COUNTY COUNCILS.

HL Deb 06 August 1888 vol 329 cc1638-61

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 BALFOUR

said, 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 KIMBERLEY

pointed out that there was no provision in the Bill by which a Chairman or Councillor could resign without paying a fine.

LORD BASING

said, 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 BEAUCHAMP

said, 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Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.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 SALISBURY

said, 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 40s. 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 BEAUCHAMP

said, 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 SALISBURY

said, 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 GRANVILLE

said, 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 SALISBURY

said, 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 GRANVILLE

said, 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 BEAUCHAMP

said, he was opposed to the Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

thought 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 moved to amend the Amendment by making it applicable to eldest sons only.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, 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 SALISBURY

said, 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 KIMBERLEY

said, 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 JERSEY

said, he was certainly in favour of the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley).

LORD MONK BRETTON

said, 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 TATTON

thought it would be better to leave out sons of Peers as well as of other persons.

LORD BRABOURNE

protested 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 SALISBURY

said, 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 BASING

said, 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 BRABOURNE

submitted 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- tive Body than even at present as a non-representative Body.

LORD BALFOUR

said, 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 JERSEY

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 KIMBERLEY

said, 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 BEAUCHAMP

said, 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 MORLEY

said, 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 BEAUCHAMP

said, he begged to move the omission of the words pro- 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 BRETTON

said, 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 HERRIES

said, 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 BASING

said, 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 KIMBERLEY

trusted 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 BATH

hoped 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 SALISBURY

said, 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- 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 BELPER

said, he was opposed to the Amendment.

EARL STANHOPE

asked for information as to the size of the divisions.

LORD EGERTON OF TATTON

thought the Government ought to give some guidance before the House voted on this question.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 JERSEY

hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

LORD MONK BRETTON

said, 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 BEAUCHAMP

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 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 BASING

said, he had understood that the Local Government Board had settled the numbers on each Council.

LORD BALFOUR

said, 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 BELPER

said, he agreed that continuity was desirable in the case of Chairmen of County Councils, who would differ entirely from Mayors.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

trusted 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 CARNARVON

said, 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 KENSINGTON

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 POWIS

said, 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 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 CARNARVON

said, 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 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 KIMBERLEY

said, 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 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- 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 HERSCHELL

said, 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 SALISBURY

said, 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 ARGYLL

said, he was personally unacquainted with the details of English local administration. 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 KIMBERLEY

said, 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 BASING

thought 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 BALFOUR

hoped the noble Lord would not press his first Amendment. The Government were willing to omit Sub-section 3.

Sub-section 3 struck out.

LORD HERSCHELL

said, 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- 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 SALISBURY

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 JERSEY

pointed 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 WEMYSS

thought that the power should be given subject to the check of the ratepayers.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said, he was opposed to the Amendment. It was desirable that these new and untried Bodies should learn to walk before attempting to run.

LORD BALFOUR

said, 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- stituents, he hoped the House would not consent to the Amendment.

THE EARL OF JERSEY

said, 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 WEMYSS

proposed 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 SALISBURY

submitted 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 FORTESCUE

remarked, 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 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 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 TRURO

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 JERSEY

said, 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 BALFOUR

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