a course as, after agreeing to the separation of East and West Suffolk against the wish of the former division, to divide in the opposite sense when both parties had petitioned for the separation.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 32; Not-Contents 35: Majority 3.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 50 (Power to make Provisional Order for Scilly Islands) agreed to.

PART III.
Boundaries.
Clause 51 (Boundary of county for first election) verbally amended, and agreed to.
Clause 52 (Directions for constitution of electoral divisions).
Amendment moved,
In page 46, line 31, after Sub-section (4) insert, as a separate Sub-section—"In constituting electoral divisions care shall be taken so to adjust the boundaries that such divisions may admit of being easily converted into administrative areas for some of the purposes of local government."—(The Lord Turing).
LORD BALFOURsaid, the proposed sub-section was so vague that it would be of no practical value.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 53 (Determination by first county council of positions of overlapping rural sanitary districts) struck out.
Clause 54 (Provisional Order as respects boroughs and urban sanitary districts in same area)agreed to.
Clause 55 (Consideration of alterations of boundaries by county councils) agreed to.
Clause 56 (Future alterations of boundaries of county and borough and of electoral division of a county) agreed to.
Clause 57 (Power to amalgamate two combined boroughs) agreed to.
Clause 58 (Future constitution of new boroughs) struck out.
On the Motion of Lord BALFOUR, the following clause was inserted:—
"When a petition is presented to Her Majesty the Queen by the inhabitant house holders of any town or towns or district in pursuance of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, for the grant of a charter of incorporation, notice of such petition shall be given to the county council of the county in which such town, towns, or district is or are situate, and shall also be sent to the Local Government Board, and the Privy Council shall consider any representations made by such county council or the Local Government Board, together with the petition of such charter."
Clause 58A (Future alteration of county districts and parishes and wards, and future establishment of urban districts) agreed to.
Clause 59 (Additional power of Local Government Board as to unions) agreed to.
Clause 60 (Supplemental provisions as to scheme or order) agreed to.
Clause 61 (General provision as to alteration of boundaries) agreed to.
Clause 62 (Appointment of Commissioners) agreed to.
Clause 63 (Adjustment of property and liabilities).
On the Motion of The Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made in page 55, line 18, at end, insert as a separate paragraph—
"An arbitrator appointed under this Act shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and the Acts amending the same, and the provisions of those Acts with respect to an arbitration shall apply accordingly; and, further, the arbitrator may state in a special case, and, notwithstanding anything in the said Act, shall determine the amount of the costs and shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers to have been incurred unnecessarily."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 (Arbitration by Local Government Board) agreed to.

PART IV.

  FINANCE.
  Property Funds and Costs of County Council.
  Clause 65 (Transfer of county property and liabilities).
  On the Motion of The Lord HENNIKER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  1676
  "Where any property is subject to a charitable trust nothing in this Act shall affect the trust, and until otherwise directed by the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales the trustees or managers of the charity shall be appointed in like manner as if this Act had not passed; and,"
  On the Motion of The Marquess of EXETER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  "The county council of the soke of Peterborough shall be liable to repair the county bridges in the soke, and if any costs are incurred by the county council of the county of Northampton for the benefit of the soke, an adjustment thereof shall be made by agreement, or by arbitration in manner provided by this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 66 (Power to purchase lands) agreed to.
  Clause 67 (Costs of justices to be payable out of county fund) agreed to.
  Clause 68 (Adjustment of law as respects costs of prosecutions) agreed to.
  Clause 69 (Funds of county council) agreed to.
  Clause 70 (Borrowing by county council).
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid, he moved to insert the word "colonization" after "emigration" in sub-section D. The effect of this would be to give County Councils power to make advances in aid of the emigration or colonization of the inhabitants of a county. For the purpose of effectually aiding emigration, it was necessary that steps should be taken for settling the new colonists.
  Amendment moved, in page 60, line 20, after ("emigration") insert ("colonization").—(The Earl of Meath.)
  LORD ZOUCHE, in supporting the Amendment, said, that a short time ago a Committee of both Houses was appointed to consider the question of State-aided Colonization, and special reference was then made to the difference between mere emigration and colonization. Colonization included the development of unoccupied Colonial land.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that he did not clearly understand what distinction there was between emigration and colonization. As, however, the clause was permissive, he did not see that there was any harm in accepting the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 71 (Issue of county stock) agreed to.
  Clause 72 (Audit of accounts of county council) agreed to.
  Clause 73 (Adaptation of Part V. of 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, as to corporate property and liabilities) agreed to.
  Local Financial Year and Annual Budget.
  Clause 74 (Fixing of local financial year and consequent adjustments).
  On the Motion of The Lord BALFOUR, the following Amendment was inserted at end of clause:—
  "(2.) All enactments relating to accounts of local authorities, or the audit thereof, or to returns touching their receipts and expenditure, or to meetings, or other matters, shall be modified so far as is necessary for adapting them to the provisions of this section, and the Local Government Board shall from time to time give such orders and make such arrangements as appear to the Board to be necessary or proper for effecting such adaptation and giving effect to the provisions of this section."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 75 (Annual budget of county and district councils) agreed to.

PART V.

  SUPPLEMENTAL.
  Application of Acts.
  Clause 76 (Application of Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, to county councils and this Act) agreed to.
  Clause 77 (Amendment of County Electors Act, 1988) agreed to.
  Clause 78 (Residential qualifications of county electors in administrative county of London) agreed to.
  Clause 79 (Construction of Acts referring to business transferred) agreed to.
  Proceedings of Councils and Committees.
  Clause 80 (Incorporation of county council) agreed to.
  Clause 81 (Payments out of fund and finance committee of county council) agreed to.
  Clause 82 (Appointment of joint committees).
  On the Motion of The Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 72, line 10, by leaving out from ("counties and")
  1678
  to the end of the sub-section, and inserting—
  "A standing joint committee may be appointed for two or more counties, and the members of such joint committee shall be appointed by the several quarter sessions and councils in such proportion and manner as they respectively may arrange, and in default of arrangement as may be directed by a Secretary of State."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 83 (Proceedings of committee) agreed to.
  Officers.
  Clause 84 (Clerk of the peace and of county council) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 85 (Appointment of justices' clerks and clerks of committees) agreed to.
  Clause 86 (Making of bye-laws as to tricycles) agreed to.
  Clause 87 (Adaptation of Lunatic Asylum Acts).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYurged that the auditors should be sufficient in number to discharge their duties within a reasonable period.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that the Act placed the auditors under the Local Government Board. He would, however, call attention to the point raised by the noble Lord.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 88 (Application of provisions of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, as to local inquiries and provisional order) agreed to.
  Clause 89 (Adaptation of Act to metropolis) agreed to.
  Clause 90 (Adjustment of law as regards courts, juries, sittings at nisi prius, and legal proceedings in Middlesex and London) agreed to.
  Clause 91 (Special provisions as to adjustment in the metropolis) agreed to.
  Clause 92 (Adjustment as regards the Militia Acts) agreed to.
  Savings.
  Clause 93 (Saving for votes at any Parliamentary elections) agreed to.
  Clause 94 (Saving for metropolitan and city police) agreed to.
  Clause 95 (Saving for metropolitan common poor fund) agreed to.
  Clause 96 (Saving as to Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent) agreed to.
  On the Motion of The Lord FITZGERALD, the following new clause was inserted, after Clause 96:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall alter the area to which the enactments relating to the registration of land in the county of Middlesex apply, and any reference in those enactments or in any deed, instrument, or document made or issued under or for the purpose of those enactments to the county of Middlesex shall be construed to apply to the same area to which it would have applied if this Act had not passed."
  The following Clauses were agreed to, with Amendments:—
  Clause 97 (Saving as to liability for main roads).
  Clause 98 (Saving for powers of Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Customs).
  Definitions.
  Clause 99 (Definition of "written").
  Clause 100 (Interpretation of certain terms in the Act).
  Clause 101 (Extent of Act).
  Clause 102 (Short title).

PART VI.

  TRANSITORY PROVISIONS.
  First Election of County Conncillors.
  Clause 103 (First election of county councillors).
  Clause 104 (Retirement of first county councillors).
  Clause 105 (Preliminary action of county councillors as provisional council).
  Clause 106 (First proceedings of provisional council).
  General Provision as to First Elections.
  Clause 107 (Casual vacancies at first elections).
  Clause 108 (Power of Local Government Board to remedy defects).
  Appointed Day.
  Clause 109 (Appointed day).
  Transitional Proceedings.
  Clause 110 (Current rates, jury lists, &c.).
  Clause 111 (Transitory provisions as to lunatic asylums).
  Clause 112. (Transitory provisions as to Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts).
  Transitory Provisions as to Metropolis.
  Clause 113 (Transitory provisions as to sheriffs of London and Middlesex).
  Clause 114 (As to existing coroners for Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent).
  Clause 115 (As to commission of the peace for London).
  Clause 116 (As to places for holding quarter sessions).
  Clause 117 (As to existing justices in metropolis).
  On the Motion of The Lord BALFOUR, Amendment made, in page 97, line 5, at end by adding as a new sub-section—
  "(6.) Nothing in this Act shall affect existing deputy lieutenants appointed by the Constable of the Tower of London as Lord Lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Existing Officers.
  Clause 118 (Existing clerks of the peace and other officers) agreed to.
  Clause 119 (As to officers transferred to county council) agreed to.
  Clause 120 (Compensation to existing officers).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he begged to move an Amendment to this clause, which he thought would prevent any injustice from occurring—
  Amendment moved,
  At the end of sub-section (1.) insert ("except that in the case of a freehold office the officer holding any such office at the time of the passing of this Act shall be entitled to compensation calculated upon his salary and emoluments for the live years immediately preceding the passing of this Act").—(The Lord Herschell.)
  LORD BALFOURthought that the words erred on the side of excess, as they might be held to mean that the compensation was to be the actual gross amount of the salary and emoluments. He would suggest that the noble and learned Lord might bring up amended words on the Report stage.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Wednesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 267.)

  MARRIAGES VALIDATION BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to remove doubts as to the validity of certain marriages solemnized by a person falsely pretending to be an ordained clergyman of the Church of England—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Order XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 256.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing superfluous expressions of enactment, and enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a, (No. 258.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock a.m., till half past Ten o'clock.