Lords Sitting of 27 June 1899

NEW PEER.
The Right Hon. Sir Philip Henry Wodehouse Currie, G.C.B., having been created Baron Currie of Hawley, in the County of Southampton—was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Herschell sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
LEEDS CORPORATION.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS).
    MENSTONE WATER.
    Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4).
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER.
    Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:
DERWENT VALLEY WATER.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS.
  And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS).

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12).
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No 3).
    The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the following Bills, viz.:
BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY,
  BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT,

    GODALMING CORPORATION WATER,
    ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed.
    Read, and agreed to.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL.
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL.
  SOUTH - EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.

    BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
    BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
    LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Zetland be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Granard (E. Granard); read, and agreed to.

BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
To be read 2a on Monday next.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, &c., BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING) BILL.
Read 2a.
LOWESTOFT PROMENADE PIER BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAIL WAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  IONIAN BANK BILL.
  Read 2a.
BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    MENSTONE WATER BILL.
    Read 2a.
WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE STIPENDIARY JUSTICE BILL.
  FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE FUND BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Read a (according to order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order); and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order).
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order).
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
House in Committee (according to order); the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; further Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons, agreed to; read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8). BILL
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 148.)
GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Leith Harbour and Docks Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Godalming Corporation Water Bill; read, and agreed to; all petitions referred to the Committee, will leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (NORTH EASTERN DIVISION).
  General Report for the year 1898, by W. P. Turnbull, Chief Inspector; presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITION.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of—of Guardians of the Poor of St. George's-in-the-East; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the whole House, and by the Standing Committee to be received on Friday next.
  FINE OR IMPRISONMENT (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
Clause 8:—
LORD WINDSOR: The object of my Amendment, which comes after Subsection 1 of this clause, is a very simple one. It appears that the library authorities in London are under certain disabilities as compared with the library authorities throughout the country, and my desire is to put them on the same footing. In Clerkenwell the Vestry recently endeavoured to devote sonic of the library rate to the purposes of the general rates, but when the Local Government Board was appealed to they refused to sanction this arrangement. The object of my Amendment is to make it perfectly clear that the library authorities in London shall be allowed to spend the full amount of the rate. The latter part of my Amendment deals with any unexpended balance which may be in hand at the end of the financial year. As I understand, the library rate throughout the country cannot be altered, but in London it can be reduced in the following year when there is an unexpended balance in hand in respect of the preceding year. The only practical effect of this seems to be that the library authorities spend the balance hurriedly, so that they shall not have an unexpended balance at the end of the year. The
708
Amendment will affect in most cases a very small amount of money, and I should think in the majority of cases no money at all, because most of the library authorities spend the full amount of the library rate. Still it would, I think, be of practical advantage to the library authorities to be able to carry over an unexpended balance from one year to another. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 19, after sub-section (1) to insert new sub-section: 'A committee appointed to carry out the provisions of the Public Libraries Acts shall have power to spend up to the limit of the library rate as fixed when the Acts were adopted, and shall also have power to carry forward any unexpended balance at the end of the financial year without diminution of the rate for the succeeding year.'"—(The Lord Windsor.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): The Amendment moved by the noble Lord is inadmissible, however good the arguments may be in its favour, inasmuch as it will amount to an Amendment of the Libraries Act, and I think it would prove extremely inconvenient to insert an Amendment of that Act in a Bill for the government of London.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, the Amendment which I now beg to move is to the second sub-section of the clause, which provides that, to the extent to which the council so directs, the acts and proceedings of the committee shall not require the approval of the council. I propose to omit the words, "but to the extent to which the council so direct," and also to leave out the word "not." The Amendment is a very important one, and I hope it will be carefully considered by your Lordships. I think I shall be able to show a very good case for it on theoretical and practical grounds, and also from the analogy of the powers given to other bodies by recent Local Government Acts on this subject. Like other local authorities, the new councils will do their administrative and executive work by committees. I do not know that government by committee is a thing that commends itself very greatly to me. I should prefer a system of government which would throw

709
responsibility on individuals, but as we have this system of government by committee we must make the best of it. It seems to me that the way to make the best of it is to throw the same responsibility on the committee, as far as possible, that you would throw on an individual; and I think that responsibility is best thrown on these committees by making them invariably report to the bodies that appoint them, and receive from those bodies the sanction of their acts. It may be said that this would cause delay, but I do not think it would. I have the honour to occupy a seat on a small County Council in Berwickshire, and also on the London County Council, and both these bodies are extremely jealous of their committees, and insist upon frequent reports from them as to the actions they have taken. As a matter of fact, the ordinary work of these local bodies is to register, or to homologate, the decisions of the various committees—to accept them and carry them into effect. We find in practice that in very rare cases indeed does the appointing body (the council) interfere with the decisions of the committee. In cases where they do not accept them they seldom throw over the suggestions altogether, but refer the particular report back to the committee, and request a further report on the particular subject. That is a practice which seems to work extremely easily and well, and it does seem to me that you should insist, in the case of new bodies, that the committees should report to the councils. I think in the very wording of the Bill the Government admit the soundness of my theory, for they practically say the committee shall report to the councils unless the councils otherwise direct. I have taken the trouble to extract from the various statutes the exact provisions with regard to reports from committees as they apply to other local bodies. I should like the House to remember that under this Bill, and by the repeated explanations of the Government, these new bodies are to be considered as borough councils. They are not to be county boroughs. They are borough councils, and follow the analogy of borough councils in the country. In the Metropolis Management Act of 1855 power is given to the Metropolitan Board of Works to appoint committees, and to act by means of committees,
"provided always that the acts of every such committee shall be submitted to the general
710
body of the board or vestry appointing such committee for their approval."
In 1862 that Act was modified so far as the Metropolitan Board of Works was concerned, and it was enacted that that Board should be at liberty to give instructions to any committee appointed by them, but that committee should report to the Board all acts done by them in conformity with such instructions. The provision, so far as the vestries were concerned, was kept in the Bill as in 1855, no change whatever being made. In the Public Health Act, 1875, the provision is:
"Provided, that a committee so appointed shall in no case be authorised to borrow any money, make any rate, or enter into any contract, and shall be subject to any restrictions or regulations of the authority which formed it."
In the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, which regulates the proceedings of municipalities throughout the country, the provision with regard to committees is a very clear and a very strong one. It is:
"The council may from time to time appoint out of their own body such and so many committees, either of a general or special character, and consisting of such a number of persons as they think fit, for any purposes which, in the opinion of the council, would be better regulated and managed by means of such committees, but the acts of every such committee shall be submitted to the council for their approval."
That is the rule still, so far as borough councils are concerned, in the country, though not in the case of county boroughs, which are dealt with under the Local Government Act of 1888. In the Local Government Act of 1894, which deals with district and parish councils, I find that a provision has been inserted that the acts of every committee shall be submitted to the council for their approval. That refers to the parish councils and district councils under the Act of 1894. It will probably be said that a different aspect was given to this subject by the Act of 1888. In that Act there were introduced words very much of the same character as those in the present Bill, and it was laid down that every committee should report its proceedings to the council by whom it was appointed, but, to the extent to which the council so directed, the acts and proceedings of the committee should not require, by the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, to

711
be submitted to the council for their approval. The Government have, as I have said, again and again insisted that these new bodies are to be considered as borough councils. I admit that, under the Act of 1888, the necessity of reporting to the council was waived so far as county boroughs and county councils were concerned when the direction was given by the council dispensing with such report. But, under the Act of 1888, further stringent conditions were imposed on the committees, for by that Act the appointment of a finance committee was made imperative on each authority which was dealt with under the Act. It was laid down that all liabilities incurred over £50 must receive the sanction of the council and the finance committee. In the present Bill there is no financial limit whatever placed upon the liabilities that may be incurred by the committees. It is said they shall only spend what the council may direct them to spend, but the council may say with regard to a particular matter, "You shall have a free hand up to a certain sum," and they may spend that sum if they like. There is no requirement that the spending of that sum shall be subject to the approval of the council. I do not throw any sort of slur on the character of these borough councils, but still, you are creating twenty-seven of them in London, and you may depend upon it hat you will have varying qualities among the councils, just in the same way that you have varying qualities among the vestries. We have, on the authority of the Prime Minister himself, the assurance that these bodies are nothing more nor less than vestries, and the noble Marquess told us yesterday that the powers they would have to discharge are the powers now discharged by the vestries. Therefore, I would ask the House seriously to consider whether it is not reasonable to require that these committees to report in all cases to the council.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 21, to leave out but to the extent to which the council so direct,' and insert and' "—(The Lord Tweedmouth).
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord gave substantially the answer to his own Amendment when he admitted that the Local Government Act of 1888 contained the
712
same provisions as the present Bill. That appears to be the latest precedent, and it is the one we have followed. The clause provides everything which appears to be necessary. It enacts that the committees shall report to the council, that the council shall have complete power over the proceedings of its committees, and that the council can require that every such proceeding shall be submitted for their confirmation. It does not appear to me that any further power is required. I cannot pretend to have had the same experience of the proceedings of local bodies which my noble friend says he has had, but I think that in my very limited experience I can recall cases in which formal confirmation of proceedings of a committee has embodied either a resolution of very great length or a great number of resolutions, entering into a great variety of details over which the council itself could not possibly exercise any supervision. If this Amendment is carried it might be necessary that a great variety of the proceedings of committees involving matters of very small importance should be separately submitted to the borough council, which would cause a considerable waste of time. The answer to my noble friend is that we have adopted the latest precedent, and that all necessary power is preserved to the new borough councils by the provisions in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have never in my experience found any inconvenience arise from committees being required to obtain the assent of the council to their proposals. It is the usual practice, and it is a very convenient practice. In the Council with which I am connected no other practice would be tolerated. The noble Duke says the proposal in this Bill is in the Act of 1888, which regulates county councils. With regard to the particular words of this particular clause that is the case; but the noble Duke did not answer the point put by my noble friend, namely, that in this Bill there is no obligation on the committees to refer any expenditure they propose to a finance committee. County councils have a finance committee by Act of Parliament, and the other committees are obliged to refer any proposals of expenditure exceeding £50 to that committee, and it is with the report of the two committees before

713
them that the county council decides in the matter. You are not putting these new bodies, in this respect, either in the position of borough councils or county councils.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The experience of my noble friend is not in accordance with mine. In the Act of 1888 there are powers given to county councils to delegate a certain class of business to committees, and the County Council over which I have the honour to preside does delegate certain
LORD MONKSWELL: The noble Duke stated that in the matter of committees he would follow the precedent of the county councils rather than the pre-
powers to its committees, and this is found extremely convenient. The words of the clause as they now stand seem to be entirely in accordance with the practice of county councils so far as I have any knowledge of them. The point raised with regard to the finance committee is a good one, but that, I understand, comes up in the next Amendment.
On question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided—Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Northbrook, E.

De Mauley, L.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Erskine, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Selborne, E.

Farquhar, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Glenesk, L.

Yarborough, E.

Harris, L.

Grafton, D.

Heneage, L.

Marlborough, D.

Falkland, V.

Herries, L.

Northumberland, D

Knutsford, V.

Hood of Avalon, L.

Westminster, D.

Portman, V.

James, L.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Ailesbury, M.

Chester, L. Bp.

Bristol, M.

London, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Hertford, M.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby)

Salisbury, M.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) (L. Chamberlain.)

Zetland, M.

Middleton, L.

Aldenham, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Ampthill, L.

Muncaster, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Muskerry, L.

Bandon, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Norton, L.

Brownlow, E.

Balfour, L.

Robartes, L.

Camperdown, E.

Barnard, L.

Rowton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Belper, L.

St. Levan, L.

Carnwath, E.

Bolton, L.

Sherborne, L.

Dartrey, E.

Boston, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Denbigh, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Chelmsford, L.

Suffield, L.

Dudley, E.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Teynham, L.

Dundonald, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Grey, E.

Wantage, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Jersey, E.

Colchester, L.

Windsor, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Morley, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Nelson, E.

Crawshaw, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Sidmouth, V.

Hobhouse, L.

Monkswell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Reay, L.

Carrington, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Burghclere, L.

Thring, L.

Russell, E.

Coleridge, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Spencer, E.

Davey, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Hawkesbury, L.[Teller.]

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Herschell, L.

cedent of the municipal corporations, and I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name with very considerable confidence, Under the Act of 1888

715
the county councils throughout the country, including the London County Council, are obliged to have a finance committee, and are subject to the restrictions mentioned in my clause with regard to expenditure. I do not know whether the noble Duke will say that he considers this proposal ought not to have been in the original Act of 1888, that it has worked badly, and that that is the reason why he opposes it; but if the noble Duke does not go that length, and is willing to retain this section in the Act of 1888, he can hardly, on his own showing, prevent it being applicable to these new councils. I may mention that this proposal did not emanate originally from a source which the noble Duke might regard with suspicion. It emanated from Captain Jessel, who is a staunch supporter of Her Majesty's. Government, and I believe the only reason why it was rejected was that Captain Jessel proposed to legislate by reference. I have set out in the clause which I now move the exact words of Sub-section 3 of Section 80 of the Local Government Act of 1888. I trust, therefore, that the Government will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 25, after Sub-section 2, to insert: 'Every borough council shall from time to time appoint a finance committee for regulating and controlling the finance of the council; and no order for payment of any sum shall be made by a borough council, except in pursuance of a resolution of the council passed on the recommendation of the finance committee; and any costs, debt, or liability exceeding £50 shall not be incurred, except upon a resolution of the council passed on an estimate submitted by the finance committee. The notice of the meeting at which any resolution for the payment of any sum out of the borough council's fund, or any resolution for incurring any costs, debt, or liability exceeding £50 will be proposed, shall state the amount of the said sum, costs, debt, or liability, and the purpose for which they are to be paid or incurred."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I do not think the argument which I used on the former Amendment is inconsistent with that which I shall use on this occasion. The noble Lord admits, I presume, that the establishment of a finance committee has not been found necessary in the case of borough councils. The legislation as to county councils, to which I referred just now, was in the direction of giving the county councils greater freedom than had been
716
given in one respect to borough councils, and this Amendment is in the direction of imposing a restriction upon the London borough councils which does not exist, and which has not been found necessary, in the case of provincial borough councils. But, my Lords, I do not rest my argument in support of this clause as it stands merely on the precedents which have been created by legislation. The reason this provision has not been inserted in the Bill is that, from inquiry, the Local Government Board has ascertained that the absence of a finance committee has not been found to have been productive of any inconvenient results in the case of borough councils, but that, on the other hand, the establishment of finance committees in connection with the county councils has not been altogether without inconvenience. It is therefore on the ground of practical experience, based upon the opinion of those best qualified to judge, that we feel it necessary to oppose this Amendment.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have certainly heard with great astonishment the statement of the noble Duke that the finance committees of the county councils have been productive of inconvenience. My confidence is not so supreme in the Local Government Board as to take their opinion as worth very much. There has no doubt been some dispute between the county councils and the Local Government Board, with the result that the latter have got the worst of it in consequence of there being a vigilant finance committee. I do not think we should be influenced by a statement of the sort made by the noble Duke. This is a question to be decided upon its merits. Surely, it cannot be reasonable that these new bodies should be free from the check to which both provincial and county councils are subject, and that their committees should be free from the obligation of reporting their proceedings to the council.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The clause contains a provision that every committee must report to the council.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Only to the extent to which the council may direct. The words are not absolute. It is very possible that some councils, not

717
being active in their business, will leave it to these committees to proceed as they please, and the matters will never come before the councils at all, with the result that there will be no check whatever upon their proceedings. I contend that a finance committee is a most desirable institution, and even if it does not exist in the provincial councils, I do not see why it should not be required in the case of these borough councils. I suppose the object of the Government is not to slavishly follow the precedents of the old Acts by which the borough councils are regulated, but to make those regulations which seem most likely to secure good administration. I should have thought this was a proposal about which there could be no doubt whatever, and that a finance committee could not possibly be any inconvenience, but, on the other hand, would ensure proper administration of the various financial matters which may have to be decided. For these reasons I hope that the Government will, on reconsideration, be inclined to accept this Amendment, which in no way goes against the policy of the Bill.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I think the noble Earl is under a misapprehension. He seems to think that the committees need only report to the council to the extent to which the council may direct. If he will look at Subsection 2, he will see that it provides:
"Every committee shall report their proceedings to the council, but, to the extent to which the council so direct, the acts and proceedings of the committee shall not require the approval of the council. Provided that a committee shall not raise money by loan or by rate, or spend any money beyond the sum allowed by the council."
Therefore the clause states that every committee shall report, except to the extent to which the council shall direct. It is imperative upon the committees to report unless otherwise directed. The noble Earl also seemed to think that the clause, as it stands, enacts that there shall be no finance committee. It simply leaves it to each council to determine whether they will have a finance committee or not. After making inquiry, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be well to put confidence in the councils to that extent.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The noble Duke said it was not advisable to
718
place restrictions on these new bodies which are not placed upon other borough councils, but I would point out that you have already deviated from that principle by the terms of the clause which enables committees, with the consent of the council, to act without reporting to the council.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: They must report. It is only the approval which is not needed in such a case.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Therefore they may act without obtaining the approval of the council. That is a principle which, as the noble Duke must know, having held the position of mayor, is unknown in borough councils. They always insist that every action of their committees should be submitted for their approval. I beg to differ from the noble Duke's statement that, in regard to county councils, finance committees have not been found to work well. I have found that finance committees exercise a very necessary control over the finances of the council. The Local Government Act of 1888 was founded on the Municipal Corporations Act, but its authors deliberately determined to depart from that Act in this respect, and to establish finance committees in the case of county councils. Does the noble and learned Lord mean to say that he will trust these glorified vestries more than he trusts the county councils? If it was necessary to put this restriction upon county councils, it is not unreasonable to ask that a similar precaution should be adopted in this case.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I should not like what has just been said by the noble Marquess, with reference to his experience of finance committees of county councils, to pass without saying a word upon the matter. I am chairman of a County Council, and I am by no means convinced that finance committees have always worked well. I can conceive very great difficulties arising in connection with them. The difficulty is that no expenditure can be incurred by a county council except with the consent of the finance committee. The result is to make the finance committee the ultimate master of the conduct of the county council in very many cases. Although I do not express any opinion

719
as to whether it is wise or not to amend this clause in the way proposed, at the same time I could not allow the observations of the noble Marquess to pass.
LORD THRING: I have had considerable experience in the preparation of documents constituting county councils and every description of local bodies, and I have, I believe, had as much experience in local government as any member of your Lordships' House. I can safely say that the Local Government Board know about as much of what is going on in the county councils as they do about what is going on in the planet of Mars. They oppose every improvement, and contest everything the county councils do. We who have had experience of county councils and other public bodies know that there is nothing which those bodies are more apt to do than to disregard finance, and a finance committee is a most valuable adjunct to local bodies in the direction of controlling expenditure. In every case in which I have been consulted—and, as the noble and learned Lord opposite knows, they have been very many—I have invariably recommended a finance committee, and I have always found these committees work well.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The speech of the noble Lord the Duke of Northumberland, afforded a good argument in favour of this Amendment. The noble Duke said that, as chairman of a county council, he could conceive difficulties arising between the finance committee and the other committees, but the noble Duke has not told us that he has found difficulties arise.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: We have been very near it.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: That rather proves that the finance committee has exercised a useful controlling force over the other committees and the council itself. There always is a little difficulty between the person who controls the purse and those who desire to spend the money. I think that all the arguments are in favour of the Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will insist on these bodies having a finance committee to control them,
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not know why the noble Lord opposite should say that the Local Government Board know no more about the proceedings of the county councils than of the planet of Mars. Seeing that they have to audit the accounts of the councils, I should think they ought to know something about them. It seems to me that it would be a much stronger argument if noble Lords opposite could point to any experience in the history of municipal councils to show that the want of a finance committee has caused any inconvenience. My information is that no inconvenience has been experienced, and, that being so I fail to see why we should saddle the new boroughs with this committee.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am thoroughly satisfied that finance committees have been of very great value in the working of county councils, and I shall vote for the Amendment. Where a finance committee is appointed, no order for the payment of any sum can be made by the council except in pursuance of a resolution of the finance committee. That acts as a check, and secures that all the payments are made in a regular manner. In Hampshire we have found it of great advantage that estimates should be thrashed out by the finance committee before being brought up to the county council. By the clause which we have just passed, we give the committees of the new borough councils power to spend money without the control of the council, and that is a power which should not be given without the check of a finance committee. On one occasion we passed a resolution in the Hampshire Council which was not in accordance with the opinion of the finance committee. The finance committee met and eventually accepted the decision of the Council in the matter. I take it that that is what any sensible finance committee would do after the question had been fully discussed and decided by the council. I do not think any difficulty would arise in this direction, and I regard the possession of a finance committee as a very valuable one.
EARL SPENCER: I should like to give my testimony to the usefulness of the finance committee relation to the

721
proper control of expenditure, and I think it will lead to considerable extravagance if the various committees are able to decide what they should spend. So far as friction goes, I have never known, certainly in my county, a case in which there has been any friction between the finance committee and the council. I regret to hear the noble Duke's remarks in derogation of finance committees, and I fail to see why a system which has worked exceedingly well elsewhere should not he adopted in the new municipal bodies in London.
EARL RUSSELL: I would remind the noble Earl on the front Ministerial bench, who is the Leader of the Moderate Party in the London County Council
(the Earl of Onslow), that some two or three years ago, when that Party was more in the ascendency than they are at present, they impressed very much upon the Council the importance of strengthening the control of the finance committee, and they introduced a number of new practices tending to that end. That being so, I should like to know how it can be suggested that the Vestry of Paddington and others in London require less financial control than was deemed necessary in the case of the London County Council and others throughout the country.
On Question, "That these words shall be here inserted," their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS.

Westminster, D.

Chester, L. Bp.

Kenyon, L.

London, L. Bp.

Llangattock, L.

Bristol, M.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Loch, L.

Hertford, M.

Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

Ripon, M.

Aberdare, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Aldenham, L.

Middleton, L.

Camperdown, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Carlisle, E.

Barnard, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carrington, E.

Bolton, L.

Norton, L.

Dartrey, E.

Boston, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dundonald, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

Reay, L.

Jersey, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Kimberley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

St. Levan, L.

Morley, E.

Burghclere, L.

Stalbridge, L.

North brook, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Russell, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Suffield, L.

Spencer, E.

Coleridge, E.

Teynham, L.

Yarborough, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Thring, L.

Davey, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Hawkesbury, L. [Teller.]

Wandsworth, L.

Falkland, V.

Heneage, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Herries, L.

Windsor, L.

Knutsford, V.

Hobhouse, T.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Portman, V.

Hood of Avalon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Colville of Culross, L.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Cottesloe, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Dudley, D.

De Mauley, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Egerton, E.

Erskine, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Farquhar, L.

Grafton, D.

Morton, E.

Glenesk, L.

Marlborough, D.

Onslow, E.

Harris, L.

Northumberland, D.

Orford, E.

James, L.

Selborne, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Ailesbury, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Muncaster, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) (L. Chamberlain.)

Muskerry, L.

Zetland, M.

Rowton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Sherborne, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Balfour, L.

Tredegar, L.

Belper, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M, Tweeddale.)

Brownlow, E,

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Carnwath, E,

Clonbrock, L

Wantage, L

Denbigh, E,

Colchester, L,

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
LORD MONKSWELL: I propose to insert a new clause after Clause 8, providing that all payments to, and out of, the fund of the borough council should be made to, and by, the borough treasurer, and all payments out of the fund should, unless made in pursuance of the specific requirements of an Act of Parliament, or of an order of a competent Court, be made in pursuance of an order of the council, signed by three members of the finance committee present at the meeting of the council, and countersigned by the town clerk. I do not know whether the noble Duke would like time to consider whether he will accept this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I confess that, not having anticipated the decision at which your Lordships arrived on the last Amendment, I have not given very much attention to this clause, which is, as the noble Lord said, rather consequential upon the one which has just been accepted. However, I will offer no opposition to the clause at this stage, subject to its being examined before the Report stage.
LORD MONKSWELL: Then I will move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"To insert new clause:
"8A.—(1) All payments to and out of the fund of the borough council shall be made to and by the borough treasurer, and all payments out of the fund shall, unless made in pursuance of the specific requirement of an Act of Parliament, or of an order of a competent Court, be made in pursuance of an order of the council signed by three members of the finance committee present at the meeting of the council, and countersigned by the town clerk, and the same order may include several payments. Moreover, all cheques for payment of moneys issued in pursuance of such order shall be countersigned by the town clerk, or by a deputy approved by the council.
"(2) Any such order may be removed into the High Court of Justice by writ of certiorari, and may be wholly or partly disallowed or confirmed on motion and hearing, with or without costs, according to the judgment and discretion of the Court."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, "That these words shall be here inserted," agreed to.
Clause 9—
Verbal Amendments agreed to.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment with the object of simplifying the rating in the new boroughs. I propose that the third sub-section of the clause should be so amended as to provide that after the appointed day the general rate, including the school board rate, the police rate, the county rate, and all money required for purposes other than for the Poor Law, should be raised by an equal rate in the over the whole area of the borough. As the Bill at present stands, you may have different rates in each parish of a borough. My Amendment will secure one general rate, which will be easier to collect and simpler for the ratepayers to understand, and which will really promote the efficiency of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 7, to leave out from 'be' to the end of the sub-section, and insert 'raised by an equal rate in the pound over the whole area of the borough.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I believe the noble Lord has stated with perfect accuracy what the case is, and the effect of his Amendment. So far as the object of the Amendment is to equalise the rates throughout the borough the Government are perfectly in harmony with the noble Lord; but I apprehend that the means which he proposes to secure his object would, to a certain extent, be inexpedient, and would alter by a side wind, and in a most inconvenient manner, the existing law of rating. We hope that the object which the noble Lord has in view will be secured by the exercise of the powers of the Commissioners in carrying out, as far as practicable, the policy of combining parishes. That is the course which I believe has been adopted to a very great extent in municipal boroughs generally. The procedure in the Bill is that which at present exists in every other borough, and I apprehend that very great inconvenience might ensue from departing from the parish as the unit of rating, and establishing a system of rating over the whole borough which does not exist in every, other case.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I admit that my Amendment is injured by the decision the House has come to with regard to the Adoptive Acts. The Adoptive Acts would have had really to come under this general rate, and I should have been by this Amendment reversing the decision of the House on that point. For that reason I do not intend to press my Amendment, but I ventured to say what I did upon it because it seems to me a matter of some importance, and the noble Duke himself has agreed that it is desirable that there should be one general rate extending over the whole borough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I have an Amendment after Sub-section 3, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships. Its object is to secure justice for parishes which are combined under the Bill. The wording of the Amendment is not mine; it has been put on the Paper at the wish of the Parish of St. James's. Of the Vestry of that parish I have the honour to be a member, and I am one of those unhappy beings who will be abolished under this Bill, and for whom the noble Duke expressed no pity or compassion. In the proposed new borough of Greater Westminster, which I hope your Lordships will not agree to, ten parishes will be amalgamated, of which St. James's is one. Your Lordships will readily understand that some of these parishes have administered their affairs economically, whilst others have a heavy debt. St. James's is a parish which has fortunately a light debt, and it fears that under the Bill the debts of the other parishes will be spread over the whole of the area. The object of my Amendment is to make it clear that the debts will be apportioned to the different parishes, as at present. I know it will be said that by Clause 15 this object will be attained, but the wording of that clause is as follows:
"A scheme under this Act may make provision for such adjustments as may be required for carrying into effect any of the provisions of this Act, or for preventing any injustice with respect to the incidence of any rate, or the discharge of any liability or otherwise, and in particular for such adjustments as may be required for the efficient maintenance of any libraries, baths, or washhouses which have been maintained under the provisions of any of the Adoptive Acts."
726
The Parish of St. James's feels strongly the desirability of the intention of the Bill being more clearly expressed. They distrust the word "may" in the first line of the clause, and are anxious that the words which I have put down should be accepted by your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 8, after Sub-section (3) to insert: 'Provided that the interest on any loan borrowed by any administrative vestry, district board, commissioners, or other body abolished by this Act, together with any charge for the repayment of such loan, shall continue to be charged exclusively upon the parish or parishes now chargeable therewith, except in any case where such loan is represented by an asset producing an income which is applied in reduction of the amount to be so raised by the borough council.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My noble friend has anticipated the answer which I have to give. What he desires we believe is effected in a more convenient manner by Sub-section 1, Sub-sub-section (a), of Clause 15. The intention is that all financial arrangements of this sort should be made in a scheme, and we think that will be much more convenient than the proposal of the noble Lord, because in the preparation of a scheme it may in some cases he found that one charge will be balanced by another. The whole of the liability of each parish will have to be taken into account by the Commissioners in settling the scheme, and a more convenient arrangement will be arrived at than could be effected by the Amendment of my noble friend. The principle embodied in the Amendment is the one which we intend and believe will be carried out by the Commissioners.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: If my noble friend accepts the principle of my Amendment, and if, as he says, the Bill will do all that my Amendment proposes, I certainly shall not press it.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should be surprised if the noble Duke thought that the further clause to which he has referred carried out the same principle as is proposed in this Amendment, because the Amendment suggests that the whole of the interest upon any loan which has been borrowed shall continue to be paid by the parish which borrowed it, notwithstanding that a portion of that parish

727
may have been embodied in another parish. That does not seem to be a principle at all compatible with the adjustments which are contemplated in the subsequent clause. I understand the subsequent clause to provide that there shall be an adjustment so as to prevent, if possible, any injustice; but the Amendment now proposed simply says there shall be no adjustment, but that the whole of the interest on any loan shall continue to be charged to the parish to which it is now charged. My reason for calling attention to this matter is that I should not like it to be understood that the principle contained in Lord Wemyss's Amendment is the principle upon which the Commissioners are to act when making adjustments.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The noble Lord's Amendment has the effect of making it imperative that the payment of the interest on loans shall always rest with the parish which incurred the loans in the first instance. The clause as it stands says that the matter shall be adjusted, and the justice of the course proposed in the Bill will, I think, be seen in a moment. If the noble Lord will refer to Clause 4, he will see that the property of each parish is to pass into the hands of the borough councils, and you obviously cannot take property away from a parish and still make the parish pay interest on loans borrowed by them. The property would probably be the security for the loan. The Commissioners will have to judge each case as it arises, and make the necessary adjustments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:—
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The object of the Amendment which I have to move to this clause is simply to make clearer the meaning of the precepts which are issued from time to time by the London County Council, and to distingnish between the amount of the rate which is charged for county purposes and the amount charged for equalisation purposes. At the present moment, under the precept issued by the County Council, it is
728
impossible to ascertain on the face of those precepts what portion of the rate goes towards the purposes of the County Council for work done on behalf of London as a whole, and what portion goes in aid of the local authorities for work done by those authorities to which the County Council contributes. It seems to me that the simpler plan would be for the County Council in all these cases to issue two precepts—one showing the money spent for County Council purposes for London as a whole, and the other showing the amount which is given to the local authorities to be spent by them. My Amendment does not raise any question of principle. It only endeavours to make the incidence of the rate clear to the ratepayers.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 31, after 'clerk' to insert, provided that a separate precept shall be required for the rate to meet the expenses of services administered by the London County Council, and a separate precept for the rate required to meet the grants paid to the local authorities by the County Council in pursuance of the Local Government Act, 1888, the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and by this Act, and for the rates required to meet the contributions payable under the London Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have obtained the opinion of the Local Government Board on this subject, and I am assured that the proviso is unnecessary and may be misleading to the ratepayers. So far as the amount required for the purposes of the Equalisation of Rates Act is concerned, that must be specified in the precept in accordance with that Act; and it would seem that the County Council are at liberty to specify the other items, although they are not obliged to do so. If your Lordships are disposed to accept the authority of the Local Government Board on the question, which appears to be highly technical, I have given the opinion which I have received from them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11, agreed to.
Clause 12:—
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, the object of the Amendment standing in

729
my name is to provide that where a Poor Law union is in two boroughs, the borough council shall appoint the assessment committee. The clause provides that this shall be the case only when the whole of a union is within the borough. The sectional cases to which my Amend-is directed are only seven in number. For the sake of uniformity of principles of assessment, and for the proper adjustment of equalisation of rates, it is desirable that assessment committees should proceed on similar lines.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 18, to leave out 'where the whole of a Poor Law union is within one borough the assessment committee shall.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: According to the Bill, where the whole of a Poor Law union is within one borough, the assessment committee will be appointed by the borough councils as my noble friend desires. The Bill leaves the Poor Law unions untouched as units of Poor Law action, and if you have part of a union in one borough and part in another, my noble friend wishes to cut the union in half and destroy it. I think that, upon reflection, the noble Lord will see that, if a union is cut in two for assessment purposes, and the assessment committee is appointed by two borough councils, great confusion will arise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendments made.
Clause 12, agreed to.
Clause 13, amended, and agreed to.
Clause 14:—
Drafting Amendments made.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I have an Amendment to move to this clause, in order to make it perfectly clear that the London County Council shall have a right to appear in relation to any scheme or Order before the Commissioners and the Committee of the Privy Council in respect of any of the matters referred to them by this Bill. The London County Council is a body which will be greatly affected by the schemes under this Bill,
730
and I think it is only fair that their right to appear before any body holding inquiries for the purpose of these schemes should be made clear.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 14, at the end of the clause' to insert, '(5) The London County Council shall be entitled to make representations to the Commissioners and to the Committee of the Privy Council in respect to any of the matters referred to them by this Act, and shall be entitled to be heard in support of such representations.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The Amendment of my noble friend cannot be accepted. He is, in our opinion, asking more for the London County Council than is justified. All the parties interested will have the right to appear—those who have a locus standi will be heard; but to select the London County Council and give them the right to appear by counsel and witnesses in relation to any matter referred to in the Act would be to give to them a right and undue preference which they cannot fairly claim
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am astonished at the reply given by the noble and learned Lord. Why should it be undue preference to give the County Council this power? It would be undue preference if it were given to any other body but the London County Council, and I contend that, as it is the function of the London County Council to represent the interests of the whole body of the metropolitan ratepayers, it is desirable for the public advantage and the assistance of the Commissioners that they should have this right, and there is no reason to apprehend its abuse. I cannot conceive that anything but great advantage can follow from giving this power to the County Council, who have been elected expressly for the purpose of representing, not merely the ratepayers of some particular borough, but the interests of the whole of the metropolis.
LORD JAMES of HEREFORD: The London County Council will have the right to appear when, in the opinion of the Privy Council or the Commissioners, they have any interest.
LORD DAVEY: I understand the noble and learned Lord to say that the County Council and other persons interested will

731
have the power to appear. I confess that I cannot find anything in Clause 14 which will make it the legal duty of the Commissioners or the Committee of the Privy Council to hear anyone at all, or to attend to the criticisms of any body whatever. Therefore I entirely dissent from my noble and learned friend when he says that the London County Council will have the right to appear. Of course, the Commissioners may collect opinions from any quarter they think fit, and they may think fit to go to the London County Council for an expression of opinion, but that is entirely optional. What the Amendment asks for is that the London County Council, on behalf of the whole of the ratepayers of London, who have to pay for all the proceedings of the Commissioners, should have the right, not merely if they are asked by the Commissioners, but should have the right of themselves to initiate any representation to the Commissioners and support their views by producing evidence, or any other means which the proceedings before the Commissioners may render proper. The London County Council do not ask for preference to be given to them; all they desire is to have the right to be heard, and not left out in the cold.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to point out that there is in the Bill itself very strong reason why the County Council should be heard, because Sub-section 4 of Clause 14 provides:
"Any expense incurred by the committee under this Act shall, to the amount certified by the Treasury, be paid by the London County Council out of the County Fund."
Is it not reasonable that the whole of the ratepayers of London, who have to find the money, should have representation? Most certainly they are entitled to a locus standi.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: All that is contended is that it shall be made clear that the London County Council shall, in common with other bodies, have the right of appearing before the Privy Council and making representations when they think necessary. I do not insist on the absolute wording of my Amendment, and if the noble Duke will consent to the insertion of other words, which will secure to the London County Council the
732
right to appear before the Privy Council in connection with matters in which they are interested, I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not know how noble Lords opposite suppose that the Commissioners are going to prepare these schemes unless they hear everybody concerned. The noble Earl the Earl of Kimberley knows perfectly well that in the preparation of similar schemes in the case of petitions for charters of municipal incorporation the Commissioners hear every person who is supposed to be interested in the subject. I do not see that it is necessary to insert anything, as every possible facility will be given to the London County Council to approach the Privy Council when it is thought necessary.
LORD DAVEY: If that is so, there would be no harm in putting in the words. It is quite possible that the Commissioners may take a peculiar view as to who are interested, and as to the interest which the County Council may have. I certainly think the matter should be made clear.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: So far as my experience goes, I do not quite see the force of the argument used by the noble Duke—namely, that in the case where charters are applied for it is not the habit of the Privy Council to enforce any special procedure, but to hear anybody who wishes to be heard. This is an Act of Parliament constituting new bodies, and riot merely granting a charter to a borough which has defined boundaries. Under this Bill the Commissioners and the Privy Council will have to determine a great variety of extremely difficult points with regard to boundaries and other matters, and I do not think you can be governed by precedent in a case of this kind. No more intricate task can be set before a body of men than that with which the Privy Council and the Commissioners will have to deal, and in these circumstances we ought to say definitely that the London County Council should have the right to go before the Privy Council and the Commissioners, and make its statement upon the proposals in whatever form it may think desirable.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The matters to be dealt with in these schemes may possibly be more important and more complicated than in the case of the granting of a municipal charter, but they are analogous in every sense.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think the sneers which have been made at the London Comity Council during this Debate should be allowed to pass. "Why should the London County Council he heard, and why should they have an undue preference?" asks the noble and learned Lord. My answer is—because the London County Council is the only body which can speak for London as a whole. If the Commissioners, in the course of their proceedings, come across local rivalries and local jealousies, who are more fit to give them information from an impartial point of view, and with a great wealth of knowledge upon the facts, than the officers of the London County Council? If Her Majesty's Government desires that the proceedings of the Commissioners should give satisfaction, and should be conducted with the greatest possible assistance that can be obtained, I cannot understand what reason can be put forward for excluding the London County Council from being heard, and I trust the Amendment will be accepted.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I entirely disclaim the suggestion that the London County Council have been sneered at during this Debate, and I assure the noble Lord that nothing could be farther from our minds. I still, however, think that the words "undue preference" were rightly used. Whenever the County Council is interested it will be heard. What is asked by the Amendment is that there shall be a hard and fast line drawn, and that even if the London County Council is not interested, and if the tribunal thinks it is not interested, the tribunal shall be compelled, nevertheless, to hear it at the will of the advisers of the London County Council. Is it
right that we should place upon the Statute Book a provision that the tribunal should be compelled to hear a party in opposition to a point in which it is not interested?
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONMay I ask the noble Lord what question there is in a Bill of this description with which the London County Council are not interested?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The Privy Council will be able to say if the London County Council are interested or not.
THE EARL OF KEMBERLEY: That is exactly what I object to. Are we going to abnegate our right as one of the Houses of Parliament in this matter, and place ourselves in the hands of the Privy Council? When we are legislating, and asking the Privy Council to undertake certain duties, it is for us to determine the conditions under which the Privy Council is to conduct the inquiry. All we contend is that, in order that the Privy Council may have the opinion of the body which alone represents the whole of London, it is desirable that we should place in the Bill words similar to those proposed in the Amendment, in order that there will be no doubt in the matter. I cannot help thinking that the amount of opposition which has been shown to this Amendment proves that there must be, somewhere, not only a doubt, but a hope that the Council will not be heard. If, as we are told, the Privy Council will hear, as a matter of course, what the County Council will bring before them, there can he no objection to inserting words at the end of the clause giving the London County Council the right to make representations to the Commissioners and to the Committee of the Privy Council in respect to any of the matters referred to them by the Act.
On Question, "That these words be here inserted," their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 81.

CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Hawkesbury, L. [Teller.]

Hobhouse, L.

Buckinghamshire E.

Chester, L. Bp.

Loch, L.

Carlisle, E.

Aberdare, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carrington, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Reay, L.

Kimberley, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Morley, E.

Burghclere, L.

Thring, L.

Russell, E.

Coleridge, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Spencer, E.

Davey, L.

Wandsworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Nelson, E.

De Manley, L.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Northbrook, E.

Erskine, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Onslow, E.

Glenesk, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Selborne, E.

Harlech, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Harris, L.

Grafton, D.

Yarborough, E.

Heneage, L.

Marlborough, D.

Herries, L.

Northumberland, D.

Knutsford, V.

Hood of Avalon, L.

Westminster, D.

Portman, V.

James, L.

Kenyon, L.

Ailesbury, M.

London, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Hertford, M.

Lawrence, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) (L. Chamberlain.)

Llangattock, L.

Salisbury, M.

Muncaster, L.

Zetland, M.

Aldenham, L.

Muskerry, L.

Ampthill, L

Norton, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ashcombe, L.

Rowton, L.

Camperdown, E.

Balfour, L.

St. Levan, L.

Carnwath, E.

Barnard, L.

Sherborne, L.

Dartrey, E.

Belper, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Denbigh, E.

Boston, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Chelmsford, L.

Teynham, L.

Dudley, E.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Tredegar, L.

Egerton, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Wantage, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Colchester, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Jersey, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Windsor, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Morton, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, "That this clause be added to the Bill," agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:—
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, the first line of this section says that a scheme under this Act "may" make provisions for such adjustments as may be required for carrying any of the provisions of this Act, or from preventing any injustice with respect to the incidence of any rate or the discharge of any liability or otherwise. I presume that the word "may" may be read as "shall," from what my noble friend said with reference to the Amendment I proposed at an earlier stage.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The word "may," when it is intended to be "shall," is read as "shall."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: To a lay mind it seems desirable, where you mean "shall," to say "shall," and where you mean "may" to say "may."
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Will the noble Earl move that?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Yes. I move that the word "shall" be inserted instead of the word "may."
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, line 15, to omit 'may' and insert 'shall.'"
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council moves the Amendment to Clause 15 standing in his name, I desire to call attention again to Sub-section (d), which provides for the adjustments. The noble Duke will remember that I referred yesterday to the question which has arisen in regard to Kensal Town. There is a subsequent Amendment to be moved by Lord Windsor, providing that Kensal Town shall not be severed from Chelsea. I should like to know what course the noble Duke intends to take in the matter before we pass Clause 15. My own opinion is that it is highly desirable that these outlying portions of parishes should be united to some contiguous parish, and I shall be sorry, therefore, if it is found necessary to make this exception, but it may be necessary if there are no other means of making the adjustment. I should be glad if the noble Duke would inform us what his proposal is in the matter.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: We are at the present moment considering the question of Kensal Town, and I hope we shall have a proposal to make at the next stage.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Duke for that statement, and I hope it will be possible to secure justice without resorting to the Amendment of Lord Windsor.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I now move my Amendment, which provides that a scheme under the Bill may make provision for preserving any right, power, exemption, or immunity heretofore exercised or enjoyed in respect of Crown or Government property, and for alterations of electoral divisions for the purpose of School Board elections rendered necessary by any alterations in the area of the County of London. It is not now clear that such exemptions and immunities as are at present enjoyed in respect of Woolwich Arsenal, the Tower, and other Government buildings, are to be maintained; neither is it clear, without the provision which I now move, that it will be possible to make in the electoral divisions of the School Board for London the alterations consequent upon taking Penge out of London and putting part of Hornsey in.
Amendment moved—
"In page 9, after line 35 to insert:
'(e) for preserving, so far as may appear necessary or expedient, any right, power, exemption, or immunity heretofore exercised or enjoyed in respect of property belonging to, or occupied by, Crown or any Government Department;
'(f) for making such alterations in the boundaries of the electoral divisions for the purpose of school board elections as may be rendered necessary by any alteration in the area of the County of London.'—(The Lord President of the Council.)
LORD MONKSWELL: The clause as it at present stands enacts that a scheme under the Act may make provision for repealing or modifying any local Act other than the London Building Act, 1894. I am desired by the Commons Preservation Society to ask the noble Duke to consider whether he would not also insert in this sub-section words pre-
738
venting a scheme under the Act from repealing or modifying Acts relating to commons and open spaces. The Society is of opinion that Acts relating to open spaces ought to be placed in the same category as the Loudon Building Act, 1894.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The noble Lord had better put the Amendment down for the next stage, and I will consider it. I have a further Amendment to this clause. Section (a) of my Amendment is already contained in the Bill, but has to be repeated on account of an alteration in its arrangement. The only substantial addition is Section (b) of my Amendment, and the object of that section is to do for Westminster what has already been done for Southwark in the House of Commons.
Amendment moved—
"In page 10, line 15, leave out from 'provisions' to end of clause and insert:
'There shall also be deemed to be local authorities within the meaning of the said provisions:
'(a) the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens, and the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, so far as relates to any powers exercisable by them or by officers appointed by them respectively within the ancient Borough of Southwark; and
'(b) The Dean and Chapter of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, so far as relates to any powers of local government exercisable by them or their officers within the Borough of Westminster, and the Court of Burgesses of the ancient City of Westminster.'"
—(The Lord President of the Council.)
Drafting Amendments made.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:—
THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: My Amendment is a very modest one, and it provides that nothing in the Bill shall operate to admit of the severance of the Hamlet of Knightsbridge, or any part thereof, from the parish of St. Margaret's or the Borough of Westminster.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Before my noble friend formally moves his Amendment, I would ask him to postpone it until the next stage. Several questions arise on the boundaries of Westminster, and it is hoped that it will be possible to come to a satisfactory arrangement.
THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: After what the noble Duke has said I will postpone my Amendment.
Formal Amendments made.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: I have an Amendment to propose which provides that where a detached part of a parish in the County of London is surrounded by more than one county such detached part shall become part of such county as shall he determined by Order in Council. It is felt on the Middlesex County Council that it is only reasonable that compensation should be paid to that body for the loss they will sustain owing to the inclusion of South Hornsey in the area of the County of London. It was stated in the Debate in the other House that the question of compensation would be covered by Clause 15, but I am advised that Clause 15 does not make that quite clear.
Amendment moved—
"In line 13, to leave out from 'county' to 'and' in line 14, and insert 'and where a detached part as aforesaid is surrounded by more than one county, such detached part shall become part of such county as shall be determined by Order in Council under this Act.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)
LORD MONKSWELL: I should like to point out that the inhabitants of South Hornsey are almost to a man desirous of being joined to the County of London, and not to Middlesex. The case of Hornsey will be hard indeed if it is, against its will, attached to Middlesex. The rates of South Hornsey are exceedingly low, and apparently the district is extremely well managed. In any case, South Hornsey is in a very unfortunate position, because, whether it is added to London or Middlesex, there will be a large increase in the South Hornsey rates. If added to Middlesex the increase will be 2s. in the £, but if South Hornsey is added to the County of London the increase will be only 1s. in the £. In a
740
ease of this kind I certainly think South Hornsey should be allowed to choose for itself whether it will be joined to London or Middlesex.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: I would like to ask the noble Lord how he is aware of the fact that the people of South Hornsey are desirous of being joined to the County of London.
LORD MONKSWELL: If the figures which I have put before your Lordships are correct, it is only natural that the people of South Hornsey should have but one desire in the matter. Moreover, the local authority has expressed an opinion in the direction I stated.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: A poll was taken, and out of 2,465 electors, 1,817 were in favour of South Hornsey remaining in Middlesex.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I agree with the Amendment of the noble Lord, and will accept it.
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," resolved in the negative.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 17, after Sub-section (4) to insert, "The county council of a county to which any part of another county is transferred under Sub-sections (2) or (3) of this section shall pay yearly, on the day corresponding with the date of the passing of this Act, to the county council of the county from which such transfer is made, such a sum as shall represent the equivalent of the county or other like rate for the year of the county from which any part of it is transferred as aforesaid, and which, but for such transfer, would have been leviable on the part so transferred.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am unable to accept this Amendment. The subject was discussed in the House of Commons, and the conclusion was arrived at, to which I adhere, that this is a matter which must be dealt with by scheme.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: Is the noble Duke of opinion that compensation can

741
be given in a case of this kind without special words being inserted to that effect?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly; the Local Government Board are advised that there is full power to compensate any neighbouring county for loss of rateable value. This power has already been exercised, and there are reported decisions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINDSOR: I was glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government are considering the question of the detached part of Chelsea, and I hope they will have something to recommend on the lines of the Amendment which I have put on the Paper. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) called attention yesterday to the considerable inconvenience and hardship which would result if Kensal Town were joined to Paddington. He went fully into the question, and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to refer to it again; but I would venture to suggest that Kensal Town has a brilliant future before it, and should not be allowed, as will be the case under this Bill, to be swallowed like a pill by a reluctant neighbour, for neither Paddington nor Kensington, so far as I understand, desire to take in Kensal Town. The solution of this difficulty might be found in Middlesex giving up a certain portion of their county, and a new borough being formed equal to those which surround it, and of which Kensal Town would be an important part.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 18, after 'London' insert 'or to the detached part of the parish of Chelsea.'"—(The Lord Windsor.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I hope the noble Lord will not move his Amendment, as I have the case of Kensal Town under consideration, and hope to make a suggestion upon it at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:—
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I beg to move an Amendment to this clause, enlarging the discretion of the Commissioners by allowing them, if so advised, to constitute Penge, with the addition of the part of the district of Beckenham which is within the metropolitan main drainage area, a separate metropolitan borough. Penge creates a difficulty in this Bill, the solution of which is not easy to find. It is a little outlying district, and must be dealt with exceptionally. By history and connection Penge is undoubtedly a part of London; and though I believe the inhabitants of Penge have expressed their desire to be included in the County of Surrey, I am informed by an expert in rating matters that if Penge is annexed to Surrey the ratepayers will suffer severely in pocket. My proposal will not make any change in the various courses which it is suggested by the Bill should be within the power of the Commissioners to adopt in regard to Penge. The clause provides that an Order in Council may either annex Penge to the Borough of Lewisham or to the Borough of Camberwell, or separate it from the County of London, and make it form part for all purposes of the County of Surrey or of the County of Kent. I wish to recommend a fifth course, and I would suggest that, under the re-arrangement which I propose, the place might be called Penge-cum-Beckenham, following the course which the Government pre-pose to take with regard to Stoke Newington and South Hornsey. The area of my proposed metropolitan borough is larger than than that of Stoke Newington and Hornsey, and the population, which is largely increasing, will be about 30,000, while the rateable value is £223,000. In the clause as it stands the Commissioners are given power to deal with Penge in one of four ways, and I propose to give them power to deal with it in one of five ways.
Amendment moved—
"In page 11, line 39, after "Camberwell" to insert, or constitute Penge, with the addition of the part of the district of Beckenham which is within the metropolitan main drainage area, a separate metropolitan borough.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
LORD ASHCOMBE: As I have an Amendment, which will come on directly,

743
in reference to Penge, I should like to point out that Surrey is in the unfortunate position of having two county areas—the administrative county area, which has come into general use, and the area which still exists for Parliamentary purposes, and which is operative in several Acts still in existence. I believe it has been taken for granted, especially by the County Council, that in this Bill the County of Surrey implies the administrative County of Surrey, and if that is the case there is no justification whatever for the claim of Penge to be joined to Surrey, because the Act which formed the County of Surrey also formed the county borough of Croydon, by which Penge was entirely separated from it.
LORD THRING: As a member of the County Council of Surrey, I have no doubt that the County of Surrey referred to in the Bill means the administrative County of Surrey. Penge is contiguous, to Kent and Croydon, but not to the County of Surrey, and therefore it will be against all precedent to annex Penge to the administrative County of Surrey. It will, indeed, create a difficulty such as this Bill has been drafted to do away with. The County of Surrey does not want Penge, and I sincerely hope Penge will not be thrust upon it.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid I cannot agree to the proposal of the noble Lord opposite, that we should I take a part of the district of Beckenham, which is in Kent, and which, as far as we know, does not wish to be included in the metropolitan area. The proposal of the noble Lord would probably lead to considerable anomalies and a great deal of local opposition. I think the best answer I can give to the question which has been asked by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Ashcombe) is to read the clause as it will stand when amended in the direction I shall propose—
"An order in Council under this Act may either annex Penge to the Borough of Lewisham or to the Borough of Camberwell, or separate it from the County of London and make it form part of the County of Surrey or of the County of Kent, and if it is so separated shall provide for constituting it an urban district, or for adding it to an adjoining county borough or urban district, and if necessary shall determine the county electoral division to which it is to belong."
The clause, as amended in this way, will give the widest discretion to the
744
Commissioners to deal with the case of Penge as they may find most expedient; but it will not include the proposal of the noble Lord opposite to annex a portion of the County of Kent for the purpose of creating another metropolitan borough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I now move the Amendment standing in my name, which will effect the alteration in the clause to which I have alluded.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 11, line 40, to leave out 'for all purposes"; in page 12, lines 1 and 2, to leave out 'of the appropriate county electoral division thereof, and in the latter ease'; and insert if it is so separated'; and in line 4, after 'district' insert and, if necessary, shall determine the county electoral division to which it is to belong.'"
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: As I understand these Amendments, they will give the Commissioners power to determine in what county electoral district Penge is to be included. In all the re-arrangements of boundaries that have taken place under Local Acts care has always been taken not to give any powers to Commissioners to interfere with electoral divisions for Parliamentary purposes. I would ask if there is any precedent for giving such power?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The words are "the county electoral division." The Parliamentary division is not referred to.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Is the noble and learned Lord sure of that?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: That is my opinion, and I am supported by authority higher than my own.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
LORD GLENESK: May I ask your Lordships' permission to move the insertion of a short permissive clause providing that an Order in Council under this Act may detach Kensington Palace from the Borough of Westminster, and attach it to the Borough of Kensington? It may be

745
news to your Lordships to be told that Kensington Palace is not in Kensington at all. Kensington was formerly a suburban parish with a small hamlet adjoining. It has now become one of the largest boroughs in London. As a Royal Palace pays no rates, Westminster can lose nothing by the detachment. Westminster revels in palaces already. It has the magnificent palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, St. James's Palace, and the Royal residences of Marlborough House, Clarence House, and others, and altogether is provided with an amount of Royalty sufficient to dignify any borough. I think, therefore, that Kensington might now claim what has always been considered her own, prized as it is as the birthplace of the Queen, and for all its historical associations. I think this will clearly appeal to your Lordships, and I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
Amendments proposed—
"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 Lord Glenesk.)
THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER: I was not prepared for this dagger-thrust at the heart of Westminster. I have never had any idea of such a robbery. Kensington Palace is part and parcel of the Hamlet of Knightsbridge, and the whole of Westminster will be up in arms at the idea of surrendering the historic Palace to the suburb, if I may venture to call it so, of Kensington. I hope your Lordships will not consent to the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I hope my noble friend will not commit himself too strongly on this subject, which is one of a group of the questions affecting Westminster which are now under our consideration, and on which we have some hopes of arriving at an arrangement which may be tolerably satisfactory to all parties concerned. I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment now, but to put it down on the next stage of the Bill, when I may have a proposal to make.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, agreed to.
Clause 21—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have an Amendment to this clause which provides that the election of churchwardens for the ecclesiastical parish remaining attached to a mother church shall be vested in the inhabitants of such ecclesiastical parish; but I understand from the noble Duke that he desires a little further time for consideration of the question. I therefore propose to postpone the Amendment till the Report stage.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: In my Amendment to Clause 21 I propose to leave out Sub—sections 3, 4, and 5, and insert three other sections in their place and also a sixth section. Sub-section 3, which I propose to leave out, was originally inserted with reference to duties performed by churchwardens in connection with the election of auditors, and is now unnecessary. Sub-section 4 was moved in the other House by Mr. Causton with reference to some Southwark charities, and was accepted under a misapprehension during the hurry of the final stage. It is wrong in form, and, in the Opinion of the Charity Commissioners, would produce much confusion and difficulty. The subsections which it is proposed to substitute have been very carefully drawn by the Solicitor-General and the Charity Commissioners after considering the circumstances of the different charities in London. They follow as closely as they can the corresponding provisions which were inserted for a similar purpose in the Local Government Act of 1894, and it is believed they will give full power to deal with the various cases as they arise. Under the Act of 1894 the Charity Commissioners have power to apportion charities and determine all questions affecting them, subject to an appeal to the High Court. The sub-section which I move to add is taken from the Municipal Corporations Act of 1883, and probably does no more than declare the existing law, but it will, in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners, be useful in removing misapprehension.
Amendments moved—
"in page 12, line 32,to leave out Sub-sect-ions (3) (4) and (5) and insert:
'(3) As from the appointed day, the churchwardens of every parish within a metropolitan

747
borough shall cease to be overseers, and references in any Act, to the churchwardens and overseers of any such parish shall, except so far as those references relate to the affairs of the church, be construed as references to the council of the borough comprising the parish, and the legal interest in all property vested either in the overseers or churchwardens and overseers of any such parish (other than property connected with the affairs of the church or held for an ecclesiastical charity within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1894), shall, subject to the provisions of any scheme under this Act, vest in the borough council.
'(4) Provision shall be made by scheme under this Act for substituting nominees of the borough council for overseers as trustees of any charity, due regard being had to the area benefited by the charity.
'(5) The Charity Commissioners shall, for the purposes of this Art, have the like powers with respect to charities, subject to the like appeal, as they have under and for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1894.
'(6) Nothing in this Act shall affect the right to the benefit of any charity, or shall alter or confer any power of altering the defined charitable purposes (if any) to which any property is by law applicable at the passing of this Act.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to, without discussion.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The new clause which I propose to add after Clause 22 follows exactly the corresponding provision in the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. It is made necessary by the provisions in Clauses 4 and 10, which impose duties specifically upon the town clerk.
Amendments proposed, to insert as a new clause—
"In case of the illness or absence of the town clerk, the borough council may appoint a deputy town clerk to hold office during their pleasure, and all things required or authorised by law to be done by or to the town clerk may be done by or to the deputy town clerk, and no defect in the appointment of a deputy shall invalidate his acts."—(The Lord President of the Council.)
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:—
Formal Amendments agreed to.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The Amendment standing in my name would enable the London County Council to alter the arrangements for polling districts. I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is very necessary that facilities, should be given for the arrangement of polling districts so that the ratepayers and electors may have the power of easily recording their vote. At the present moment the London County Council: can divide any parish into wards for the purpose of vestry, guardians, and county council elections, but they cannot make any alterations in those polling districts when once they have been fixed. My Amendment proposes that for the purposes of these local elections the County Council shall be able to arrange the polling stations, and from time to time alter them, as may be found desirable, to meet the convenience of the electors.
Amendment moved—
"In page 14, line 17, after Sub-section (3) to, insert as a new sub-section: 'The London County Council shall have and may from time to time exercise the power to divide any borough in London, or any ward, into polling districts for the purposes of county, borough, or other local elections.'"—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The, noble Lord is entitled, I think, to the first part of his Amendment, if we could give it to him. The object of the Amendment, however, is to increase the authority of the London County Council in relation to elections other than those with which the Act is concerned, and the Bill does not offer the opportunity for such an amendment of the law.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: At the present moment the County Council has the power to divide these parishes into polling districts for the election of vestries and district boards, and I contend that they should continue to exercise the same powers in reference to the new bodies.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: In relation to this Bill the Local Government Board will exercise authority.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: But why should this power be transferred from the London County Council to the Local Government Board?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The power is not being transferred. The borough councils are not existing at present.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I might use a very uncivil word with regard to that argument, but I will not. The borough councils, as the noble Marquess said the other night, are simply vestries under another name, and I cannot see what on earth is the use of making this change. I suppose this is another instance of the jealousy which exists, and the desire to keep the County Council out of everything. It is a very pretty attitude.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I cannot understand why the London County Council should ask for this power in regard to the new borough councils.
Other Amendments made.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:—
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should like to ask the noble Duke whether it is under Sub-section 2 of this clause that the Local Government Board will have the power he alluded to just now of making new polling booths?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Yes.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Why not?
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: We think the new bodies ought to be independent of the County Council.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is what I imagined, but I maintain that it is unnecessary and unwise to make a change from the system hitherto followed on the ground of a fictitious independence. I do not imagine that the County Council is such a weal body that it will be affected by this small deduction from its powers; but the Council is, in my opinion, better qualified for this duty than the Local Government Board.
On Question, "That this sub-section be here inserted," their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Ripon, M.

Spencer, E.

Hawkesbury, L. [Teller.]

Hobhouse, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Aberdare, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carrington, E.

Burghclere, L.

Reay, L.

Kimberley, E.

Coleridge, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Davey, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Dudley, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Grey, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hardwicke, E.

Glenesk, L.

Morley, E

Harris, L.

Marlborough, D.

Onslow, E.

James, L.

Westminster, D.

Selborne, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Salisbury, M.

Yarborough, E.

Lawrence, L.

Muskerry, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) (L. Chamberlain.)

Rowton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Camperdown, E.

Balfour, L.

Teynham, E.

Denbigh, E.

Barnard, L.

Tredegar, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Belper, L.

Windsor, L.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I asked the question because this is a matter of reference. We were told last night that the Government did not like legislation by reference; but this is entirely legislation by reference.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: What I said was that I personally did not like legislation by reference. However, I will make a note of the noble Lord's observation.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:—
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The addition which I now move is in the nature of a saving clause. The words which it is proposed to add only make clear the object and intention of the clause itself. Under the London Equalisation of Rates Act a fund is raised among the London parishes in proportion to their rateable value, and it is divided amongst the sanitary districts in proportion to population. Obviously, contributions must not be levied there and divided among new, areas. This Amendment obviates any difficulty of that kind.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It will leave the Act to operate practically as it now does, I take it.
TILE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes. The areas will be the same, only with some corners cut off, and so on.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 16, line 22, before 'nothing' to insert 'except so far as the areas of parishes and sanitary districts are altered by or under this Act;' and in line 27, to leave out 'shall Constitute' and insert 'constitutes.'"—(The Lord President if the Council.)
Amendments agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:—
LORD TEYNHAM: In explanation of the Amendment which stands in my name, I may say that this Clause 29, which deals with open spaces, was not in the Bill as originally drawn; it was inserted as an Amendment in another place. The Amendment I propose is little more than a verbal one, and is merely intended to strengthen the words of the clause as it at present stands.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 16, line 31, after 'public' to insert or any part thereof.'"—(The Lord Teynham.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think this Amendment is unnecessary;
752
but if the noble Lord thinks there is any object in it, perhaps he will put it down for the Report stage.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would point out to the noble Lord that as his Amendment stands his words would come in the wrong place; they would come in better after the word "space," in line 30.
LORD TEYNHAM: I will put the Amendment down for the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
LORD TWEED MOUTH: I have a new clause to propose, to come in after Clause 29. By this Bill you supersede a large number of existing bodies which now have power to preserve public documents, and unless some statutory provision is included in this Bill I am afraid many records will stand the risk of being destroyed. I have, therefore, drafted a clause exactly on the same lines as the clause in the Local Government Act of 1894, which provides for the custody of records of these expiring vestries and district bodies. I believe this Amendment really necessary for the safe custody of these records and papers, and I hope my noble friend will see his way to accept it.
Moved, to insert the following new clause—
"(1) All documents required by Statute or by Standing Orders of Parliament to be deposited with the vestry or vestry clerk of a parish in a metropolitan borough shall, front and after the passing of this Act, be deposited with the town clerk of the borough comprising that parish, and the enactments with respect to the inspection of, and taking copies of, and extracts from any such documents, shall apply as if the town clerk were mentioned therein.
"(2) The custody of the registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials, and of all other books and documents containing entries wholly or partly relating to the affairs of the church or to ecclesiastical charities, except documents directed by law to be kept with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, shall remain as provided by the existing law, unaffected by this Act. All other public books, writings, or papers of a parish in a metropolitan borough, and all documents directed by law to be kept therewith, shall be deposited in such custody as the council of the borough comprising that district may direct. The incumbent and churchwardens on the one part,

753
and the council of the borough comprising the parish on the other, shall have reasonable access to all such books, documents, writings, and papers as are referred to in this sub-section, and any difference as to custody or access shall he determined by the London County Council.
"(3) The London County Council shall from time to time inquire into the manner in which the public books, writings, papers, and documents under the control of the council of a metropolitan borough are kept, with a view to the proper preservation thereof, and shall make such orders as they think necessary for such preservation, and those orders shall be complied with by the borough council."—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I would point out to the noble Lord that Clause 4 of the Bill transfers the books and papers of the old vestries to their successors, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. The specific proposals which the noble Lord makes in his Sub-sections 2 and 3 would probably give rise to a good deal of argument, and it is believed that all that is necessary can be clone by a scheme. I believe that in the other House the First Lord of the Treasury expressed a great deal of sympathy with the object of this Amendment, and reminded the House that he had promised an inquiry into the best mode of providing for the custody of local records, not merely in London, but throughout the country. But, as it will be incumbent on the new bodies to receive and take charge of the existing records awl documents, I do not know that it will be necessary to make any special provisions in their case. With regard to the third sub-section, which authorises the London County Council to:
"inquire into the manner in which the public books, writings, papers, and documents under the control of the council of a metropolitan borough are kept,"
I think that would be greatly resented; it would point to the invidious inference that the borough councils were not competent to perform what undoubtedly would be one branch of their duties.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am sorry to say that I cannot find in Clause 4 any reference whatever to books, papers, or documents.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: "Property."
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: "Property" is a large word, no doubt, and it may
754
cover books and documents; but these are not things generally understood to come under that term. At any rate, I think the noble Lord might meet my point by including in Clause 4 a specific reference to "books, documents, writings, and papers."
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The word "property" is really quite sufficient. If anyone should steal the books and documents of my noble friend, he would be indicted for stealing the property of Lord Tweedmouth.
On Question, "That the proposed clause be here inserted," resolved in the negative.
Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 147.)

QUESTION.

  MALTA—WRECK INQUIRIES.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the court of inquiry recently held at Malta, where the certificate of the chief officer of the steamship" Mr. E. J. Kemp, was suspended for six months, and his arrest for manslaughter was ordered and effected; and whether, in consequence of the entire reversal of this judgment, owing to the ignorance of navigation displayed in the terms thereof, and also of the grave injustice placed upon Mr. Kemp, they would take the necessary steps so that such courts of inquiry at colonial possessions should have the benefit of the advice and assistance of two assessors having experience in the merchant service, as was stipulated by the Merchant Shipping Act of the United Kingdom, which was also adopted by the Indian Government.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (the Earl of DUDLEY): The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the circumstances to which the noble Lord refers connected

  755
  with the court of inquiry recently held at Malta into the collision between the steamship "Kingswell" and the Ottoman ship "Maria." Inquiries into shipping casualties instituted in her Majesty's colonies and British possessions, abroad are held by courts appointed by the Governments of those colonies and possessions, and the provisions of the local Acts which govern the constitution of such courts already require, generally, the appointment of two assessors having experience in the merchant service, as in the case of inquiries held in the United Kingdom. The Board of Trade are already in communication, through the Colonial Office, with the different Colonial Governments, with a view to assimilate as far as possible the proceedure of wreck inquiries with that prescribed by the Imperial Act.
  House adjourned at Eight of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.