§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ Clause 4:—
§ Verbal Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 6:—
§ Drafting Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 8:—
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDMy Amendment to this clause is really to change the words of the former Act. I was surprised on the last occasion to hear noble Lords who have had great experience of county councils state that they had not found the words of the original Act inconvenient. I cannot help thinking that the words which I suggest more adequately imply the true meaning of the clause. I always understood that the words of the original Act had been inserted by some error, and I have certainly heard them complained of from time to time. Under the original Act the finance committee of a county council is really the controlling body. I will give an instance of what I mean. A committee of one of the bodies you are about to create is charged with the care of the streets of the borough, and wishes to repave a macadam street with wood. This proposal has to go before the finance committee, and, unless that committee recommend it, the county council cannot even entertain the proposal. If the finance committee think the expenditure undesirable, they cannot conscientiously recommend it, but, surely, the streets committee and not the finance committee ought to be able to decide a point of this kind. Practically, according to the wording of the Act, if the finance committee cannot see their way to approve of an expenditure proposed by the streets committee, or by any other committee, the council cannot entertain the recommendation at all. One noble Lord, the other day, said that as a matter of fact no friction had arisen. I admit that, so far as I know, no actual deadlock has occurred, but I have heard chairmen of finance committees say that under 1234 the present arrangement great difficulty had been experienced. The words I propose to insert carry out what I think was the original intention of the framers of the Act. I agree that it is desirable that the finance committee should thrash out all financial arrangements and lay them before the council, in order that the council should decide the matter; but I do not think we should perpetuate the present anomaly, under which, without a recommendation from the finance committee, the council cannot entertain any proposal.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 30, to leave out 'on the recommendation of,' and insert, 'after consideration of a report thereon by.'"—(The Duke of Northumberlan.)
§ * THE MARQUESS OF RIPONI hope the noble Duke in charge of this Bill will not agree to the Amendment, which goes a long way to reverse the decision the House came to the other night. The noble Duke (the Duke of Northumberland) has very great objection to the powers which the Act of 1888 confers on the finance committees of county councils, possibly as a result of his experience in his own county; but I have observed that both to-night and on the previous occasion he gave no instance of the deadlock which he appears to fear having actually occurred in practice. County councils have been in existence a good number of years, and if no case can be produced where the results of the clause have been unsatisfactory, I do not think we should now set to work to alter it with regard to the new London bodies. It is true that the clause gives large power to the finance committee; but the county council can refer hack any question to that committee, or to any other committee that may arise upon their reports, and I am very much disinclined to believe that a finance committee would be found which would prevent the carrying out of the clearly expressed views of the council. I do not understand why the noble Duke opposite should be so anxious to give the new London bodies greater power and independence, and place upon them less checks than exist under the present law with regard to county councils. We have heard some hard things said about the London vestries, whose place these new bodies are to take. I am not going to 1235 bring any accusation against the London vestries, but I am bound to say that the restrictions and checks which have been found necessary in the case of county councils are likely to be still more required in the case of the new bodies Parliament is now creating.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE)As the House is aware, the whole of this clause was inserted contrary to the opinion of the Government, and I shall be guided in the course which I shall take by the opinion which may be expressed by members of county councils, by the weight of whose authority I think the House was principally induced to accept the Amendment on the last occasion. I should myself be disposed to think that the words proposed by the noble Duke behind me were an improvement on the words of the Local Government Act of 1888, but I should be very glad if we could have an opportunity of hearing the opinion of other Members of the House who have served upon county councils.
§ EARL SPENCERI regard the finance committee as a very useful cheek on expenditure, and I think it is not desirable that any one committee, which does not know what the whole of the expenditure of the borough may be, should have the actual power of recommending an expenditure to the council without the matter having previously gone to a finance committee. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will adhere to the words now existing, and not accept the alteration proposed by the noble Duke.
THE EAEL OF NORTHBROOKAs I expressed an opinion in favour of this clause in Committee, I should like to say one word upon it now. I do not consider the Amendment one of any very considerable importance, because, if a collision occurred between the finance committee and the council, the views of the council must in the end prevail. The words had better remain as they are in the clause, for, if you change them, you will enable the council to vote an expenditure immediately upon the receipt of a report from the finance committee adverse to the expenditure. The best course to adopt in such a case would be to refer the matter back again to the finance committee, and then, if there 1236 was still a difference between the two, the council should prevail. I shall vote against the Amendment of the noble Duke.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI have been a member of the finance committee of my county ever since the formation of the County Council, and we have not met with any of the difficulties to which the noble Duke referred. The finance committee is an extremely useful body, and it seems to me that it is necessary to have some committee in the council who can put together, as it were, in one glance, all the various items of expenditure and receipts which have to be dealt with. Unless a committee has the whole balance-sheet before them, they cannot form a sound judgment upon any proposal. To deal with matters piecemeal is to open the door to jobbery by individual members; further than that, a finance Committee is absolutely necessary if the work of the council is to be efficiently done. A finance committee not only serves as a useful check on expenditure, but also performs a duty which, in a body of that kind, is absolutely necessary. I therefore think it is very desirable indeed that the provision should be maintained.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDI entirely agree with what has fallen from noble Lords opposite as to the importance of finance committees. I admit that the new councils should have some committee which will have under its purview the whole expenditure of the council; bat the real question is whether the power of the finance committee should be so absolute that, if they do not sanction an expenditure, the matter cannot come before the council.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI am very sorry to interrupt the noble Duke, especially as he is referring to something said by myself; but I think it would be extremely inconvenient if we were to break through the rules of the House and discuss matters on Report in the same way as we discuss them in Committee. The noble Duke is not in order is making another speech.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBELANDI beg your Lordships' pardon. I was 1237 under the impression that the mover of an Amendment had a right to reply.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Drafting Amendments agreed to.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRECounty councils raise their funds by sending precepts to other authorities, but they do not receive from any other authorities precepts requiring them to raise money. On the other hand, borough councils receive precepts from county councils and boards of guardians requiring them to raise money by means of rates. The payments made in pursuance of these precepts are obligatory, and it does not seem right, and probably was not intended, that the finance committee's, of the new borough councils should question the propriety of these precepts. Therefore, I think it necessary that a saving clause should be inserted.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 6, line 38, after 'incurred,' insert, 'Provided that the 'foregoing provisions shall not apply to payments made in pursuance of a precept from another authority.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
§ On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
§ Clause 10:—
LORD MONKSWELLI should like to say one word with regard to the first sub-section of Clause 10. I have this morning received from the Accountant to the Shoreditch Vestry a suggestion which I think is of importance. He points out that under this section only one person—the Town Clerk—has power to prepare lists of voters and the jury lists, and that there is no provision whatever for appointing a deputy. My correspondent says, I think justly, that this section must in course of time lead to inconvenience when the Town Clerk is ill and unable to perform his duty.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREClause 24 makes the necessary provision with regard to the appointment of a deputy in case of the illness or absence of the Town Clerk.
§ Clause 16:—
LORD MONKSWELLIt has been represented to me, on behalf of the Com- 1238 mons Preservation Society, that it would be possible under this clause for the Commissioners to interfere with local Acts relating to commons and open spaces. I do not know whether the noble Duke takes that view, but I think it would be undesirable to give the Commissioners power to do this. I would suggest that these Acts should be placed in the same category as the Building Acts.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 10, line 31, after '1894,' to insert, 'or Acts relating to commons and open spaces.'"—(The Lord Monkswell.)
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREA saving clause with regard to open spaces was inserted in Clause 31 in the other House, at the instance of Mr. Bryce. It appeared both to him, as I understand, and to the draughtsmen, that it was unnecessary to exclude Acts relating to commons and open spaces from the local Acts, which can be repealed under this clause. There is not the slightest intention of enabling the Commissioners to meddle in any way with open spaces or commons. But it was thought that it might be desirable that they should have power to alter, by scheme, the mode of appointment of trustees or managers under local Acts, so as to make the provisions of those Acts correspond with the new form of government which is being established by the Bill. It is impossible to know what is in all these local Acts. It may be that churchwardens are in some cases ex officio managers, and it would be desirable to amend the local Acts by substituting nominees of the borough council. By not inserting any reference to these Acts in this clause, no intention whatever is indicated that power will be taken to interfere in any way with the law relating to the regulation of open spaces.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREBefore I proceed to move the Amendment to Clause 16 standing in my name, I think it may be convenient that I should take this opportunity of stating the names of the Commissioners proposed to be appointed under Clause 15 to prepare such orders and schemes as will be required for carrying the Bill into effect. The first is Sir Hugh Owen, late Secretary of the Local 1239 Government Board, who will be chairman. I should like here to express the deep obligations of the Government to Sir Hugh Owen, who, as the House is aware, has just retired from the arduous duties of Secretary of the Local Government Board, for undertaking the extremely difficult and arduous task of presiding over the Commissioners. The two other Commissioners will be Sir Samuel Johnson, Town Clerk of Nottingham, and Mr. Alfred Tristram Lawrence, Q.C. The Amendments which I have to move to Clause 16 have been suggested by Sir Hugh Owen, who has pointed out that only the draft schemes are required to be published by the Schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act, but that the language of this clause might require the schemes to be advertised in full, a proceeding which would involve a great deal of unnecessary expense. All that is required is that notice shall be given as to where the draft schemes can be seen and copies obtained.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 11, line 18, after 'Gazette,' insert, 'and in such other manner as the Committee of Council may direct, of a draft scheme having been prepared or'; line 21, after the first 'the,' insert, 'draft scheme or,' and after 'Gazette' insert or in the manner required by the Seventh Schedule to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
§ On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 18:—
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I beg to move the addition to Section 1 of a sub-section providing that, if the Commissioners under this Act make a special report to Parliament, that by reason of anything done under any of the Adoptive Acts, or for any other exceptional reason, it is impracticable to deal with a detached part of a parish in manner required by the foregoing provisions of this section, those provisions shall not apply. My amendment further provides that the provisions of Section 1 of the clause shall not apply to the hamlet of Knightsbridge. It will be convenient if I state to the House the arrangement which the Government propose as to the question of Westminster and Knightsbridge, and also as to 1240 Kensal Rise. In the first place, we propose to insert provisions which will distinctively secure that Knightsbridge shall not be separated from the borough of Westminster or from the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster. Both are, by the Schedule, included in the borough of Westminster, and there is no intention of detaching them. This proviso is intended to secure that. Certain minor alterations in the boundaries of the parish will require to be made. There are cases in which parts of houses are in different parishes, and others in which the back gardens are in one parish and the house in another. The Commissioners will be empowered, but not directed, to take into consideration the point raised the other night by Lord Glenesk, as to whether it may not be expedient to separate Kensington Palace and some of the houses in Kensington Palace Gardens from the borough of Westminster and attach them to the borough of Kensington. The Kensington authorities are, I believe, ready to make any equitable compensation for the loss of rateable value which this may entail. As to Kensal Rise, the House is aware that that is a detached part of Chelsea. If the policy which has always been adopted in the case of detached portions of parishes is followed, Kensal Rise ought to be annexed either to Kensington or Paddington, or divided between them. For many reasons, however, into which it is not necessary to go, neither Kensington nor Paddington desire that to be done, and certain administrative difficulties, the chief of which, I believe, is connected with a public library, have been pointed out. The Amendment I am now moving is to enable the Commissioners, if they find insuperable difficulties in the administrative arrangements which would follow such a mode of dealing with Kensal Rise as would be in accordance with the general principles of the Bill, to make a special report upon that question, whereupon the provisions of the section would not apply. It will be left to the Commissioners to devise a scheme, if they are able, applying the general policy of the Bill to the case of Kensal Rise.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 11, to leave out lines 39 to 42, and insert, ('Provided that—(a) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the hamlet of Knightsbridge; and (b) If the Commissioners
1241
under this Act make a special report to Parliament that, by reason of anything done under any of the adoptive Acts or for any other exceptional reason, it is impracticable to deal with a detached part of a parish in manner required by the foregoing provisions of this section, those provisions shall not apply.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY; I troubled the House on the last occasion with some observations about this place with the disputed name, which I call Kensal Town, and which the noble Duke perhaps more properly calls Kensal Rise, but I think the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke will substantially meet the difficulty. I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Kensington Vestry, from which it appears that that body will be well pleased if there is no possibility of their obtaining Kensal Town. At the same time, they say they would be satisfied if Kensal Town could remain a part of Chelsea, or if the decision in this matter were left to the Boundary Commissioners after hearing the representatives concerned. A representation is also made by Chelsea asking that words should be inserted to secure that the districts concerned should be heard. For my own part, I am under the impression that the Commissioners would certainly hear persons concerned, but I think it would give great satisfaction if the words "the Commissioners under this Act, after hearing representatives of any parish interested," were inserted.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREAs the clause stands the Commissioners would certainly hear the representatives of any parish interested, but there is no objection to the insertion of the words proposed.
§ * THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTERI was taken by surprise the other day by the motion with regard to Kensington Palace, and I spoke rather strongly on the subject, understanding that the feeling of Westminster was adverse to giving up any part of the City of Westminster. I am informed that on consideration they are inclined to be more generous, and I believe the arrangement now proposed by the noble Duke, the Lord President, will not be otherwise than satisfactory to Westminster. As they will retain the hamlet of Knightsbridge, they are not indisposed, 1242 if the Commissioners think fit, to give up Kensington Palace, as they have a good many other palaces in the borough.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYPerhaps I may be permitted to state at this stage that Lord Windsor was good enough to inform me that he considered the Amendment of the noble Duke quite sufficient to meet the case, and that he had no intention, therefore, to move the Amendment of which he had given notice with regard to Kensal Town.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREI ought to have stated that I propose to transpose the order of the two sub-sections in my Amendment. I understand that the inhabitants of St. Margaret's are a little afraid that the provisions of Subsection (b) may apply to Knightsbridge, and I therefore propose to place Subsection (b) of my Amendment before Sub-section (a), which will remove any doubt on the subject.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," resolved in the negative.
§ On Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the clause," agreed to.
§ Drafting Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONKSWELLThe object of the Amendment I now propose is to enable me to move, when we come to Schedule 1, that the case of South Hornsey should be settled by Parliament, and not by the Commissioners. I imagine that, if these words are not inserted, it will be impossible to move in the direction I wish when the schedule is reached.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREHad not the noble Lord better state the case now?
LORD MONKSWELLBy all means. On the last occasion, when I raised the question of South Hornsey, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Jersey) stated that I was entirely in error in asserting that South Hornsey was in favour of being annexed to London. I was very much surprised to hear the noble Earl state that the people of South Hornsey desired to be joined to Middlesex, but on. 1243 inquiry I find that the vote to which the noble Earl referred had no reference whatever to the question before the House, but to the question whether or not South Hornsey should remain an administrative unit. I do not know that my Amendment is of very great importance, because it is perfectly clear, I should say, that the Commissioners are certain to annex the whole of South Hornsey to Stoke Newington. I think it is just as well, however, that Parliament should decide this case for the Commissioners, and relieve the inhabitants of South Hornsey from any anxiety. It is perfectly obvious that South Hornsey cannot remain an administrative unit, because one part of it, known as the island, is entirely surrounded by London—that part will be joined to Stoke Newington; and there is no doubt that the remaining part of South Hornsey, called the peninsula, will be annexed either to Hornsey or to Stoke Newington. The fact that Stoke Newington contains only 35,000 inhabitants, as against 70,000 in Hornsey, is an argument in favour of South Hornsey being joined to Stoke Newington. Moreover, Finsbury Park cuts off South Hornsey entirely from Hornsey, and, geographically speaking, South Hornsey has much more connection with the County of London than with Middlesex.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 12, line 15, after 'shall,' to insert, 'save as hereinafter excepted.'"—(The Lord Monkswell.)
* THE EARL OF JERSEYIn the statement I made to the House on the last occasion, I was not so incorrect as the noble Lord seems to imply. The question before the electors was, "Do you wish South Hornsey to be taken from the county of Middlesex and added to London?" This question was answered in the negative by 1,817 persons, and in the affirmative by only 30. I contend that that was a vote distinctly against South Hornsey being annexed to the County of London. This is not a question to be decided by Parliament. The Bill makes it perfectly clear that it can come up before the Commissioners, and with this provision the County Council of Middlesex are perfectly satisfied. The noble Lord has another and more subtle reason than that of preventing the Middlesex County Council from being heard 1244 before the Commissioners for moving this Amendment, as the Amendment, if carried, would deprive the Middlesex County Council of any claim for compensation in the event of transfer. On the other hand, if they are heard before the Commissioners, they may advance a claim for compensation for the territory of which they are deprived. Surely it is an accepted principle that, when an area is taken from a county, the County Council should have the opportunity of claiming reasonable compensation. This is an illustration of the policy of the London County Council, of trying to snatch their neighbour's territory, which makes that Council distrusted and disliked.
THE EARL OF KIMBELLEYI am rather surprised to hear compensation mentioned. I do not know what the position of the County Council of Middlesex may be. It may have a somewhat peculiar privilege in that respect, but I have known an area to be severed from the county to which I belong, very much against our will, but we had no compensation, nor, as I understand, any claim to compensation. If there is any special power in this Bill with regard to compensation, I should like to know from what quarter it is derived.
LORD MONKSWELLI had not the slightest idea that the question of compensation was involved in my Amendment. If it is, I will withdraw my Amendment at once.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREI cannot state positively whether a question of compensation will be involved or not, but undoubtedly the rateable value of the area is considerable, and the county of Middlesex may be very unwilling to lose it unless some provision for compensation can be proposed. At all events, we consider that it is very undesirable to disturb the arrangement by which the Commissioners will have the power of adding the area to the borough of Stoke Newington, and it is extremely probable they will do so. It is in our opinion, very undesirable to alter the permissive language of the clause. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Verbal Amendments agreed to.
1245§ Clause 20:—
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDMy Lords, I have been asked to move the Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Glenesk. I understand that it is not contested.
§
Amendment moved, to insert as a new clause—
An Order in Council under this Act may detach Kensington Palace from the borough of Westminster, and attach it to the borough of Kensington."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREThis Amendment is agreed to.
§ On Question, "That this clause be here inserted," agreed to.
§ Clause 22:—
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREThe Right Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) has an Amendment to Clause 22, which, as he is not able to be present to-day, he proposes to move on the Third Reading. I have been in communication with the Right Rev. Prelate, and have informed him that the general policy of the Commissioners will be to vest the appointment of churchwardens in the parishioners of the ecclesiastical district, and that an instruction to that effect will be given to the Commissioners. I think it probable that, after this intimation, the Right Rev. Prelate will not think it necessary to move his Amendment. If he does think it necessary to do so, it can be moved on the Third Reading.
§ Clause 23:—
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHI beg to move a new clause after Clause 23, exempting members of borough councils, borough treasurers, and town clerks from service on all juries. I believe there is a direct precedent for this exemption, which will be found in the Act passed in 1870, dealing with the remuneration and exemption of juries, and which states in the schedule of those classes who are exempt from serving as jurymen, "members of the council of a municipal corporation of any borough," etc. I beg to move the insertion of this clause
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23, to insert as a new clause, 'The members of borough councils, borough
1246
treasurers, and town clerks, during the time that they hold office under this Act, shall enjoy exemption from service on all juries."—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
§ THE DUKE OE DEVONSHIREI only had notice of this Amendment this, morning. It is necessary that I should further examine the Jury Law to see whether it is possible to entertain the Amendment. If the noble Lord wishes to press it, I would ask him to put it down on the Third Reading.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 25:—
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHI move to amend this clause by substituting the London County Council for the Local Government Board as the authority for sanctioning alteration in the wards of a metropolitan borough. The noble and learned Lord, the Chancellor of the Duchy, said that under the Bill the whole question rested with the Local Government Board, but that is not the case. So far as the first division of borough council areas into Parliamentary districts and wards is concerned, it lies with the Privy Council. But it is proposed to give the power of making subsequent alterations to the Local Government Board under the present clause. I should like to remind the House of the present arrangements for the division of the various areas in London into wards and polling districts. So far as parish and vestry elections are concerned, the county council can divide them in the first instance, and can make alterations from time to time. So far as, the county council elections are concerned, the county council have power to divide the districts into wards and polling districts in the first instance, but have not the power to alter them from time to time, and I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy agrees with me that the county council should have this power. So far as Parliamentary elections are concerned, the county council has, the power of dividing Parliamentary boroughs into polling districts, where such are in more than one petty sessional district, but where they are coterminous with petty sessional districts the duty is, with the Justices. The principle which has animated the council in the past has been to make the various districts coterminous, 1247 for vestry and election of guardians proposes, and so that they should not conflict with Parliamentary or council elections. That seems to me, my Lords, to be a thoroughly sound principle, which should be maintained. If the county council have been considered worthy of the power in the past, it is desirable that the power should remain in the hands of the council. It will simplify matters and prevent difficulties. In a former part of the Bill an alteration was made in the other House, by which the power of sanctioning loans was transferred from the Local Government Board to the county council, with an appeal to the Local Government Board. I would suggest that, even if the Government be not willing to accept my Amendment as it stands, they may be willing to agree to a further Amendment giving the duties of this sub-division to the county councils in the first instance, with a power of appeal, if necessary, to the Local Government Board against any alleged injustice.
§
Amendment moved—
In Clause 25, page 14, lines 31 and 35, to leave out 'Local Government Board' and insert, 'London County Council.'"—(The Lord Tweed-mouth.)
§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDThe noble Lord desires that the county council, where they have jurisdiction to make the various districts, should have power to alter them from time to time. That suggestion seems a good one, but we have no power to give effect to it in this Bill. I think it should be given effect to in the next County Council Bill that is presented. With regard to the principal suggestion of the noble Lord, the matter was considered in the House of Commons, and it was thought that within the area of these borough councils the Local Government Board was the best tribunal to determine the wards and polling districts. There was no particular reason shown
§ why, when you are establishing borough councils with some sort of independence there should be an overruling body to make these provisions other than the Local Government Board. I was struck by my noble friend's willingness to take the Local Government Board as a Court of Appeal from the London County Council, although he does not wish that Department to be the primary body in these matters. Surely, it is better to go direct to the Local Government Board, and to accept the Bill as it stands in this respect, endorsed as it has been, after full consideration, in the other House of Parliament.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI do not think my noble friend's object in bringing forward this Amendment is simply to secure that the county council should have this power in order to preserve any of the privileges or add to the authority of that body. The noble Lord desires that there should be one authority, whether it be the county council or the Local Government Board, because if you do not have one authority you will run the risk of these matters being dealt with on different principles, and you will not have any complete and carefully considered system. Either the Local Government Board should take over the whole of this duty, or the county council should be allowed to discharge it. As the county council is the existing authority exercising this power, it seems natural, unless there is some reason to distrust the county council, to leave the power with them. My noble friend has not brought forward his Amendment merely from a county council point of view.
§ On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 26.
1249| CONTENTS. | ||
| Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) | Ailesbury, M. | Dartmouth, E. |
| Devonshire, D. (L. President.) | Bristol, M. | de Montalt, E. |
| Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.) | Lansdowne, M. | Denbigh, E. |
| Salisbury, M. | Drogheda, E. | |
| Egerton, E. | ||
| Grafton, D. | Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) | Hardwicke, E. |
| Marlborough, D. | Jersey, E. | |
| Northumberland, D. | Camperdown, E. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Portland, D. | Carnwath, E. | Lichfield, E. |
| Richmond, D. | Coventry, E. | Mansfield, E. |
| Westminster, D. | Craven, E. | Mayo, E. |
| Nelson, E. | Brampton, L. | James, L. |
| Northbrook, E. | Brougham and Vaux, L. | Kelvin, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Calthorpe, L. | Kinnaird, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | Chelmsford, L. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) |
| Ravensworth, E. | Cheylesmore, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Rosse, E. | Churchill, L. [Teller.] | Llangattock, L. |
| Selborne, E. | Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) | Middleton, L. |
| Shaftesbury, E. | Monckton, L. (V. Galway.) | |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry) | Clonbrock, L. | Monk Bretton, L. |
| Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Colchester, L. | Morris, L. |
| Yarborough, E. | Cottesloe, L. | Muncaster, L. |
| Cranworth, L. | Newlands, L. | |
| Falkland, V. | Crawshaw, L. | Norton, L. |
| Knutsford, V. | Crofton, L. | Penrhyn, L. |
| Llandafft, V. | De Mauley, L. | St. Levan, L. |
| Dunleath, L. | Sherborne, L. | |
| Winchester, L. Bp. | Erskine, L. | Shute, L. (V. Barrington.) |
| Farnham, L. | Sinclair, L. | |
| Ampthill, L. | Farquhar, L. | Southampton, L. |
| Ashcombe, L. | Forester, L. | Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) |
| Balfour, L. | Glanusk, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Barnard, L. | Harris, L. | Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.) |
| Belper, L. | Herries, L. | |
| Bolton, L. | Hood of Avalon, L. | Wantage, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Northampton, M. | Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) | Lingen, L. |
| Ripon, M. | Monkswell, L. | |
| Aberdare, L. | Reay, L. | |
| Carrington, E. | Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) | Rendel, L. |
| Chesterfield, E [Teller.] | Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.] | |
| Crewe, E. | Burghclere, L. | |
| Kimberley, E. | Davey, L. | Thring, L. |
| Morley, E. | Hawkesbury, L. | Tweedmouth, L. |
| Russell, E. | Hobhouse, L. | Welby, L. |
| Spencer, E. | Leigh, L. | Wrottesley, L. |
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," agreed to.
§ * THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTERI do not propose to move the Amendment to Sub-section (a) standing in my name, which provides that an Order in Council under this Act shall give an appropriate name to each of the Metropolitan boroughs other than Westminster, which shall be continued to be called the City of Westminster. Westminster has enjoyed that title since the time of Henry VIII., and we desire to retain unbroken that historic connection. As an arrangement has been arrived at by the Government, in order that the title of the City of Westminster may be retained, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREIt is very doubtful whether the Borough of Westminster would not have the right to the title of City under the charter of Henry VIII. In the opinion of the Government that title ought to be conferred by the Queen by a supplementary charter, and not by the provisions of any Act of Parliament. It would, of course, be irregular for me to state what advice will be given to Her Majesty as to the granting of a supplementary charter, if that should be found necessary. But I 1250 think my noble friend may rest assured that the wishes which he has expressed in the name of the inhabitants of Westminster will not be lost sight of, and I trust that a means will be found of giving effect to them.
§ First Schedule:—
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHI move to insert the words "including the Tower of London and the Liberties thereof," after the words "the area consisting of the parishes of Mile End Old Town, and St. George's-in-the-East, and the districts of the Limehouse and Whitchapel Boards of Works." It is thought that the words "Whitechapel Board of Works" do not include the Tower of London, and that the words I suggest ought to be added.
§
Amendment moved,
In the First Schedule, in page 20, line 15, after 'Works,' to insert, 'including the Tower of London and the Liberties thereof.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREIt is doubtful whether the words are necessary, but they will do no harm, and I will accept them.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHThe next Amendment standing in my name deals with the great Borough of Wandsworth, which it is proposed to constitute under this Bill. It seems to me that this borough is as excessive in its area and acreage as the new Borough of Westminster is in its rateable value. The proposed Borough of Wandsworth will contain 9,285 acres, which, in my opinion, is altogether too large an area for local government purposes. My Amendment proposes to divide the district of the Wandsworth Board of Works into two boroughs, one consisting of the parishes of Wandsworth and Putney, which contain 4,668 acres, a population of 78,667, and a rateable value of £542,053; and the other consisting of the parishes of Clapham, Streatham, and Tooting, which contain 4,617 acres, a population of 108,597, and a rateable value of £812,119. The Board of Works, which administers the district at the present time, is divided into five Committees—one Committee for each parish; and I am informed that these five Committees act practically independently, though they report, of course, to the District Board. Still, for all intents and purposes, the local government of Wandsworth is carried on by these five separate Committees. The Amendment I propose will divide the area naturally by means of the common. The population of Wandsworth has increased during the last twenty-five years by more than 150 per cent., and it is estimated that in the next twenty-five years that rate of increase will be still further accelerated, so that this area twenty-five years hence will contain at least 500,000 people. I think the administration of the district will be greatly facilitated if it is divided as I suggest, and, if this is not done, it will be found necessary at no distant time to subdivide the borough in order to secure its proper administration.
§
Amendment moved—
In line 17, to leave out 'the district of the Wandsworth Board of Works,' and insert, 'the area consisting of the parishes of Wandsworth and Putney. The area consisting of the parishes of Clapham, Streatham, and Tooting'; and in line 29, to leave out 'of the ancient Parliamentary borough of Westminster.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREI do, not say this question is one upon which the arguments are of an overwhelming character on either side. But I think it would be better to maintain the decision of the other House, which has the advantage of containing representatives of the localities concerned, and thererefore is in a better position to form a judgement as to the wishes of the inhabitants than your Lordships. So far as we have been able to ascertain, the inhabitants are strongly in favour of the larger area. The only vestry election which has taken place since these proposals were made has resulted in the return, by a very large majority, of vestrymen who were in favour of unity as opposed to division. It would be quite useless and unnecessary for me to enter into any discussion of the figures, either of population or area, of the proposed borough; but, believing that the other House was in a better position to form a judgment on this subject, I would ask your Lordships to support the decision which was arrived at by the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThe information which I have does not seem to be in accordance with the information which has been supplied to the noble Duke, as I have received a memorial from the Vestry of Wandsworth which goes the other way. Possibly some vestry election may have taken place since the memorial was drawn up, but, so far as I can judge, the district, as proposed in the, Bill, will be inconveniently large, and will have to be divided at no very distant date by means of another Bill for that purpose.
§ * LORD HAWKESBURYI beg to move to amend the schedule by omitting the provision that one of the boroughs should be the area of the ancient Parliamentary Borough of Westminster, in order to divide that area into two boroughs—one consisting of the parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminister, and the parish of St. George,. Hanover Square; and the other of the parish of St. James, Westminster, and the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and the district of the Strand Board of Works. 1253 In moving this Amendment, I hope it is unnecessary for me to disclaim any hostile feeling as regards this Bill, for I Assure your Lordships that I agree entirely with many noble Lords who spoke during the Second Reading Debate, that the Bill is not a Party measure, but is welcomed from all sides of the House as an honest attempt to deal with the question of London Government. It is a Bill which we hope will improve the condition of affairs in the Metropolis, and induce the inhabitants to take a greater interest in their local affairs than they have done hitherto. It is in that spirit that I have placed this Amendment upon the Paper. The area proposed in the Bill is, I urge, far too large to be economically worked, and, I am informed, the immediate effect will be a very considerable addition to the burdens of the ratepayers. It certainly will be so in St. George's, Hanover Square, and St. James's, Piccadilly, and in the latter parish I am informed, by those who have the best means of knowing, that the rates will be increased by sevenpence in the £. The rateable value of the new borough will be £5,000,000, and that is larger than the rateable value of any municipality in England, and larger than that of the City itself. It does seem to me that no valid reason has been given why this very large area should be created, and why the privileges of local self-government should be taken away from districts which now possess them, and have possessed them for so many centuries. No doubt some of the proposed municipal areas are as large; Wandsworth, for instance, but I need scarcely point out the difference of circumstances between Wandsworth and the districts to which my Amendment refers, running as they do into the very heart of London. Areas in the centre of London should be smaller, that supervision may be better I carried on, and local government better conducted. I notice that Her Majesty's Government have borne this in mind, and evidently feel the propriety of it, in the two districts which adjoin the one of which I am speaking—Holborn and Finsbury—which are very much smaller, as a glance at the map will show. Holborn, Finsbury, Chelsea, and the City of London are all smaller than Greater Westminster, and, with the exception of the City, none of them are of the importance of the districts to which 1254 my Amendment refers. What is the reason for the exceptional treatment of these districts? I refuse to listen to the suggestion that it is due to Party or to political motives. I put that on one side at once. Then, what is the reason? Is it that these districts have shown inability to manage their own local affairs? I do not think that can be said. I believe that the parishes of St. James's and St. Martin's have been managed as well as any parishes in London. It cannot be said that the inhabitants of these parishes have asked for the great change which is proposed to be made. As a matter of fact, all but one vestry have petitioned Parliament against this proposal. So far as I am able to ascertain, the only reason given is that the proposed area formerly constituted the ancient Borough of Westminster, and that the historic associations of the ancient City of Westminster ought not to be interfered with. I have a very great love for antiquarian research and the study of history, and I should be the last person in the world to desire that historic associations should be forgotten. But, in legislating in matters of this kind, surely we must think of the needs of the present day and the vast and increasing population of the Metropolis. There is no question but that Westminster is an ancient and historic city, and if it was not so from early times as being a Royal Peculiar, it certainly became so when Henry VIII. made it a bishopric by letters patent dated 18 December, 1540 and appointed Thomas Thirlby, the dean of the King's Chapel, Bishop, allotting the county of Middlesex, except the vill of Fulham, as his see, which, however, only lasted nine years and three months, for on the 29th March, 1550, Edward VI. dissolved it, and translated the first and only bishop to Norwich. That it continued a city, however, is evidenced by its being so described in the Act of the 27 Queen Elizabeth, 1585, whereby the Government of the City of Westminster (which in earlier times was in the hands of the abbot and monks) was vested in the dean and chapter, they appointing the lay officers, the high steward, high bailiff, sixteen burgesses, and twelve assistants. But the parishes and districts I have alluded to have enjoyed the right of self-government for centuries, and because they are liberties of Westminster, why should that right be taken from them? The parish of St. James has managed its 1255 local affairs since 1685, and the parish of St. Martin for a much longer period. Westminster returned Members to Parliament from the first year of Edward VI. down to the year 1885. The old Parliamentary borough was then divided into the three boroughs of the Strand, St. George's, Hanover Square, and Westminster, which are to be amalgamated for municipal purposes by this Bill, and if the ancient Parliamentary boroughs are to be taken as the units, why is it only done in this case? This great area includes three poor law unions, four vestries under Schedule A of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, one district board, and ten distinct parishes, with a rateable value, as I have said, of five millions. The tendency in recent years has been to create smaller districts where the need arose. Such has been the case in the last few years, and Hammersmith has been taken from Fulham, Battersea from Wandsworth, Stoke Newington from Hackney, and there are other instances of a similar kind. The question is not, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow) put it, Why should not this important district receive municipal privileges? but, rather, Why should not its component parts continue to enjoy those privileges and administer their own affairs, in the same way as in years past? The recent Royal Commission, after hearing evidence in 1894, recommended that not only the Strand borough, but St. George's and St Margaret's and St. John's parishes would each of them be a suitable area to be constituted a separate borough; and, prior to the introduction of this Bill, the Vestry of St. Margaret's was in favour of being left to manage their own affairs separately, in accordance with that recommendation. In the early part of last year the Home Secretary (Sir Matthew White Ridley), in addressing a public meeting at the Battersea Town Hall, organised by the London Municipal Society, is reported to have said that no Government in its senses would desire to propose that any vestry should be compulsorily amalgamated to form an area for incorporation. What is intended, said the right hon. Gentleman, is that if districts come and ask for a charter of incorporation, the law shall not prevent them from receiving it. The Strand borough has an incontestible claim to be incorporated as a separate municipality. It is a Parliamentary borough (not a mere Division), a county 1256 council division, and includes the area of three local authorities, covering 615 acres in the centre of London, and also of two unions of the rateable value of rather more than £2,000,000—almost as much as Birmingham, considerably more than Sheffield or Leeds, nearly double Newcastle-on-Tyne, Cardiff, Bristol, and Bradford, and more than twice that of Nottingham, Hull, and West Ham. It is more than any of the proposed areas in the Schedule, with the exception of Kensington, and that only exceeds it by a very small amount. The district has a night population of 60,000, but you must bear in mind the character of the district and the fact that the day population is four or five times larger. Even its population of 60,000, however, is more than that of such large towns as Barrow-in-Furness, Bath, Coventry, Devonport, Hastings, West Bromwich, and Oxford. The borough has all the requisites necessary for a municipality. It has an excellent town hall in the centre of the district, two sets of public baths and washhouses, a public library, and a riverside wharf, and at the present moment a dust destructor is in course of erection. My noble friend (the Earl of Onslow), during the Second Reading Debate, was rather inclined to disagree with the statement that the opinion and wishes of the inhabitants were against the creation of the borough proposed in this schedule. The noble Earl spoke of one public meeting which was sparsely attended. That meeting took place before I returned to London after Easter, and therefore I can only speak with regard to it from inquiries I have made. I find that there were four public meetings held in the Strand borough, and I imagine that it was the first of these to which the noble Lord alluded. This meeting took place on the 28th of March of this year. It was called somewhat in a hurry, with only two days' notice. At the second meeting, which was held in the St. Martin's Vestry Hall on 11th April, the room was filled, and the resolution against the creation of this borough was carried with only two dissentients. The third meeting was held in St. Martin's Town Hall on the afternoon of 14th April. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate the difficulty of getting a meeting together in a district like the Strand in the afternoon; but, notwithstanding this difficulty, there were over 200 persons present. The 1257 fourth meeting was also held at the Town Hall, on 25th April, when the room was filled and the resolution passed unanimously. I think that shows clearly what the opinion of the inhabitants is. I ought to add, that the majority were not members of the vestry. I am told that, though there were some of the officials and members of the vestry present, by far the greater number were not officially connected. I mention this because the noble Earl rather deprecated much weight being attached to the expression of opinion of the present vestries, in which I scarcely think he can have spoken seriously, seeing not only that he has done good service himself on one of them, but that it is to the present vestries that we shall look for our future councillors, the members of the new bodies proposed by this measure. What the Strand borough says in effect to Westminster is: "Divide et impera." Leave us alone to manage our own affairs, and retain the rest of the old Borough of Westminster, which has a rateable value of £3,000,000, which surely will establish a great and important municipality of Westminster. I thank your Lordships for the kind attention you have paid to the remarks I have made, and I earnestly hope the Government will be able to accept the Amendment, believing that it will greatly improve the Bill, that it meets with the approval of the great majority of those concerned, and that it will conduce largely to better government, and economical administration in these districts.
§
Amendment moved,
In the First Schedule, page 20, line 29, to leave out from "The area of the' to the end of line 33, and insert 'parishes of Saint Margaret and Saint John, Westminster, and the parish of Saint George, Hanover Square. The area of the parish of Saint James, Westminster, the parish of Saint Martin-in-the-Fields, and the district of the Strand Board of Works.'"—(The Lord Hawkesbury.)
§ LORD HOBHOUSEMy Lords, as a vestryman of St. George's, I beg to support the Amendment. I do not wish to conceal my apprehension that those who build very sanguine hopes on the re-arrangement that will be effected by this Bill will, so far as the regions I know best are concerned, be considerably disappointed. I quite agree that to give substantial power and to lay responsibilities upon men is the way to appeal to the 1258 most honourable of all ambitions—namely, the ambition to give free service to a man's neighbours; but I do not think the enlargement of areas and the alteration of names will have that effect, unless with it you enlarge the powers which you confer upon the body you are dealing with. You may make Westminster as large and as rich as you please, you may call it a borough or a city, you may unite its vestries and call them a council, you may give to their members the title of councillors and aldermen, and to the chairman the title of mayor; but unless with all that you give a larger range of power, I, for one, believe that you will not attract a different class of men to the new bodies. It will, be the men who prefer show to substance who will be attracted, and that is not the class which infuses vigour into municipal or any other affairs. This Bill does not profess to give a larger range of power. In fact, nothing can prevent Westminster, large and rich as you may make it, being only one fragment of the much larger and richer community that encircles it on every side, and therefore the Bill does not profess to give any materially different range of power to that which the vestries now exercise. Just consider what this Bill is going to do. The number of houses in the parish of St. George's is 11,000, the rateable value is £2,000,000, and we have a body of 120 men to administer the affairs of the parish. If your Lordships will bear with me for a few minutes, I should like to give you some idea of the sort of work which our vestry does by its committees, and I will take as a specimen the committee which deals with valuation and assessment matters. Their duty is to keep the assessed or recorded value of the houses in the parish in accord with their real value. The importance of that duty is manifest when you understand that this is the basis of all local taxation, not merely parochial, but for income-tax, house duty, water rate, and other purposes. The necessity for that work to be done by men of intelligence and integrity, possessing an adequate knowledge of detail, is evident, and it is also important that the community should be satisfied that it is well done. As regards the greater number of houses, the value does not shift much from year to year, or from one quinquennial period to another, but the duty of the Committee is 1259 always to be watching for alterations of various kinds, and this work involves a great deal of labour. I will not lead your Lordships into intricate questions of assessment, but I make this broad assertion, that the value of the houses in our parish is ascertained in the first instance, and, as to almost every one of them, in the last instance, by the agency of volunteer workers who are elected by the parishioners for that purpose. Of course, there are other committees whose duties are equally laborious, but I have taken this one as an illustration of the work which it is desirable to have well done. The Bill proposes to join to St. George's an area containing 12,000 houses, with a rateable value of £3,000,000. At the same time, it is proposed to reduce the number of the working body by one-fifth. This will necessitate the greater amount of the work connected with the administration of the area being done by paid officers, whose work is never so good as that of volunteers. I believe that even the area suggested by my noble friend's Amendment would be too large to work satisfactorily, but it is, at least, better than the one which increases the population of the parish by 125 per cent., and the rateable value by 150 per cent., and at the same time reduces the working body by one-fifth.
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, the argument of the noble Lord who has just sat down appears to me to be mainly directed against the principle of the Bill, or, at all events, to be more directed against the principle of the Bill than against the particular proposal we are now considering. The noble Lord says that this proposal will not enhance the dignity, or increase the power, of the bodies to whom the municipal government of London is entrusted, and that, therefore, it will not in the end attract to that government the service of the ablest men. Well, my Lords, that is an argument against the measure altogether, and it does not appear to me to apply particularly to the proposal we are now considering. The noble Lord has urged, as a reason for his Amendment, the great size of the municipal borough which we propose to create; but, considering the variety of interests affected, I think the proposal has met with a remarkable amount of acquiescence, if it cannot be called enthusiasm. The noble Lord said he believed 1260 a great majority of the ratepayers were opposed to the proposal. It is somewhat remarkable that all the three Members who represent in Parliament the districts which will be included in this Bill are warm supporters of the proposal. If the statement of the noble Lord were true, these Members must be remarkably and unusually indifferent to the wishes of their constituents if they have not thought it necessary to make any protest against this proposal. They have, on the contrary, warmly supported it. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), on the Second Reading of the Bill, said he could not conceive what had induced us to make this proposal. I admit that the reasons which have induced the Government to make this proposal are, to a certain extent, reasons which may be described as of a sentimental character. We do not contend that the area which is to be included in this municipal borough ever possessed municipal government of the character which we propose by this measure to confer upon it, but although the City of Westminster has not possessed municipal government of this kind, it has, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, a history which is intimately connected with the history of England, and although electoral and municipal legislation of modern date has done its best to terminate that history, and although there is no possibility at present of restoring to it the political unity which it once possessed, yet we have thought that it was not an unworthy idea to recognise in the ancient Parliamentary borough of the City of Westminster an area which might fitly receive municipal incorporation. We do not consider that the great size or the great wealth of the proposed area are necessarily any disqualification for incorporation, or for the distinction which we propose to confer upon it. The population which will be contained within this borough is not larger than the population of some of our great municipal boroughs at present in existence, and when the noble Lord who last spoke endeavoured to argue that the work which was now done by the Vestry of St. George's could not possibly be properly done when a smaller body was entrusted with the same functions over a much larger area, I would ask him whether the business of the great municipal boroughs of Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester, whose affairs 1261 are all carried on by a municipal corporation of a similar character to that which we propose to establish, is conducted in an inferior manner to that of the Vestry of St. George's. It is true, I believe, that this borough, although it will not have a larger population, will have a larger rateable value than any other municipal borough in the kingdom, but I do not know that the possession of great wealth and of great resources necessarily adds to the difficulties and labours of municipal administration. It certainly has been no part of our design to provide that all these municipalities should be on a dead level of equality, equally overshadowed by the London County Council. It does not appear to us that there will be any disadvantage in the City of London on the one hand, through the possession of its antiquity, its great wealth, and its historical traditions, and the City of Westminster on the other hand, by its wealth and by its historic associations, being placed in a position in which they may assume, as we think it is not unlikely they will assume, a sort of leadership among these newly-created municipalities, and in which they may be able to give an example, as from their great resources they will be very well able to do, of the benefits which it may be possible for a great and well-governed municipality to confer upon its inhabitants. Reasons of this character, my Lords, have induced us to make this proposal, and I certainly am not aware that there has been, on the part of any great body of the inhabitants of the parishes which it is proposed to incorporate in tins area, any manifestation of strong opposition to the proposal of the Government.
§ to hear the noble Duke advocate a measure on sentimental grounds. I could not help feeling at first that it must be due to a dearth of real argument in favour of this measure. I was quite relieved when what I imagined to be the true ground was afterwards allowed to peep out. In point of fact, I can see exactly that what we have all suspected is the true ground. The noble Duke said they did not wish that the areas in London should be so constructed as to be equally overshadowed by the London County Council. That is the reason for the Bill. He further developed it by saying that this great area would assume a kind of captaincy over the other areas. That is to say, this huge borough of Westminster will put itself at the head of the various other newly-created municipalities in London for the purpose of overshadowing the county council, and diminishing its powers. I always thought that was the object of the Bill, and now I know it is. I am not insensible to the antiquity of the ancient City of Westminster, and the great interests which, for many reasons, attach to it, but a sentimental argument may be pushed too far when it is used for creating a body which for administrative purposes will not be as convenient as if there had been a division of area. This new borough is to be created for the purpose of minimising the county council and of detracting from its utility and power, and I shall therefore give this proposal my strenuous opposition.
§ On Question, "Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the schedule,"
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 22.
1263| CONTENTS. | ||
| Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) | Ancaster, E. | Nelson, E. |
| Devonshire, D. (L. President.) | Camperdown, E. | Northbrook, E. |
| Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.) | Carnwath, E. | Onslow, E. |
| Coventry, E. | Portsmouth, E. | |
| Grafton, D. | Dartmouth, E. | Ravensworth, E. |
| Marlborough, D. | Dartrey, E. | Rosse, E. |
| Northumberland, D. | Denbigh, E. | Selborne, E. |
| Westminster, D. | Dundonald, E. | Shaftesbury, E. |
| Egerton, E. | Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | |
| Ailesbury, M. | Hardwicke, E. | Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] |
| Bristol, M. | Lichfield, E. | Yarborough, E. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Mansfield, E. | |
| Salisbury, M. | Morley, E | Falkland, V. |
| Knutsford, V. | Cranworth, L. | Llangattock, L. |
| Llandaff, V. | Crawshaw, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Crofton, L. | Monckton, L. (V. Galway) | |
| Winchester, L. Bp. | De Mauley, L. | Morris, L. |
| Dunleath, L. | Norton, L. | |
| Ashcombe, L. | Farnham, L. | Penrhyn, L. |
| Balfour, L. | Forester, L. | Shute, L. (V. Barrington.) |
| Belper, L. | Glanusk, L. | Sinclair, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Harlech, L. | Southampton, L. |
| Calthorpe, L. | Harris, L. | Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) |
| Churchill, L. [Teller.] | Hood of Avalon, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Clonbrock, L. | James, L. | Tredegar, L. |
| Colchester, L. | Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) | |
| Cottesloe, L. | Lawrence, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Northampton, M. | Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) | Kinnaird, L. |
| Ripon, M. | Leigh, L. | |
| Aberdare, L. | Lingen, L. | |
| Buckinghamshire, E. | Barnard, L. | Monkswell, L. |
| Carrington, E. | Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) | Reay, L. |
| Chesterfield, E. [Teller] | Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.] | |
| Crewe, E. | Burghclere, L. | Welby, L. |
| Kimberley, E. | Hawkesbury, L. | |
| Spencer, E. | Hobhouse, L. |
§ Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.