Sitting of 17 July 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Report—Debates and Proceedings in Parliament [No. 284]; Army Estimates [Fifth and Final Report] [No. 285].
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Twentieth Night]—R.P.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (West Loch Tarbert) Confirmation* [323]; Public Health (Scotland) (Kirkliston, Dalmeny, and South Queensferry Water)* [327].
Report—Pier and Harbour (No. 2)*[248].

QUESTIONS.

  TRADE MARKS—BRANDS OR TRADE NAMES, SCOTLAND.
  MR. WHITLEYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, having regard to the remarks of the Judges of the Court of Session in the recent cases of Bass and Co. against Laidlaw, and Henry Thomson and Co. against Robertson, it is legal for retailers, in response to a customer's demand for an article of a special brand or trade name, to supply an article as

  1517
  being of the particular brand or trade name asked for, although they never purchased, or had in their possession, the special article demanded; whether it is the law, as stated by one of these Judges in relation to this matter, that "in such a case everything ought to be presumed in favour of the dealer;" and, whether, if the law is as stated, the Government will take any steps to have it amended in such a way as will protect the public and the rights of the owners of the brands or trade names in Scotland, as has been done by recent legislation in England?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I do not read the decisions in the cases referred to as implying any such principle as is set forth in the first paragraph of the Question. In both cases the Court distinctly held it to be matter of fact that the trader had not supplied the article as being of a particular brand or trade name asked for; and, therefore, no question of legal interpretation required to be decided. I take Lord M'Laren's statement, quoted in the second paragraph, to mean nothing more than this—that, as the case against the trader amounted to a charge of fraud, his accuser must prove his case absolutely, as a prosecutor must do in a case of crime. In answer to the last Question, I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Merchandize Marks Act, passed last year, applies to Scotland; and that, therefore, no legislation is necessary to assimilate the laws of the two countries.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT—THE BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSasked the President of the Local Government Board, When he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Boundary Commissioners; and, whether he has any objection to include in it the Reports of the Sub-Commissioners, containing the reasons for the recommendations which they made to the Commissioners?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, the Report of the Boundary Commissioners was to be submitted to the County Councils. It was not proposed to ask the House to assent or dissent from the Report, which was for the in-
  1518
  formation of County Councils, by whom it was to be considered. The Local Government Board had not yet received the Report, but expected to do so in a day or two. If the Reports of the Sub-Commissioners were appended to the Report they would be laid on the Table.
  SIR JOHN SIMONasked, whether there would be any discussion in the House?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not see how it was possible to alter the Report of the Commission, which was appointed under Act of Parliament.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked, whether the House had no power to advise the Councils?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was the duty of the Councils to consider the Report, and to take such action upon it as they thought necessary. No alteration could be made in the boundaries of counties without being first submitted to Parliament. He could have maps prepared showing the alterations made.

  BURIALS—FUNERAL OF A NONCONFORMIST AT ST. GEORGE, EAST BRISTOL.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is correct, as reported, that at the funeral of a much respected parishioner of St. George, East Bristol, lately, the vicar refused to allow the bell to be tolled or the trestles used at funerals to be used because the deceased parishioner was buried by Nonconformists; and, whether such refusal is in accordance with the Burials Act; and, if so, whether the Government are prepared to take any steps to prevent a repetition of such conduct?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the vicar that it is the practice not to open the church or to toll the bell at Nonconformist funerals. Such a practice is not, as far as I am aware, contrary to the Burials Act. The vicar tells me that trestles have never been used outside the church, and are not in use at all now. A form, which is generally used at the graveside, had recently broken down and had not been repaired, otherwise it would have been used on this occasion. I cannot see that the vicar has acted contrary to the law; and I must decline to interfere further in the matter.

  THE WEST INDIAN ISLANDS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If any representations have been made by the inhabitants of the West Indian Islands with reference to a reform of the system of Government obtaining in those Colonies; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government intend taking any steps to meet their wishes?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: Her Majesty's Government is considering the request of some of the inhabitants of Trinidad for a modification of the Constitution of that Island, and it is possible that some limited changes may be agreed to. Some of the inhabitants of other Islands have also expressed a desire to have Representative Government, but have been informed that Her Majesty's Government does not think it desirable to change the Constitutions of these Islands. The education and political knowledge of the bulk of the population in the West Indian Islands are not yet sufficiently advanced to enable them to exercise the franchise beneficially to their interests.

  UNITED STATES AND CANADA—THE FISHERY TREATY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government expect the ratification of the Fishery Treaty between the United States and Canada; and, if so, when?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government are not able to express any opinion with reference to the progress of a measure which is before the Legislature of another country.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—LOUGH CORRIB.
  MR. PINKERTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Government contemplate taking any steps to relieve the inhabitants of the Lough Corrib drainage district from the injury inflicted on them by the periodical overflowing of the lake through insuffi-
  1520
  ciency of present outlets; and, whether, considering that 13,000 acres are annually injured, he will see the advisability of including it in the Government drainage scheme?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Government of including Lough Corrib in the drainage proposals now before the House. The question was not before the late Royal Commission on Irish Public Works. I may say that the Lough Corrib drainage works are not under the control of the Government; but I am informed that every effort is made by the Drainage Board to prevent the flooding of the low-lying lands.

  IRISH LAND COIIMIISSION—FAIR RENTS, CO. WICKLOW.
  MR. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware of the serious loss and inconvenience which 42 tenant farmers in West Wicklow have been subjected to who served notices to have fair rents fixed in the beginning of September, 1887; whether the application for Baltinglass Union did not appear on the first list for the sitting of No. 6 Commission at Rathdrum, on May 8 last; whether only a portion of the cases of the district were heard, leaving the whole of the Baltinglass Union applications undisposed of; whether he is aware that, in consequence of several tenants having so applied, their landlords demanded payment of one year's rent, up to September 29 last, within a few days thereafter, with an intimation that unless the same was paid in four days all the powers of the law would be put in force against them; whether, in the event of this being done while the applications were pending, he will refuse the assistance of the forces of the Crown at evictions; and, whether he can state when the Sub-Commissioners will sit to hear the great number of cases now waiting a hearing?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that it is the case that 42 applications to fix fair rents were served by tenants in the west district of the county of Wicklow in September last; also that the facts are as stated in Paragraphs 2 and 3.

  1521
  With respect to Paragraphs 4 and 5, I am not aware of the landlords having acted as alleged. But, even if it were the fact, the Court before which the proceedings in ejectment would come has full power to suspend any such proceedings until the hearing of the application for a judicial rent; and in cases where the holding is valued at not more than £50 a-year, it has further power to order the payment of the arrears by such instalments as it may see fit to direct. The Commissioners are not at present in a position to state the date of the next sitting of a Sub-Commission.

  WAR OFFICE—THE SOLENT—THE NEW BYE-LAWS.
  SIR FREDERICK FITZ-WYGRAMasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that if the bye-laws proposed by the Secretary of State for War for the prevention of vessels anchoring or sailing over the waters of the Solent off the rifle ranges at Browndown (within 1,600 yards of the mainland) are approved by him much injury will be done to the fishing interest of Portsmouth and vicinity, to the commerce of the Port, particularly in regard to its trade with Southampton, and also that the bye-laws will interfere much with the anchorage and sailing ground for yachts; and, whether, as the Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce has petitioned against the proposed bye-laws, and other Petitions against them have been sent, he will withhold his approval of them until he has made full and careful inquiry as to whether the object to be obtained is of such paramount importance as to justify him in allowing so serious an interference with the navigation of waters, which from time immemorial have been open to all?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he was well aware of the serious objections which had been raised to the bye-laws, and could assure his hon. Friend that it would not be assented to without full consideration.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—THE WATERFORD, DUNGARVAN, AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the President of the Board of
  1522
  Trade, Whether the Grand Juries of the County and City of Waterford have the right of appointing Directors on the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway; has that right lapsed; have the County and City Grand Juries the right of filling up any vacancies that may occur on the Board of Directors of the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway Company; is it not a fact that the county and city ratepayers contribute to the Company £14,000 a-year out of the rates; have the County and City Grand Juries, which are not Elected Bodies, the power of appointing arbitrators for the purpose of ascertaining the proportions in which the baronies and city shall pay interest and dividends on the capital of the Company; have the County and City Grand Juries appointed any arbitrators, and, if not, has the Board of Trade appointed arbitrators as provided by the Act of 1873; has the Railway Company submitted its account, half-yearly, to any arbitrator, appointed either by the Grand Juries or by the Board of Trade; have the accounts of the Railway Company been presented by the arbitrators to the County and City Grand Juries; and, will the Board of Trade order an investigation into the accounts and the working of the line?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): With regard to the first five Questions of the hon. Member, I have no greater means of obtaining information than are at the hon. Gentleman's own disposal. I can only refer him to the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th sections of the Act of 1873, which he mentions. With regard to the sixth Question, I am not aware that arbitrators have been appointed by the Grand Jury under the 11th section; and no application has been made to the Board of Trade, as provided by that section, to appoint arbitrators, in consequence of their having failed to do so. But where such an appointment is made, the Board of Trade can only appoint one arbitrator, which has now been done. I have no information with regard to the seventh and eighth Questions. With reference to the last, no application has been made to us, as required under the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, for an inquiry; nor, as I am at present advised, am I aware of any necessity for ordering such an inquiry.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—HEAD CONSTABLE MURRAY, CLAREMORRIS, MAYO.
  MR. CRILLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Head Constable Murray, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who is stationed at Claremorris, County Mayo, has in his employment for the past five years a female servant of over 28 years; and, if this be so, is it a direct breach of the Constabulary Code which calls for official notice; whether the same charge was preferred against Head Constable Murray when Mr. Dobbyn was County Inspector for Mayo; and, if so, on what grounds was the matter allowed to drop; and, whether District Inspector Michael McGee, of Claremorris, is acquainted with the fact of this Head Constable being reported; and, if he is, why has he not dealt with Murray as the Rules of the Service direct him to do?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Inspector General of Constabulary reported that, as a matter of fact, it was not the case that Head Constable Murray had a female servant in his employment for the last five years; but he had for the past 18 months, with the sanction of his officer, a girl employed carrying water for his family. She did not reside in the barracks. No complaint on the subject was made either to the County Inspector or the District Inspector.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—HANDSWORTH BRIDGE CHARITIES.
  MR. WIGGINasked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, Whether the attention of the Charity Commissioners has been called to the fact that, although the rents of the Handsworth Bridge Charities have increased about 150 per cent since 1859, the bridges of the Charity have not been kept in repair, nor has any elementary or branch school been established by the Trustees of the Charity at or near Perry Bar, as provided by the scheme; can he state whether the sum of £20 has been annually invested in Consols, as provided by the scheme; and, if so how much now stands so invested; whether
  1524
  the accounts of the Trust have been sent annually to the Commission; and, whether the Commission has taken any steps in the past 38 years to see that the provisions of the scheme are carried out by the Trustees whom they appointed; if not, on whom does that duty devolve?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The endowment of the Hands-worth Bridge Charities was, by a scheme of the Court of Chancery, made 29—not 38—years ago, and applied, inter alia, to the maintenance of a secondary school. Six bridges were to be wholly or in part kept in repair, and an elementary or branch school was to be established at Perry Bar. The bridges have been kept in repair; but not, for the most part, out of the funds of the Charity. The sum of £20 was, for three years, annually invested as directed, and £65 now stands so invested. The accounts of the Trust have been sent annually to the Commission. Neither the elementary nor the branch school at Perry Bar has been established owing to a deficiency of funds. The attention of the Charity Commissioners having been called to these facts, the case has been under their careful consideration, with a view to the establishment of a scheme under the Endowed Schools Act, which, it is hoped, will shortly be submitted to the Education Department.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—RIOT AT CLASHMORE—CASE OF HUGH MATHESON, COTTAR.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that a crofter, named John M'Leod, has given himself into custody asserting that it was he and not Hugh Matheson who, with blackened face and otherwise disguised, took that part in the Clashmore riot for which Matheson is at present undergoing a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment; and, having regard to the many weeks' delay that occurred before any decision was arrived at on five statutory declarations, which, if true, showed that Matheson had been convicted in mistake, sent to the then Secretary for Scotland on March 14, he will take such immediate steps to test the truth of M'Leod's statements as will, should they prove true, prevent an innocent man from suffering any further avoidable punishment?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I answer the first paragraph in the affirmative. The steps necssary to test M'Leod's statements are being taken with the utmost despatch, and no delay will occur which is not absolutely necessary for that purpose.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE STAMP DUTIES.
  MR. WATTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that the revenue obtained from Stamp Duties during the last five weeks has exceeded by over £250,000 the Returns for the same period of last year, he will reconsider the question of a reduction in the new duties levied under his Budget arrangement for the present year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I must confess myself quite unable to verify the hon. Member's figures. According to the latest information in my possession, the revenue derived from stamps during the last five weeks exceeds that for the corresponding period of last year by about £55,000 only, or £15,000 above my Estimate. But, even if the hon. Member's figures were unimpeachable, I could not consent to change my financial arrangements with every variation which a calculation based on the results of a few weeks may show. What would he think of a merchant who, having one day made £100 by a good stroke of business, promptly began to live at the rate of £30,000 a-year?

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—APPLICATION OF THE WHEEL TAX IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WATTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is proposed to devote a large proportion of the revenue, derived chiefly, in cities and boroughs, from the Wheel Tax for the maintenance of country roads and the relief of paupers throughout Scotland; and, whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, he will consider as to the advisability of postponing the application of the tax to Scotland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The proposals of the Government with respect to the distribution of the heavy Cart and Van Tax in Scotland are contained in a Paper which has been presented to the House, and I can add nothing to the information there given. In making their proposals, the Government have had regard to all the circumstances of the case.

  CATTLE DISEASES ACTS (IRELAND)— INADEQUATE FINES.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will inquire into the circumstances under which Mr. F. C. Pilkington, Sir H. Cochrane, and Captain Quinn were let off with nominal fines by the Chief Magistrate at Kingstown for offences under the Cattle Diseases Acts; whether he has seen a newspaper report in which it is stated—
  "It was strongly urged upon the magistrates that such fines were entirely inadequate to the cases; but he was very peremptory, and said he considered they were not cases that called for exemplary fines;"
  whether he is aware that the solicitors to the Guardians protested against the want of support afforded by the magistrates to the Guardians in their attempt to stamp out pleuro-pneumonia; whether his attention has been called to a Resolution unanimously agreed to by the Board of Guardians on the 11th instant, endorsing the protest of the solicitors, and drawing the attention of the magistrates to the fact that ignorance can hardly be accepted as an excuse from any person for the violation of the Orders in Council and Regulations of the Local Authority, which have been before the public for a very long period; and, whether he will take steps to secure the infliction of more adequate punishments for offences under the Cattle Diseases Acts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): This Question appears for the first time on the Paper issued this morning, and I have no information with regard to it other than that contained in the newspaper which the hon. Member who asks the Question has been good enough to send me. I have, however, called for a detailed Report on the matter.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—REMOVAL OF PRISONERS—"THE FROG'S MARCH."
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the frequent use by the Metropolitan Police in removing persons taken into custody of what is termed the "frog's march" which inflicts very severe pain, and in some cases serious strains and other injuries; and, whether he will forbid the police to use the "frog's march" and substitute some more humane method of removing refractory prisoners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): By a Police Order, dated January, 1885, the practice known as the "frog's march" is prohibited, except in cases of absolute necessity, when a special Report of the circumstance is to be submitted the next day. The ambulance kept at the nearest station is to be sent for, and the person requiring to be conveyed is to be firmly strapped thereon. I am not aware of any recent cases in which the "frog's march" has been adopted by the Metropolitan Police.
  MR. CHANNINGinquired whether the Reports of the cases in which this practice was resorted to were laid before the Home Secretary?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; they have not been laid before me. The prohibition is dated January, 1885.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some explanation of what the "frog's march" means?
  [No reply.]

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS)—REPAIR OF ARMOUR BATTLE SHIPS.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that the Lord Warden and Repulse, two of the armour battle ships mentioned in the Parliamentary Return, No. 218, just issued, are offered to the public for sale at page '257 of the present monthly Navy List; whether it is intended to repair, with a view to their use as battle ships, the Minotaur, Achilles, Warrior, Hector, Defence, and Valiant, which are also put down in the same Return, to make up the number of 49 English battle ships
  1528
  built and building, but which six ships are noted as "non-effective unless repaired; whether it is true that only six of the 12 coast defence vessels given in the Return are available for the coast defence of Great Britain and Ireland, the other six being in Indian and Colonial harbours; and, whether it is true that the whole of the 19 coast defence vessels mentioned in the Return as belonging to France will be available for the coast defence of France?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is quite true that the Lord Warden and Repulse were offered for sale, and also that the six other ships mentioned in the second Question are—as pointed out in the Return—"non-effective unless repaired" It is proposed to repair one of them, the Achilles, at once, and the repair of the remainder will largely depend upon the results of experiments now being conducted at Portsmouth with shells filled with high explosives. These vessels were included in the Return, as they have their armament and are a match for the ships of a similar date included in the Return relating to the Navies of other nations. Six only of the 12 coast defence vessels are available for the protection of Great Britain and Ireland, the remainder being allocated to Indian and Colonial Ports. The 19 coast defence vessels of Franco consist of 11 coast defence vessels and eight armoured gunboats. Of the 11 coast defence vessels six only are efficient; and of the armoured gunboats four only are complete.

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES)— CAMP ALLOWANCE TO VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. W. SIDEBOTTOMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether complaints have reached him that several Volunteer battalions have suffered pecuniary loss through endeavouring to improve their efficiency by taking a larger number of their members into regimental camps than authorized; and, whether he will consider whether it is possible to take any steps which will prevent old administrative battalions that have no other means of practising battalion drills, except by attending such camps, from suffering losses under such circumstances?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): There have been a few such complaints, and they have been answered in accordance with the promise I made on May 11, in reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent), that if at the end of the camping season—say, in October—a saving should appear in the item for camps in the Volunteer Vote, I will consider whether it can be divided proportionately among the corps which may earn more than the amount allotted to them. It is not practicable to make any distinction in this matter between administrative battalions and consolidated corps.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS)—REPAIRS OF THE "ACHILLES."
  SIR JOHN PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Achilles is to be re-boilered and repaired by contract; and, if so, whether this is to be done because there is no money available under the Dockyard Vote; whether the contractors are to have access to the Dockyard, and its facilities and material, or whether the ship is to be removed; whether it is usual to provide for the contingencies of necessary repairs to ships of war in the Dockyard Vote, or that such repairs be left to private firms, when the materials and labour are in the Dockyards; whether an estimate of the cost of repairing the Achilles in the Dockyard can be furnished for comparison; whether certain Dockyard re-organizations have been effected with the object of building and repairing "expeditiously and cheaply; and, whether any reason can be given for the non-attainment of the result officially stated to have been accomplished?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is proposed to re-boiler and repair the Achilles by contract. This repair is additional to the programme arranged, it being estimated that the amount of work allotted to the Dockyards will absorb the Dockyard Votes, but that there will be savings on the Contract Vote. The work will be done by the contractors in the ordinary way, and at their own works. An estimate of the cost of repairing the Achilles will be made by the Dockyard officials. The Dockyard reorganizations have largely cheapened
  1530
  and expedited Dockyard work; though I do not say that, at the present moment, the result has been such as to enable Dockyards to equal or excel private yards in the rapidity and economy of their work.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—SPECIAL INQUIRY—THE ACCOUNTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a special inquiry is proceeding at Scotland Yard into the accounts of the Metropolitan Police, or into the conduct of the officials; and, if so, what is the nature of the inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have directed an inquiry into the Financial Regulations and the system of accounts of the Metropolitan Police, which is still proceeding. There has also been a special inquiry, now completed, into the conduct of a clerk in the Receiver's Department.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Will the proceedings at that inquiry be made public?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir.

  INDIA OFFICE—CONTRACT FOR INDIAN STAMPS AND STAMPED PAPER.
  MR. HEATHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the Table the terms of the contract recently entered into with Messrs. De La Rue for printing the Indian stamps and stamped paper?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Yes; if moved for, the terms of the contract with Messrs. De la Rue for stamps and stamped paper will be laid on the Table as an unopposed Return.

  ADMIRALTY—DEATH OF JOHN GIDLEY, ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICER, H.M.S. "RACOON"
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in The Western Morning News of the 10th instant, describing the death of Engine-room Artificer John Gidley, on board the Racoon on the previous Saturday:—

  1531
  "Fires were lighted at noon on Friday, and three hours afterwards there were general complaints of the heat in the stokehold. The first watch (in which was Gidley) should have been relieved at 4 o'clock, but orders were given for the first and second watches to remain below until the trial was over. Between 5 and 6 Gidley was relieved for a few minutes to get his tea. He looked very hot. Returning to his duties he remained below until 7 o'clock. Almost immediately afterwards he ran and jumped about the mess and decks in a mad state for a few minutes, and then, rushing aft, fell on his back on the deck in the steerage. He was afterwards removed to the upper deck, where he expired at 2.30 the next morning;"
  whether the above report is correct; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the causes of Mr. Gidley's death, and take such measures as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence of such fatalities?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I regret to say that it is the case that Engine-room Artificer Gidley died on board the Racoon on the 7th instant, of heat apoplexy. The detailed reports have not yet reached the Admiralty; so I am unable to say whether the circumstances, as stated by The Western Morning News, are correct. The matter will be fully inquired into, and will receive full consideration from the Admiralty.

  ADMIRALTY—ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS—MESS BERTHS.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware of the want of accommodation in respect of the mess berths of the Royal Naval engine-room artificers on board Her Majesty's ships, and particularly in so far as they have, when under steam, no resting place between their watches; and, whether he will take into consideration the complaints repeatedly preferred by them as to these and other matters affecting their welfare and status in the Navy?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): It is not the case that there is a want of accommodation for the engine-room artificers on board Her Majesty's ships. Mess places, as roomy and convenient as the circumstances of the ship admit of, are provided in every vessel. The welfare and status of the engine-room artificers in the Navy at all times receive the attention of the Admiralty.

  THE ANTARCTIC SEAS—AN EXPEDITION OF EXPLORATION.
  MR. HANBURY(for Mr. COCHRANE-BAILLIE)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have ever received any representations from Australia, with the object of sending out an Expedition for the exploration of the Antarctic Seas?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir; but I regret to say that after communicating with those best qualified to advise on such matters, Her Majesty's Government were not convinced that either the commercial or the scientific results of the Expedition were likely to be such as would warrant any Imperial contribution towards the expenses at a time when so many more urgent demands had to be provided for.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANasked, When the Report of the Colonial Vote would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think it will be for the convenience of the House that it should be taken as the next Business after the conclusion of the Committee on the Local Government Bill. I trust we shall conclude that to-morrow; and, in that case, we will take the Colonial Vote on Monday.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— MEETING IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE, JULY 14—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. PHILIPPSsaid, that he was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was speaking on Monday evening, on the subject of Trafalgar Square; but he saw in most of the newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman accused him of inciting to riot in the Square, and also stated that his case was under the consideration of the police. As he did not go near the Square on the occasion in question, he thought the right hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he regretted that he had been misreported in the papers. He was sure he had not

  1533
  mentioned the hon. Member's name—even by a slip of the tongue—and it was far from his intention to do so.

  INDIA—THE IRRAWADDY FLOTILLA COMPANY.
  In reply to Mr. BRADLAUGH (Northampton),
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, that he had received a further telegram from India with reference to the cost of the Irrawaddy Flotilla. It was as follows:—
  "Telegram from Viceroy, July 12, 1888—My telegram of 6th, Irrawaddy Flotilla Company. The charges against Indian Marine:—Freights on stores, 1886–7, Rs.4,400, 1887–8, Rs.4,600—Rs.9,000; purchase of vessels,1887–8, Rs.1,19,800; hire of vessels, 1886–7, Rs.71,100; 1887–8, Rs.34,800—Rs.1,05,900; passages, 1886–7, Rs.600; 1887–8, Rs.3,200—Rs.3,800; miscellaneous, 1886–7, Rs.600; 1887–8, Rs. 4,700—Rs.5,300; grand total, Rs.2,43,800. Charges against Public 'Works Department (for three years ending March 31, 1888):—Freight on store, Rs.3,20,500; passages, Rs.75,600; demurrage, Rs.25,800; towage, Rs.2,300; miscellaneous, Rs.1,200; grand total, Rs.425,400. Information completed."

  THE BANN, BARROW, AND SHANNON DRAINAGE BILLS.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was intended to take the Irish Drainage Bills on the Paper to-night; and if it was, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury could he possibly arrange that Progress on the Local Government Bill would be reported at a reasonably early hour, in order that an opportunity might be afforded the Irish Members of saying something in reference to those important measures?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he must adhere to the arrangement already made with respect to the Business of the House—namely, to press forward with the Local Government Bill until the Committee stage was concluded. Any departure from that arrangement, which had been deliberately entered into, would be extremely unsatisfactory; and he could, therefore, make no promise to report Progress at an early hour to allow the Bills to be taken.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I can
  1534
  only repeat what I have already said—that I see no reason why a discussion should not take place after 12 o'clock if hon. Members do not persevere in their objections to the Bill.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not object to other persons expressing their opinion; but he should certainly press his objections to spending English money on these Irish works.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Speaker, whether it was competent to discuss the Bills after 12 o'clock, in the face of the Notices of opposition to them already on the Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice of opposition has nothing to do with the matter; but if any hon. Member objects when the Bills are called on that would be sufficient to delay them.

  ADMIRALTY—DOCKYARDS— HAULBOWLINE.
  MR. FLYNNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it would not be possible to utilize Haulbowline Dockyard, which was nearly completed, for the purpose of repairing ships of war?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON), in reply, said, it would not be possible to utilize Haulbowline for the purpose indicated.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—RETURN OF CONVICTIONS.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When it was his intention to lay upon the Table of the House the Analytical Returns of convictions under the Crimes Act for which he had moved?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, if the right hon. Gentleman would ask the Question again, he hoped to be able to answer it. He would press forward the Returns as far as he could.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE VANDELEUR ESTATE, CO. CLARE.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I wish to ask, Whether it is not understood that

  1535
  the Government have retained an army of 500 military and police for the purpose of aiding in the evictions on the Vandeleur Estate, County Clare; whether there are hundreds of persons to be thrown out of their homes; and whether desperate resistance is not expected?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I believe that every effort has been made by agitators to stir up resistance; but I hope there, will be no resistance. However, the Government have taken steps to deal with such resistance should it be offered.
  MR. SEXTON: On what grounds does the right hon. Gentleman say that every effort has been made by persons he calls agitators to stir up resistance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put the Question down on the Paper I will answer it.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman include among these so-called agitators the clergymen of the parish, who advised their parishioners not to carry out any serious resistance?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  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.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th July.]
    [TWENTIETH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

  PART V.

    FINANCE.
    Property Funds and Costs of County Councils.
    Clause 67 (Issue of county stock).
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS, in moving in page 58, after Sub-section (4), to add—
    "Provided that the councils of two or more adjacent counties may combine to issue stock for their joint and several purposes, and, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, may fix the proper contributions for interest, sinking fund, and expenses applicable to such stock, to be defrayed from time to time by each
    1536
    county so combining, according to its liability for the same, or any part thereof,"
    said, he hoped the Government would be willing to accept the Amendment. He did not move it with any view of increasing the security which any particular county had to offer for a loan it was desirous of raising. He did not intend by it to alter the security in any way. On the other hand, supposing that certain counties were to combine for the purpose of having a common stock, in the event of one county failing to make its proper contribution, he did not propose by the Proviso, nor did he think it would operate in such a way, that the counties entering into a combination would become in any way liable to make good the default of the county which failed to make its proper contribution. The security for the loan, whatever it was, would be the same, and the responsibility would be the same. The ordinary course followed in issuing stock was to publish a prospectus, and the conditions under which the stock was issued would be fully set forth in it, and would be a most complete notice to all persons tendering for the stock that the security was not a joint but a separate security. The invariable rule in regard to stock issued for local purposes was to create a loan fund into which was paid at proper intervals the sum necessary to defray the interest on the loan, and to provide for the sinking fund. The loan fund would be established under the superintendence of the Local Government Board, and proper contributions would be paid by each county entering into the combination. There would, therefore, be no joint purpose to be served, but a central liability in relation to the contributions and the repayment of the loan. The object of the Amendment was not to increase the security, but to enable the counties entering into the combination to borrow at a cheaper rate than they would otherwise be able to do. Anyone who had had any experience at all of the Stock Exchange knew perfectly well that if a small amount of stock were issued the stock itself was neglected; the trans-actions in it were few and infrequent, and it did not attain its natural and real value in the markets. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board informed the Committee yesterday that the borrowing of the

    1537
    County Councils would probably be for very small amounts. Now, if the County Councils were going to the public for very small loans, his (Mr. Powell-Williams's) experience, and he gave it for what it was worth, was that they would not get a good price for their loans; whereas if they could club together and raise stock of a considerable amount, they would be able to put it in the market at a much better price than they would otherwise receive, and the possibility, which was a serious one, of one county bidding for a loan in the market against another county would be removed. He did not see why, as they had what were called Consols secured on the taxes of the country, they should not also have extended over the whole Kingdom, appertaining to every county in the Kingdom, a Local Loan Stock secured on the rates of the country. It was with that object, and in order to make such borrowing that might be necessary cheaper than it would otherwise be, that he moved the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 58, after Sub-section (4), to add the words—"Provided that the councils of two or more adjacent counties may combine to issue stock for their joint and several purposes, and, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, may fix the proper contributions for interest, sinking fund, and expenses applicable to such stock, to be defrayed from time to time by each county so combining, according to its liability for the same or any part thereof."—(Mr. Powell-Williams.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was that two or more counties might combine for the purpose of issuing stock. He (Mr. Ritchie) was bound to say that the Government thought it extremely desirable that each county should stand on its own bottom in reference to its own finance. They had no objection whatever to encourage the County Councils to work together when they had a common interest in carrying out any particular works or particular scheme; but he could not think that this proposal had anything in common with any proposal of that kind. He could hardly agree with the hon. Member that the amount and importance of the stock
    1538
    which any one county could issue would not be sufficient to enable the County Council to obtain a good quotation in the market. His own conviction was, that it would be unwise to mix up two counties in connection with financial matters, and it would be better for the Committee to adhere to the proposal in the Bill that each county should stand on its own bottom.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, that if that was the opinion of the Government, he would not harass them by pressing the Amendment. He still, however, adhered to the opinion he had expressed, that it would be a useful Amendment to accept. Under the circumstances he would withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 68 (Power of county council to lend to other local authorities) struck out of the Bill.
    Clause 69 (Audit of accounts of county council).
    MR. CONYBEARE, in moving, in page 59, line 4, to insert the words—
    "The abstract of the treasurer's accounts shall be published in the two principal newspapers circulating in the county,"
    said, that the Amendment was directed towards securing the publication of an abstract of the accounts in the principal newspapers circulating in the county. He had placed it on the Paper, because, as far as he could gather from the Municipal Corporations Act, no provision was made for such publication.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that provision was made for the publication of the accounts.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he thought it was desirable that the accounts should be published in two newspapers. He did not think the proposal would occasion unnecessary expense, but cases had come before him where important statements of this kind had been published in one newspaper only, and that not the principal newspaper of the district, so that many persons who were interested in the matter were unable to see the accounts.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he quite understood the object of the hon. Gentle-

    1539
    man; but one of the provisions of the Bill was that an abstract of the accounts should be published in one or more of the newspapers of the county.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    BARON DIMSDALE, in moving, in page 59, line 6, after "shall," to insert—
    "In the absence of any provision made by the council for the due and proper auditing of its accounts, or of those of the county treasurer or officers of the council, by a properly qualified accountant,"
    said, its object was to provide that the accounts should be audited by the public auditor of the county, wherever no provision was made by the County Council for a due and proper audit. He thought it was wise to give this discretionary power to the Council, so that where no provision was made the Council could make the arrangement suggested in the Amendment. He was aware that there were other Amendments on the Paper to provide that the accounts, instead of being audited by district auditors, should be audited by chartered accountants; but there was a great feeling of dislike in the country against the monopoly of the chartered accountants, and he therefore thought it would be better to provide that the accounts should be audited by a properly qualified accountant, and, if not, then fall back upon the provision contained in the Bill. He could assure the Government that there was a strong feeling that the gentlemen who now performed the duty were perfectly competent to discharge it, and, as a protest against giving the power to chartered accountants, he begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 59, line 6, after the word "shall," to insert the words "in the absence of any provision made by the council for the due and proper auditing of its accounts, or of those of the county treasurer or officers of the council, by a properly qualified accountant."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he had two objections to the proposal of his hon. Friend. One was that it would be necessary to determine what was a due and proper audit of accounts; but the second and the most formidable one he
    1540
    had to contend with was that the audit, to be of value, ought to be conducted by auditors who ought to be entirely independent of the Authorities whose accounts they audited. It was evident that the direction in which public feeling extended in the present day was towards a closer rather than a looser audit of the public accounts. It was because he was afraid that the proposal of his hon. Friend was in the direction of the looser form of audit that he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he cordially endorsed every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The analogy of the Municipal Corporations Act was this—that under that Act the burgesses elected the auditor. The Poor Law accounts and the district accounts were officially audited by a district auditor. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the clause as it stood, seeing that it provided for a real and efficient audit of the accounts of the new County Councils.
    BARON DIMSDALEsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he had been requested by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name for the omission of Sub-section (b), which provides that where an auditor disallows or surcharges any sum, he shall not have power to recover it, but without prejudice to any other remedy: and that the sum be a debt to the County Council, and it be the duty of the County Council to recover it, unless within six months after the date of the certificate of disallowance or surcharge a resolution of the County Council remitting the same, and specifying the reasons for the remission, has been passed, after notice of the intention to propose it has been given to every member of the Council. He (Mr. F. S. Powell) thought the Amendment was entirely in harmony with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in regard to the accounts. He was afraid that the effect of the clause as it stood would be to encourage laxity

    1541
    of accounts, and to sanction the condonation of such laxity. He hoped that the Council would be required to be very strict in regard to the mode in which the accounts were kept.
    Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 23, to leave out sub-section (b).—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-section (b) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the effect of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would be that instead of the County Council having power, as provided by the Bill, of disallowing or surcharging, the power would continue to remain in the hands of the Local Government Board. Of course, some difference was made in the matter owing to the withdrawal of the clauses relating to District Councils. He was, however, prepared to say that it was advisable to adhere to this sub-section, by which the County Council would have the power of remitting surcharges in reference to their own accounts. Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the whole question of auditing the accounts of the County Council would again come up, as it must do at some not very remote period, he thought it was not desirable to interfere with the jurisdiction of the County Council. The jurisdiction of the Local Government Board, if the Amendment were agreed to, they would still retain in their hands, and also the power of surcharging any particular sum. He would, therefore, accept the Amendment.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he knew of many instances in which the Local Government Board would have been in a position of considerable difficulty if there had not been some discretion given to them in regard to surcharges.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was a discretion still retained in the hands of the Local Government Board; his hon. and learned Friend did not appear to understand the full meaning of the proposal. At present, the auditors of the Local Government Board surcharged what they thought it desirable and proper for them to do so. An appeal could then be made to the Board by the Authorities who were surcharged. The Local Government Board then considered the whole question, and had to
    1542
    decide whether the surcharge was legal; and, secondly, if it were legal, whether it was expedient to enforce it. It laid with the Local Government Board either to confirm or remit the surcharge; and, under the circumstances, he thought it would be better to retain that power.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he agreed with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. But those surcharges were accompanied by a great amount of trouble; and lengthened correspondence was entered into before the Local Government Board exercised its power of disallowance, an operation which entailed a great deal of friction and irritation in the minds of the Local Authorities who were surcharged. They did not understand why the auditor of the Local Government Board should impose a surcharge, and that then, generally after a long correspondence, the Local Government Board should remit the surcharge. He thought the words as they stood in the Bill would produce a certain amount of friction, and therefore he thought it advisable to strike them out.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he entirely agreed with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was with a view of preventing the friction and interminable correspondence which now took place that the Government had undertaken to bring in a Bill last year. The House assented to give power to the Local Government Board to remit those surcharges when it thought fit, without all the circumlocution and correspondence which had previously taken place. He was glad to say that that provision was working well.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT, in moving to omit Sub-section (c), which provided that where the auditor had disallowed or surcharged any sum or made any report respecting the accounts or the receipts and expenses of the County Council, the Council should cause a copy of the report and a certificate of the disallowance or surcharge, together with the reasons for the same, and if the same had been remitted the copy of the resolution remitting it, with the reasons for the remission, to be printed with the abstract of their accounts, and sent with such abstract to the Local Government Board.
    Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 33, to leave out sub-section (c).—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    Question, "That sub-section (c) stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTfurther moved the omission of Sub-section (d), which provided that in case of default in compliance with the foregoing provisions of the section with respect to the printing and delivery of the—
    "Said report and copy, the Local Government Board may cause such report and copy to be published in such manner as they think proper, and the cost of the publication to the amount certified by the Board shall be a debt due from the county council to Her Majesty, and the county treasurer and clerk of the county council shall each of them, unless he proves that he was not in default, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
    Amendment proposed, in page 59, line 42, to leave out sub-section (d).—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    Question, "That sub-section (d) stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE, on behalf of the hon. Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire (Mr. Maclure), moved, at the end of the clause, to add the following Sub-section:—
    "(e) Where before the passing of this Act a county auditor has been appointed for a county, he shall be the auditor of the accounts of the county council, and shall for that purpose have and exercise all the powers and duties of an auditor under this section, and any vacancy in his office shall be from time to time supplied by the county council."
    The noble Viscount said he should like to remind the Committee that in many counties, and especially in the county he had the honour to represent, there was a very important official with a large staff under him who discharged these duties, and was employed not once or twice a-year, but day by day, in revising the accounts and looking over the financial business of all the institutions that were subject to the Court of Quarter Sessions. He was, therefore, a person who occupied a very important position, and he really did not know how the county of Lancashire would be able to get on without a county auditor, even supposing that the district auditors
    1544
    were to be appointed in Lancashire as well as in other counties. In fact, in large and populous counties like Lancashire and Cheshire and several others, it would be impossible to get on without some auditor who belonged to the county and occupied the position of county auditor. He therefore thought it would be better to confirm the county auditor in the new state of things rather than get rid of him.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 60, at end, add the following sub-section:—"(e.) Where before the passing of this Act a county auditor has been appointed for a county, he shall be the auditor of the accounts of the county council, and shall for that purpose have and exercise all the powers and duties of an auditor under this section, and any vacancy in his office shall be from time to time supplied by the county council."—(Viscount Cranborne.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount on behalf of his Colleague, the effects of which would be to take out of the operation of the Act, with respect to the audit, any county that had a county auditor at the present moment. The existing county auditors were rather head accountants than auditors; they might be very efficient accountants, but they were not auditors. It was quite possible that those gentlemen would continue to be employed in the work they had hitherto discharged. It was, however, only one part of the duty of an auditor, such as he understood it, to go through the accounts and see that they were properly and accurately kept. Another and even a more important part of the duty which auditors had to perform, was to see whether the payments had been legally or properly made, and that was no part of the duty of the auditor employed by the County Authorities. On the ground that it would be taking away a safe-guard insisted upon in the Bill, he was unable to accept the Amendment.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated that the present county auditors were, to some extent, to continue their functions, although there was, at the same time, to be an independent audit. In the county of Durham the county auditor was a very important officer. He had intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman what

    1545
    was to become of the auditors now employed, and he was glad to hear that their services were likely to be retained.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that after what had been said by his right hon. Friend, he would not press the Amendment; but, when the Committee reached the 117th clause, he hoped the Government would consider the propriety of providing that the county auditors should be able to continue the duties they now performed, leaving the independent audit provided by the Bill to be performed by officers of the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider that point, he would have great pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.
    MR. RITCHIEremarked, that he had nothing whatever to say against the County Councils continuing to employ auditors.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Funds and Costs of District Councils.
    Clause 70 (Cost and funds of urban district council).
    Clause 71 (Costs and funds of rural district council).
    Clause 72 (Power of district council to borrow).
    Clause 73 (Audit of accounts of district council) severally struck out.
    Local Financial Year and Annual Budget.
    Clause 74 (Fixing of local financial year and consequent adjustments).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 63, line 33, to leave out the words "and district council."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he had an Amendment on the paper to insert at the end of the clause—
    "Save that where the accounts of any such borough are made up to any other date, they may continue to be made up to such date if the council of the borough send annually to the Local Government Board such statement of their accounts up to the thirty-first day of March as the Local Government Board from time to time require."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he proposed to leave out Sub-sections 2, 3,
    1546
    and 4, so that the Amendment of the hon. Member would be unnecessary.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the proposed Amendment came after Sub-section 5. He was afraid it would introduce great confusion to return to that sub-section. He could quite understand the advisability of ending the local financial year on the 31st March; but there were many large boroughs, such as Liverpool and Manchester, which ended the financial year on a different date, and if they were going to alter the date, the change might be a serious matter. Some years ago the financial year was altered in Wolverhampton, and practically the change involved 18 months grace, in the course of 12 months inflicting a serious burden upon the town.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would also propose to leave out Sub-section (5).
    Amendment proposed, in pages 63 and 64, to leave out Sub-sections (2),(3),(4), and (5).—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question, "That Sub-sections (2),(3),(4), and (5) stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 75 (Annual budget of county and district councils).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 64, line 21, leave out "and district council."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  PART VI.

    SUPPLEMENTAL.
    Application of Acts.
    Clause 76 (Application of Municipia Corporations Act, 1882, to county and district councils and this Act).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 65, line 5, to leave out "and district."
    MR. HENEAGE, in moving an Amendment in page 65, line 10, after "1884," to insert "section 124, part 5," said, its object was to apply that provision of the Municipial Corporations Act of 1882 as if it were re-enacted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 65, line 10, after "1884," to insert the words, "Section one hundred and twenty-four, part five."—(Mr. Heneage.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he would accept the Amendment. The section which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to insert was that which prohibited expenditure in connection with Parliamentary elections.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 65, line 14, after "re-enacted," insert "with the enactments amending the same;" line 19, leave out "elective;" line 21, leave out from beginning of line to "shall;" and in line 24, leave out "elective."
    MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved, as an Amendment in line 24, to omit the words "and of every district council other than a borough."
    Amendment proposed, in page 65, line 24, to leave out from the word "council," to the word "in," in line 25.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. LAWSONasked, whatever the Sheriff of the county of London would be the same returning officer as at present?
    MR. RITCHIEreplied in the affirmative.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made, in page 65, lines 31 and 38, and in page 66, line 2 and line 8, leave out "elective."
    MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved as an Amendment, in line 9, to leave out the words "deputy sheriff," and insert "returning officer in pursuance of a writ directed to him from the Sheriff." The object of the Amendment was to provide that the returning officer in an electoral division of the county that was co-extensive with or wholly comprised in a borough should at the election of councillors act as returning officer in pursuance of a writ directed to him from the Sheriff.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 66, line 9, to leave out the words "deputy sheriff," and insert in lieu thereof the
    1548
    words "returning officer in pursuance of a writ directed to him from the sheriff."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question, "That the words 'deputy sheriff' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved an Amendment, in page 66, line 10, to leave out "be subject," in order to insert "follow the instructions of, and return the names of the persons elected." The Amendment provided that instead of the relieving officer being subject to the Sheriff, he had to follow the instructions of the Sheriff and return the names of the persons elected.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 66, line 10, to leave out the words "be subject," and insert the words "follow the instructions of, and return the names of the persons elected."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question, "That the words 'be subject' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. RITCHIE, in moving an Amendment in page 66, line 11, to leave out "any other deputy," and insert—
    "If he were a deputy sheriff, and any decision of an objection shall be subject to revision by the sheriff accordingly, and a reference in the said enactments to the town clerk shall, as respects the borough, be construed to refer to the town clerk,"
    said, the object of the Amendment was to provide that the returning officer should be in the position of a deputy sheriff, and that any decision and objection should be subject to revision by the sheriff.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 66, line 11, leave out "any other deputy," and insert "if he were a deputy sheriff, and any decision of an objection shall be subject to revision by the sheriff accordingly, and a reference in the said enactments to the town clerk shall, as respects the borough, be construed to refer to the town clerk."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question, "That the words 'any other deputy' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made, in page

    1549
    66, lines 16 and 18, leave out the words "or ward;" and in line 18, at end, insert the following sub-sections:—
    "The returning officer shall forthwith after the election of county councillors for the county, return the names of the persons elected to the clerk of the county council;
    "The period between the nomination and election may be such period not exceeding six days, as the returning officer may fix."
    On the Motion of Mr. L. FRY (for Mr. Hobhouse), the following Amendment made, in page 66, line 18, insert the following Sub-section (8):—"An outgoing alderman shall not vote in the election of a chairman."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 66, line 20, at end, to insert the following sub-section:—"Section eleven of 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' with respect to the qualification of a county councillor by reason of his being entered in the separate non-resident list shall include, for the purposes of this Act, all persons entered in such separate list in any municipal borough by reason of occupation of property in the borough, and all persons entered in such separate list for any part of a county not in a municipal borough by reason of the occupation of property in that part."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. F. S. POWELL MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan) moved an Amendment providing that the election of members of the County Council should take place on the 7th November, instead of the 9th November. That was the day fixed for the election of town Councillors in connection with Municipal Corporations, and as many of the candidates of the County Councils were likely to be members of the Corporation, he proposed to alter the day of the election to the 7th November from the 9th.
    Amendment proposed,
    "That the 7th November be the ordinary day of election for the county aldermen, and for holding the first meetings of the county council."—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend, and he trusted that some of the members of the Corporation would also be members of the County Council. He could quite conceive that it would be inconvenient under such circumstances if the election of the Mayor and Corporation and of
    1550
    the Chairman of the County Council were to take place on the same day.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 61, line 27, after the word "wards," to insert the words "or borough auditors."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment made, in page 66, line 30, at end, insert—
    "(c.) Shall render any person elected to a corporate office without his consent to his nomination being previously obtained liable to pay a fine on non-acceptance of office; or."
    Amendment proposed,
    At end of page 66, line 30, to insert—"(d.) Shall authorise or require a returning officer to hold an election of a councillor to fill a casual vacancy in the representation of an electoral division or ward of a district, where the vacancy occurs within six months before the time fixed by this Act for a new election of a councillor to represent such electoral division or ward; or."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, his impression was that in a former discussion they had fixed the period at three months, and not six months.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the time fixed was six months.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he entertained a strong belief that three months was the time mentioned.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if he found that was the case, the clause should be altered on the Report.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 39, to leave out the words "or of the licensing committee."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, it might become important that some of the proceedings of the joint committee should be submitted to the County Council. He wished to know whether the President of the Local Government Board really attached much importance to the provision in this section, which liberated the action and pro-

    1551
    ceedings of the joint committee from the criticism of the County Council.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought it was desirable to retain the section. He saw no objection to it, and he would prefer not to omit it.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, it was dangerous that the Committee of the County Council should be made independent of the action of the County Council itself. They were creating an imperium in imperio. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to require that the acts of any committee to which powers were delegated in continuance of the Act should be submitted to the County Council for their approval.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the provision was specially limited to committees which were charged with power in pursuance of the Act. It did not apply to committees to whom powers were given by the County Council, but to committees to whom powers were delegated by the Act.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid he would take the case of the Finance Committee; they had certain powers delegated to them under the Act. All the financial arrangements were delegated to that committee; but was it proposed to make the finance committee dependent on the County Council?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that so far from the finance committee being dependent upon the Council, the Council would be unable to make payments without having received a report in favour of such payments from the finance committee. The whole control of the county finance would be in the hands of the finance committee.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a feeling in favour of giving the power of control to the Council.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he quite agreed with the general principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman, and thought it would be bad not to make the committees responsible to the Body which appointed them so far as reporting their proceedings and a control over them went. There was, however, one point which occurred to him, and it was that in reference to the gaol delivery, there was a committee appointed at York which was common to the three divisions of the county. In what way was a
    1552
    control to be exercised over that committee?
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, the point which had been raised was a very important one. If they wanted to have good management they must have concentrated responsibility. It was a question which had been very much discussed by those who had taken an active part in Local Government. The great point in these matters was to secure concentrated responsibility. He quite agreed that the County Council ought to have power over its committees; but if they required every act of the committees to be re-debated, and voted upon by the central Body, they would very much diminish the responsibility with which a committee would enter into any matter; in fact, it would be found that the committee would often do their work carelessly, in the belief that a superior authority would rectify any mistake. And what he would venture to suggest was that all the proceedings of the committee should be reported to the County Council, and that they should have power to intervene, but that they should not of necessity be required to confirm and re-debate the acts of other committees. Some of the most able workers in the cause of Local Government were of opinion that one of the great defects of the existing Local Government was that there was too much divided responsibility, and that in consequence nobody gave that attention he would otherwise devote to the work. No man would undergo much trouble and labour when he knew that all he did might be upset. He would therefore ask the President of the Local Government Board if it would not be much better that those committees should be required to report to the Council; but that it should not be necessary that every act of the committees should be re-debated by the central Body and confirmed by it.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he was of opinion that it would not be necessary to re-debate the proceedings of the Committees; but he thought that they ought to be subject to the approval of the County Council.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, he failed to see why if the joint committee did not report to the County Council, every other committee should not be called on to report.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would accept the view of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) so far as reporting went. He would take the case of the Watch Committee of a Municipal Corporation. Although the Watch Committee was an independent Body, it nevertheless reported to the Corporation, and those great endowments, such as grammar schools, partly managed by Corporations, always reported to the Town Council. Whenever a committee was appointed, instructions were given to them, and in the course of time they reported to the Town Council. The Town Council, however, had no power to upset the act of the committee. It would be an extraordinary thing to appoint a committee of any kind, and then allow that committee to be entirely independent, and not hear anything more about their proceedings. He was satisfied that rate-payers would not be content with such a state of things; he therefore trusted that the recommendation of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton should be adopted, and that there should be, at any rate, a report. Any other system would be most extraordinary in the case of a municipal Body.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he thought it was desirable to make clear what the position of the London Council would be under the clause.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the clause did not apply to the Council of the County of London.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, there would be a finance committee in connection with the Council of London.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the, hon. Member might take it from him that this clause did not apply to London. In reference to the other question which had been raised, he believed that the analogy which had been drawn of the procedure under the Municipal Corporations Act did not apply in this case. He spoke with some hesitation in the presence of many hon. Gentlemen who knew about the matter much better than he did, but he did not believe that under that Act there were powers of absolute delegation.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought the Watch Committee was in-dependent.
    MR. RITCHIEthought not. The Watch Committee and other committees of that kind were bound to report to the Corporation, and he believed that all the various committees under the Bill which were analogous to the Committees appointed under the Municipal Corporations Act would have to report if this clause were accepted. However, finding that so much general opinion prevailed with the Committee in favour of the omission of this provision, he would consent to the omission of the words, on the understanding that if he found it would seriously interfere with the operation of any other part of the Bill, he would ask the Committee to reconsider the matter on the Report.
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, the joint Committee was responsible for the finance of the police, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity for maintaining some connection between that committee and the County Council on financial questions.
    MR. LAWSONasked, the right hon. Gentleman whether he had quite satisfied himself that the clause did not apply to London?
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he thought he was able to answer that question. The powers of the joint committee of the County Council and the Justices of the Peace would not be confined to police matters, but would be extended to various other purposes.
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that in the 27th section the Committee had enacted that the County Council—
    "Should with the exceptions hereinafter mentioned have power to delegate with or without any restrictions or conditions, as they may think fit, any powers or duties transferred to them by this either to the justices of the county or to any committee of the county council appointed in the provisions of the Act."
    He had ventured to suggest, while that clause was under consideration, speaking from his own experience in connection with Quarter Sessions work in Yorkshire, that it would be a matter of great inconvenience not to have the power of delegation. There were many matters dealt with at Quarter Sessions which it would be inconvenient to delegate to a committee, and serious inconvenience would arise if the Town Council were not able to consider matters that had been referred to the committee.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not understand the suggestion of the right hon.

    1555
    Gentleman opposite went further than this—that committees should report. He did not say that under no circumstances should the Town Council have no power of delegation, but simply that committees should report.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, this was a clause qualifying a provision of the Municipal Corporations Act. The Municipal Corporations Act contained the express power of delegation; but it subjected that delegation to the revision and approval of the Council. It was wisely proposed to alter that, so far as the joint committee was concerned, and that joint committee would be in a somewhat similar condition to the Watch Committee, without power to report to the County Council or to Quarter Sessions. He thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly fair, and that it should be understood that if the decision was arrived at was hereafter found to conflict with the general provisions of the Bill, it should be amended. It must be borne in mind that in this Bill they were introducing new law.
    Question put, and negatived.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 66, line 39, leave out the word "other."
    Question, "That the word "other" stand part of the Clause," put and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    After line 41, to insert the following sub-section:—(e.) "Shall prevent the use of schools and public rooms for the purpose of taking the poll at elections under this Act, but section six of 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' shall apply in the case of elections under this Act, and the returning officer may, in addition to using such rooms free of charge for taking the poll, use the same free of charge for hearing objections to nomination papers and for counting votes."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 67, line 2, to leave out the word "elective."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question, "That the word "elective" stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 67, line 4, leave out "and all costs properly incurred in relation to the holding of
    1556
    the election of elected councillors of district councils so far as not otherwise provided for by law should be paid for out of the district fund as general expenses."
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the clause to insert "the provisions of this section shall apply to the City of London in like manner as to a borough."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSasked, if it would be in Order to call attention to the word "properly" on line 4. The clause as it originally stood provided that all costs properly incurred in relation to the holding of elections should be paid out of the county fund.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, that part of the clause had already been disposed of.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, he was not desirous of taking the ruling of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) on that point, but would prefer that of the Chairman.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the word had already gone out.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he had not intended to give any ruling; but had simply made a suggestion in order to expedite the consideration of the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Municipal Corporations Act did not apply to the City of London. It was, therefore, essential that some provisions should be made for the elections of County Councillors for London in the City, and the Amendment would make provision for the County Council of London in the same way as other County Councils.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, the following Amendment made, in page 67, at the end of line 8, to add—
    "The meeting of a county council, or of any committee thereof, may be held at such place either within or without their county, as the council from time to time direct."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 67, at the end of the Clause, to insert—"The said costs shall not exceed those allowed by Part I. of the First Schedule to 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875,' as amended by 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1885,' or by such scale as the county council

    1557
    may from time to time frame: Provided, That, if any sheriff is dissatisfied with any scale so framed by the county council, he may apply to a Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State may fix the scale, which shall be in force until altered, in pursuance of this section;
    Sections four, five, six, and seven of 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875,' as amended by 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment Act 1886,' shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted with the necessary modifications, and in particular with the substitution of the county council for the person from whom payment is claimed, and of one month for the period of fourteen days within which application may be made for taxation;
    A county council shall, on the request of the returning officer, prior to a poll being taken at any election of councillor of such council, advance to him such sum not exceeding ten pounds for every thousand electors at the election as he may require."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to the Amendment, which he thought was a very wide one.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that under the Bill it was provided that the expenses of elections should be the expenses allowed by the Municipal Corporations Act. The Government ought to have known that there was no scale under that Act as fixed by that Act which simply allowed "reasonable expenses or charges." It was evident that that was an extraordinarily elastic phrase, and, therefore, it was desirable that some provision should be made for a scale of expenses. The Amendment applied the Parliamentary scale of costs for the election of Councillors under the Bill, but it further provided that the County Council might itself make up a scale. If some such provision were not introduced at the first election of the Town Council, it would be held without any limitation whatever. Under the circumstances, he thought he ought to accept the Amendment.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he did not see why the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act should not be applied at the first election. The Amendment, however, went a good deal further. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they could not permanently adopt the expenses under the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act; and he believed that that
    1558
    Act itself required amendment as soon as the House of Commons had time to attend to the matter. In the next place, the proposal was that such a scale should be followed as the County Council might from time to time frame. There was, however, a third element introduced—namely, that if any Sheriff was dissatisfied with the scale so formed by the County Council, he was to have the right of appealing to the Secretary of State. There were no such provision in the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, and he failed to see why Sheriffs should have that provision given to them here. He was quite content that the first election for County Councillors should take place on the scale now in force. He was also willing to take the second proposition, that the ratepayers should have power to fix the scale; but he entirely objected to the interposition of the Secretary of State whenever a Sheriff was dissatisfied with the scale.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he wished to point out to the President of the Local Government Board what was the result of his own experience in connection with London candidates for Parliament. He had found that the Sheriff stuck out for exorbitant expenses, and, as a matter of fact, in many cases they had been obliged to take him into Court in order to have the costs taxed. He was generally as grasping in his charges as he could be under the Act, and he had no wish to give him any further opportunities of extortion.
    MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, the object of the clause was to hold the Sheriff harmless, and to prevent him from suffering pecuniary loss. Under the Municipal Corporations Act, the Mayor who acted as Returning Officer was in no danger of that kind, and it was not intended that the Sheriff should be in any other position. It was conceivable that the Sheriff might come to the conclusion that he could not possibly do the work within the scale of costs authorized by the County Council, and under such circumstances it would seem hardly fair to leave him without a remedy, and to require him to be out of pocket in regard to the discharge of duties in his office. He thought it was essential that, whatever was done in regard to the clause, the Sheriff should be left absolutely harmless so far as pecuniary loss was concerned.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had only one word to say upon that point. He had in his pocket the Returning Officer's bill for the expenses of himself and his opponent in 1885. It amounted to £658, which were incurred in charges for the different polling stations. He thought it would be monstrous to put either the ratepayers, or the county, or the candidate who stood for the Council, to such an expense as that. Some revision certainly ought to take place in reference to charges. He should not have risen, however, if he had not recollected the large amount he had to pay upon the occasion he had referred to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): said, the hon. and gallant Baronet had really pointed out a reason why the matter should be dealt with in some such way as the clause provided. They were all agreed that some limit must be placed on the expenses, and it was essential that they should adopt some standard. The only scale in existence was that which was contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act. The next step was that the County Councils should have the right to frame a scale, which, it might be assumed, would be less than the scale for Parliamentary elections. Then came the necessity of providing for the duties which certain public officers had to perform. They had certainly the right to be protected, although it might be worth while to consider, as soon as possible, the question of expenses under the Parliamentary Elections Act, yet it would not be fair to put officers who had to perform ministerial duty entirely at the mercy of the County Councils in regard to the expenses they would have to incur, or to allow them to suffer pecuniary loss. The President of the Local Government Board only desired to prevent an unjust burden being placed upon those who provided and worked the machinery of an election. That was desirable in the interests of economy, in order to prevent the work from being improperly done, or imposing an undue burden on those who had to do it. His right hon. Friend had no desire to assent to the clause in order to increase the expense. On the contrary, until the County Councils took steps to frame a scale, his right hon. Friend was desirous of refraining from
    1560
    imposing undue burdens upon those who had to perform a public duty.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) that it had been found by experience that in London Sheriffs usually considered it their duty to charge the maximum rate. There had been many instances of that, and they did everything in the most expensive manner. There were many things that might be done economically, but those gentlemen invariably did them as extravagantly as possible. He thought that, on the whole, the matter must be left to the County Council, who would know what duties the Sheriff had to perform, and would decide on a reasonable amount for their performance. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist upon the last part of the clause.
    MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, there was, no doubt, considerable dissatisfaction as to the charges now made by the Sheriffs. He wished to point out that the charges for a Councillor's election could not possibly amount to the same large sum that was now expended on the election of the Members of Parliament, for the simple reason that a great portion of the charges depended on the number of electors, and the constituencies in the Parliamentary election were much larger than those which would elect a County Councillor. Counties were different from boroughs in this respect—that they had no such officer as a Mayor, who was bound to conduct the elections. The Returning Officer in borough elections was the Mayor, and he was the officer of the Corporation who was bound, as part of his official duty, to conduct the elections. In the counties they had Sheriffs, who were not officers of the county, nor would they be members of the County Council. They would be entirely independent of the County Council, and would probably employ professional men to conduct the elections. When the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) talked of there being no authority to charge the expenses that were to be incurred on a County Council election, it ought to be remembered that the County Council and the Sheriff would stand in the position of creditor and debtor, and it was scarcely fair that the debtor should fix

    1561
    he amount to be paid to his creditor without appeal.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not agree with the idea that the expenditure at a County Council election would be necessarily much less than in a Parliamentary election. The difference in the number of voters would not be very great, taking into account the extension of area. The County Council would be elected over the whole of the county, and he did not think there would be much material difference. That, however, did not appear to be the point. The point was whether the charges were to be fixed according to the ordinary scale by which the Sheriffs wore now entitled to charge and to insist upon. He had no doubt that if every hon. Member were to get up in his place and detail his experience in regard to the expenses he had incurred, they would listen to a tale of woe and suffering such as had never before been related to the House. There was a little incident which he might himself relate, and which was well worth the attention of the Committee. For simply sending a carpenter to look after the erection of booths at different places in the division where the polls would be taken, he was charged £2 2s. a-piece for each polling station, notwithstanding the fact that only six months before the same duty had been discharged and the same inspection made. He pronounced that charge as little less than robbery. No doubt, the attorney who had charge of the elections took very good care to increase the expenses as far as he could. It was said that "a fellow-feeling makes us wondrous kind," and it would appear that the hon. and learned Attorney General was anxious to protect those members of his own Profession, who took very good care to line their own pockets out of those of the Members of Parliament. So far as the Amendment was concerned, that part of it which was intended to apply to the first election would not do any considerable amount of harm. But when the clause got into thorough working order it would be able to form a scale of charges which it would be desirable to enforce in regard to future elections. He strongly protested, however, against the intervention of the Secretary of State. It involved a principle which he could not approve of even temporarily. He wished
    1562
    to know whether, if the Amendment was accepted and passed, it would apply permanently to elections. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, that it was most undesirable to empower the Secretary of State to revise decisions as to a scale of charges arrived at after due consideration by the members of the County Council. He did not think there need be the slightest fear that the Under Sheriffs would be out of pocket. He had never known a lawyer to be out of pocket, especially when he held the position of Under Sheriff. They might depend upon it that the principle of placing the expenses on the rates, and having them controlled by the representatives of the people, would be the most certain means of keeping them within very limited bounds, and avoid anything like bribery and corruption.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had no doubt that many Members would like to see the cost of Returning Officers at Parliamentary elections reduced; but he ventured to think that that was hardly a relevant question at the present moment. He would explain to the Committee exactly what the position of things was in reference to the proposal before the Committee. Unless some scale of expenses was laid down for the first election under the Bill, there would be no limit at all. It was then proposed to take a scale, it might not be a good scale, and it might be an extravagant one, but it was the only scale they had. In the next place, his hon. Friend proposed to apply it to the first election. It was, however, necessary to provide what was to be done at subsequent elections. The Amendment said that the County Council themselves should fix the costs and expenses of subsequent elections. Then arose the consideration that the Returning Officer, who was the High Sheriff under the Bill, was not a paid official at all. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the Deputy Sheriff would take good care that he was never out of pocket. But he must point out to the hon. Gentleman, that if he took care that he was not out of pocket, if anybody had to be out of pocket at all, it would be the High Sheriff, who, he repeated, was Returning Officer, but not a paid official; and

    1563
    the hon. Gentleman knew the extreme difficulty experienced in inducing gentlemen to serve the office of High Sheriff, on account of the considerable expenditure which they had to incur during their term of office. It was now proposed by the Bill to place upon this officer's shoulders a new and onerous duty, and it would be hardly right or fair towards the High Sheriff to place him entirely and arbitrarily in the hands of the County Council to say how much the cost of a Parliamentary election should be, and then leave him to pay the excess, if there were any. If that were done, there might be many instances in which the High Sheriff would be largely out of pocket. [Mr. CONYBEARE: No.] He maintained that that would be the case, and the County Councils might set up such a scale of charges as would compel the High Sheriff to be considerably out of pocket. Was that what the hon. Member desired? [Mr. OONYBEARE: No.] Very well. Then what he said was, that there should be someone who should say whether the complaint of the High Sheriff was justifiable or not. His hon. Friend behind him (Baron Dimsdale) had suggested, in the Amendment, that the person to whom to apply should be the Secretary of State. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that he was not wedded to the one person, and if some suggestion could be made by which it could be provided that some reasonable appeal could be made in order to prevent the High Sheriff from suffering, he would be quite ready to accept it.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed as to the High Sheriff being out of pocket. When he was appointed he nominated an Under Sheriff, and the Under Sheriff was really the person the Committee were now dealing with. As a matter of fact, the Under Sheriff generally contracted to indemnify the High Sheriff against the cost of discharging his duties. [Cries of "No, no!"] He would repeat the observation, in order that there might be no mistake—namely, that whenever expenses were incurred by the High Sheriff in discharge of his judicial and administrative functions, there was an agreement entered into by which the Under Sheriff received all the fees and indemnified the
    1564
    High Sheriff against all loss. What was the cost that was involved? There was the cost of the Returning Officer, who had to appoint a Sub-Returning Officer, to obtain rooms in which the election was to be carried on, and to appoint persons by whom the votes were to be counted. They were quite willing that the very high scale for Parliamentary elections should be adopted for the first election; but who was the proper Body to settle what the scale for future elections should be? One hon. Gentleman spoke of the relations between the High Sheriff and the County Council as those of debtor and creditor; but it was nothing of the kind, any more than the relations between the Town Clerk and the Mayor and Corporation were those of debtor and creditor. The Mayor had no responsibility whatever, and the Town Clerk settled the scale. He was bound to say that the mode in which municipal elections were carried out was in every respect satisfactory. Then, why not trust the same duty to the County Councils, who would be the persons most interested in having the proper scale fixed? He could quite understand that if a Member of Parliament was called upon to settle a scale for his own election, he would apply a very rigid principle of economy; but in this case they were dealing with county expenditure, and the Body they professed to have so much trust in they dared not trust to fix what was to be the amount paid out of the county funds for an election, but they were to provide that the Secretary of State should supervize and regulate the expenditure. It was a satire upon the Bill to call it a Decentralizing Bill, when they evidently could not trust the County Council in a small matter of that kind, and notwithstanding the fact that at that moment they did trust the Municipal Councils. He saw nothing in the appeal it was proposed to provide except to open a loop-hole to certain permanent officials to increase the expenditure by calling on the Secretary of State to fix a scale, although he had no machinery for the purpose, knew nothing about the matter, and must refer to some subordinate in his own Office. He should certainly divide the House, if necessary, on the broad and general principle that the County Council ought to be competent to settle a question of the sort. Surely they could trust the County

    1565
    Council to settle the expenditure of a few hundred pounds for the triennial elections of its own members.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, his right hon. Friend was not quite accurate in regard to what he had said in reference to the High Sheriff. In his county, in 1868, the High Sheriff had to pay the whole of the expenses of an election, because one of the candidates refused to pay his share, and in the election which occurred in 1885, he was out of pocket as Returning Officer in connection with one division. The only indemnity given by the Under Sheriff was in regard to any legal action brought for illegality or misconduct of the Sheriff's officers with regard to the issuing of summonses and writs. He should not, however, have risen to make that statement had it not been for the challenge which had been thrown out by his right hon. Friend, He quite agreed that in future the scale of expenditure should be determined by the County Council, and he did not approve of reference to the Secretary of State; but he would lay down the condition that the High Sheriff should not be compelled to undertake the office or perform the duties if he objected to do so.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, it had been established before a Committee that a Parliamentary election caused additional expense to a High Sheriff, because he was called upon to defray costs which were not covered by the Parliamentary scale. The High Sheriff usually made a contract with the Under Sheriff to indemnify him against all actions and costs, except those connected with Parliamentary elections.
    MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). He had had to go carefully through the questions of Returning Officers' expenses, and he knew that expenditure was incurred of a most lavish description. He felt convinced that if the new County Councils in the various counties would go carefully through the cost of conducting the elections, they would be able to frame such a scale of charges as would place in the hands of the Under Sheriff all the money he would feel inclined to spend. The old scale of ex-
    1566
    penditure was very much too high, and would not be satisfactorily dealt with except by a practical body of business men. The fault hitherto had been that the scale had not been fixed by practical business men. He trusted that in the County Council there would be many men of that character, accustomed to deal with expenditure, who would be able to fix the charges that were necessary in regard to the conduct of elections. By that means they would get a scale of expenditure amply sufficient for the Under Sheriff, but much more economical then the scales they had hitherto had. He trusted that the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would divide the Committee in regard to the omission of those words, because although they might not defeat the Government, they would, at any rate, show what the opinion of the Committee was in regard to the expenditure incurred by there elections.
    MR. LAWSONasked, who was to be the Returning Officer for the Metropolis, and whether London was to be under this provision of the Bill? The Sheriff for the County of London would be the new officer. The Returning Officers at Parliamentary elections were appointed by the Sheriffs of the City of London after the Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman who were to be the men to preside over these municipal elections; were they to be new men or the existing officers?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, they would, in the first instance, be appointed by the Local Government Board, and subsequently, in the case of London, the County of London would make the appointment.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Local Government Board than anyone else.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, this was a very small matter, and he felt sure that it was not likely that the County Council would fix an unreasonable scale. They proposed that the County Council should have the decision in this matter, for which they would be eminently fitted, inasmuch as they would know the cost of labour in the respective counties. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would give way, and not

    1567
    insist on the last sub-section of the Amendment.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had had a considerable proportion of the deposited money in two elections returned to him, which proved that the amount now on the Parliamentary scale was so great as practically to make it perfectly safe to all concerned, and, as a matter of fact, there would be no risk whatever. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to that point for one moment he would be aware that in most cases the amount deposited by the candidate into the hands of the Sheriff was so large as to be out of all reason.
    BARON DIMSDALEsaid, the hon. Gentleman opposite had fairly stated the issue between him and hon. Gentlemen opposite; he had frankly admitted that it would be fair to adopt the scale proposed at the first election, and afterwards that the County Council should frame the scale. He (Baron Dimsdale) thought it would be agreed that if anybody was competent to frame a fair scale it would be the County Council. Then there was this difference between them. A portion of the amount was to go to the Sheriff; but supposing there was a disagreement as to the amount of the scale, surely there ought to be an appeal to someone, and if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill were to suggest an appeal to another officer, he thought that might meet the circumstances of the case. If neither of the parties were satisfied, then an appeal to the Secretary of State should be made, and he by no means waived that principle.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. Gentleman was disposed to regard this matter as if the Sheriff on the one hand and the County Council on the other were parties to the question with equal rights. That was not his view of the situation. The Sheriff was an officer who had to accommodate himself in carrying out his duty to the views of the County Council, and the County Council was the proper Body to decide this financial question. He failed to see why it should be assumed that the County Council would not be sufficiently liberal in the allowance which they might make and the scale which they would adopt. But he regarded the situation, which the Proviso would
    1568
    create, as one which appeared to be absurd. The County Council had to consider and decide on the question and to go to the trouble of framing a scheme, and then all that was necessary according to this Proviso was that the Sheriff should be dissatisfied—it did not even say that he should be reasonably dissatisfied—and then he would have the right to go to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State would be able to fix the scale over the heads of the County Council, and the County Council would not be entitled to resent being placed in such a position as that. If the Sheriff was dissatisfied with the scheme framed by the County Council, he might make representations to the County Council; but he (Mr. Stansfeld) saw no reason whatsoever why, on this financial question, which was within the purview of the authority and functions of the Council, the Sheriff should be entitled, merely on the ground of personal dissatisfaction, to go to the Secretary of State.
    MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite quite felt that the Sheriff was an officer who was compelled to serve whether he liked it or not, and that there was nothing whatever to make the County Council lay down even a reasonable scale of costs for his services. He suggested that the proper course would be to put the County Council in the same position as the Municipalities of boroughs. The Sheriff at the first election was protected by the present scale of fees, but at the next election he suggested that the Chairman of County Council be made the returning officer, and in that case the County Council would be sure to frame such a scale of fees as would be sufficient. For while they would not care for the Sheriff, they would be sure to see that one of their own body did not suffer.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was afraid that the suggestion of the hon. Member would hardly work, because it appeared to him that the Chairman of the County Council, if the Sheriff ceased to be Re-turning Officer, would become a candidate for the office. He understood that his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was willing that the words giving an appeal to the Secretary of State should be struck out, in order that the matter should be considered before Re-

    1569
    port. He thought, although the suggestion of his hon. Friend with regard to the Chairman becoming Returning Officer was one which they could hardly accept, yet there was no reason why they should not consider whether the County Council might not appoint the Returning Officer. In that case the Sheriff would be relieved of the financial responsibility he might otherwise incur. It could not, however, be done at that moment; but if the hon. Member would be good enough to withdraw that portion of his Amendment, the Government would undertake to consider between that time and Report whether it could not be done at that stage.
    BARON DIMSDALEsaid, he was ready to withdraw that part of his proposal which gave an appeal to the Secretary of State.
    MR. LEAKEsaid, with regard to the proposal that the County Council should appoint a Returning Officer, he had no doubt that the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman might offer on Report would clear away all remaining objections.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that the plan would render it unnecessary to give an appeal at all.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, he failed to see why they should have any scale at all for the first election, because they looked to these County Councillors as men who would be able to take a fair and reasonable view of what the Returning Officer's charges ought to be. There was no reason whatever for taking a scale of payment which was, on all hands, acknowledged to be preposterous, and charge it to the ratepayers.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he entirely agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy), which was the true solution of this difficulty.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "provided" to the end of the section.
    Question, "That those words be left out of the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 77 (Construction of Acts referring to business transferred).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 67, line 12, leave out "or district;" line 17, leave out "or district council;" line 21, leave out "or district council;" line 26, leave out "or district;" line 35, leave out "and for one year afterwards;" line 40, leave out "or district;" in page 68, line 5, after "admit," insert—
    "And a presentment by a grand jury in relation to any such powers, duties, or liabilities shall cease to be made otherwise than by way of indictment;"
    line 10, leave out "an Order in Council," and insert "a Provisional Order;" and in line 12, leave out from "Works," to "or," in line 14.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Proceedings of Councils and Committees.
    Clause 78 (Incorporation of county council).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 68, line 25, before the word "county," to insert the word "administrative."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 79 (Payments out of fund and finance committee of county council and district council—not a borough).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 68, lines 38 and 39, to leave out the words "or district;" and in line 39, to leave out the word "or district."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 68, line 41, leave out all the words after "by," to "council," in page 69, line 1, and insert "the chairman of the meeting at which any payments are ordered to be made."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he was afraid the Government could not accept this Amendment. The question involved was not, as the hon. Member appeared to suppose, one of signing cheques, but orders for payment. In this case the Government were following the analogy of the Municipal Corporations Act, which required orders for payment to be signed by three members of the Council.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 69, line 2, after the word "council," to insert the words "and the same order may include several payments;" and in line 7, to leave out the words "and district council."
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he rose to move an Amendment which, with the consequential Amendment he proposed afterwards to move, would make the clause run thus—
    "Every county council other than the council of a borough shall, from time to time, appoint a standing committee for regulating and controlling the finance of their county or district,"
    and so on. His object in proposing this Amendment was to meet two difficulties and dangers which he found had suggested themselves to those who were most conversant with the practical working of these County Councils. One of them was, that unless there were some sufficient controlling power, the practical administration of county business would run simply into the hands of the permanent paid officials; and, in proof of that, he thought it was only necessary to refer to what was taking place before Lord Herschell's Commission in connection with the Board of Works, which would show how dangerous that would be. It was admitted in that Inquiry that what had occurred was in consequence of the business of the Board having got entirely into the hands of permanent officials and cunning members of the Board generally. It was very necessary, therefore, that the permanent paid officials of the counties should be under proper control. On the other hand, they did not want to run into the other extreme, and allow the business of the county to fall entirely into the hands of a small clique of the county committee; and there was great danger that unless a strong standing committee was formed representative of all the boroughs in the county, the practical administration of business in the intervals of the sittings might fall entirely into the hands of a small knot of members who were resident in the immediate neighbourhood of the town in which the county business was mainly transacted. It was for guarding against these two dangers that he ventured to
    1572
    suggest the propriety of setting up a standing committee. The suggestion of the method of procedure had been upon the Paper for some time, and hon. Members would probably have in their minds an outline of the scheme. Briefly, it was simply to secure that the County Council should appoint from among its own Members a committee which should be strong enough to have such duties to perform as would offer an inducement to the most business members of the Council to undertake the duties attaching to the office. He thought the safeguards which he suggested were such as to dissipate any fear that such a committee would be a mere clique of the county. It would be obvious that it was necessary to have some sort of cabinet to transact the business of the County Councils during the intervals between the sittings of the Councils. He imagined that the County Council would not sit more than once a month, hardly once a fortnight; and what he wished to know, if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to accept the Amendment, was what authority, or what form of County Council, would there be to exercise control and conduct the administration of minor business when the Council was not sitting? He would only add that this principle of appointing a standing committee had been adopted in every country of Europe where there existed such a Council as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to establish under the present Bill. Such committees were first established in Belgium, and afterwards in France and Germany; and he believed that the system had been found to work so admirably that it had since been adopted by the countries in question. He mentioned these facts in connection with this matter; but, whatever might be the fate of his suggestion, he would look to the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten the Committee as to what he regarded as the probable course which would be taken by the County Councils for the transaction of ordinary business during the periods in which the Council was not sitting, because if the right hon. Gentleman could give him a satisfactory assurance on that point, he would not press the Amendment any farther. He was convinced that it was far better to have one strong standing committee than a number of small committees,

    1573
    because the latter would not have proper authority and influence over the parties to whom he had alluded, and in all probability, if those small committees had only limited powers, they would not be able to secure the best men on the Council for the discharge of the duties on the committee. It would be perfectly obvious that his plan did not exclude the propriety of having other special committees for dealing with the business of the different districts and boroughs of the county.
    Amendment proposed, in page 69, line 8, to leave out the word "finance," and insert the word "standing."
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman to leave out the word "finance" and insert others, because it would do away with the necessity entailed by the Bill on the County Council of appointing a finance committee. He thought the Committee would agree that whatever committee the County Council might consider it desirable to appoint for the transaction of business, a finance committee was an absolute necessity; and under no circumstances could the Government consent to any committee in substitution of it. On the question whether or not they should entail upon the County Council the obligation of creating a standing committee, he had already pointed out that the Council could appoint any committees they wished; and he might add that, having set up Bodies charged with very important powers, it would be anomalous to say that they could not trust them to make the arrangements necessary for the conduct of their business.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, his proposal was that there should be a strong committee, and he was willing to leave in the words "for regulating and controlling the finance of their county." He did not want to press the right hon. Gentleman; but he had not thrown much light on the question as to what sort of cabinet he anticipated there would be for carrying on the administration of business during the intervals between one sitting and another. Did he contemplate that the Council would be constantly in session, or only sit once
    1574
    a month or once a week? He wanted hon. Gentlemen to understand that there would be great danger in dissipating the work among a number of small committees; because, on the one hand, there would not be sufficient work for the Council to do, and, on the other, the business of the county might lapse into the hands of a small clique. He submitted that his proposal would tend to the economical administration of county business.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, Amendment made, in page 69, line 18, to leave out the words "one hundred," and to insert the word "fifty."
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the clause provided that all orders for payment should be signed by three members of the Council; but he thought that experience had shown that it would be much better that they should be signed by three members of the finance committee.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 80 (Appointment of joint committees).
    SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act made it necessary to appoint a number of small committees throughout the county. Now, the County Council would not have the means of establishing those committees from among its own members. By Clause 27 they had given power to the County Council to delegate its powers to Justices sitting in Petty Session, and he thought the arrangement would work better if when it was put in operation the County Council were to join themselves to the Quarter Sessions, and if they were enabled to do that the object he had in view would be carried out. He hoped the Amendment in his name would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, because it was very practical and would be very advantageous to the working of the Act.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 69, line 29, to leave out from the word "for," to the word "interested," in line 30, and to insert the words "carrying into effect any of the purposes of this Act."—(Sir John Dorington.)
    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 thought it had been made pretty clear in the Bill that joint committees might be appointed on matters of joint interest. But he was rather inclined to think that it would be desirable to limit rather than to increase the number of such committees; and he, therefore, ventured to hope that his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press his proposal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 70, line 8, leave out the word "elective," and after line 14 to add the words—
    "This Section shall apply to the councils of county boroughs in like manner as to councils of administrative counties and the council of a county borough may join in the appointment of a standing joint committee for the purpose of police where there is one police force for the county and such borough."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 81 (Proceedings of committee).
    On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, Amendment made, in page 70, line 19, after the word "quorum," to insert the words "and the place of meeting whether within or without the county."
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 70, line 20, after the word "direct," to insert the words "and the Chairman at any meeting of the committee shall have a second or casting vote."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Officers.
    Clause 82 (Clerk of the peace and of county council).
    On the Motion of Sir JOHN DORINGTON, Amendment made, in page 70, line 28, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the words—
    "Of a county besides acting as Clerk of the Peace of that county shall also (subject to the provisions of this Act as respects particular counties)."
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, in explanation of the reason why he had put down the Amendment
    1576
    he was about to move, that considerable inconvenience resulted from the fact that Clerks of the Peace frequently resided at a considerable distance from the town where the business of the county was transacted. Besides other places, that was the case at Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, and he mentioned this by way of illustration. He did not wish unreasonably to hamper the movements of the Clerks of the Peace; but it was a great inconvenience to parties who had public business to transact that they should be unable to find the Clerk of the Peace within a reasonable distance of the office or public building where their business had to be transacted. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of other cases than that which he had mentioned, but if so, he thought he would agree that there should be some limitation of the distance from the county town at which the Clerk of the Peace should have his office. If the Amendment which he proposed was too stringent, he would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what he was prepared to do in order to relieve the ratepayers of the annoyance caused by the practice he had mentioned.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 70, at the end of line 36, to add the words—"He shall have his offices in the county town, and shall reside within three miles thereof."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. BRUNNERsaid, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would take this matter into consideration. He was very anxious that Clerks of the Peace should in reality be the servants of the authorities, and that their business should be transacted in the county offices. These gentlemen very seldom did their own work, and they were accustomed to employ for that purpose another person at a small salary. He had known of one Clerk of the Peace in a Northern county who had one family in the county and another family in London. This gentleman did not visit his family in the North for many years, but lived with the Southern family. There was another Clerk of the Peace who had not been in Europe for 20 years; and, again, another who had not been in the place in which he was supposed to act for a similar

    1577
    period. He had known the whole work of an important court done by a clerk receiving 15 s. a-week. These facts showed the necessity there was for some steps to be taken to ensure that the work should be done by the person who was paid to do it, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the subject before Report, with a view to remedying the state of things complained of.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he was afraid the Government could not, in this Bill, attempt to regulate the family affairs of Clerks of the Peace. But the future appointments of Clerks of the Peace would be made by a joint committee of the County Council and Quarter Sessions, and he thought it might be fairly left to them to make such arrangements as they thought best in the interest of the locality. Of course, it would be admitted that the Local Authority ought to get the man best qualified for the work to be done, and it might be that they had to go further afield than three miles from the county town for the purpose. But it would rest with the County Council to fix the place whore the Clerk of the Peace should reside. Of course, he agreed that the illustrations furnished by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northwich pointed to a great scandal, and there could be no doubt that the Clerk of the Peace should not live abroad, but in the country where his duties had to be performed; but he thought that the County Council and the Quarter Sessions, under the arrangement in the Bill, might fairly be trusted to see that nothing of the kind mentioned occurred in future. He pointed out to the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) that it by no means followed that the business of the County Council and Quarter Sessions would be conducted in the county town.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he, of course, meant the town which might be adopted by the County Council for the transaction of public business. He pointed out that the present Clerk of the Peace in Dorsetshire, to whom he had referred, was the son or grandson of the former clerk; he presumed the vested interest was safeguarded, and if a young man were next appointed, the practice he
    1578
    complained of might go on for the next half-century. The present Clerk of the Peace had not his office in the town where the County Council would be held, but in a town at a considerable distance off. He thought the matters which the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner) had referred to would be more properly considered under the clause which dealt with the question of appointing Deputy Clerks of the Peace in case of illness or absence; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not lose sight of the cases he had mentioned, and that he would make it clear that Clerks of the Peace should not have deputies appointed for them except for particular purposes and for limited periods.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he would point out that Clerks of the Peace were at present freeholders of the office; it seemed to him, therefore, that they must deal not with the present, but the future Clerks of the Peace. As far as Staffordshire was concerned, he would like to say that the duties of the Clerk of the Peace were discharged personally by a man who did the work to the entire satisfaction of the whole county.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In pages 70 and 71, leave out sub-section (4), and insert—"He may from time to time appoint a person who has practised for not less than seven years as a barrister or solicitor to act as his deputy as respects the judicial business and all other matters transacted by the court of quarter sessions, either during his illness or absence, or in the second court on the division of the court of quarter sessions for judicial business.
    The county council may from time to time appoint a deputy clerk of the county council, to hold office during their pleasure, and to act in lieu of the clerk of the county council in case of his illness or absence, or in such other cases as may be determined by the council; and wherever a deputy so acts, all things authorised or required to be done by, to, or before the clerk of the county council may be done by, to, or before any such deputy.
    Subject as aforesaid, all officers acting under the clerk of the peace shall be appointed by the county council, or if appointed solely for the purpose of the judicial business and other matters transacted by the court of quarter sessions, then by the joint committee."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-section (4) stand part of the Clause."
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he hoped the right hon.

    1579
    Gentleman would not accept this Amendment. It would be much better that the power should remain in the hands of the joint committee. That committee would see that the proper person was appointed. This ought not to be a piece of patronage given to the Clerk of the Peace.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, that if the Amendment was negatived, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should put in after "case" in line 38, the words "of his death," so that the sub-section would read "in lieu of such clerk in case of his death or his illness, or absence." He recollected a case where a Clerk of the Peace died between two sessions, and a deputy was appointed, but he believed illegally appointed. He believed that the work of that session was illegally done, because it was done by a deputy who was not legally appointed. If the word "death" were put in, it would meet such a case.
    COLONEL GUNTERsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not accept this Amendment.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that this was one of a series of Amendments, proposed, he had no doubt, with a view of impressing the provisions of the Bill, but on the whole he thought that the mode of appointment provided for in the Bill was one most in accordance with the general provisions of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he supposed that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton)?
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of MR. WHARTON, Amendment made, in page 70, after the word "case," in line 38, to insert the words "of his death."
    MR. JEFFREYS, in moving to insert after the word "peace," in line 5, the words "deputy clerk respectively," said, he had been asked to propose this Amendment by deputy clerks of counties. The deputy clerks were still to be appointed, but there was no provision made for their
    1580
    payment, therefore it was that he proposed the insertion of these words.
    Amendment proposed, in page 71, line five, after the word "peace," to insert the words "deputy clerk respectively."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought it was clear that if the joint committee could appoint a deputy clerk, they could assign the salary. This sub-section applied to certain appointments made under enactments relating thereto. There were enactments relating to the pay of Clerks of the Peace, but there were no enactments relating to the pay of deputy clerks, and therefore, as a matter of form, his hon. Friend's Amendment could not be accepted in this place.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE, in moving to insert after the word "peace," in line five, the words "in respect of his services as clerk of the peace, and as clerk of the county council," said, this Amendment was simply to make it clear that the salary should be in respect of the duties, some of which would be new duties, which the clerk of the county would have to discharge, as well as in respect to those he would still have to discharge in his capacity as Clerk of the Peace.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 71, line 5, after the word "peace," to insert the words "in respect of his services as clerk of the peace and as clerk of the county council."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 71, line 17, after the word "documents," to insert the words "or to jury lists or to any registration matters."
    On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, the following Amendment made:—In page 71, at end of line 20, insert the following sub-section:—
    "The office of clerk of the peace of each of the administrative counties of Sussex shall be a separate office; but nothing in this Act shall prevent the same person from being appointed to both such offices, and the justices in general sessions assembled for the entire county of Sussex may from time to time appoint the

    1581
    person who is clerk of the peace for either adminintrative county to be clerk of the peace of such general sessions, and may remove such clerk, and the remuneration to be paid to such clerk shall be determined jointly by the standing joint committees for the administrative counties.
    "The existing records of the county of Sussex shall, subject to the order of quarter sessions, continue to be kept by the clerk of the peace of East Sussex."
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE, in moving the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for the Stretford Division of South-East Lancashire (Mr. Maclure), said, he understood that the Government had no objection to the Amendment; it had simply to do with the peculiar position of Lancashire, where there was an immense amount of work to do.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 71, at end of line 20, to insert—"This section shall apply to the clerks of the peace and deputy clerks of the peace of the county of Lancaster, in like manner as it applies to clerks of the peace of any other county, but the appointment of any such deputy clerk of the peace may be discontinued if the standing joint committee think fit."—(Viscount Cranborne.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. LAWSONasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he did not think that it was desirable to strengthen the language in Sub-section 7 with regard to the County of London? It was quite clear that the Clerk of the Peace could not be the same person as the clerk of the County Council. They must have two separate officers, on account of the heavy work which would have to be performed.
    MR. RITCHIEthought, it was never contemplated that the Clerk of the Peace and the clerk of the County Council could be the same individual in London. He had not supposed for a moment that it was at all likely that the County Council would appoint a man who was Clerk of the Peace; but he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman deemed it necessary to take away from the County Council the power to do so. He would look into the matter before Report, to see whether they could make the word "shall" instead of "may."
    On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, the following Amendment made:—In page 71, at end of line 34, insert—
    1582
    "The joint committee of the councils of the three ridings or divisions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire may from time to time appoint a clerk of such joint committee, and may from time to time remove such clerk."
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, he proposed to add at the end of the clause the following proviso—
    "Provided always, that no paid clerk or other paid official in the permanent employment of the county council shall be eligible to serve in Parliament for any Parliamentary division in any county or borough wholly or partly within the limits of the county for which he is appointed by the county council."
    This Amendment raised a question of some importance. The duties of the officials of the new County Councils would, no doubt, be very extensive and very onerous. There had always been a jealousy in the House not to allow the Public Service to be neglected by paid permanent officials devoting their time to other duties than those of the Public Service. To guard against the risk of those engaged in official business neglecting their duties, such officials had been prevented from occupying seats in the House of Commons. A similar thing prevailed in regard to recorders, registrars, and revising barristers; and he hoped that now, when they were appointing officials of Bodies of very great power and influence, they would do nothing which might cause these officials to neglect their duties. He thought that in forming these new Bodies, and in appointing officials to them—who, no doubt, would be very highly paid, and who would have duties of a very great and comprehensive character—it would be wise for Parliament at this particular stage to guard against such officials using their position for other purposes than that for which they ought to be used. It would be wise of the Committee to agree to words providing that the officials of the County Councils should give up their time to the duties for which they were paid, and which they had to discharge in the public interest.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 71, to add at end of the clause, "Provided always that no paid clerk, or other paid official in the permanent employment of the county council shall be eligible to serve in Parliament for any Parliamentary Division in any county or borough wholly or partly within the limits of the county for which he is appointed by the county council."—(Mr. Webster.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept this Amendment. He felt very strongly that the persons referred to should be as incapable of sitting in the House of Commons as any of the permanent civil servants, their whole time, which would be fully occupied, being given up to the duties of their office.
    MR. BRUNNER, in moving to amend the Amendment by omitting all the words after the word "Parliament," said, that would prevent any of these officials sitting in Parliament for any constituency whatever.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "Parliament."—(Mr. Brunner.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if the Committee thought an Amendment of this kind was desirable in the interests of the public, the Government would not oppose it. Personally, he was of opinion that if a man was not to be eligible to sit for any division of the county for which he was serving, he ought not to be allowed to sit at all, on the ground that he ought to apply his time to the duties of the office, and ought not at any time to be engaged in any canvassing in order to obtain admission to Parliament.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment amended, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 83 (Appointment of the justices' clerks and clerks of committees).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 71, line 41, to leave out from beginning of line to end of line 10, page 72; in page 72, line 17, after the word "sessions," to insert the word "justices;" and in line 18, leave out from the word "and" to end of Clause, inclusive.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Adjustmemt of Law.
    Clause 84 (Licensing by county councils) agreed to.
    Clause 85 (Making of bye-laws as to tricycles).
    SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid the Amendment he had to propose was one which excited a good deal of interest amongst that numerous body who rode upon wheels. It might be that it was not very germane to this Bill to introduce a clause altering the law on the subject of bicycles and tricycles. His excuse was that the clause, as it now stood, did alter the general law, inasmuch as it brought tricycles within the purview of "The Highways and Locomotives Amendment Act, 1878." When that Act was passed bicycles and tricycles were practically toys, and comparatively little used, and people did not travel upon them the great distances they did now. Powers were then given to the Court of Quarter Sessions and other authorities to make bye-laws regulating bicycles and tricycles, which powers were exercised to some extent. Subsequently, under the Municipal Corporations Act, regulations concerning bicycles and tricycles were made for towns under the powers of Corporations to control nuisances, which was a very uncomplimentary way of dealing with these vehicles. The proposal he now made to the Committee was that the complicated state of things which arose from there being numerous and varying sets of bye-laws throughout England should be done away with, and that there should be one common law regulating all these vehicles. It was very easy to understand that a bicyclist in passing from one part of England to another was exposed to great vexation from being wholly ignorant of the various regulations prevailing on the different roads he had to travel. There had been great uncertainty as to whether these machines were carriages or not, and whether they were liable to the regulations applying to carriages under the Highway Acts, and it was very much better that the matter should be cleared up. The Amendment he had to propose simply enacted that bicycles and tricycles and similar vehicles should be considered carriages, and that the most common form of bye-laws affecting them should be part of the existing statute law. He hoped the Committee would recognize the expediency of this change,

    1585
    and that his proposal might be generally acceptable.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 73, line 33, after the words "provisions of," leave out to end of Clause, and insert "section twenty-six, sub-section five, of 'The Highway and Locomotive Amendment Act, 1878,' and so much of section twenty-three, sub-section one, of 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as gives power to the council to make bye-laws regulating the use of carriages herein referred to, and all other provisions of any public or private Acts, giving power to any local authority to make bye-laws for regulating the use of bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines, are hereby repealed, and bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines, are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of this Act and the Highway Acts; and the following additional regulations shall be observed by any person or persons riding or being upon such carriage:—

    1. During the period between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, every person riding or being upon such carriage shall carry attached to the carriage a lamp, which shall be so constructed and placed as to exhibit a light in the direction in which he is proceeding, and so lighted and kept lighted as to afford adequate means of signalling the approach or position of the carriage.

    2. Upon overtaking any cart or carriage, or any horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or any foot passenger, being or proceeding along the carriage way, every such person shall within a reasonable distance from and before passing such cart or carriage, horse, mule, or other beast of burden, or such foot passenger, by sounding a bell or whistle, or otherwise give audible and sufficient warning of the approach of the carriage. Any person offending against the regulations made by this section shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding forty shillings."—(Sir John Dorington.)

    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. COGHILLsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept this Amendment. It was most important that there should be some uniformity in the regulations which affected cyclists in the use of the roads. In almost every county these regulations differed, and cyclists found themselves quite right in one county, but when they proceeded a few yards further they found that they were doing something quite wrong. He thought the enormous number of persons who used
    1586
    machines of this sort had some claim upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment, which he was sure would be looked upon with considerable interest outside the House.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he desired to remark in the first place, that this proposal was one which was hardly germane to the Bill, and he should be sorry to embark upon a discussion in Committee as to whether or not the proposal of his hon. Friend was right, or whether it was desirable that other regulations or alterations should be made in regard to bicycles and tricycles. But having said so much, he was bound to acknowledge that there was a great deal of force in the arguments which had been used in support of this Amendment. He could quite understand that there was a good deal of dissatisfaction existing amongst that large class of persons who rode on wheels; that when they went from one county to another they never knew what the law was and what penalties they were rendering themselves liable to. He had also to say that the proposals of his hon. Friend ran very much on the lines of the model bye-laws drawn up by the Local Government Board. Therefore, if the Committee thought it desirable that this Amendment should be accepted he, on the part of the Government—although the Amendment was rather outside the four corners of the Bill—would not object to its acceptance. He wished it to be distinctly understood, however, that if there was a difference of opinion in the Committee as to the advisability of accepting the Amendment the Government would not consider it their duty to ask the Committee to embark upon anything like a discussion of this matter. It might very well indeed be pleaded that this matter should be left to the County Councils themselves, and, so far as the Government were concerned, they would only be prepared to accept the Amendment if they found there was a general concensus of opinion in the Committee that the Amendment should be here inserted.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that all the gentlemen who rode on the various

    1587
    carriages of this description would be exceedingly grateful if the Committee were to pass this Amendment. Cyclists did not know, as the right hon. Gentleman had just said, what might happen if they went from one county to another. They travelled very long distances from morning to night, and he was quite persuaded that the proposal of his hon. Friend would be very acceptable to them, inasmuch as it would do away with the uncertainty which prevailed as to the regulations to which they were subject.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he did not feel himself in a position to express an opinion with regard to the particular proposals of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Dorington), but it was impossible to deny that there was great force in what had been said as to the desirability of some such uniform and general kind of regulation. Recognizing that fact, he would not press the Amendment which stood in his name.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment. Why should they introduce bye-laws into a great scheme of Local Government merely for the convenience of people who rode upon bicycles and tricycles? Why they should take away from the County Councils the power to make bye-laws for these people he certainly could not understand.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, that one reason why they should not leave the power to the County Councils was that there would be a considerable number of County Councils in England, each of whom might make different bye-laws, and the unfortunate cyclist would be utterly bewildered by the different regulations to which he was subjected in the course of a day's ride. If, however, they established one law, the men who rode bicycles and tricycles would know when they were in the wrong and what penalties they were liable to.
    MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would accept the Amendment. It was clear it was germane to the clause, however ungermane the clause might be to the Bill.
    MR. T. ROBINSONsaid, that a very good case had been made out for the Amendment, and, therefore, he
    1588
    hoped it would find acceptance at the hands of the Committee.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted, "put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made to the foregoing Amendment:—In line 3, to leave out "so much of;" line 4, to leave out the word "as," and insert the words "even so far as it;" line 6, to leave out the word "giving," and insert "in so far as they give;" and in line 25, after the word "person," insert "summarily convicted of."
    Amendments to foregoing Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 86 (Adaptation of Lunatic Asylum Acts).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 74, line 2, after "and," insert "their;" line 12, after "justices," insert "or council;" line 17, after "justices," insert "or council;" line 21, after "appointment," insert "by the recorder or justices;" line 24, after the first "quarter sessions," insert "not being a county borough;" line 27, after "contract," insert—
    "Cease to have power to build a lunatic asylum, and subject to the enactments providing for an additional charge for the maintenance of lunatics in cases where no contribution has been made towards the cost of building and furnishing an asylum, shall;"
    and in page 74, at end of line 29, insert—
    "Any asylum provided in whole or in part at the cost of a county shall for the purposes of this Act be included in the expression 'county lunatic asylum.'"
    COLONEL GUNTER, in moving an Amendment which stood in his name, said, it was intended to prevent friction in large counties which had two or three lunatic asylums. The Amendment was to enable the various lunatic asylums to be placed on one basis of rate.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 74, at end of line 29, insert—"Where there is more than one county lunatic asylum, the county council may from time to time appoint one committee for the management and control of all the county lunatic asylums, and such committee shall be the committee of each asylum within the meanings of the Acts relating to

    1589
    pauper lunatic asylums, and shall from time to time appoint a sub-committee for each separate asylum, and may delegate to that sub-committee such powers and duties as the committee from time to time think fit. The said committee may, subject to any directions given by the county council, provide that a uniform charge shall be made for the maintenance of lunatics in the several county asylums, and that for that purpose any surplus arising on the accounts of one asylum shall be applied to meet the deficit arising on the accounts of another asylum."—(Colonel Gunter.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 87 (Application of provisions of 38 & 39 Vic. c. 55 as to local inquiries and provisional orders).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 74, line 33, after the word "matter," to insert the words "or otherwise to act under this Act;" in page 75, line 2, at end, to insert the words—
    "Provided that where a Provisional Order transfers to county councils generally any powers, duties, or liabilities of Her Majesty's Privy Council, a Secretary of State, the Local Government Board, or other Government Department, it shall not be necessary to hold a local inquiry;"
    and in line 7, after the word "held," to insert the words "under this Act."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 88 (Adjustment of laws as regards courts, juries, sittings at nisi prius and legal proceedings in Middlesex and London).
    MR. BIGWOOD MR. BIGWOOD (Middlesex, Brentford), in moving to insert, in page 75, line 20, before "The," the words—
    "Section nine of 'The Juries Act, 1870' (thirty-third and thirty-fourth years of Victoria, chapter seventy-seven), is hereby repealed, and, notwithstanding anything in the same or in any Act or Acts contained, the inhabitants of the city and liberty of Westminster shall be liable to serve on juries at the sessions of the peace for the county of London,"
    said, he did not know what view the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board took of the Amendment he had placed somewhat hastily on the Paper; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that it was a matter of some importance that the inhabitants of the county—
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that
    1590
    he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex (Mr. Howard), which he thought went the full length the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bigwood) desired.
    MR. BIGWOODsaid, that, in that case, he would propose the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 75, line 24, after the word "county," to insert the words "and the present exemption to inhabitants of the liberty and city of Westminster from serving on juries at quarter sessions for the county of Middlesex shall cease."—(Mr. Bigwood.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 89 (Adjustment as regards the Militia Acts) agreed to.
    Savings.
    Clause 90 (Saving for votes at any Parliamentary elections).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 76, line 13, leave out sub-section (2); and in page 76, at end of line 33, insert—
    "Provided that the clerk of the peace who receives from the revising barrister the lists of voters in any such place shall supply to any other clerk of the peace or other officer such number of revised lists as he may require for the purpose of making up a register of county electors."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 91 (Saving for Metropolitan and City Police); Clause 92 (Saving for Metropolitan common poor fund); Clause 93 (Saving as to Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent); and Clause 94 (Saving for powers of Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Customs) agreed to.
    Definitions.
    Clause 95 (Definition of "written") agreed to.
    Clause 96 (Interpretation of certain terms in the Act).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 77, line 34, at end, insert—
    "The expression 'division of a county,' in the provisions of this Act respecting the property of quarter sessions, includes any hundred, lathe, wapentake, or other like division."
    On the Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment made:—In page 77, at end of line 34, insert—
    "The expression 'administrative county,' means the area for which a county council is elected in pursuance of this Act, but does not (except where expressly mentioned) include a county borough."
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 77, line 39, after "1882," insert—
    "And any reference to the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of a borough shall include a reference to the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of a city;"
    page 78, line 1, before "means," insert "as respects any county, riding, division, or liberty;" and in line 3, at end, insert—
    "And as respects any borough, means any courts of quarter or general sessions held for the borough or for any county of a city or town consisting of the borough, whether held by the recorder or by the justices, and as respects the city of London, means the court of the mayor and aldermen in the inner chamber."
    MR. TATTON EGERTON, in moving to add, at the end of line 8, page 79—
    "The expression 'property' shall further include in the case of the county of Cheshire any surplus revenue of the River Weaver Trust which is or would but for this Act be payable to the court of quarter sessions,"
    said, he had already stated his reason for pressing some Amendment in these terms.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 79, at end of line 8, add—"The expression 'property' shall further include in the case of the county of Cheshire any surplus revenue of the River Weaver Trust which is or would but for this Act be payable to the court of quarter sessions."—(Mr. Tatton Egerton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he could not see that there was any necessity for this Amendment. Surely any surplus revenue payable to the Quarter Sessions which was transferred from the Quarter Sessions to the County Council was the property of the County Council. There was great danger in putting in the Bill any surplusage; it might be contended that things which might be defined as property were not property.
    MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he could not think that the term "property" covered this particular case. This case was not on all fours with any other. The Trust might employ the surplus money they had on other works. They need not give what surplus they had after paying their debts to the Quarter Sessions. The Quarter Sessions had no power to demand it. They had the power of auditing the accounts, and, having done that, their powers ceased. It was to enable the County Council to accept the money that he proposed this Amendment.
    MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he hoped the Government would strengthen the definition of "property," at least, so far as Cheshire was concerned, by the acceptance of the Amendment. If, however, the Government were satisfied that the word "property" did include the surplus revenue of the Weaver Trust, he imagined his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the clause provided that—
    "The expression 'property' includes all property, real and personal, and all estates, interests, easements, and rights, whether equitable or legal, in, to, and out of property real and personal, including things in action, and registers, books, and documents."
    If that was not wide enough, he did not know what was. But he would inquire between now and Report whether some such words as those proposed were necessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 78, line 19, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 21; page 78, leave out from commencement of line 33 to end of line 38, and insert—
    "The expressions 'district council' and 'county district' mean respectively any district council established for purposes of local government under an Act of any future Session of Parliament, and the district under the management of such council, and until such council is established, mean respectively—

    (a.) As regards the provisions of this Act relating to highways and main roads, a highway authority and highway area; and

    (b.) Save as aforesaid, an urban or rural sanitary authority within the meaning of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and the district of such authority;

    "The expression 'highway area' means, as the case may require, an urban sanitary district,

    1593
    a highway district, or a highway parish not included within any highway or urban sanitary district;
    "The expression 'highway authority' means, as respects an urban sanitary district, the urban sanitary authority, and as respects a highway district, the highway board, and as respects a highway parish, the surveyor or surveyors of highways or other officers performing similar duties;
    "The expression 'urban authority' means, until the establishment of district councils as aforesaid, an existing urban sanitary authority; and, after their establishment, the district council of an urban county district;
    "The expression 'rural authority' means, until the establishment of district councils as aforesaid, an existing rural sanitary authority; and, after their establishment, the district council of a rural county district;"
    line 40, at end, insert—
    "Any expression referring to the value of any parish, borough, or area as ascertained by the standard or basis for the county rate shall, in the case of any parish, borough, or area for which there is no such standard or basis, refer to the total rateable value as determined by the last valuation lists, or if there is no valuation list, by the last poor rates for such parish or the parishes comprised in such borough or area;"
    and in page 79, at end of line 17, insert—
    "The expression 'powers, duties, and liabilities,' includes all powers, duties, and liabilities conferred or imposed by or arising under any local and personal Act;
    "The expression 'expenses' includes costs and charges;"
    page 79, line 18, at end insert—
    "The costs of assizes and of quarter and petty sessions include such of the following costs as are applicable, that is to say, the costs of maintaining and providing the courts and offices and the judges' lodgings, the salaries and remuneration of the chairman of quarter sessions, clerks of assize, clerks of the peace, clerks of the justices, and other officers, the costs of the jury lists, the costs of rewards ordered to be paid by the court, the costs of prosecutions including the costs of the defendants' witnesses, and all other costs incidental to the assizes, quarter sessions, petty sessions, or the judges, but nothing shall require a quarter sessions borough to contribute towards the costs of prosecutions at assizes except in the case of prisoners committed for trial from the borough."
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. COBBsaid, there was one point to which he should like to call attention in connection with this clause—namely, that it was no doubt intended that the County Council under this Bill should perform the same function as the County Authority under the Allotments Act of last
    1594
    Session. Section 16 of the Allotments Act said that the County Authority should mean any representative Body elected by the inhabitants of the county, and it seemed to him that unless something were done to render it impossible, a quibble might be raised as to whether the County Councils were elected by the inhabitants of the county. He desired to know whether it would not be well to make it clear that, for the purposes of the Allotments Act, the County Council was "a representative body elected by the inhabitants of the county?"
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think there would be the slightest doubt about this.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 97 (Extent of Act); and Clause 98 (Short title) agreed to.

  PART VII.

    TRANSITORY PROVISIONS.
    First election of County Councillors.
    Clause 99 (First election of county councillors).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 80, line 11, leave out "elective;" line 25, leave out "roll," and insert "register;" and leave out "rolls," and insert "registers."
    BARON DIMSDALEsaid he desired to move Amendments with the object of bringing the clause into accord with the provisions adopted in Clause 76.
    On the Motion of Baron DIMSDALE, the following Amendments made:—In page 80, line 33, leave out "not exceeding those allowed by law for a municipal election;" and in line 36, leave out "and shall be taxed in like manner as the expenses of a municipal election," and insert "and may be taxed on an application made by or by direction of the provisional council."
    MR. LAWSONsaid, that, before the next Amendment was taken he desired to call attention to the great inconvenience that would arise in the County of London from unnecessary duplication of Returning Officers under this section. In London the Returning Officer was appointed by the Sheriff of Middlesex to operate under the Act of 1885. It was not possible,

    1595
    however, for one Returning Officer to do the whole of the work throughout the Metropolis; therefore, if one Returning Officer were appointed he would have to select a number of others throughout the county. In the first case it would be better that the Sheriff of Middlesex should nominate the Returning Officer rather than that they should have a double set of these officials.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, it was desirable that there should be one Returning Officer for the whole of London, who should be allowed to appoint other Returning Officers to assist him. It was desirable to leave this official a free hand in the matter of appointing his assistants. As the hon. Gentleman knew, there were boroughs in London with five or six divisions, and that there was only one Returning Officer for the whole borough. Take his (Mr. Ritchie's) own borough of the Tower Hamlets for instance. The Returning Officer there had to appoint a representative in each division. Though there was only one Returning Officer for the whole borough, he had to appoint five other Returning Officers for the other divisions. He did not think it desirable that by this enactment they should split the divisions up again so far as the Returning Officers were concerned, and that the Returning Officer for the Tower Hamlets should appoint his deputies. It would be better to leave the Returning Officer for the whole of London to appoint his deputy Returning Officers. There could be no doubt that he would appoint those men most familiar with the work and best fitted to carry it out.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 81, line 6, leave out "roll," and insert register; "line 6, leave out "rolls," and insert "registers;" line 7, after "elections," insert—
    "And shall make them up out of the list of voters made out in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight for the City of London, and for such portions of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, as are comprised in the Metropolis, and shall make the necessary alteration in the forms of those lists, and the secondary of the City of London and the clerks of the peace of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, shall deliver to the
    1596
    said returning officer such number of copies of the revised lists of electors as he may require."
    On the Motion of Baron DIMSDALE, the following Amendment made:—In page 81, at the end of line 7, insert
    "The Court of Quarter Sessions in any county, and the Metropolitan Board of Works in the Metropolis, shall advance to the returning officer such sum as is authorised by this Act to be advanced by county councils to returning officers for the purposes of an election."
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he should like to know whether some other Body besides the Metropolitan Board of Works in the Metropolis could not advance the sum referred to in this Amendment?
    Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
    Clause 100 (Retirement of first county councillors).
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman at this point, whether he was prepared to make the statement promised with regard to a matter which had been left over—that was to say, as to the period for which the county Aldermen should be appointed?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he did not think the question was as to the period for which county Aldermen should be elected, but as to whether or not any alteration should be made in the period of election of county Councillors. He believed that was the point raised, and that he should be able to answer later on.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 81, lines 12 and 13, leave out "selected councillors," and insert "county aldermen."
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, they had placed a very difficult task before the councillors. If it should so happen that some should have to serve for a longer term than others, it would be hard to select the men for the longer term, and he would propose that the discrimination should be made by ballot. The selection might be made as in connection with Local Boards—that was to say, by allowing those who had the largest number of votes to serve for the longest

    1597
    period, and in the case of equal votes, the point as to who should serve for the longest term being settled by ballot. He would move an Amendment declaring that the term should be settled by ballot. If necessary he would leave his Amendment over until the Report.
    Amendment proposed, in page 81, line 15, after the word "department," insert the words "by ballot."—(Mr. F. S. Powell.)
    MR. RITCHIE: I will accept this Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, on Clause 101 he had a similar Amendment.
    On the Motion Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 81, lines 16, 17, and 18, leave out "selected councillors," and insert "county aldermen."
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he hoped that one-third of the Councillors would retire at intervals either annually or biennially, as had already been suggested on another clause of the Bill. They were expecting an announcement on Report from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on this subject, and he trusted it would be to the effect that there would be a retirement of one-third at such intervals.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, his recollection was that the promise was that an announcement would be made as to whether or not the Councils should be elected for a longer period than three years. He thought six was mentioned, with the retirement of a third every two years. That was the point upon which a statement would be made on Report.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would understand that that was not the opinion of hon. Members on the Radical Benches so far as London was concerned. They were quite in agreement with the proposal as it stood in the Bill.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. HENEAGEasked, whether there would not be inconvenience in the periods fixed for the Commencement of the County Councils
    1598
    and the termination of the administrative functions of the Quarter Sessions? Were these Bodies going to work side by side for a time? If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was satisfied that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton) would remove the difficulties, he would not detain the House on this point.
    MR. ISAACSsaid, that with regard to the County Council of London, it should be remembered that the Metropolitan Board of Works completed its financial year on the 25th of March, and it would be as well to make the next day—namely, the 26th of March, the period when that County Council would come into operation. The Quarter Sessions would go on all through April.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, the Quarter Sessions would go on all through April—they would have to proceed and finish their business, and some authority would have to levy the new rate, and he did not know whether that would be done by the Quarter Sessions, or the new Councils which would come into life next April.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, that he intended to make a proposal on this question, but that it would not affect the new rate. It was that the Quarter Sessions should meet and wind up their business, to receive the reports of their committees, and the reports of their officials, so as to hand over their business to the new County Councils in ship shape. He did not propose that they should transact any financial business subsequent to the 31st of March, that being the end of the financial year.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he proposed to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton), which would meet the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). As to what was stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walworth Division of Newington (Mr. Isaacs) in reference to the London Council, London in this matter would not be different to other counties. The Local Authorities would be in a position to make all their arrangements for transferring their functions two or three months before the

    1599
    period on which they expire, and he did not think that any inconvenience would result.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should fix the 1st of April for the County Councils to come into operation, because it would probably tend to their being described as "April fools."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 101 (Preliminary action of county councillors as provisional council).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 81, line 33, leave out "selected councillors," and insert "county aldermen."
    MR. WEBSTER, who had the following Amendment on the Paper, in line 34, after "council," to add—
    "This vote to be taken by ballot, each provisional councillor to vote for no greater number than three-fifths of the selected councillors to be elected."
    said, that one of the strongest objections which had been made on nearly every side of the House to the proposal to appoint county Aldermen was, that in the case of this selected Body the selection would be made the occasion for warm contests and political fights, and that, no doubt, was a very natural objection. For his own part, he did not believe that political contests would take place; but, of course, the Committee could not shut its eyes to the possibilities of the case. The fight might take place upon many questions—the licensing question, for instance. It had been objected that the County Councillors, having been originally elected upon some political or other cry, and having to appoint one-third of their number of County Aldermen, they would act unfairly in their selection—that was to say, that the majority would elect men of the same views as themselves, so that, assuming that a County Council consisted of 60 members, and that at the first election the elected Councillors were divided by a party line, 31 on one side, and 29 on the other, the 31, as the Bill stood, would have the power of adding to their number no less than one third of the total number of Councillors. The result would be that unless some clause
    1600
    were put in to obviate this state of things, a majority of only two of the elected Councillors would be able to add 20 of their political friends to their number, so that there would be a majority of 51 on one side as against 29 on the other. The Amendment in his name, or rather the first part of it, had been practically agreed to in the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who moved the insertion of the words "by balllot" on the previous clause. His (Mr. Webster's) object in moving the Amendment was similar to that of the hon. Member for Wigan, for he thought it would be a very invidious duty for men sitting on the County Council to have put before them a number of names of gentlemen, many of whom might be their personal friends and neighbours, to be obliged to state publicly for which of these men they voted. Well, if the other part of the Amendment was accepted—which was to enable each provisional Councillor to vote for no greater number than three-fifths of the selected Councillors—it would enable each elector to vote for three out of five county Aldermen, the result would be, if the Council were divided, as he had just now mentioned, the majority would elect 12, and the minority eight, so that the majority would be 43, and the minority 37. It was contended by the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse)—who had an Amendment on the Paper—that the better mode of carrying out the selection of county Aldermen would be to give each elected Councillor the right to nominate one Alderman. He (Mr. Webster) did not agree with that, and for the reason that one or two difficulties would be sure to arise. They might have 10 or 12 candidates put down on the list of selective Aldermen, all of whom might be equally good, and all of whom might make very good Aldermen; or they might have a list of names in which one would be far and away better than the rest, and in the ballot all the Councillors, save eight or nine, might vote for this one man. Supposing 54 voted for him, and the other six each for one other candidate, one man would be elected with 54 votes, and six others with one apiece. Such a system would be obviously inconvenient. He thought that the system by which each individual on the Council would be

    1601
    able to vote for 12 out of 20 names would be found to work much better, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accepting the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 81, line 34, after the word "council," to add the words, "this vote to be taken by ballot, each provisional councillor to vote for no greater number than three-fifths of the selected councillors to be elected."—(Mr. Webster.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, it might be to the convenience of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman opposite if his Amendment—which had the same object as that of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Webster), though he sought to obtain it by a different method—were discussed at the same time as that of the hon. and learned Member. If the Committee decided against the principle of the Amendment just moved, of course, he (Mr. Hobhouse) should not propose his own. The Amendment before the House contained two different propositions. The first was that the vote should be taken by ballot, which was a totally different thing from the second part of the proposal, and one for which he thought there was no necessity. The provision under the Municipal Corporations Act—under Section 60 of that Act as embodied in this Bill—was to the effect that the voting for Aldermen should be by means of voting papers; and that, he thought, would be a much better plan than the system of voting by ballot. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, the object he (Mr. Hobhouse) sought to attain was to prevent a bare majority of the first Council electing the whole number of Aldermen, and he thought the hon. and learned Member who had preceded him had shown very clearly the evils which would arise under that plan; and let the Committee remember that the evil, if it were an evil, would be double as great on the first election as it would be on any subsequent election, for the number of Aldermen selected on the first election would not be the same as on subsequent elections, the number on the first occasion being the whole number, and not half as afterwards. It would work in such a way that they might have all the
    1602
    Aldermen on a County Council elected by a bare majority of one or two Councillors; and if the selection of Aldermen was altogether in the hands of one party, they could, by their selection, bring their number up to nearly double that of the other side. He ventured to think that if such a thing took place, even in any one county at the first election, it would reflect considerable discredit upon the County Council at the first start, and would not only influence very considerably the constitution of the first County Council, but would also influence very materially the following County Council, for half the Aldermen selected by the Councillors first elected would remain in on the next County Council. It was quite true that the County Aldermen, by Amendments introduced into the Bill, would not be able to vote at the subsequent elections of County Aldermen; yet, by their numbers they might succeed in turning a popular majority into a minority. He believed his proposal had superior advantages to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, (Mr. Webster), that each Councillor should only vote for three-fifths of the Aldermen. He ventured to think that the hon. and learned Member's plan would involve rather a difficult calculation for every Councillor to make, especially for hon. Members from his own part of the country—namely, London, where there were 19 Aldermen, and where it might be very doubtful what number of Aldermen each Councillor would have to vote for. No such doubt as that could possibly arise under his (Mr. Hobhouse's) Amendment. Under that Amendment each Councillor would only be able to vote for one Alderman, and the result would be that no confusion could possibly arise. They must remember that the voting would be conducted by voting papers, which might be prepared before the election, and there would be plenty of time under the provisions of the Bill for Councillors to lay their heads together, and decide who were the best and most useful men to appoint as Aldermen. They would be able to present their voting papers ready filled up, and the Council would be fairly constituted without there being any of those evils which would arise from a bare majority at an election. He would only say that he hoped the Government would

    1603
    not think he was tied, however, to any one plan for attaining the object in view. The object was a very important one, especially at a first election; and if the Government did not see their way to adopting his proposal—especially for the first election—he should be ready to withdraw it at this stage, in order to raise the whole question again in connection with the election of the Aldermen generally on the Report stage. He considered the evils which he had referred to, however, would be much greater at the first election than at any subsequent election, looking at the necessity there was of giving the County Councils a fair start. He thought that the Government would see the necessity of making some alteration in the direction he had pointed out.
    MR. LAWSONsaid, he was no advocate of what was usually referred to as proportional representation; but he hoped the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) would be accepted. In saying this he was thinking most of his own case, of the Metropolis. He had heard the hope expressed that the County Council battles would not be fought on political lines; but he thought that was a futile expectation, particularly as they saw on every hand that political organizations were already stretching their limbs for the fray. These contests in the Metropolis, as in Birmingham and other places, would, no doubt, be fought on political lines. He felt certain that there would be a great many evils existing on the London County Council if they did not adopt some such provision as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset, in order to secure the representation amongst the selected Councillors or Aldermen of those who found themselves in a minority amongst the elected Councillors. He trusted this matter would have the most careful consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) in preference to that of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse). The
    1604
    Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset would be all very well if it were provided that the election should be carried on, as the hon. and learned Member suggested, by means of voting papers. He (Sir Roper Lethbridge) admitted that, under those circumstances, it would be a feasible scheme. But if the election was to be conducted not by voting papers but by ballot, then equally he thought that the method suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset should not be adopted. It would be open to the obvious objection that in all probability one person would receive a vast majority of the votes of the elected Councillors, and the other Aldermen would be elected each one by a very small number of votes. He thought it very important that the election should be conducted by ballot. There were many reasons by which that proposal could be defended, but he thought it quite sufficient to point out that if the election was not to be by ballot a great many considerations would be allowed to enter into the election that should be excluded from it—personal considerations and considerations of friendship, and so on, would not fail to enter into the election unless it were conducted by ballot. As the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras had said, it would be a very invidious business for the elected Councillors to refuse to vote for their own most intimate personal friends; therefore, he thought that the election ought to be by ballot; and if that were admitted he thought it was clear that if some form of the representation of minorities were adopted—and he thought it should be adopted—it should be something in the nature of that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras; otherwise they would get almost all the elected Councillors voting for the same person, and the election would not carry out the intention, or what he supposed to be the intention, of the Committee—namely, the representation of minorities.
    BARON DIMSDALEsaid, that, unlike the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), his object was to ask the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), as he thought that that Amendment was the better of

    1605
    the two submitted to the Committee. They had to guard against the risk of a narrow majority of elected Councillors, when they attained to power, taking advantage of the opportunity they would have of electing Aldermen entirely of their own way of thinking. The hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had drawn up a calculation saying that supposing there were 31 on one side and 29 on the other, the 31 would take the opportunity of electing the whole number of Aldermen on their side; but how was that position to be grappled with by the proposal the hon. Member had made? The hon. Member had said let them elect by ballot and they would get security in that way; but it seemed to him (Baron Dimsdale) that if they did that the same influence that guided them in their endeavour to secure a majority would operate equally under the ballot. The hon. and learned Member for East Somerset, on the other hand, said—"Let us have really a system of proportional representation, by which each member will only vote for one candidate." He (Baron Dimsdale) owned that that would meet the evils against which they wished to guard. Supposing the Licensing Question was at stake, they might have on the County Council a narrow majority in favour either of the drink party, so to speak, or of the temperance party, and whichever side was in the majority would try to secure the ascendancy by means of the election of Aldermen, and they might in this way prolong the life of their majority long after they had ceased to have a majority of selected Councillors. Proportional representation would meet the case fairly and fully. As to the so-called safeguard of the ballot, he believed it would be found no safe-guard at all. This was a transitory part of the Bill after all, and the Amendment proposed would only apply to the first election, and the arrangement suggested need not be prolonged after that, for it was really at the first election that they were likely to meet the danger apprehended—namely, the danger of a small majority of elected Councillors securing a number of Aldermen, which would give them great power in the future. Personally, he was very much in favour of proportional representation, and should be glad to join with those who were anxious to see it adopted
    1606
    throughout the Bill; but the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster), who adopted a tone as though he did not approve of proportional representation, would not escape from a still greater evil. He trusted that the Committee would adopt this system of proportional representation, which he believed would be a great safeguard.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he thought it very unfortunate that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) had introduced into the discussion words which frightened a great many people—that was to say, the words "proportional representation." This was a very practical way of meeting the difficulty which had been very much urged, and which would do away with a great many objections which had been raised against County Aldermen. But he must point out to the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras that when he introduced the ballot in this case he was proceeding upon a wrong principle. The ballot was all very well when a man was giving his own vote, but that was not the case in a representative assembly, for there a man was voting as the representative responsible to his constituents. Under such circumstances, the ballot was altogether out of place, and, so far from its being a step in the direction of liberty of representation, it was a very different thing. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) seemed to be the more simple of the two; but he (Mr. Rathbone) really hoped that in one way or the other the Government would adopt the proposal now made. He thought it would make the County Councils more representative of the whole county than they would otherwise be.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, there was almost a consensus of opinion on both sides of the House in favour of proportional representation, and he thought he ought to congratulate himself on the general expression of opinion which had taken place on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras, not that he desired to advocate proportional representation, but because it showed very much how the minds of hon. Members and the Committee gene-

    1607
    rally had changed since an early day of the Committee, when he had had the honour to place before it an Amendment having precisely the same object which Members on both sides of the House were now seeking to accomplish. His Amendment was, of course, applied to a different part of the Bill, and he was not prejudiced in favour of the proposal he then submitted any more than he was prejudiced in favour of the proposal either of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset or the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras. His proposal had simply been that Aldermen should be elected by a majority of two-thirds of the Councillors. Probably that was impracticable; but he only now was remarking that the object he then had in view, and which he had endeavoured to press upon the Committee, was rejected by a large majority, and that now it seemed that almost all were in favour of adopting some method by which the possible tyranny of a bare majority on the Council might be obviated. He did not know to what they owed this change in the opinion of the Committee; but he congratulated the Committee upon it, and only hoped that it had permeated the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. He (Mr. Conybeare) would only remark that, since the day when he was as a voice of one crying in the wilderness on this question, the Committee had come to a more satisfactory conclusion on the matter, and that The Daily Forger, which did not always tell the truth, especially so far as he (Mr. Conybeare) was concerned, had taken up that which was originally his proposal. As he had already said, he thought it was highly important, by some method or other, to prevent a bare majority on one of these Councils from turning its majority of one, as it might be, into a majority of two-thirds or more than that perhaps. The figures which the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had placed before the House some time ago must, he thought, bring conviction to every mind as to the danger which might exist in this respect, and he sincerely hoped that the Government might find themselves able to accept one or other of the proposals which had been pressed upon them from both sides of the House, or that they would bring forward some other pro-
    1608
    posal of their own which would relieve the Committee from the difficulty they felt they were in. He did not say that this danger would necessarily be a very considerable one; but what they had to look at was this—that, in the first place, the danger, if it existed at all, would, as the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset had stated, be twice as great at the first election as it would be at any time afterwards, and that the effects of whatever might happen on that occasion would be a good deal more lasting, and might give a tone and colour to the Councils for generations to come. Supposing that what the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) had sketched out should take place, and that a bare majority of one on a particular side should turn that bare majority into a majority which would enable it to carry by force whatever it desired to carry, no matter how prejudicial it might be to the party in the minority, it must be clear to all that a fatal blow would be struck at the authority and influence of the Council, because it would create great friction and party spirit, and give the Council a very bad start, and mar the working of that which would otherwise be a very successful scheme. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would give every attention to these considerations, and see whether he could not adopt the method proposed for mitigating the evils of the clause.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, it was stated by the hon. Member, just now, that this was a debate on proportional representation; but he hardly thought the proposal was one which, even if adopted, would very much advance the cause of proportional representation. What was the proposal? It was that, so far as the first election was concerned, the principle already adopted by the Committee with reference to the ordinary election of Aldermen should not apply; and while the Committee had accepted the proposal in the Bill that the majority in the County Council should elect the Aldermen, nevertheless, in the first election, they should not elect the Aldermen. He did not think it would be advisable for either of the Amendments to be adopted. If

    1609
    either of them were accepted, it would be impossible to maintain the position given to Aldermen in the Bill as it stood.
    MR. HALLEY STEWART: So much the better.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think that it would be possible to maintain that there should be a different mode of election the first time to that which should be adopted at any other time. He thought he had heard the hon. Member for Spalding (Mr. Halley Stewart) say, "So much the better," when he had said that the acceptance of either of the Amendments would render it impossible to maintain the Aldermen in the position in which they stood in the Bill. He did not know whether the hon. Member's observation was intended to reach beyond his own side of the House; but, at any rate, he (Mr. Ritchie) had heard it. Whatever position the House took up—whatever decision they arrived at—must seriously affect the position of the Committee or the House if it were challenged again in any future stage of the Bill with reference to the election of Aldermen. He would remind the Committee that what was now complained of as being almost an outrageous proposal was a system which was in existence at the present time, and had been in existence with reference to the elections of Aldermen at Town Councils for many years. The objection had been raised by those who would eliminate the election of Aldermen altogether from the Bill. So far as he (Mr. Ritchie) could see, there was no substantial case made out for departure from the principle of the Municipal Corporations Act, which applied to Town Councils. If the Committee were to adopt any different principle to that contained in the Municipal Corporations Act, so far as the appointment of Aldermen in Local Councils were concerned, there would be two kinds of elections—there would be one kind in the County Councils and another in the boroughs. He maintained that if the system of election, as laid down in the present Bill, were wrong, it was wrong all over the country, and should be altered all over the country. Au anomaly which would be absolutely in-defensible would be set up if the Committee required the boroughs to be made counties of themselves, to have one mode of electing Aldermen, and the County
    1610
    Councils to have another. If the system was to be altered, let it be done by a Bill applied generally to the whole system of Aldermen throughout the country, and if that were the attitude taken by hon. Members he should not raise a single objection to apply the system to the provisions of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, as he had pointed out, proposing a considerable and fundamental change which the Government could not accept; and, under the circumstances, he asked the Committee to adhere to the proposal in the Bill, and to reject the Amendment.
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped that, whatever might be the decision of the Committee, the vote given by the Council would be a public and open vote, and one given under a full sense of responsibility. The practice of voting under the Municipal Corporations Act was that every Councillor entitled to vote did so by sending and personally delivering to the Chairman a voting paper containing the Christian and surname and other particulars of the gentlemen for whom he voted; the Chairman was bound by the Act to produce and openly read the voting papers, and was further bound to deliver them into the hands of the Town Clerk to be kept for 12 months. The Legislature had, by the Act of 1882, provided the most complete form of procedure to insure publicity; and he thought for the Committee now, when the that County Councils were first established, to change that procedure, and to shelter the action of the electing Councillors by secrecy, would be a retrograde step of the most melancholy character. In his opinion, the first election of Aldermen should proceed on the same lines as the subsequent elections. It was somewhat late in the day to endeavour to devise a new scheme for election, and he thought the Committee would do well to adhere to the proposal in the Bill.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, whatever might be the opinion of the Committee as to the aim of the Amendment, he thought it would require a great deal of explanation before it commended itself to hon. Members. The first objection to the Amendment was that by the ballot electors would not know how the County Councillors had discharged their duties with regard to the election of Aldermen.

    1611
    Then, when he came to the latter part of the Amendment, he found it open to a fatal objection. It proposed that no County Councillor should vote for a greater number than three-fifths of the selected Councillors to be elected. But suppose each County Councillor voted for the same man, the consequence would be that they would have only three-fifths of the number of Aldermen returned. The practical difficulty was much greater when they came to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), because under that Amendment each County Councillor would vote for only one Alderman, and it would be seen that all of them might vote for the same person. If the Amendment were adopted, a great deal of machinery would have to be added to the Bill, in some form or other, to allow of a second election, with the object of getting the proper number of Aldermen. He sympathized with the object in view, but these new-fangled methods of voting did not appear to him likely to attain the end at all. For these reasons, he would require some further explanation of the hon. Member's proposal.
    MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he had put his Amendment down in a very simple form, in order that it might be intelligible without explanation. His proposal was that each Councillor should only vote for one County Alderman. This would be done by voting papers. The Councillors would be able to find out among themselves whom their colleagues were going to vote for, and it would be perfectly well known how many votes would be necessary for each man, and, therefore, no votes would be lost. His Amendment would enable the Council, on adjournment, to fill up vacancies, and there would be no difficulty in this matter, because there would be time to consider who were the best men for selection. He did not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Collings) would find any practical difficulty in the way of carrying out the proposal. It was extremely unfortunate that the Committee had now to consider two entirely different questions, and he asked them to deal with his Amendment separately. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he did not understand that he condemned the principle of the
    1612
    Amendment, although he had considerable objections to urge against it. The first of these was that it would create an indefensible anomaly—that was to say, there would be two kinds of elections, and those boroughs which were to be made counties of themselves would have one mode, and the counties proper would have another. But he would point out that the right hon. Gentleman had already accepted an Amendment which created a similar indefensible anomaly—namely, that of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire—for preventing Aldermen voting in the election for Aldermen, which would make a desirable alteration in the mode of election from that obtaining in county boroughs. But the right hon. Gentleman had another objection. He said that if the principle were applied, it ought to be applied to all elections, and not only to the first. He (Mr. Hobhouse) had already pointed out that the evil was double at the first election, and that what took place at the first election would be perpetuated. He had already refrained from moving an Amendment to Clause 2 at the request of the right hon. Gentleman himself; but if he still maintained this second objection to the Amendment on the Paper, he thought he might meet him by not moving it now, but by bringing up on Report an Amendment to Clause 2, containing a similar provision which would apply to all elections.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, it appeared to be agreed that the ballot was inapplicable in this case, and that a representative Body ought to give its votes publicly, so that those whom they represented might see how they had voted. It appeared to him that both these Amendments were actuated by the fear of the majority. If there was any justification for that, it seemed to him that the method taken for attaining the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman desired was extremely clumsy. In the case of a Council composed of 60 ordinary and 20 selected members, if each of the 60 members were only to vote for one Alderman, the result would be, if they were equally divided, that each elected Alderman would have three votes. All that went to show that the scheme would not work out in the manner which hon. Members imagined desirable. What

    1613
    they wanted was to have different elements, which some thought could be secured by limiting the number of votes each man might give. He believed that the simplest plan to adopt would be that of voting by majority. That was accepted in the House of Commons, and it could be surely accepted with regard to the election of Aldermen in the County Councils. It had been said that it would work unfairly where the Council was nearly equally divided. It worked unfairly when a Member was returned to that House by one or two votes only; but the alleged unfairness was generally compensated for by a Member of the opposite Party being returned in another constituency by an equally narrow majority of votes, and the same principle would hold good in respect of the election of County Aldermen.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, the last argument of the hon. Baronet was perfectly original, If in County Council A the Liberals had a majority of one, they could elect all the Aldermen; in County Council B, the Conservatives with also a majority of one, could elect all the Aldermen, and that his hon. Friend called compensation. The real parallel was not to be found in the election of Members to that House, but in that of the Representative Peers who were elected by the Party in a majority, who elected Peers of their own colour. No one could deny that that was a great evil, and one which would be greater in the case of County Aldermen at the first election than at subsequent elections. It was said that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) was imperfect, and could not be carried out in detail to its necessary conclusion. He thought that was not a fatal objection, because if they voted for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member it would be perfectly possible to give it practical effect on Report. The right hon. Gentleman had used it as an argument against the proposed Amendment, that it would lead to an anomaly. But the right hon. Gentleman had been reminded that he himself had consented to the introduction of an anomaly already. He had started with the idea of proceeding on the lines of the Municipal Corporations Act, which was a very sensible line of procedure, and yet he had accepted improvements on that pro-
    1614
    cedure. He (Mr. Stansfeld) did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not do the same thing here. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were not responsible for the construction of this measure, or the principle of the selection of Aldermen on the County Councils. He, therefore, saw no reason why they should not be entitled to remove the defect pointed out; and, therefore, if the Committee divided upon the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset, he should feel it his duty to support that hon. and learned Member's proposal.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, he would ask permission to withdraw that part of his Amendment which provided that the vote should be taken by ballot, and he would then take the opinion of the Committee on the latter portion of it. He thought the opinion of the Committee might very well be asked upon this question, because it went on the same principle as was originally carried out in three-cornered constituencies. In Birmingham they elected three Members, but each elector in Birmingham was only allowed a vote for two of them. It had been said that the number of selected Councillors might not be divisible by three-fifths; but he knew that a large number of Municipal Corporations had been able to get over that difficulty. He thought the question was one of great importance, and should ask the Committee to divide upon the latter part of his Amendment.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras, that each County Councillor should vote for no more than two-fifths of the total number of Aldermen to be chosen, would be found impracticable in its working. One of the evils of the present system had been removed by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that of Aldermen voting on their own elections. He did not wish to raise the question of proportional representation; but he believed that if there was a case in which it was desirable to have proportional representation, either by the transfer of votes or by a cumulative vote, it was this. He did not see a way clearly out of the difficulty; but he would suggest that it might be met by adopting the precedent set in the Education Act—namely, that

    1615
    of a cumulative vote, which would give to each of the members of the County Council as many votes as there were Aldermen, and enable them to give the whole to one candidate, or to distribute them, as he thought best. That, of course, would only apply to the first election, and he believed it was the only practicable way, without a transferable vote, of protecting the minority in the first election.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras that he should be content with the discussion which had taken place, and bring the question forward again on Report. His hon. Friend (Mr. Webster) would see that his proposal met with very little support from any quarter of the Committee, and he (Mr. Ritchie) hoped he might be induced not to press his Amendment. He felt he had no right whatever to appeal to the Committee to press forward the Amendments, because of the magnificent progress they had made that night; but, at the same time, he might say that he thought it would be agreeable to hon. Members if, by any good fortune they were enabled to dispose of the remaining Amendments on the Paper at that Sitting.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he hoped the Committee would agree with the suggestion of his right hon. Friend; but he wished to enter his strongest protest against some remarks which had been made in the course of the discussion, especially on the opposite side of the House. They all knew perfectly well that municipal elections in boroughs were made subservient to political questions. In the counties, however, they had never had the question of politics raised at all, and he sincerely trusted and believed that the County Councillors would be elected and selected upon their own merits alone, and that there would not be introduced into the County Councils that which he looked upon as the worst feature of municipal elections—namely, the elections turning almost entirely upon the politics of candidates. He thought that was a very appropriate opportunity for making the earnest protest which he desired to record against the practice.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he rose to second the appeals made to the hon. and learned Member for
    1616
    East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) to withdraw his Amendment. The hon. Member would be in a much better position if he were to bring the question forward on Report, when it could be discussed with a much greater chance of reaching a satisfactory settlement. In any case, he hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he hoped the suggestion made by the right hon Member (Mr. Heneage) would be accepted, and that the question would be brought forward again on Report, because when they came to discuss the matter they would then have the advantage of hearing one hon. Gentleman on the question of minority representation whose position disabled him from addressing them. He did not believe that county questions would be argued on political grounds. They had never heard at Quarter Sessions what was a man's political views, and he did not believe that the decisions of County Councils would be influenced by a consideration whether the speakers were Whigs, Tories, or Radicals.
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, before the hon. and learned Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) replied to the appeals that had been made to him, he would like to know whether the Government would promise the Committee that they would give a benevolent consideration to the Amendment if it were held over? If the right hon. Gentleman would give that pledge, Members on that side would not be disposed to go to a Division; but otherwise they would not only pursue the question now, but would raise it again on Report. With regard to the statement made on the other side of the Committee, that no political questions had ever entered into county elections, he would point out that that was due to the fact that the gentlemen engaged in the administration of county affairs had always been of one colour. ["No, no !"]
    MR. FIRTHsaid, after the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, it was necessary to point out that in the established organ of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the month of June last, it was suggested that the elections for the Councils should be conducted on political lines, and that

    1617
    they would have a majority of five-sixths on the London Council. He thought hon. Members on that side were entitled to have something introduced into the clause by way of safeguard. They had fewer Aldermen in London than in any other district, but still they had more than they wanted, and their experience led them to desire a smaller number. Therefore he desired that with regard to London, at any rate, there should be a safeguard introduced. He did not mind so much for the counties, who could fight for themselves. The present was the proper time for settling the question, and he objected to its being deferred. Were they to have these 20 gentlemen elected who were purely of one political opinion? That would be unfair; nevertheless, it had happened in Liverpool, Leeds, and other places; and therefore, having regard to the threat that had been made, he desired that some change should be made in the direction in which hon. Members on that side of the House wished to go, and when that was done they should be ready to allow the Bill to pass through Committee that evening.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not quite understand by what authority the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken said—"We do not want these Aldermen." He submitted to the hon. and learned Gentlemen that the Representatives of London who were seated on that side of the House were a better authority to speak on behalf of the people of London on this question; however, he would not pursue that subject. He earnestly hoped that whatever the advice given by the organ referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which he did not name, might be—[Mr. FIRTH: The National Review.]—it would not be followed. He had not studied that article, and begged leave to say that he entirely dissented from what was suggested. He sincerely hoped that the election in London would not be fought on Party lines, so far as the Conservative Party were concerned; but, on the contrary, on lines drawn with reference to the interests of the localities represented. He did not believe that the County Councils would be divided into those sharp divisions which some people imagined. He was asked to give some pledge that the Government would take this proposal into their
    1618
    benevolent consideration. The hon. Member for the Spalding Division (Mr. Halley Stewart) made that appeal in such a benevolent way, that really, were it a matter of his own personal feeling, he should have been inclined to respond in the same spirit to the hon. Gentleman; but he was afraid he must resist his blandishments, and he could not on behalf of his Colleagues, or for himself, promise to give the kind of consideration which he indicated. But the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset had declared his intention to bring this question up again on Report, and he imagined that the matter would be then better decided by the House, because the whole question would be more fully before it, and it could be settled upon its merits. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would now say that he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but reserve what he had to say for another occasion.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, he would ask the Committee to allow him to withdraw his Amendment. He wished, however, to make one observation—that there was this difference between the schemes proposed by the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) and himself. Under his own scheme, every provisional Councillor could vote for three-fifths of the selected Councillors, and therefore 12 out of the 20 would be elected; whereas, under that of his hon. Friend, they could only vote for one man, and in that case there would have to be an adjourned election for the remainder of those who were not elected.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated he scarcely saw on what ground the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) should be urged to withdraw his Amendment, because it was quite open to him to bring it forward on Report, whether he took a Division upon it now or not. It was not a question of Liberal or Conservative, or any Party politics, that had to be decided. It was a much graver question. If there were on the Body elected a certain majority in favour of any very important point on which the Councillors might be elected, there would be, under the present circumstances, an opportunity for

    1619
    the majority perpetuating its view through the next six years, and that was what hon. Members on that side really objected to, and what also hon. Gentlemen opposite practically objected to. He should be very glad if the Government would give an assurance that the majority, whatever it might be, should not have the opportunity on the first election of perpetuating its position. Take the case of the London Police. Suppose that the Council of London were elected on pledges given on this question—suppose that one side had the predominance on that question, it would be unfair that on either side the view taken should be perpetuated for the next six years. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not withdraw his Amendment until some pledge was given, or until they had the opportunity of learning from the Government that they shared that view, and that they were desirous to produce such an Amendment as might, to a certain extent, guard against the perpetuation and intensification for the next six years of the view of the majority of the Council elected for the time being.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had asked him why he had used the word "we" in his remarks on the clause. He would withdraw that word, and substitute "all the Liberal Members for London, two Conservative Members, all the Vestries, and the League of which he had been chairman for six years."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 81, line 34, after the word "council," to insert the words "save that at each such first meeting or adjournment each councillor shall only vote for one county aldermen."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 99: Majority 1l.—(Div. List, No. 221.)
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 81, line 34, leave out "selected councillors," and insert "county aldermen."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 102 (First proceedings of provisional council).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page
    1620
    82, line 6, leave out from "and" to "to," in line 9; and in page 82, line 25, after "and" insert "the clerk of the peace and his officers, and."
    SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, that the object of the Amendment which stood in his name was to enable the officers of the expiring authorities to obtain remuneration for the extra work they had to do in connection with the creation of the new authority. These officers seemed to think that the expiring authorities would hardly be able to remunerate on behalf of the new authority for work done before the new authority came into existence.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 82, line 32, at end insert—"There shall be paid out of the county rate to the clerk of the peace of the county such reasonable remuneration as the court of quarter sessions may award for extra services rendered by him in bringing this Act into operation, and in acting as clerk of the county council until his salary for acting as such clerk is fixed in manner provided by this Act."—(Sir John Dorington.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 82, line 37, before Surrey," insert "and;" leave out "and Kent; "line 39, after "Middlesex," insert "and;" line 40, leave out "and Kent;" and in line 41, before "officers," insert "the clerk of the peace and his officers and the."
    MR.WHARTON, in moving the Amendment which stood in his name, said, that it was simply to allow the Quarter Sessions to wind up their business at the end of the quarter, and hand it over to the County Councils.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 83, at end of line 8, add "and may after the appointed day, meet in like manner as if this Act had not passed, for the purpose of receiving reports from the committees and county officers for the period subsequent to the last quarter sessions and prior to the appointed day, and for making the ordinary quarterly payments, the usual sessional orders, and otherwise concluding and winding up the business of the county prior to the appointed day."—(Mr. Wharton.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he desired to draw attention to the 5th sub-section of the clause, which gave to the new Council the offices of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The number of the new Council would be very large, and he feared there was no room in the Metropolitan Board of Works buildings which would accommodate the Body. He supposed that words would be inserted permitting the new authority to hire buildings in which they could be accommodated.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the clause dealt with the first proceedings of the Council. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether there was any necessity for having any Provisional Council at all? The original intention, no doubt, was that there should be a Provisional Council; but now that they had provided that the Aldermen should not vote in the new election, the Council was complete when the elected members had been chosen by the ratepayers. In his opinion, therefore, the whole of this provisional arrangement was unnecessary.
    MR. RITCHIEpromised to consider the point.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    First Election of District Councillors.
    Clause 103 (First election of district council); Clause 104 (Retirement of first elected councillors); Clause 105 (Preliminary action of councillors as provisional council); and Clause 106 (First proceedings of provisional district council); struck out of the Bill.
    General Provision as to First Election.
    Clause 107 (Casual vacancies at first election).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 86, lines 3 and 4, leave out "or for more than one ward of a district;" lines 4 and 5, leave out "or ward; "line 8, leave out "or ward;" line 10, leave out "or ward;" line 11, leave out "selected councillor," and insert "county alderman;" line 13, leave out "or district;" line 13, leave out "as the case may be;" line 15, leave out "or district;" line 21, leave out "or district;" line 26, leave out from "council," to "shall," in line 27;
    1622
    line 29, leave out "or district;" line 31, leave out "or district;" and in line 32 leave out "or district."
    MR. FIRTHasked whether, in pursuance of Sub-section 4, the Chairman would have an original vote and a second or casting vote?
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes; certainly.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 108 (Power of Local Government Board to remedy defects).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 87, line 8, at end, add—
    "(2) The Local Government Board in the case of the first election may also authorise an electoral division returning two or more members, in any case where the difficulties arising out of the registers of voters and the population of any area appear to render it necessary, and may also authorise portions of two or more county districts, or wards for which a separate register can be made, to be united for the purpose of an electoral division;"
    line 11, leave out "elective;" line 17, leave out sub-section (3); line 23, leave out "or district;" line 24, leave out "or wards;" line 26, leave out "and wards;" and in line 27, leave out "rolls," and insert "registers."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Appointed Day.
    Clause 109 (Appointed day).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 87, line 30, leave out from "Act," to "shall," in line 31; and in page 88, line 1, leave out sub-section (2).
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Transitional Proceedings.
    Clause 110 (Current rates, jury list, &c.)
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 88, line 35, leave out "and district council."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 111 (Continuation of licences) struck out of the Bill.
    Clause 112 (Transitory provisions as to lunatic asylums).
    SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, the Amendment he had now to propose had for its object the more efficient working of the lunatic asylums. He felt extremely

    1623
    anxious about the change which was to take place one week after the County Councils came into office. It was not that he supposed that the members of the County Council would be deficient in ability; but they could not be an expert Body as regarded the management of the lunatic asylums immediately after they were elected. It was possible that many of those who would be members were now visitors of the county lunatic asylums, and would be again chosen for the office; but it was also quite possible that the County Council might not have that advantage, and might have to elect an entirely new committee of visitors of the lunatic asylums, men wholly unaccustomed to the work, and without any knowledge of the subject. Even on humane grounds that would not be a right course to take. It would not be right to place these great institutions under the management of persons, however able, who were entirely ignorant of the course of management of such institutions. He, therefore, wished to propose that for one year the existing visitors should be maintained in office, and, together with the new Committee should form the Governing Body of those institutions. He believed that that would not lead to any quarrelling; but that those who were new to the work would welcome the aid of those accustomed to the business.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 89, line 17, leave out all after "office" to end of sub-section, and insert "for one year conjointly with the committee of visitors appointed by the county council."—(Sir John Dorington.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'until the operation,' to 'one week,' stand part of the Clause."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he could quite understand the reason which actuated his hon. Friend in proposing this Amendment. But he feared that if the Amendment were accepted they might set up a condition of things which might not be very satisfactory in the management of lunatic asylums. They would practically have two separate Bodies managing the same asylums, and he thought that that would tend to a large amount of friction which would not be conducive to good management. He was certainly of opinion that a very
    1624
    considerable portion of the new Bodies would be men who had done the work in the past; and, that being so, he was confident that the visitors elected by the new Councils would consist very largely of gentlemen who had performed similar functions under the old state of things. In any case, he thought that the risk was less dangerous than the risk which would attend the setting up of the new Bodies as suggested. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, he thought that one month instead of one week would be a reasonable period. He thought, too, that the same period of grace might very reasonably be allowed in the case of the carrying out of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act and the Highways and Locomotives Act.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought there was no great objection to the proposal to substitute one month for one week; but with regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's (Mr. Wharton's) second proposal, it was as well he should point out that this clause dealt solely with the provisions as to lunatic asylums. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman might think desirable in connection with the Contagious Diseases Acts and the Highways and Locomotives Act, it would hardly do to insert words in reference to those Acts in a clause dealing with lunatic asylums.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, he thought that the sooner the new Bodies got to work after they were elected the better.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 89, line 33, at end, insert—
    "Where there is a joint committee of visitors for two or more counties or boroughs, this section shall apply to each portion of the committee appointed by the justices of any such county, or by the justices or council of any such borough, in like manner as if it were a separate committee."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Transitory Provisions as to Metropolis.
    Clause 113 (Transitory provisions as to Sheriffs of London and Middlesex).
    Clause 114 (As to commissioner of the peace for London).
    Clause 115 (As to places for holding quarter sessions).
    Clause 116 (As to existing justices in Metropolis).
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, the Amendment he had placed on the Paper affected very seriously a few persons in the county he had the honour to represent. He was not a sufficiently good lawyer to say exactly in what it affected them, but it might affect them very seriously. The existing Clerk of the Peace in Surrey happened to be a Justice of the Peace for the county of Kent. By Clause 116 Justices of the Peace for Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent were made Justices of the County of London. If the provision with regard to the continuance of the business on the Surrey side of the County of London, as it was now, were agreed to, the Clerk of the Peace would be in an anomalous position; he would be a magistrate for the County of London and the Clerk of the Peace for the Surrey side of the County of London; consequently he would be both master and man. The Amendment which he (Sir Trevor Lawrence) proposed would meet the difficulty; and he hoped, therefore, that the President of the Local Government Board would be able to see his way to accept it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 92, line 37, after "London," insert—"Provided always, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any justice of the peace of the counties of Surrey and Kent, or either of them, so long as he shall hold any office connected with any court of quarter sessions of the county of London."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had spoken to the Clerk of the Peace of Surrey upon this point, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that something in the nature of this Amendment was necessary. The Amendment would meet the difficulty, and, therefore, he commended it to the careful consideration of the President of the Local Government Board.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. NORRISsaid, that in the absence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Islington (Sir Albert Rollit) he begged to propose the Amendment which stood in the hon. Gentleman's name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 93, line 14, at end, insert—"Any person who is an existing deputy lieutenant for any of the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, or for the Tower Hamlets, or any hamlet or liberty in the said counties, who occupies property in the county of London, shall be a deputy lieutenant of the county of London, as if he had been appointed by the lieutenant thereof."—(Mr. Norris.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he thought that this was rather too large a power to be conferred by a clause in a Bill. If any hon. Gentleman who had the privilege of being a Deputy Lieutenant for either of these counties, or for the Tower Hamlets, desired to be a Deputy Lieutenant of the County of London, he would take the necessary steps to secure the privilege.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Existing Officers.
    Clause 117 (Existing clerks of the peace and other officers).
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, that the clause affected very seriously indeed the county of which he represented a portion. He had taken the liberty to put down several Amendments to bring the operation of the clause in regard to Surrey into the same position as the county of Middlesex would be by the clause. It was rather difficult to follow the continuity of the Amendments, because they had to go in here and there, and they practically depended one upon another. The 1st Amendment came in the 1st sub-section. It was necessary that some such Amendment should be adopted in order to save existing rights.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 93, line 17, leave out "subject as in this Act mentioned, and insert" continue to be such clerk of the peace, and shall, subject to the provisions respecting certain counties in this Act mentioned."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'subject as in this Act mentioned' stand part of the Clause."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said,

    1627
    that he understood that the object of his hon. Friend was to secure that the existing officers should continue to be officers of the new Council. Undoubtedly, Clerks of the Peace had a freehold in their office. It was the intention of the Bill that the existing officers should be continued, because by that means a very considerable amount of compensation would be saved to the ratepayers of the county. He thought the Bill as framed would have secured the object his hon. Friend had in view; but if the hon. Gentleman thought there was any ambiguity in the clause he had no objection to the Amendment. He, however, preferred the Amendment next on the Paper.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he did not see that there was any objection to these words being inserted; but he warned the Committee, now that they had reached Clauses 117, 118, and 119, that they had reached three of the most crucial and most dangerous clauses of the Bill, and all Amendments must be most rigidly scrutinized. This was the first line of attack on the pockets of the County Council.
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, his object was to save the pockets of the ratepayers. He, however, was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucester (Sir John Dorington).
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that this was really a very peculiar case. London had been carved out of Kent, Surrey, and Middlesex, and it was a question deserving of very serious consideration how the Clerks of the Peace were to be paid, and what use was to be made of them.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that perhaps he had better on this subject mention to the Committee what the general scope of the provisions of the Bill on the point was. As his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said, they had to deal with a very peculiar case—they had carved out of three counties the new County of London. So far as Kent was concerned, he did not think that any special provision was required. Kent was so little affected that he did not think that the position of Clerk of the Peace was one
    1628
    really requiring readjustment at all. But when they came to Surrey and Middlesex the case was totally different. As hon. Gentlemen were aware, there was a very large part of Surrey and a very large portion of Middlesex embraced in the new County of London. The Government were extremely desirous of saving the ratepayers of the County of London from being afflicted with any great burden of compensation for either one officer or the other; and it seemed to them that, at any rate, so far as existing officers were concerned, in all likelihood there would be for some time to come quite sufficient work for the Clerk of the Peace for Surrey to do, work which he had mainly been doing for years past in the Surrey portion of London, and that also there would be work for the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex to do in Middlesex as hitherto. As hon. Gentlemen might be aware, the principal remuneration of Clerks of the Peace was for the criminal work in which they were engaged. There had been a special Sessions to try prisoners in Surrey at Newington, and there had also been a special Sessions at Clerkenwell to try Middlesex prisoners. The Government had thought it advisable to retain for the Clerk of the Peace for the County of Surrey that portion of the criminal work done in the Surrey portion of London, and which, he imagined, would be continued to be done in Newington; and to retain for the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex the criminal work of Middlesex, which would continue to be done at Clerkenwell, and for that reason no additional remuneration was given to the Clerks of the Peace, and all questions of retiring allowances or compensation were avoided.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the Clerk of the Peace of Kent was considerably interested in this matter. Deptford, Greenwich, Woolwich, and several other places were in the part of Kent which would now be under the County Council of London; therefore, a large amount of his duties were transferred from Kent to London. He (Mr. Talbot) did not desire to raise any objection at this stage; he wished to assure the Committee that the Clerk of the Peace of Kent strongly felt that, if justice was not done him in that House, he would have to make considerable claim on the county of Kent.
    SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, he noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had made ample provision for the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex; but he did not see the same careful provision made for the Clerk of the Peace for Surrey. The Clerk of the Peace for Surrey was like other Clerks of the Peace—he was paid partly by fees and partly by salary; he had a large amount of criminal business to do at Newington, which he discharged very efficiently, and, judging from his appearance, there was every reason to believe it was likely that he would be able to discharge those duties for very many years to come.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the hon. Member and other hon. Members from Surrey had been in communication with him since the Bill was presented, and practically they had arranged a clause to meet this matter.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, there was not to be any compensation for the Clerks of the Peace for Surrey, Middlesex, and Kent; but, on the other hand, those gentlemen must not be subject to the slightest pecuniary loss by what was being done. They had a freehold in their offices; no maladministration had been charged against them, and no one wanted to injure them in the slightest degree. What was wanted was so to apportion the distribution of the duties between the three counties that the Clerks of the Peace would not suffer from a loss of income; while, on the other hand, the County Council of London would not be called upon to provide for officers to discharge the duties the Clerks of the Peace had hitherto done. He thought that they might leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that that was what they had done in regard to Surrey and Middlesex. He acknowledged that the case of the Clerk of the Peace of Kent had not been considered quite in the same light, because, as he remembered, there was no Sessions for Kent held in London. He would place himself in communication with his hon. Friend (Mr. Talbot), and endeavour that no injustice should be done to the ratepayers of Kent or to the Clerk of the Peace of that county.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Sir JOHN DORINGTON the following Amendment made:—In page 93, line 17, leave out "shall, subject as in this Act mentioned," and insert—
    "Besides continuing to be such clerk of the peace shall, subject to the provisions respecting certain counties in this Act mentioned."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 93, line 20, to leave out the word "office," and insert the words "offices of clerk of the peace and clerk of the county council."—(Sir John Dorington.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that this Amendment went a little further than was contemplated. He trusted the Government would adhere to their own words, as the Amendment was clearly adverse to the public interest.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought that the words were totally unnecessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. KERANSmoved, on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton), the Amendment which stood in the hon. and learned Gentleman's name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 93, line 23, after the words "clerk of the peace," insert the words "clerk of the general assessment sessions."—(Mr. Kerans.)
    Question, "That the words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, the following Amendment made:—In page 93, at end of line 26, insert—
    "The person who at the appointed day is clerk of the peace for Sussex, if he held office at the passing of this Act, shall be clerk of the peace for East Sussex and clerk of the peace for West Sussex, and clerk of the peace for the justices of Sussex in general sessions assembled, and shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, hold the said offices of clerk of the peace by the same tenure, and have the same power of acting by deputy, as heretofore.
    "Such person shall also be clerk of the county council for East Sussex, and clerk of the county council for West Sussex."
    Amendment proposed,
    "In page 93, at end of line 26, insert—"This section shall apply to the persons holding office at the appointed day as clerk of the peace and deputy clerks of the peace for the county of Lancaster, in like manner as it applies to clerks of the peace of other counties."—(Mr. Maclure.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was a special Act which applied to Lancashire, and these officers were really existing officers under the terms of that Act. The Act provided that these officers should continue in office.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 93, at end of line 33, insert—"The person who, at the appointed day, is the clerk of the gaol sessions in Yorkshire or Lincolnshire shall, if he holds office at the passing of this Act, continue to be that clerk, and shall also be the first clerk of the joint committee for the county councils of the three ridings or divisions of those counties, and shall hold that office by the same tenure and have the same power (if any) of acting by deputy as heretofore."—(Colonel Gunter.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTasked if the Amendment was not inconsistent with what they had already decided?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the Amendment did not provide anything new. As the hon. Gentleman might be aware, the Committee had decided that there should be a joint committee of the three Ridings, each of which were interested in the Gaol Sessions at York, and also that that there should be a special committee for the purpose of the three Ridings. There was now a gentleman who was acting as clerk in the position of deputy. If that gentleman had no right to act as deputy, this Amendment would not confer the right upon him.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE, the following Amendment made:—In page 93, at end of line 33, insert—
    "If the person who at the appointed day is clerk of the peace for Surrey held office at the passing of this Act, then so long as he holds that office—

    (a) He shall, besides continuing to be that clerk, continue to be clerk of the peace at any quarter sessions held for the county of London at Newington, and be for the purpose of all business transacted at those quarter sessions deemed to be the clerk of the peace for the county of London, and as such shall have the same power of appointing and acting by a deputy as heretofore in his capacity of clerk of the peace for Surrey; and

    1632

    (b) Such of the records of the county of Surrey as at the passing of this Act are in his custody at Newington, and, if this Act had not passed, would have remained in that custody, shall, subject to any order of the court of quarter sessions, continue to be kept in his custody at Newington."

    On the Motion of Mr. FORREST FULTON, Amendment made:—In page 93, line 35, after "divisions," insert "wholly or in part in London;" page 93, line 36, after "Act," insert "and as to so much of such divisions as are in London;" page 93, line 37, at end, add—
    "And as to so much of such divisions as are not in London, such persons shall also be the first salaried clerks of the petty sessional divisions of the counties in which such parts are situate."
    On the Motion of Mr. BARTLEY, Amendment made, in page 93, at end of line 37, insert the following subsection:—
    "In the case of the persons who, by virtue of this Act, become clerk of the peace for the county of London or salaried clerks of petty sessional divisions for the county of London, their servicee as such clerks after the appointed day in the county of London shall be deemed to be a continuous service with their service as clerks of the peace and clerks of petty sessional divisions in the county of Middlesex."
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment standing in his name. He thought the county auditor should be included in the provision they were considering, as he was a superior official to some of those already dealt with, and as he was a permanent officer having a permanent salary there should be no difficulty in including him.
    Amendment proposed, in page 93, line 39, after "treasurer," insert "county auditor."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think there was any necessity to put in these words, as the object in view was simply covered by the word "other." There was no objection, however, to accepting the Amendment if the hon. Member thought it necessary to press it. He would suggest, however, that the next Amendment which included "county solicitor" should be adopted in preference to that of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson).
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTasked whether the county auditor was exactly on the same

    1633
    footing as the other officials dealt with in this section—would not the mere fact of the question being one of finance necessitate this official being put on a different footing? Officials of this kind ought to be above all suspicion.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that all they were providing was that the new authority should take over the old officials on the same terms as they were employed by the old authority. If they did not think they were desirable officers, they should have the same means of getting rid of them as the old authority.
    MR. HENEAGE: Who is the county solicitor?
    COLONEL GUNTER: He is an official peculiar to Lancashire.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, the following Amendment made:—In page 93, line 39, after "treasurer," insert "county auditor and county solicitor;" and in line 42, after "county," insert "or any committee of such justices, or any committee of visitors for lunatic asylums."
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper—in line 42, after the word "or," to insert "are clerks to burial boards or," but he presumed that as the Bill now stood the Amendment was not necessary.
    MR. RITCHIE: No, we do not interfere with burials at all.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 94, line 3, after sub-section (5) add "all persons who at the appointed day are officers and servants of the general assessment sessions, shall become the officers of the quarter sessions of the county of London."—(Mr. Forrest Fulton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid this Amendment could only be accepted in conjunction with the following Amendment on the Paper, so as to limit the duties of the officials named in the Amendment to their functions in connection with the General Assessment Sessions.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    In line 2, after "shall," insert "so far as regards their duties under or in connection with those duties only."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 94, line 7, leave out Sub-sections (7) and (8).
    COLONEL GUNTERsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name and was a proposal rendered necessary by a change which had been made in the Bill. The object of this was to cover the case of existing chief or other constables, so far as regarded the provision inserted in the Bill dealing with the status of these officers in future. At present the control of the police was vested in the Quarter Sessions, but by the Bill that control would be vested in a joint committee of the Quarter Sessions and County Councils, and his proposal was to enable the existing officers to retain their present position.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 94, at end of line 15, insert—"Every person who, on the appointed day, is the chief or other constable of the police force of any county, or is an officer or servant employed in connection with that force, shall, after the said day, be chief or other constable of the police force of the same county under the standing joint committee appointed in pursuance of this Act, or be an officer or servant of such joint committee, as the case may be."—(Colonel Gunter.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he should like to call the attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to the next Sub-section, which brought about a change in the status of the police in the country districts. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the Indian Army was first joined to Her Majesty's Army every man in that Army had to be re-enlisted before he could become a soldier in Her Majesty's Service. In the same way they should not say that a constable, whether he liked it or not, should be put under a different authority from the one which had control when he joined the force. Constables in some districts which would come under the control of the joint committees might be paid at a higher rate than those in other districts, and it would be obviously unfair to put them under different conditions without giving them the opportunity of refusing

    1635
    those conditions if they thought it advisable. The men should have the choice of saying whether they would be enrolled or would not be enrolled under the new conditions.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the Bill provided that a certain borough should cease to maintain a certain police force, but that the constables should not be able to say that they would not continue to serve, as that would leave such borough without a police force at all. When boroughs were merged into counties the hon. and gallant Gentleman said they should not force the constables to continue in the force under a new controlling Authority. It was not true that they would be forced to serve, because they could obtain their discharge, but they would not cease to hold the position of constables on the passing of the Bill.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 118 (As to officers transferred to county or district councils).
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wanted to know whether Clerks of the Peace would receive higher salaries for being clerks to the County Councils as well? He desired to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered that question? Would these officials have more duties thrown upon them than they had at present, and, if so, would they have higher salaries?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, it would be possible, though not as a matter of course, that they would have to perform other duties; but arrangements in this respect would rest with the joint committees of the Quarter Sessions and County Councils.
    On the Motion of Mr. FORREST FULTON, Amendment made, in page 94, line 24, after "quarter sessions," insert "or general assessment sessions as far as aforesaid."
    COLONEL GUNTERsaid, the next Amendment in his name was purely consequential.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 94, line 25, after "justices," insert "or any committee of such sessions, or justices, or of any committee of visitors for lunatic asylums."—(Colonel Gunter.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that before the next Amendment was moved he should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had considered the question of taking over the officers of the Metropolitan Board of Works by the County Councils.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought it would be most injudicious for the Committee to treat the officers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, so far as transfer was concerned, in a different way from that in which they treated the officers of any other Local Authority. There was no obligation, however, further than the existing obligation imposed on the new County Councils to employ the officials of the Metropolitan Board of Works. It must be borne in mind that the officials would be entitled to compensation if their services were not continued.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that was the very reason why he had not moved an Amendment, which he had been foolish enough to put on the Paper.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 94, line 28, leave out "or of a district council;" and in line 31, after the first "and," insert "while performing the same duties."
    Amendment proposed, in page 94, line 31, after "remuneration," insert "and emoluments."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he should like to know what other remuneration there was that a man might claim beyond that which the section already provided for?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. These small Amendments, the object of which was to save existing rights, had been of enormous trouble to him. He was not always able to show any reason against them; but they were always unnecessary, and should not be proposed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, he begged to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name. After "passed," insert—
    "And in case of dispute shall have a right of appeal to the Local Government Board, whose decison shall be final."
    The object of this Amendment was to enable the county officers named in the clause to take the judgment of the Local Government Board in cases of dispute. He desired to enable them to obtain compensation in accordance with the ordinary customs of Acts of Parliament which regulated their service. They were willing to trust to the old Authorities; but they thought that as they would be transferred to new Authorities, it was possible that they might not be treated with the same consideration as they would have been under the old condition of things—they feared that they might not be treated in accordance with the understanding on the strength of which they took office.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 94, line 33, after the word "passed," insert the words "and in case of dispute shall have a right of appeal to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final."—(Sir John Dorington.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not admit that there was the slightest chance of these gentlemen being treated less favourably by the new authority which this Bill would set up, than they would have been by the old authority, and he could not for an instant think of countenancing any such suspicion by accepting the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 94, line 36, leave out "or district council;" and in page 95, line 3, leave out "or district council, as the case may be."
    On the Motion of Colonel GUNTER, Amendment made:—In page 95, at end of line 6, insert—
    "The provisions of this section shall apply to the chief and other constables of any police force, and to any officers employed in connection with such force, in like manner as if they were herein re-enacted with the substitution of
    1638
    the standing joint committee, under this Act, for the county council."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 119 (Compensation to existing officers).
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that in line 11, he proposed to leave out the words "or by diminution or by loss of fees or otherwise." He thought that if a person suffered direct pecuniary loss that was intelligible, but to put in "loss of fees or otherwise," might be a very wide claim for compensation. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, and stop at the word "office," leaving out the words to which he referred.
    Amendment proposed, in page 95, line 11, leave out "or by diminution or by loss of fees or otherwise."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    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 did not quite see how this would affect officers who were paid mainly by fees.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, they would get compensation under the words "pecuniary loss."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not know whether those words would altogether cover the case of loss of fees, and he did not wish to do an injustice to anyone. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not desire to do so either. He therefore thought it would be wiser to accept the words as they stood in the Bill, and to consider the case before Report. On Report they might introduce an Amendment if it were found necessary.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question before Report, and strike out the words "or otherwise," now he should be content.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would consent to strike out the words "or otherwise."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made, in page 95, line 13, leave out "or district."
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 95, line 23, after "the," insert "Acts and;" line 26, leave out "or district council;" line 36, leave out "or district council as the case may be;" and in line 41, leave out "or district council."
    Amendment proposed, in page 96, line 3, after "protest," insert" acting on behalf of the other subscribers or a majority of them."—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not accept this.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 96, line 17, leave out "or district council as the case may be;" line 22, leave out "or district council;" and in line 34, leave out from "purposes" to end of Clause.
    SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, he would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the wording of the clause in regard to the large sums which might be payable as compensation for abolition of appointments. He doubted whether it was desirable the Committee should commit itself to a declaration which might saddle the country with very large claims for compensation.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, the great object that had been kept in mind was that the country should not be saddled with large demands for compensation, and the Bill provided that Clerks of the Peace should be continued in office. It was provided that they must go to the County Council without giving them the alternative of compensation. He pointed out, more-over, that even if that were not so, the clause only provided a maximum which could not be exceeded, but it by no means laid down the principle that in all cases the maximum should be reached.
    SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration whether the maximum was not excessive and the proportion of compensation too high.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think the maximum was too high under the circumstances, but so far as the principal officials, the Clerks of the Peace, were concerned, there could be no claim for compensation, for they would be obliged to go over to the new authority.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Temporary Provision as to Grant from Exchequer.
    Clause 120 (Grant and application of part of Probate Duty and of horse and wheel tax during the year ending 31st March, 1889).
    Amendment proposed, in page 97, line 18, leave out "horses and vehicles," and insert "licences for trade carts, locomotives, horses, mules, and horse dealers, under any Act of the present Session."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. FIRTHsupposed that hon. Members were not bound by this to the form of the tax hereafter? If so, they might as well have the Wheel Tax debated now.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he quite understood that.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 97, line 23, after "union," insert "during the financial year ending the twenty-fifth day of March next before the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDasked, were they to understand that this committed Members to the original proposal of the Government? He thought a new plan was to be suggested.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was not asking the Committee to commit itself at all. The Government were only doing exactly the same thing as in regard to the other grant, with the understanding that the whole question was to be reconsidered in reference to the original proposal.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 97,

    1641
    line 28, leave out from beginning of line to "and" in line 36, and insert—
    "(ii.) In paying to every county, highway, and other local authority who have heretofore received out of moneys provided by Parliament a contribution to the cost of roads, or to the successors of such authority, such calculated in like manner and according to the like scale and regulations as in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 97, line 40, leave out to end of line 8, page 98, and insert the following sub-sections—
    "(v.) The share of the balance distributed to the metropolis shall be divided between the city of London and the parishes in Schedule A and the districts in Schedule B to 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,' as amended by subsequent Acts, according to rateable value as ascertained by the last valuation list;
    (vi.) if any payment is made under the foregoing provisions of this section respecting roads to any quarter sessions borough, or to any urban district wholly or as to the larger part thereof situate in such borough, or to any parish or district in the metropolis, such borough or such parish or district in the metropolis shall not be entitled to any share of the balance unless the amount of the said payment is, with the consent (given within the prescribed time) of the authority receiving the same, added to the balance."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BAUMANNsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation of this, for it seemed to him that this method of distribution would be unduly favourable to the City of London and unfavourable to the rest of the Metropolis, because if rateable value was to be the basis of distribution the rateable value of the City of London would be very high in proportion to population. The City would get an unduly large proportion and the rest of the Metropolis an unduly small proportion compared to what they would be entitled to according to area and population.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, the proportion the City would get would be about an eighth of the whole balance.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, in considering the methods of distribution this was thought to be the most fair to the various districts of the Metropolis, giving them each the portion that fell to their
    1642
    lot for application to their own particular purposes. He did not see any better method of distribution of an amount that he did not anticipate would be large.
    MR. BAUMANNhoped he would be at liberty to bring the matter up on Report.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 97, line 16, leave out "said;" and in line 17, after "financial year" insert "ending on the thirty-first March next before the passing of this Act."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    As to power of Local Government Board respecting existing authorities.
    Clause 121 (Power of Local Government Board to continue existing local authorities) struck out.
    Savings.
    Clause 122 (Savings for existing securities and discharge of debts).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 99, line 4, after the first "or," insert "of any;" lines 4, 5, 8, and 15, leave out the words "or district."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 123 (Saving for existing byelaws).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 99, line 24, leave out from "works" to "or," in line 25; line 27, leave out "or district."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 124 (Saving for pending actions, contracts, &c.).
    On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendments made:—In page 99, line 37, leave out "or district;" and in page 100, line 7, leave out "or district."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Repeals.
    Clause 125 (Repeal of Acts, &c.).
    MR, WOODALLsaid, he did not know whether the Committee realized quite how sweeping and com-

    1643
    prehensive this clause was. It might be well to consider whether it was possible to modify it with a view to protect to some extent the existing rights of chartered corporations.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, this was a very general form of termination of a Bill, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman need be at all alarmed or fear any proposal to interfere with or threaten the chartered rights of any municipal corporation.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he was much relieved to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so, but they had arrived at a state of things when a Conservative Government had shown very little regard to chartered rights at all. It would be his duty to propose to modify the severity of the clause by saving existing rights and charters.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he quite sympathized with the misgiving expressed by the hon. Gentleman. The fact was, the Committee had been rushing through these latter clauses at such express speed that many Members did not know exactly where they were. He believed there was a general sort of impression that they were near the end of the Bill. The rate of progress had been so great that even the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill got somewhat bewildered, and the Chairman became so accustomed to calling clauses and Amendments without opposition, that it required some effort to arrest his attention. He only mentioned this as indicating the effect on the mind of the terrific pace at which they had been travelling through the clauses, and it was highly desirable a few hours should be allowed for Members to consider the position. It would not be asking too much to request that the final clause might be allowed to stand over until tomorrow—["No, no !"]—that Members might consider the effect of the clause and its sweeping character on those chartered rights to which the hon. Member had made allusion.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was quite sure the Committee would not spoil the grace of the assistance they had given the Government by pausing at the last clause. As the hon. Member was aware, although the last clause was reached, yet many new clauses remained for consideration. He hoped the Committee would not
    1644
    separate without the satisfaction of knowing they had disposed of all the clauses and Amendments.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he would join in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, and hoped there would be no opposition to the clause at that stage.
    Clause agreed to.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that in view of the possibility of the new clauses being disposed of on the morrow, he should like to know when the Report stage would be taken.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would inform the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow, if the new clauses were then disposed of.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, of course a reasonable time would be allowed?
    MR. RITCHIE: Certainly.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BANN DRAINAGE BILL.— [BILL 312.]
  (Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, it might be for the convenience of the House if he stated that the objection he had to this measure was bonâ fide, and he proposed to take a Division on his Amendment to the Motion. If under the circumstances the Government thought it desirable to go on now he would raise no objection, but he did not know if it would be quite in Order, seeing that it was his intention to oppose the Bill to the length of taking a Division against it.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, if definite objection to the Bill was taken the discussion could not now proceed.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he must object. He saw no good in raising the discussion if he could not take a Division on his Motion.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  DR. TANNERasked, whether it was intended to take the Drainage Bills to-morrow?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, Yes; if possible.

  DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) (1877) Amendment* (199).
Committee—Companies (153); Victoria University (163–218); Archdeaconry of Cornwall (202–219); Lloyd's Signal Stations (214–220).
Report—Factory and Workshops Act (1878) Amendment (Scotland) (76).

COMPANIES BILL—(No. 153.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HERSCHELL, in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said, he believed that the Bill had been introduced with the very best intentions; but there was no measure fraught with greater danger than one which was saturated with good intentions, because those who were interested in the success of these good intentions were apt to overlook the difficulties in their way, and were so bent on doing some good, if they could, that they often ran the risk of doing a great deal of harm. The measure proposed that it should be practically impossible to register any new Company with limited liability except under a system of provisional registration, the object being to prevent those frauds which undoubtedly did take place now from time to time on the formation of new Companies for industrial purposes. But his fear was that this system of provisional registration would impose such liabilities upon those who might become Directors of Companies that men who had a stake in the country, who had anything to lose, would refuse to have anything to do with them, while those who had nothing to lose, the very class whom it was desirable to drive out from the field, would be as well able to carry on their operations as before. There were many men experienced in commercial affairs who were convinced this would be the result; and, while it would not deter sub-

1503
stantially the formation of Companies which ought not to be formed, it might prevent to a serious extent the formation of Companies which were perfectly legitimate, and the operations of which when formed would be most beneficial. He believed Limited Liability Companies with all their evils had done, on the whole, an enormous amount of good in the country. The condition of the industrial classes would have been vastly worse than it was but for their enterprizes, and, therefore, their Lordships should consider well before they imposed such restrictions and limitations. He submitted that before making so serious a change there should be a more complete investigation of the question than had as yet taken place. The very able Committee of the Incorporated Law Society had come to a conclusion unfavourable to the Bill, and in face of this and the opinion of great commercial authorities he submitted that their Lordships had not the knowledge which would justify them in assenting to this measure becoming law. The Bill provided that it was to be the duty of every person joining in the issue of a prospectus to see that such prospectus disclosed every particular within his knowledge which was material to be made known to a person invited to take shares. If he failed to do so he was liable for any damage sustained by any person who so took shares. Now, it was easy to be wise after the event, and if in the opinion of a Judge, perhaps long after, something had been omitted which would have assisted the investor, he was bound to make the Director liable for the whole loss sustained by the ill-success of the Company, although he might come to the conclusion that the Director acted with perfect honesty. All he asked was that, instead of going on with the Bill when they could not be certain in the present state of their knowledge of bringing about a result satisfactory to the public, they should defer the further consideration of it till a Select Committee had reported on the whole subject.
Amendment moved, to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee")—(The Lord Herschell.)
LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he should be glad if his noble and learned Friend
1504
on the Woolsack would consent to the Motion. He agreed in the view that it would be extremely difficult for their Lordships to do justice to this Bill unless it was first of all referred to a Select Committee. There was no provision made for Companies which made no appeal to the public for funds, or which were privately formed by a small number of persons sufficient in number to be within the Limited Liability Act. There were also frequent cases in which Companies found it to their interest to amalgamate. Two separate Companies were wound up and constituted one Company to carry on the joint business. A gentleman had told him lately that he had been a party to arranging 14 different Companies this very year which had not been advertised. In that days's papers there was an instance of two Companies proposing to amalgamate—namely, the Maxim and the Nordenfelt Gun Companies. In the Bill there was no provision for such a case; and not only that, but it would be precluded by the terms of the Bill. He hoped that the measure would be referred to a Select Committee, where these points could be thoroughly considered.
LORD HILLINGDONsaid, he doubted whether the measure as it stood would carry out the intentions of those who had introduced it. Some of its provisions, particularly those which prescribed the interest which Directors should have in the Companies, would deprive those Companies very often of the men of experience and ability whose services it might be of the utmost importance to secure. The Bill would not prevent the formation of fraudulent Companies, but it would seriously interfere with legitimate enterprize. If, however, it were referred to a Select Committee it might be made into a good and useful measure.
LORD THURLOWsaid, he should support the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It was only in a Select Committee, where the evidence of experts could be taken, that a Bill of this importance and magnitude could be properly dealt with. In his opinion the system of provisional registration which it was intended to introduce by that Bill was radically bad, and would do nothing towards removing any of those grievances which all honest men deprecated. They had the evidence against the Bill

1505
of many important Bodies, including the Incorporated Law Society, while Mr. Mundella, a former President of the Board of Trade, had described it as not being worthy of the serious consideration of either House. He would add his advice to what had been already said in that House with regard to the referring of the Bill to a Select Committee. At the same time, if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did not see his way to taking that course, and if they went into Committee upon the Bill, he would do all he could in assisting to make it a workable measure.
LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that he had met with nobody outside their Lordships' House who was in favour of the Bill; but as it was possible that it might be made into a good and useful measure he trusted that it would be refered to a Select Committee. With regard to the necessity for Directors to hold a large amount of shares, he thought that the principle was a vicious one, because while it was desirable that the large shareholders should be represented it was also desirable that the small shareholders should be protected, whose interests were not always identical with those of the large shareholders. The provision would also in many cases prevent good men of business from being Directors, although they were the class of men whom it was desirable to have. The effect of the Bill would be to restrict commercial enterprize, and that was a position which their Lordships would not like to take up. There was no doubt that the Bill would not pass this Session, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would consent to refer it to a Select Committee, so that information which they had not at present might be obtained.
LORD DENMANsaid, he having been present when the first Limited Liability Bill was before a Committee of the Whole House in 1856, he hoped that the Bill would not be referred to a Select Committee. He trusted that their Lordships would bring their knowledge of the state of the question to be exercised on this Bill, and that investors would be protected by it. It might be improved in "another place;" and, as their Lordships were not tied by a reference to the 12th of August, they would not be unable to discuss any alterations of the Bill, if necessary, in a free conference between the two
1506
Houses of Parliament. It was not a lawyers' Bill, and a decision of a Select Committee would have to be considered by the Whole House, and from the delay it would shelve the Bill till another Session. The first Bill for Limited Liability had been carefully considered by a Committee of the Whole House. He (Lord Denman) had supported that Bill, and would give his best attention to the Bill now before their Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the arguments for referring the Bill to a Select Committee were only colourable arguments. This was the 17th of July, and to say that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee with the idea of taking evidence upon it was saying that the Bill should not pass, and the more straightforward course would have been, on the second reading, to move that it be read a second time that day six months. That had not been done, and now the effect of this dilatory Motion would be to destroy the Bill. The present state of the law was most unsatisfactory. Over and over again he had received remonstrances from Lancashire and other districts to the effect that, owing to the condition of the law, an enormous amount of fraud was perpetrated, and great commercial loss was incurred every day. It appeared from what took place in the Law Courts that one of the most familiar forms of fraud was for people to get up unreal Companies, take money from innocent shareholders, and then disappear. How long was this to go on? What efforts had those who had criticized this Bill ever made to put an end to the existing evils? As many noble Lords were aware, the 38th section of the Companies Act was absolutely incapable of a correct interpretation. He believed it was no exaggeration to say that since 1862, when limited liability was introduced, millions had been wasted by means of fraudulent Companies, and the wasting of those millions had had the two-fold effect of checking legitimate commercial speculation and of ruining legitimate enterprize by the undue competition introduced by Companies which could have been brought out only to ruin the shareholders. The object of the Bill was to prevent that. He joined issue with the noble Lord who said that it was not desirable to make the Directors have a

1507
substantial interest in the concern. On the contrary, he believed that was a most legitimate object, and he believed also that that object would, in a great measure, be attained by the Bill. It was said they would not get Directors of proper commercial standing and respectability if they made them liable, as contemplated by the Bill. But if there was anything of that kind in the Bill to which objection could fairly be taken, let it, when they got into Committee, by all means be struck out. If anything was clear, it was that it was perfectly competent to amend the measure as it stood. It was said that no system of provisional registration was admissible at all, and that such a hampering of commercial enterprize condemned the Bill. He admitted at once that the Bill was founded on the basis of provisional registration, and if no system founded on such a basis was admissible, then let the Bill be got rid of. He thought it would be very desirable to take care, by means of some authority, that the new Corporations which everyone could create for himself under the Act of 1862 should not be permitted to come into existence until some examination had been made which would show that the enterprizes were not colourable frauds, but were intended as legitimate commercial undertakings. He had not heard any criticism suggesting that the machinery of the Bill, which was aimed at actual fraud, was not adapted to the purpose. He knew it might be said—"Make what provision you will; the subtlety of fraud will get round it and evade it." All they could do by means of laws was to go as far as they could to prevent fraud, and he believed the Bill would have a good effect in that way. He maintained that the real question was not that which was implied by the form of the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, but that which was implied by the commentaries of every noble Lord who had spoken against the Bill—namely, that it should be rejected. He trusted, however, that their Lordships would allow the Bill to go into Committee.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was scarcely justified in representing the intention of his noble and learned Friend as an intention to destroy the Bill. Even if the Bill did pass
1508
their Lordships' House, there would not be the remotest chance of its becoming law this Session. His noble and learned Friend by no means denied that the law required amendment. All he contended for was that their Lordships should not legislate without being in possession of full information and full knowledge of the matter. He must say he was alarmed at one remark which fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to the effect that the object of the Bill was to limit undue competition.
LORD HALSBURYexplained that what he said was that the effect of sham Companies was not only to lose the money of the shareholders, but also unduly to affect legitimate Companies by illegitimate competition.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, continuing, said, that no one who had studied the course of legislation since 1856 could fail to recognize that the introduction of the system of limited liability had conferred enormous benefits on the trade of the country—it was one of the most valuable elements of our commercial system—and he should regret exceedingly if anything were done to diminish those benefits. The fact was that the objection to limited liability proceeded from those who feared its competition.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY of STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that everyone agreed in the opinion the noble Earl had expressed as to the benefits of the Limited Liability Acts. No one objected to the competition which those Acts had produced. So far as it was real competition it was healthy; but what his noble and learned Friend on the Wollsack objected to was the competition of men of straw and of sham Companies, which only had the effect of enriching the promoters at the expense of the shareholders—bogus Companies, which set up businesses which were not real, and which tended to reduce the scale of wages and to throw difficulties in the way of that honesty of trade on which the great manufacturing districts of the country depended. The feeling in this matter was very strong, and he believed that it was an entire libel on the manufacturers of these districts to say that they desired to get rid of competition merely. What they de-

1509
sired to get rid of was illegitimate competition and the evils which were a fraud on honest competition. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Herschell) looked very much like a misuse of the Forms of the House. He appeared to have made a sham Motion—a Motion as bogus as some of the sham Companies formed under the Limited Liability Clauses themselves. Instead of moving that the House should go into Committee that day three months in the ordinary way, he was proposing a Committee which could not exist, and which at this time of the year would be of no use whatever. He could well understand the Motion if the Bill had come upon him suddenly; but it was announced in the Queen's Speech, so that he had had ample time to store his mind afresh with knowledge upon the subject. It was open to the noble and learned Lord at anytime to have moved for a Committee; but he thought that such a step, if taken now, would be hardly a fitting treatment of the Forms of the House. He should vote against the Motion of the noble and learned Lord simply because he did not think it was a correct statement of the object which the noble and learned Lord had in view. He could not help thinking that if this important matter, upon which the eyes of so many were set, and which excited such great interest among the most important industries of the country, were treated in an unreal manner and referred to an inquiry which could not exist it would not tend to facilitate future legislation, but would rather give an impression that their Lordships were not sincere in desiring to amend the defects in the existing law.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought it was most unfair to attribute to his noble and learned Friend, notwithstanding his disclaimer, the intention of bringing forward a sham Motion as an indirect way of getting rid of the Bill. He had on a former occasion asked his noble and learned Friend what his opinion of this Bill was, and he then said that he had not thoroughly made up his mind upon it, and wished to hear the opinion of solicitors and mercantile men. That was hardly the opinion of a man who wished merely to reject the Bill. The noble Marquess had not answered the question whether the Bill could be passed this year. They all
1510
knew it could not, and, therefore, to talk of defeating the Bill by this Motion was beside the mark. Would it add to the credit of their Lordships' House to send down to the House of Commons a measure which was ill-considered, and the provisions of which were condemned by all competent to speak on the subject? He certainly hoped the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would not persist in his opposition to the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend. If a Division went against his noble and learned Friend a very wrong impression would go forth to the outside public.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion (leave being given to The Lord Tyrone (The Marquess of Waterford) to vote in the House); Their Lordships divided:—Contents 84; Not-Contents 44: Majority 40.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Strange, E. (D. Athole.)

Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Cadogan, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Waldegrave, E.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Wharncliffe, E.

Buckingham and Chandos, D.

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Northumberland, D.

Cross, V.

Portland, D.

Melville, V.

Exeter, M.

Ardilaun, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bagot, L.

Balfour, L.

Basing, L.

Mount-Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)

Berwick, L.

Bowes, E. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Brownlow, E.

Caledon, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Dartmouth, E.

de Montalt, E.

Churchill, L.

Feversham, E.

Colchester, L.

Fortescue, E.

Coleridge, L.

Haddington, E.

Crewe, L.

Harrowby, E.

de Ros, L.

Howe, E.

Denman, L.

Ilchester, E.

Digby, L.

Kingston, E.

Donington, L.

Lindsay, E.

Ellen borough, L.

Manvers, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Mar, E.

Esher, L.

Milltown, E.

FitzGerald, L.

Northesk, E.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Orkney, E.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Romney, E.

Harris, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

Selborne, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

Strafford, E.

1511

Keane, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller]

Sinclair, L.

Tredegar, L.

Knutsford, L.

Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

Lamington, L.

Langford, L.

Tyrone L. (M. Waterford.)

Magheramorne, L.

Manners, L,

Ventry, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Windsor, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Norton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Grafton, D.

Dormer, L.

Egerton, L.

Bath, M.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Hillingdon, L.

Derby, E.

Hobhouse, L.

Granville, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Kimberley, E.

Kensington, L.

Powis, E.

Lawrence, L.

Spencer, E.

Leigh, L.

Sydney, E.

Lingen, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Monk-Bretton, L.

Oxenbridge, V. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

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

Poltimore, L.

Robartes, L.

Brabourne, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Bramwell, L.

Braye, L.

St. Levan, L.

Calthorpe, L.

Sandhurst, L

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stalbridge, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Thring, L.

Thurlow, L.

Clinton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

Resolved in the affirmative.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he desired to deny that the Amendment he had moved to refer the Bill to a Select Committee was a sham Motion intended to defeat the Bill. It had never occurred to him that anyone could thus regard his action in reference to this measure. The proposition of the noble Marquess seemed to involve that when the Session had reached the present date it was impossible for the House to obtain information, however much needed, as to any Bill before the House, and that there was no alternative but to proceed with the measure without such information. The Motion he had made was perfectly straightforward.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was quite ready to accept the noble and learned Lord's assurance that his action had been sincere. What he had referred to was the effect of the noble
1512
and learned Lord's action upon the Bill. His Amendment, if carried, must have defeated the Bill. The noble and learned Lord had not explained the fact that, though the Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, it was only now that he was suggesting that it should be referred to a Select Committee.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that though the Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, it was only in the middle of June that he learnt the contents of the Bill.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 (Provisional registration).
On the Motion of Lord THURLOW, Amendment made, in page 1, line 11, leave out ("three") and insert ("four")
Amendment moved, in page 1, line 13, after ("association") insert ("unless other directors are appointed by the articles of association")—(The Lord Thurlow.)
LORD THRINGsaid, he feared that the clause as it stood would prevent the creation of the best possible Companies—namely, those based upon private firms and those formed by the amalgamation of Companies.
THE EARL OF SELBORNEthought that the clause might not have the effect which its framers wished.
On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 31; Not-Contents 48; Majority 17.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he did not intend to put their Lordships to the trouble of a Division on the clause; but he must enter his protest against this system of provisional registration. From no one but the noble Lord who proposed it had he heard a single word in favour of the system.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (Conditions of complete registration).
Amendment moved, in page 2, leave out subsections (g.) and (h.).—(The Lord Thurlow.)
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
LORD THURLOW LORD THURLOW moved to omit subsection 3, paragraph (c), which provided that the Company should not

1513
obtain complete registration unless it appeared—
"That the total number of shares held by the directors of the company is not less than one-fifth of the total number of shares applied for."
His object was to make it more possible to select persons as Directors who had not large means, although otherwise most valuable Directors, and who, under this sub-section, would almost always be excluded from office. It was often desirable to have as Directors men who did not possess enormous shares in the Company.
Amendment moved, in page 2, subsection (3), leave out paragraph (c.).—(The Lord Thurlow.)
LORD HALSBURYsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment.
LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he should support the Amendment. Mere wealth, he might point out, was only one of many qualifications. Technical knowledge, for example, was quite as valuable as a large money qualification, and many a most eligible Director was not able to subscribe a large amount of capital. What was the good of this restriction? Could they not trust the shareholders to secure that they should be represented by persons of sufficient qualification to guarantee their substantiality? All these restrictions unduly embarrassed commercial enterprize without any compensation in the way of protection to shareholders or to the public. According to this subsection, in the case of a Company with £500,000 of capital, the Board of Directors, would have to hold £100,000 of the Stock, which might be very inconvenient. The sub-section practically said that only rich men ought to be Directors, against which principle he entirely protested.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he quite agreed that the subsection in question seemed to assert the principle that wealth was the only guarantee of intellectual ability in relation to commercial affairs. But, after all, the sub-section merely secured the object in view, and the Directors need not hold their interest a day longer than the time when complete registration was agreed to.
LORD HALSBURYobserved, that the question was not one of intellec-
1514
tuality, but of substantiality in commercial concerns, and to secure that was the real object.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in line 37, subsection (3), to leave out the word "ten" and insert "twenty."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he could not see what was gained by securing that a larger number of shares should be held by a Director just at the moment of registering the Company.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, that while he did not deny that there was a possibility of shares being held for the moment, he contended that the larger number of shares formed a guarantee to investors.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Fees on registration).
On the Motion of Lord THURLOW, Amendment made, in page 3, line 4, leave out ("a fee of two pounds and the balance, if any") and insert ("one-fifth").
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Deposit of money paid in respect of shares or debentures in provisionally-registered company).
LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that if a Company failed to obtain complete registration within the period for which the certificate of provisional registration was in force the money must be repaid within 14 days. One of the Directors might leave the country with a perfectly innocent intention, and yet he was subjected to the payment of interest at 20 per cent per annum at the expiration of the 14 days.
LORD HALSBURYsaid, that all the clause did was to provide that the money of which certain persons had got the care and custody should be repaid to those to whom it belonged. Why should not a person who wished to go out of the country make proper provision beforehand that the money which did not belong to him should be repaid?
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Provisional contracts) agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 6 (Restrictions on increase of capital) agreed to.
Clause 7 (Particulars to be disclosed by prospectus).
LORD HALSBURYthought their Lordships would agree that they had made reasonable progress, and he therefore suggested that the House should resume.
House resumed; and to be again it Committee on Tuesday next.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND) (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 199.)
(The Lord Herschell.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to give the Court of Appeal in Ireland power to execute their own processes. The ordinary course was to remit a case to the Court below for the execution of process; but in the case of an appeal from a Revising Barrister that was found to be somewhat difficult. He understood the Bill was approved of by the Irish Law Officers.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT (1878) AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
(The Earl of Aberdeen.)

(No. 76.) REPORT OF AMENDMENT.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
LORD BALFOURsaid, he had put down a series of Amendments. The object of the Bill was to amend Clause 105 of the Factory and Workshops Act of 1878, which appointed as public holidays in Scotland, instead of Good Friday and Christmas Day, the Sacramental Fast Days. The Bill proposed to substitute, so far as burghs were concerned, certain days to be fixed by the magistrates for the Sacramental Fast Days. He saw no reason why there should be any difference between the burghs and counties, as any such difference must give rise to unde rable anomalies. The Amendments of which he had given Notice were for the pur-
1516
pose of amending the law alike for burghs and counties. But he understood that objections were likely to be made "in another place" and that if these Amendments were passed they might endanger the Bill, which was desired by many persons; and as he considered he had done his duty in calling attention to the anomaly which would be created, he did not propose to press his Amendments, although he did not depart from the opinion that the proposal, limited as it was in the Bill, was injudicious and unsound.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.
Report from the Select Committee (with the prceedings of the Committee) made; and to be printed. (No. 217.): Minutes of Evidence, together with Appendices, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.