Sitting of 13 July 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Report—Estimates Procedure (Grants of Supply) [No. 281]; Corn Averages, Mr. Mahony and Mr. Sheehy disch.; Mr. Pinkerton and Mr. Deasy added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Divorce Cases (Perjury)* [328]; Trafalgar Square (Regulation of Meetings)* [329]; Ecclesiastical Dilapidations* [330]; Public Meetings in Open Spaces* [331].
First Reading—Liability of Trustees* [332];
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Eighteenth Night]—R.P.; Law of Distress Amendment [283]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Recorders, Magistrates, and Clerks of the Peace* [320], and passed.
Withdrawn—Parliamentary Voters' Lists (Ireland)* [280]; Clerks of the Peace* [185].

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. COURTNEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table; and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—BRITISH AND IRISH INDUSTRIES WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, having regard to the official statements frequently made in many foreign countries, in proof of increasing prosperity, that the supply of their respective home markets is almost entirely in the hands of their own countrymen, any Report can be furnished to Parliament by the Board of Trade showing the position of British and Irish industries in the markets of the United Kingdom at the present time, and year by year, during the past half century, in the same manner as the recent Returns presented to Parliament have shown the present and past conditions of the foreign trade, the growth of the imports, and their increasing excess over the exports?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that in his opinion, such a Report was hardly necessary, as the matter had been fully reported upon already by the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—TULLAMORE—APPOINTMENT OF MR. H. EGAN AS TOWN MAGISTRATE.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Dr. Fox)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Town Commissioners of Tullamore have fully complied with the conditions prescribed by "The Towns Improvement Act, 1854," and have forwarded to the Lord Chancellor a Resolution, asking for the appointment of Mr. Henry Egan as town magistrate; whether any further legal formalities are necessary; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to deprive Tullamore of the services of a town magistrate?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Lord Chancellor, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by law, declined to make the appointment. The Government have no power to interfere.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Lord Chancellor having declined to make this appointment, he would ask the Chief Secretary what steps the Irish Government intended to take in order to secure the services of a magistrate for the town?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that Question down.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICATIONS FOR FAIR RENTS—APPEALS.
  THE LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Mr. M'CARTAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will state how many cases of appeal from decisions on applications to have fair rents fixed remained unheard on July 1 instant; how many of these appeals are in respect of applications where the originating notices were served on the Land Commission in each

  1239
  of the following years—namely, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, and 1886; and, what steps the Government propose to take for the purpose of having these appeals disposed of in reasonable time, and at places to suit the convenience and means of both tenants and landlords?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that the total number of appeals remaining unheard on the 1st day of this month was 5,010. Of these, however, 1,914 only had been received prior to January 1 last. They have been unable to furnish the number for each of the years referred to in the second paragraph, as the work of ascertaining the figures would occupy some four or five days. The responsibility in the matter of dealing with appeals and the fixing of places for hearing them rests solely with the Land Commissioners, who have already explained that, in discharging the duties devolving upon them, they endeavour to meet the convenience, as far as practicable, of all the parties concerned.
  MR. SEXTONasked, whether, as the Land Commissioners appeared to be unwilling to sit in Quarter Sessions towns, they would hold sittings in the Assize towns of each county, so as to prevent the additional costs arising from the hearing of an appeal in a county different from that in which it originated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he should be very happy to convey to the Land Commissioners any suggestions of this sort which came from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— MICHAEL GOLDMAN, A PRISONER IN PORTSMOUTH PRISON.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he could inquire whether the Governor of Portsmouth Prison, about three years ago, wrote to the relatives of Michael Goldman, now confined in that prison, to the effect that, if they could support him, he would send him home; and, if, under these circumstances, and seeing that the man is a hopeless invalid, he could see fit to order his discharge?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have
  1240
  made inquiry, and I cannot ascertain that the Governor wrote to the relatives of Mr. Goldman stating that if they could support him he should be sent home. He would have no authority to send the prisoner home. I have nothing to add to the answer which I have already given with regard to this case.

  WAR OFFICE—THE ROYAL SCOTS— GATLING GUNS.
  MR. ROEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Gatling guns, accompanying the Royal Scots on service with the Expedition destined for Zululand, are of the old and obsolete pattern; and, if so, whether he will give instructions for the more modern and improved weapon to be supplied?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E.STANHOPE): The Gatling guns referred to were issued from Woolwich in October last. They are of a pattern now in the Service, and are perfectly efficient.

  POST OFFICE (METROPOLIS)—REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED LETTERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, What was the number of registered letters dealt with in the London District during the year ended March 31, 1888, and what percentage of them were lost; and, what was the number of unregistered letters dealt with in the London District during the same period, and what percentage of these were lost?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): A Return is made annually of the number of registered letters posted in London; but no Returns are made of the number of registered letters delivered in or passing through London, nor is any actual record kept of the number of unregistered letters. I am, therefore, unable to give the hon. Member the information he asks for.

  TURKEY (ASIATIC PROVINCES)— ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS IN VAN.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact, as stated recently in telegrams from Constantinople published in the newspapers,

  1241
  that the Ottoman Government is arranging to bring into the country around Van, chiefly inhabited by Armenian Christians, large bodies of Circassians, and to settle them there; and, whether, if the fact be so, Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of pointing out to the Turkish Government the troubles, conflicts, and dangers to the peace of the East which are likely to result from the intrusion of fierce and predatory Mussulman tribes among a Christian population, and of dissuading the Ottoman Government from such a policy?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): We have received no information as to the matters alluded to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he would repeat the Question in about a fortnight, when he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be in possession of the necessary information.

  WAR OFFICE—MILITARY INTER-PRETERS—EXAMINATIONS IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether examinations in foreign languages are held once or twice a-year in London, at which officers of the Regular Forces can present themselves, with a view to becoming eligible for appointments as military interpreters; whether Militia officers are not permitted to go up for these examinations, and what is the reason why they are thus debarred from obtaining appointments which many of them would be quite as competent to fill as officers of the Regular Forces; whether the supply of officers of the Regular Forces is, at the present time, unequal to the demand; and whether, in case of war, it would be still further lessened by the fact that military interpreters could only be drawn from such source; and, whether this would be an additional reason for permitting Militia officers to qualify as military interpreters?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Applications from Militia officers to present themselves at these examinations are always specially considered on their merits. The supply of candidates for Army commissions is fully equal to
  1242
  the demand; and it is unlikely that in war any appreciable number of combatant officers would be withdrawn from their military duties to act as interpreters. There is rarely any difficulty in obtaining interpreters on the spot without depleting regiments; and the primary object of these examinations and rewards is to encourage officers to become conversant with foreign languages, in order that their corps might have the advantage of being in immediate touch with the population of a country in which operations might be taking place.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—DEVON COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS—SERGEANT ALLIN.
  MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has yet received any reply to his inquiries about the refusal of the Devon Court of Quarter Sessions to investigate the case of Sergeant Allin?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I have made inquiry, and I understand that it is intended to bring this matter again before the Court of Quarter Sessions in October next, and I have reason to believe that an inquiry will then be directed. It is for the magistrates, and not for the Secretary of State, to conduct whatever inquiry may be necessary.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALLYMENA WORKHOUSE—DISMISSAL OF JOHN TURTLE.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Mr. M'CARTAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that John Turtle, late officer in charge of lunatics at Ballymena Workhouse, has been dismissed on a charge brought against him by the master of the workhouse; and, whether, considering that Turtle denies the charge and declares it to be unfounded, he will advise the Local Government Board to grant an inquiry into the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The under-keeper referred to was charged in February last by the head lunatic

  1243
  keeper with having taken a patient from his bed at midnight and administered to him a shower-bath. The master reported it to the Board of Guardians, who had Turtle called before them; and having received from him such explanation as he had to offer, a resolution was adopted dismissing him from his position as a caretaker of the lunatics. The Guardians had, by the General Regulations, full power to dismiss the man; and the Local Government Board see no reason to interfere with their action in the matter, or to institute an inquiry.

  NEW SOUTH WALES—THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—AN UNANSWERED TELEGRAM.
  MR. ROWNTREE (Scarborough) (for Mr. W. A. M'ARTHUR)asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by the Premier of New South Wales, in the Legislative Assembly at Sydney, on May 16, 1888, on the Chinese question, in which he states that a telegram sent to the British Government on March 31 was not answered till May 12; if he is aware of the strong feeling of indignation which this apparent neglect has excited in New South Wales; and, what is the reason for the extraordinary delay in the reply to the telegram of March 31?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State is aware of the speech delivered by Sir Harry Parkes on May 16. It is incorrect to state that the telegram sent by the New South Wales Government on March 31 was not answered till May 12, as on April 13 a telegram was sent acknowledging its receipt, and stating that the subject was under consideration. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that there is any feeling of indignation in New South Wales on this subject. On the contrary, Lord Carrington telegraphed on April 16 that Lord Knutsford's telegram of April 13 "had been received with much satisfaction." Her Majesty's Government have further received the assurance that the Conference which met in Sydney in the beginning of June was sensible of the wish of the Imperial Government to meet the views of the Colonies. As has been shown, there
  1244
  was no extraordinary delay in replying to the telegram of March 31; and there has been the greatest promptitude in dealing with this complicated subject.

  BERLIN CONFERENCE (AFRICA)—THE RETURN.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Return relating to the Berlin Conference (Africa), ordered to be printed on June 11 last, will be issued?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have today laid the Return on the Table in print, and it will be distributed on Monday.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCES—THE NAVAL DEFENCES.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If his attention has been drawn to a speech delivered in Liverpool on Monday last, on naval defences, by the Secretary to the Admiralty, in which he said—"Admiral Hornby, our foremost Naval Commander," had suggested an increase in our Navy of 144 cruisers, the cost of which was estimated at £33,500,000; and, whether the Government intend to act on the suggestion?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I have stated more than once, both inside and outside of this House, that the Government have no intention of making such a sudden addition to the Naval Force of this country as is suggested in the Question. If the hon. Gentleman will read the speech delivered by the Secretary to the Admiralty on the occasion to which he alludes, he will find that the policy of the Admiralty is not to indulge in spasmodic shipbuilding, but to pursue a steady and continuous course. The cost of 144 cruisers would, of course, largely depend upon the type adopted; and even at the lowest estimate it would amount to many millions sterling.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—ASSISTANT INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS.
  MR. CALDWELLasked, the Lord Advocate, What

  1245
  are the duties which are devolved upon Assistant Inspectors of schools in Scotland; and, whether Assistant Inspectors are to understand in future that appointments to the office of Inspector are not to be expected to be made by the present Government from their ranks?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I presume the hon. Member refers not to Assistant Inspectors, but to Inspectors' assistants, who are a different class of officers. Their duties have been defined in repeated instructions, and cannot be summed up within the limits of an answer to a Question. With regard to the promotion of such officers to the post of Inspector, their Lordships can give no general undertaking, and must proceed upon their own responsibility, according to the circumstances of each case. Such appointments are certainly not limited to Inspectors' assistants.

  CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS (IRELAND)— LIMERICK SPRING ASSIZES, 1887.
  MR.O'KEEFFEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the absence of any criminal indictments in the Calendars for the City of Limerick Assizes; whether such a state existed prior to the passing of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, as shown by the Charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien at the Limerick Spring Assizes, 1887; and, whether he will state the names "of the Local Authorities of Limerick" responsible for order in that city, who reported that—
  "The satisfactory condition of Limerick is now due to the administration of the before-mentioned Act of Parliament in that city?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): As this Question is down without Notice, I have been unable to obtain a Report upon the first and second paragraphs. The authorities responsible for the preservation of order, to whom I referred in my answer yesterday, are the local constabulary officers.

  THE STATUTES—REVISED EDITION.
  MR. HOWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House when
  1246
  the first volume of the revised edition of the Statutes will be ready for publication; whether there is any cause for delay in the publication; and, if so, what is the reason; and, whether the Government will take such steps as may be necessary in order to hasten the publication of the revised Statutes?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Two volumes of the revised edition of the Statutes are, I understand, nearly ready for issue; but there is now before the House a Consolidation Bill, which has passed the Standing Committee on Law, and which, if it become law, will affect about 16 Acts now included in the Statute Book. Under these circumstances, it has been deemed advisable to retard the issue of the Statutes, in order to see whether the above Bill passes this Session.

  AUDIT OFFICE—THE ASSISTANT AUDITOR GENERAL.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will obtain and lay upon the Table the opinion of the Auditor General as to the necessity of retaining the office of Assistant Auditor General, with a salary of £1,500 and pension; and, whether, if the Government should decide upon filling up the vacancy, it will make the appointment subject to such conditions as will permit Parliament to deal with the office by legislation, without any question of vested interests?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he was solely responsible for any action that might have to be taken with regard to the appointment of the Assistant Auditor General; and although he could not undertake to take the course which the hon. Member suggested, whatever steps he might take would be taken with a deep sense of his responsibility, and he would be guided only by what he believed to be the interests of the Public Service.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONgave Notice that he should call attention to the matter on the Appropriation Bill.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE—DISCONTENT.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there

  1247
  was in the Metropolitan Police an amount of discontent which threatened to result in a strike; whether this discontent was caused by the arbitrary conduct of Sir Charles Warren, and in consequence of the odious duty imposed upon the police of bâtoning unoffending citizens?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The hon. Member has not given me Notice of this Question. I can only say I believe every suggestion of fact which it contains to be utterly unfounded.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—NEW CLAUSES (LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL).
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: As I have been informed on high authority that the new clauses to the Local Government Bill, of which I have given Notice, will be considered not to be within the scope of the Bill, and will, therefore, be ruled out of Order, I will move, at the commencement of Public Business on Monday, for leave to bring in a Bill to attain the object of those clauses.

  SITTINGS AND ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—SATURDAY SITTINGS.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it could not be possible to give a Saturday to discuss the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland) Bill, and some other measures for Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am very willing, Sir, to consider any representation from any quarter of the House; but Saturday Sittings, as the hon. Member is aware, are not very popular, and are only resorted to when the House is very desirous of winding up the Business of the Session.
  MR. ESSLEMONTreminded the right hon. Gentleman that last Session nearly all the Scotch Business of the Session was done at Saturday Sittings, and he thought the Government might give the same opportunity this year.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—TULLAMORE GAOL—THE INQUEST ON MR. JOHN MANDEVILLE.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to
  1248
  ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that in the case of the inquest on Mr. Mandeville, the local Police Inspector refused to summon the jury unless he was served with a precept from the Coroner, and then that he only summoned 12 jurors, mostly Conservatives, of whom only five appeared; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will instruct the police to secure that the legal functions of the Coroner's Court shall be effectively discharged?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no official knowledge of the facts stated by the hon. Member. I have heard, however, that the police, thinking the case was not one for an inquest, waited for the action of the Coroner before taking steps. I presume they are now carrying out their official duty in the summoning of a jury in accordance with the law.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 12th July.]
    [EIGHTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

  PART II.

    APPLICATION OF ACT TO BOROUGHS, THE METROPOLIS, AND CERTAIN SPECIAL COUNTIES.
    Application of Act to Metropolis.
    Clause 38 (Arrangements for paid chairman and sittings of quarter sessions for London).
    On the Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, the following Amendment made:—In page 35, line 22, to leave out the words "duly qualified."
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER, in moving an Amendment, in the same line, after the word "barrister," to insert the words "of ten years' standing," said, the object of the Amendment was to provide that the

    1249
    barrister to be appointed as paid Chairman or Deputy Chairman should be of not less than 10 years' standing.
    Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 22, after the word "barrister," to insert the words "of ten years' standing."—(Mr. Henry if. Fowler.)
    Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, his next Amendment was, in line 23, to omit the words "or one of the paid deputy chairmen as the case may be." If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill assured them that it might be necessary to have more than one paid Deputy Chairman, he would not press the Amendment.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he was of that opinion.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Then I will not move the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), to insert, at the end of line 24—
    "And two or more magistrates to act in the city of London, and after their appointment the jurisdiction of the city aldermen in the administration of justice shall forthwith cease,"
    was already provided for in Clause 36.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON, in moving, in page 35, line 31, in the 3rd sub-section of the clause, to omit the words—
    "But the salary may be at any time increased by resolution of the county council, approved by a Secretary of State, without any resignation or re-appointment of such chairman or deputy chairman,"
    said, he proposed to omit the last part of the sub-section, and the words he proposed to leave out were those which related to the salary it was intended to pay to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the County of London. As the clause stood, provision was made that the salary might be increased from time to time by resolution of the County Council approved by the Secretary of State, without any resignation or reappointment of the existing Chairman or Deputy Chairman. His objection to those words was, that they contained what appeared to him to be two very
    1250
    vicious principles. One was that every official would be led to expect a greatly increasing salary. He need hardly point out that if permission were granted to increase the salary of a judicial office whenever the County Council could obtain the approval of the Secretary of State, it would necessarily follow that in some way or other the salary would be increased. He thought that was a principle which was condemned by the general feeling throughout the country. The true course was to ascertain what a proper salary would be, and fix it at the beginning of the term of office and leave it there, giving the occupant of the office no right to expect any more. In the second place, there was another vicious principle, and that was that, so far as the increase of judicial salaries were concerned, it would teach the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions to look to the County Council for that increase. He did not think it was desirable that a Judge of any status should be dependent for an increase of salary upon any County Council or Local Authority whatever. If the Committee passed those words, and gave to the County Council power to increase the salary of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, the inevitable result would be that from the time he obtained the appointment the local Judge would begin intriguing with the County Council for an increase of salary. He was aware that there was a precedent in London already to the very purpose he was now deprecating. It was perfectly certain in the case he referred to that negotiations—and he could call them nothing else—were carried on from time to time in reference to an increase of salary, and they were of anything but a dignified character. It was because he objected to both of these vicious principles, that he moved the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 35, line 31, to leave out the words "but the salary may be at any time increased by resolution of the county council, approved by a Secretary of State, without any resignation or re-appointment of such chairman or deputy chairman."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought it would be unwise to fetter the power of the County Council so as to prevent

    1251
    them from being able to increase the salary in the case of a large increase of duties. The hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that no increase of salary could be made without the sanction of the Secretary of State, and a similar power of increasing the salary existed in the case of the present Judges. The only arrangement provided for in the clause was to apply to the County Council of London the powers now possessed by the Justices for Middlesex.
    MR. LAWSON, in supporting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, said, he did so in the interests of the independence and uprightness of the Judicial Bench. He felt strongly on the point upon this particular account. In the City, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, learned gentlemen holding judicial appointments had been constantly in the habit of soliciting the Common Council for an increase of salary. He thought that habit of endeavouring to curry favour with the Council was derogatory to the dignity of the office; and as there had been a great deal of cadging of that kind in connection with judicial offices in London, he thought it undesirable to run a similar risk in connection with the County Council.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the Amendment. The hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had observed it was not possible to lay too much stress upon the independence of the Judicial Bench. The salary ought to be a remunerative one, and in proportion to the amount of work to be performed and the responsibility of the position, and it would be far better that the Crown should consent to the payment of a large salary at once than commence with a small salary, and give power to the County Council to make constant applications for an increase.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the Government would accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WEBSTER, in moving, in page 35, line 35, to insert, after the word "Chairman," in Subsection 4, the words "or other paid official in the employ of the county council of London," said, the object of
    1252
    the Amendment was to provide that no paid official of the County Council should, during his term of office, be eligible to serve in Parliament for any Parliamentary county or borough wholly or partly within the limits of the County of London. As the clause stood, it applied solely to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Quarter Sessions; but he did not see any other convenient place in which to move the Amendment that would be better than the one in regard to which he had ventured to put it down. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the principle of the Amendment, or would indicate that it was a desirable one in the sense in which he moved it, he had no objection if it were considered desirable to postpone it until they were able to reach some other part of the Bill which would render it most complete.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 35, line 35, after the word "chairman," to insert the words "or other paid official in the employ of the county council of London."—(Mr. Webster.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that Clause 82 would be the proper clause upon which to move the Amendment. That was the clause which dealt with the officials of the County Councils.
    MR. JAMES STUARTasked if the sub-section they were discussing applied to all County Councils, or was peculiar to London?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, it only applied to London.
    MR. JAMES STUARTbelieved that there were no paid Chairmen in connection with other County Councils?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER, in moving the omission of the words "for any Parliamentary county or borough wholly or partly within the limits of the county of London," said, the object of the Amendment was to provide that the paid Chairman and Deputy Chairman should not be eligible to serve in Parliament for any constituency. He thought they ought to be rendered ineligible for seats in the House of Commons. The clause, as it stood, prohibited them from sitting for London; but he entertained a strong

    1253
    objection to the mixing up of legislative and judicial duties. At present, no Stipendiary Magistrate, County Court Judge, or Judge of the Supreme Court, could go into Parliament, and although a Recorder of a borough was allowed to enter Parliament, he did not believe that judicial officer would be allowed to sit, if the principle were now being established for the first time. It must be remembered, however, that a Recorder sat only as Judge for a few days in the year. These paid Chairmen were to receive large salaries, and ought to devote the whole of their time to the performance of their judicial duties. He thought it would be a great mistake if they were to render that mode of legal patronage available in the House of Commons. It would introduce at once a purely political element into the appointment of judicial officers. The Government of the day would desire to appoint their own supporters who would be able to sit in that House and support the Ministry by whom they had been originally nominated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would assent to the Amendment, and would not introduce a perfectly novel and revolutionary practice into that House of allowing judicial officers to have seats.
    Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 36, to leave out from the word "Parliament," to the end of the subsection.—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the words were put in in order to give to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the County Council the same privilege which was now enjoyed by the Recorder and Common Serjeant. No doubt, there would be a considerable difference in the position of the Chairman of the Council and that of the Recorder whose services were only required at long intervals. He would, therefore, accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he now proposed to add at the end of the sub-section, as it now stood, the words "and shall not, during his con-
    1254
    tinuance in office, practise as a barrister." The effect of the Amendment would be to provide that the paid Chairman or Deputy Chairman should not, while in office, practise as a barrister. The same disqualification of practising already existed in regard to the Assistant Judge for Middlesex.
    Amendment proposed, in page 35, at end of line 37, to insert the words "and shall not, during his continuance in office, practise as a barrister."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIE, on the part of the Government, said he would accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 36, after line 25, insert the words—
    "Where any special or petty sessional division of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent existing at the appointed day is situate partly within and partly without the county of London, so much thereof as is situate without the said county shall, until any alteration is made by the quarter sessions for the county of Middlesex, Surrey, or Kent, as the case may be, be a petty sessional division of that county."
    On the Motion of Mr. FORREST FULTON, the following Amendment made, in page 36, after line 25, insert the words—
    "And so much of such division as is not situate in the county of London shall form a special or petty sessional division of the county in which such part is situate, until the quarter sessions for that county constitute other special sessional divisions."
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he intended to move the omission of Sub-section 12 of the clause which provided that nothing in the Act should alter the powers or duties of the Justices, Quarter Sessions, Recorder, or Common Serjeant of the City of London, otherwise than was expressly provided, or than the duties of the Justices of Quarter Sessions of any county were altered.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he wished to ask, as a point of Order, whether it was not desirable that he should move the Proviso which appeared on the Paper in his name before the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member to leave out the sub-section was discussed?
    MR. FIRTHsaid, that if the hon. Member would refer to the sub-section, he would see that his Amendment would be unnecessary if the sub-section were rejected. As it stood on the Paper it was only a consequential Amendment. Outside the City of the County of London the Metropolis was to be a County in itself, and outside the County of London Her Majesty might grant a Commission of the Peace. The sub-section provided that nothing in the Act should alter the powers or duties of the Justices, Quarter Sessions, Recorder or Common Serjeant; but his proposal was, that the position of the Justices in the City of London should be considered now, and therefore he had placed on the Paper an Amendment to reject Sub-section 12.
    THE CHAIRMANruled, on the point of Order, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) was entitled to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 37, to leave out sub-section (12).—(Mr. Firth.)
    Question, "That sub-section (12) stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    MR. PICKERSGILL, in moving to add the following Proviso at the end of Sub-section 12:—
    "Provided that from and after the appointed day the rights claimed by the court of aldermen and the court of common council respectively to appoint to the offices of recorder, common serjeant, and judge of the city of London Court shall cease, and in any future vacancy in each of the said offices it shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen to appoint a duly qualified barrister to be such recorder, or common serjeant, or judge,"
    said, it was unnecessary to say much in order to point out the very curious anomoly and the very serious objection that might be urged to such a mode of election as now prevailed in connection with these offices. The Amendment was not intended as a reflection against individuals, but was directed against the system. The Recorder and Common Serjeant were Criminal Judges. They had criminal jurisdiction at the Central Criminal Court, where cases were brought from the whole Metropolitan area. The Judge of the City of London Court was a Civil Judge; but his office had become one of great importance, and a large amount of business came before him. In addition to the
    1256
    original jurisdiction of the City of London Court, there had been additional work brought into the Court in consequence of a Statute passed during the reign of Her present Majesty. The anomaly of judicial officers being elected by a popular Assembly had been admitted ever since it was denounced by Lord Brougham in very vigorous language. He did not think it necessary that he should apologize for drawing the attention of the Committee to the anomalous state of circumstances which now existed.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 37, at end of sub-section (12), to add the words—"Provided that from and after the appointed day the rights claimed by the court of aldermen and the court of common council respectively to appoint to the offices of recorder, common serjeant, and judge of the City of London Court shall cease, and in any future vacancy in each of the said offices it shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen to appoint a duly qualified barrister to be such recorder, or common serjeant, or judge."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the question raised by the hon. Member as to the mode of electing the Recorder, Common Serjeant, and Judge of the City of London Court was a most important one, and demanded serious consideration. But it would be unwise in a Bill of this kind, which did not purport to deal with judicial functions, to make a change of this nature. It should not be forgotten also that there were other Judges in other parts of the country selected in the same way, and it would be impossible to sever the appointments of the Judges from the duties they had to perform. It might be proper to consider on some other occasion what the mode should be in which Judges were selected; but it would be unwise to deal now in this clause with an Amendment which raised so large and important a question. No doubt, the Recorder and Common Serjeant had criminal jurisdiction at the Old Bailey; but whether it was desirable to leave the appointment as it had stood for so many years, or to change the mode in which it was made, was a question which could scarcely be fittingly discussed at that moment. He hoped the hon. Member would agree with him that the question was too

    1257
    large and important to be discussed now.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not accept the decision of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was hardly correct in saying that they must not deal with the Judges in a Bill of that kind, because, as a matter of fact, they had just created a Judge. Then, again, they had interfered with the powers of the City of London, and had taken away certain powers altogether, handing them over to the County Council; although, no doubt, they had not dealt with the City thoroughly, yet they had committed this sacrilege. If these appointments were made by the Crown, he did not think they would involve much discussion in the House of Commons; but, so far as the present mode of appointment was concerned, it was simply scandalous.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought there was a good deal in what had been said by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and also by his hon. Friend below him, the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson); at the same time, there was much to be said in favour of Local Bodies managing their own affairs as much as possible. In some of the Burgh Councils in Scotland they elected their own magistrates, and the principle gave great satisfaction. Probably the same principle would give similar satisfaction here, although he admitted that the appointment of Recorder and City Judge was not altogether analogous to that of magistrates. For those reasons, he was sorry that he could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, the analogy of the Scotch Burghs did not apply, because the Recorder, Common Serjeant, and Judge of the City of London Court exercised a jurisdiction as Judges of the Central Criminal Court over a much more extended area than the City. He believed that the Judge of the City of London Court was one of the ablest men who had ever occupied that position. More than 20,000 cases passed through that Court every year; but the methods by which the position of Judge had to be obtained were not consistent with the dignity of the Bench. What was the method the learned Judge to
    1258
    whom he referred was required to pursue in order to obtain the appointment? In the first instance he had to get the suffrages of the Common Council of the City of London, consisting of Councillors and Aldermen. Now, every other County Court Judge was nominated by the Crown, and the same principle might very properly be adopted here, although, of course, technically, the Judge of the City of London Court was not a County Court Judge. In respect to the Recorder, he had only to run the gauntlet of the Court of Aldermen, which was not quite so serious as that of the Common Council. Personally, if he had to canvass, he would much rather canvass the Aldermen than the Common Council. More than 50 years had now elapsed since Lord Brougham, in the House of Lords, drew attention to this matter, and said how scandalous it was that men who had to wear the ermine had to go through that ordeal of popular election.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, it was very refreshing to see one of the particularly-appointed Leaders of the Democracy proposing that the power of making an appointment should be taken away from an elected Body and handed over to the Crown. He (Mr. Darling) was entirely in favour himself of that being done, because he thought it was most inconvenient, and even degrading, that anyone seeking to be appointed to a judicial office should have to go through a canvass before he could obtain it. He was himself thoroughly opposed to the present system of electing Judges in the City of London, and he should like to see the practice got rid of altogether. He should like to see all Judges appointed by the Crown, and if there were no inconvenience in doing so he should vote for the Amendment as it stood. It was, however, impossible to put out of sight what had been said by the Attorney General; therefore, while expressing his approval of the Amendment in principle, if it were framed in a proper shape, or sufficiently well considered, so that they might be sure that they were not doing any injustice or creating any difficulty as to payment of salaries for example, he should vote for it; but he did not approve of the manner or the time in which the Amendment proposed that the principle involved in it should be given effect to in

    1259
    practice. He could not forget that, as a matter of fact, while most of the Judges were appointed by the Crown, on the other hand there were Judges who were selected. He should like to see the appointments altogether in the hands of the Crown, but he should like to see that done in a somewhat more certain and decided manner than by the proposed Amendment; therefore, although the principle had his hearty sympathy, he should feel bound to vote against the Amendment, and he took some credit in doing so for the violence he did his feelings. He felt bound to vote against the Amendment because he did not think the matter should be dealt with hurriedly; but he was glad to pin the Radicals to the admission that election of Judges by popular vote was bad in principle, as he had no doubt that some day it would be proposed in that House, and certain American precedents cited as arguments in favour of the proposal.
    MR. O. V. MORGANsaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Darling) had a little more knowledge of the world than he had of law, he would not have made the slighting remark he had made on Democratic Members of that House objecting to the election of Judges. In the Australian Colonies no Judges were elected. In Canada, the Constitution of which had just attained its 21st year, the Judges were appointed by a Central Authority; and in the United States, with its 100 years old Constitution, some were appointed and others elected by the people. He was satisfied that in the case of the United States, if a new Constitution had to be formed to-morrow, every State would decide in favour of appointment instead of election. The other day he was in conversation with an American gentleman who had held high office in the United States, and he had put several questions to him on that very subject. The gentleman in question was connected with New Jersey, where the law was well administered, and he was well acquainted with the practice of New York. His replies to the question put to him, although he did not altogether agree with it, was that the worst man who would be appointed would be better than the best man the people would elect. No doubt, there was a good deal of truth in that
    1260
    remark, although he did not altogether agree with it. With regard to the appointments of the Judges in the City of London, he recollected that when a Common Serjeant was elected it was the common talk and scandal that that learned gentleman owed his election to the energetic manner in which he had gone round and canvassed the wives of the Common Council themselves, in the course of which he went so far as to nurse their babies. If the Amendment were pressed, he would certainly vote in favour of it.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, the Amendment had drawn the Committee into a highly interesting discussion as to whether Judges should be appointed directly or by popular election. But whatever might be the deficiences of the system of election of Judges in the City of London, they did not raise the question of popular election. He doubted whether it could be properly said that the Judges of the City of London were elected at all, or even whether those who appointed them were elected by a popular vote. It was somewhat singular that the only argument that had been advanced against the Amendment was that that was not a proper moment for bringing it forward. Nobody ventured to dispute the soundness of the principle a few years ago, during the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), when this question was raised with regard to the appointment of Common Serjeant, and he believed the question had reference to the salary of the Common Serjeant, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), who was then Home Secretary, distinctly stated that when the question of the Government of the Metropolis came up, the whole question of the salary of the sitting judges would be considered. The present Government were, of course, not bound by that statement; but the matter had now been distinctly raised, and unless the Government were prepared to give a promise that they would bring the matter before the House in a separate Bill next year, so as to afford hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this important question, he would advise his hon. Friend to persevere with his Amendment.
    MR. BARTLEYalso supported the Amendment. It seemed to him that the appointment of Judges was a question which ought not to be treated as it was in the City of London. He had not a word to say against the learned gentlemen who at present occupied the position of Recorder, Common Serjeant, and Judge of the City of London Court; but the general opinion was that, considering the great amount of responsibility and official work cast upon them, the Judges of the City should be appointed, as other Judges were, by the Crown.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Government to the fact that no hon. Member who had addressed the House had spoken in favour of the retention of the power of electing the Judges at present exercised in the City. He hoped the First Lord of the Treasury would take into account the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned Attorney General, his only argument being that that was a Bill which in no sense dealt with judicial functions, whereas the fact was that the clause in the immediately preceding part had created a new Judge, whose functions were indicated by the President of the Local Government Board to be similar to those of the Recorder. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would feel that there was no real argument in favour of retaining this power in the hands of the City as it at present stood. Whatever might have been the case in ancient times, there was now no danger to the citizens or to popular rights to be feared by the appointment of Judges by the Crown. In ancient times the City was the great refuge for those who were oppressed; but the City had not manifested those qualities lately. Its banquets were not given to the oppressed; and there was no real ground for believing that they were interested in securing the liberty of the citizens or the assertion of popular rights. The question raised by the Amendment was one which essentially concerned the Government of London and the jurisdiction of its judicial officers. He certainly hoped his hon. Friend would go to a Division upon the matter, and it was not sufficient that the Government should give an assurance that they would deal with the matter in a future year.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he had listened with attention to the arguments which had been addressed to the Committee by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by some of his hon. Friends behind him; but he submitted that it was hardly right to adopt a change of this character and magnitude by a provision in that Bill, which did not propose to touch the subject. The Bill did not seek to take away any of the powers or legal authority which the City of London now possessed. He could only undertake on the part of the Government that the matter should receive their careful consideration. He trusted the Committee would not deem it wise to adopt the Amendment and deprive the Common Council of the trust they had hitherto exercised, and which they had exercised in placing upon the Benches of the City Judges who had discharged their duty to the satisfaction of the community. He would, however, undertake, on the part of the Government, to give the proposal embodied in the Amendment their most careful consideration.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he had frequently observed in that House, that when any influential section of it was opposed to a reform, but were afraid to acknowledge the fact, they all said that they approved of the principle, but that the principle had been brought forward at an inconvenient time, and promised that it should be carefully considered in the future. In his opinion, the present was the most appropriate time for effecting the change proposed by the Amendment. In dealing with the government of London, they were reserving certain rights and powers now possessed by the Corporation and the City, and assuredly there could not be a more appropriate or convenient time for saying that there were certain rights and powers which it was not desirable to continue. He was glad that the discussion had been kept free from any element of a personal character. Nobody desired to impugn the ability or the personal character of the learned gentlemen who now performed the duties, or the fairness with which the Aldermen and Common Council had discharged their duties in making the appointments. They were all quite agreed upon that, and they did

    1263
    not propose to censure the Court of Aldermen or the Court of Common Council or any of the present Judges. What they did say was, that when a vacancy occurred, it was desirable that Judges who were receiving large emoluments and exercising an extensive jurisdiction, and who were placed on a level with the Judges of the High Court of Justice, should not in future be appointed by popular election.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, the judicial officers of the City were not on the same footing as the Judges of the Supreme Court.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the position they occupied was very little different from that of one of the Judges of the Superior Courts. So far as the Recorder was concerned, Sir Thomas Chambers discharged his duties in a manner which deserved the approbation of everybody; but the Committee must remember that they were not dealing with the existing holders of the office, but were merely saying that when a vacancy occurred, the responsibility of filling it up should devolve upon the Executive Government in the same manner as other judicial offices. If it had been the other way—if these judicial officers had hitherto been appointed by the Crown, and an hon. Member on that side of the House now proposed to apply to them the principle of popular election, could there be any doubt that there would have been an eloquent and crushing denunciation from the hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) as to the great danger of leaving the choice to popular election. He thought they had good reason to be proud that in all their great Democratic Colonies none of them had accepted this principle, but had placed the appointment of Judges in the hands of the Executive They were going to vote upon that principle now. There must be no misconception as to the vote the Committee of the House of Commons was about to give. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members on the opposite side said "No, no!" but it must be clearly understood that they were not going to vote as to existing officers or existing Judges, but for laying down the principle in future that these judicial appointments should be in the hands of the Executive.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLERsaid, his right hon. Friend who had just sat down spoke of the importance of the offices held by the City Judges, and stated that the salaries paid to them were equal to those of a Judge of the High Court of Justice. That was not a fact, because a Judge of the High Court received £5,000 a-year, whereas the Recorder of the City of London received only £3,500. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER: And fees.] That was not so. Formerly the Recorder had the right to practise; but now the duties were so heavy that they required the whole of his time for their performance. He might remind the Committee that the City of London Judges were paid by the Corporation of the City of London. If the Committee were going to take away those appointments from the City, would the salaries of the Judges in future be provided out of other funds? Now, the present Recorder sat in recent Parliaments up to 1885, and was for more than 25 years a Member of that House. He was well known in the House, and much honoured by hon. Members, therefore Parliament could scarcely be likely to pass any censure upon him. His predecessor was a gentleman who was specially honoured both in and out of that House—namely, Mr. Russell Gurney, who was appointed either by the Government of Lord Russell or Lord Palmerston to a most important inquiry in Jamaica. He regretted the attack which had been made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. O. V. Morgan) upon his learned friend the Common Serjeant, who, it was said, had canvassed unworthily for the position which he had held for many years. He would remind the Committee that Sir William Charley had been a Member of that House for many years, including the time of his appointment; and if such charges were to be brought against him, they ought to have been made at a time when the Common Serjeant was a Member of that House. He strongly repudiated the attack which had been made on the Common Serjeant. He thought it had been admitted that, as regarded the Recorder and the Commissioner, the Corporation of London had admirably exercised its patronage in reference to the appointment of these officers. He, therefore, asked the Committee to hesitate before it interfered

    1265
    with the system which had admittedly worked well
    MR. O. V. MORGANsaid, he had not attacked the Common Serjeant as a Judge. He had only attacked the way in which he had been appointed to the office, which was a common scandal in the City of London at the time.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler) said that the Recorder was paid by the City, and that, therefore, he ought to be appointed by the City. He (Mr. Stansfeld) did not think that the argument of the hon. Baronet, with regard to salaries, applied to judicial offices, although he thought it did apply to Executive offices. The Recorders of boroughs had always been paid by the boroughs, but they were invariably appointed by the Crown. In that very clause they had provided for the appointment of a barrister as paid Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the County Council were to pay the salary. The First Lord of the Treasury said that the Government approved of the principle of the Amendment, and that they would undertake to consider it at some indefinite time; but the right hon. Gentleman had stated no reason why the principle should not be applied now. The occasion was a convenient, natural, and fitting one, and he saw no reason whatever why they should postpone it. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to feel very strongly himself the force of his own argument. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the opinion of the majority, neither he nor anyone else would have reason to regret it. Therefore, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would yield.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton said that what the Committee had to decide was the great principle whether or not there should be elected Judges. He (Mr. Ritchie) wished to point out that that was not a convenient occasion, in dealing with a Bill of that character, to ask the Committee to express an opinion upon a great principle like that. If they were to deal with that principle solely, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) that there would be a large majority in
    1266
    favour of saying that there should not be elected Judges. But, in addition to the occasion not being convenient, the Committee must bear in mind that the Bill did not in any way deal with judicial offices; it was a Bill dealing with administrative affairs. No doubt, incidentally, it had to deal with judicial offices. It had been pointed out by hon. Gentlemen opposite that in a previous clause they had created Chairmen to preside over the Quarter Sessions of the County of London; but it was absolutely essential, when they were creating a new County of London, to provide a judicial officer who should preside over the Quarter Sessions of the County of London similar to the Chairman who had presided over the Middlesex Quarter Sessions. The authority of the Middlesex Quarter Sessions in that County of London was abolished, and they were providing a new County of London in which the trial of prisoners would have to go on as heretofore. Therefore, there was bound to be a transfer of officers from the Quarter Sessions of Middlesex to the County of London. That was absolutely essential; and, whatever might be the opinion of the Committee on the abstract principle of elected Judges, it was not a convenient occasion when they were merely discussing a particular office, that they should come to a decision upon the question of principle.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, it was not often that the House of Commons had so excellent an opportunity for effecting a desirable reform, and, therefore, they ought to be slow to give up the opportunity which they now enjoyed. They were all agreed on the question of principle. They were all agreed certainly that a particular reform desired to be effected ought to be carried out. The Committee could carry it out now. And why should they not? Her Majesty's Government had given way on many points on which some of their Supporters had felt a little doubtful; but here the majority of the Government Supporters felt very little doubt, and they would be glad to find Her Majesty's Ministers in a melting mood. The hon. and learned Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) had pointed out that the chief objection to the Amendment was that incomplete manner in which it was drawn, and also that no provision was made for the payment

    1267
    of salaries of the judicial officers affected. But the Committee had come to a decision in respect to other judicial officers without making provision for salaries. He hoped the Government would yield to the general wish of the Committee, and seize the most favourable opportunity which had occurred recently in Parliament to effect this most desirable reform.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he was afraid that his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) had not treated the subject from a common sense point of view. No doubt there could be nothing more gratifying to the Government than the fact that this Bill had been received throughout the country with satisfaction, and that all parties and all localities had agreed to accept it. If there was one locality which had behaved better in the matter than another it was the City of London. Although many hon. Gentleman said that there were abuses in the City of London—and, of course, there were—yet in this Bill considerable change would be affected in the City of London. Not with standing that, the City of London had, with common sense and patriotic feeling, done their best to further the measure. His hon. Friend who had just sat down, and with whom he very often agreed, stated that that was an excellent opportunity for making a reasonable reform in the course of a very few minutes. That seemed to him to be the very reason why the Committee should not avail itself of the opportunity. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were always talking about the greatness and the grandness of the Constitution of this country. It had been built up with great care since 1688; and by Parliament itself it was provided that three stages must be gone through before a Bill could be passed into law—namely, the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading. It was not desirable that changes of that kind should be passed in a hurry without considering the consequential Amendments which must be introduced by a reform of that kind. It would, therefore, be a great mistake if they were in a few minutes, with a small number of Members in the House, upon a question raised by a side wind, to carry into effect an important change which had nothing to do with the main object of
    1268
    the Bill. The change might be desirable in itself, but it would be very inopportune to adopt it under the circumstances. The Government had made an enormous concession in the matter. They had agreed in the principle that elective Judges were a mistake, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had promised that they would carefully consider how far they could carry out that principle in a future Session. It was, therefore, unreasonable to press the Government to accept an Amendment that was admittedly ill-considered and that would necessitate important consequential Amendments. For instance, there was the great question—who was to pay these officers? It was a grave question, whether, if the Crown appointed the Judges, they should not pay them also. But the Amendment involved various questions which it would be inopportune to raise in that Bill on the present occasion, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would rest satisfied with the assurance Her Majesty's Government had given—that the matter should be considered, and that they would consent to pass on to other and more important Business.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he should not have taken part in the debate, except to point out that when a vacancy arose on a former occasion a right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was then a Member of the Conservative Government, was a candidate for the post of Common Serjeant. He could remember the feeling of disgust which that hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed as to the way in which he was expected to canvass for the appointment. The hon. and learned Gentleman was unsuccessful it was true; but the method to which candidates had to resort were really degrading to the office, and such as no Judge ought to have to submit to. Not only had the candidate to canvass the Common Councillors, but also their wives and daughters, in order to obtain these appointments. Every Member who had spoken against the Amendment had based his opposition upon the assertion that that moment was inopportune. He had thought that the First Lord of the Treasury when he rose in his place was about to accept the Amendment; because he (Mr. Mundella) was quite sure it was one

    1269
    which must commend itself to the common sense and judgment of the right hon. Gentleman. If in a borough like Sheffield a Stipendiary Magistrate was wanted, he was appointed by the Crown, and the borough of Sheffield paid him. That was also the case with regard to Recorders. Why should that be the case in Sheffield, Liverpool, and other large towns, and not the case in the City of London? Why should not the City of London be put upon the same footing as all our other great towns? The hon. Baronet the Member for the City had told the Committee that these offices were well filled at present, and that they had been most honourably filled in the past. In that view he (Mr. Mundella) entirely concurred. So far as the Recordership was concerned, several very eminent men had filled the office—among others, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Russell Gurney, and Sir Thomas Chambers, the present holder of the office. [Sir Robert FOWLER: And Lord Chief Justice Denman.] Yes; and Lord Chief Justice Denman; and all those Gentlemen had done honour to the office and had rendered valuable services. But suppose a vacancy occurred to-morrow? Did they really desire that the candidates should go through the degrading process of canvassing, as many gentlemen who were candidates on the last occasion when there was a vacancy in the office of Common Serjeant did? He maintained that the present was a most opportune moment for carrying the Amendment and placing London in the same position as other boroughs. They could now deal with the question without causing any reflection upon the future candidate, even if a vacancy were to occur tomorrow.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would listen to the advice which had been given to them from both sides of the Committee. The subject was a very important one, and nearly all the Members for London who had spoken on that side of the Committee as well as on the other, had supported, at any rate, the principle of the Amendment now before the Committee. His noble Friend behind him (Viscount Cranborne), who had so very ably opposed the Amendment, based his opposition very largely on the good conduct and behaviour of the City of London,
    1270
    and the favourable attitude which the City had adopted in reference to the Bill. But not a single Member had impugned the conduct of the City of London; not a single Member had impugned the nominations which had hitherto been made by the City. On the contrary, there had been a universal expression of approval of the gentlemen who had been nominated by the City; and, therefore, he thought that that was a very favourable opportunity for adopting what they all agreed to be a sound reform. The President of the Local Government Board said the Bill did not interfere with the existing judicial appointments. He very much doubted if that were so; because he thought it had interfered with more than one existing judicial appointment. He sincerely trusted that the Government would give way.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that he was at a loss to know why the noble Viscount the Member for the Darwen Division of Lancashire (Viscount Cranborne) had intervened at all in the debate. The question was distinctly a London question, and hon. Members for London who had risen had spoken on the same side of the question. The noble Viscount seemed to have got up solely for the purpose of pronouncing an eulogium upon the City of London. He said that the City had not obstructed the progress of the Bill; but how could they have done so? They had done their best to rid themselves of their financial burdens; but they had only got two Members in that House. Perhaps, the reason why the noble Viscount had intervened was that he went to the City the other day, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, speaking at the banquet, prophesied that the noble Viscount would one day be Prime Minister of England, and that the Corporation would have the honour of erecting a monument to him. He (Mr. Lawson) was not sure that the hon. Baronet did not recommend that a subscription for the purpose should be immediately started. So far as the clause was concerned, they were, as a matter of fact, taking away certain powers from the Common Council and handing them over to the County Council, and the Committee might be quite certain that if they passed the Amendment, they would be only following the lines upon which they had already proceeded.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that he rose for the purpose of protesting against the denunciation of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranborne) by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. Lawson), for intervening in the debate on the ground that he was not a Member for a Metropolitan Borough. It had been the intention on both sides of the House that the government of London was an Imperial question, not a local question, and, therefore, he thought his noble Friend, or any other Member who had strong opinions on the subject, was perfectly justified in taking part in the discussion. At the same time, he confessed that he was not particularly impressed with the arguments of his noble Friend. His noble Friend's main argument was that the Committee ought to do nothing to derogate from the dignity or the powers of the City of London on account of its patriotic conduct in regard to that Bill. He was unable, although anxious, to give all the credit to the City of London which was claimed for it, and although ready to give to that City all the credit to which it was entitled, he could not attach so great an importance to its attitude towards a measure which in other hands might have interfered with the dignity and prerogatives of the City, but which now left them absolutely untouched and unharmed. The City of London had, he thought, the best possible reason for not interfering or obstructing a Bill which did them no harm. He came now to the question before the House, which was a most difficult question, and more difficult on account of the attitude which Her Majesty's Government had taken in regard to it. In principle, he imagined that there was no difference between Members who held extreme Conservative views and—what was perhaps more remarkable—Members who professed Radical views, that elected Judges were by no means desirable judicial authorities to set up in this country. That he believed to be absolutely conceded on both sides of the Committee. His hon. Friend who sat near him had said when he addressed the Committee a short time ago, that they had now an opportunity, without any special legislation, or the delay which it entailed, to put an end to a judicial authority which violated a principle that was agreed to
    1272
    by both sides—an opportunity, more-over, which it would injure no existing interest if they embraced. That opportunity they ought not to let pass without great caution. His own recollection in connection with the election of the Common Serjeant agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. The public opinion of all England was shocked at the manner in which the election was conducted. Lord Connemara, a man much respected on both sides of the House, and also of most judicial mind, was a candidate, and seemed to be preeminently marked out for the office; but the selection that was actually made seemed to him most unfortunate, the choice falling upon an inferior candidate. They could not divest their minds of the knowledge that the present eminent Recorder had served the country in different capacities for many years, and might reasonably look forward before any very long period to his retirement. In such a case, by rejecting the present Amendment they would leave the vacancy to a very important post to be filled up in a manner which they all agreed to be so objectionable in principle. He asked whether that was a wise or logical or consistent proceeding? Of course, he attached great importance to the Government argument, that it was not opportune to introduce a change of that kind at that stage of the Bill. The Government were the best judges of that matter. They had to consider whether, by accepting Amendments of one kind or another, difficulties might arise with regard to the future conduct of the Bill. Therefore, if the Government adhered too rigidly to their opinion that the Amendment was in-opportune, he owned that he should not feel it his duty to vote against them. But he took the opportunity of expressing a very grave hope that the Government would recognize the principle of the Amendment, and that they would even yet consider whether some acceptance of the Amendment was not possible. If they would, he was sure that the general feeling of the Committee, and also public opinion in the Metropolis and in the country, would be satisfied.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he quite agreed that the Committee should

    1273
    consider whether the Amendment was or was not opportune. He would join with the noble Lord and others very strongly in asking the Government to accept the principle of the Amendment, and give a positive assurance that it should be passed into law. On the occasion to which the noble Lord had referred, those who were in Opposition felt it their duty to bring the scandals connected with the elections in the City to the notice of the House. The responsibility of moving the Motion was entrusted to him. It was—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that officers elected by any repretative body shall, in consequence of their being so elected, be empowered to try indictable offences."
    There was a full debate on the Motion, and on a Division it was supported by a very considerable minority. But for the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman who was elected had been a Member of the House of Commons, and had formed a part of the majority of the House, he was certain that the Motion must have been carried. This was not a question for the City of London alone; it was a question for the whole country. The Judges they were dealing with tried prisoners not only within the City, but also for the counties of Surrey, Kent, Essex, and Middlesex; and those prisoners had justice meted out to them, sometimes to the extent of receiving penal servitude for life, by Judges elected under circumstances which were not fit to control the election of vestrymen. Then he would ask the House to consider whether such electors were competent to judge of the judicial capacity of a man to try the prisoners who might be brought before him. What would be said if they were to apply such a principle to the election of the Judges of the Superior Court, and asked that the criminals of this country or the persons accused with crime should have justice administered by persons so elected? To prevent this was what they strove for in 1878, and what they were striving for now. It might be said that this was not an opportune moment for dealing with the subject; but if the Government would give a pledge to the Committeee that the election of Judges by the popular voice should be abolished, he was sure that the Committee would
    1274
    not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of such a proposition.
    Mr. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had listened, with very great interest to the debate, which he was bound to say had been conducted with great moderation. He had already said that, so far as the Government were concerned, they were distinctly in favour of the principle involved in the Amendment. They were distinctly of opinion that that principle was one which would conduce to the public advantage, and one best calculated to secure the proper discharge of the grave and important duties which fell on the Judges of these Courts. A question arose whether this was the best opportunity for enforcing that principle—whether it was, on the whole, opportune or desirable that that principle should find expression on the Statute Book on this occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) admitted that, on the whole, this would not be the best method of expressing that principle, but he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had endeavoured to gather the opinion of the House. He thought that if he asked the Committee to divide against the Amendment he should be placing his Colleagues in a false position. They did not desire to negative the principle involved in the Amendment. They thought still that the method of expressing it was not so fortunate or happy as might have been devised if they had had time for consideration, and if they had intended to deal with the question in the Bill. The Bill was not intended to deal with anything more than the transfer of authority from one Body to another, and it was not intended to affect the privileges or the duties or obligations of existing authorities more than was absolutely necessary. But considering the fact that the expression of opinion in the House was so complete and general, notwithstanding the observations which had fallen from his noble Friend the Member for Darwen (Viscount Cranborne), which were exceedingly well placed, he thought, on the whole, he would consult the interests of the City of London itself, and should be defending the interests of Justice if he accepted the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. FIRTHsaid, that he and his hon. Friends were deeply grateful to the Government for making a concession somewhat, perhaps, outside the provisions of the Bill. They had been dealing with the question of the Judges at the Central Criminal Court. They had come to the conclusion that those Judges should be appointed by Her Majesty. If figures were presented as to the trials at the Central Criminal Court it would be found that a large number of the accused persons had been tried before elected Judges, and not before the Judges of the land. Therefore, the Amendment he had to propose was to add at the end of the sub-section—
    "Provided also that the power of the Aldermen of the City of London to exercise jurisdiction at the Central Criminal Court shall cease."
    It was possible for two of these gentlemen to try a man for murder. As a matter of fact they never did, but it was possible for them to do so. This was an excellent opportunity for altering the law in this respect. This was not a suggestion of today; it was a suggestion which had been made by Commission after Commission. It was made by the Commission of 1854; and after that Commission reported in favour of the Aldermen being excluded from jurisdiction at the Central Criminal Court, the Aldermen met and considered the question, and the only defence of their position they were able to make was—"We think it is a great advantage to be present at trials by the learned Judges." He submitted that this Amendment might very well be carried, in order that that which had been partially done to-day should be completely done, for it was generally admitted that the Aldermen of London had not shown the possession of even ordinary legal knowledge.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 37, after the words last inserted, to add the words "Provided also that the power of the aldermen of the City of London to exercise jurisdiction at the Central Criminal Court shall cease."—(Mr. Firth.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he would appeal to his hon. and learned Friend not to persist in his Amendment. All that was done was to secure the presence of Aldermen at the Court. Practi-
    1276
    cally two things resulted from that. These Aldermen did exercise jurisdiction as magistrates in the City of London day by day. Being bound to attend the Central Criminal Court when Judges were sitting, they saw judicial duties performed and received a great deal of information, and it benefited them as Aldermen. They heard the case tried, and they very often had done great acts of kindness and charity towards the prisoners and the prisoners' families, in consequence of having heard the man tried. The presence of the Aldermen at the Court was good. No harm was occasioned. They never interfered, they only sat there; and after the great concession the Government had made, he asked his hon. and learned Friend whether he thought it was wise to press this Amendment.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he was sorry he could not entirely agree with the facts as stated as stated by his right hon. and learned Friend. It was not long ago that a Judge complained of the delay of an hour occasioned by the absence of an Alderman. He would not, however, press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
    Application of Act to Special Counties. and to Liberties.
    Clause 39 (Application of Act to certain special counties).
    CAPTAIN HEATHCOTE, in moving to insert, after "(1)," in line 11—
    "The district of the Staffordshire Potteries, comprising the municipal boroughs of Hanley, Stoke-upon-Trent, Longton, and Burslem, the urban sanitary district of the Fenton Local Board of Health, and the urban sanitary district of the Tunstall Local Board of Health,"
    said, this Amendment provided that the six towns comprising the Pottery District should be formed into a county under this Bill. These six towns were practically one town, with a population of 165,000, and with a rateable value of £500,000. The suburbs which originally existed had overlapped, and the towns were now completely joined together. They were all engaged in the same industries—in the manufacture of pottery, and iron, and bricks, and tiles, and the raising of coal;

    1277
    and they were in every way, except in name, as homogeneous as any of the boroughs in the 4th Schedule. By the concession which the Government had made in reducing the limit of population to 50,000, Hanley became entitled to be a county in itself. Hanley, the natural centre, both geographically and commercially, of this whole district, had all the public buildings and offices which were necessary for an important county, and he thought that town had shown a public spirit and wish for the common weal which fully justified the hope that it would prove a very worthy centre of this very important district, because, though it had the opportunity of being made a county in itself, it had given up any idea of self-glorification by agreeing to form a county in conjunction with the adjoining district. If this Amendment were not accepted, the position would be this—that they would have Hanley with one-third of the whole population a county in itself, and they would leave 100,000 inhabitants, joined in every way, geographically and commercially, for all local administrative purposes, divorced from Hanley. The present conveniences of transit by the steam-trams, and the like, would be of no avail to the representatives of these districts; but they would probably have to go to the county town—Stafford—20 miles distant, communication with which was very defective. This would evidently lead to a waste of time and a waste of money, and probably to an amount of friction which would very much interfere with the successful working of the new scheme. The county which surrounded the district was equally interested with the Potteries themselves in this Amendment, because the district around these towns was, as a rule, dependent upon the prosperity of the Potteries. The Potteries consumed the agricultural produce of the district around, and, furthermore, the trade of the Potteries used up the inferior coal which was produced in the neighbouring coal fields, and which would not be worth getting unless the Potteries used it. This was an unique district, and therefore he trusted the Government would raise no obstacle to the acceptance of his Amendment. The whole district was agreed, through its local representatives, in the wish to be united in one county. It was obvious
    1278
    to the Committee that the economy of local administration must be increased if they could make the towns more compact and self-contained. He strongly urged the Government to accept his Amendment, which he believed would conduce to the best interests of the urban portion and also of the rural portion of the whole of his constituency. If there were difficulties which the Government could not meet at this moment, he asked them to accept his Amendment, and to bring up on the Report stage any clause which they might think necessary to remove any difficulty they might have.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 37, line 11, after "(1)," to insert the words "The district of the Staffordshire Potteries, comprising the municipal boroughs of Hanley, Stoke-upon-Trent, Longton, and Burslem, the urban sanitary district of the Fenton Local Board of Health, and the urban sanitary district of the Tunstall Local Board of Health."—(Captain Heathcote.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WOODALLsaid, the benevolent and zealous interposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman had saved him the trouble of commending to the Committee an Amendment which he had had upon the Notice Paper for some two months past. It had done more. It had given evidence to the Government that the proposal was made with the practically unanimous consent of all; the urban districts concerned had also the favourable regard of the rural district so well represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had told the Committee that this district, which he (Mr. Woodall) might remind the Committee was, in fact, the old borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, which, up to 1885, he had had the honour to represent in the House of Commons, and which was a purely urban district, wholly self-contained and coterminous, might very naturally be regarded as one of those large boroughs exceeding a population of 100,000, which, from a very early stage of the Bill, had been recognized as properly constituting counties in themselves. He did not disguise from himself the fact that it presented some difficulties to the Government that were not to be found in any of the other cases they had provided for, These boroughs, while pursuing the same in-

    1279
    dustries and being closely identified by their industrial enterprize and general public spirit, as well as by their geographical position, were, unfortunately, some of them under various forms of local government. Four of the towns were under Municipal Charters of incorporation, and two of the districts were governed by Local Boards of Health. One of them had a separate police force, two of them had separate borough Commissions of the Peace, and these differences did constitute some points which would have to be specially dealt with. As the right hon. Gentleman would have seen by the Notice Paper, each of the borough Members had given notice of Amendments which were, in fact, similar. These Amendments had been placed upon the Notice Paper upon the authority of all the Governing Bodies concerned, and he assured the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that, even at this late stage of the Session, they could, if they would give them the opportunity, submit to him a table of proposals which would reconcile all practical differences. He bowed to the force of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman could not undertake to deal with the differences of these towns in the present Bill. Perhaps the Chairman would allow him to refer to the proposition which immediately followed the Amendment now under discussion, in which he suggested that if the right hon. Gentleman would permit this Amendment to be embodied in the Bill, they would provide for the carrying out of a complete system of arrangement and organization by a Provisional Order to be introduced in the ordinary course of things in the ensuing Session.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the circumstances of the case presented to the Committee were so unique as to make it a case which might be fairly dealt with by the Government on its own merits. He had had the pleasure of receiving a very large and important deputation upon this subject. The deputation was composed of representatives from all the various Local Authorities who would be affected by the proposition. The deputation was accompanied by Members of Parliament representing
    1280
    the districts, and by some of the Members representing the county itself, and they were able to place before him such facts as showed him that the position of the Staffordshire Potteries was a peculiar one. After carefully considering all the representations which were made on that occasion, and on subsequent occasions, by his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Heathcote) and by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Woodall), as well as by the other Members for the district, the Government were of opinion that the circumstances of the case were so peculiar as to warrant the Government in making special provision with reference to this district. So far as he understood, these towns and urban districts formed one very great town, although they had within their area certain different forms of Local Government. There was this additional peculiarity—that under the Bill one of the boroughs was entitled to be constituted a county in itself. It seemed to the Government, therefore, that the case made out was so strong that they might give an undertaking that on a future occasion they would take such steps as might be necessary to carry out the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and the localities. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Woodall) had said very properly they would have great difficulty in making arrangements by provisions in this Bill. They had not only to deal with the fact that there was not one form of government in the various localities, but with the fact that whilst some of the areas were to a large extent independent of the county, other areas were under the jurisdiction of the county in regard to a large number of matters. There were many adjustments which would be necessary, and which he thought could only be adequately treated by means of investigation. This investigation would, of course, be secured by means of a Provisional Order. The proper course, therefore, to pursue would be to deal with this matter by means of a Provisional Order, and if hon. Gentlemen would be satisfied with an assurance that the Government would introduce a Provisional Order Bill at the beginning of next Session dealing with all the circumstances of the case, he had no hesitation in undertaking that the Government would introduce such a Bill. Having said this, he trusted that

    1281
    the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press their Amendments.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he thought that the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman should be accepted with confidence. He was sure that when the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the Provisional Order, and with the inquiry upon which it would necessarily have to be framed, he would find the ground prepared for him by the agreement of the different towns; because, in their desire to have this great change effected, they had already addressed themselves to all the difficulties the right hon. Gentleman referred to. He felt it would have been possible to have made a satisfactory arrangement within the bounds of the present measure; but, speaking for his constituents, he heartily accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he might add that it would probably be found expedient to claim for the borough of Hanley a place in the 4th Schedule; that place, however, it would readily yield when it came to form part of the county borough.
    MR. H. T. DAVENPORTsaid, he did not rise to object to the arrangement which had been accepted by the Government. He had no doubt that the Pottery districts would be very largely benefited by the proposed arrangement; but it was quite evident that unless some satisfactory adjustment was made, the county generally would be very injuriously affected by these large, important, and wealthy districts being cut out of it. He supposed that under the Provisional Order arrangements would be made by the Commissioners so that in some way or other the county would not suffer by the extraction of such a large portion out of their county purse.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought the Government had met this proposal very fairly indeed. It was quite clear there was a distinct district in the North of the County of Stafford, which should be bound together for municipal purposes. He thought the Government, when they came to look at the question, would look at it, perhaps, more from the light of this district being a county borough than a county itself. The Potteries formed a wealthy portion of the County of Stafford; and, as the right hon. Gen-
    1282
    tleman had insisted upon there being an equitable financial adjustment between the boroughs and the county, it was quite evident that the Southern district of the county would expect that it would not lose by the proposed change. As a Staffordshire Member, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very sensible manner in which he had met this proposal.
    CAPTAIN HEATHCOTEsaid, he desired to thank the Government for the way in which they had met the proposal. He had only now to point out that it was necessary to take steps to carry out the scheme as speedily as possible, because, under the Bill, Hanley was entitled to form a county by itself. When Hanley was made a county, the rest of the inhabitants of the Potteries would be, as it were, between wind and water until the scheme of amalgamation was effected. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. P. STANHOPEsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke of the case of these towns being unique he was somewhat mistaken. The same conditions were to be found in the Southern part of the county. There were several districts there identified with each other in every respect. At present there had been no intimation—at least there had been no special representations made by the different Governing Bodies as to the districts being formed in a separate county, but he warned the right hon. Gentleman that the acceptance of this Amendment might be accepted as a precedent. It was quite possible that when the right hon. Gentleman brought in next year a Provisional Order for the purpose of constituting the Potteries a county in themselves, he would be pressed to bring in a similar Bill for the Black Country district in the Southern part of Staffordshire.
    COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid, that, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, he urged the President of the Local Government Board to make this district a county-borough and not a geographical county, and desired to point out that there were urban districts in the county of Lancashire which would, in all probability, be able to show that they had something very

    1283
    much in common, and that from every point of view they were as much entitled as the district under consideration to form a separate county under the Bill.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, that as reference had been made to incorporating the whole of this district into one municipal borough, he desired to say that any proposal of that kind would be very likely fatal—would be exceedingly detrimental—to this important movement, which had obtained so much assent. He trusted it would be possible for these districts to preserve their own municipal life while combining for all purposes which had to be provided for in the Bill. The town of Hanley was entitled to a position in the Fourth Schedule, and he, of course, was bound to protect Hanley by claiming its insertion in that Schedule. He was anxious to get from the right hon. Gentleman a statement as to how far Hanley would be prejudiced, supposing nothing came of the Provisional Order. He understood that even if not placed in the Fourth Schedule it would be open to the Local Authorities of any such town to make application showing that the population was equal to the figure required, and by Provisional Order, or by Order in Council, obtain recognition as a county.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not know they had received an application from Hanley; but he assumed from what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Woodall) and the deputation which waited upon him said that Hanley had a claim to be placed in the Schedule. If Hanley made application it would be put in the Schedule. Of course, in the Provisional Order he would have to make all the requisite arrangements for adding the surrounding districts to Hanley, so as to constitute it a county district. He should, however, prefer that the different districts would join together and make one municipal borough. That certainly would be in every way the most satisfactory arrangement.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 37, line 12, after "separate," insert "administrative."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That that word be there inserted."
    MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, that it appeared the right hon. Gentleman was about to introduce a new term—namely, "administrative county." He thought it would be as well that such term should be clearly defined in the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that they were making this Amendment to prevent confusion. They were amending the Bill in this direction as they proceeded. Whatever Amendments were necessary in the earlier part of the Bill they would, of course, be made on Report.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT, in moving to insert, in page 37, line 12, after the word "counties," the words—
    "The Eastern and Western Division of Sussex, under 'The County of Sussex Act, 1865,' shall respectively be separate administrative counties for the purposes of this Act,"
    said, the county of Sussex had been from time immemorial two distinct counties more or less. The county was divided into six rapes, and the three Eastern rapes had always formed the Eastern Division, and the three Western rapes had always formed the Western Division. The two divisions were distinct. They had their own rates in each division of the county, and the original divisions were accentuated at the time of the Reform Bill of 1832 by the three Western rapes being made the Western Division, and the three Eastern rapes being made the Eastern Division, each division returning two Members to Parliament. Since that time Mr. Dodson, now Lord Monk Bretton, made it still more clear that Sussex was divided into two divisions, by bringing in an Act called the Sussex Act of 1865, which confirmed what had been done before, and made the divisions to all intents, and for nearly every purpose, two separate and distinct counties. Anyone who knew Sussex must know perfectly well that in a long and narrow county like Sussex—Sussex was 90 miles long and about 25 miles wide—how difficult it was to get from one part of the county to another to transact business for the whole county. The communications, as a rule, ran nearly from North to South. He believed that the people of the county generally were most anxious that the two divisions

    1285
    should be maintained. The Quarter Sessions in both divisions had passed resolutions setting that forth as their wish, and various Boards of Guardians in West Sussex had adopted resolutions to the effect that West Sussex ought to remain West Sussex, and that Sussex should not be one county. There was only one portion of the county, that which was represented by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Lewes Division of Sussex (Sir Henry Fletcher), which did not quite concur in the suggestion, and that was the portion of Sussex comprised in the Stenning Union. The people there were afraid that something might happen by which the Union might be divided; but the 60th clause of the Bill would enable that Union to be dealt with by simply dividing it for the purpose of outdoor relief, leaving it absolutely intact for all other purposes. The main cause of the objection was on account of the town of Hove. Hove was really part and parcel of Brighton; it was not at this moment anxious to be joined to Brighton; but no one who knew the two places could tell where Hove commenced or where Brighton ended. Some day or other, when different views prevailed, it was possible that Hove and Brighton would be one. That was a question that might arise hereafter. It certainly was no reason why the two divisions of Sussex should not remain as they were at the present moment. Undoubtedly, from the point of view of economy and efficiency, it was better that the county should remain, as at present, divided into two divisions.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 37, line 12, after the word "counties," to insert the words "the eastern and western division of Sussex, under 'The county of Sussex Act, 1865,' shall respectively be separate administrative counties for the purposes of this Act."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had no hesitation in assenting to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. The county of Sussex, undoubtedly, was at present divided by Act of Parliament into two divisions. There was separate rating and separate administration. He believed it was not disputed by any body of people in the county that Sussex should form one county under the Bill;
    1286
    and, therefore, he proposed to accept the Amendment.
    COLONEL BROOKFIELDsaid, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to the Amendment. In the most remote part of East Sussex from which he came there was a unanimous desire that the present arrangement should be continued, by which the county was divided into two districts.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he regretted very much to differ from his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). He represented a portion of West Sussex and a portion of East Sussex. He confessed that the magistrates of both divisions were in favour of the division of the county as at present; but he had been informed that a very large body of ratepayers would rather that the county were made one. This view was solely prompted by the thought that the administration of the county might be conducted much more economically if the county formed one district instead of two.
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEY, in moving as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to insert after "1865," the words "and the eastern and western divisions of Suffolk," said, the object of his Amendment was to secure for the Western Division of Suffolk under the new arrangements for Local Government that position as a separate county, and that power of administrative independence, which, time out of mind, it had enjoyed. His Amendment was not aggressive in its scope or design, but was entirely of a defensive character; and he only regretted that while there was a very general agreement in the county of Sussex as to the retention of the divisions of that county, there was in the county of Suffolk, or in the Eastern part of it, some desire that the old divisions of the county should be abolished, and that the representation of the Western Division should be compelled to go over to a remote part of the county for the transaction of local business. There was strong historic ground for his Amendment. West Suffolk had had an independent jurisdiction for more than 800 years. By law the two divisions of the county already existed; they had given general satisfaction; and on the Western side, at any

    1287
    rate, there was no desire that the Divisions of the county should be destroyed. Public sentiment in that district was strongly in favour of the retention of the existing divisions, and he was glad to believe that the arguments which had been put forward by the Representatives of West Suffolk had convinced the Government that the case submitted to the Committee was a just case, and one which deserved consideration, and favourable consideration, at their hands. Now, he wished the Committee to understand the actual position of affairs. The independence of West Suffolk had been recognized by many Acts of Parliament—for example, the Highways Act, the Rural Police Act, the County Rate Basis Act, and, so lately as 1886, under the Riot Compensation Act. It had a separate County Treasurer and Coroner, as well as a separate police force; in fact, it had nearly the whole machinery of a separate county, and this the inhabitants desired to retain. There was no plea which could be raised on the ground of public convenience, of efficient or economical administration, that would justify the Committee in forcing upon them a union which they did not desire. Further, he wished to point out that there would be a serious anomaly created if the county of Sussex, which was smaller than the county of Suffolk, were allowed to retain its two divisions, while the county of Suffolk, which was larger, and whose two divisions were equally consecrated by law and usage, should be deprived of the privileges which it now enjoyed. It should be mentioned also that the Boundary Commissioners had decided in favour of retaining the existing Divisions. He had received many communications in favour of this proposal from gentlemen who had been Members of that House, and whose opinion would naturally carry with it some weight in the minds of the Committee—namely, from Mr. Hardcastle, from Mr. Biddell, Mr. Rodwell, Sir Thomas Thornhill, and others. Having, as he believed, stated to the Committee enough to justify the case he had put forward, he trusted the Government would agree to his Amendment as they had done in the case of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, by inserting after "1865" the words "and the Eastern and Western Divisions of Suffolk."—(Lord Francis Hervey.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, he hoped the Amendment of the noble Lord would not be agreed to. The case of Suffolk was different from that of Sussex. Whereas he admitted that the Quarter Sessions in West Suffolk were in favour of the maintenance of the existing system, he found, on the other hand, that the Quarter Sessions in Eastern Suffolk were of a different opinion. He thought the Committee would come to the conclusion that the case of Sussex and Suffolk stood on an entirely different footing. East Suffolk sent three Representatives to Parliament, all of whom agreed that the unity of the county should be maintained unimpaired in the sense in which the Bill now before the House maintained it unimpaired, and not only were the three Members of the Eastern Division of the county agreed in this, but also the two Members for Ipswich. In the Western part of the county there was only the noble Lord who had just spoken and the hon. Member for the North-Western Division (Mr. Greene) who were in favour of dividing the county, whereas he found in the Sudbury Division so great a difference of opinion that the hon. Member (Mr. Quilter) who represented it was on that occasion conspicuous by his absence. Again, public meetings had been held on this subject, and he would instance that in a town which might be taken as typical of the opinion expressed in West Suffolk—namely, the town of Haverhill. Now, it might be supposed that the inhabitants would have preferred going to Bury St. Edmund's instead of to Ipswich, but at the meeting referred to a resolution was passed to the effect that there should be but one County Council, and that that County Council should be at Ipswich. As a matter of fact, the in-habitants of the whole Eastern Division of the county were unanimous that there should be only one County Council, and that it should meet at Ipswich.

    1289
    The noble Lord was, of course, justified in referring to his antiquarian researches in connection with the county; but then, on that ground, one might find some reason for not altogether agreeing with him. The noble Lord had gone back 800 years, and spoken of the separate jurisdiction which West Suffolk had so long enjoyed. He (Mr. F. S. Stevenson) believed that there was in existence a letter written by Edward the Confessor shortly after the time when he separated West Suffolk from East Suffolk, in which he declared that the separation would be the source of difficulty in the future, and it might be that the King had in his mind a presentiment of the Amendment of the noble Lord. He ventured to hope that the Government would treat the Amendment before the Committee in quite a different manner from that in which they had dealt with that of the hon. and gallant Member for Sussex, and that while they adopted his Amendment they would reject that of the noble Lord.
    COLONEL ANSTRUTHERsaid, he could not agree with the conclusions of his noble Friend with regard to the division of the County of Suffolk, and in the interest of the ratepayers he asked the Committee to reject his Amendment. His noble Friend had referred to matters of history; but, as a matter of fact, what they had to consider was the Suffolk of today. He looked upon the Amendment as entirely contrary to the spirit of the Bill, because one of the advantages which they expected to get from it was that they would be able, by altering their present area, to effect a more economical administration in local matters. One would almost suppose from the speech of his noble Friend that there was some physical obstacle between Bury St. Edmund's and Ipswich; but the Committee would probably not be surprised to learn that the country between the two towns was comparatively level. There was a good road, and the distance only 26 miles, and in addition to that the Great Eastern Railway Company ran four trains a-day to Ipswich, although certainly they took a considerable time to cover the distance—namely, one hour; but as the Great Eastern Railway would probably move in the future with the spirit of the times they might expect that the duration of the journey would
    1290
    be somewhat lessened. One would imagine from the speech of his noble Friend that, by giving West Suffolk a County Council, and separating it from East Suffolk, the convenience of those attending the County Council would be met; but that was, unhappily, not the case, because a considerable portion of West Suffolk was very much nearer to Ipswich than Bury St. Edmund's. The town of Hadleigh was 25 miles from Bury St. Edmund's, and only 10 miles from Ipswich, and anyone going from the latter place would have to pass through the town of Ipswich by rail. For the reasons he had pointed out he asked the Committee not to sanction what he must call this retrograde proposal. It was only 30 years ago that there used to be four Quarter Sessions in Suffolk, and four separate rating authorities; but now they had succeeded by Act of Parliament in altering this, which alteration had turned out to the great advantage of the county both in respect of efficiency and economy. They had now one Chief Constable, one gaol, one lunatic asylum, and the magistrates were in the Commission of the Peace for the whole of the county, while the Quarter Sessions were held at Ipswich and Bury St. Edmund's, but were adjourned to the latter place. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment of his noble Friend, which he believed would entail the most unnecessary burden on the ratepayers of the county of Suffolk.
    MR. GREENEsaid, he believed if a poll were taken in the Western Division of Suffolk that a very few of the inhabitants would be in favour of the county being one. It would be almost impossible for those who attended the County Council from the Western parts of the county to get to Ipswich and back in a day. He believed that there would be money saved rather than lost by the county being divided, and he had had communications showing that the inhabitants were not in favour of having to go to Ipswich. He was quite sure that the Committee would act wisely in allowing the county of Suffolk to remain divided as it was at present.
    SIR SAVILE CROSSLEYsaid, he wished to point out to the Committee that all the Members who had spoken on this Amendment

    1291
    had done so from one point view. He had a special claim to oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord, because his constituents had no desire that there should be any division of the county. The town of Lowestoft was considerably larger than Bury St. Edmund's, and he had received from the Borough Authorities an unanimous resolution to the effect that the Council was of opinion that the county of Suffolk should be one county; but if divided at all that it should be divided into Northern and Southern districts, rather than into Eastern and Western. Now, Lowestoft had no desire to press for any division of the county; but he thought it might truly be said that if the county were divided at all this would be more evenly effected by carrying out the suggestion contained in the Resolution. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were accepted, and Lowestoft being in the extreme North of the county, while Bury St. Edmund's and Ipswich were in the South, situated comparatively close together, the people could not get to Ipswich very easily from the North. He admitted that there had, to a certain extent, been a division of the county in the past, and that there had been two rates; but he wished to point out that, whereas there had been two Clerks of the Peace and two Chief Constables, there were now only one of each, and it had already been mentioned that there was no separate Commission for the magistrates of Western Suffolk. The hon. Member for the Eye Division had shown them that the county was almost unanimous in desiring to remain one; and, therefore, he trusted that the Government would see their way to retain it in that condition.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government proposed to accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex as they had already stated; but, as had been shown by more than one hon. Gentleman who had spoken on this Amendment, it was evident that the circumstances with regard to Suffolk were not precisely the same as in the case of Sussex. So far as he could gather, the feeling was almost, if not quite, universal in Sussex with reference to maintaining the division there; but, further, the county of Sussex had been divided by statute, and, therefore, there existed a very substantial basis for division. Now, his noble Friend (Lord
    1292
    Francis Hervey) wished the Government to include Suffolk in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Sussex. Although he thought his noble Friend had shown very good ground indeed why the two existing divisions of the county should be maintained, he had not been able to adduce an argument of the same nature as that used by his hon. and gallant Friend. Having had the opportunity of hearing both sides of the question, he was bound to say that his noble Friend and those who agreed with him had been able to bring forward extremely strong arguments in favour of the Amendment. He had been under the impression that two rating areas had not existed. He was open to correction if wrong; but there were circumstances in his noble Friend's case which did not exist in the case of his hon. and gallant Friend. There was unquestionably a very considerable difference of opinion in Suffolk; but, as he had said, he thought his noble Friend had made out a very strong case. Suffolk was undoubtedly divided for rating purposes, although it was one county for many other purposes. The question was such that the Government were prepared to take up any position one side or the other; but having heard the opinions on both sides, as far as he was personally concerned, he should support his noble Friend if he went to a Division.
    SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLEsaid, that he could not complain of the position of comparative neutrality taken up by his right hon. Friend; but it could not fail to be observed that a large number of those who represented the county of Suffolk were opposed to the Amendment, and therefore, unless more cause could be shown for the acceptance of the noble Lord's Amendment, he had to ask the Government that they would stand by the terms of their Bill. It had been said more than once that the cases of Sussex and Suffolk were entirely different. Whereas the Quarter Sessions in Suffolk were in favour of division, there was the widest divergence of opinion on the part of the county of Suffolk with regard to the proposal of his noble Friend. The geographical question had been gone into, and it was not too much to say that, to a great extent, it was a question of Bradshaw, although that was not an attractive basis on which to found their argu-

    1293
    ment. Although Ipswich happened to be somewhat in a corner of the county, it was accessible in a remarkable degree from all parts, as had been pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Sir Savile Crossley), and even the part of the county in which his hon. Friend resided was much more accessible to Ipswich than it was to Bury St. Edmund's. On the question of economy it had been pointed out that no buildings existed at either place suitable for the purpose of the County Council, and it seemed to him that to erect two buildings adequate for the business of the county would be extravagant and would meet with general condemnation. Further, he believed there was a very strong case for the unification of the county; and, notwithstanding the position taken up by the noble Lord, he hoped the Committee would consent to adopt the provision of the Bill as it stood, and not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, although the clause conferring powers upon the County Councils stood practically in abeyance, yet there was still the hope held out of the extension to the County Councils of larger powers being conferred upon them—that was to say, some of those higher functions now discharged by the Government. When those higher powers were delegated they must take care that the County Council should not be too small. He thought it would be exceedingly necessary that the County Council should be large and dignified, and that an area should be established which would enable the Councils to deal with the larger questions which might be delegated to it.
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, this was not a question such as they would have to decide in the case of those small counties in the South of Scotland, three of which could be put into West Suffolk; and with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sir Charles Dalrymple), he thought the hon. Member take a very different view if the county of Bute was attacked in respect of its claim for separate representation. His hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich came down to that House, having nothing whatever to do with the administration of Suffolk, and opposed this Amendment. Ipswich was to have a Council of its own, and yet the hon. Member, who was only one of
    1294
    the Parliamentary Representatives of the town, owning not a rod of land in the county, came forward in opposition to this proposal. He thought the hon. Member was scarcely justified in taking up that position. West Suffolk contained very nearly 400,000 acres; it was larger than Monmouthshire, Rutlandshire and Huntingdonshire, and it was much larger than either of the two Divisions of Cambridgeshire under the Bill. The county of Suffolk was larger than the county of Sussex; West Suffolk had a rateable value of £600,000, and he said that the inhabitants were entitled to retain what they had long enjoyed—namely, a separate administration; and he hoped the Committee would agree to his proposal on the ground of economy, justice, and fairness.
    SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he thought that if the noble Lord was asking them to divide a county in which there was no division there would be no case whatever for the proposal; but the fact was that there existed two distinct divisions in the county of Suffolk, and the present case ran almost on all-fours with the other places named in the clause. He thought that the noble Lord's Amendment was very sound in principle, and he hoped it would be accepted.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he could not agree that this case was on all-fours with those mentioned in the clause. But if the county was divided, it was quite clear, from the speeches they had heard on the Amendment, that the inhabitants were not at all agreed in which direction the county should be divided.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 157: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 213.)
    On the Motion of Captain SELWYN, Amendment made, in page 37, line 12, at end, by inserting—
    "The Isle of Ely and the residue of the county of Cambridge shall be respectively separate administrative counties for the purposes of this Act, and are in this Act referred to as divisions of the county of Cambridge."
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 37, line 16, after "sessions," by inserting—

    1295
    "Or by any joint committee of the justices of such ridings or divisions, or otherwise jointly by such justices."
    On the Motion of Colonel DAWNAY, Amendment made, in page 37, line 16, leave out from "or other" to "jointly," in line 18, inclusive, and insert "shall."
    Amendment proposed, in page 37, line 24, leave out "and," and insert—
    "The administrative business which would, if this Act had not passed, have been transacted by any general sessions of the peace for the county of Sussex, and all matters under this Act which concern the two divisions of Sussex jointly shall be transacted by a joint committee of the respective county councils concerned."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to add "Suffolk," after "Sussex," in lines 3 and 4.—(Lord Francis Hervey.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after "Suffolk," insert "or by any joint action of the quarter sessions of the divisions of the county of Cambridge;" and to add, after "Suffolk," in line 4, "or Cambridge."—(Captain Selwyn.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 37, line 23, leave out "the committee," and insert "a joint committee under this section;" and in page 37, line 35, leave out "three ridings and divisions," and insert "several administrative counties."
    On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, Amendment made, in page 37, line 35, leave out from "divisions" to "and," in line 37, and insert—
    "In such manner as is provided by law, or by the practice heretofore adopted, or in such other manner as may be from time to time agreed upon by the councils of the several administrative counties, or in default of agreement may, upon the application of any of such councils, be determined by arbitration in manner provided by this"
    and, at end of line 40, insert—
    "The powers, duties, and liabilities of the county authority, under 'The Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884,' and the Acts amending the same, shall, after the appointed day, be trans-
    1296
    ferred to the county council, and the expression 'county authority' in those Acts shall mean, as respects each Riding, the county council of that Riding: Provided that any registrar holding office at the passing of this Act shall continue to be such registrar unless removed from his office by the county council with the sanction of the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain."
    On the Motion of Viscount CRANBORNE, Amendment made, in line 40, at end, by inserting the words—
    "(4.) In the application of this Act to Lancashire—
    The provisions of this Act with respect to county rates shall apply to the special rates levied in Lancashire for the purposes of the salary of any chairman of quarter sessions or stipendiary justice, or for any assize courts, and such rates shall continue to be levied within the area within which they would have been levied if this Act had not passed."
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 38, line 7, at end, add—
    "In this section 'administrative business' means such business as is by this Act transferred from quarter sessions or justices, or any committee thereof, to county councils."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 40 (Merger of liberties in county).
    On the Motion of Mr. WOODALL, Amendment made, in page 38, leave out from end of line 37 to end of Clause, and insert—
    "But, save as by this Act expressly provided every such port, town, and member shall be in the same position and entitled to the same rights and privileges, and the powers, duties, and jurisdiction therein of quarter sessions, and of justices out of sessions, shall continue to be exerciseable in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed,"
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  PART III.

    DISTRICT COUNCILS IN COUNTIES.
    Constitution of District Councils.
    Clause 41 (Establishment of District Councils in urban and rural districts in each county).
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he would appeal to hon. Members not to move the Amendments to this and the other clauses relating to District Councils, because, as the Committee would know, they were to be withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That Clause 41 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had nothing to say against the decision of the Government to omit these clauses; on the contrary, under all the circumstances, he considered the decision a wise one. The idea of county government, which he believed was shared by the right hon. Gentleman and many on those Benches, was not entirely that of a County Council, but a system of government constructed on units of administrative area. The perfection of a scheme of that kind would imply simplicity of area, and that for every particular function of local government an area should be found and the whole connected together. They had found fault with the Bill in many ways, and commented on what he believed to be omissions; but they had never contended that this vast and complicated subject could in one measure be dealt with in such a manner as to give them all they wanted. The justification of the omission to be made was on the ground of stress of time alone; but he did not altogether regret it, because he thought it gave them a right to expect that in a future Session the Government would be able to take a larger view of the case than they had done in the Bill. There was, for instance, the question of reorganization, and, as he might call it, the revivifying of parish life. He had never entertained any extravagant notions on that subject; he could not think, with regard to the parish, that it could be taken as a practical unit for local government purposes, because of the great diversity of size. He approved of the division of the county into urban and rural districts for ordinary local purposes; but he recognized that there were some purposes for which a smaller area than the sanitary district was desirable. There were some functions which could be undertaken by the parish, and he thought it advisable, in the interests of local government, that there should be introduced some vitality into parish life. He had put some Amendments on the Paper which were an indication that he had not any extravagant ideas on this subject. He desired that, by some simple arrangement, the inhabitants of the parish, and those interested in its affairs, should be familiarized with the object and
    1298
    nature of local government. As he had already stated, the great blot in the Bill, from an administrative point of view, was the absolute exclusion of the Poor Law system from its provisions. He did not know what would be the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman on this subject when he came to reconsider his scheme for the District Councils; but he adhered to his own convictions, and felt bound to restate them on the present occasion. He felt that it was indefensible, except as a momentary arrangement, to erect a system of county government, and exclude from it the Poor Law administration, which was that part of the local government in counties in which there was the strongest possible popular interest. Then, from an administrative point of view, he repeated the argument he had already used, and said that it was of the greatest interest to good administration that they should so construct the local system of Poor Law administration as to make it depend on popular election and support. It would be a serious mistake, in dealing with this question, to leave out the Poor Law administration from the scheme; and the Government would never be able again to take up the position that they excluded it from want of time to deal with the matter. He welcomed the omission of these clauses, mainly because it imposed upon the Government the obligation of taking in hand the question of bringing the Poor Law system into harmony with the rest of the local administration of the country. With these feelings and views, he had only to express satisfaction with the course which the right hon. Gentleman had, in his opinion, wisely taken, and to invite the right hon. Gentleman now to give the Committee some indication of his views upon the two subjects of Poor Law administration and parochial life.
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in any future measure which he might contemplate to deal with District Councils, to strain a point, if possible, to overcome the difficulty referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, on the ground of the varying sizes of parishes. That there was a difficulty in this respect could not be denied; at the same

    1299
    time, as was well known, the parish in rural districts was a much more real entity than in borough districts. It had a distinct organization of its own, and he was convinced that any measure which might be proposed by the District Council would be much more energetically carried out if there were a recognition of the parish in the future scheme of the Government.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, no one could complain that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax had taken the opportunity of the Motion to omit this clause to state in a few words the opinions he held on the two questions of Poor Law administration and parochial life. They all knew how anxious the right hon. Gentleman was that this Bill should deal with those questions, and that he had more than once impressed upon the Government the importance of this being done; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now see that the Government had a very strong argument on their side for the course they were taking—namely, that in the time at their disposal it would be absolutely impossible to deal with either one or other of the subjects. The Committee would know, not with standing the fact that the Bill had been pushed forward with a certain amount of vigour, that the Government had been compelled to abandon some important clauses relating to matters with which they had hoped to be able to deal. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed the hope that before the Government proposed any measure dealing with local government in districts of counties, they might be able to make up their minds on the questions of Poor Law administration and the parish as a unit of government. But the right hon. Gentleman would recognize that, whatever might be the time when they were able to bring in the measure, it was by no means an easy task to deal with either of those two subjects, in addition to setting up the District Councils as originally proposed in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland) had spoken strongly in favour of the parish as the unit of local government; but in his remarks he had admitted the difficulty which lay in the great diversity in the size of parishes, and had said, very candidly, that the inhabitants of one
    1300
    parish almost regarded as foreigners the inhabitants of another. That constituted the difficulty, because, as hon. Gentlemen would see, if the Government proposed some considerable measure which would deal with the areas of parishes, they would by no means be able to consult the wishes and feelings of individuals in that respect; but if they had to cut up large parishes they would necessarily have to run counter to what was undoubtedly a strong feeling existing among the inhabitants of parishes. And so with reference to the smaller parishes, the inhabitants of which were just as clannish as the inhabitants of the larger parishes, a great amount of friction would be caused if they attempted to amalgamate them, in order to bring them up to a proper area. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax would recognize that the difficulties with regard to the Poor Law area were very much increased in consequence of the large number of parishes which would have to be dealt with; and no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) how strong were the arguments the Government had to meet from the point of view of the county boroughs, the large number of which had enormously increased the difficulty of dealing with this subject. Having pointed out one or two considerations which must not be lost sight of, he was willing to say that between the present time and when they would bring in a Bill they should have carefully considered the whole matter again; but the right hon. Gentleman would not be surprised if he was unable to make any engagement with him or the Committee with regard to these two most difficult subjects.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, he thought the statement they had just listened to was not altogether satisfactory. In the first place, the President of the Local Government Board had not given any definite pledge as to the time at which the new Bill would be introduced. It must be obvious that when the County Councils, constituted on a quasi-popular basis, existed side by side with the Boards of Guardians, the anomaly would raise such a wave of feeling on the part of the public as would compel any Government which might be in Office to press

    1301
    forward a Bill to deal with these questions as a first-class measure. It seemed to him absolutely impossible to bring in a satisfactory measure for dealing with District Councils without, in some way or other, dealing with the Poor Law question and the parish question simultaneously. The great danger in dealing with the District Councils was that they might give to them too much or too little power. They would give them too little power if they did not transfer to them the power of Poor Law administration, and too much if they transferred to them work which would be done much more efficiently by the Vestries. Therefore, the object which the Government ought to have in view should be, on the one hand, to give to the District Councils that work which they might perform with advantage to the locality, but, on the other hand, to develop that parish life which now existed in embryo. Therefore, they regarded with a certain amount of dissatisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—first, because he had not named a date when he would bring in a first-class measure to deal with these questions; and, secondly, because he had not said that he would endeavour to make the District Councils a satisfactory institution by the incorporation in the Bill of provisions to deal with Poor Law administration and the reform of parish vestries.
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman did an injustice to himself in referring to the difficulties in the way of dealing with the Poor Law question in the Bill. It might make the Bill a little more complicated for the Cabinet to discuss; but the simplification of local government which would result would more than compensate them. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should come down and make such a difficulty about this matter, and he invited him to consider how he could best triumph over the difficulties he had spoken of.
    MR. CHANNINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give a pledge to introduce a Bill next Session dealing with local government in the smaller county areas? This was a definite question, and he thought the Committee were entitled to a definite answer.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the Government would not answer the question of the hon Gentleman. He was very glad to see these clauses disappear, because he thought they would conflict very much with the Poor Law administration. The matter would be better left open until recommendation came from the County Councils, who would very soon make Parliament listen to what they thought was for the benefit of their several local areas. He would rather see the question of District Councils deferred for one, two, or three years, so that the reform of the Poor Law administration might be effectively dealt with.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he dissented from the remarks of the last speaker. The Government must regard the District Councils as an integral part of the County Councils, and the scheme of the Government, which was in its inception a bold and a complete one, could not from the time at their command be passed in its entirety. He trusted it would be regarded as a paramount obligation that this part of the subject should be dealt with next Session.
    MR. COBBsaid, he understood the First Lord of the Treasury to pledge the Government to bring in a Bill next Session in lieu of the clauses with which they were now dealing.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that was certainly so, and he did not know what had occurred to raise a suspicion to the contrary. [Several hon. MEMBERS: The speech just made.] The Government were not responsible for that speech.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause struck out.
    Clauses 42 to 50 struck out.

  PART IV.
  Boundaries.
  Clause 51 (Boundary of county for first election).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 46, line 1, leave out all after "county," to end of Clause, and insert—(2.) "For the purposes of this Act the several

  1303
  parishes which are named in the second column of the Sixth Schedule to this Act annexed shall be considered as forming parts of the respective counties which are respectively mentioned in the third column of the said schedule, and where any urban sanitary district is situate partly within and partly without the boundary of a county, but for which no special provision is hereby made, the district shall be deemed to be within that county which contains the largest portion of the population of the district according to the census of one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Hastings.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, as the Committee was aware, the Boundary Commissioners had been making investigations through the country with respect to boundaries. Their Report would shortly be made, and it would then be the duty of the Government to present it to Parliament. The adoption of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would be a manifest departure from the plan of the Bill, and he therefore hoped it would not be pressed. The intention of the Government was that those who were the most interested parties should have the practical settlement of the boundaries, and the scheme of the Commissioners would be referred to the County Council and considered by them, and the County Council would then make application to the Local Government Board, who would then proceed by means of a Provisional Order. It would be impossible for the Committee to accept any cut-and-dried scheme for rearrangement of boundaries, for which purpose they had no data whatever. He did not expect any such inconvenience as that suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member, because a Provisional Order would make provision for the number of Councillors which would be required, and that appeared to him to be the most reasonable and proper way of dealing with this question.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would in no way countenance such a proposal as this. It would be most mischievous if every Member of the House who had any question with regard to the boundary of his county should bring forward his views in the form of an Amendment to this Bill. There would be plenty of time to settle these questions when the County Council was appointed and had all the facts before them.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, if this Amendment were agreed to, he thought the third column of the Schedule would be rather quickly filled up. If such a proposal as this was to be accepted, he should have to ask the House to embark on the question of the boundaries of Staffordshire and Worcestershire, which he thought would be very in opportunely raised at the present moment; and, therefore, he trusted that the Government would stand firm in their opposition to the Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, as he represented the particular county referred to in the Amendment, he would join in the appeal of his hon. Friend that this Amendment should be accepted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 46, line 1, after "that," insert—
  (a.) "This enactment shall not apply to the boundary between two administrative counties which are divisions of one entire county, and in case of those administrative counties, the boundary between the divisions, as existing for the purposes of county rate, shall be the boundary of the administrative county for which the council is elected; and."
  On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, Amendment made, in page 46, line 1, after "that," insert—
  "The wapentake of the ainsty of York (except so much as is included in the municipal borough of York as extended by 'The York Extension and Improvement Act, 1884') shall for all purposes of this Act be deemed to be part of the west riding of the county of York."
  On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, Amendment made, in page 46, at end of line 6, insert—
  (28 and 29 Vic. c. 37.)
  "Provided that the boundary between East Sussex and West Sussex shall be the boundary as existing for the purposes of the County of Sussex Act, 1865."
  On the Motion of Mr. DUGDALE, Amendment made, in page 46, line 6, after "eighty-one," insert—
  "Provided also, that, subject to any alterations in the county boundaries which may be made under the provisions of this Act, every portion of a county which has been transferred to another county for the purposes of the Police Acts, shall for such purposes continue to be within the county to which such portion has been so transferred."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 52 (Directions for constitution of electoral divisions).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 46, line 28, after the word "had," to insert the words "to a proper representation both of the rural and of the urban population, and to the distribution of such population, and."—(Mr. Heneage.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he had handed in an Amendment which he would, if in Order, prefer to see substituted for the Amendment which had just been moved. He wished to insert words from the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners issued in 1885, which expressed the same point, but in a wider way than the wording now before the Committee. The words were that, in arranging the divisions, special regard should be had to the pursuits of the population in the districts. His Amendment, if adopted, would constitute a direction to the Quarter Sessions, in making up an electoral division, to group together villages and centres of population which had the same commercial and industrial interests. For instance, in some counties they might have mining parishes which would be taken together, and in others industrial parishes would be grouped with parishes of similar interests.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that of course what the hon. Gentleman wished to carry out was the same as was proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby, and he rather preferred the wording of his right hon. Friend's Amendment, which he thought would be quite sufficient to carry out the object in view.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he thought his own Amendment was preferable to that of the right hon. Gentleman. The distinction merely between urban and rural population did not at all cover the point, and he therefore begged to move the alteration he had suggested.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  To leave out all the words after "to," to the end of the section, and insert "the pursuits of the population."—(Mr. Manning.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, he thought the hon. Gentleman was making a suggestion which would not have so good an effect as that proposed by the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). What they wanted was a fair representation of both rural and agricultural populations in all parts of the country; and he suggested that the words of his right hon. Friend covered all the ground intended to be secured for their representation, and he would, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman had grasped the point of his Amendment, which was that the distinction between the urban and rural population was really quite insufficient. It must be within the knowledge of every Member representing a county division that in many cases they would have villages, the industries of which were entirely of one kind—such as shoemaking—and again, in the same district, purely agricultural villages. The interests of those parishes were of a different type; and to say that one was urban and the other rural was simply not touching the point in question. A great many small villages in rural districts were essentially industrial. This was a point on which he had some right to insist, because it greatly affected the division of the county of Northamptonshire which he had the honour to represent. His object was that the Quarter Sessions should have instructions to group parishes together having similar interests and carrying on the same trade, and parishes which might naturally desire to be represented by men who could speak on the special points which concerned them in the management of the county. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that in the county which he represented it would make a serious difference to a great many electoral divisions if populations with the same interests and pursuits were not grouped together and represented upon the County Councils by men who understood their interests. The mere distinction as between urban and rural did not affect cases of this kind.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he should have thought it would be better to proceed

  1307
  geographically in forming these electoral divisions. He had no objection to the words of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Channing), but he did not see how the hon. Member intended it to be worked out.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he thought there was a great deal to be said for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. He asked whether the Government would have any objection to add after the word "distribution" the words "and pursuits"; because he thought that would probably meet the views of his hon. Friend?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Quarter Sessions would have very full power in this matter, and would, no doubt, exercise a wise discretion. He did not think it desirable that they should, in so many words, draw a distinction between different classes of the people. The wording of his right hon. Friend's Amendment appeared to him to be all that was required, and he thought the Quarter Sessions might very well be left to deal with this matter.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that with regard to Quarter Sessions the right hon. Gentleman referred to the matter in a spirit with which he was afraid many hon. Members who represented county divisions would hardly agree. When the 3rd clause was before the Committee the question was discussed as to the authority who should settle the electoral divisions for the election of the County Councils; and it was contended on that, the Liberal side of the House, that they had had ample experience of the very unsatisfactory working of the Quarter Sessions in the making of polling districts. That was very much the case in the county he represented. The whole point he wished to lay before the House was that, by interposing some such words as he had suggested, they would give a sufficient and not too restrictive direction to the Quarter Sessions in carrying out this duty. By leave of the Committee he should like to withdraw his Amendment, and substitute for it the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), which would be, after "distribution" in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, to insert the words "and pursuits."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after "distribution" in the second line to insert "and pursuits."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, it seemed to him that the arguments which had been addressed to the Committee against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing) really applied with equal force to the original Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire—those arguments being to the effect that it was of no use in matters of this kind to separate persons of different pursuits. But surely the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division would separate persons of different pursuits—that was to say, would separate rural and urban populations. Now, if the Committee was going to separate them—if they were going to group urban and rural populations together—he was at a loss to see why they should not include mining populations, fishing populations, and so forth. With reference to the objection taken by the hon. Member for East Northampton in reference to the operations of the Boundary Commissioners in 1885, he (Sir Roper Lethbridge) had attended the sittings of the Commissioners in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and he recollected that in their deliberations they found it exceedingly convenient not only to take cognizance of the difference between rural and urban populations, but also the difference between mining populations, fishing populations, and so forth. Now, he was not quite sure that they would be doing well here to adopt entirely the principle of grouping together populations of the same character; but if they did it to any extent at all—if they grouped, as the right hon. Gentleman asked them to group, rural populations together and urban populations together—he did not see why they should stop there, and why they should not carry that grouping to its logical consequence, and group together all those people who were of similar pursuits. He

  1309
  (Sir Roper Lethbridge) therefore maintained that if they listened at all to the proposition of the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division, which he held in effect had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, they should go further and accept the Amendment which had been last moved.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, there could be only two ways of creating these electoral districts, and one was that of grouping them, so far as they could, geographically with regard to population, but where there happened to be rural and urban populations securing so far as they could a fair representation of the two different kinds of population, and the other was that of adopting, as now proposed, a grouping of the populations of similar pursuits. He thought if the latter proposition were accepted it would land the Quarter Sessions in very great difficulties. He did not think it necessary either to attack Quarter Sessions or to defend them. As a rule, in regard to polling stations, they had done their work satisfactorily; and if the direction proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division were given to them, to his mind it would be sufficient to secure that they would divide the country into convenient electoral divisions, having regard to the circumstances of the districts. The words it was proposed to add, however, if adopted, would only complicate instead of simplifying the division.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, his difficulty was that he did not see exactly how the Amendment of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for the Sleaford Division, or the Amendment to his Amendment, were to be interpreted. The proposal was that regard should be had "to a proper representation, both of rural and of urban population, and to the distribution and pursuits of such population;" but he took it that those who would be entrusted with the making of these arrangements would have their own views of the sense in which they were to regard these factors. So far as he was concerned, he should have preferred to have seen no restriction at all laid down. He would rather leave those people to decide on consideration of all the circumstances of the case. He was not prepared to say that it was desirable
  1310
  always to separate the rural and the urban population. Whether or no such separation should take place should be decided by the circumstances of each case. Then, again, he would not be prepared to say that it would be desirable to separate the population according to pursuits. He had no objection to these circumstances being taken into consideration; but he thought that in interpreting the clause those who were intrusted with the work should be left to do it as they thought best, and should be left to interpret the clause according to the circumstances of each division.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he thought if the words "and pursuits" were accepted it would lead those who would be entrusted with the work of delimiting these districts into hopeless confusion. It seemed to him that when they had regard to the duties which would devolve on the District Councils, the difference between the different districts would depend rather on the density of the population than on the character of the occupation of the population. If the Committee would look at the powers to be given to the District Councils, under Clauses 47 and 48, which were now for a moment withdrawn from consideration, they would be found to be rather of a sanitary and police nature than of such a nature as to require them to be administered in accordance with the difference of the pursuits of the population. He did not think that it would be advantageous to men following the same pursuits that they should be grouped on the same lines. To his mind, grouping people of the same occupation together had not a wholesome effect. Greater width of sympathy and broadness of view was gained, he thought, more by mixing the populations following different occupations, and of different sentiments, so to speak, than of separating them according to their occupations. He was, therefore, of opinion that the gathering together of people of different pursuits in the same districts was thing rather to be sought after than avoided.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this point, seeing that some time had been devoted to its discussion, and that it was really a matter of a very simple character. It was recognized on all sides that the Amendment would pro-

  1311
  vide for a great deal of that which hon. Gentlemen desire to see provided for, and he would suggest that any other question which might arise, and which it might be desirable to settle, should be left for settlement to a future occasion. In any case, he trusted the Committee would not delay coming to a decision on what was really not a matter of supreme importance.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. His (Mr. Stansfeld's) view, shortly described, was this. He would rather not have the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division at all; but if it were to be accepted he should vote for the insertion in it of the words proposed by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Channing).
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, that as he was responsible for the suggestion which led to this Amendment he would point out that that was really a small matter after all. He quite agreed, therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in hoping that the Committee would not spend much time upon its discussion. He would go further and say that, if necessary, the Amendment might be withdrawn.
  MR. COBBsaid, he had heard no reasonable argument against the words originally proposed by his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Hobhouse), the insertion of which was now moved by his hon. Friend on his right (Mr. Channing) that the words "and pursuits" be inserted.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would find himself able to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). He (Viscount Lymington) himself had a Proviso further down on the Paper; but, so far as he was concerned, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division, which he understood was accepted by the Government. He trusted also that the Government, in consideration of the views expressed on that the Opposition side, would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing).
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes; we will accept it—it is a very small point after all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Sir JOSEPH BAILEY, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, line 29, after the word "being," to insert the words "and to area."
  On the Motion of Sir UGHTRED KAYSHUTTLEWORTH, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, line 29, after "being," to insert the words "and to evidence of any considerable change of population since such census."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 46, line 32, after the first "district," to insert the words "or of the combination of a county district or ward or of county districts or wards with a portion of another county district or ward."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not insert after the words "county district," in the second line of this Amendment, the words "having sufficient population to return one councillor," and whether he could not insert the words "an adjoining" before "portion of any county district?"
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words "county district" in the second line, to insert the words "having sufficient population to return one councillor."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had no objection to that, though he did not think it would be necessary. In the conduct of a Bill of this kind one was often driven to accept Amendments which made a thing appear more clear, although they were not necessary. He could not believe that the Local Authorities would deal in a different manner to that proposed.
  MR. BARINGsaid, that if the Amendment was only to apply to a district able to return one Member it would be an injustice. There might be county districts able to return 2¾ members, and an adjoining county district which might only be entitled to return 1¼ The result of this Amendment would be that one district would be en-

  1313
  titled to return three members while the other would only be entitled to return one. He (Mr. Baring) could not possibly consent to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he thought it would be much better if the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the words of his Amendment. It was obvious that a small piece of one county might be projecting into another, and that piece might be sufficient to return a member, and that there might be no district which could be conveniently added to it from the other county in order to jointly secure a member.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the second. "a," in order to insert "an adjoining."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Original Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 46, line 34, after "ward," insert—
  "So, however, that where any such portion of a county district or ward has not a defined area for which a separate list or part of a list of voters is made under the Acts relating to the registration of electors, such portion shall, until a new register of electors is made, continue to be part of the district or ward of which it has been treated, as being part in the then current register of electors."
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, the object of the next Amendment which stood in his name was to preserve, as far as possible, the parish as the unit of representation.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 46, line 36, at end, add the following sub-section:—"(4.) Whenever under the provisions of this section a county district is divided into two or more portions, every such portion shall, as far as possible, consist of an entire parish or township or of a combination of entire parishes or townships."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. RITCHIE: I accept the Amendment; but would submit that the hon. and learned Member should leave out the words "or township."
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I presume we shall have some definition of the word parish?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: Then I will omit those words.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to omit the words "or township."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
  Question, "That the words 'or township' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the sub-section, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 46, line 38, leave out from "if" to "where," in line 40; and in line 41, leave out "then as if."
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper In page 47, line 2, after "county district," to insert—
  "Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent any such last-mentioned portion from being combined with a portion of any adjoining rural sanitary district to form an electoral division for the first election."
  He should like to know whether that Amendment was covered by a previous Amendment moved?
  MR. RITCHIEreplied in the affirmative.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 47, line 3, leave out Sub-section (5) as follows:—
  "(5.) In the case of the county of London, the foregoing provisions shall apply as if the city of London and the parishes mentioned in Schedule A., and the districts mentioned in Schedule B., and the places mentioned in Schedule C. to the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, as amended by subsequent Acts, were county districts, with the modifications following, that is to say—

  (a.) any place in Schedule C. may be combined with the whole or portion of any other such district; and

  (b.) it shall not be necessary that the population of any electoral division forming the whole or part of the city of London shall be equal to the scale of population adopted for the other electoral divisions in the Metropolis."

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 53 (Determination by first county council of position of overlapping rural sanitary districts).
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had an Amendment to this clause to the effect that if the County Council determined that a place was a separate rural county district, they might annex to it parishes of other rural districts. He did not know whether the Government would accept this proposal or not.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 47, line 25, to insert the words "and if they determine that the portion of such district in the county shall be a separate rural county district, they may annex to it any parish or parishes of any other rural county district situate within the county, and the parishes so annexed shall thereupon become part of such rural sanitary district."—(Mr. Honeage.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he did not think this Amendment was material, as the question had already been dealt with.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. HENEAGE: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, this clause dealt with rural sanitary districts crossing the line of a county, and it provided that where that was the case the County Council should determine—
  "Whether the portion of such district situate in their county shall be a separate rural county district, and, if not, for annexing it, or different portions of it, to some county district or county districts in their county."
  If a rural sanitary district crossed the boundary of a county it would touch upon the jurisdiction of another authority; but the clause was framed as though only one County Council would have jurisdiction in the matter. It might, however, be necessary to consult both the County Councils.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that was so, but the instructions were arbitrary. Where a rural sanitary district ran into two counties, each separately would form a
  1316
  portion of the district which was in their county, and not a separate district. The object, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, was to bring all sanitary districts within one county, and they laid down in this clause, as the right hon. Gentleman would see, an arbitrary line that a portion situate within another county should be a separate district. That being so, of course the arrangement would apply to both counties.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be desirable to amend Sub-Section 1 of the clause on Report. That clause provided as he had described; but Sub-Section 2 went on to say that a scheme, when made, should be submitted to the Local Government Board for confirmation. That assumed that the Council selected under the Act would have power to deal with a portion of a rural sanitary district not within their county, and he should like to know whether that power was given by any other part of the Bill?
  MR. RITCHIEreplied in the negative. The power was given to the County Council in the 1st sub-section. They might have a rural sanitary district, half of which would be in one county and half in another. Both of those counties would frame a scheme by which that portion of the rural sanitary district situated within their county would become a rural sanitary district by itself or become attached to another rural sanitary district.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he quite understood that; but he should like to know whether on Report the right hon. Gentleman would be able to propose an Amendment by which under the circumstances contemplated by the clause County Council A would be able to propose a scheme which would prevent County Council B from doing so.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, there were two questions to be considered in the matter, and first of all, the settlement of the county line. County A may think it desirable to annex their portion of a rural sanitary district to another rural sanitary district, whereas County B, if the portion of the rural sanitary district within its area was large, might think it desirable to make it a district by itself. Under the clause, Counties A and B would act quite independently of each other.
  VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he wished to know how this clause would affect the case of Islands or portions of counties wholly in the middle of other counties, and separated from their own counties? Cases of that kind existed in this country, and how would they be treated?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the noble Lord presumed that there would be a projection from one county into another.
  VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he believed that there was more than that in some cases.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he thought that the answer to his noble Friend was that in all these oases the islands in question already belonged to the rural Sanitary Authority within the geographical county.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, county districts would be divided by the county line.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Determination by first county council of number of councillors and wards of rural districts).
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's) moved to omit the clause from the Bill.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Clause 55 (Provisional Order as respects boroughs and urban sanitary districts in the same area).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 48, line 16, after "county," insert—
  "And if the population exceeds fifty thousand, may constitute the borough into a county borough, and make such provision as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect as respects such county borough; and the provisions of this Act respecting county boroughs shall, subject to the provisions of the order, apply."
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, he rose to offer opposition to Sub-section 2; and the reason he did so was because he thought the sub-section gave special powers to the Universities which the Universities should not have. It said—
  "Where certain members of the sanitary authority for any such urban sanitary district are appointed by a university or any colleges therein, the order may provide for the ap-
  1318
  pointment by such university or colleges of members on the district council."
  He wished to refer, in this case, more especially to the University in the town of Cambridge. The right hon. Gentle-man the President of the Local Government Board privately expressed to him that the Bill did not confer that right, except in so far as the University already had such a right to be represented on the Town Council of the borough of Cambridge. So far as that right was concerned, he (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) wished to say, that at present the University of Cambridge had no such right whatever to representation on the Town Council of the borough of Cambridge. Up to the year 1788 the Town Council of Cambridge was the sole Governing Body of the borough, but in the next year an Act of Parliament was passed, which constituted the Board of Improvement Commissioners in Cambridge a Body consisting partly of University men and partly of townsmen. What the Bill now proposed to do was this—to do away completely with what he might call the Sanitary Authority—this Board of Improvement Commissioners of Cambridge—and make the Town Council the only authority in the borough, and this Sub-section 2 of the present clause proposed to give to the University the right to be represented on that Council, not only to vote for representatives, but to have special representatives of the University on the Local Authority, because he maintained that the words of the Sub-section meant that the University might nominate University men, and vote for them, and have themselves sitting on the Town Council of the borough of Cambridge per se and qua University men. He maintained that this was special class legislation, and that there was no earthly reason why the University of Cambridge should be specially represented on the Town Council, and for this reason, that though it was true they paid their rates they had only an equal right with the other townsmen to be represented on the Council. He, therefore, put it to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board persisted in his proposal, that there was no reason or justice in giving the University of Cambridge a special class privilege of having a seat on the Town Council, where there was no other reason for

  1319
  doing so. It would be a serious thing if this Bill, which did not aim at creating new interests, should confer a class privilege such as this—giving a class privilege to the University as against the town. He did not mean to say that the Government were proposing to establish a hostile interest on the Town Council to that of the town itself; but the University was, at any rate, apparently a hostile interest, and it was unfair to lay down a hard and fast rule that in these instances class legislation should take place. If they gave these special privileges in the case of the University, he maintained that they would be bound in justice to grant like privileges to Gas Companies, Waterworks, and other old Corporations. They were also ratepayers possessing a largo amount of rateable property and possessing just as much right to be represented as the University. The women's College also would stand in the same category. It was not represented in the University, but it would have quite as much right, if once the thin end of the wedge was inserted, to have representation on the Town Council as the University. He should like to go through the history of the Town Council of Cambridge, as there would be found many points in it of interest as bearing upon the point at issue, but he would not detain the Committee.
  Amendment proposed, "To strike out Sub-section (2)."—(Mr. Penrose FitzGerald.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BARINGsaid, he did not know, and should like to hear, whether or not the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment was a member of the University of Cambridge. So far as he (Mr. Baring) was concerned, he was not concerned in the case of Cambridge, but as a graduate of Oxford he maintained, and he maintained it in the face of any hon. Member in the House who might take an opposite view, that the towns of Oxford and Cambridge existed by and for the two Universities. [Laughter.] Yes, he ventured to maintain that the towns of Oxford and Cambridge existed entirely for the Universities, and if this Amendment were pressed to a Division he should vote against it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that really his proposal would not do that which he contemplated. There was no provision in the Bill declaring that the University should be represented on the Town Council. The condition of things at present was this; there were two Authorities in Cambridge at the present time, one the Sanitary Authority and the other the Town Council. The University was not represented on the Town Council, but it was on the Sanitary Authority. Well, it was thought undesirable that there should be two Local Authorities within the same borough having, to a large extent, the same functions to perform; and, therefore, they proposed by Clause 55, by means of a Provisional Order, to put an end to an overlapping jurisdiction, and to enable the University boroughs to exist under one government. Then they were confronted with the fact that upon one of the Local Authorities in the town of Cambridge the University was represented. The Government did not ask the House to commit itself to saying that under the new condition of things the University would also be represented on the new Governing Body. All they did was to provide that a Provisional Order might deal with the matter by allowing the University to have representatives on the Council—that the Provisional Order might say that the University might be represented on the new Governing Body. But the Committee must know perfectly well that that was a very different thing from the Committee saying that the University shall be represented on the Governing Body. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes. This matter would have to be referred again to a Committee of the House of Commons, and the House would have to express its opinion as to whether any particular interest or class should be represented on the new Body, and after the Committee had expressed its opinion the House of Commons itself would be called upon to express its opinion also on the Provisional Order. They did not say that the University should be represented on the new authority, but all they said was that there was a representative of the University on one of the two Local Bodies in Cam-

  1321
  bridge that the Provisional Order might provide for the continuance of that representation. It did not lay down as a necessity that the Provisional Order should provide for the continuance of that representation.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDasked what was the object of the clause, and what was the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the word "may"? Let them take out the sub-section altogether, and the University of Cambridge would then have an equal right to be represented as the rest of the citizens of the town. Things had very much changed since the days in which the University Statutes were passed, and at the present day out of 35 Professors in the University, 30 had electoral qualification, and out of 212 resident fellows no less than 101 had a qualification; and, as a matter of fact, many members of the University were members of the Town Council, having been elected in the ordinary way. The Town Council was anxious to have the material benefit in this indirect representation of the University, because the advice and assistance of those intellectual, learned and scientific gentlemen who belonged to the University was found of the greatest advantage; but the Town Council declined to accept this class legislation in favour of any particular Body—it protested against the University having any other than the present open and fair representation by election. He could not conceive what the difference would be to the right hon. Gentleman's Bill if the 2nd sub-section of Clause 55 were omitted. The permissive point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was not at all to the purpose. Leave the sub-section in, and there was a chance that in a moment of his unwatchfulness—[Laughter]—and he was fully prepared to admit, in answer to the laughter of hon. Gentlemen, that his moments of unwatchfulness were many, and he did not think it right that the possibility of such a power as that contained in the sub-section being granted should depend upon the want of watchfulness on his part.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, be was anxious that no unnecessary time should be spent on the provision which might of itself be unnecessary. He understood, from what had fallen from hon. Members, that they felt that by passing this
  1322
  sub-section it would be considered that they had committed themselves to this representation of the Universities on the Town Councils. Now, as a matter of fact, he might state to the Committee that it was not at all necessary that this sub-section should be retained. It was quite within the power of any Government Office that had to promote Provisional Orders to sanction the introduction of words in a Provisional Order, and he maintained that that being so, it was wholly unnecessary to insist upon this Amendment. It would be for the Committee to whom the Provisional Order would be referred to say whether this proposal was right or wrong.
  MR. STOKESsaid, he hoped—as he had the honour to represent the University of Cambridge, and as his Colleague was not in the House at the present moment—he might be allowed to say a few words with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald). As the hon. Member had already mentioned, on the existing Sanitary Authority of Cambridge, which, with certain modifications, had been handed down for a considerable period, the University was largely represented. It was true that it had no representation on the Town Council, though of course members of the University might be elected to the Town Council, just as, if the University had representation on it, the Town Council might also elect persons who were not members of the University. He thought, however, that the hon. Member had rather left out of sight the fact that there were two sides to this question. Members of the University were at present under certain disqualifications. There were many members of the University, who were Fellows of Colleges, for instance, who resided not in the town, but within the walls of their Colleges, and they were absolutely excluded from having any vote whatsoever for members of the Town Council. But surely it was reasonable, when the two Boards were to be thrown into one as proposed by the Bill, that, at any rate, that question, which bristled with peculiarities and with difficulties, should be considered at greater length than it could properly be considered by that House, which had to attend to the affairs

  1323
  of the Empire, and not merely to those of this or that town. The proposal was merely that that difficult and peculiar question should be relegated to the calm consideration of the Local Government Board, who would doubtless have before them a scheme or schemes proposed to them for their acceptance or rejection. He said a scheme or schemes; for although it was not improbable that different schemes might be suggested to them from the University and from the town respectively, it was quite possible that, by a further conference between the University and the town, a scheme might be suggested to the Local Government Board in which both parties concurred. In fact, quite recently negotiations were carried on between representatives of the town and representatives of the University; and it appeared at one time that those two Bodies were very near coming to an agreement. Unfortunately a full discussion of the matter could not take place for lack of time, and more especially as it came on at the period of the year when, of all others, the University was most empty. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Committee would adhere to the proposition of the Government as contained in the Bill, and would retain Sub-section 2 of Clause 55.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he had spoken under a misapprehension when he had previously told the Committee that the arrangement to which he had referred could be effected even without that sub-section; but he had since ascertained that that was not so, and that it was essential that the sub-section should be retained in the clause.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he supported the retention of the sub-section and opposed the Amendment moving for its omission. He must congratulate the House on the few remarks they had heard from his hon. Colleague the Member for the University of Cambridge, who was an ornament to any Body on which he sat, and whose long acquaintance with this subject in its minutest details required and demanded their careful consideration. As the hon. Member knew, he (Mr. James Stuart) had been a member along with him on other occasions on the Governing Body of the University of Cambridge, and he could say this—and the hon. Member would bear
  1324
  him out in his assertion—that the relations of the University of Cambridge and the Colleges of that University to the town were absolutely peculiar. They might be borne out by similar relations between the University of Oxford and the town of Oxford for all that he knew, but they were entirely different to anything they had to deal with in the Bill, and they must therefore treat the matter on a different basis. They had in the University, residing in the Colleges, a large number of persons who were absolutely disfranchised by previous Acts of Parliament especially directed to the peculiar institutions of that University and its Colleges, and he took it that the object of the Amendment was that the matter should be considered, apart from other matters, by the Commission or Committee, or whoever else it was who would have to consider the Provisional Order. He did plead for that consideration being allowed, and he felt that in this matter he spoke on behalf of and in conj unction with his hon. Friend and Colleague, if he might so call him, on the other side. The relations between the University and the Town of Cambridge had been a constant subject of consideration. There could be no doubt that they were very anomalous, and that it was desirable that under this Bill there should be a unification of those relations which could not well be attained without due consideration of the peculiar circumstances involved. Therefore, if the opinion of the Chairman was that the retention of this clause was necessary for the consideration of this matter in the Provisional Order he earnestly hoped that the Committee would retain the clause, and that, too, in the interests of the town represented by the hon. Member (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) who moved the rejection of the sub-section. They must remember that there was an enormous rateable college property in the town, and that the property of' the Colleges in the town by no means had its proper place in the municipal life of that town. Though there might be members of the University who might be electors or members of the Town Council under the present condition of things, it was because they were ratepayers for other property than college property and had been elected by their brother ratepayers; but there were many men,

  1325
  amongst whom he himself was one, who were not qualified by the existing regulations to take any part in the management of the municipality in which so much of their property existed, and with which they had to do. He spoke not only from the point of view of his hon. Colleague opposite, but also from the point of view of one who was also as intimately interested in the circumstances of the town of Cambridge as was the hon. Gentleman who represented the town sitting on the Bench opposite. He certainly hoped that if, for the solution of this very thorny and difficult question—which was not, however, far off solution now, as he thought the hon. Gentleman opposite would admit—it was deemed necessary that this sub-section should be retained in order that the whole of the case of the University might be considered by a Select Committee as a question isolated from the rest of the Local Government Board of the country, that hon. Members would support its retention. He was not arguing for this because of any desire he had for the continuance of the peculiar circumstances of Cambridge University, but because, whatever his view might be of their desirability, those peculiar circumstances existed, and this question could not be treated on exactly similar lines to those bearing on other towns. If the clause was looked upon as necessary for the consideration of the peculiar situation of the town and University of Cambridge, he should give it his support.
  MR. A. W. HALLsaid, he had considered the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge, and he ought to say that so far as he could see there would be no desire amongst his (Mr. A. W. Hall's) constituents that this sub-section should be omitted. The Local Board of Oxford had always been working harmoniously with the University, and he hoped and trusted that they would continue to do so when the new Council was created; but, inasmuch as they had reason to suppose that the city of Oxford would have a County Council, inasmuch as it had a population of over 50,000, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, if this clause were retained, it would include the "County Council" as well as "District?" He would propose that, in line 20, the right hon. Gentleman should
  1326
  leave out the word "district," in order that the provision might apply to the County Council as well as to the District Council, by which alteration the case of Oxford might be met.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think that any objection could be taken to that.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he was glad the hon. Member for the City of Oxford had spoken on this question in a different sense to the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge. He was quite sure that hon. Members would agree with him when he said, as a former member of the Local Government Board of Oxford, and as a University representative on the Board of Guardians, that friction between the University and the city had been largely avoided by the presence of University representatives on these Boards. It might not always be possible to have University members elected on the Boards in the ordinary way, and all persons connected with the University could not obtain representation as ordinary citizens by the ordinary processes—as married tutors living in the City, and so on. The Colleges covered an enormous area, and surely the sanitary condition of those buildings was a matter of the greatest importance to those concerned in the University. It would be seen that it must be essential to avoid, as much as possible, friction with the town authorities on these matters, and there was nothing better calculated to do that than that the University should have representatives sitting on the sanitary Boards side by side with the ordinary elective members. He, therefore, hoped that the Committee would not now, by a side wind, interfere with the arrangements which must be adapted to the peculiar character and circumstances of a University town. He dared say some hon. Gentlemen of strong Liberal or Radical views would consider that, in saying this, he was going against Radical principles, but he only hoped that such Gentlemen if they did speak would do so with some real knowledge of the circumstances of the case.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not know whether it had yet been mentioned, but it was a fact that Oxford University paid one-third of the whole rates of the whole rates of the town of Oxford, and that it would have

  1327
  no direct vote whatever in the expenditure of those rates if this sub-section were not passed.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the information the right hon. Gentleman just now gave them showed how exceedingly wrong he was a moment ago when, by a piece of singular mental agility, he proposed to withdraw this sub-section—
  MR. RITCHIE: I did not propose to withdraw it.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to express himself in favour of withdrawing it.
  MR. RITCHIE: No, no!
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had not done so. He (Mr. Conybeare) was inclined to think that this clause would meet the difficulty suggested, and, as one of those advanced Radicals and democratic Members to whom the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland) had distinctly alluded, he had great pleasure in assuring the hon. Member that he was not going to take a pedantic or doctrinaire view of this question. He would, however, frankly say that he would have solved this difficulty in another way. It would, he thought, be more in accordance with Liberal views, and the question would not have been found more difficult of solution if the Government had boldly extended the municipal franchise to all the residents in the Universities, because it must be understood that there were two classes of residents in the University—those immured within the walls of the establishment, and those who were householders and had their families resident, as burgesses if they liked, in the town. The University electors in the city of Oxford were a considerable number in the present day. All persons residing outside the Colleges, he imagined, would be entitled to the municipal franchise if they wanted it. He did not see what difficulty there would be in extending those privileges or rights to other University men who happened to be living within the walls of the Colleges. If it were a question of giving preference, he should prefer that solution of the difficulty to the other. But as it was too late to press the Government for any further innovation in that direction, it appeared to him that the proposal embodied in
  1328
  this contested sub-section was at any rate a very harmless one, and one which certainly would not in the opinion of University men lead to friction or difficulty. He was glad that it had been made apparent that this clause would not extend solely to Cambridge. At first it looked rather as if the peculiar condition which would prevent Oxford from enjoying the privilege given in this clause was to be retained, and that the application was to be peculiar to Cambridge. He now understood that that was not so, and as one interested in Oxford and who saw that this proposal might be of great convenience to the city of Oxford, he supported the Government in contending for the retention of the subsection.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, the hon. Member for London (Mr. Baring) had thrown out a suggestion that he (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) was not a member of the University of Cambridge. He was a member of the University, and a graduate. Then he had been taunted by an hon. Member with the statement that the University of Cambridge did not get on well with the Town Authorities of Cambridge. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; it was insinuated that the Oxford University got on well with the Local Authorities, but that Cambridge did not. The hon. Member said that there had been scarcely a hitch during a long period of years between the representatives of the University and the town. Well, there had been no hitch between the University Authorities of Cambridge and the Local Boards, but they would get some idea of what the condition of things might be if this sub-section were agreed to by imagining the elected representatives of the town in the Town Council in the midst of all the Deans and Dons of the University, in much the same position as he (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) occupied just now in that House in the midst of so many learned University Professors. It was a great pity that the two old University towns of Oxford and Cambridge could not row in one boat in the future as they had done in the past. Oxford was to have a County Council, but Cambridge was only to have a District Council. No doubt he had no right to go into that point; but he might be allowed to express the hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite and around him

  1329
  would support him in expressing the view that Cambridge should be dealt with in this respect in the same way as Oxford. He feared he should be in a small minority if he pressed his Amendment, therefore he must leave the defence of the interests of the town of Cambridge to the tender mercies of the introducers of this Bill, with the hope that the Radical Members of the towns of Oxford and Cambridge would use their influence with him to see that those towns were not neglected in their relations with the Universities.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, if the hon. Member would accept the support of, at any rate, one Radical Member, he should be happy to divide with him upon his Amendment.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he desired to explain that the hon. Member (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald) had misunderstood what had fallen from him. He had not said that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the University of Cambridge, but that he did not know whether he was a member of it or not.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. A. W. HALL, the following Amendment made:—In page 48, line 20, to leave out the word "district."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 56 (Consideration of alterations of boundaries by County Councils).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 48, line 25, to leave out "county," and insert "administrative county or county borough."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had on more than one occasion expressed satisfaction at the Boundary Clauses. He thought they were well framed, but there were one or two cases in which he would like to see Amendments made. The clause dealt with the Reports made by the Boundary Commissioners and—
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 27, leave out "the council may," and insert "to."—(Mr. Stanfield.)
  Question, "That the words 'the council may' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 57 (Future alterations of boundaries of county and borough, and of electoral divisions of a county).
  MR. F. S. POWELL, in moving to insert, after the word "county," in line 34, the words "county borough," said, he proposed the insertion of these words in order to make the clause harmonize with what had been done in Clause 56 and with some Amendments to be proposed in the clause by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 34, after the word "county," to insert the words "county borough."—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the insertion of the words were quite unnecessary, as the hon. Gentleman would see that the words of the clause were "council of any county or borough." If they were to accept those words, they would prevent any county that was not a county borough making representations.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WOODALL, in moving to insert "as the case may be," after the word "borough," in line 35, said, what he wanted to make clear was that the boundary of the borough was not to be altered except on the application of the representatives of the borough, and that in the event of any such alteration the consequential adjustment of the words should be made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 48, line 35, after the word "borough," to insert the words "as the case may be."—(Mr. Woodall.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that

  1331
  if they accepted the Amendment, they would preclude a borough which wanted an extension of its areas beyond the county in which it was at that time situated from making the representation.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he was afraid he did not quite realize what the right hon. Gentleman urged. What he wanted particularly to know was whether a borough might act quite independently of the County Authority?
  MR. RITCHIE: Certainly it can.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 48, at end of line 37, insert the following sub-sections:—
  (b.) "That the union of a county borough with a county is desirable; or
  (c.) That the union of any counties or boroughs or the division of any county is desirable; or
  (d.) That it is desirable to constitute any borough having a population of not less than fifty thousand into a county borough; or."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, it was enacted in this clause that whenever it was represented by the Council of any county or borough that an alteration in the number of elective councillors and electoral divisions was desirable—
  "The Local Government Board shall cause to be made a local inquiry, and may make an order for the alteration proposed "
  accordingly. Was it not necessary or advisable that some distinct provision should be made for the petitioning authority to be heard upon the local inquiry?
  Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 1, after the word "representation," to insert the words "or for such other alteration as they may deem expedient."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that when a local inquiry was held, any body of persons affected by the proposed alteration would, of course, have a right to make representation; besides, the alteration would be made by Provisional Order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, line 1, before "refuse," insert "may."—
  Mr. STANSFELDsaid, that what he desired was that the Local Government Board should have the power to make the alterations in default of representations, but that the Provisional Order should not have effect unless confirmed by Act of Parliament, and to carry out his desire he would move the next Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 49, at commencement of line 5, to insert the words—
  "Provided, that in default of such representation by the council of any county or borough before the first day of November one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to cause such local inquiry to be made, and thereupon to make such order as they may deem expedient."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought that on further consideration, the right hon. Gentleman would see it was not advisable to insert these words. They had already agreed, in the commencement of Clause 57, that representation should be made by the Council of any county or borough to the Local Government Board, and that upon that representation the Local Government Board should take such action. It seemed to him it would be rather contrary to the principle of the first portion of the section if the Local Government Board were, in default of receiving any representations from the county or borough, to set to work to make the inquiry which might be necessary. By the adoption of these words they would not only be departing from what they had already agreed to, but they would be really placing an obligation upon the Local Government Board which it would be almost impossible for them to fulfil. He did not see how they could carry out such instructions as the right hon. Gentleman would give them, unless they were at once to commence what might be called a roving expedition into all the counties and county boroughs of England, with the view of seeing whether alterations were required. The principle on which they had acted was, that the question of these alterations was of such a difficult character that it could be best dealt with, at least at the commencement, by the locality. He submitted that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would be contrary to that principle,

  1333
  and that, moreover, it would put a duty on the shoulders of the Local Government Board which it would be practically impossible for them to fulfil.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the localities might deem it expedient not to make any representation, and then matters would come to a dead lock, un-unless Parliament provided some other power behind the County Council. He started with the proposition that it was absolutely essential for the success of the scheme of county government in the future that there should be no crossing of areas, and that the question of boundaries should be carried to its necessary and complete end. Therefore, he proposed that, after a certain time, if the Local Authorities failed to make a representation, the obligation of the Local Government Board should commence.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that no one desired that overlapping areas should be adjusted more than he did. He wished the Bill to be a real success; but he was very much afraid that even if there were not all these difficulties, if they provided some alternative mode of dealing with the question, it might be that the bodies upon whom the burden rested first of all might shirk the matter, and say—"Oh, we will not deal with the question, because, if we do not by a certain time, the Local Government Board will relieve us in the matter." He could not help thinking it was better to leave the clause as it stood, in the hope that the County Councils would endeavour to do that which was right and expedient. If it was found that the County Councils did not do what was proper, a new measure dealing with the question might be introduced.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that under this clause there were only two possible initiatives in the alteration of the boundaries; one was the initiative of the County Council, and the other was the initiative of the county borough. In the county of Lancashire there was a large number of Local Board districts. The Urban Authorities in these districts were quite as important bodies as Town Councils in the smaller boroughs, and, therefore, it did not seem to him altogether safe to leave representation on the subject of boundaries to the County Council or to the Borough Council. It
  1334
  would be right, he thought, to give power of initiative to the authorities of urban districts. If that was not done, there would not be the changes made in the electoral divisions which would be desirable from time to time, as population altered. Whilst there might be something to be said against bringing in the Local Government Board, he thought there was necessity for more than merely leaving the initiative to the County Council or county borough; it was certainly desirable that the urban districts should have the power of calling attention to the necessity of altering the boundaries.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he quite agreed with what the right hon. Baronet had just said. He hoped his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would stand by the statement he had made—that, in the first instance, he would not allow the Local Government Board to interfere with the alteration of the boundaries. The County Councils would be new Bodies, but it was supposed they would be very strong Bodies. Surely, they would know the requirements of their own nighbourhood better than the Local Government Board could possibly do. Until the localities had had time to consider the question of boundaries, it would be unwise to give the Local Government Board power of initiative.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, that no one proposed that, in the first instance, the Local Government Board should interfere. The proposal was that if a county or county borough did not do what was supposed to be its duty, the Local Government Board should have power to take the initiative and hold a local inquiry. He thought the Amendment went too far, because there might be many cases in which no alterations of boundaries might be needed at all. The words of the Amendment were imperative. What was wanted was something in the nature of the Amendment which stood lower down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), because what they all aimed at was that where there were over-lapping boundaries they should, in the interest of the simplification of local areas, be dealt with as effectively and as quickly as possible. No doubt, the

  1335
  Local Bodies should have the initiative in the matter, but where the Local Authorities refused or neglected to do their duty in a certain time, surely there ought to be power for the Local Government Board to see that what was necessary was done.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax should so amend his Amendment that it would read—
  "Provided that, in default of such representation by a county or county borough before the first day of November 1889, the Local Government Board may cause such local inquiry to be made, and thereupon may make such order as they may deem expedient."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was willing to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that he had an Amendment dealing with the subject; but he was perfectly satisfied with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, which, he thought would do all that was required.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, at commencement of line 5, insert—
  "Provided that in default of such representation by a county or county borough before the first day of November 1889, the Local Government Board may cause such local inquiry to be made, and thereupon may make such order as they may deem expedient."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in moving the Amendment which stood in his name, said, the Amendment had been suggested to him by the Authorities in some of the larger towns with a view of pointing out distinctly what were the considerations the Local Government Board should have regard to in stating the boundaries of the towns. The Amendment was proposed in no way adverse to the spirit of the clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 49, after the words last inserted, to insert—"In dealing with an application by any borough under this section, the Local Government Board shall be empowered to have regard to the community of local interests between the borough and the places enclosed in the proposed extension, as also to sanitary and other requirements common to each, and to the efficiency and economy of combined local government."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the words were quite unnecessary. The Local Government Board would, of course, be bound to have regard to such matters when they were dealing with an application of the kind.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHE, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, line 6, after the word "borough," to insert "or unites or divides any counties or boroughs;" and in page 49, line 7, at end of line, to insert—
  "Where such order alters the boundary of a borough, it may, as consequential upon such alteration, increase or decrease the number of the wards in the borough, and alter the boundaries of such wards, and alter the apportionment of the number of councillors among the wards, and alter the total number of councillors, and in such case, make the proportionate alteration in the number of aldermen."
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, after the words last inserted, to insert—
  "Any time after the appointed day the Local Government Board may make an order in pursuance of the section mentioned."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 58 (Future constitution of new borough).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 49, line 10, after the word "situate," to insert the words "and shall be forwarded by such council to the Privy Council."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WOODALLsaid, the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman took the sting out of the clause. When one came to consider how natural it would be for any districts like those governed by Local Boards to seek to be incorporated it was rather difficult to understand why they should not be permitted, as hitherto, to make direct application for the privilege of a Charter. Of course, in the event of such an application, the county would be heard as at the present time. The Justices or any other persons concerned might be heard.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) said, that communities would have a right to make their representation, and no Body would be able to intervene and prevent that application being made. All that was provided was that the County Council should be made aware of the fact that a district was making application for a Charter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. LEAKEsaid, the purport of the Amendment he had now to propose was that every district of 20,000 inhabitants according to the last Census, and a rateable value of :60,000, should have, if not a right to the grant of a Charter, at any rate a very strong claim. Although he could scarcely justify, on Constitutional grounds, that such a district should have a Charter from Her Majesty on application, he thought the spirit of the proposition would be entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He suggested that his Amendment should run as follows:—
  "Provided, that when any application for a new charter is made by any urban district having a population of twenty thousand according to the last census, and a rateable value of sixty thousand pounds, the Local Government Board shall, on proof being supplied to them that the application has been approved and directed to be made by the district council, report in favour of the application."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was sure the hon. Gentleman was hardly serious in making this suggestion. If the Local Government Board or the Privy Council were to have any jurisdiction whatever in this matter, it was useless to say that they should, under certain circumstances, do so and so. These things must be considered in their minds. A population of 20,000 might be so scattered over a large area as to make it almost absurd for them to apply for a Charter of Incorporation. He could not conceive the hon. Gentleman really desired that upon an application of this kind Her Majesty should be bound to grant a Charter of Incorporation. It was not proposed to make it any more difficult for an Urban Authority to obtain a Charter than it was at present.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 59 (Future alteration of county districts and parishes and wards, and future establishment of urban districts).
  On the Motion of Mr. WOODALL, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, line 18, after the word "parish," to insert the words "not in a borough."
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 49, line 20, after "alteration," insert "or definition."
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he had an Amendment to move, which would empower the County Council to form new urban and rural districts, or, at any rate, to make it clear that they possessed that power. The Amendment would obviate the inconveniences which arose in grouping, say, two small towns into one Local Board district.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 49, line 27, after the word "another," to insert the words "and the formation of new urban and rural districts."—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): Agreed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that in Sub-section 3 of this clause the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the principle of allowing the county ratepayers in a district or ward to appeal against the orders made by the County Council under the clause. He thought that a bad principle.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Additional power of Local Government Board as to unions).
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would propose the first of a series of Amendments, the object of which was to render it compulsory instead of discretionary to carry out the object of the clause. He entertained the strongest opinion that they could not perfect their Local Government system without simplifying their areas and boundaries. No boundary line should be allowed to cross another, and he would make it the duty of the Local Government Board to see that this was not done. He did not propose to move the Amendments in the

  1339
  form in which they appeared on the Paper, but to modify them, in order to arrive at a compromise, and meet the views of hon. Gentlemen and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
  Amendment proposed, in page 50, line 29, before the word "the," to insert the words "it shall be the duty of."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the fact that it did not require any special direction under this Bill to enable the Local Government Board to divide the Unions. It was thought advisable to give fresh powers under the Bill in consequence of what appeared to be the view of the Boundary Commissioners. It would, he thought, be rather a strong order to say in this Bill that the Local Government Board, in addition to the power already vested in them, if they thought it desirable to alter a Union, should have it imposed on them as a duty to do so. Under this Bill they were constituting County Councils specially charged with the duty of considering the Report of the Boundary Commissioners, and alongside of that there should not exist the power—not the power, for that existed already, but the obligation—on the part of the Local Government Board of seeing that the Unions were altered. As the right hon. Gentleman knew, there was no question more difficult to deal with than the alteration of the boundaries of Unions, and he was assured that the powers given under this clause would form an admirable escape from the difficulties of the case.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he thought they would be acting very unwisely indeed if they allowed the rearrangement of overlapping Unions to be postponed sine die. The right hon. Gentleman had no occasion to force on County Councils a duty which would be distasteful to them, but he would do the County Councils a great service if he took power to settle matters when the Local Authorities failed to agree. On the part of the Quarter Sessions there had invariably been a de-
  1340
  sire to add to their jurisdiction, and he was perfectly satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman took this power into his hands as was proposed, he would prevent a great deal of quarelling and do a very great deal of good.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax would not insist on the Motion. There was something more than similitude which had to be considered, and though it might be a pretty thing to see equal districts in the map, they might be inimical to the interests of the poor, and it was necessary to consider those interests.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, nothing could be more important, as all knew, and as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board recognized, than that there should not go on in the future that overlapping of areas, which had been the source of continual confusion in local government in the past, and out of which many of the evils of local government had arisen. The question was, how best to get rid of this? It had been stated truly that the Local Government Board had now the power of dividing Unions. But there was no obligation upon the Board to do so, and the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax was simply that there should be this obligation upon the Board to divide Unions or annex a portion of one Union to another Union in the county in which that portion was situated. He hoped the Committee would go as far as this, else this would be but a halting, timid clause, and would not effect the purpose intended. There could be no harm in throwing this responsibility upon the Local Government Board and let the Committee recognize the paramount duty of now dealing with the matter.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, so far the Committee had considered only the case of Unions overlapping counties, but he had an Amendment providing that the Local Government Board should address itself to regulating parish boundaries where they overlapped borough boundaries, Perhaps it might be convenient to consider this point at the same time. It would be observed that what he proposed was simply an enabling clause calling the attention of the

  1341
  Local Government Board to the duty, and requiring the Board, on the application of the Borough Authority, to do what could be done with due justice to all interests concerned to make the parish and borough boundaries coterminous.
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORTinquired what was understood by the expression in line 30, "any of these purposes?"
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it referred to indoor pauperism or any of those purposes connected with indoor pauperism.
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORTasked, would there not be a difficulty in carrying out the division of the poor rate if the Union was to remain one for the purposes of indoor relief and divided for the purposes of outdoor relief? The rateable area would remain the same for the poor rate, but there would have to be a division in some way that was not clear.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Union would remain the same for rating purposes.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked Her Majesty's Government to consider if there was really any serious objection to this Amendment? It was a duty that must be performed within a short time. The Report of the Boundary Commission would shortly be before Parliament, and surely then it would be the duty of the Local Government Board to give effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. The result of this Amendment would simply be to ensure within a certain time that one of the alternatives should be carried out. He should have been sorry to support the Amendment in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax first placed it on the Paper, for it would have destroyed the most valuable power given by the clause to form contributory Unions; but this Amendment would facilitate the arrangement of county and Union boundaries, and surely the Local Government Board should not object to undertaking a duty that must sooner or later be performed.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the original basis of the Bill was the setting up of local representative institutions. The Government were proceeding by means of inquiry, so that full information should be given to these Bodies as to the position of Poor Law Unions within their area.
  1342
  They would have all the evidence taken by and the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners, and surely the County Councils could be relied upon to deal with a matter of this kind in the best interests of the locality. He would point out to the Committee that if this Amendment were accepted, a duty would be cast upon the Local Government Board that might necessitate the Board doing things that might be contrary to the interest of the poor ratepayers. Looking at the fact that the Local Government Board had the power of dividing Unions, that they had expressed a view in favour of bringing counties and Unions into line, and pro-providing for contributory Unions, he thought the Board was doing all it could to bring about a reform he earnestly desired. But if the Board had cast upon it an obligation to do what a County Council did not think necessary, not only here but in reference to all the numerous county boroughs that were to be created, there would be set up machinery that might not be for the benefit of County Councils, ratepayers, or the administration of the Poor Law.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, it was no part of the duty of County Councils to consider questions of Poor Law Unions; those matters were kept quite apart from the Councils, and the decision must be with the Local Government Board. He must press his Amendment.
  MR. BARINGcited an instance in the county of Essex illustrating the difficulties that arose from a Union extending over the boundaries of two counties.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Local Government Board had no power, without an Act of Parliament, to alter county boundaries, but they had the power to divide a Union situated on the border line of two counties.
  MR. BARINGasked, did the power include annexation of a Union to an adjoining Union?
  MR. RITCHIEreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he could not understand why the Board had not done that.
  MR. BRUNNERasked the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that he would look upon this arrangement for dividing Unions in two for one purpose,

  1343
  and combining Unions for another purpose, as a temporary arrangement, and as soon as it could be arranged he would recognize the duty of the Local Government Board to fix upon a permanent arrangement.
  MR RITCHIEsaid, he could conceive that it might be possible that the arrangement of one Union for indoor relief and two Unions for outdoor relief might be the best arrangement for all time. It might be so, and, indeed, it had been urged by many Poor Law reformers.
  MR A. W. HALLsaid, he confessed he did not thoroughly understand either the clause or the Amendment. Sitting at the other end of the House, he did not hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. Certainly, this divergence of area for indoor and outdoor relief required some explanation. He did not want to "see the Pope in everything," or see the workhouse policy in every proposition in regard to the Bill; but to pass a clause that would give a larger area of taxation for indoor relief than for outdoor relief would be likely to encourage the workhouse policy, as it had under the Metropolitan Poor Rate Act of 1870, increasing the amount of indoor pauperism by 69 per cent. He should like to hear what was the object and meaning of this clause. Was it to carry out this policy of what was called Poor Law reform in extending the system of indoor relief?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was no idea of the kind. If the hon. Member would refer to the clause, he would find that it did not impose on the Local Government Board, or confer upon the Board any power of enlarging the area of existing Poor Law Unions for indoor relief, but it said that, taking the existing Poor Law Union, this might be taken as the area for indoor relief, but the Union might be divided for the purposes of outdoor relief.
  MR A. W. HALLsaid, that if the clause provided for narrowing the area for outdoor relief purposes, but not for indoor relief, that practically amounted to the same thing as enlarging the indoor relief area, but not for outdoor relief.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought his
  1344
  hon. Friend did not quite understand the point at issue.
  MR. A. W. HALLsaid, he admitted he did not.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, then it might be stated in this way—Parishes in a Union were situated on both sides of the county boundary, and for convenience the Union workhouse was built in a town in one of the counties. It was obvious that if the Union were divided, another Union workhouse would have to be built. But to save the expense of building another workhouse, and make the existing house available for either side of the boundary, the whole area would be included for indoor relief, though divided for outdoor relief.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, for the benefit of the hon. Member, he might explain that the immediate object of his Amendment was, while accepting the enacting part of the clause, to make it not a matter of discretion, but a matter of duty for the Local Government Board, when a Union crossed a county boundary, to deal with it by dissolving the Union or otherwise.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, it seemed to be forgotten that when the Unions were formed, 50 or more years ago, the object of the eminent men who framed the areas was to include the district around each town or considerable village, and levy rates within the parishes so included for the relief of the poor inhabitants. It was impossible to change the position of a town which was the seat of Poor Law administration. The town of Hay was the convenient centre for a Union overlapping Radnor, Brecknock, and Herefordshire, and there would be no convenience from cutting the Union asunder. Nor did he see that the division of area for indoor and outdoor relief would very much affect the case, because the outdoor poor after all would have to go to where the Guardians met to represent their case to the Guardians.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the Report of the Boundary Commission would be submitted to the County Councils, and it would be their duty to take such Report into consideration, and make representations in regard to Unions situated partially within the boundary of their county.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he doubted very much, since Poor Law administration was outside the functions of the Councils, whether they would undertake duties which they would naturally say appertained to the Local Government Board. The remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) gave twofold evidence of twofold ignorance. It was not pedantry to care about the simplification of boundaries. Anyone who had any practical acquaintance with Local Government and what was necessary for administration knew that it was absolutely essential that for the exercise of proper county control all functions must be exercised within the county area. The circumstances of those seeking outdoor relief would be investigated locally.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 149: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 214.)
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 50, line 34, after "two," insert "or more"; and in line 37, after "two," insert "or more."
  MR. BYRON REEDsaid the Amendment he had to propose was simply in the direction of promoting uniformity, and he hoped it would be accepted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 50, line 37, after the word "unions," to add the words, "Wherein any union the whole or part of any district, township, or place is within the area of a borough for municipal purposes, but is not within the union of such borough, the Local Government Board shall have full power by order, so to alter such unions, as to transfer the whole or such part of such district, township, or place out of its present union to the borough union, on such terms as to existing charges and liabilities as the Local Government Board may deem proper."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would point out that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the Local Government Board had that power now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 61 (Supplemental provisions as to scheme or order).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 51,to leave out from beginning of line 1, to "for," in line 2, and insert—
  "A place which is part of an administrative county for the purposes of this Act shall, subject as hereinafter mentioned, form part of that county;"
  in line 3, to leave out "county council"; in line 4, to leave out "save that it shall not," and insert—
  "Provided that,—(a) Notwithstanding this enactment each of the entire counties of York and Lincoln shall continue to be one county for the said purposes, so far as it is one county at the passing of this Act; and (b) This enactment shall not affect the existing powers or privileges of any borough or city under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as respects the sheriff, justices, or coroner for the borough; but if any county borough is, at the passing of this Act, a part of any county for any of the above purposes, nothing in this Act shall prevent the same from continuing to be part of that county for that purpose; and (c) This enactment shall not."
  On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, the following Amendment made to Mr. Ritchie's Amendment:—In line 3, after "Lincoln," insert "Sussex."
  On the Motion of Captain SELWYN, the following Amendment made to Mr. Ritchie's Amendment:—In line 3, after "Sussex," insert "and Cambridge."
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 51, line 14, after "order," to insert "or by 'The County Electors Act, 1888,' or this Act;" and in line 21, after "restrictions," insert "or."
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, in the absence of his right hon. Friend for the Sleaford Division of Lincolshire (Mr. Chaplin), he had to move the Amendment that stood in the name of the latter. The clause appeared to give powers of interference to a rather extravagant extent.
  Amendment proposed, in page 51, line 27, to leave out "quarter sessions, justices of the peace, coroners, sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum."—(Sir Richard Paget.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) said, he could quite understand that his hon. Friend should be somewhat alarmed by this catalogue; but it was essential, because any scheme for alteration of boundaries must deal with these questions. But he would point out that any alteration of the kind could only be made by Provisional Order, and so would require the sanction of Parliament.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he was willing to take it from his right hon. Friend that this was so; but he did not find in connection with the clause this Provisional Order protection.
  MR. RITCHIErepeated his assurance that any alterations in boundaries necessitating alterations in powers and duties of Quarter Sessions must be the subject of Provisional Order, and have the sanction of Parliament.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made: In page 52, line 4, after "property," insert "debts;" and in line 6, after "boundaries," insert "of a county."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 52, after Sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-section;—"In all cases where the boundaries of a quarter sessions borough shall be extended by any scheme or order made in pursuance of this Act, the jurisdiction of the quarter sessions and of the justices of the borough shall be extended to the entire area of the borough as so extended; and when any quarter sessions borough which, according to the Census of 1881, contained a population of less than ten thousand, shall, by such extension, be made to include and contain a population of more than ten thousand, then such borough shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be deemed and taken to have been a borough which, according to the Census of 1881, contained a population of more than ten thousand, and the provisions of this Act with respect to boroughs containing, according to the Census of 1881, a population of less than ten thousand, shall not be taken to apply to such extended borough."—(Mr. Woodall.)
  Question proposed, "That the Sub-section be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not possibly accept the Amendment as it stood. Again, he must point out that the alteration could only be made by Provisional Order. It was essential that the Local Government Board should consider all the circumstances of the borough in applying such extension, and deal with these in a Provisional
  1348
  Order; and it would be quite open for the authorities of any borough, feeling themselves aggrieved, to appear before the Committee to which such Standing Order would be referred, and make such representations as they might think necessary.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, the explanation just given appeared to be fairly satisfactory. In the absence of the hon. Member responsible for the Amendment (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) he would ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FIRTHasked whether the section applied to representations and proposals for making alterations in the electoral divisions in adjoining parishes in London?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must express an opinion that it would not.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that having raised the point, he was content to leave it for consideration.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 62 (Adjustment of property and liabilities).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 52, line 25, after second "agreement," insert—
  "And any other agreement authorized by this Act to be made for the purpose of the adjustment of any property, debts, liabilities, or financial relations."
  Amendment proposed, in page 52, line 28, after the word "property," to insert the words "and for the transfer of any duties."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, the clause dealt with financial matters, and the transfer of duties did not seem to him to appertain to the clause, which related to debts, liabilities, and things of that kind.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)explained the clause dealt with property and liabilities, and the addition was made in reference to the transfer and adjustment of financial matters.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page

  1349
  52, line 29, after "debts," to insert "duties;" line 31, after "person," insert—
  "And that either by way of a capital sum, or of a terminable annuity for a period not exceeding that allowed by the Commissioners under this Act or the Local Government Board;"
  line 39, after "Board," insert—
  "Any award or order made by the Commissioners or any arbitrator under this Act, may provide for any matter for which an agreement might have provided;"
  line 40, at beginning of line, insert—
  "Any sum required to be paid for the purpose of adjustment, or of any award or order made by the Commissioners, or by an arbitrator under this Act, which is not payable as a capital sum, may be paid out of the county or borough fund or out of such other special fund as the council, with the approval of the Commissioners under this Act or of the Local Government Board, may direct;"
  and in line 43, after "Act," insert—
  "Or in the case of a borough council under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' or any local Act, and such sum may be borrowed on the security of all or any of the funds, rates, and revenues of the council, and either by the creation of stock or in any other manner in which they are for the time being authorized to borrow, and such sum may be borrowed without the consent of the Treasury or any other authority, so that it be repaid within such period as the Commissioners under this Act or the Local Government Board may sanction, by such sinking fund as is directed by 'The Local Loans Act, 1875,' or if the sum is raised by stock under a local Act, is directed by that Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  DIVORCE CASES (PERJURY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Darling, Bill for the prevention and punishment of Perjury on the hearing of Petitions for Dissolution of Marriage ordered to be brought in by Mr. Darling and Mr. Coleridge.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 328.]

  TRAFALGAR SQUARE (REGULATION OF MEETINGS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. James Stuart, Bill for the Regulation of Meetings in Trafalgar Square, ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Howell, and Mr. Cremer.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 329.]

  ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Harry Davenport, Bill to amend the Law relating to Ecclesiastical Dila-
  1350
  pidations, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Davenport, Mr. Salt, Mr. Gurdon, and Baron Dimsdale.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 330.]

  PUBLIC MEETINGS IN OPEN SPACES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Cunninghame Graham, Bill to declare and regulate the right of Public Meeting in Open Spaces, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cunninghame Graham, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Conybeare, and Mr. James Stuart.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 331.]
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Archdeaconry of Cornwall (202).
Referred to Select Committee—Land Charges Registration and Searches (186).
Committee—Report—Limited Partnerships (on re-comm.) (159–213).
Report—Lloyd's Signal Stations (84).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Committee—Report—Local Government (No. 5)* (192).
Report—Local Government (No. 8)* (172); Local Government (No. 10)* (173); Local Government (No. 11)* (174); Local Government (Gas)* (142).
Third Reading—Elementary Education (London)* (102), and passed.

BURIAL GROUNDS AND CEMETERIES (METROPOLIS)—THE BURIAL GROUND OF WHITFIELD'S TABERNACLE, TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MEATH, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, What steps they had taken, as promised by the Home Secretary on the 10th of September of last year, to abate the scandal and danger to the public—as shown by the recent evidence given in the Regent's Park murder case—arising from the presence of a crowd, composed in large part of disorderly persons of both sexes, who were in the habit of attending a fair held nightly on the disused burial ground adjoining Whitfield's Tabernacle in Tottenham Court Road; and also, if the existing law were found to be inadequate for the purpose of putting a stop to the nuisance, whether Her Majesty's Government would introduce a Bill with this object? said, that those of their Lordships who were youthful and enterprizing enough to explore the comparatively unknown regions of Tottenham Court Road might have seen a chapel surrounded by a churchyard enclosed by a hoarding on which were exposed those pictorical representations which enter-prizing tradesmen put up for the instruction and edification of the public. If they were to go there at a later hour of the night they would find that this churchyard was a scene of unmitigated immorality and riot. The police said that they had no power to interfere unless they were called upon to do so. As they had seen, by the evidence given

  1215
  with regard to the Regent's Park murder, gangs organized themselves under recognized leaders, and the actual murder had been concocted in this place. These meetings were held nightly by bands of predatory youths who were the terror of the neighbourhood. How was it that this had come to be permitted? The story was a somewhat long one, but briefly it was as follows:—In 1756 the land had been bought by the Rev. George Whitfield for the purpose of erecting this chapel. All went well till 1828, when the lease ran out. In 1831 the trustees purchased the copyhold, and the chapel having been burnt down it was found necessary to mortgage the land. Only a part of the money having been paid off the mortgagee had foreclosed, and ever since that date litigation had been going on. In 1857 an injunction was obtained against the owner of the land, who attempted to remove gravestones, and later on he attempted to build on the land, but was prevented. In 1879 the Vestry of St. Pancras had endeavoured to improve this piece of ground by planting it, but were restrained by the owner. The owner again attempted to build, but was again prevented, and finding it was impossible to make money out of the land in this way he had hit upon the ingenious device of inviting all the perambulating fairs in the country to come there. Though an injunction had been obtained to restrain this use of the ground during Divine Service, and though this injunction was afterwards extended, the nuisance still went on. A Bill had been brought in in the other House for the purpose of preventing such places being used for these purposes, but had, unfortunately, been blocked by the Government. He would not detain their Lordships longer, but would ask the Government the Question which stood in his name.
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (Earl BROWNLOW)said, that this ground had been closed for burials in 1853, and ever since that time it had been a source of a great deal of trouble, and legal proceedings of one sort or other had been going on with regard to it. Although something had been done in abatement, the place was still a great nuisance, and, being the resort of bad characters, greatly tended to increase crime in the neighbourhood. The Acts of Parlia-
  1216
  ment relating to the matter seemed somewhat obscure and vague, and, therefore, the Secretary of State had instructed the Treasury Solicitor to take proceedings with the object of ascertaining, by a judicial decision, the position of the matter, and whether the existing law was not sufficient to abate the nuisance referred to. Active steps were now being taken by the Solicitor to the Treasury. The Secretary of State thought that the law as it stood at present was sufficient to deal with the matter; but if it was not, Her Majesty's Government, being fully alive to the importance of the matter, would not shrink from taking such steps as would secure an alteration in the law.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, What steps were contemplated in order to place in a more efficient state the Militia of Great Britain? said, that the Militia had rendered very great service to the country in years past on many occasions, and during the Crimean War their zeal in volunteering and the goodwill shown by the commanding officers had proved most beneficial to the regiments of the Line. There was no School of Musketry of any sort for the Militia, or musketry instructors, or any institution for the study of tactics, &c., and the complement of officers was not complete, consequent upon their position not being properly recognized. They were not able to parade before Her Majesty because they had not any shakos. The country would show the greatest ingratitude if it did not acknowledge the great services which the Militia had rendered to the regiments of the Line and the country at large. The Militia were not increasing as they ought to do, consequent, partly, upon the short service system, and also on account of their not receiving a fair share of public money to which they were entitled, but which was given to Forces of a newer description which had not been tried to the same extent. The only Constitutional Force which the Government had a right to call out or could depend on during a time of emergency, that he was aware of, was the Militia,
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that it was of great advantage that the Militia should be encouraged as a Constitutional Force; but he was inclined to deny that it had been so much neglected as the noble and gallant Lord seemed to suppose. Looking at the recent Returns as to numbers, he thought the Militia would now compare well with the Force during the past 20 years, and that it did not show a bad position. It was perfectly true that the Militia was below its establishment; but if it could not be got up to its establishment at present, he thought that was owing to the greater demand for labour. This was a fact which should be always borne in mind, that the Militia was a most important feeder of the Line. Last year, or the year before, the Militia supplied something like 14,000 troops to the regiments of the Line. The noble and gallant Lord said that the Militia had no musketry instruction.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: No musketry instructor.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that some 21,000 men in the Militia passed last year through the musketry course. It was well that these facts should be known, because the Militia ought to be kept before the country. He would venture to suggest that it would be very important if the Militia and Volunteers were organized into brigades and brought together, and exercised as far as possible as they would be in time of war. That would be useful not only to the troops engaged, but to the commanding officers. He would like to make one or two remarks on the debate the other day. He was not going to renew the discussion on the question of invasion; but it seemed to him that the reply of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), who was not now in his place, to the noble and gallant Viscount (Viscount Wolseley), minimized more than was necessary the contingency of invasion, and might give a false sense of security. He (the Earl of Morley) was not an alarmist, but he had a reasonable desire that the country should be properly protected. There was a great difference between alarm and taking reasonable precautions. Surely it was the contemplation of an invasion that induced the nation to organize the Volunteer Force and to maintain the Militia. It was perfectly true that the Cabinet alone could be absolutely re-
  1218
  sponsible for the security of the country; but it seemed to him unnecessary to discourage the desire on the part of the country to guarantee itself against the contingency of an invasion, and remarks coming from high quarters such as those of the noble Marquess might tend to discourage that feeling. He believed the present Government had done a great deal towards organizing the Forces and placing the country in a better position for defence, and he ventured to hope they would continue in that course without giving way to extravagance, yet at the same time bearing in mind that it was essential that there should be an absolute guarantee against invasion.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALAsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Ellenborough). He believed that the Militia and Volunteer Forces might be made a security against any danger of an invasion. The noble Marquess on a late occasion had said that with the Fleet that we possessed invasion would be impossible. It seemed to him, however, that the presence of the Fleet could not be insured at all times. He believed the Fleet would still maintain its superiority, both because the officers were well and highly instructed, and because the population was maritime at heart. He therefore believed that everything that it had been possible for the Navy to do in former times it would do again; but the presence of the Navy could not always be guaranteed. It had precious Colonies, a widespread commerce, coaling stations, and the two valuable fortresses in the Mediterranean to defend. At present everything was calm around; but it appeared to him that that was the very time to set our minds to the work and to carry out what reforms were required. Now they could be introduced not as the result of panic, but as the result of the most careful consideration. We were in peaceful relations with all the nations in Europe; but we must remember that though national interests might be inherited, national friendships are not often so. We could not tell what popular passions might not arise to create hostility towards us. Germany seized the proper opportunity for carrying out her requisite reforms, and they had seen the consequence. This country should take warning by Germany.

  1219
  If we had our Reserve Forces properly trained, commanded, instructed, and organized much in the same way that Germany organized her local forces, we might be secure against any enemy that could possibly attack us. He was sure that the material we had at our command, if properly trained, would be equal to any troops in the world. He considered it was the duty of the Government to do everything they could to make the Reserve Forces efficient. There was one thing which he thought ought to receive more attention in the Militia, and that was shooting. Greater facilities for practice ought to be afforded to the Militia. He was quite sure that a great deal was being done at the present time in the War Office, but that was no reason why efforts should not be made for the better organization of the Reserve Forces. The War Office was actively engaged in making plans of defence on paper; but unless the country came forward with the necessary funds the reforms would still remain only paper reforms.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, the noble Earl who spoke last but one referred to alarmists on the Cross Benches. All he could say was that as long as matters were allowed to remain in their present state he was perfectly ready to be considered an alarmist, especially when he found himself in the company of the gallant Field Marshal. The noble Earl said he was not an alarmist. No official was an alarmist in quiet times; but when war broke out the Government soon became dissatisfied with preparations which had more than satisfied them before. He was certain that on this question of armament there was only one thing to be done, and that was to keep on pegging away at whatever Government was in Office, though he believed the present Government had done more in this direction than any other. A great portion of the Militia Force was composed of boys between 15 and 19, who would be no use in time of war. So far as it went, the Militia was as efficient as it could be, but it was not in the condition in which our chief defence ought to be. The noble Earl asked what was the use of raising extra men for the Militia if they could not keep it full? No doubt, the Militia was not full, and had never been full since 1854, and he was glad his noble and gallant Friend
  1220
  had brought the matter under the attention of the House. In 1885 he felt it his duty to raise this very question of the Militia in their Lordships' House, and to move a Resolution to the effect that the Militia should be recruited up to its establishment. Both Front Benches opposed the Resolution, but after an interesting debate it was carried by a majority of four or five. On that occasion he analyzed the figures of the Militia, and showed that with an establishment of 128,069 men there were enrolled only 104,000; and, taking away those men under 19 and those in the Militia Reserve, deducting also the Artillery and one-fifth for casualties, the total number we could put in line was only 54,966. There was no difficulty in filling the ranks of the Police Force, and similarly no difficulty would be found in regard to the Militia if the pay was increased. The only other alternative was to resort to the ballot. This was the real remedy, but such was the force of Party feeling that he feared that if one Party proposed it the other Party would oppose it. When Mr. Cardwell introduced his Army reform scheme the late Lord Sandhurst stated that there then was a probability of the scheme including the ballot for the Militia. Unfortunately, it did not. Mr. Cardwell promised that under his scheme there would in 1880 be an Army Reserve of 80,000. But in the result it turned out that in 1888 the Reserve only amounted to 54,000. The Army Reserve was dependent upon the strength of the various regiments; but these, instead of being kept up to their full strength, were allowed to fall to half their proper numbers—namely, to about 500 men. Whether one looked at the Army, its Reserves, and the Militia, or the general organization of our Military Forces, the conclusion forced upon one was that things were in a very unsatisfactory condition. He admitted that Her Majesty's present Government were showing some appreciation of the real state of the case; but much remained to be done.
  LORD TRUROsaid, he regretted that it was the fashion in some quarters to style anyone who called attention to the present unsatisfactory condition of things an "alarmist." The charges made with respect to the Militia were that the force was below its proper strength, and that

  1221
  it was not provided with the things which were required for efficiency. In not providing butts, commissariat, and proper uniforms for every Militia regiment the Military Authorities were guilty of a dereliction of duty. Whether our Army was small or great, it was all-important that it should be efficient. He earnestly hoped that the defects which had been shown to exist would be remedied without delay.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, that a mine had, as it were, been sprung upon him, for under cover of a limited Resolution speeches had been delivered ranging from the Militia to the Volunteers and Regulars, and from the time of Wellington and Waterloo to the present. He did not complain of this, as it showed the interest which was taken by their Lordships in everything which concerned the military defences of the country. As to what had been said about naval defence he must decline to go into the matter, as it was outside his province. With regard to the noble Lord's (Lord Ellenborough's) Question, he did not make any suggestions in a specific direction, but he understood that he specially referred to the equipments. It was, no doubt, a fact that the equipment of Militia regiments was not in all cases similar to the equipment of the Line. In the ordinary transactions of life, while they adopted that which was new, they did not altogether discard that which was old, but not obsolete. That was the policy which the War Office had adopted. Old equipment was used as long as it was sound and not obsolete; when it was really out of order new equipment was issued. While endeavouring to keep pace with the progress of invention the Military Authorities did not think it economical, wise, or necessary immediately to discard an old pattern whenever a new one was adopted. Should the Militia be embodied they would be served with precisely similar articles to those which were served out to the Line. Reference had been made to an occasion when the Militia were unable to appear before the Queen at Windsor with the Volunteers in consequence of deficiencies of uniform. He knew of no such occasion; but he knew that last year the Militia paraded before Her Majesty at Aldershot, and he believed
  1222
  that the War Office served out helmets to all the regiments concerned. The first six regiments that would be called upon for active service had been supplied with bottles, and should the whole Militia be embodied there were bottles in store with which they would be supplied. Reference had been made to the recommendation that the warrant officers should be reduced in number, and that the sergeant-majors should in future be non-commissioned officers instead of warrant officers. That recommendation had not as yet been approved by the War Office, and full consideration would be given to any objections that the Militia officers might raise. Then complaint had been made that many Militia regiments were not up to their establishment. As he had only recently told the House there were two reasons for this. One was that there had been a larger demand for labour during the last year; and the other, that there was now a great tendency to join the Volunteers. To those who thought that the system of the ballot ought to be adopted for the Militia he replied that if it were adopted the demand that extra Volunteer regiments should be raised would grow enormously, and thus the object of the advocates of the ballot would be frustrated. As to the comparison which had been made between the strength of the Army in 1864 and its strength in 1884 to show that it was less strong in the latter year, he had to say that the comparison was valueless, for an exactly contrary result could be obtained by comparing other years of the same period. He had been asked whether steps had been taken to secure that both the Volunteers and the Militia should be trained at the places where they would be mobilized in the event of war. He could not remember whether such steps had been taken that year; but he knew that the Secretary of State was very anxious that every unit of the Army should be trained occasionally at the very place where it would be mobilized at a time of attempted invasion. It was necessary, when considering this question, to remember that the men liked to be comfortable, and to be trained in places where they could enjoy themselves when off duty. When Volunteers went into camp they made the matter one of business, and they did not make it a picnic; when gathered for training it

  1223
  was expedient to have some regard to the attractions of the place and the means of enjoyment. The Southern Submarine Mining Militia was doing very well; but it had to be split up into smaller sections. One circumstance which distinguished submarine mining corps was this—in the North you could not get Militia, but you could get Volunteers with the greatest case, and the Volunteers were a magnificent force; while in the South you could get Militia but not Volunteers; but whether it were Militia or Volunteers they were equally efficient, and constituted an important addition to the force for the defence of our commercial ports and harbours. He appreciated the motives which led noble Lords to initiate this discussion—they wished to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to spend money. The Government had not shrunk and would not shrink from spending money where it was necessary, and this was shown by the fact that they had determined to spend £2,600,000 beyond the Estimates for the year for the purpose of putting the coaling stations and harbours of Imperial importance in a proper state of defence. This was a proof of their earnestness; but they would not be forced into extravagant and ill-considered expenditure which would waste money without benefit to the country. As regarded the organization of our Military Force, both Regular and Auxiliary, he believed that at no time within the last 10 or 15 years had so much attention been paid it by the Military Authorities. They had been in a favourable position for giving that attention, because we had not been engaged in any little wars, and men of intelligence and experience had been able to concentrate their attention upon it. The great question of mobilization—of the points at which men should be assembled, and how and in what numbers—had been carefully discussed by the Military Authorities in conjunction with the Secretary of State; and he believed the Army was in a far better position as regards equipment and assemblage in case of invasion than it was a few years ago. No steps were being taken just now to improve the efficiency of the Militia, because the Government were inclined to believe it was very efficient now. He admitted that if the Government could give it the same equipment as the Line it would be a
  1224
  smarter force; but the Government had to look at the purposes for which expenditure was required, and they could not do more than see whether the old equipments were serviceable and replace them where they were not.

IRELAND—THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FITZGERALD, who had a Notice on the Paper that he would call the attention of the House to the judicial system of Ireland, and move a Resolution, said, this subject was one of very great importance. His objects in bringing it forward on his own responsibility were with the view of economy in the very large sum which was at present expended on the administration of law and justice in Ireland, and to attain efficiency in the great judicial power then existing, and to bring back to the Superior Courts the jurisdiction and authority which modern legislation had gradually filched away. In consequence of the legislation contemplated by Her Majesty's Government, and in order to assist him in the Motion he had intended to submit to their Lordships, he had moved for certain Returns on the 20th of April last. Those Returns had not as yet come in—at least they had not been laid upon the Table. Since this Notice had been put upon the Paper very great alterations had taken place, which had induced him to ask leave to withdraw his Motion, though he was not one who wished to put down a Motion of so great importance as this and then to withdraw it. In making this announcement to their Lordships he wished to state the reason why he adopted that course. First of all, a Bill dealing with the Irish Judicature, with the principles of which he entirely agreed, but which was subjected to very grave criticism, and which probably did not go far enough, was introduced on the 20th of February last; and he saw that from the pressure of other Business—he was not in the least suggesting that they had not a bonâ fide intention to press the measure forward—that Bill had been necessarily abandoned by the Government. In addition to that they had the Land Commission Bill—a Bill dealing very largely with the subject of the administration of Land Law in Ireland, and a Bill which would be open to very considerable contest. A great part

  1225
  of that Bill had also been abandoned for the present, and for it was to be substituted, as he understood—he was only speaking of what he read in the public Press—a Continuance Bill—that was to say, the powers of the Land Commission were to be continued by a clause in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. In addition to that they had three other Bills—Mr. Healy's Bill and two others—dealing more or less with the administration of law and justice in Ireland, which would also have to be abandoned in the House of Commons. He merely wished to say that he was induced by these considerations to come to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient to involve their Lordships in a discussion which at the present moment would lead to no practical result, and to ask their Lordships to permit him to withdraw his Motion. But, before doing so, he hoped he was not exceeding his privileges or trespassing too far on their Lordships' indulgence if he offered a word of advice to the Government as to those and other measures connected with the administration of law and justice in Ireland. The subject was of so extensive a character that it could only be dealt with by the Government, and there would be no use in a private Member originating a measure dealing with it. What he would suggest was, that a small Commission should be appointed to consider the whole subject fully—whether a Departmental or a Royal Commission—and he had very large hopes that when they sat again after the holidays something practical would have been done in the matter which would present a solid foundation for legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he was not aware of the terms of the Motion intended to be presented by the noble and learned Lord until he had unfolded its contents. There could be no doubt it embraced matters of the highest importance, some of them of a far-reaching character, and the noble and learned Lord would naturally present them with a weight and authority which would insure for them their Lordships' best consideration. With reference to the noble and learned Lord's suggestion for the appointment of a Committee or Commission, that would, of course, receive attention; but any proposals deal-
  1226
  ing with the judicature must be taken on the responsibility and the initiative of the Government, and he was not aware that the Government had found any difficulty in considering all these questions. The proposals did not appear to be new; they had been, from time to time, considered by successive Governments, and they would receive consideration before the Government introduced legislation on the subject. With regard to the Bills to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, he was not aware that the Bills introduced by private Members had been abandoned. The statement of the Government in the House of Commons only dealt with their own measures.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—YEO-MANRY CAVALRY—CONTINGENT AND CLOTHING ALLOWANCES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he rose to call attention to the contingent and clothing allowance to regiments of Yeomanry Cavalry; and to ask a Question. As their Lordships wore aware, the amount of allowance was £2 a-head, and it had to meet the whole requirements, not only of uniform, but also of saddlery, office expenses, and all the other claims that were made on a Yeomanry regiment. It was proposed to discontinue that allowance in the case of all Yeomen who were absent from the week's permanent duty, either owing to illness or with the leave of the commanding officer. Now, it must be clear that whether a Yeoman was at the drill or not the commanding officer would have spent the money on his uniform and saddlery so that he might appear efficient if he should be able to attend, and it was not too much to ask that in such a case the contingent allowance should be given. Did the War Office Authorities suppose that as the training only lasted 10 days, there might not be casual illness in which a man could not attend, or circumstances in which he might be compelled to ask leave of absence? In the Regular Army, when a private was ill, he had never heard that anything was deducted; and, unless he was misinformed, he believed that if a Volunteer was unable to attend his inspection, and was absent with leave, even then his allowance was continued. The Question he had to ask was whether commanding officers should

  1227
  not be able to give leave of absence from training, for sufficient cause, without being called upon to suffer by the allowance for the men being disallowed? There were great demands made upon the Yeomanry, and they had been fairly and well met. The Yeomanry consisted of 10,000 men ready to take the field with their horses at a moment's notice, and was it wise that so much discouragement should be thrown upon their officers? If it were the case that the War Office were determined to do away with the Yeomanry, it would be much fairer that they should say so frankly at once instead of going on year after year trying by false economies to make the Yeomanry inefficient, and then turning round and complaining of their inefficiency.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he thought the noble and gallant Viscount had not put the case at all too strongly. At the present moment the contingent allowance of £2 a man did not meet all the expenses of a Yeomanry regiment. The contingent allowance was really not more than sufficient to provide for accoutrements and clothing, and then there were extras which had to come from the common fund. As things were it was a matter of the greatest difficulty to maintain the Yeomanry regiments, and if the contingent allowance was to be struck off in the case of men absent through sickness, or by leave, the loss to the contingent fund would be such that eventually every regiment would have to be given up. He hoped that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War (Lord Harris) would be able to give a satisfactory answer.
  THE EARL OF CORKsaid, that, as one who had for a long time been a Yeomanry Colonel, he could bear testimony to the great difficulty that existed in keeping a Yeomanry regiment together. Of late years the body of men who chiefly constituted that force had suffered from the depression of the times; but, nevertheless, there had been an increase alike in numbers and efficiency, and it seemed rather hard that the present moment should be selected in order to make a change in the payment of the contingent fund. He thought it was hard that where leave of absence was given on account of sickness or unforeseen circumstances a colonel should be deprived of the £2. He agreed that
  1228
  the grant was quite indequate for keeping up a Yeomanry regiment as it ought to be, considering the expenses of band, stores, &c. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would reconsider this question; he was certain that Yeomanry Colonels did not wish to get more than they honestly earned; but unless some arrangement were made regiments would decrease, not only in numbers, but in their efficiency.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, he was afraid that his answer would hardly satisfy his noble Friend; but he wished to bear testimony, both from practical and from official experience, to the exceedingly valuable nature of this force. He hoped that their Lordships would allow him to detain them for a little upon the general subject of the Yeomanry, for another reason than the question of the noble Viscount. He was glad that the subject of the Yeomanry had been raised by the noble Viscount, because he thought it was time that some answer was made to the sneering attacks made at various times and in various places against the Yeomanry by men who probably had never given a day's voluntary service to the country. A Report had been presented by the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons to both Houses of Parliament, dealing with the question of the Yeomanry, and in that Report it was said that the internal expenses of a Yeomanry corps had largely increased of late years, and that Colonel Eyre had stated to the Committee of the previous Session that formerly the corps had managed on their pay, but it was not managed in the same way now. Colonel Eyre was a distinguished Regular and Volunteer officer, but he had not served in the Yeomanry since 1864, and in his opinion Colonel Eyre was not exactly the best officer to be adduced as a witness of what the Yeomanry was at the present time. He must confess he thought that that Report was apt to convey to those who did not read the evidence some misconception of what Colonel Eyre had really said, which was that he remembered many years ago being in a Yeomanry regiment, and that that corps nearly lived on its pay. This was merely a reference to Colonel Eyre's own corps, and not to the whole force. The year 1864 was six years before Lord

  1229
  Cardwell had placed upon the Yeomanry additional requirements in order that they might earn the contingent and pay. Before 1870 no preliminary drill was required, while after that year nine additional drills were required. He thought, therefore, that it was only right that he should call attention to what was likely to raise some misconception in the minds of those who only glanced at the Report of the Estimates Committee, and did not read the evidence. Since Colonel Eyre had been in the Yeomanry Service, additional demands had been made by the country upon the force; and if any additional internal expenses had arisen since that time, those expenses had been laid on the corps by the demands of the country, and not by any extravagance on the part of the officers or men. In addition to these extra drills, musketry training was now more carefully attended to, besides signalling, ambulance, and other voluntary drills. The inspecting officer bore testimony to the anxiety of the men to render themselves efficient in many directions; and he could himself bear witness to the anxiety shown in all directions really to earn that which the country gave them. He would like also to show their Lordships that the Yeomanry was not an expensive Cavalry force. He would compare a typical efficient Volunteer with a typical efficient Yeoman. With the capitation grant, allowance for great coat, and expenses of travelling to the range, a Volunteer received about £2. A Yeomanry corps received £2 for each efficient trooper, and out of that the expense of saddlery had to come. For an efficient Volunteer out for six days there was an allowance of 12 s., which was expended on rations and what he might require. An efficient Yeoman out for 10 days received 7s. a day for the last eight days and 3s. 6d. for the other two, making a total of 63 s. That at first sight seemed to show that the Yeoman was better off than the Volunteer; but it must be remembered that he had to keep his horse during those 10 days. Again, Yeomanry were almost compelled to go into training in a town. It was dangerous to picket the horses out unless the weather was of the best. He knew of two cases last year where it had been done without any bad effect; but their Lordships would remember how hot the weather had been
  1230
  last year; he would be sorry to see horses picketed out in such weather as they had had during the last fortnight; and he thought that the claims on the country for loss of horses would be exceedingly heavy. The expenses of a Yeoman for forage and stabling during the 10 days could not be less than 35 s., and that left only 28 s. for rations and lodging, which, he thought, could not be considered a very extravagant sum, taking into consideration the risk of injury to the horse. As a matter of fact, it was absolutely impossible, except in the most favourable circumstances, for a man to cover his expenses by the pay he received. He was glad, therefore, to have this opportunity of showing that the Yeomanry were not an expensive force. He did not think, from the result of his own experience, that Volunteer Cavalry could be kept up in this country unless they were paid for the keep of the horses; and he did not think, therefore, that Volunteer Cavalry could exist beside the Yeomanry. With regard to the Question of the noble Viscount, there had been no change with regard to the Regulations this year, or if there had been a change it was one in favour of the Yeomanry. The Regulation before this year had been that the contingent allowance of £2 per man would be issued for each non-commissioned officer and private attending preliminary drill and permanent training; therefore, there was really no hardship in the fact that where a man was not shown to be efficient the financial authorities had declined to allow the grant. The change made this year was that a man had to be either at the preliminary drill or the permanent training, and that was obviously a change to the advantage of the Yeomanry. To that Regulation he thought the Government would have to adhere, for this reason—that unless a man was present on one of these two occasions the Government had no security at all that the man was efficient. What the Government would be willing to do was to make as large a concession as they could in the way of allowing a man to add on his attendance at preliminary drill to that at the permanent training, if he was unable to attend during the whole time. He was afraid, however, that they must insist on the man being in some way shown to be efficient, and that therefore it was im-

  1231
  possible for the Government to give way in the direction in which the noble Viscount asked them to do so.

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1885 —A SUPPLEMENTARY GRANT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in rising to ask the Prime Minister, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to propose to Parliament before the adjournment a grant in supplement to the £5,000,000 advanced under the Land Purchase Act (Ireland), 1885? said, when he put down that Notice on the Paper he was not aware of the discussion which had taken place last night in "another place" on the subject. In answer to a Question, the Chief Secretary for Ireland was represented to have said that it was the intention of the Government during the present Session to make a proposal to take steps to prevent from expiring the powers given under the Act of 1885; and then in reference to a further Question put to him as to whether a cessation would take place in the administration of the Act unless legislation took place this Session on the subject, he was represented to have replied that it would. He had read that discussion with very considerable regret, because he thought that this subject, which was one above all political controversy, would have received more favourable consideration. What took place last night was by no means satisfactory, and it would render it necessary that a reply should be given to the Question of which he had given Notice, and which, in the absence of the Prime Minister, could be answered by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or one of his Colleagues. The noble and learned Lord having stated in detail the circumstances under which the Land Purchase Act of 1885 had been introduced by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on his first appearance in their Lordships' House, and was passed into law, and having pointed out the substantial advantages which it was calculated to confer upon the tenantry of Ireland, said the policy of that Act had met with general approval; and be recollected that in the discussion which had taken place upon it in that House on the occasion of its passing the noble Marquess at the head of the Government promised that if this tentative and
  1232
  moderate measure, as it was described by the noble Marquess, proved a success, the Government would be prepared to recommend to Parliament when the £5,000,000 were exhausted another sum of money, so as to secure the continuance of a measure which had proved to be a success. Last year they had before them another Land Bill, the whole of the second part of which, representing 17 or 18 clauses, was intended for the improvement of the administration of the Land Purchase Act, and he thought that the passing of these sections of that Bill was utterly useless if the Land Purchase Act was to be allowed to expire. He also recollected that he had on that occasion impressed upon the Government the necessity for providing a further fund to supplement the £5,000,000. The Land Purchase Act of 1885 had been a success, and a great success. He had called attention to this subject some three months ago, and he had taken pains, on his own responsibility, to get statistics as well as he could to lay before their Lordships, and he moved then, in reference to the administration of the £5,000,000, for a searching Return which would have shown its application, and whether any balance remained. Unfortunately, that Return had not yet been laid on the Table of the House, but he believed that the statistics which he had then laid before the House were wholly uncontrovertible. On that occasion he called attention to this—that out of the £5,000,000 which had been granted by the Government £1,945,530 had been taken by Ulster alone, and that that sum had been distributed among 7,667 tenant farmers, who had since become owners of their holdings. They were small tenant farmers, and they were now paying off the money they had borrowed. In Munster the sum was less, but it was over £1,000,000. In Leinster he thought the sum expended was about £1,110,000; in Connaught it was less still, the people not being able to take advantage of the Act. He called attention to the fact that the applications then before the Land Purchase Commissioners were sufficient to exhaust the whole fund provided if those applications were successful. He stated that, in addition, in one office of solicitors alone applications had come in to the extent of £600,000, going far beyond

  1233
  what then remained in the hands of the Land Purchase Commissioners untouched. He had since been in Dublin—a few days ago—and he met there a gentleman by accident who had a larger share in negotiating purchases and sales between landlords and tenants than any other, and he addressed him very anxiously on this subject. He was informed by him that claims were coming in very considerably, and that the parties would not go on because the cost was considerable, and because it was uncertain whether there would be any fund to meet it. The administration of this fund had been successful in another way. He believed his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne) would be able to say whether he was correct or not; but he believed that in the districts in which peasant proprietors had been created by the operation of this Land Purchase Act peace and order prevailed—and that those who had now got an interest in the land, and who would ultimately become the sole owners of it, were the best maintainers of law and order. He therefore thought he was justified in saying that the Land Purchase Act of 1885 had been a success, and a great success. It had conferred, as it was intended to confer, large benefits upon the small tenants who became owners of their farms under it. The case now stood in a peculiar position in which it ought not to stand. He observed in an article from the Dublin correspondent of The Times of yesterday a statement expressing the grave anxiety that existed in the public mind with regard to the continuance of the operation of this Act, and that the uncertainty that prevailed on the subject was doing very great mischief, and the estimate was that the claims beyond the amount which he had stated on a former occasion now before the Land Purchase Commissioners exceeded £1,000,000. Three months ago, when he put a question on the subject, he received an answer that the matter was under consideration. He thought, therefore, that he was justified in bringing the matter forward again, in order that the people might be re-assured that the benefits of the Act would not be allowed to cease. In order to prevent the discontinuance of the operation of the Act, he thought it was absolutely necessary that a supplemental fund
  1234
  should be granted before they seperated for the holidays. He hoped to get a favourable reply from his noble and learned Friend.
  LORD VENTRYsaid, he could hardly understand how Her Majesty's Government, with their previous experience, could hesitate to supplement the sum provided by the valuable measure commonly called Lord Ashbourne's Act by a further advance. There were reports in the air that Her Majesty's Government contemplated at some future time bringing forward a much more comprehensive measure, and on different lines. Whether those reports were true or not he was not, of course, in a position to say; but he was sure that some further extension of Lord Ashbourne's Act would add to the data so necessary for the preparation of a measure of a more important character. He would say nothing with regard to land purchase in Ulster; but he believed that Kerry, the county with which he was connected, was—outside Ulster—amongst those which had most largely availed themselves of the Act. He believed he was perfectly accurate when he said that the number of defaulters among tenants who had taken advantage of the Act in that county was almost nil. There could be no doubt whatever that there was a large number of tenants throughout the country who were looking with considerable anxiety for an extension of this Act with a view of availing themselves of it, and who would be much disappointed if they found that the Government were not going to adopt that course. He would also like to say that the £5,000,000 would not have been much sooner expended if the administration of this Act had been more perfect; but, rather than that the Act should be allowed to expire, both tenants and landlords would be glad to see it extended with all its faults and deficiencies.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said, he had had no opportunity of communicating with the Prime Minister with regard to this question, and he could only refer to the answers given in the House of Commons last night by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the part of the Government. With regard to the statement made by his noble and learned Friend in reference to the subject, it was

  1235
  extremely clear and interesting, and he had listened to it with much personal sympathy. The operation of the Act had decidedly and unquestionably been attended with beneficial results throughout Ireland generally, and he believed that the tenants who had purchased had found it to be to their distinct benefit. He believed that it had a very good effect on them in every way—with respect to their pecuniary as well as with respect to their other interests; and certainly the working of the Act had shown that they were alive fairly and reasonably to the necessity of complying with the obligations which they had undertaken of paying the instalments. The statement made very recently in the other House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that the instalments had been paid with extraordinary regularity, and went to show that the operation of the Act had been successful. He had not heard of the case of any tenants who had availed themselves of the provisions of the Act who did not find a benefit in their condition, or had expressed any regret whatever for having availed themselves of it. However, he was afraid that he was not in a position to supplement or go beyond the statement made in the other House yesterday, and which his noble and learned Friend had referred to.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, he was afraid that if nothing was done before Parliament separated much disappointment would be caused. If no more money were granted for the purposes of the Act what were the landlords and tenants to do? Would the noble and learned Lord tell the House what his advice was? Many tenants were anxious to purchase their farms. Would the noble and learned Lord advise them to do so? If some statement were not made, the whole country would be reduced to chaos. Landlords would be asking for their rent; the tenants would answer that they were going to purchase; and the landlord would be obliged to say—"I cannot sell, because I do not know what the Government intend to do." Would the noble and learned Lord recommend the landlords and tenants to continue their arrangements as before, or to drop them altogether? From his own knowledge, he did not believe a more useful or more
  1236
  successful Act had ever been passed. He had had considerable experience of sales under the Act of 1870, which was not nearly so advantageous to the tenants as the noble and learned Lord's Act, and the instalments were being most regularly paid, notwithstanding the depression of the times. He was afraid, however, unless the Government were prepared to give a further grant, it would give rise to a feeling of despair among a large body of tenants who were anxious to purchase.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he had spoken as fully as he could on the statement of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald), but he was not in a position to give any advice. There was nothing more difficult than to advise people in regard to their own affairs. He had no doubt landlords and tenants would be guided by that excellent discretion and good sense which people generally brought to bear upon their own private affairs. He was sure that his noble Friend (the Marquess of Waterford) would himself consider the subject with an anxious desire to arrive at a sound and wise conclusion.
  LORD O'NEILLsaid, he thought it had been clearly shown from all parts of the House that this Act had worked very well indeed. Was it too late this Session to bring in a Bill to provide more money under the Act? He could not help thinking it might be possible to carry such a Bill through if the Government were determined to do so, and he had no doubt, from what he had heard, that it would give great satisfaction to everybody concerned.

  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL [H.L.]
  Moved that the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith; agreed to (The Lord FitzGerald); Bill re-committed accordingly: Moved that the Lord Kintore (E. Kintore) do take the chair in the Committee; agreed to (The Viscount Cross): House in Committee: Bill reported without amendment: Amendments made: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 213.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.