Sitting of 6 June 1899

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, being returned,
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills (see first item in House of Lords report this day; ante, page 409).

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Read
  430
  ing thereof, the Standing Orders, not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  ARBROATH CORPORATION GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed without Amendment.
  KEW BRIDGE BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title].
  BEXHILL AND ST. LEONARDS TRAMROADS BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CHURCH STRETTON WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE FUND BELL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GAINSBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GREAT YARMOUTH WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HAMPSTEAD CHURCH (EMMANUEL, WEST END) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LEIGH-ON-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  STRETFORD GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION, GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY, AND WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY BILLS.
  Ordered, that the Order [14th March] that all Petitions of County Councils under the provisions of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, against the Bills, presented seven clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee, and that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, or witnesses be heard against the Bills be suspended in the case of the petition of the County Council of Queen's County against the Great Southern and Western Railway Bill, and that the said petition be referred to the Select Committee on the said Bills, and that the petitioners be heard by their counsel, agent, or witnesses against the said Bill.—(Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien.)
  BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Read a second time; and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
  Sir Henry Fletcher reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Bill [Lords] had stated the evidence of John Motherwell Alston, town clerk, Coatbridge, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said John Motherwell Alston do attend the said Committee To-morrow at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That John Motherwell Alston do attend the Committee on Group J of

  433
  Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments.

  DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments.
  Ordered, That the Reports do lie upon the Table, and be printed.

  PETITIONS.
    GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Petitions in favour;—From West Bridgford;—Greenock—Askington;—Sheerness;—Hyde (four);—Chapel en le Frith;—St. James's;—Llanrhystyd;—Gravesend;—Motherwell;—Rothbury;—and, Working Men's Club and Institute Union, Limited; to lie upon the Table.
    MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
    Petition from Manor Pit Colliery, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    POOR LAW RELIEF (DISFRANCHISEMENT).
    Petition from West Ham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition from Aberdeen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
    Petition from Aberdeen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, &c.) BILL.
    Petition from Aberdeen, against; to lie upon the Table.
    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Petition from Aberdeen, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
    IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
    Copy presented,—of Return of Judicial Rents during the month of November, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
    Copy presented,—of Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland appointing the places at which Examinations shall be held for 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1888 AND 1894.
    Copy presented,—of Sixth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under Section 31 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, including Proceedings upon Complaints made under Section 1 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ASSOCIATIONS.
    Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 24th March; Sir Francis Powell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]
    COLONIAL PETROLEUM ACT, 1892.
    Copy presented,—of Order in Council of the 19th May 1899, applying the Act to the Colony of Queensland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
    Copy presented,—of Order in Council of the 19th May 1899, authorising an increase in the Clerical Establishment of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and in the salary of Mr. William Coats, accountant and cashier to the Commissioners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1875.
    Copy presented,—of Order in Council of 19th May 1899, amending the Order in Council of 28th July 1893, so far as it relates to the South-Eastern Circuit [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS, 1865 AND 1869.
    Copy presented,—of Order in Council 19th May 1899, authorising the grant of a special gratuity to Mrs. Lynch [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
    Copy presented,—of Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India during the year 1897–8. Thirty-fourth Number [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    TREATY SERIES (No. 13, 1899).
    Copy presented,—of Accession of Japan to the International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 15th July 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUESTIONS.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
    SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is his intention to ask Parliament this or next Session to amend the Act limiting the enrolling of seamen for the Royal Naval Reserve to 30,000 men, for the purpose of increasing the number of first and second class seamen, and also of stokers and firemen; can he state the approximate number of permanent officers, engineers, and men that will be needed to complete the manning of the whole of the ships now in commission, as well as those that will be ready for the pennant at the close of the current financial year; and whether, in conjunction with the Lords of the Admiralty, he has formed any approximate estimate of the number of men of all ranks that will be needed for reserve purposes in the event of war; if so, will he give the numbers.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square): The hon. Member has seen my proposals for this year, to which I have nothing to add, and he must allow me to put off until next year my statement as regards future Estimates. In reply to the second question, it is im-
    436
    possible to state in advance what the composition of the fleet in commission will be at the close of the current financial year. My answer to the third question is that the number of men of all ranks needed for reserve purposes in the event of war will, of course, depend on the nature of the war, and I am not prepared to make a statement on the subject.

    CUSTOMS OFFICIALS.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why Customs watchers who act as lockers at bonded warehouses, a duty done by the established out-door officers, are compelled to do nine hours a day all the year round, while the established officers only do eight hours a day in summer and seven hours in winter; whether, seeing that the salaries of out-door officers are £100 per annum, while the wages of watchers are 21s. a week, he will explain the method adopted in calculating the daily hours of duty of Customs watchers, which is now said to be only seven hours a day; and whether he will state the number of hours worked per day (based on a similar calculation) by the established out-door officers; whether, out of a total of 343 watchers now employed in the Customs Department of the Port of London, only forty were previous to 1896 liable to work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.; whether their wages were the same as now, 21s. a week, while the remainder were paid 19s. a week for an eight hours' day in summer and seven hours in winter, the overtime payment being 8d. per hour; whether the former were paid overtime before and after 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. each day, and the latter before and after 8 a.m. in summer and 9 a.m. in winter and 4 p.m. each day, regardless of the number of hours worked during the week; and whether overtime was only paid previous to 1896 after seventy-two hours' duty each week.
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY, Preston): Watchers who act as lockers at bonded warehouses are not compelled to serve nine hours a day all the year round. Their hours vary from seven to nine, including meal time, according to the season of the year and the business of the particular warehouse. Very few outdoor officers are now serving as lockers or in any other capacity, and

    437
    they are an expiring class. The salaries of outdoor officers are not £100. Second class outdoor officers receive £55 rising by £3 to £80, and first-class outdoor officers receive £85 rising by £3 to £100. £100 is therefore the maximum and not the normal salary of the class. The daily hours of duty of Customs watchers are not said to be only seven. I informed the hon. Member on 18th of April that "the minimum average number of hours a day, based on a recent week's work, was seven"—that is, that (with one slight exception) no individual watcher averaged less than seven hours' attendance per day during that week. The actual ordinary attendance (excluding overtime) of the established outdoor officers during the same week averaged 7⅓ hours per day. The facts stated in the third paragraph are correct. In the fourth paragraph the hon. Member presumably refers to the 40 men specified in paragraph 3. If so, overtime was paid after 12 hours' attendance on any one day (which is not the same as paying it after 72 hours' attendance in any one week).

    POST OFFICE—CLERKS' SALARIES.
    MR. YOXALL): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what is the correct maximum salary for the clerks' class at 54s. per week offices, the officers of winch class are employed entirely upon supervising and technical duties in the Postal Service.
    MR. HANBURY: The maximum salary for clerks at all provincial offices—irrespective of the wages of the rank and file—is determined by the number of established officers, and has no necessary relation to the maximum wages of the rank and file. At the few offices where the rank and file have a maximum of 54s. a week the maximum salary of the clerks at present ranges from £160 to £175 a year.

    AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why the Return relating to the American Mail Service, ordered 27th February, has not yet been issued.
    MR. HANBURY: The preparation of this Return involved some correspondence
    438
    with the United States Post Office and a considerable amount of clerical labour, so that there has been no undue delay in compiling it. It was presented on the 4th ult., ordered to be printed on the 5th, and will be in the hands of Members one day this week.

    IRELAND—COUNTY COURT OFFICERS.
    MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has completed the arrangements in regard to the vouching of the grant for clerical assistance to the various county court officers in Ireland; and, if the arrangements are completed, would he lay upon the Table copies of the various circulars issued in connection therewith, and at the same time furnish a Return showing the amount now being paid out of the grant to the various officers, together with the amounts paid to them as on the 1st day of April, 1897.
    *Mr. HANBURY: Yes Sir; the arrangements are completed, and I will furnish a return of the allowances payable on 1st April, 1897, and now; and also a memorandum of the arrangements adopted for vouching the expenditure of the county court officers in Ireland, within the limit of the fixed allowances.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are in the service of the Board of National Education in Ireland numerous second-class teachers who only receive third-class salaries; can he explain upon what principle this system is sanctioned by the Board of National Education; and will he undertake to communicate with the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland with a view to seeing that teachers are paid the full salaries attaching to their classification.
    *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): At the request of my right hon. friend I will answer this question. There are many teachers ranking in second class who receive but third class salary under the Board's rules, namely, principal teachers the average attendance at whose schools is less than 30 pupils, and assistant teachers who are entitled only to third class salary as such. After five

    439
    years' service, however, the assistant teachers receive under the Education Act of 1892 a bonus which nearly equalises their emoluments with the salary of second class. Those arrangements are based on the principle of fixing remuneration in proportion to the duties and responsibilities of the recipient. The Commissioners do not recognise the claim that teachers should under all circumstances be paid the full salaries attaching to their classification.
    MR. MACALEESE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the same system obtains in this country?
    *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT; ORDERS AND RULES UNDER.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there have been complaints from the officials and members of the new county and district councils and also from the public as to the difficulty in procuring copies of the rules and regulations issued by the Privy Council and Local Government Board from time to time for the transaction of their business; and whether he will direct that copies of the Orders in Council and Local Government Board Orders will be put on sale to the public at the same time that they are put in force under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
    *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Orders in Council referred to have all been issued as Parliamentary papers, and copies can be procured through any bookseller. No complaints have been received as to the alleged difficulty in obtaining copies of these Orders in Council. Copies of the Orders issued by the Local Government Board are sent to every local body affected by the Orders, and to any member of the general public bonâ fide concerned who makes an application for a copy. It is proposed ultimately to print both the Orders in Council and Local Government Board Orders of a permanent character in one volume for presentation to Parliament.

    MIGRATION OF THE POPULATION.
    DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his
    440
    attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Mayo County Council, passed unanimously at their meeting 20th May, in which they state that, in order to prevent the periodical recurrence of famine, and to render unnecessary the annual migration of large numbers of the adult male and female population of county Mayo, and thereby save them from the risk of a disaster such as befel the people of Achill a few years ago, in which a large body of them were drowned, it is necessary that compulsory powers be given to the County Council to acquire for purposes of migration and enlargement of holdings such lands as are available for such purposes in county Mayo; and whether, in view of such a resolution, passed unanimously by such a representative body as the County Council of Mayo, he will without delay introduce legislation to meet the views of that body.
    *MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

    BRITISH NEW GUINEA PAPERS.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish the appendices and papers referred to in the Annual Report for 1897–98 on British New Guinea (C. 9046 26) recently issued, especially those relating to scientific subjects, referred to on pp. 75–77 of the Report, and designated by Sir W. MacGregor as of considerable interest and of much importance; and whether he will encourage the preparation of such Reports in future by affording facilities for their publication for the benefit of scientific research.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The papers referred to are all published in Queensland, and copies are regularly furnished by my department to the various learned societies to whom they are likely to be of interest. It is the usual practice to publish any reports of general interest or utility not already published elsewhere.

    ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMISSION.
    SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will be good enough to in-

    441
    form the House whether the Anglo-American Commission is to re-assemble; if so, when; can he state the nature and extent of the differences alleged to exist between the American and Canadian members of the Commission; and whether the whole or any portion of the points at issue are to be referred to arbitration.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first two questions I have nothing to add to the answers given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Before the Commission adjourned proposals and counter proposals were made by the British and United States Commissioners for referring the question of the Alaska boundary to arbitration, but they had been unable to agree as to the arbitral tribunal and the terms of reference. Negotiations on this question are still proceeding between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government.

    IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the conferences in reference to the future of the Imperial Institute are now concluded; and, if so, whether there is any objection to stating the general results or recommendations that have been arrived at.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Satisfactory progress has been made with the negotiations, and a definite proposal is now before the Senate of the University and the Council of the Institute. If, as is hoped, the replies of the two bodies are favourable, the result will be communicated to the House.

    WEST INDIES—FRUIT STEAMERS—LOCAL DUTIES.
    MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state when the contemplated fruit steamers may be expected to commence running between the West India Islands and this country; and when the return re Local Colonial Duties on Rum will be laid upon the Table.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) I am not yet able to fix a date for the commencement of this service. (2) Some of
    442
    the Colonies have not yet furnished the information required for completing the Return. When they have done so the Return will be laid without delay.

    WAR OFFICE—NETHERAVON HOUSE, WILTS.
    MR. GOULDING (Wilts., Devizes): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with regard to the fact that Netheravon House, Wilts., which has been recently purchased by the Government for War Office purposes, is still untenanted, whether, in view of the disastrous results to the parish which will arise from the principal mansion not being inhabited, the Secretary of State for War will take immediate action to procure its early occupation.
    *THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Every effort has been and will be made by the War Department to obtain a tenant for Netheravon House.

    SALISBURY PLAIN.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in the Return No. 150, of 1899, which was ordered by the House in February last and distributed in May, of the gross and net rentals of property at Salisbury Plain purchased by the War Department, the column headed "present rental" gives in all cases the actual rental paid to the proprietor of the land at the time of purchase, or whether in any cases the amount of rental in that column represents a nominal rental which in practice was reduced by an allowance of, in some cases, as much as 20 per cent. reduction on the nominal rent.
    *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS, Birmingham, S.): The Return contains the rentals paid under the various agreements, but what reduction has been customary from those rentals I am not able to say without further reference. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question down again.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I will do so.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have any tenants failed to pay the reduced rent to the War Office?
    *MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Some of them claim to receive from the War Office a reduction similar to that which they formerly received.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was that taken into account in the price?
    *MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: No, I think not.

    BARRACKS AND MILITARY WORKS LOAN BILL.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Barracks and Military Works Loan Bill will be introduced.
    *MR. WYNDHAM: I hope to bring in a Bill at an early date.

    PUNJAUB WAR AND TIRAH CAMPAIGN MEDALS.
    MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether medals and clasps for service in the last Punjaub War and the Tirah Campaign, 1897–8, have been issued to officers and men of the Bengal Staff Corps entitled thereto; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, anti when the distribution will take place.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The medals and clasps granted for the operations on the Punjaub frontier in 1897–98 have been in course of distribution since last summer. Any delay which may have occurred is due to the medal rolls not having been promptly submitted.

    INDIAN CONFECTIONERY TRADE.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now give the correct figures showing the quantity and value of exports of British confectionery, arid of re-exports of foreign and colonial confectionery of all kinds to India?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have communicated with the Customs on this subject, but I am informed that it would not be possible to compile from the records available iii that Department a trustworthy return of the nature desired.

    FINANCE BILL.
    As amended, considered.
    *LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: I beg to move the following new clause:—
    The proviso at the end of section four of The Finance Act, 1894, shall be repealed, and the following proviso in-inserted in lien thereof:—
    Provided that any property so passing in which the deceased never had an interest, or which under a disposition not made by the deceased passes immediately on the death of the deceased to some person other than a person taking an interest in property passing at the death of the deceased of which the deceased was competent to dispose, shall not be aggregated with any other property but shall be an estate by itself, and the estate duty shall be levied at the proper graduated rate on the principal value thereof; but if any benefit under a disposition not made by the deceased is reserved or given to a person taking an interest in property passing at the death of the deceased of which the deceased was competent to dispose, such benefit shall be aggregated with property of the deceased for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty."
    This new clause which I propose to add to the Bill seeks to remedy an injustice which, I contend, is contained in Clause 4 of the Finance Act of 1894. It is practically the same as an Amendment which I moved last year, but in it I have endeavoured to meet the criticisms by which I was upon that occasion met, and I hope I have succeeded in doing so. If the House will permit me, I will endeavour to show, as briefly and clearly as possible, what is the injustice of which we complain, and what is the remedy which I seek to apply. It is true that Clause 4 of the Finance Act of 1894 gives exemption in certain cases where property passes on a man's death from its being aggregated with free property in his own possession, but in the proviso which I seek to repeal there is an exception to that exemption in respect of lineal ancestor, lineal descendant, husband, or wife. That sounds rather paradoxical, perhaps, but let us look at it in this way. Take the case of a man who dies, having settled property in which he has
    merely a life interest. He also has free property of his own—that is, property which he is free to dispose of, say, for instance, to the extent of £100,000. The settled property passes to his eldest son

    445
    on his death, but as the law stands at present the whole of the property, settled or free, is aggregated. Thus the younger children who succeed to but a small portion of the personal estate, it may be, have to pay the whole rate of duty as upon the settled estate and upon the free property aggregated together. That constitutes, to my mind, a hardship—at least, it is regarded as a hardship by those upon whom the burden has fallen. I do not expect to get very much sympathy in the matter, particularly from hon. Members opposite, for I knew that their view of the matter is that if a man succeeds to anything at all it is fair that he should pay a heavy rate of ditty upon it. But that is not my only point. Take the case of the same man; he also has £100,000, and suppose that he has no sons at all, and that the property passes either to his collaterals or to strangers, under the law as it now stands it is not aggregated at all. That is illogical unfair, and perfectly unsound, and is absolutely opposed to every principled of the succession and legacy duties ever since those duties have been invented, inasmuch as the strangers and the collaterals in succeeding to the same property are paying a less tax than the Meal descendants. Now I am not aware whether the draftsman of this clause knew what would be the effect of the words he used; but of one thing I am quite certain, and that is that the author of the Bill himself, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, did not dream what the effect would be, for when last year I brought up the subject he said that the exemption for which Section 4 provided was only intended to operate in eases where there was no connection between the deceased and the persons to whom the property passed. May I take the case again of the same man with £100,000. Supposing that he has no children, the estate will not be aggregated to pay the full rate of the high estate duty, and his brother who succeeds to the whole settled property and the free property will escape aggregation. That is the injustice of which I complain. I hope that this new, clause, which stands in my name, will be accepted, because it will remove that injustice, and the younger children and the wife will derive the benefit from the property which the deceased has power to dispose of and which he naturally wishes to give to them. Their
    446
    property will escape aggregation with the larger settled property which goes to the older son. As there must always be a quid pro quo in these matters, I am prepared to present to the Chancellor of Exchequer brothers and collaterals. Under my clause the brothers and the collaterals or the strangers who obtain, both settled property and free property—there having been no children—will be aggregated, and only the wife or the younger children will escape. Of course, I know that several criticisms have been levelled against the clause as it stands. Certain Members opposite say that the Finance Act of 1891 should not be touched at all. My answer to that is that whatever they may feel in regard to the Act, I am certain that they do not care to see an injustice done, and that if once an injustice is proved they will seek to remedy it. I think I have proved my case that there is an injustice, and I ask their sympathy and assistance in getting this injustice removed. There arises the question of the loss to the Revenue Which this exemption would cause. I have examined the matter most closely, and I cannot see that any great loss would fall on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The bulk of the property which a man leaves must be either settled property or free property. Suppose man left a million of free property to his children, all that would be aggregated and pay the full rate. In the same way if he left settled property the eldest son would not escape aggregation; the only loss would be in the case of the younger children and the wife, who would succeed to some small portion of the man's free property. Supposing that a millionaire leaves £100,000 of his property free, dividing it amongst his four younger sons, or £25,000 to each, it would be aggregated and pay the 8 per cent. duty. But under my clause they would only pay 1½ per cent. If six millionaires died in the year the loss would only be £21,000, while from the settled property the revenue would receive £480,000. That seems a very small loss to remedy a great injustice. I also ask a little assistance from hon. Members on this side of the
    House. I beg them to remember that when this Act was introduced Members on this side of the House fought it most desperately, and it was talked about on every platform at the last General Election. And I appeal also to the

    447
    Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that some of my logic has penetrated his armour, and that he will be able to agree to my request. I do not profess to have a legal mind, and it is quite possible that the wording of the clause may not be quite satisfactory, but I trust that he will admit the principle of the clause. I beg to move the new clause standing in my name.
    A Clause (Amendment of s. 4 of The Finance Act, 1894, restricting the exemptions thereby given to non-lineals front the principle of aggregation, and extending certain exemptions to persons taking benefits under separate disposition)—(Lord Alwyne Compton)—brought up, and read the first time:—
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): One of the main principles of the Act of 1894 was that all property passing on the death of a deceased person should be aggregated for the purposes of estate duty. It was found impossible in practice by the Government which passed that Act to carry out that principle completely, because it was felt that where property passing on the death of a deceased person included property in which he had no interest, or which he was never at any time competent to dispose of, and which passed to complete strangers—that it would be unfair to aggregate that property with property passing to lineals for the purposes of determining estate duty, and thus entail a higher estate duty on wife, husband, son, or daughter as compared with that which they ought to pay on property passing to them. And therefore the Act as it stands departs from the great principle of the estate duty, which is to have no reference to the person to whom the property passes, but to have reference solely to the property which passes at death of the deceased; and it provides that where property in which the deceased never had any interest, or which he was not competent to dispose of, passes to non-lineals or to strangers, then in that case it will not be aggregated with the rest of the estate for the purposes of the estate duty. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs, when this matter
    448
    was raised last year by my noble friend, pointed out that no doubt to some extent this was a relief to lineals, for the result was that the rate of estate duty was less from this non-aggregation. But my noble friend very fairly said that that did not remove the grievance of lineals, because inter se they still had to pay the rate of duty on the whole of the property passing to them at death, although the main bulk of the property would pass to the elder son, and a very small portion pass to the younger children, on which the younger children would have to pay a high rate of duty. My noble friend endeavoured last year to remedy this grievance. Well, I think he felt that the proposal he made would not satisfactorily effect his desires, and I know that he has devoted very much consideration to the clause which he has just moved. In fact, I think any one who listened to the speech he has just delivered will recognise that he has gone into the minutiæ of a complicated subject with great ability and energy. But I am bound to say—and my noble friend is aware of the fact—that the clause as it stands, if embodied in the law, would not carry out his wishes, because, although it would remedy some grievances, it would effect other grievances even greater than those which he seeks to remedy. He proposes to take away with one hand a certain amount from the Revenue, and to give a considerable amount with the other hand. Having had this matter investigated during the last three weeks very carefully by the Board of Inland Revenue, I do not think the net loss to the Revenue would be very serious. But there would be grievances effected in certain cases, which my noble friend and the hon. Member for Woodbridge who sits beside hint are aware of, and which I am quite sure neither of them would desire to inflict. Now I have a proposal to make to my noble friend. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth and the hon. and learned Member for the Dumfries Burghs were here to-day, I think they would admit that this question of aggregation is not at present in a satisfactory condition; they would admit that there is ground for the complaint my noble friend has made, and that some endeavour should be made to remedy that complaint, without at the same time causing other sources of complaint and of loss to the

    449
    Revenue. Now, if my noble friend will not press this clause to-day, what 1 propose is this. The question is most complicated and most difficult. It is one which if the House would be good enough to take my advice they would not attempt to deal with without inquiry. I would propose that in the course of the autumn a Departmental Committee should be appointed to consider this subject, on which I should be extremely glad to have the services of my noble friend and of other hon. Members who are interested in this matter. We must endeavour to thresh the matter out and arrive at some result, which may be embodied in legislation next year, which will remedy this grievance without causing any great loss to the Revenue or creating other grievances.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe that there are in the House a few Members who think that they understand this subject, but are there any Members who really in their conscience could declare that they do understand the question? I am not so sure but that there are two gentlemen sitting next each other on the Opposition bench—the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Woodbridge—who understand it; and the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who knows everything; and there are my hon. and learned friends, the Members for Dumfries and Haddington, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman who at present holds that office. A good many of these authorities—certainly all on this side of the House—are absent to-day. Far be it from me to intervene in a matter which I cannot say I really understand. But the right hon. Gentleman has made a proposal which appears to me to be exceedingly discreet and wise. There is a danger, in the administration of this most intricate law, of harshness towards individuals, and also a danger of affecting the interests of the State. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, proposes that there shall be a Departmental Committee, or a body of that kind, to inquire into the working of aggregation, and to report what amendment that Committee would recommend on the present practice. I have had an opportunity of knowing to some extent the opinion of the author of the Act, my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, and, although I am not entitled to speak in his name, I under-
    450
    stand he will have no objection to an inquiry into the matter. Of course the inquiry is to affect not the principle but the working of the provision which carries the principle into effect. That being so, I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the opinion on this side of the House, very unworthily represented by me, is in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for a Committee.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for the compliment he has paid me that I know everything. I know perfectly well that under certain circumstances and on some occasions I can be as ignorant as the Leader of the Opposition himself. I have, I admit, taken some trouble in regard to this question of aggregation. As to the particular point referred to by my noble friend, it is one of the grievances called "hard cases." It is not a very large grievance and it exists in a very few limited number of instances. If my noble friend's clause were adopted it would, undoubtedly, not have any great effect on the Revenue. While it would relieve to some extent a hardship, it would bring in further revenue in another direction. But I think it is extremely dangerous to deal with an Act of this sort piecemeal and by way of meeting hard cases as they arise. If you have to deal with it you should deal with principles, and modify them where you can. I will not enlarge upon the Amendment of my noble friend, because I presume, that, after the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will not press it. What I say, however, is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has bowels of compassion for some of the hard cases under this Act, but for others he seems to have none. The case of aggregation I fully admit is one of the difficulties of the Act. I have made a calculation, and have arrived at the conclusion, and I believe I am right, that instead of there being, as was intended under the Act, one aggregation of all property, there are no less than 19 aggregations and segregations of property, and so, instead of having one rate, you have 19 different rates; therefore no doubt aggregation in itself and by itself is a very proper subject for inquiry, but it is not the only subject for inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman

    451
    is going to inquire into one of the hardships which he thinks may be included in this Act, there are others which require attention. There is the assumption that everything a man has in his life is supposed to be a fraud under the Act. There is the assumption under which you give your wife a ring, and die within twelve months, and your wife has to pay duty on all the rest of the property. Then again, if a man gives a reduction of 25 per cent. in the rent to his tenants, duty has to be paid on the 25 per cent. because it is a gift. I could name half a dozen hardships and I therefore trust that if a Departmental Committee is to be appointed it will not be restricted to the question of aggregation.
    MR. HALDANE: I have listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The clause of the noble Lord is one which deals with a subject which I agree is a very intricate one. Aggregation under the Finance Act is simple enough where it is a case merely of two estates belonging to the same testator passing at death. There it is a plain enough principle to treat them as one. But when you come to two estates passing upon the testator's death, one of which has riot been his own, you get to a much more difficult question of justice. It may often be very unfair to tax on the aggregate footing. There are other cases in which it may be apparent that such taxation should take place, and the difficulty is to find the true principle. Now, as the law at present stands it is very defective. If an estate not belonging to the testator passes to one son on his death, and another estate to another son, there is aggregation. It may be a very small estate or a very big estate, and that may be a real injustice; because the duty is not, as is generally the ease with the testator's property, taken out of the bulk of the testator's property before it passes to the beneficiary; the whole burden in that case may fall upon one very ill able to bear it. Take another instance. Property passes on a testator's death to his brother, part of it under the testator's own will, and part of it under an outside settlement. There is no aggregation. This case is as wrong as the other is unjust, yet both arise under the law of the existing Act. The amendment of the noble Lord has much to
    452
    commend it, but in this proposal every reform in so difficult a field wants great consideration. The suggestion of a Committee which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to me to be a very proper one, and a suggestion to which Members on this side of the House should accede. Speaking for myself, I have only one view of what is right with regard to this matter, and that is while being ready to strengthen the Act in order to carry out its principle, to be ready equally to pare off all the minor injustices—sometimes, I admit, galling—arising from the application which has been made of a novel principle in an Act which is without exact precedent.
    LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: In moving the clause I had no intention of going behind the Act. I am perfectly confident that the more the matter is scrutinised the more clearly will it be established that there is an injustice, and as an inquiry has been promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: At the present time, as hon. Members are no doubt aware, the principle of the Act is that the first duty shall be charged upon the principal value, but in the case of agricultural property there is a special proviso which provides that the principal value shall not exceed 25 times the annual value as assessed. The animal value is arrived at by a severe process of deduction. There are deductions for tithes, insurance, rates, management, and rents—in fact, for every conceivable charge on land; and the absolutely irreducible minimum which is left, multiplied by 25, is the principal value to be taxed. That proviso was introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury, the intention of the proviso being clearly shown by the following short extract from the right hon. Gentleman's speech:
    "The main object of my Amendment is to secure that the owners of agricultural land, which is practically, or very nearly, unsaleable, shall pay upon the value which such land will fetch in the open market. Of course I admit that 25 years' purchase is probably far too much for a great deal of the agricultural land of the country."
    There are three ways of dealing with this question. You may either remove

    453
    the proviso and leave agricultural land to be treated on its real principal value, or you may say—and I think this is the method to which I should give preference—that twenty-five years, instead of being the maximum, should be the minimum. Then there is the third method, which I now propose to the House, and that is, to extend to other land beside agricultural land the advantages given to that particular land. I do not think it right that an estate which brings in net £1,000 a year should only pay on £25,000 value. Would a gentleman who has an estate worth £1,000 a year be prepared to take £25,000 for it? I doubt very much whether he would take £40,000 or £50,000; and if there were special advantages attaching to it he might ask £60,000, £70,000, £80,000, or even £90,000. I therefore think there is a specially favourable estimate given to agricultural land, which I think should be extended to other land. Take an example. Two very interesting Returns have been presented to the House with regard to the purchase of land by the War Office on Salisbury Plain. They are not absolutely correct—neither gross nor net rental is correct. We have heard today from the Under Secretary of State for War that the gross rentals are not correct because the farmers are claiming the deductions which they have had for years, part of which are not included. Therefore any deduction I draw from the Returns would be rather less favourable than they appear. I only propose to draw one moral from the figures, and that is, that the gross rental is admittedly higher than the rental the farmers have paid. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue tell us that the average number of years' purchase on which they have been getting duty on the gross annual value is, in the ease of agricultural property, between 16 and 17; in the case of house property—i.e., leasehold, no doubt—between 15 and 16; and in the case of ground rents about 27, so that there is an enormous difference. The gross rental in the return is £9,129, and if we multiply it by 17 it will give the value of the whole property at about £160,000. The War Office paid £476,000 for it, and therefore it comes to this, that while the selling price in the market is £476,000, estate
    454
    duty is only paid on £160,000. Then, if the net rental of £6,316 is multiplied by 25, it gives £157,000. There again there is a very vast difference between the sum on which duty is paid and the actual price of the estate. I think it is right that agricultural land should have these advantages, but I hold also that other classes of land should have the same advantages. I have never ceased in my opposition, not to the death duties, for I regard them as an excellent form of taxation, but to the false principle and the exaggerated rates of duty imposed by the Finance Act of 1894. But if the principle of the Act is to remain, if the rates of the duty under it are to be charged, then let us all be tarred with the same brush as regards personal property, agricultural property, and urban landed property. The reason is that I know perfectly well that if I get everybody tarred with the same brush they will be more ready to join with me in securing Amendments. My difficulty always has been to get the assent of the country gentlemen to the improvement of this Act. They will not assist me because they are taxed so lightly under this 25 years' arrangement; but if I can get all the duty put up to the same rate, then I think they will not be able to wrap themselves in their mantle of 25 years and hold themselves disinterested. It is a very great advantage when we wish to have a bad law repealed to put it in force as far as possible, and it is on that principle that I should like to see a bad law made a little more harsh where it presses least. The Amendment which I propose to move would extend to other land the provisions which now apply to agricultural land. I can hardly expect its ready acceptance by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, I rather expect his opposition, because he told the House he meant to resist whatever I propose in reference to the death duties.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, no!
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Let me quote my right hon. friend's words:
    "I have resisted the insidious proposal of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and, whatever he says, I shall continue to resist him, because I know that his object is to destroy the Act, not legitimately, but by evasions which will prevent its working."

    455
    I have never suggested evasions, but I have proposed Amendments. My right hon. friend says he will always resist my proposals, but he accepted half a dozen of them in the Act of 1896, although he did not think it necessary to inform the House that they were my suggestions. I do not expect that my present proposal will be accepted, but I put it forward for consideration, and the reasons I have given in support of it are not without a certain amount of cogency.
    New Clause (extension of special method of valuation of agricultural property to other landed property)—(Mr. Gibson Bowles)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member's speech is a singular argument in favour of the proposal he has made to the House. He started with the assumption that agricultural land had an unfair advantage in taxation by the proviso in the Finance Act. The hon. Member's original proposal on the Paper was that instead of 25 years being the maximum, it should be the minimum at which agricultural land should be valued. What he really desires is to increase the number of years' purchase at which agricultural land is assessed for the purpose of the death duties, and his argument tended in that direction because he based it on the price given by the War Office for the land recently purchased on Salisbury Plain for manœuvring purposes. When land is purchased under compulsory powers by a Government Department from owners who do not wish to sell, it is not likely that it will be obtained at a low value. It would be absurd to assess for taxation the land generally throughout the country on such a basis. The hon. Member says he thinks the law as it stands is inequitable. What did he say when this very proviso was under discussion? He said it was a concession on the part of the Government, and he went on to point out that the Government had driven rather a hard bargain, as the number of years' purchase of agricultural land was taken at 25 as a maximum, but that so high a figure had never been taken up to the present in regard to agricultural land. Therefore the hon. Member at the time
    456
    did not think it unfair or inequitable to assess agricultural land more lightly than any other class of land or property, Now he desires, by his proposal, not to increase the rate at which agricultural land may be assessed, but to extend a low rate of assessment to other classes of realty. In the first place, I would say, in regard to house property, that there is absolutely no reason for the proposal. House property must necessarily be subject to very large deductions for repairs in assessing its annual value for the purpose of death duties or anything else. I find that the highest average number of years' purchase at which house property has been valued in the course of the last five years for death duty is a little over eighteen years on the net value, which is lower than the average on agricultural land, so that if the proviso of the hon. Member were applied to house property it would have no practical effect, while it would draw a most invidious distinction between freehold and leasehold house property, and I think he will see that himself. But when we come to another head of realty, viz., ground rents, I must venture to say that this proviso would be entirely inapplicable. Ground rents are not too heavily taxed, in my opinion—I have never thought otherwise—for death duty purposes, for the simple reason that they are not liable to the kind of deductions to which the ordinary ownership of real property, such as houses and agricultural land, is liable. I hope I have said enough to convince the House that the proposal of my hon. friend is unnecessary and impracticable.
    MR: JAMES LOWTHER: My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, on questions of this nature, is regarded as a very competent authority, and I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the suggestions in his first clause. I need hardly assure him that I would rather endeavour to forget what is past, and to believe that he placed his clause on the paper simply for the purpose of illustration. My hon. friend talks about an irreducible minimum in connection with the value of agricultural landed property. If my hon. friend had any practical experience he would know differently. We all find that what we thought was an irreducible minimum last year is from various causes still further

    457
    reduced this year. Then, my hon. friend makes no distinction between the case of an estate determined in accordance with an Act of Parliament depriving owners of their land without their consent and that of land disposed of in the open market. I am sorry my hon. friend has so far fallen away from his sphere of usefulness, and I am sorry also to take exception to another line of argument he employed. He talked of the death duties as a very sound source of Revenue, subject to the restrictions which he himself would place upon them. I think they are a very objectionable means of raising Revenue, and I have always held that view. My hon. friend's authority is high—I say it in no sarcastic spirit—no one knows the system and principles of taxation better than he does, but he has not added to his authority by that statement. I have no objection to relief being given to the taxpayer if it he put forward on a fair and thorough basis, but I do not understand when my hon. friend proposes his clause that that is his intention. I think it will have the effect of weakening the slight concession made to agricultural land, and I hope on this ground that he will not press the matter.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I understand, from what fell from the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that certain lands have been sold to the War Office on Salisbury Plain, and that this land would amount, roughly speaking, to £150,000. These lands, I understand, have been sold for something like £400,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says we must take into consideration the fact that something was paid for disturbance. I believe 10 per cent. was paid for disturbance, and that would be in all £165,000. Consequently the landowners are gaining too great an advantage from the present state of the death ditties. Admitting that they have been sold at a fair price, as a matter of fact, landowners at the present moment only pay between one-third and one-half of what other persons with money have to pay for death duties. If that is so, I can only say that landowners gain an undue advantage as against personal property, and the sooner that state of things is altered the better it will he for the community.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in new Clause 3 (inserted in Committee), line 6, after the word "enumerated," to insert the words "and tested."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LOUGH: I desire to point out that we have not seen these clauses before, and we do not know anything about the changes proposed in the Finance Bill which we are considering. The right hon. Gentleman is now proposing an Amendment which we have never seen before. I venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter consideration he will come to the conclusion that we ought to have the Bill printed as it now stands, and let us see it in its new form before he asks us to proceed with it.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I omitted in the first instance to move that the Bill should he reprinted, and afterwards I forgot the matter; but this clause which I desire to amend is the clause imposing the duty on bottled spirits. I should be very happy to read it.
    MR. LOUGH: We cannot take it in like that, because we have not measured carefully the effect of this Amendment.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has, I dare say, explained very fully the meaning of this Amendment. At the same time I must appeal not only to his sense of fairness, but also to his recollection of the ordinary proceedings of the House, whether it is not an extraordinary thing to ask us to discuss this Finance Bill without having had the Bill reprinted with the Amendments inserted in it in Committee. I venture to say that a first-class Bill of this kind should have been reprinted, because the Bill was very substantially amended in Committee. There were great changes made in the rates chargeable on wines and spirits, and there was a long Amendment inserted by the hon. Member for Staffordshire. I notice on the Paper that there is a series of important Amendments by the

    459
    right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will readily see what sort of position we are in. Surely we ought to have the Bill before us after going through Committee, as it issued from that stage, before we are invited to consider any further Amendments upon it. I do dot think it would be unreasonable to adjourn the consideration of this Bill until Thursday, in order that we might have the Bill reprinted.
    MR. CALDWELL: In order to give effect to the contention put forward I will move "that the consideration of this Bill be postponed." The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that the Bill will pass on Thursday if it is taken up then, and the right hon. Gentleman must admit the reasonableness of the claim for delay.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: I beg leave to second the adjournment, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept it, because otherwise a very dangerous precedent may be set. The House has very strict rules in reference to financial matters, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure, would not like to weaken our control in regard to financial legislation. A great many important changes, and certainly a very important new clause, was introduced, which I did not quite understand, by the hon. Member for West Staffordshire. We have not seen the Bill printed in its amended form, and we have not had an opportunity of putting down any Amendment. As a matter of principle, as well as propriety, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone the Bill. The London Government Bill is the next order, and we can get on with that. We will give every facility for the passing of this Bill, but I think we ought to maintain the absolute freedom of the House in dealing with financial matters.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I really think that I have some grounds of complaint, for, although I assumed that the Bill would be reprinted, no notice was given me that objection would be taken to proceeding with the Bill because it has not been reprinted. If this matter had been mentioned to me yesterday—
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER MAN: But we did not know until this morning.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There have not been such important changes in the Bill as hon. Members seem to think, although some changes were made in the wine and spirit duties. However, I do not wish to force the matter on the House, and as the Bill has not been printed I will consent to the debate being adjourned.
    Debate adjourned till Thursday.
    Bill, as amended, to be printed. [Bill 227.]

    LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
    As amended, considered.
    MR. MOON): I think that the attitude of those who have oft-times the control of public records is hardly so sympathetic as it should be, and they do not take that care and interest in them which they should. I think, therefore, that the Amendment I have on the Paper is necessary, especially the last portion empowering new borough councils to spend money in the proper registration of their records.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order The hon. Member cannot, move the last portion, as it clearly involves a charge upon the rates.
    MR. MOON: Then I beg to move the first portion of the clause down to the word "for their preservation."
    New clause—
    "No person shall be eligible as borough councillor who bolds any office the salary of which is paid either wholly or partly out of funds provided either directly or indirectly out of the rates or out of the county fund. It shall be the duty of every new borough council formed under this Act by the incorporation of a single parish to take effectual measures for the care and preservation of all vestry minutes, rate books, valuation books, maps, and all other records belonging to the civil parish, and in cases when a new borough council is formed by the incorporation of several parishes or district boards, it shall he the duty of the new borough council to collect the records belonging to the said parishes and district boards, and to take measures for their preservation. And it shall be lawful for any new borough council to expend money out of the rates fir the preparation and printing of inventories and calendars of such documents which may be deemed to be of historical or public interest."—(Mr. Moon.)
    brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That the clause be read a second time."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR A. J. BALFOUR,): I am in hearty sympathy with my hon. friend. I think indeed, a question has already been put to me in the House on the general subject, and that I have given a specific answer. I do not think it would be desirable to attempt to deal with the preservation of ancient records in a clause of this kind, simply in reference to the case of London, and not in reference to the country at large. I think it is true that all over the country we have a very imperfect record of historic documents, and probably the people who are day by day in occupation of their office do not devote that attention and money that is required in order to keep in order valuable and historic documents which throw a very useful light upon the past. I do not think that anything will be gained for the object which my friend has in view by adopting even only the words he is allowed to move. He cannot move the latter part of his proposed Amendment because that would be out of order, and with regard to the other portion I think the whole matter is amply safeguarded by present legislation. The whole subject is at present under investigation, and a Report will shortly be represented upon which practical steps will, probably, be taken, applying to the whole of the country.
    MR. BRYCE: After the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman I do not propose to support the Amendment. I hear with great pleasure the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and, as he realises the importance of the matter and is only deterred from dealing with it by the fact that it should be dealt with comprehensively, I hope that when he does deal with the matter, having regard to the great importance of the question, he will precede any step which he intends to take by having a systematic inquiry.
    MR. MOON: I beg leave to withdraw the clause.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The object of the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper is to provide an easy, expeditious and cheap method of dealing with any questions of law that may arise with reference to this Bill. The proposed clause is merely a reproduction of Clause 8, which was put into the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894. In both cases, but especially as regards the Act of 1888, that clause has been largely availed of and has been found very useful. I do not think anyone can object to the clause, because it does not make this mode of raising a question exclusive, but merely provides that it shall be raised in accordance with the precedent I have referred to. I beg to move the clause.
    New clause—
    "If any question arises, or is about to arise, as to whether any power, duty, or liability is or is not transferred by or under this Act to the council of any metropolitan borough, or any property is or is not vested in any such council, that question, without prejudice to any other mode of trying it, may, on the application of the council, be submitted for decision to the High Court in such summary manner as, subject to any rules of Court, may be directed by the Court; and the Court, after hearing such parties and taking such evidence (if any) as it thinks just, shall decide the question."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    brought up and read the first time.
    Motion made and Question proposed—
    "That the clause be now read a second time."
    THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I doubt whether this clause will be as necessary as the one in the Acts of 1888 and 1894; at the same time I have no objection to it whatever.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read the first and second time, and added.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: The Amendment I now propose is a drafting Amendment, and at the same time rests upon the principle which I understood the House and Committee adopted, namely, that the whole of the county outside the City is to be comprised in the Schedule of the Bill. That being so, the wording of the section is not very applicable to the case, and this Amendment is merely to make it applicable.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Clause 1, page 1, line 20, after 'administrator,' to insert 'and to establish and incorporate a council for each of the boroughs so formed.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The object of these Amendments taken altogether is to get rid of any friction that is likely to arise in the creation of areas outside London. That is one of the objects for which the Bill was introduced, and I am bound to say that the most extraordinary state of things that was ever seen in this House occurred on the last evening of this discussion, when we had about 17 areas scheduled in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury cut and carved out the rest of London at his own sweet will. What was done was done, I am glad to say, in a very satisfactory manner, and I do not propose to oppose this Amendment. I am glad now that there is so little left for the Commissioners to deal with, and I think we ought to ask the Government whether, under the circumstances, it is necessary to appoint special Commissioners.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: It seems to me the hon. Gentleman is rather hard to please. He first congratulates the Government on carving up the boroughs, and then he objects to the way in which it is done. The arrangement has been eminently successful. It was impossible to lay down a hard and fast proposition, and I think we have approached the limit of perfection as nearly as poor human nature can be expected to approach it. We may confidently expect that when the Schedule does appear it will embrace nearly all London. I think this Amendment should he accepted.
    *COLONEL HUGHES: The whole of London is included, except, perhaps, Stoke Newington.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have arranged for that.
    *COLONEL HUGHES: If that is to be a separate borough, I think it ought to be so decided.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The Solicitor-General said that his Amendment was to adapt the Bill to the Schedule. The Schedule is not complete, and I do not think there is anything relating to the way in which Stoke Newington is to he dealt with. That being so, I do think the Committee is entitled to ask the Government now how they intend to proceed in that matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should suggest that that should be reserved till we reach the Schedule, when it will be open to hon. Members to discuss this matter and modify the Schedule; in which case we shall have to remodel the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Clause 1, page 1, line 21, to leave out sub-section (b)."—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
    *COLONEL HUGHES: I want to know what is going to be done in Stoke Newington. I do not see how such cases as Stoke Newington can be dealt with if this sub-section is taken out. If Stoke Newington, with a population of only 30,000 or 40,000, is to be made into a borough, why should not Plumstead, with a population of 62,000, have the same privileges?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend will, I think, see that if I complied with his desire I would be gradually dragged into a most inconvenient discussion on the Schedule. My hon. friend will have full opportunity on the Schedule of explaining his views in regard to Stoke Newington and Plumstead, and I very earnestly hope that he will reserve to that occasion any controversial matter he may desire to bring forward.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. COURTNEY: In discussing this question of the eligibility of women to serve as aldermen or councillors in the new borough councils, I hope that the House will remain in the same good temper which prevailed when the subject was under discussion on a former occasion. I believe it is admitted on all hands that it is neces-

    465
    sary that in the Bill this question should be settled by express words. As the Bill now stands there arc various opinions as to what it effects. Some hold that women are clearly eligible to sit as councillors, but not as aldermen; while others hold that women are not only eligible to sit as councillors and aldermen, but are eligible even to become mayors. I think it is well to dismiss the question altogether of the interpretation of the Bill as it stands, and to decide expressly whether women shall be eligible to sit as councillors and aldermen. These councils which we are now creating will take over with very little alteration the work of the existing vestries. It may be that in the future that work will be enlarged, and I shall be glad to see every opportunity seized to increase the scope of the work; but I do not think that the work will be seriously enlarged for sonar time. Now, on the vestries as at present constituted women sit. They are eligible to be elected, and they are elected. I find there is a large concurrence of opinion from those who have had practical experience of the work of women on vestries that there is much appropriate work for them to do, which cannot be discharged with equal qualifications and ability by the male members of the councils. The most important work of the new borough councils for a long time will be sanitary work; and in relation to the provision of sanitation, the revision of existing deficiencies, suggestions for the amendment of sanitary legislation, and, above all, sanitary inspection and supervision, women have shown themselves in the vestries to be pre-eminently qualified. I am aware that in some vestries—at least in one vestry—a motion has been carried against the admission of women to the councils. We should take that for what it is worth; but against the significance attached to the fact that the adverse motion had been carried by a majority in the Kensington Vestry, I would put this circumstance, that even while the Bill has been passing through the House there have been elections to the vestries all over London, and that a woman has been elected to sit in that particular vestry, and in the case of other vestries women have been elected. The electors therefore have attested their desire that women should be eligible to sit in vestries and councils. When the House considers the character
    466
    of vestry work, the experience we have had of women sitting on the vestries, and this happy state of opinion on the part of the electors, that they at least desire that women should remain eligible, would it not be a very strong action on the part of the House to declare that, although they had been eligible and had served with usefulness, and even with distinction, in the past, they should be no longer eligible? I call scarcely believe that a majority in this House will, under these circumstances, take away the franchise and the eligibility which have been found to be a valuable element in the constitution of the vestries. We now come to the question of aldermen, which is a different question, because hitherto the vestries have had no aldermen. There are several Members in this House who object to aldermen altogether, but we cannot enter on that question now, since the House has decided to accept the principle that aldermen are to form part of the new boroughs. But the question arises whether women as well as men should be eligible to serve as aldermen. Now I hold that the work to be discharged justifies the eligibility of women as aldermen as much as councillors. There is this difference only between the two eases. Women as councillors might have to undergo contested elections, whereas women as aldermen will obtain their position by the co-option of the elected members of the council. I could conceive many Members objecting to women having to face the exigencies and experiences of a contested election, but that argument, whatever it is worth, does not at all apply to women being declared eligible to serve as aldermen. Many are quite ready to have women as aldermen who would hesitate to have them as councillors, and I cannot see any possible reason why those who want women to be councillors can object to women being aldermen. My proposal goes no fort her than that. Some desire that women should be eligible as mayors, but I make no such proposition. There is one substantial reason why the line should be drawn at mayors, and that is, that the mayors of the new councils will be ex officio justices of the peace. Now, what reason is there why women who are now eligible as vestry-women and councillors should not be aldermen? The only reason alleged, that I know of, is the suggestion that if this

    467
    provision is introduced into the constitution of the metropolitan boroughs it will be necessary to carry their eligibility into all the municipal boroughs throughout the length and breadth of the country. I see no necessity for carrying that eligibility further than is now proposed, unless it is found that the experiment now suggested works well, and if it works well I do not know why it should not be so extended. But the reason for adopting the proposal here is, it is something that stands by itself, and does not require that the experiment should be carried further than it is now proposed to be carried. The question of the boroughs in the country may be considered in the future if the experience of London warrants making the same proposal in respect to these country boroughs. I beg to propose the Amendment standing in my name.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 2, by inserting after the word 'councillors,' the words 'and no person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected or being an alderman or a councillor.'"—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    *MR. E. BOULNOIS: I do not at all quarrel with the decision which has placed my right hon. friend in front of me, because he has put the issue before the House in a form which, if different from mine, is, at all events, a definite issue, and one on which the House can come to a decision, and set the matter at rest. The House will recollect that the question whether women should be eligible as councillors, aldermen, or mayors was practically left at the close of the debate in the state precisely where it was when the Bill was introduced. There were three Divisions taken in Committee, each contradicting the other, and the whole question was left in a hopeless tangle from which my right hon. friend the Leader of the House promised to extricate it on the Report stage. I should like to remind the House that on the Second Reading of the Bill the First Lord of the Treasury, in answer to a question, said there was no doubt that under the Bill women could sit as councillors, but that, there was considerable doubt as to whether they could sit as mayors or aldermen.
    468
    But I am anxious that they should not sit either as councillors or aldermen. I am aware that the action which I have taken in this matter is not approved of by that portion of the fair sex which set up a claim to be on an equality with men in most things, if not in all, and who are everlastingly proclaiming to the world their rights and their wrongs. On the other hand, I feel satisfied in my own mind that if the House were to reject the proposal before it the bulk of the women in the country would be glad. The proposal to drag them and their sisters into municipal and political warfare—because it must come to this—is not regarded with favour by the great majority of women throughout the country. I read with some interest the report of a meeting held the other day by the Women's Liberal Federation, at which one of the speakers, a woman, denounced as "venomous persons" those who are opposed to the women's franchise. I am bound to assume I am one of those "venomous persons" whom these ladies would like to see out of Parliament; and I have no doubt my punishment will come in due course when the Government sees fit to dissolve Parliament. My right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin has said that women are eminently qualified to undertake the duties which would be imposed on the councils of these new boroughs. He alluded to only one duty, the supervision of sanitation. But I should like to ask my right hon. friend, what do women know about building operations, street and road-making, drain-making, sewer-inspection, rate-making, and the assessment of houses? I could enumerate an infinity of other duties which, it is clear to my mind, a woman cannot discharge. It is true, I admit, that women already sit on some of the metropolitan vestries, and my right hon. friend says they have served with distinction. Well, that is not my experience. I could count on my fingers the women who sit on vestries in the metropolis, and my experience is that they are failures, and, in addition to that, they are practically nonentities.—["Oh! oh!" and "Hear! hear!"]—I quite understand that those hon. Members who are in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition object to my describing these women as "failures" and "nonentities," but that is, of course, my personal opinion. We do not want these ladies on the borough

    469
    councils. I believe the majority of the Members who desire to see this Bill effective want to have men elected on these new councils who have business capabilities, who have been trained to public life, and who would bring to bear on the deliberations and decisions of these councils practical experience. I am aware that women sit on boards of guardians throughout the country, and am perfectly willing to admit that they do very good service on these boards. There are duties in connection with the working of boards of guardians which women can very properly undertake, especially amongst the women and children in the workhouses, and on the outdoor roll. But, because on some of these bodies women are doing good service, is that any good reason why they should be admitted to other spheres where, in my view, they would be altogether out of place? I venture to say that, if their claim to sit on the new borough councils is admitted, and the House this evening says by its vote that they shall be eligible for these councils, their ambition will lead them to still higher flights. They will want the Parliamentary franchise, and even other higher privileges. At the risk of producing another shudder in the breast of the Leader of the House, I must repeat that if the House grants the privilege to women of sitting as councillors or alder-men in these councils, there is no logical! reason whatever for excluding them here-after from the House of Commons itself. At a meeting which was held in London within the last few days of a great number of ladies who are in favour of this privilege being accorded to them, and where some gentlemen more or less prominent in Parliament were present, the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth made a characteristic speech, in which he said that the House of Commons was a curious body (which we all admit, of course)—that one day it passed a law against gambling, and the next day it adjourned for the Derby. And the hon. Baronet went on to say that if women sat in Parliament they would do nothing so inconsistent as that. He added that women were as fit as males were to sit in Parliament. Sir Arthur Arnold, at the same meeting, said he believed strongly that the office of Archbishop of Canterbury should be open to women. I think that reduces the matter almost to an absurdity. So that if the women themselves do not
    470
    aspire to priestly office, there are some men who would claim that for them. If we admit women as councillors to the new boroughs, it is practically impossible to exclude them from the offices of aldermen and mayor. All I can say is that if in addition to the House allowing women to sit as councilors they also allow that they should be eligible as mayors and aldermen, then the whole thing will be reduced to an absurdity and a farce. I only know one case where a woman has been elected as a mayor, and that was in New Zealand, where women have the franchise and other privileges. I hold in my hand a letter in which it is stated:—
    "There has been only one Lady Mayor in New Zealand. She was Mrs. Yates, and she held office in the town of onehunga, near Auckland, in the year 1894. The proceedings at her local Council were often ill-tempered and disorderly, and though she has since asked the ratepayers to re-elect her they have not done so.
    Well, I do not want myself to see an imitation of that kind in this country. The great argument which I venture to use against women being admitted is that they do not at present sit on the provincial municipalities, nor on the London County Council; but I cannot for a moment believe that the House of Commons, having admitted women into active public life in the borough councils, could deny them the privilege of sitting in provincial municipalities. For my part, I sincerely hope that the House will come to a definite issue upon this subject, and that they will resolve that women are not entitled to be either councillors, aldermen, or mayors.
    *SIR H.H. FOWLER: I hope the House will allow me to say a word or two on this question, because I can claim some responsibility for the legislation which at present prevails with reference to the rural districts, the urban districts, and London, because I think it was by the Act of 1894 that all these steps were taken. There is no doubt this question with reference to the position of women requires to be dealt with rather more straightforwardly than it has been by this House. There has been a desire, perhaps not an unnatural desire having regard to some considerations, to shirk the question, and the House has adopted a variety of methods from time to time of postponing anything like a

    471
    straightforward decision upon the question, which, after all, is of great importance; and I think it is due to the country and to the House of Commons, if the House has views, whether they be adverse or favourable, that they should state them in the open. I would draw a line in the first instance, in what I have to say to-night, between administrative and legislative work. The first step in what is called the enfranchisement of women, but what I would rather call the first step in the State availing itself of the services of women, was in the constitution of school boards, and I do not think that anybody who has served on school boards and knows any-thing of the working of school board education would deny the fact that the presence of women on school boards has been of very great value with reference to female education. Personally, I go so far as to say that I do not think a school board is properly constituted unless there is a woman upon that school board. And I am satisfied that, strong as men may be, and wise as men may be, they never will be able to get that control over female education which an efficient school board ought to have unless they are assisted by ladies in carrying out the administration. Well, Sir, when I went to the Local Government Board I found that there was a considerable difference of legal opinion as to whether women were capable of being elected on boards of guardians. The Local Government Board had avoided, I think under legal advice, giving any very definite opinion upon this question, but I felt so strongly on the point that I issued a circular to the various boards of guardians strongly recommending the election of women on boards of guardians. I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman has just uttered with reference to the great value—I may say the inestimable value—of women upon boards of guardians. So long as you have pauper children, and so long as you have pauper women, you are bound to have women placed in a position of responsibility and control with reference to the management of workhouses and the relief of the poor. The next important step was when, in the Act of 1894, we extended the powers, or rather altered the constitution, of boards of guardians, and made them, in fact, rural councils, reconstructing the whole system of urban councils at the same time. I do not remember that there
    472
    was any strong debate upon the subject, but at all events Parliament affirmed the principle that women might be upon parish councils, rural district councils, boards of guardians, and urban councils; and it is a narrow line dividing urban district councils from municipal boroughs. But by that Act the whole system of urban district elections was applied to London vestries, who then were the responsible local authorities in London. We are now asked to say that what we did in 1894 was wrong, when women were allowed to serve on the vestries like those of Paddington, Islington, &c., and that women are not competent to serve on those new bodies which are to have the duties of the original authorities. When we are asked to make a change such as this, the onus probandi is upon those who ask that that change may be made. The first question is, Has the election of women been a failure? I do not think the evidence that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has given is at all conclusive upon that point. He has been rather severe on the qualifications of the ladies, and on the manner in which they discharge their duties. So far as I have been able to form an opinion, they have discharged their duties with great efficiency and success, and to the advantage of the health of the people of London, who, with almost unanimity, will welcome the presence of women on these new governing bodies. Under these circumstances, I think we should prefer that a very strong case should be made out before we reject services which have been already rendered with efficiency and success. My right hon. friend time Member for Bodmin would exclude women from the office of mayor, recognising that there must be a line drawn somewhere in reference to the extent of female public work. I am bound to tell the House that women are eligible as chairmen of urban district councils, though the House accepted my suggestion specifically prohibiting women from becoming magistrates during their term of office. I now come to a point on which I should like to speak very plainly. While I advocate most strongly the presence of women on these administrative bodies, while I believe they are capable of rendering the greatest service to boards of guardians, urban councils, and district councils, and, I believe, to the councils in London, I am

    473
    not prepared to go further in that direction. I am prepared, in fact, to steadfastly and persistently oppose any attempt to convert women either into mayors, or magistrates, or archbishops, or heads of police, or generals in the Army, or Members of Parliament. I believe that what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said on thy last occasion when this question came before the House represented the opinion of a vast majority of the people of this country and all sides of politics, viz., that the presence of ladies in this House would on public grounds be intolerable. I think we ought to talk plainly on this point. While we advocate that the fullest scope should be given to fema1e efficiency and female assistance in public work, we ought not to keep in the background that it is our firm and unalterable determination not to proceed in a direction that would render Parliament ridiculous and the administration of public affairs in this country impossible. I think it right to say plainly, intending as I do to support the motion of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, that I do not regard this as a link in a long chain of events leading to something else. There is a line to be drawn, beyond which I do not believe the people of the country will ever go; but that is no reason why London should be deprived of the great advantage of services rendered by ladies in local administration.
    MR. COHEN: As a matter of right and justice, and in the interests of making these new borough councils as successful as the vestries which they going to supersede, I earnestly hope that this House will by a very large majority pass this Amendment.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I, like my right hon. friend the Member of for Wolverhampton, am logical in these matters. I have voted on all occasions not only against women being members of councils and of the House of Commons, but against them having votes at all, and I always contemplate doing so as long as I have the honour of being a Member of this House. At the present moment you do not allow women to sit on municipal bodies in the country. Why, then, should an exception be made in the case of London? If you admit women in Loudon, the precedent would be followed
    474
    in the provinces, and the next step would be a claim for women to sit in the House of Commons. I can see the thin end of the wedge in this proposition. Let hon. Members be firm. Let them be men. I will yield to none in my admiration for women. Woman is the right person, provided she is in her right place. There are some who have not been successes as members of their own sex, and who like to muddle and meddle in politics in the hope that they may be successes as men. Although there are weak men on the Opposition side of the House, I am glad to see stalwarts on the other side. The majority of women will not approve of this proposal. The few women who come forward and make a great noise are never supported by their own sex. The right hon. Member for Bodmin was not logical, because he himself does not propose that women should be eligible for the office of mayor. He passed that point over insidiously with a long joke. Can the right hon. Gentleman promise that he will always vote against women being eligible for the office of mayor or for membership to the House of Commons? I hope the House will decide that in the important councils of the nation men, and men only, shall sit.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Hon. Members opposite have made a distinguished convert in the hon. Member who has just spoken.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I was opposed to women having votes before half the hon. Gentlemen opposite were born.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Yes, but the hon. Member, who is supposed to be a great Radical, has used the most familiar of Tory arguments against all reform. It is that if something were conceded something else would be forthwith demanded. My hon. friend is affrighted at the prospect of women sitting in this House. The First Lord of the Treasury says that the idea is intolerable, but I will venture on this prediction—that if the time arrives when the electors of this country desire to send women to this House the right hon. Gentleman will look upon this question in a very different light. Hon. Members opposite admit that the services of women

    475
    on school boards and boards of guardians have been valuable. Let me remind the House that there was a time when the appearance of women on those boards was quite a novelty, and when the pre- diction was freely indulged in that their presence would be injurious. That feeling has now entirely disappeared, and no one wishes to exclude them from those boards. The principle on which I should decide all these questions is the principle of freedom—freedom on the part of those who aspire to positions of public importance, and freedom on the part of the constituencies to send whom they please to Parliament or to other public bodies. The proposal to exclude women is, in my opinion, one the would be unjust to the women of this country and injurious to the country as a whole.
    MR. HEY WOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham): Surely if the people wish to be represented by women, and if they think that their interests would be served by women representatives on the newly created
    boroughs, they should be permitted to have them. No woman would be compelled to serve or to come forward as a candidate. We recognise that women can fill very useful positions, and I shall certainly vote for this Amendment, which puts it in the power of the electors themselves to choose whether they will or will not be represented by women. But, apart from that, I should vote for this Amendment on the grounds of humanity. If I know anything of the history of municipal life, I am inclined to think that the newly created boroughs will celebrate their incorporation by banquets to which Members of this House will probably be invited, and it is very desirable that they should have the guiding hand of women in these matters. I sincerely hope that women will be elected to the borough councils, believing, as I do, that they will discharge good and serviceable work.
    Question put—
    The House divided. Ayes, 196; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 171.)

    Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose.)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (Dvnpt.)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Shaw, Thomas {Hawick B.)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Williams, JohnCarvell(Notts.)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Spencer, Ernest

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow,W.)

    Stanley, Henry M.(Lambeth)

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Wilson, Hen. J. (York, W.R.)

    Pease, H. P. (Darlington)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Pender, Sir James

    Strauss, Arthur

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Woodall, William

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Hudd'f'd)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Talbot,Rt.Hn.J. G.(Oxf'd Univ

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Price, Robert John

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wylie, Alexander

    Purvis, Robert

    Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E)

    Wyndham, George

    Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

    Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E.)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

    Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Robson. William Snowdon

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Mr. Heywood Johnstone

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

    and Mr. Cohen.

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Engledew, Charles John

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Ferdell, Sir T. George

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Bagot,Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

    Followes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Finch, George H.

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    M`Donnell,Dr.M.A.(Queen'sC

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Barry,RtHnAH.Smith-(Hunts

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Bathurst, Hn. Alien Benjamin

    Flower, Ernest

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    M'Ewan, William

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Garfit, William

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Gibbs,HnAGH (City of Lond.

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

    Gibbs, Hon. V.(St. Albans)

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Bowles, T.Gibson (King'sLynn

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Meysey, Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Brassey, Albert

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Goschen,RtHnG.J.(StGeorge's

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Gretton, John

    More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

    Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.Glasgow

    Gunter, Colonel

    Morgan,Hn.Fred(Monm'thsh.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute)

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derby.)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Myers, William Henry

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

    Palmer, George W. (Reading)

    Chamberlain,J.Autsten(Worc'r

    Hardy, Laurence

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Charrington, Spencer

    Henderson, Alexander

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

    Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Pym, C. Guy

    Coddington, Sir William

    Howard, Joseph

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Howell, William Tudor

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

    Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

    Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlep'l)

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Jollilfe. Hon. H. George

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Rigby, John K. D. W.-

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fredr D.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Knowles, Lees

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Labouchere, Henry

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Lafore, Alfred

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lambert, George

    Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

    M. PICKERSGILL: The Amendment I have to move is—
    "To leave out in Clause 2, page 2, lines 5 and 6 the words 'that number being divisible by three.'"
    In the debate on this question in Committee the Government found itself obliged to make a concession, which provided that any representation sent to the Local Government Board by a borough council supported by a two-thirds majority in favour of triennial elections would be considered. Whatever the rule is, it ought to be uniform over the whole of London; and by the omission which I propose triennial elections could be obtained. I have no doubt that a substantial majority on the newly created councils will be in favour of triennial elections, but it is not reasonable to suppose that, having regard to the severity of the conditions, all the councils will pass the necessary resolution. It would be absurd to have triennial elections in one district and annual elections in another, and I hope the Government will favourably consider the Amendment I now move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'that number being divisible by three.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill).
    Question proposed—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    Silt R. B. FINLAY: The proposal made by the hon. and learned Member is, I take it, to leave out these words in order afterwards to insert other words providing for triennial elections over London. When this matter was discussed in Committee a certain solution was arrived at, and I have come to the conclusion that it is better, after considering the views of hon. Members on both sides, that we should adhere to that arrangement.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The House will remember that there was a considerable feeling in favour of triennial elections, and ultimately the Government made the proposal now in the Bill. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to adhere to that compromise. I quite agree that the wording may require some alteration, and I hope the Government will accept an Amendment I propose to move in regard to it. If proper option is given to adopt triennial elections, they will be universally adopted, and therefore the desire we have in our minds will be achieved.
    MR. STEADMAN: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Bethnal Green. I unaware of the compromise arrived at when the Bill was discussed in Committee, but although the borough councils may vote by a two-think majority in favour of triennial elections, representations must afterwards be made to the Local Government Board for their consideration. I believe the same provision was made in the Local Government Act of 1894. Previous to that Act, the elections for Poor Law guardians in London took place annually, but the moment the hoards of guardians had the opportunity for deciding whether they should have annual or triennial elections, they universally decided in favour of the latter. There we have a practical illustration of the feeling in London on this question; and, that being so, why should we not at once make provision in the Bill for triennial elections, without putting the borough councils to the cost of deciding for themselves, when we know by past experience what their opinions will be? There is another important point attached to this Amendment. The chief object of this Bill is to induce the electors to take an interest in local affairs. In the year 1900 this Bill will come into operation. In November we shall have the first elections for the new boroughs, and in the same month we shall have the elections

    481
    for the London School Board. In March, 1901, we shall have the London County Council elections; in the following month the elections for boards of guardians in London, and possibly in the summer we may have Parliamentary elections, and if this Bill is allowed to stand in its present form we may have in November of that year also the animal elections for the borough councils; so that in 1901 we shall have certainly three, and possibly four, elections. When we ask the people to vote in such a number of elections, they will tell us that they are sick and tired of voting. The School Board, the London County Council, and the new borough councils are bodies of such an important character that we are anxious for the electorate of London to take in interest in their election by voting. My own experience in these local matters is that where you have a constant recurrence of elections you cannot get the people to take an interest in them, and for that reason I will support the Amendment.
    MR. LOUGH: These numerous elections are very expensive, and the benefit conferred by this Amendment would be very much appreciated in the divisions referred to. Upon this point I desire to claim the attention of the House, because I am sure that this matter requires more consideration than has yet been given to it. The clause deals with the number of councillors which shall be allotted to each ward. Take my particular division. It has five wards, and the number for each ward are to be selected having regard to rateable value and population. That would be extremely difficult, but we might get over it. But mark the other condition—that the selection of the number must be divisible by three. It must be either three, six, or nine, and you cannot have four, five, seven, eight, or ten. It is hard enough to observe the conditions with regard to population and rateable value, but when you divide by three you put a burden upon the people which will prove to be very onerous. This is no fancied argument, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who has all through adopted a conciliatory attitude, will give it careful consideration. The Solicitor-General was not very strong in opposing this Amendment, and he approached it in the way which he generally adopts when he wants to draw a little more opinion from the House. In every ward you prevent a number of
    482
    councillors that might be suitable, because the number must be divided by three. Everyone is agreed that in most of these divisions the triennial system will be adopted. We are now trying to ride both horses as the Bill stands, and therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this proposal his careful consideration.
    *SIR E. CLARKE: I hope my right hon. friend will not be induced by compliments passed upon his conciliatory disposition to abandon what is really an important part of this Bill by accepting what is a very unreasonable and a somewhat ungracious Amendment. The question was fully argued when the subject of triennial elections was discussed, and strong opinions were expressed on both sides. I hold myself a very strong opinion in favour of annual elections, and, as so much has been said about a larger public interest being aroused by triennial elections, I cannot help remembering the mischief that has been done by the constant intervention of political organisation. There is really nothing in the objection that has just been made, and which my right hon. friend is so solemnly exhorted to take into consideration. The boundaries will be fixed with due regard to population and rateable value in such proportion as will make them fairly equal. The Government made a great concession by inserting a clause under which it was left to the borough council to have an opportunity of addressing the Local Government Board, when that application represented the opinion of a majority of the whole council, to have the election once in three years. That was a considerable concession. It was a compromise which has been frankly accepted by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and surely it is very unreasonable, under the cover of compliments, to endeavour now to upset this decision.
    MR. BANBURY: I was very strongly in favour of triennial elections when the question came up, but in view of the fact that the Government made a concession in Committee in favour of triennial elections, I feel it my duty upon this occasion to support the Government.
    The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 172.)

    AYES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glas'w)

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

    Allen,Wm.(New.underLyme)

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. B

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles S.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Crombie, John William.

    Heath, James

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Curran, Thomas B.(Donegal)

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Asquith,RtHonHerbertHenry

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Austin, M. (Limerick, V.)

    Davitt, Michael

    Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

    Baird, John Geo. Alexander

    Denny, Colonel

    Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

    Baker, Sir John

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)

    Dillon, John

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Balfour. Rt Hn. G.W. (Leeds)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

    Johnson-Ferguson JabezEdw.

    Barton,Dunbar Plunket

    Drucker, A.

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Duckworth, James

    Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohnH.

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Dunn, Sir William

    Kimber, Henry

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Ellis, John Edward

    Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth

    Bhownagree, Sir M.M

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Billson, Alfred

    Evershed, Sydney

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Leng, Sir John

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

    Llewelyn, Sir P. (Swansea)

    Bryce, Et. Hon. James

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Bullard Sir Harry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Burns, John

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lough, Thomas

    Burt, Thomas

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert P.-

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Butcher John George

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Fry, Lewis

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Caldwell, James

    Galloway, William Johnson

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Gold, Charles

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Carvill, Patrick G Hamilton

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    M`Iver, Sir Lewis (Edith W.)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Cawley, Frederick

    Gourley, Sir Edward T.

    M'Killop, James

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Maddison, Fred.

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Haldane,Richard Burson

    Montagu, Hn. J. S. (Hants.)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Harwood, George

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

    Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose.)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (Dvnpt.)

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Shaw, Thomas {Hawick B.)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Williams, JohnCarvell(Notts.)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Spencer, Ernest

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow,W.)

    Stanley, Henry M.(Lambeth)

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Wilson, Hen. J. (York, W.R.)

    Pease, H. P. (Darlington)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Pender, Sir James

    Strauss, Arthur

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Woodall, William

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Hudd'f'd)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Talbot,Rt.Hn.J. G.(Oxf'd Univ

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Price, Robert John

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wylie, Alexander

    Purvis, Robert

    Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen,E)

    Wyndham, George

    Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

    Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E.)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

    Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Robson. William Snowdon

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Mr. Heywood Johnstone

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

    and Mr. Cohen.

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Engledew, Charles John

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Ferdell, Sir T. George

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Bagot,Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

    Followes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Finch, George H.

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    M`Donnell,Dr.M.A.(Queen'sC

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Barry,RtHnAH.Smith-(Hunts

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Bathurst, Hn. Alien Benjamin

    Flower, Ernest

    M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    M'Ewan, William

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Garfit, William

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Gibbs,HnAGH (City of Lond.

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

    Gibbs, Hon. V.(St. Albans)

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Bowles, T.Gibson (King'sLynn

    Godson, Sir Augustus F.

    Meysey, Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Brassey, Albert

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Goschen,RtHnG.J.(StGeorge's

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Gretton, John

    More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

    Campbell,Rt.Hn.J.A.Glasgow

    Gunter, Colonel

    Morgan,Hn.Fred(Monm'thsh.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute)

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derby.)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Myers, William Henry

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

    Palmer, George W. (Reading)

    Chamberlain,J.Autsten(Worc'r

    Hardy, Laurence

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Charrington, Spencer

    Henderson, Alexander

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

    Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Pym, C. Guy

    Coddington, Sir William

    Howard, Joseph

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Howell, William Tudor

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Cook, Fred. L. (Lambeth)

    Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

    Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlep'l)

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Jollilfe. Hon. H. George

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Rigby, John K. D. W.-

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fredr D.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Knowles, Lees

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Labouchere, Henry

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Lafore, Alfred

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lambert, George

    Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Vincent, Col. SirC. E. Howard

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Stewart, Sir Mk.J.M'Taggart

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

    Stock, James Henry

    Wanklyn,James Leslie

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R (Bath)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Thorburn, Walter

    Webster, R. G (St. Pancras)

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Tully, Jasper

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Banbury.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edw.

    Lowles, John

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Finch, George H.

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Finlay Sir RobertBannatyne

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Hen.

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Lucas-Shadsell, William

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    fisher William Hayes

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    FitzGerald,SirRobertPenrose-

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    M'Arthur,William {Cornwall)

    Baird, John George A.

    Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

    M'Calmont, H.L.B.(Cambs.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    M'Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim,E.)

    Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manchr)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    M'Ewan, William

    Balfour, Rt.Hn. G.W.(Leeds)

    Flower, Ernest

    M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Folkestone, Viscount

    M'Killop, James

    Barnes, Dunbar Plunket

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

    Beach, RtHnSirM.H. (Bristol)

    Fry, Lewis

    Maple, Sir Join Blundell

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

    Garfit, William

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gedge, Sydney

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gibbons. J. Lloyd

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Bethell, Commander

    Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(CityofLond

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Giles, Charles Tyrell

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    More,Robt,Jasper Shropshire)

    Bowles, T. G. (Kings Lynn)

    Gordon,Hon.John Edward

    Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'ths.)

    Brassey, Albert

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Morton, Ar.H.A.(Deptford)

    Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Muntz, Phillip A.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Gretton, John

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G.(Bute)

    Burt, Thomas

    Myers, William Henry

    Butcher, John George

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Campbell, RtHnJ.A.(Glasgow

    Halsey, Thomas Frederick

    Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Hanbury,Rt. Hon. Robert W.

    Pender, Sir James

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Hardy, Laurence

    Penn, John

    Cavendish, VCW(Derbyshire)

    Hatch, Ernest F. George

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Heath, James

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Price, Robert John

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Purvis, Robert

    Chamberlain, J. A (Worc'r)

    Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Holland, W. H. (York, W. R)

    Quitter, Sir Cuthbert

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

    Howard, Joseph

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Howell, William Tudor

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matt. W.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Robertson,Herbert(Hackney)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W. Grice-

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

    Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd)

    Round, James

    Corbett,A.Cameron (Glasgow)

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Round, James

    Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

    Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Jolliffe, Hon H. George

    Rutherford, John

    Curzon, Viscount

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Keswick, William

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Kimber, Henry

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Denny, Colonel

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Knowles, Lees

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Lafone, Alfred

    Smith, Hon. W.F.D.(Strand)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lambert, George

    Spencer, Ernest

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Spicer, Albert

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawrence, W. F.(Liverpool)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

    Drucker, A.

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Llewelyn, Sir D-(Swansea)

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Elliot, Hon. A. RalphDouglas

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.

    Stock, James Henry

    Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Evershed, Sydney

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wanklyn, James Leslie.

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Wodehouse, RtHnE.R.(Bath)

    Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G. (Ox. Uni)

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.-

    Tennant, Harold John

    Webster, SirR.E.(L of Wight)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Thorburn, Walter

    Wharton, Rt. Hon J. Lloyd

    Wyndham, George

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Whiteley,George (Stockport)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

    Williams, Joseph P.- (Birm.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Valentia, Viscount

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    William Walrond and

    Vincent, Col. Sir. C. E. H.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Abraham,William(Cork,N.E.)

    Gold, Charles

    Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Gourley, Sir Edward T.

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Allen, Wm.(Newc.underLyme)

    Gurdon, Sir William B.

    Richardson, J.(Durham, S.E.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Harwood, George

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Baker, Sir John

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Samuel,J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Holland, W. H.(York, W. R.)

    Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C.B.

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Billson, Alfred

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Kinloch, Sir John George S.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Kitson, Sir James

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Langley, Batty

    Thomas,Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Thomas, A.(Glamorgan,E.)

    Burns, John

    Leng, Sir John

    Trevelyan, Charles Phillip

    Caldwell, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Tully, Jasper

    Cameron,SirCharles(Glasgow)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Carvill, PatrickGeo Hamilton

    Lough, Thomas

    Weir, James Galloway

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Charrington, Spencer

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Williams, John C. (Notts.)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    MacDonnell, DrMA(Queen'sC

    Wills, Sir William Henry

    Davies, M. V.-(Cardigan)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

    Davitt, Michael

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

    Dillion, John

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Maddison, Fred.

    Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)

    Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitech'l)

    Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(H'dd'rsf'd)

    Duckworth. James

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Young Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Mr. Pickersgill and Mr.

    Ferguson, R. C.

    O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork)

    Steadman.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Other Amendments made.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: This clause was practically taken from the Local Government Act of 1894, and the words I now move to omit are words which do not find any place in that Act. They seem to me to restrict the possibility of boroughs having full liberty to adopt the annual system. in an extreme case, if a certain proportion of the 70 members were to stay away they could prevent the adoption of the system of triennial elections. I am afraid that if these words are left in they might put considerable difficulties in the way of the adoption of this provision. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Clause 2, page 2, line 33, to leave out from 'purpose' to 'make' in line 34."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
    Question proposed—
    That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I trust the House will retain the Bill as it now stands. I ought to say that at the time this clause was adopted I expressed grave apprehensions at the determination which the London Members had arrived at to adopt a system which certainly could not prove acceptable if extended to the provinces. But the general opinion was so strong among London Members that I made a concession, and we arrived at a compromise which was this—that the councils themselves should have practically the power of adopting the triennial system in preference to the annual system, but it should be done only on the condition that a distinct and absolute majority were in favour of it. It will be observed that if the hon. Member's Amendment is carried and the words in the Bill to which he objects are left out, it would be possible

    487
    for one-third of the Members to make this great change. That would not be carrying out the intention of the House, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon a division.
    MR. STUART: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to adopt this Amendment, but I rise to call his attention to another point upon which I will not make a motion, but which is closely associated with this question, and which the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to deal with in another place. It bears upon triennial elections, and the point is that it would be extremely in the interests of London electors generally if, wherever a triennial election was ordered by the Local Government Board, it could be ordered for the year 1900, or one of the three years dating therefrom.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. COURTNEY: The Amendment I now beg to move is one which was submitted to the House in Committee, and after a slight discussion I withdrew it. The object of the Amendment is very simple. We all know that the experience of municipal contests shows that the power of appointing aldermen has often been abused, first of all by the wire-pullers of the party securing the election of all the aldermen, and then by those aldermen joining in the election of subsequent aldermen. The Amendment I propose is very simple in its operation, and will insure the election of aldermen by the minority to an extent corresponding to the position which that minority holds. It can best be explained by an example. A council should never exceed 60 members, so that with the aldermen one in 10 the council should never exceed 70. The common council of 60 comes to elect its aldermen, and under the present system the majority of 31 could elect the whole 10 aldermen, thus converting a majority of 2 in the entire council into a majority of 12. Now, what I propose is that in the first election, where 60 will have to elect 10 aldermen, that when 6 of the councillors join together they shall be able to nominate one alderman, and that all those six councillors shall immediately retire from taking any other part in the election. The result of that would be, that if there was a majority of 14—that is to say, if the council was com-
    488
    posed of 36 members on the one side and 24 on the other, the 36 would elect 6 aldermen, and the 24 four, which would give each side proportionate representation. Under the present system the experience in many of our boroughs has shown us that the election of aldermen has been a matter of great jealousy, and this has also been the case in the London County Council. In the London County Council a simple majority have always had the power of electing the whole of the aldermen. By this alteration it would limit the number which the majority of a council have power to elect, and give a choice to the minority. The matter is so simple that nobody could pretend to misunderstand it, and the machinery is so simple that it could not go wrong. It would secure the end which we all have in view, which is the addition to the members of the council of an entirely new element, and it would be a simple means of solving what is acknowledged to be a difficult and delicate question, and one which raises an undesirable feeling at the beginning of the career of every council.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end to add—
    (c) 'At the first election of aldermen after the passing of this Act any six councillors may agree in nominating one person as alderman. and thereupon such person shall be declared elected as alderman, and the six councillors nominating him shall have no further part in such election; and that every subsequent triennial election of aldermen any twelve councillors may agree in nominating one person as alderman, and thereupon such person shall be declared elected as alderman, and the twelve councillors nominating him shall have no further part in such election.'"—(Mr.Courtney)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see no reason for altering the view which I expressed on a former occasion at an earlier stage of the Bill that this Amendment should not be accepted. I agree with my right hon. friend that his scheme has the great advantage of being exceedingly simple, and I do not think that there would be any practical difficulty in the way of its working properly. I also agree that it has the great merit of preventing the election of aldermen being used as it machinery in favour of any particular party, but whether it will secure that the councils will obtain

    489
    a better class men as aldermen I gravely doubt. The practical result will be that a party of six councillors who would vote, or who would meet together to select their alderman, might exercise their choice in favour of individuals for whom no party would be responsible in its collective capacity. On the whole, I am disposed to think that the responsibility which must attach to the organised action of a party must produce better results than the relatively irresponsible action of groups of six gentlemen who would like to elect their own friends. On these grounds I feel constrained to adhere to my former decision, and if my right hon. friend thinks it necessary to divide the House I shall feel obliged to go into the lobby against him.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. COURTNEY: The Bill as it stands provides that, to be qualified to act as an alderman in a borough, a man must be qualified for election to the county council in that particular borough. My desire is to enlarge that qualification so as to extend it to any one who is qualified to be elected as a councillor for any metropolitan borough and enable him to act as an alderman in any other metropolitan borough. Why should we limit the choice of the electors to nominate an alderman, seeing that the aldermen are chosen by the electors and, of course, would be responsible to them? Persons who are qualified to be elected as aldermen elsewhere surely should be qualified to be elected as aldermen in any particular borough. It is well known that in some parts of the City there are men who have peculiar qualifications for this work who would not be eligible as the Bill now stands. In the interest of the freedom of voice of the electors, I think this would be a great benefit, while on the other hand no harm could be done by it. It simply enlarges the power of choice, and if that is extended it will only be used in the rarest of cases. I beg to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 37, at the end of Clause 3, to insert the words, '(d) A person shall be qualified to be elected as alderman in any metropolitan borough who is qualified to be elected as councillor in the same or any other metropolitan borough.'"—(Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed—
    "That these words be there inserted".
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I might remind this House of what occurred with regard to this matter on a previous occasion. When this question was brought forward, I did my best to induce the House to accept the proposal, but the House, after by no means a brief discussion, came to the conclusion that it would not be an improvement to the Bill. I do not wish to withdraw from the position that I then took up, and under the same circumstances I should take the same course again. I would suggest to my right hon. friend that it is hardly worth while to divide the House again upon the subject.
    LORD H. CECIL: I hope the House will see its way to accept this Amendment. It is quite true that it was raised on another occasion, but it is an Amendment of great importance, and since that time many representatives may have changed their opinions upon it. The kind of man who would make a good alderman might very well live in another part of, London and still by reason of his business connection have a very real interest in a particular district. He might have a real capacity for public business and an earnest desire to interest himself in that borough. So far as I can see I cannot discover any reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. It will only be applied in cases where there are very strong reasons for going outside the borough, and surely you are not going to say by statutory enactment that a borough shall not be able to go outside to elect its aldermen, when by so doing they might find ideal men to fit the position.
    MR. STUART: I should have been content to give a silent vote on this matter if there had been a desire to discuss the question. I am against it for the reasons that this proposal is against the whole principle of local government in England. The only exception is that of the London School Board, in which, no doubt, there was a reason for breaking the precedent, as what was desired in that case was to get experts in education on the Board. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is no necessity for going outside the area of the borough. I gave the whole argument against this proposal on a previous occasion, and therefore there is no reason for entering into it

    491
    now. The boroughs of London do not ask for aldermen, and have expressed general dissatisfaction at the idea that they are going to be put upon them, and if you are going now to allow aldermen to elected from the outside you will create greater dissatisfaction than already exists.
    *SIR E. CLARKE: I see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted at once if what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has suggested is all that can be said against it. The only argument which he appears to have adduced is that if you go outside the boroughs the electors may elect the wrong man. I am sorry he has so little faith in the electors. It may be that there are persons who by long residence or business were once connected with the borough, although they now live elsewhere, who on their retirement from business are taking great interest in public life. Yet, as the Bill now stands, you would refuse any such persons, although the brough councils might recognise that if they could obtain this experience and this knowledge that he would be just the person to be desired.
    SIR J. BRUNNER: I desire to call attention to a fact which must be obvious to everybody who studies the reorganisation of large businesses of the present day. In the manufacturing parts of London large businesses are being turned into and worked by limited companies. Now, if this Amendment is not carried the man whose interest is entirely centred in the locality in which his business is will find himself debarred from any share of management in public affairs. All these are good business men, and yet they will be excluded from any share of local government. I desire to support the Amendment.
    MR. E. A. GOULDING: Various arguments have been used in favour of the Amendment. It has been put that it would afford rich men, or single men who want some purpose in life, an opportunity of doing service to the East End districts. Again, it was said that it would enable business men, who could not give time to work a contested election, to be brought in as aldermen. Now we are told that it is a scheme to bestow upon the East End of
    492
    London the patronage of men from Chelsea and the West End, who would come to the East to air their fads. We have seen the evil of that system in the case of certain aldermen in the London County Council, who were brought in not because of their knowledge of municipal affairs but because of their political services. I most sincerely hope the same canker will not be introduced in the new municipalities, and I trust that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment to a division. The matter was decided in Committee in a very large House, and the vast majority of the London Members voted against the scheme of the Amendment.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Surely the reply to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth as to those who are so very anxious to serve in certain areas, in which they have large interests and in which they have lived in former times, is that an outlay of £10 will give them a qualification to enable them to sit on the borough council.
    *MR. BANBURY: If this Amendment is not carried, the new boroughs will, I think, be debarred from choosing some men as alderman who are eminently suited for that position. I have a striking instance in my own constituency of this. The gentleman in question is not of my way of thinking; he was a Progressive member of the London County Council, and served the district well. But his business has been turned into a limited liability company, and he does not now reside in the district. Therefore, unless this Amendment is carried, this gentleman, who has been connected with the place for twenty-five years and who is thoroughly capable of being an alderman, will be prevented from serving the district in which he is so much interested.
    *MR. KIMBER: The main argument on which the Amendment was decided against in Committee was that every man who is a councillor or an alderman is put in the position of administering the funds of the locality, and should be, at least, one of those who contribute to these funds. The plea about hardship to a man who converts his business into a limited liability has no place against the argument, for the double reason that when

    493
    a man is going to convert himself into a limited liability company he should think of what effect it will have; and in the second place, if he wants to retain his qualification as a ratepayer, it is very easy for him to retain some of the property in his own hands. In all the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the mover of the Amendment, or of those who followed him on the same side, not a shadow of answer was given to the statement that it would induce irresponsible persons to come into the councils from the outside and squander the money to which they had not contributed. Moreover, if an outsider were allowed to be elected, a mail who lived, perhaps, on the other side of the street down the centre of which ran the boundary of the borough might be co-opted to the borough council, and there urge the expenditure of money upon that very street to the benefit of his property, although he would not pay a penny of the rates for it. One of the great objects of the Bill is to enable localities to manage themselves in local affairs; but if the Amendment is carried there is no reason why certain carpet baggers, whose strings are pulled by political associations, should not be elected all over London into half a dozen contituencies to work for these politicals associations.
    *MR. J. LOWLES: I voted against this Amendment in Committee, but I confess I have since changed my mind. I am still opposed to the principle of the Amendment, but,
    looking upon the matter from a purely practical, utilitarian point of view, I think it should be adopted. There is, for instance, the chairman of the Shoreditch Board of Guardians, one of the best administrators and exponents of the Poor Law that the borough ever had. He is non-resident and would be disqualified, as the Bill stands, from serving on the borough council. My hon. friend who shares with me the representation of Shoreditch knows perfectly well that many of the leading businesses in that borough have been turned into a limited companies—not for bogus purposes, but for expansion—and their owners would now be rendered ineligible. The best men from a purely local point of view, who spend ninetenths of their time and their money freely in the locality, and who know better than most men what the needs of the public are, would be excluded from taking part in local government. I confess frankly that that would be a great mistake, and I hope that on this occasion the House will reverse its judgment, and give the borough councils the permissive power to elect men—not political carpetbaggers—but men who are part of the real life of the district, and are best qualified to represent the district, although for the reasons stated they may be technically not on the rate board individually.
    Question put.
    The House divided. Ayes, 67; Noes, 139. (Division List No. 173).

    AYES.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute

    Arrol, Sir William

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Garfit, William

    Price, Robert John

    Balfour,Rt.Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)

    Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(CityofLond

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Balfour,Rt.Hn. G.W.(Leeds)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Rirchie,Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Gorst,Rt.Hon. SirJohn Eldon

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Hayne,Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Beach,Rt.Hn.Sr.M.H.(Bristol

    Hill,SirEdwardStock (Bristol)

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Bethell, Commander

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Talbot, Rt. Hn.J.G.(Ox.Univ.

    Bigwood, James

    Howard, Joseph

    Tomlinson, Wm Edw. Murray

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Bryce, Rt.Hon. James

    Knowles, Lees

    Webster,SirR.E.(IsleofWight

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Lafone, Alfred

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Williams, JohnCarvell(Notts.)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Liverp'l)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lowles, John

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-

    Charrington, Spencer

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wyndham, George

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Young,Commander(Berks, E.)

    Corbett,A.Cameron (Glasgow)

    M'Killop, James

    Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

    Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

    TELLER FOR THE AYES—

    Courtney,Rt.Hon Leonard H.

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Sir Edward Clarke and Sir

    Doxford, William Theodore

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    John Brunner,

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannanyne

    Muntz, Philip A.

    NOES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

    Purvis, Robert

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn.LordGeorge

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hanbury, Rt.Hn. Robert Wm.

    Richardson,SirThos,(Hartlep'l

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Harwood, George

    Ridley,Rt.Hn.SirMatthew W.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

    Heath, James

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Billson, Alfred

    Hoare, Ed. Brodie(Hampstead

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Holland, Wm. H.(York,W.R.)

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Howell, William Tudor

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hutchinson,Capt. G. W. Grice-

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Burns, John

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Caldwell, James

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Campbell J. H. M. (Dublin)

    kearley, Hudson E.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Keswick, William

    Steadman, William Charles

    Cawley, Frederick

    Kimber, Henry

    Stock, James Henry

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Lambert, George

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Leng, Sir John

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Llewellyn,Evan H. (Somerset)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Llewelyn,Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

    Tully, Jasper

    Cook, Fred, Lucas (Lambeth)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Usborne, Thomas

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. SirWm.H.

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Curzon, Viscount

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    M'kenna, Reginald

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Maddison, Fred.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Wharton, Rt. Hon.John Lloyd

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Drucker, A.

    Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    More,RobtJasper(Shropshire)

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

    Morgan,Hn.Fred.(Monmthsh,

    Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. E.)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonp't

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Finch, George H.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wilson,Jos.H.(Middlesbrough

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Woods, Samuel

    Flower, Ernest

    O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Penn, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Mr. Goulding and Mr.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Pickard, Benjamin

    Marks.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Pickershill, Edward Hare

    Question put, and agreed to.

    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I beg to move an Amendment providing that the duties in connection with registration should be discharged by the town clerk. In the boroughs generally the duties of registration are thrown on the town clerks and overseers. In London there is no town clerk at present, and the duties of registration are discharged by persons who ordinarily perform the duties of returning officer and are named by the Sheriff. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that in the boroughs the duties relating to registration shall be discharged by the town clerks on the borough council.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 24, after the word 'town clerk,' to insert the words, 'and shall be the
    496
    town clerk within the meaning of the Acts relating to the registration of electors.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. STUART: I have an Amendment on the paper providing that registration matters may be dealt with by the town clerk or his assistant. I do not want my Amendment to be ruled out of order by the passage of the Solicitor-General's, and therefore probably I shall be in order if I were to move that in the Amendment proposed by the Solicitor-General, after the words "town clerk" the words "or his deputy" should be inserted. It might possibly happen that the town clerk may take a strong political line, and

    497
    consequently not be trusted in respect to the transaction of registration business, and I therefore suggest that the words "or his deputy" should be added. I do not wish to go outside the right hon. Gentleman's arrangement or compromise. It seems to me his object is to get personal responsibility in respect to the making up of the register, and if this Bill creates the town clerk a responsible authority, as it does, we should get out of a very serious difficulty if we put in the words "or a registration officer appointed by the borough council for that purpose." I do not wish to weaken the right hon. Gentleman's compromise. I accept it; but I propose to get out of the difficulty connected with it by substituting for the town clerk the town clerk or his deputy.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed
    Amendment—
    "After the word 'and,' to insert the words 'he or the registration officer appointed by the borough council as hereinafter provided.'"
    —(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    *MR. JOHN BURNS: It seems to me that the First Lord of the Treasury, in making the town clerk supremely responsible in these matters, has done everything we could reasonably hope for. The greater includes the less, and the town clerk, having been made responsible for the voters' list and the overseers' work, would necessarily be responsible for any deputy appointed to discharge a section of the work. I have no fear that the town clerk will allow political gerrymandering to sway him to any material extent, but if inclined to be operated on in that direction, the loss he would incur by being found out, and the penalty he would have
    498
    to pay, would be so great that, apart from inclination, there would be a tremendous deterrent. May I point out to the hon. Member for Shoreditch that economy and efficiency are opposed to such a multiplicity of officials. If the responsibility for all those duties is fixed on the town clerk, I believe the money will be saved to the ratepayers, and if the First Lord of the Treasury could suggest some means by which polling officers should have less than the two guineas a day they now receive, I should strongly support him.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.): I entirely agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Battersea, and I sincerely hope that the town clerk, when appointed, will be like Cæsar's wife—above suspicion. I did not put down any Amendment, such as I did to the London County Council Bill, making town clerks ineligible to sit in this House, because it was pointed out to me that it would be unnecessary, because these gentlemen would probably not be amenable to political influences. I thoroughly support the proposal of the Solicitor-General. I think it is necessary for us to give these powers exclusively to town clerks, and it is very desirable that they should be solely responsible and that there should be no devolution to anybody else.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. In the first place, I do not think it necessary, or that it is based on a right principle, because it picks out one particular part of the duties which would

    499
    fall on the town clerk and gives him special authority to appoint a deputy to discharge them. I have been anticipated by the hon. Member for Battersea in many of my objections to this Amendment. My own opinion is that some words may be necessary to enable the borough councils to give the town clerks assistance by way of deputy or otherwise, but the responsibility for the work should in my judgment remain with the town clerk.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 4:—
    *CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.): As the House knows, sanction must be given by the London County Council, or for certain purposes by the Local Government Board, for loans to local bodies. The Vestry of St. Pancras, which is in the division I represent, complain very much of the time taken by the London County Council in sanctioning loans. If the House will permit me, I will give one or two examples. In December, 1892, a loan of £30,000 for an electric installation was asked for. Of that sum £15,400 was received in March, 1894, and the remainder was not paid till January, 1895. A period of three years elapsed before we got all the loan. On another occasion we applied for a loan in November, 1895, but only got £6,540 in January, 1897, and £2,945 in June of the same year. Delay in that case was owing to the London County Council going into the whole of the past expenditure. On another occasion a loan was asked for in July, 1897, but the greater portion of it was not paid till March, 1898. The delay in this case, again, was caused by the inquiry made by the London County Council into the expenditure and valuing up of the mains, which I maintain is not necessary in order to get the sanction for the loan. The last occasion was in May, 1898, when a loan of £23,000 was applied for. £12,000 was received on 16th March, and the balance is waiting at the present moment. The result of this is that the Vestry of St. Pancras has been obliged to borrow money from the bankers at the rate of 4 per cent., whereas the London County Council could have got it for
    500
    them at 2¾ per cent. I complain that, at present, the London County Council mix up the question of sanctioning the loan with the question of lending the money, and I maintain that the two are entirely different questions. If the Amendment is accepted by the House, it will result in advantage to the borough councils and to the London County Council itself, and for this reason: In the first place, they could always refuse if they think it right, in which case there would be a prompt appeal; and, in the second place, the London County Council would not be granting money for works already completed. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Clause 4, line 21, to insert 'or do not, within six months after application made, give their sanction.'"—(Captain Jessel.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: For the reason given by the hon. Gentleman I think this a reasonable Amendment, as I understand there have been considerable delays. I think six months is long enough in all probability. If any question of real necessity arises the Local Government Board would consider the matter.
    MR. STUART: The Attorney-General knows very little about the relations of the local authorities, and the speech of the hon. Member for St. Pancras has been so confused that he has been greatly misled. There have been upwards of 400 loans made by the London County Council to the local authorities, and I do not believe, except in the three instances to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, has there been any complaint whatever with respect to the sanctioning of the loans. I want to point out that there is a difference between asking for the sanction of a loan for a parish and getting the money. Now, what the whole of this clause refers to is not the providing of the money by the London County Council, but the sanctioning of the loan. The first step which has to be taken is to settle whether the local body is justified in requiting the loan for the purpose stated, and that has to be inquired into. When that is done, and the decision given favourably, the local authority can

    501
    go and ask for the loan. If they take it from the London County Council they get it at 2¾ per cent. There is no proof is concerned, that there has been any delay at all; but if there was delay there was very good reason for it. I regard the suggestion that the London County Council must give their sanction to loans within six months, or that then the matter will be taken out of their hands, as an insult to the London County Council. As I have said, if the London County Council delay longer than six months in giving their sanction, there is a right good reason for it. Under these circumstances I do trust that there will not be an endeavour made on the part of any person in this House to attach any stigma to the London County Council in this matter.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no desire to attach the slightest stigma to the County Council in this matter. No part of the business of the London County Council is better done than that relating to loans. The hon. Gentleman has not given any reason why we should not accept this Amendment. If we provide that in the case of a refusal there shad be an appeal from the London County Council to another authority, it is obviously necessary that there should be the same appeal to the Local Government Board if assent is not given within six months.
    Clause 6:—
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to move to omit Sub-section 6. This sub-section gives power to the borough councils to promote and oppose Bills in Parliament, and it seems to me to be a matter of such extreme importance that I propose to appeal from the judgment of the Committee to the judgment of the House. This clause touches a side of the Bill which, I think, has not perhaps received sufficient attention from the House—I mean the financial side. There can be no doubt that one effect of this Bill will be to undoubtedly increase expenditure and to raise the rates.
    MR. CRIPPS: To promote economy.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The Bill will raise the rates directly, because it pro-
    502
    poses to transfer the discharge of central functions from the central to the local body. I also think its inevitable effect will be to promote expense indirectly. If I am right in this, then I say it would be most unwise to open such a flood-gate of expenditure as this sub-section would do. It seems to me that the form of expenditure which is grudged more than any other is expenditure upon litigation, whether it be in courts of law or in Parliament, because, in these cases, whoever wins, the public has to pay the costs on both sides. Of course, I know very well that litigation, in the sense in which I use the term, is inevitable, but surely it is only common sense to restrain it within as narrow limits as possible. My case against this clause is, that there is no necessity for it, and that, as the law stands, the borough councils will have quite sufficient powers for the promotion of their own interests. It may be said in theory that this clause puts all on an equal footing. As a matter of fact it does not. It will place the poorer districts of the metropolis at a serious disadvantage compared with the richer districts. You may say that the law courts are open to all. But the man with the longer purse has the advantage, and what applies in the case of individual litigants applies equally to public bodies who indulge in litigation. I do think, having regard to the importance of this question, we are justified in appealing to the House to omit the sub-section.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 5, line 32, to leave out sub-section (6), of Clause 6."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    Question proposed—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope that the House will take the same view as that adopted by the majority of the Committee on this question. It is perfectly right and reasonable that the same powers should be conferred on these borough councils in the metropolis as are enjoyed by all the town councils throughout the country. Of course, the County Council may deal with Bills relating to the metropolis as a whole, but there may be many matters affecting the health or comfort of the inhabitants of a particular district in regard to Which it is desirable that the borough council should have the

    503
    power of promoting or opposing Bills, or of enforcing their rights by legal procedure.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I regret that the First Lord of the Treasury is absent, because he might have been induced by the arguments of my hon. friend to have met us in regard to this matter. This really is the last blot on the Bill in connection with the position which the borough councils will hold against the County Council. The Solicitor - General has argued this question on the analogy of the large borough councils in the country, but these metropolitan borough councils can never be in the same position in regard to their internal relations as the large boroughs throughout the country. We know that for years past—in fact, ever since the London County Council has been in existence—the County Council has promoted Bills for the benefit of all parts of London, and there has been no objection found on the part of the vestries themselves. I think the onus lies on the Government, and those who propose the change, to show that the system which has prevailed up to the present moment has not been successful. I believe that in every case in which the vestry—which is practically now the borough council—has had a desire to have some legal question promoted by the London County Council that question has been promoted and carried through by the County Council to the satisfaction of the local body. I think, therefore, that as regards the actual working of the scheme we ought to have some argument from the Solicitor-General, or from the Attorney-General, to show that it has not been successful, has not worked properly, and that, therefore, there is some reason for the change. I think there is considerable force in the remark with regard to the cost of these powers. Unfortunately the cost of promoting Bills in Parliament under the present system is an expensive one. Since it came into existence the County Council has had to expend a sum of £20,000 or £30,000 in this direction. I look, therefore, with some trepidation at the probable expense which will be involved when we have 20 or 30 borough councils promoting their own bills. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that the cost will fail heavily on the poorer districts, and that
    504
    the richer boroughs will be able to promote their Bills with greater advantage, because they will have plenty of funds to draw upon, whereas the poorer districts, with equal interests involved, will not be able to carry them through. I think also we ought to look on the matter from the point of view of the House of Commons itself, and I must say I view with great trepidation the large amount of time that will be devoted by this House to the consideration of these Bills. That is a practical difficulty which I really think the Government have not given sufficient attention to.
    MR. LOWLES: I hope the Government will retain the clause as it is. I am really astonished at the jealousy manifested by the London County Council throughout the whole proceedings in connection with this Bill. I can only conceive that the object of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is to enable the County Council to keep its grip over the local authorities. I venture to say that if the local authorities are left to themselves we shall not have that reckless expenditure in promoting Bills which has been predicted by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Where, purely local interests would require power under the section it would be usefully and rightfully used. I therefore hope the House will resist the proposal, which has been made entirely in the interests of the London County Council.
    *MR. McKENNA: Whether this Amendment be accepted or not, the members of the various borough councils can promote Bills in Parliament. Their only risk, if the Amendment is carried, is that if their Bill is unsuccessful they will have to bear the cost themselves. In every case where there is a legitimate and proper demand for a Bill by a borough council, they can get their measure through the General Powers Bill of the County Council. It is only when there is strong opposition that any difficulty is likely to arise. If the members of the borough council introduce a measure not acceptable to the general feeling of London, they will do so at their own risk, and that risk will be that a Committee of this House might refuse them costs. There could be no real hardship, because the arbiters in every case would be a Committee of this House. All the Amendment proposes is to give

    505
    that Committee the power of deciding whether the promotion of a Bill by a borough council was wanton and reckless, and that if it were the members of the council ought to pay the costs themselves. The general power the London County Council now has to include in its Bill any proposal put forward by a borough gives every opportunity to the boroughs to get cheaply what they require.
    *SIR F. S. POWELL: I have some experience in the working of the Borough Funds Act, which provides a most salutary check, and, although some change in the machinery may be desirable, I am perfectly sure that until we have that improvement we ought to retain the Act as it stands. The functions of the new councils will be executive and administrative, not legislative. The object of the Act is to check the tendency to promote legislation and to indulge in wasteful expenditure. I believe it protects the interests of the subject, and I therefore suggest the importance of retaining it.
    MR STUART: I do not think that my hon. colleague in the representation of Shoreditch has any right to say that the London County Council regards this Bill in the spirit of jealousy. I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether I, for one, as largely representing the London County Council in this House, have not done my very best to amend this Bill in a non-partisan spirit. That is shown by Amendments suggested by myself and by others having been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. When the Bill first came before the House I ventured to say it was a disintegrating Bill. It has ceased largely, but not wholly, to be a disintegrating Bill. There still remain disintegrating clauses in the Bill, but this is the most disintegrating clause of all. It appears to me that if we grant these powers we shall be taking a great step towards the disintegration of London. London is one, and ought to be regarded by this House as one. That we have maintained throughout the whole of this discussion. There is no advantage that I can see in any way whatever in allowing these different portions of London to act
    506
    on their own account in this House. Their interests are too much combined and united to make that desirable or useful. The clause is a bad one, and part of the old spirit in which the Bill was framed—viz., of opposition to the unity of London—a spirit, however, which the discussions on this Bill have largely caused to evaporate.
    SIR E. CLARKE: I really cannot allow the statement just made to pass unchallenged. The hon. Member said that this clause remains in the Bill in antagonism to the London County Council. He talks about the Bill as a disintegrating Bill, and he says that he and his friends have been insisting on the unity of London. There is a certain amount of truth in that. They have been seeking to secure for one body which they represent authority over all parts of London. They have in that contention, as far as this Bill is concerned, absolutely failed, and I do not accept for a moment the claim they are making now inside and outside the House, that they have been supporting the Bill and sympathising with its objects. They have been defeated in this sense, that the House recognised, on the second reading, and recognises now, that London is not one, but a collection of places entitled to have separate municipal existence and authority apart from the authority and interference of the London County Council. The object of this Bill has, I think, been to put the London County Council in its proper place, and when it passes I think the hon. Member and his friends will be obliged to admit outside, if not here, that very much has been done in spite of them to give proper municipal life to London
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 57. (Division List, No. 174.)

    AYES.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Gedge, Sydney

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gibbons, J. Lloyd

    Muntz, Philip A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, Hn.A.G H.(C. of Lond.

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G (Bute)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.G. W. (Leeds)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Percy, Earl

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bethell, Commander

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Purvis, Robert

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Heath, James

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

    Saunderson,Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Clarke, SirEdward(Plymouth)

    Hutchinson, Capt.G.W.Grice-

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Knowles, Lees

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lafone, Alfred

    Stock, James Henry

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd)

    Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

    Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv

    Corbett, A.Cameron(Glasgow)

    Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Liverp'1)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cornwallis,FiennesStanley W.

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lowles, John

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

    Usborne, Thomas

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Valentia, Viscount

    Denny, Colonel

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Webster, R.G. (St. Pancras)

    Doxford, William Theodore

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Webster, Sir R. E.(I.ofWight)

    Drucker, A.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L)

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    M`Killop, James

    Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh,N.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne)

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Wyndham, George

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

    Flower, Ernest

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Garfit, William

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Mr. Anstruther,

    NOES.

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Provand,Andrew Dryburgh

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

    Gurdon, Sir William B.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Billson, Alfred

    Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Burns, John

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Caldwell, James

    Leng, Sir John

    Tully, Jasper

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Weir, James Galloway

    Davies, M. V.- (Cardigan)

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Davitt, Michael

    M'Cartan, Michael

    Williams, John C. (Notts.)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

    Dillon, John

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Pickersgill and Mr. James

    Evershed, Sydney

    Price, Robert John

    Stuart.

    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Amendment I now propose relates to the financial basis between the London County Council and the new borough councils, and it is one which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said he would consider before the Report stage. I do not want to enter into the arguments with which I troubled the House upon the last occasion, but it does seem to me necessary that we should provide for some sort of revision. Under these circumstances, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this into his favourable consideration, although I do not wish to press it unduly upon him.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 6, line 12, after the word 'order,' to insert the words, 'provided that, at any interval of not less than five years, the London County Council and the borough council may revise and alter the amount of the contribution, or, in default of agreement, the Local Government Board may, on the application of either party, if it think fit, revise and vary the existing arrangement.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite will hardly do, because they divorce too obviously the responsibility of expenditure from the responsibility of management. If the local authority is ready to take over the duties, it should, no doubt, be ready to take over the expenditure which is associated with those duties, and which is necessary to carry those duties into effect. If I could find a thoroughly satisfactory form of words which would make it possible to have a revision in those cases in which public necessity requires an immense extension of the duties originally made the subject of agreement, I should be very glad to consider it. I can well imagine cases in which some power of going hack over the original decision would be desirable in the public interest, although I confess that the words of this proposal are rather vague, and I do not think that we could accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. There is, of course, still time in another place to insert words which would meet the case, and I shall be glad to consider them if the hon. Member can think of a satisfactory form of words.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Under the circumstances I will not press my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other amendments made.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The object of the Amendment I now beg to move has been discussed before, and when it was mentioned in Committee the Leader of the House advanced one objection to it, and, so far as my memory serves me, one objection only. He said that it would be inconvenient in reference to the administration of sanitary law, because in those cases it was sometimes necessary, at all events, to take action upon an emergency. Seeing that there was considerable force in that objection, I have met it by the consequential Amendment which stands in my name. I propose by a subsequent Amendment to exempt from the requirement of approval any Committee appointed for the purpose of the Public Health Act. I do, therefore, hope this will not be opposed by the Government. There are two precedents for this—one is that of the municipal corporations, and the other the district councils. As these precedents are on our side, I think I have fairly met the objection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I trust that he will consent to adopt this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 6, line 28, to leave out the word 'report,' in order to insert the word 'submit.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    instead thereof:—
    Question proposed—
    "That the word 'report' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment, which will require, with the one exception mentioned in a subsequent Amendment, that the act of every committee shall be submitted to the council. Surely the provision of the Bill as it stands is much more reasonable, for it provides that:
    "Every committee shall report their proceedings to the council, but to the extent to which the council so direct the act and proceedings of the committee shall not require the approval of the council."
    I fail to see what sense there is in confining that power to one particular class of cases.
    MR. STUART: The arrangement under the Bill proposes to give a certain power to these metropolitan municipalities which does not exist in any other committee, either on county councils or municipalities. It is a great pity that you should enable a body to shuffle off its responsibilities upon committees. I shall support this amendment, because I believe it will bring the law in London in uniformity with the law which is in force in other places.
    MR. LOWLES: From my own observations I can only say that the committees already existing do very good work in this regard, and take great interest in it. The only check upon their work is that they are subordinate to the local governing body themselves, and to take away the check is a very dangerous thing. By this Bill the power of re-vision by the Council by whom they are appointed will be done away with, and I think to take away such a wholesome check will be very dangerous indeed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Our point is that if this Amendment is carried, it will throw a great deal of unnecessary labour on the council. On the other hand, under the clause as it stands the possibility of abuse is reduced to a minimum, because when a committee is suspected of abusing its powers it can be dispossessed of those powers at a moment's notice by the body to which it is subordinate.
    MR. LOWLES: Under this clause?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. And under the circumstances I am sure that my hon. friend will feel that no independent body is set up which can set its parent body at defiance.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. CRIPPS: I propose now to move the Amendment standing in my name at
    512
    the beginning of the Paper. The object of my Amendment is simply to introduce a scheme which would be of great convenience in dealing with the difficult and complex subject of rating, and would not affect the incidence of rating either as regards individuals or areas. What I seek to do is to make the borough the unit for assessment purposes, for making the levy, and for the collection of rates, as against the parish which is the unit at the present time. What the Government have done in Sub-section 10 is to make the duties of the overseer vest in the council of the borough, which is not only clumsy but is in itself an absurdity, because although the borough council is made the overseer of each parish in its area, the parish is kept alive as a rating unit. My proposal is that, instead of having this complex machinery, instead of making the borough council the overseer, we should have one overseer for the borough unit, and that for rating purposes it should be constituted a parish. It is not only a question of machinery; it goes outside; it is also a matter of expense. It goes over the whole borough, and you can afford to have the work properly done, and then it can be supervised by the council. I hope the House will appreciate what I mean. You want a borough unit, and you want to know whether property is being assessed at a proper amount. The best way to arrive at that is to take the larger entity, and give the overseer a skilled assistant, through whom the work can be properly done. It is a great advantage to have a larger rather than a smaller entity. If you deal with the matter on this principle you get greater simplification and far greater certainty in every assessment, and that is the matter with which we have to deal. As I shall not have another opportunity of speaking on this subject, allow me to say a word as to the objection raised by the Solicitor-General on the last occasion. He suggested that my scheme might interfere in some way with the liabilities of various areas throughout the borough. I would point out that this does not deal with any question of the kind. All we are doing here is to find out the best basis of assessment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 7, line 1, after the word 'parish,' to insert the words, 'it shall be constituted a parish for the purposes of assessment, and for the making, levy, and collection of rates, and.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I recognise at once the clearness and ability with which my hon. and learned friend has stated his case; and, although I do not pretend to have the experience which he has had on the Royal Commission, this is a subject that I have a very great experience of. I quite agree if some scheme could be arrived at whereby for rating, valuation, and all other purposes, the borough could be made one parish it would be a great help; but it is not possible to do that in the way he proposes. The difficulties in the way are almost insuperable. We have to deal with the question of a borough comprising more than one parish, and we shall also have to deal with a parish which is in more than one union. I hope my hon. friend will not misunderstand me. I am pointing out that the simple amendment which he proposes to put into this Bill will not be sufficient to bring about the uniformity which he desires to obtain. I am not so clear upon this, but I think there would be considerable difficulty in the question of the equalisation of rates, unless you had certain consequential amendments put in, because at present the equalisation of rates is arrived at by means of population, and not by boroughs. We have approached this question with the object of seeing whether, either by a clause by itself or by some amendment in the Bill, some such scheme as that which my hon. friend suggests could be adopted; but I am afraid there are great difficulties in the way. It is not because we do not sympathise with his Amendment that we do not adopt it, but because the consequential amendments would be so serious. I am not sure whether all that the hon. Gentleman desires to be done in this Bill could be accomplished by his Amendment, even if it were agreed to; and, at the same time, we are not in a position to accept it without grave consideration as to its effect on existing Acts of Parliament.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: My hon. and learned friend has made a very sympathetic speech in reply to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stroud, whose object was to make, for the purpose of assessment, the borough a unit. My hon. and learned friend said he sympathised with that object, and, no doubt, in that respect he is in accord with all other Members of this House. The subject is a complex one, and I only rise because the Attorney-General, at the end of his speech, said that there was a possibility of constructing a scheme by which this object could be carried into effect. We are all of us agreed that the object which the hon. and learned Member has is a good object, and one which it is desirable to carry out. I would, therefore, ask if it is not possible that, between this stage and the discussion of the matter in another place, certain amendments might be made in this clause which would effectuate that object
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely admit that my hon. and learned friend who has just sat down, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment, have not misconstrued the views of the Government when they say that we regard the object with most sympathetic interest; but the real difficulty is that we cannot make the area of the borough coincide with the area for assessment until we have brought the union area into coincidence with the borough area. There is machinery for doing that under the Local Government Act, and I hope that by that machinery gradually, but not less effectually, the end which my hon. and learned friend, in common with the Government, has in view will be carried into effect. To do it directly and immediately by a provision in this Bill introduced in another place is more than I am in a position to promise, the difficulties involved being so considerable. If it can be done nobody will rejoice more than myself and the other members of the Government who are responsible for this measure.
    MR. CRIPPS: Having regard to what has been said by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney-General, I will not press my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 7, line 23, after the word 'borough" to insert the words, 'and of churchwardens of every parish within their borough except in so far as these relate to ecclesiastical purposes.'"—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Other Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 8, line 5, after the word 'clerk' to insert the words, 'upon such date or within such period as the Local Government Board may prescribe, so that all the rates collected in a metropolitan borough from any person may be included in one demand note.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. CRIPPS: I beg to move an amendment in Clause 12 providing that in all cases, whether the Poor Law union is one borough or not, the assessment committee shall be appointed by the borough council instead of by the board of guardians. This will bring the Bill into conformity with the recommendations of the Local Taxation Committee. I am anxious to anticipate an objection that may be raised based on the Attorney General's last argument. He suggested that we should have overlapping of union areas. That is no difficulty whatever. At the present moment throughout London we have an assessment not only for unions and certain Poor Law areas, but also for Imperial purposes; and it is one of the greatest advantages of assessment in the metropolis that it it available for Imperial as well as for local purposes. Supposing we have an assessment good enough for Imperial purposes and sound and just in itself, what does it matter whether the area over which the assessment committee have authority provides the basis of the assessment or not? At present we have not got the areas of local government coincident with the areas of the spending authorities, and I venture to prophesy they will not be for 100 years. If the Attorney-General's argument holds good, we may postpone the whole question of
    516
    rating reform. If the basis of assessment is fair and sound, it is wholly immaterial whether it is made by the spending authority or not. That is done every day in London as regards our Imperial taxation, and also with regard to certain matters of local duties, and there is not the slightest reason why we should postpone rating reform until the spending areas are coincident with the local government areas. This matter was especially recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. It is an admirable and necessary reform, and does not require any consequential amendment. The Attorney General is thoroughly conversant with all rating questions, and I hope he will be able on behalf of the Government to accept this great reform, which will not in any way be affected by the bogey, if I may say so, of the overlapping union areas. I beg to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 8, line 33, to leave out the words 'where the whole of a Poor Law union is within one borough.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
    Question proposed—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Blil."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is quite impossible at this particular stage to accept this Amendment, as the Government have gone as far as they ought in this direction already. Apart from the difficulty of overlapping, which is much more serious than my hon. and learned friend thinks, his Amendment would dispossess the guardians of their right to appoint the assessment committees in all cases, even where the areas were not conterminous with the borough or controlled by the borough authorities. I do not see any uniformity of assessment or other advantage that would be obtained in that case. We have accepted my hon. and learned friend's principle as far as we possibly can by making it apply in analogous cases, and we are not prepared to accept this Amendment.
    MR. LOUGH: I have got the same Amendment on the paper, and I am very sorry that the Attorney - General has not seen his way to deal with it more sympathetically. I would direct the attention of the Government to a further proviso I have put down, which,

    517
    I think, would meet the objection of the Attorney - General. It is as follows: "Provided that where the boundaries of one or more unions are not conterminous with the area of a borough, a scheme under this Act shall settle any question arising over such overlapping of areas." This really would settle the whole matter. Let us have a scheme under the Act which would settle any difficulty suggested by the Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to preserve the authority of the board of guardians in this matter, but the primary object of the board of guardians is to relieve the poor. Why, then, should they have anything to say to assessment? It is a duty which could far more appropriately be given over to the borough councils, and I believe that if my proviso were considered by the Government it would be seen that every difficulty would be met by it. The Attorney-General says that he has accepted the principle of the hon. and learned Member's amendment in all cases where the Poor Law union is conterminous with the borough. In Islington we are all right, as the Poor Law union and the borough cover exactly the same area. Therefore I am quite unselfish in this matter, and I really put down my proviso to meet the objections raised by the Attorney-General. It would enable us to adopt a uniform system in London, and would be a great improvement on the clause as it stands.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman must know that no scheme under this Bill could possibly meet the difficulty, as it could not alter either the area of taxation or the power of taxation. The difficulty arises from the fact that the most important rates which the ratepayers have to pay are the rates raised by the Poor Law guardians. There is no ground for dispossessing the existing assessment committees, and the only way to get over the difficulty is to make the unions conterminous to the boroughs. That is an object to be attained gradually. There is power in existence to enable it to be gradually obtained, but it cannot be obtained in any rough and ready manner under this Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 8, line 38, after the word 'unions,' to insert the words 'and the town clerk shall be the clerk to such assessment committee.'"—(Colonel Hughes.)
    Question—
    "That those words be there inserted,"
    put, and negatived.
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. STUART: I appeal to the Attorney-General and to the Solicitor-General to accede to the Amendment I now rise to move, because I submit it will accomplish the object which I have in view. We have a large number of local Acts in operation in London, and these will have to be repealed. I think we ought to secure that all these Acts should be repealed by one statute. As the Attorney-General well knows, the difficulty of laying your hands on these Acts and knowing whether they exist or not is very great. I am sure that this proposal I am making is a very practical one, but I will not press my Amendment if I can get some satisfactory assurance that the matter will be considered.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 10, line 14, to leave out paragraph (e), of sub-section (1), of Clause 15."—(Mr. James Stuart.)
    Question proposed—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I would remind the hon. Member opposite that the Bill follows exactly the precedent of the last Local Government Act. It is absolutely necessary in every Bill of this kind to consider the number of local Acts, to modify them and repeal them in some way, and there are a large number of local Acts which will have to be dealt with. It would be convenient, no doubt, that these should be embodied in one statute, and I will consider what can be done in this direction. But there are other considerations which might make such a course very inconvenient, for some of them have a very wide application. I agree that there should be some

    519
    convenient method provided of getting at the Act, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not overlook the point. I think he will see, however, that we cannot possibly omit the sub-section altogether.
    MR. STUART: After what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments made.
    *MR. BOUSFIELD: I am still in the dark as to what the Government propose to do under the Bill in regard to the district which I represent. I have acknowledged in Committee before the courtesy which I have received from the First Lord of the Treasury, and the great consideration he gave to the matter. The conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman came to has certainly pleased one part of my division very well, but it has displeased the other part. It so happens that Stoke Newington is the only district which stands outside the Bill, and which has not been scheduled. What I propose to insert is a provision the object of which is to make it quite clear that the question of dividing a parish, for the purpose of transferring part of it for local purposes from one area to another, is still within the competence of the Boundary Commission, and may be done, notwithstanding the fact that the area has been scheduled. I have in mind the portion of Hackney which is in my division. I represent North Hackney, which is made up of Stoke Newington and a portion of the parish of Hackney. I pointed out how one part of my division was to be joined with South Hornsey, and the Government were good enough to give way so far. There then still remains the question as to whether the other portion of my division should go with it, and all I desire is to make it quite clear that this matter has been left open. I quite recognise that I cannot ask this House to come to a final decision upon such a point when there is a conflict of opinion; but I do ask the Government to recognise that they should not come to an adverse
    520
    decision on this point, but still leave the matter open. I ask that these words may be inserted in order that the question may be left open for the Boundary Commissioners to decide and to adjust the boundary. It is agreed on all hands that wherever it is possible it is important that the boundary of the new municipal boroughs should be conterminous with the boundary of the Parliamentary borough, and I wish the Commissioners to be left free to decide between the differences in local opinion in following out that principle. It is eminently desirable that you should have the right sort of spirit in local boroughs, and that it should not be divided for parliamentary purposes. I do not ask the Government for a decision on this matter at this moment; all I ask is that it may be shown on the face of the Bill that this is a matter which will have to be hereafter determined. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 10, line 40, after the word 'borough' to insert the words 'notwithstanding the inclusion of the parish in the first schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can heartily sympathise with my hon. friend in respect to the hot water in which he finds himself, because I myself, though I do not represent London, have got into hot water also over the question of areas and boundaries which cannot be settled. My hon. friend suggests an Amendment which has no other object than to enable the parish of Hackney to be cut in two. We have already decided that it shall not be cut in two, and therefore I think it is superfluous to introduce in the clause an Amendment intended to facilitate an arrangement which we do not intend to promote. I hope the Amendment will not be passed.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: As to the Amendment I now rise to move, this is a matter in which I hope to meet a better fate than I experienced in the last Amendment I proposed. There was,

    521
    no doubt, a strong opinion in South Hornsey before the matter came before this House that the insular part of South Hornsey must come into Stoke Newington, but there is a difficulty in arriving at a correct estimate of the population. Since then South Hornsey has considered its position, and, finding it must partly come in, desires to come in as a whole. What the Government should do now, having got the voice of the inhabitants of South Hornsey upon the matter, is simply to insert in the schedule "South Hornsey and Stoke Newington." I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury has considered that, or it might be dealt with in the alternative, and South Hornsey added to the rest of the County of London.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words relating to population, in order to insert "is part."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After the statement made by my hon. friend, I see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    *CAPTAIN CHALONER: The Amendment which stands in my name has been framed with a view to prevent a danger which, in the opinion of the Executive Council of the Union of Poor Law Associations of England and Wales exists in regard to this Bill—a danger which would affect not only London but the whole of the United Kingdom. Under a case tried last year, under the Local Government Act, 1888, between the parish of St. Saviour's and the Dorking Union, it was decided that where a parish was subdivided into two or more parishes the Poor Law settlements were extinguished in the divided parishes. We are advised that the same thing would happen under the present Bill. We therefore appeal to Her Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment, to avert what we think a real danger. If this is impossible, I hope, at any rate, that the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance, either
    522
    that he is satisfied that our fears are ungrounded or that something will be effected to prevent harm being done.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 11, line 33, at the end of line 17, to insert the words—
    'If, under or by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or of any Order in Council made in pursuance thereof, any parish or place maintaining its own poor shall be divided into two or more parishes or portions of parishes, such division shall not destroy the settlements which poor persons may have therein at the date of such division, but every person who has at the date of such division a settlement in any parish or place divided as aforesaid shall be deemed to be settled in the new parish which shall contain the house or other place or places in which the settlement, acquired or derived by such person, shall have been gained. Provided always that no such settlement as aforesaid shall be retained if it was gained under or by virtue of a residence partly in one of the new parishes and partly in another.
    'If, under or by virtue of the provisions of this Act, or of any Order in Council made in pursuance thereof, any parish or place maintaining its own poor shall be divided into two or more parishes or portions of parishes, such division shall not destroy a status of irremovability acquired by virtue of a residence in the union of which the divided parish shall have formed part or consisted, but such status of irremovability shall be deemed to have been acquired in the parish which shall contain the house or other place in which the person having such status of irremovability shall be resident at the time when such division shall take place, or if he shall then be in receipt of relief in the parish which shall contain the house or other place in which he was resident at the time of becoming chargeable.'"—(Captain Chaloner.)
    Question proposed—
    "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I think my hon. and gallant friend was perfectly justified in bringing this matter forward. It does appear that there are eases where parishes were divided—not under the Act of 1888—and where the evil which my friend fears had actually occurred and the Poor Law settlement has been destroyed. If that were a possible result of this Bill, I agree it must be carefully guarded against. But I do not think my hon. and gallant friend need be alarmed. As a matter of fact there is power given in this Bill to provide, by scheme, against that danger, and it has been the practice of the Local Government Board, acting under the Act

    523
    of 1888, whenever a parish is divided, to take care that the settlement is not thereby destroyed. I can assure my hon. friend that every care and precaution shall be taken, by scheme, to prevent the result which he very justly says would be most disastrous if it occurred. It is neither necessary nor desirable to introduce into this Bill this very elaborate Amendment, and perhaps my hon. friend will be content to take from me the assurance that the question will be considered, and that, in so far as parishes are divided under this Bill, schemes shall be provided so that settlements shall not thereby be destroyed.
    *CAPTAIN CHALONER: After that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CLOUGH: The object of the next Amendment standing in my name is to bring the Inner and the Middle Temple into line with the rest of the City under the new arrangements. These have been generally considered extra-parochial; they are not a parish by themselves, but have been generally considered as within the City. The Assessment of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple is, in point of fact, made under the provisions of Clause 59 of the Metropolis Act of 1855, by the Assessment Committee of the Corporation of London, and they could, if they wished, be represented on the committee. Their present assessment value, though not rateable value, is: Inner Temple, £23,483, and Middle Temple, £14,500. There are other four Inns of Court—Lincoln's Inn, Gray's Inn, Staple's Inn, and Furnival's Inn, which were under the Metropolis Act of 1855 put on Schedule C by themselves. Whenever any question of rating arises there is always a difficulty in regard to making them pay their ratio, and hitherto the City has never been able to get them to pay the Consolidated and Sewers Rates, though they do, in fact, pay the Police Rates—
    MR. BOUSFIELD: I rise to a point of order. Is this Amendment within the scope of the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the Amendment would make places rateable which are not now rateable.
    MR. CLOUGH: That is my intention.
    MR. SPEAKER: That cannot be done under this Bill.
    Amendment ruled out of order.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, line 30, after the word 'churchwarden,' to insert the words 'or sidesman.'"—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed—
    "That the words 'or sidesman' be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: It is consolatory to me to reflect that the Amendment I now rise to move is not one which is likely to raise much discussion, for no one could conceive a more inopportune moment to raise a contested point. I hope, late though the hour be, that there may be some exercise of forbearance while I try to compress my remarks into as brief a compass as possible. The Bill removes from the ecclesiastical vestries all civil powers and authorities. There remains to them, therefore, nothing but the authority relating to Church affairs, which is safeguarded under Clause 21. There is, therefore, what may be called a disestablishment of the Church in regard to local matters. It follows that when Church affairs have to be dealt with it is only right and reasonable that the body to deal with Church affairs under the Act should be, not the body of public citizens at large, but the body of Church members. The next question is, Who are the Church members? More than one answer has been given to that question, but my answer is that those only ought to exercise authority in Church matters, among the laity, who are by the law of the Church communicant members. I think there is no dispute about the meaning of the rubric referred to in the Amendment; all parties in the Church are agreed on that. In point of law there can be no doubt that it would be decidedly improper to allow that those who disobey the law of

    525
    the Church should exercise government within the Church. It would seem to me a very fatal thing to do. Then comes the further matter, Is it an expedient course? It is very often reasonably complained that the laity of the Church of England have not that share of influence that ought properly to belong to them. I think that if the true cause of that want of influence were carefully sought, it would be found in the fact that the laity are an indeterminate body. It is very difficult to know what the Church of England really thinks, but supposing this Amendment is carried that difficulty will be in a large measure removed; we shall have a number of bodies all entitled to speak in the name of the laity of the Church. I do not think that there is anything which would weigh with the House on the other side except the argument that this is a revival of the old principle of the Test Act. But I do not think it is at all reasonable to say that this proposal contains the same principle as the Test Act. What person who is not a communicant is at all likely to meddle with the ecclesiastical vestries? I do not conceal from the House that the motive I have in moving the Amendment is to face that most difficult question, what is a lay member of the Church of England.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'the inhabitants of the parish,' in order to insert the words, 'Such inhabitants of the parish as shall have obeyed that rubric of the Book of Common Prayer which is printed at the end of the Order of the Administration of the Holy Communion, and which requires that every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter is to be one.'"—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
    Question proposed—
    "That the words 'the inhabitants of' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not enter into the argument with my noble friend as to whether the Amendment is open to the objection often brought against the Test Act, but I will ask him whether he cannot imagine cases in which the administration of some office carrying with it local authority, dignity, and some small measure of local power would give rise to contention wholly unworthy of religion. My noble friend does not conceal from the House that his chief motive for bringing forward the Amendment is, I will not say to raise a discussion, but to turn men's attention to the problem of what constitutes a lay member of the Church of England, with a view, not to the local government of London, but to some future measure under which increased authority may be given to the laity of the Church. I am one of those who desire that the laity should have greater influence in matters ecclesiastical, and no doubt whenever, if ever, the ideal which I entertain on the subject takes practical shape, no question of greater importance can come up for discussion. But, Sir, I would make two observations upon the suggestion of my noble friend. One is that the definition of a layman in the Church of England is far more rigid than the definition which has been found satisfactory in the case of the Church of Scotland, even in a matter so important as that of the choice of a minister. The second observation that I would make to my noble friend is that from his own point of view this surely is a most inopportune and inexpedient moment to choose for discussing a question which we should approach in a mood different perhaps from that in which we

    527
    have discussed the secular problems which have occupied us to-night. It is surely unwise to ask the House to divert its mind from questions of assessment, questions of rating, questions of area, and all the other important problems connected with the London Government Bill, and suddenly to come to a determination upon a question avowedly brought before us, not for the purpose of dealing with any problem of London government, but apparently with the object of preparing the way for some ecclesiastical reform. Nothing can exceed the importance of the question raised by the Amendment; but why should we be required to come, under most unfavourable circumstances, to a decision—which must affect and prejudice any further discussion which the House may have on some future occasion—in dealing with a Bill which only by accident in one corner, in one stray fragment, touches in some remote degree the ancient ecclesiastical constitution of the country?
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday.

  QUESTION.

    RIOTING IN BELFAST.
    MR. DILLON: Before the House adjourns, I desire to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland for some information as to what occurred in the City of Belfast last night. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that last week I felt it my duty to call the
    528
    attention of the House and of the Irish Minister to the deliberate organisation of riot and disorder in the City of Belfast which had been going on for several weeks. I then pointed out to the Chief Secretary that if he pursued the course which he pursued under similar circumstances last year with regard to the threats, a similar condition of disorder and scandalous riot would probably take place. The Chief Secretary, in reply, took upon himself the whole of the responsibility of preserving the peace of the City of Belfast on Sunday and Monday last. He said that the Government of Ireland were fully aware of the gravity of the situation, and were determined that peace should be preserved. I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the present instance there was no question of being taken by surprise, because for weeks the Government had been warned that riot and disorder would occur. In spite, how ever, of the statement of the Chief Secretary and of the warning which was given to the Government, there was last night in Belfast scandalous and violent rioting. I desire to emphasise one point in particular. I took the liberty of pointing out last week to the Chief Secretary that it was idle to expect, according my experience, to preserve the peace of the City effectively, with an insufficient police force, by the action of the military alone. In dealing with a riotous mob the military are very ineffective. They cannot arrest anyone, and all they can do is to charge with fixed bayonets or fire, and that is not a proper way, except in the very last extremity, to protect the police. Now what occurred? Yesterday a large National procession took place in Belfast. Shortly before half-past six a disturbance, unfortunately similar to that of last year,

    529
    broke out on the Old Lodge Road. The affair originated at Alton Street, where there is a Nationalist arch, and ended in an attack on the police. Stones of all sizes were hurled at the police, and District-inspector Hurst, seeing that affairs were getting serious, blew his whistle, unsheathed his sword, and ordered a charge. The police charged the mob, which was 250 strong, and it fled up the Lodge Road. The police were out-distanced, and stopped about one hundred yards up the road. Stones then began to fly again, and the crash of broken windows was to be heard. The mob remained above the Baths, shying stones for a while, but no person was injured. A detachment of the Dragoon Guards arrived immediately afterwards, and galloped up the road, the crowd dispersing into the side streets. The military turned four hundred yards up the street and walked down, but the crowd, during the absence of the military up the road, stoned eight policemen who were stationed at the corner of Upper Townsend Street. Two ornamental plate-glass windows in the public-house of Edward O'Neill were shattered, and another public-house was also damaged. The Dragoons continued to parade the street, and about seven o'clock the police made a charge under military protection, and arrested three men at the corner of Broadbent Street. They were quickly surrounded by an escort of the cavalry, under Sergeant M'Donald, and removed to Brown Square Barracks. The charges preferred against them were riotous behaviour, and the prisoners gave the names of William Henry Telford, Boyd Street; William Marshall, Tyne Street, Ballymacarrett; and Alexander Harrison, Dickson Street, Grosvenor Road. Meanwhile the stoning at Woodford Street and other points was kept up
    530
    vigorously, and many of the windows in Brown's Square Barracks were broken. Several more persons were injured, and the Telegraph reporter received a severe blow on the knee from a falling stone. About eight o'clock the cavalry at Townsend Street were withdrawn to scatter a mob on the Old Lodge Road, and, reinforcements being at hand, the crowd on the Shankhill had a clear passage to the police barracks; and they attacked it vigorously. Hundreds of stones were hurled at the windows, but the few police who were about remained in shelter, and no person was injured. Head-constable Buick had assistance telephoned for from the barracks, and District-inspector Hurst, coming up with twenty men, called out the reserves in the barracks. The whole force, along with the reinforcement of cavalry, then charged up the Shankhill, the mob scattering in all directions. The mob retreated to Dover Street, and the original military cordon returning from the Old Lodge Road, the cavalry force was augmented to the number of fifty troopers. The sight of this imposing force of the cavalry awed the crowd, who remained quiet for some time, no police being in sight. On the Old Lodge Road several wild scenes took place, and the police had to charge frequently. At eight o'clock a force of Rifles arrived at the barracks and took up a position in Brown's Square, to which several men who had been arrested on the Lodge Road were now conveyed under a strong police escort. At ten minutes past eight the City Commissioner, who was accompanied by Mr. Seddall, drove up from North Street and had a consultation with the authorities on the spot. The laxity of the police had been condemned so far, and stern measures, it is stated, will be taken, if the rioting continues. The Rifles were wheeled into the

    531
    Shankhill with fixed bayonets, awaiting orders. The rioting in Upper Townsend Street and Sherbrook Street now became fierce, and a terrible attack was made on the police who had been up the Old Lodge Road. A number of constables had to run for all they were worth down Sherbrook Street. Several constables were injured, but repeated charges by the horsemen scattered the rioters, though only for a few minutes. Quiet was no sooner comparatively restored on the Shankhill than terrible rioting broke out on the Lodge Road. A crowd in Stanhope Street stoned the Nationalist party vigorously, and about 20 police got sandwiched between them and received severe treatment. Pavers were torn up by the women, who along with the men on both sides hurled them to such an extent that for ten minutes the air was black with missiles. The police, shut in between both parties, were badly injured, and they were powerless to either charge or escape. They tried to make their way into Arnon Street by a side thoroughfare, but were repulsed by the crowds who ran after them. Scarcely a window in Stanhope Street escaped, and many heads were cracked by the showers of stones. Matters were so serious that a company of the Rifles were sent for and advancing up Lime Street wheeled into the Lodge Road and charged the Protestant mob with fixed bayonets several hundred yards. On the way back to their starting place the crowd stoned the police with renewed vigour. Sergeant M'Manus, of Glenrave Street, was cut off, and several women went up to within a few yards of them and hurled pavers at them. The Rifles then charged the Catholic crowd in Stanhope-street, and there rowdies pelted the military vigorously, but the Protestant mob left them alone. The police had disappeared for the time being, but the next thing heard was the bugle of a detachment of
    532
    Dragoons, which rang out the charge, and instantly the red-coats came in sight, and galloped down the Old Lodge Road, the crowd retired into the side streets. Additional Rifles were now despatched to the scene, and charge after charge was made in the side streets. The Riot Act by this time had been read, and matters were assuming a very serious aspect. The police were chased from Stanhope Street, and when again reinforced by the infantry made a charge, and one arrest was made, the prisoner being removed to Brown's Square by ten constables, under Mr. M'Ardle, D. I. At nine o'clock a detachment of Rifles marched into Brown's Square, and orders having been given, they loaded their rifles, and faced up the Shankhill, prepared for any eventualities. Immediately afterwards Constable Norton, one of the wounded policemen in Stanhope Street, was assisted into the barracks with a badly injured leg and arm. He almost fainted on the way to the barracks, and once he got inside his injuries were attended to. It subsequently transpired that the reading of the Riot Act took place near Agnes Street, where a crowd of some 14,000 people had assembled, and so threatening was their attitude that Major Gregg read the Act. O'Neill's premises, already referred to, were badly wrecked by another mob earlier in the evening, and before the Rifles charged with their bayonets. At 9.30 matters looked a little easier; but the streets were still guarded by soldiers. The prisoners so far are still detained in Brown's Square Barracks, and will not be taken to the Central Station till the trouble subsides. At 9.30 the Shankhill Road presented a scene such as even at its worst experiences has seldom, if ever, been eclipsed. Cordons of police and infantry, with fixed bayonets, and dragoons cut off access at

    533
    every available point, while detachments of cavalry were constantly moving up and down the thoroughfare, keeping the crowds in motion. There seemed to be riot in the very air, and from the most unexpected quarters showers of stones and other missiles were being every moment hurled wherever a police constable chanced to put in an appearance. To crown all, and add to the confusion, dense volumes of smoke intensified the growing darkness. Some dozens of chimneys had been purposely set on fire, showers of burnt paper making it only too clear that the simultaneous outbreaks were no mere coincidence. Now, I ask again, is that a condition of things that ought to be tolerated in a civilised country and after full warning? This kind of thing went on for several hours, and I have heard a rumour about an hour or two ago that a military officer who was struck has since died. Now, I say that in view of what occurred in the House last week, and of the constant repetition of these scandalous scenes, and of the well-known fact, particularly in the present instance, that these riots were organised and meetings held for weeks previously for the avowed intention of getting up these riots, it is a disgrace and scandal that the Irish Government are not better able to preserve the peace of the city. The Shankhill Road and the Old Lodge Road have been turned into a veritable pandemonium. What I specially complain of is that the police were again and again hunted down and driven into the fight before the military came to their aid. This is a monstrous and outrageous thing, and is calculated to inflame and encourage the riotous spirit which has so often disgraced Belfast. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I have not, on this or on a previous occasion, come before the House appealing for protection for the Catholics of Belfast. They are well able to protect themselves, but every citizen of
    534
    Belfast, Catholic or Protestant, Methodist or Presbyterian, is entitled to the protection of the law. I ask the Chief Secretary if he has any further information, and in particular whether it is true that the military officer who was struck has since died.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have no information to the effect that the military officer in question has since died. With regard to the general question, the hon. Member appears to be under the extraordinary delusion that the police are to be expected not merely to suppress riots, but also attempts at riots. You might just as well expect the police not merely to check crime, but even to prevent crime from the outset. Such a claim is perfectly absurd, and the hon. Member must know it to be so.
    MR. DILLON: Not at all.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: All the precautions which could be taken were taken, and it is impossible in a city like Belfast absolutely to prevent any attempt at rioting. When rioting breaks out, all that the authorities and the police can do is to take adequate measures to suppress it, and in this case such measures were

    535
    taken. Considering the extreme tension prevailing in such a place as Belfast, I have heard that all the authorities, the military as well as the police, did their duty in an admirable way, and prevented what might have been a very serious riot, resulting in serious loss of life. The responsibility for these disturbances rests with those who got up the processions last year, and this year, knowing perfectly well what the result would be on the peace of this city. As to the occurrences of last evening, I say that as
    536
    far as I am aware no rioting has taken place. A telegram sent by the Commissioner at 8.30 says:
    "City remains in its normal state; I will wire at 10 p.m."
    At 10 o'clock a telegram was received stating:—
    "City continues quiet, and, as far as I can judge, no danger of rioting to-night."
    Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Solicitors.
Supreme Court (Appeals).
Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts Amendment.
Metropolitan Water Companies.
Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Swansea).
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).
St. Andrew's Burgh Provisional Order Confirmation.
Rushden and Higham Ferrers District Gas.
Ilford Urban District Council (Rates).
Aberdeen Harbour.
Herne Bay Water.
Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas.
Crowborough District Gas.
St. David's Water and Gas.
Clay Cross Water.
Glasgow District Subway.
Loughborough and Sheepshed Railway.
Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area).
Bristol Floods Prevention.
Perth Water, Police, and Gas.
Vale of Glamorgan Railway.
Wallasey Tramways and Improvements.
Northern Assurance Company.
Tenterden Railway.
Surrey Commercial Docks.
Horsforth Urban District Council (Water).
Burley-in-Wharfedale Urban District Water.
Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Water.
Woodhouse and Conisbrough Railway (Abandonment).
Coalville Urban District Gas.
Glastonbury Water.
Queen's Ferry Bridge.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAIL WAY. LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS. BELFAST WATER.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
BELFAST CORPORATION.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH-COAST RAILWAY (PENISIONS) BILL.
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
SHOTLEY BRIDGE AND CONSETT DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Committee to meet on Friday next.
TRANSVAAL MORTGAGE LOAN AND FINANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Reported with amendments.
AYR BURGH BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTH - EASTERN AND HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAYS (JOINT DOCK) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTH - EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ILFORD GAS BILL,
Read 3a with the amendments; further amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WOLVERHAMPTON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.] WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.] EISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL. BARRY RAILWAY BILL. LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL. EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),
D. Northumberland (chairman),
E. Bradford,
L. Clonbrock,
L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam),
L. Crawshaw.
Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday next, at Eleven of the clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be
412
heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
BROUGHTY FERRY GAS AND PAVING ORDER BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABERAVON, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
INFECTIOUS DISEASE (NOTIFICATION) ACT (1889) EXTENSION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.
HULL, BARNSLEY AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an amendment.
ST. ALBANS GAS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments.
JONES'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the minutes of evidence taken before this House; together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LIVERPOOL) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888 (SECTION 31).
  Sixth Report by the Board of Trade of proceedings under section 31 of the Act, including proceedings upon complaints made under section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Return for the month of November 1898.

  ALDERSHOT (SEWAGE FARM AND DAIRY).
  Report on the condition of the Aldershot Camp Sewage Farm, and of the dairy maintained upon it.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Order in Council of 19th May 1899, authorising an increase in the clerical
  414
  establishment of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, and in the salary of Mr. William Coats, accountant and cashier to the Commissioners.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1875.
  Order in Council of 19th May 1899, amending the Order in Council of 28th July 1893, so far as it relates to the South Eastern Circuit.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS, 1865–1869.
  Order in Council of 19th May 1899, authorising the grant of a special gratuity to Mrs. Lynch.
  Order in Council of 19th May 1899, applying the Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to the Colony of Queensland.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland appointing the places at which examinations for 1899 shall be held.
  INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1897–98: Thirty-fourth number. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITION.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
  Petition for amendment of; of Urban District Council of Leadgate; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL. [H.L.]
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, having explained the principles and provisions of the Bill at considerable length on the occasion of its introduction, I do not intend, in moving its

  415
  Second Reading, to delay your Lordships by making more than a very few observations. The Bill has not only been largely discussed in the Press, but it has also been very generally considered by the Chambers of Commerce, the Trade Associations, and the various Co-operative Associations throughout the country, and there has been a unanimous opinion expressed by these various authorities in favour of the principle of the Bill, and I would go further, and say, in favour of a stringent measure to enforce the principle of this Bill. This is not merely an opinion which has been expressed apart from the opportunity of seeing the Bill itself, because the Bill has been widely circulated by myself amongst the Chambers of Commerce, and the opinions they have expressed have been arrived at after consideration of the actual provisions of the Measure. I do not desire that your Lordships should understand that in all the details of the Bill these various bodies agree, but the great majority of them have expressed a general approval of the Bill as it stands. I have myself been in communication with representatives of certain interests that might be supposed to be affected by the Bill if it became Law—persons representing Bankers, Insurance Companies, and Solicitors. I have listened to the representations they have made, and have very little doubt that in Committee I shall be able to make such alterations in the Bill as will meet any just objections they may be inclined to put forward to its provisions. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I will conclude by stating the course I propose to take if, as I should hope I may anticipate, your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading this evening. I intend to put it down for the Committee stage on Thursday; and, inasmuch as it would be much more convenient that the Bill should go before a Committee, whether a Select Committee or a Grand Committee, to be considered in detail, with all the Amendments printed—and I may mention that the number of Amendments which I have to propose is not inconsiderable—I shall propose on Thursday to recommit the Bill pro forma, in order that it may be reprinted with the Amendments. I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved—
  "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  —The Lord Russell of Killowen.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, this Bill, as the Preamble states, is for the purpose of putting a stop to a practice which is producing great evils by corrupting the morals of the community, and from that point of view I cannot abstain from taking a great interest in the Bill, and from expressing the hope that it will successfully pass through your Lordships' House. If the Bill was concerned solely with what is called commercial morality, I should not have ventured to address the House upon it; but it concerns all pecuniary dealings between man and man. It deals with a practice which taints almost everything men are able to do one with another. It deals with a mischief, the principle of which is that no money is to be passed from one person to another without some of it sticking to the fingers of everyone who touches it. Such a principle as that, which meets with mute and tacit acceptance by society, really constitutes a very great danger, and prevents us from trusting even those who are in our most intimate employment; it prevents them, when they wish to be strictly honest, from entirely succeeding, and it removes the basis of confidence which it is so desirable to maintain in all the dealings which we have one with another. If this practice only extended to the matter of gratuities passing between one person and another upon every transaction that took place, though it might be exceedingly undesirable, yet it might not be entirely reprehensible. There was a time, I believe, when even the occupants of the Judicial Bench received gratuities from those whom they tried; and, though it might be urged that if they received them impartially from both parties, and decided the case according to the evidence, no particular harm was done, I think it will be admitted that the practice was not one calculated to promote honourable dealings between the parties. Even the passing of gratuities is exceedingly undesirable; but it is impossible that the evil can stop short there. Gratuities rapidly give an opportunity for blackmailing, which is one of those incidents of ordinary life to which we must all feel a deep-seated objection. The process by which blackmailing is reached is a very simple one. For instance, the representative of a firm doing business with another firm on a tolerably large scale may get a letter from the principal foreman suggesting that a subscription to a philanthropic object would be greatly

  417
  welcomed. The subscription is given, and then the area of subscriptions rapidly extends. Clubs, feasts, festivals, athletic sports, and every pursuit of the employees of the firm which receives goods are brought forward as deserving of support in one form or another, and eventually a period is reached when the communications become of a somewhat more person character, and when a postscript is attached giving the private address of the writer. That is the beginning of an indication that, unless a gratuity is given immediately to the correspondent, some objection will be taken to the goods that are supplied, and the commercial transaction may be brought to an end. It is obvious that the existence of a state of things such as this is destructive of all morality between man and man. I have been informed of a case that is still worse, where a foreman received from a firm a whole sheaf of postal orders with the request that they might be distributed among foremen of other firms, accompanied by written instructions as to the way in which the recipients were to pick holes and find fault with the goods supplied by another firm which the first firm meant to cut out in the trade. I need not enlarge upon the report of the London Chamber of Commerce, which supplies an adequate number of instances in which the principle of gratuities rapidly develops into blackmail. I suppose we are all agreed as to the great evil of these illicit secret payments, but I can quite understand that there may be some differences of opinion whether or no the practice can be stopped by legislation. I take a high view both of the functions and possibilities of legislation. It is quite true that men cannot be made virtuous by Act of Parliament, but at least temptations can be removed from their path, and it can be made more possible for men to be virtuous than vicious. One function of the law, at all events, is that it should express the public conscience, and so break down corrupt conventions. There is nothing more difficult or more important than to break down the conventions of society when they become corrupt. It is very hard for an individual to resist them by himself, or to raise an isolated voice against them; and it is only when he has something to support him that he can really hope to succeed in escaping from them. These conventions cannot be attacked by legislation until they have reached a point at which they are ready
  418
  to fall, and on this question of corrupt practices I venture to think that conventions of trade have reached a point when they are ready to fall if a sufficient impulse is given to them. There are many who are groaning under them, and who only require some such support as this Bill, if passed, will give them to enable them to free themselves. Trade custom in itself is very hard to contend against. It is not so much a regulation or a habit as an atmosphere in which ordinary morality has often to be abandoned, frequently with a sigh on the part of those who adandon it. There are, however, many who long to get back to that ordinary morality which in their private life they can afford to practise, but which they are compelled to put on one side in their commercial life. How are they to do so? If a man says to one who asks him to consent either to give or to receive an illicit commission, "You are asking me to do a dishonourable act," the answer is, "If you want to keep your honour you should not come here." If he says, "You ask me to do an illegal act," the answer is, "What does it matter, there is no penalty?" But when he is in a position to say, "You are asking me to commit a misdemeanour for which you and I can be imprisoned," the position becomes entirely different. It is by the introduction of that position, and by giving that support, that a corrupt convention can be broken down, evil habits adandoned, and a new start made. The great force of law, after all, lies in its power of isolation, tracing an offence back to its causes, and onwards to its consequences. It is useless to say that the law has not succeeded in the past. The law has succeeded. A representative of a great firm to whom I was talking on this subject told me that in his dealings with foreign countries he was compelled to give bribes to obtain orders, and in dealing with firms in this country gratuities had also to be given. "But," he added, "there is one class of the community—those who bear Her Majesty's Commission—in dealing with whom there is no suggestion of a gratuity." There is, therefore, one class above suspicion. An Act of Parliament has been passed to enforce upon public bodies the same standard as that which prevails amongst those who hold Her Majesty's Commission; and I venture to think the time has arrived when that Act should be extended universally, when the whole community

  419
  deserves the same protection, and when the same sentiment of honour may be encouraged in the mind of everybody, because they have behind them the law which explains and enforces the true meaning of their actions, and gives them the necessary stimulus to be true to what, in their own hearts, they know to be right, and to stand up for uprightness in their dealings one with another. No doubt the provisions of the Bill will meet with close criticism, but the acceptance of its principle will, I am quite sure, be welcomed by the sound majority of the commercial world, who will feel their hands strengthened in resisting the tyranny of the petty dishonesty which at present weaves its meshes around them in a way which it is exceedingly difficult for them to overcome without such help as this Bill provides.
  THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I cannot but think that this Bill is one that should be only alluded to and supported or opposed by those whom I may call legal experts on this somewhat complicated question; but I am quite sure we all welcome the admirable speech which has just been delivered by the right reverend Prelate, I who has touched upon the question from a moral and thoroughly practical point of view. I confess that, under these circumstances, I feel considerable diffidence in rising to address your Lordships on this question, and, indeed, I should not do so but for the fact that I have the honour to be a member of a most important Chamber of Commerce—the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Belfast—the members of which watch with a very jealous eye all measures that come before Parliament, and do me the great honour of asking me to criticise or put forward their views when any measure in which they are interested comes before your Lordships' House. The Belfast Chamber of Commerce have taken considerable interest in this Bill, and, like all right-thinking business men, they regard its object as most laudable. At the same time, they would feel greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill if he could see his way in Committee to make some slight alterations which would meet their views. As I understand, this Bill was originally recommended to the noble and learned Lord
  420
  opposite, and, consequently, to your Lordships' House, by the Chamber of Commerce of the City of London. The Bill, as it then stood, was closely considered by the Chamber to which I have the honour to belong, and some of its provisions did not meet with their approval. They consequently issued a draft on first reading that Bill, and in that draft they protested against a provision which appeared in one of the clauses to the effect that every case of undisclosed commission or inducement should be deemed to be corrupt and, ipso facto, punishable. Since that draft was issued a considerable change has been made in the provision referred to, and it has been amended in such a way that no consideration given or offered to any agent, by any person having business relations with the principal of such agent, shall be deemed to have been corruptly given or offered when it is proved that the principal had given his consent thereto, or that the consideration was not calculated or intended, and had no tendency, to corrupt the agent by inducing him to do or to leave undone something contrary to his duty, or by creating any other undue influence on the mind of the agent. The Belfast Chamber of Commerce welcome the change in Clause 3, which has been made under the auspices of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. But there are two clauses in the Bill which they think will work harshly and unjustly—I allude to Clauses 7 and 8, which the Belfast Chamber of Commerce consider of somewhat too wide and drastic a character. They consider that there might be greater leniency shown in certain cases between a donor and a recipient, and that there should be a difference made between persons between whom fiduciary relations exist and those between whom no such relations exist. They also consider that hard cases might arise under these clauses, and that persons might be injuriously affected who had no intention to carry on their business except in a bonâ fide manner. In a report sent to me examples have been given to show that it would be possible for recommendations to be given in a perfectly bonâ fide manner to employ a doctor or solicitor, or to patronise a particular establishment; but apparently under the Bill any gift or advantage conferred in recognition of such friendly offices, even a return of similar recommendations,

  421
  might be treated as a criminal offence. The Belfast Chamber of Commerce speak in the highest possible terms in support of the provisions of the Bill dealing with the giving to agents of false or misleading accounts or receipts, and they consider these very excellent provisions. There is one other point upon which the Belfast Chamber of Commerce offer a suggestion, and it is that prosecutions under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should, so far as Ireland is concerned, be instituted by the Attorney-General for Ireland. They are of opinion that if a provision to that effect were inserted frivolous objections would not be raised, and they consider that it would be the means, to a great extent, of avoiding the blackmailing of innocent people. I know quite well that these are questions which should be dealt with in Committee, and I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for having brought under your attention so many details at this stage of the Bill; but, as a member of an important Chamber of Commerce, I felt it my duty to bring before the House the opinions of the Chamber upon the Bill, so as to give the noble and learned Lord who is in charge of it an opportunity of thinking over the suggestions, and, I hope, eventually acquiescing in them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (the EARL of HALSBURY): My Lords, I should be very sorry indeed to utter a discordant note, and I suppose if it were put in an abstract form nobody would deny that there ought to be punishment for bribing an agent to betray his principal. The only observation I have to make has been in a measure anticipated by the noble Marquess, and it is that several of the provisions of the Bill might be misunderstood, and possibly might work injustice by operating in a direction quite the contrary to what is intended. It is unnecessary to go further into criticisms of this sort, not only because this is not the period for criticism on particular clauses, but also because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has intimated that he himself intends to move amendments which your Lordships will be able to consider. May I say generally that when we are all agreed that something has to be done and that very drastic measures are demanded, it is sometimes the most dangerous condition into which a Legislature can get, because it is very
  422
  likely then to do a great deal more than it intends by reason of the feeling that something must be done. The inevitable result is that a reaction sets in against what it is desirable and proper to do. Although I have said this by way of caution, I heartily agree with the general object of the Bill. I think there is a considerable demand for it. I confess for myself that, regarding our Acts of Parliament as perhaps the most well-founded portions of our history—I think it has been remarked that it is almost certain they will be accepted as absolute verities by future generations—I do think the preamble of the Bill is a little too sweeping in its allegations of corruption and immorality. The preamble states that—
  "Whereas secret commissions in various forms are prevalent to a great extent in almost all trades and professions, and in some trades the said practice has increased and is increasing: And whereas the said practice is producing great evils, by corrupting the morals of the community, and by discouraging honest trade and enterprise, and it is expedient to check the same and other kindred malpractices, by making them criminal."
  We need not, I think, stamp our century with the imputation that the whole of our morals are being corrupted by this system. I do not know that a preamble is of very much consequence to any Act of Parliament, but I do hope that my noble and learned friend will not be too much enamoured of the language of the preamble to render it necessary for us to stamp this century in the way this preamble does. On the part of Her Majesty's Government, I have to say that they welcome this Bill, and are not in the least disposed to oppose its second reading.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, although my right rev. brother the Bishop of London has already addressed to your Lordships words which we should all have been sorry to lose, I hope your Lordships will not feel it inappropriate that something further should be said from this bench on a matter which so closely concerns the moral well-being of the community. Bishops and clergy are specially concerned in this matter, not merely as those who have a supreme interest in the morals of the people, but because, from the circumstances of their life-work, they have of necessity a special knowledge on the subject which is not possessed by all your Lord-

  423
  ships. The ordinary life of the parish clergyman brings him in contact with those in the lower grades of industrial life. They come to him, not as to an employer, not as to a politician, but as to a personal friend, whose advice they seek and to whom they open their hearts; and it would be very easy for anyone who has had this experience to give your Lordships case after case in which, against their will, men, and perhaps women, have lost their self-respect by having to fall in with these trade customs, from which they cannot escape. The testimony of working men on this subject is, so far as I know, practically unanimous as to the way in which their particular trades are corrupted under this system. In the not inconsiderable correspondence which I have been engaged in on this subject, one man after another bears testimony to this fact, that the present alienation of large bodies of workmen from the ordinary ministrations of religion and the observance of public worship is due, in no small measure, to the fact that they feel it would be hypocritical to appear as religious men when in their trade and ordinary life they are reluctantly but constantly engaged in doing things which are contrary to such public profession. I am sure, therefore, that the bishops and clergy throughout the land will give a cordial welcome to the Bill the second reading of which the Lord Chief Justice has just moved. May I venture to say that I am specially thankful for the quarter from which the Bill has come. I try to picture sometimes to myself what would have been the comments which would have been made on the Bill had it emanated from the members of the episcopal bench. We should have heard of the fantastic, unpractical, utopian ideas of the clergy, living up in a balloon and out of touch with the ordinary commercial conditions of public life and trade. But, fortunately, the Bill comes to us from a source which none dares thus to decry. It comes to us on the motion of the Lord Chief Justice of England, who told us, in his opening remarks on the subject, that he spoke from much experience, largely professional and in part judicial, as to the evils, the magnitude of which it is impossible to exaggerate. The noble and learned Lord has been supported throughout by Sir Edward Fry, than whom no man is more entitled to deal with questions of this
  424
  kind. They are supported by practically all the chambers of commerce throughout the land, and one has only to be very briefly in communication with those whose affairs bring them into contact with the questions with which this Bill deals to find how general is the approval of it. One man who occupies a position which gives him wide and varied knowledge of the commercial world writes:
  "The evil aimed at is so great and so mischievous that I think the advantage of any chance of checking it far outweighs the possible inconvenience or even hardship which might arise in some really innocent cases.'
  Five or six years ago a Church society with which I have the honour to be connected, a society which interests itself specially in social problems, issued a large number of inquiries to employers of labour and men of business with reference to the difficulty, if any, experienced by them in reconciling the principles of the highest honesty and probity with the ordinary transactions in which they were daily engaged. The result of these inquiries was seen in the melancholy monotony of the replies. So much information was given by the Lord Chief Justice on the matter that it would be mere repitition were I to quote the answers received, but I could easily do so if desired. There is one answer, however, which I should like to read to the House, as representing the drift of many others and because it concerns closely a good many of those who sit in your Lordships' House. The writer, speaking of the difficulty which he, as a veterinary surgeon, experienced with regard to the acceptance of bribes by the various coachmen and others with whom he had to do business, says:
  "I never give these bribes. But if there be any necessity for it, that is the fault of the so-called 'better classes.' They may not like being robbed, but they would rather be robbed than bothered."
  When the veterinary surgeon who was pressed for these bribes went to the employer he was told that it was no doubt unfortunate, but it could not be helped, and that it was a pity he had raised the question. Now, my Lords, under the existing law, what can we expect such a man to do? There is, it seems to me, a deep pathos in the position of people, hating the system and longing to get rid of it, but feeling that unless they are prepared to forfeit their

  425
  daily bread, it is simply impossible to give it up, inasmuch as a few dishonest folk can make it exceedingly hard for so many. A curious object lesson as to the view of working men upon the matter can be seen in the growth of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. It is part of the working of a trade movement which now reaches some £60,000,000 per annum, and the getting rid of this bribery system is one of the motives which has instigated these men to found the Wholesale Society. They contend that they were bound to do so if they were to fall back on what they call the principles of the Rochdale pioneers of 50 years ago—fundamental honesty in trade. On the general policy of this Bill my correspondence shows that there are practically only two lines of objection taken. The first is that the details are unworkable, and in regard to that a good deal may require consideration, but that is an objection which I am very ready to leave in the hands of those who are primarily responsible for the Bill. But there is another objection of which not much has been heard in these debates, though it has been loudly proclaimed outside. There are certainly not a few people who think that our competition with foreign traders will be affected if this Bill becomes law. I again venture to quote a private letter from one who has had experience all over the world in mercantile affairs, and who says:
  "If this Bill became law we should have to face a loud and logical outcry about driving trade away from this country. It is certain that business without bribery is practically impossible with such countries as Russia, Spain, China, South America … British trade is not self-contained, and this question of commissions is as international as the question of disarmament."
  That is a question upon which, as regards its technical side, I am incapable of expressing an opinion, but I fall back on the general principle which underlies all legislation, or attempted legislation, of this kind—the principle that in the long run "honesty is the best policy." My Lords, either the Bill is likely to have some effect in stopping bribery or it is not. If not, let us oppose it by all means as a useless Bill, but do not let us bring in the totally different question of foreign competition. If, on the other hand, we feel that we are by passing this Bill likely to check in some degree an admitted evil, will anyone have the face to say that we
  426
  ought to abstain from doing so lest, if we are successful, we might in some degree interfere with our foreign trade? The success of English trade throughout the world has been due to the excellence of our goods; and, secondly, to the honesty of our merchants. I do not know how many of your Lordships have read the extremely interesting Blue Book which was published last year, containing a summary by the Board of Trade of the reports of foreign consuls as to the increase or decrease of British trade in different parts of the world. One learned from that Blue Book, amongst many other things, that where British trade is being ousted by other trade it appears to be, first, in cases where cheapness, and nothing but cheapness, is the consideration, and, secondly, in cases where ingenious adaptation to the peculiar wants of customers has been more readily adopted by our rivals on the Continent than by ourselves; but where quality is what is wanted English trade is able to hold its ground. I should wish on this point to quote two authorities, one of them public, and one private. In the report to which I have referred it is stated, speaking of the competition of Russia in cheap sewing machines, that—
  "It may be difficult to draw the line between cheap and trumpery articles, but it is something that the word 'English' applied (in Russia) to goods or materials usually means the best that man can make."
  Such testimony, coming from an official source, is surely of high value. Again, to quote from a private letter, the head of one of the leading firms in the cotton trade writes:
  "The possession of trade marks that are known to and prized by the natives is exceedingly valuable, and merchants who have them will not hesitate to spend any amount of money on their protection from imitation or infringement. What makes them valuable is the fact that goods on which they appear are known to be right. The mark sells the goods, but the goods must first of all have earned their reputation. Thirty years ago we began consigning to China, really in order to get rid of our surplus production. For a long time we did the business at a loss. The goods were new to the market and had to be sold for what they would fetch; but they were honest stuft … and they never varied in quality. Gradually the Chinese grew familiar with the marks. They found the goods bearing those marks could be thoroughly depended upon, and now they order them in large quantities, paying us our price for them."
  We may lose that reputation if we compete with other nations in the pitiable

  427
  expedient of bribery and corruption, and once lost that reputation will never be regained. Ten years ago, on the initiative of Lord Randolph Churchill, a Bill was passed for preventing corruption on the part of the servants of public companies. I believe the testimony is unanimous that that Act, after ten years working, has been found to be productive of enormous good, and that the abuses against which it was aimed have been far less prevalent. If anyone will refer to the debate in both Houses of Parliament on the occasion of the introduction of that Bill, he will find that when the complaint was made, "Why stop with the servants of public companies?" the reply was, "We are proceeding one step at a time. Before very long, if it proves successful, the provisions of the Bill will be extended." I venture to think that the time has now come when that step, to which those who introduced the Bill ten years ago wisely looked forward, should be taken. I support the second reading of the Bill on all these grounds, but most of all on the ground that it is our bounden duty to help the helpless against a system which is daily to a larger extent entangling men and women who would fain be free, and by depriving them of their self-respect is inflicting a deadly injury upon English life.
  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, the friends of this Bill have, I think, every reason to be satisfied with the course the discussion has taken, and the observations I propose to make to your Lordships will be of the briefest kind. So far as the speeches that have been made are concerned, I have to thank the two right rev. Prelates for the valuable contributions they have made to the debate in support of this Bill. With regard to the criticisms made by the noble Marquess opposite, in his capacity as president of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, I have to say two things. I shall endeavour, in the Amendments I propose to submit, to give effect to some of those criticisms, but to one of them I cannot give my assent; on the contrary, I shall feel obliged strongly to oppose it; that is, the suggestion that this Bill should be put in operation only in prosecutions to be instituted by the Attorney-General.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: In Ireland.
  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: Whether in Ireland, or in England, or by the Lord Advocate in Scotland, the admission of such a provision would, I believe, render the Bill practically nugatory. I am willing to consider the suggestion made by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, whether leave from some judicial authority should not be considered a necessary precedent to a prosecution, but that is a different matter. I confess to a feeling of regret that the noble Marquess addressed your Lordships in his character as president of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce rather than—
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not president at the present moment. I am only a member of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce.
  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: I regret that the noble Marquess addressed your Lordships in his character as a member of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce rather than in his important character as a great coalowner in the North of England, because, if my information is not very misleading, the noble Lord could give us very useful information on the subject, which would tend to make your Lordships feel that a Bill of this kind, and a very stringent Bill indeed, on the lines indicated is absolutely called for. I thank the noble and learned Earl the Lord Chancellor for the spirit in which he made his criticism, and it probably will relieve his mind if I inform him, in reference to his desire for historical accuracy in the preamble, that the preamble is taken verbatim et literatim from a paragraph in the report of the London Chamber of Commerce. I may also add that, inasmuch as I do not myself approve of any preambles in Acts of Parliament, I intend to move an Amendment to omit the preamble altogether. May I again inform the House the course I propose to take, subject to your Lordships' agreeing to the Second Reading to-night? I intend to put the Bill down for Committee stage on Thursday, but merely for the formal purpose of having it re-committed, so that it may come before any Committee your Lordships may decide to refer it to with the full Amendments which I shall propose in print.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read a second time accordingly, and committed

  429
  to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL [Lords].
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, in consequence of a communication which I have received this morning from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, I would ask leave to withdraw the Order for the Second Reading.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  FARNLEY TYAS MARRIAGES BILL.
  Read a second time (according to order, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  Read a third time (according to order), and passed; and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Five of the clock, to Thursday next, at fifteen minutes after Four of the clock.