Sitting of 8 May 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  (Standing Order 62 complied with.)
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No.2) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.)
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid 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 Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—

BURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  (No Standing Orders not previously inquired into applicable.)
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.:—

  SKIPTON URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.)
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL,
  Read a third time, and passed.
  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAM-WAYS BILL.
  Read a third time, and passed.
  GLASGOW DISTRICT SUBWAY BILL [Lords).
  Read a third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read a third time, and passed.
  AYR BURGH BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  KENSINGTON AND NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  PERTH WATER, POLICE, AND GAS BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  REDDITCH GAS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  KEW BRIDGE BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (HARROW WEALD) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES PROVISIONAL ORDER (BORROW-STOUNNESS).
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order by the Secretary for Scotland relating to the
  26
  burgh of Borrowstounness; ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Anstruther.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Blackpool, Lynmouth, and Otter Ferry; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES PROVISIONAL ORDER (BORROW-STOUNNESS) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order by the Secretary for Scotland relating to the burgh of Borrowstounness," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 178.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Blackpool, Lynmouth, and Otter Ferry," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 179.)
  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 7).
  Ordered, that the Minutes of Evidence on the Bradford Water and Improvement Bill, Session 1881, and Pudsey Gas Bill, Session 1887, be referred to the Committee on Group No. 7 of Railway Bills.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE STIPENDIARY JUSTICE BILL.
  Reported, with amendments; Reports to lie upon the table, and to be printed.
  GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Reported, with amendments; Reports to lie upon the table, and to be printed.
  LONDON IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  Reported, with amendments; Reports to lie upon the table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
  Clay Cross Water Bill, without Amendment.
  Dublin Improvement (Bull Alley Area) Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the powers of the Hastings and Saint Leonards Gas Company; to amend the Acts relating to that Company; and for other purposes." [Hastings and Saint Leonards Gas Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to restore to the Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer, and Governors of the Infant Orphan Asylum a strip of land in Epping Forest which has been forfeited by them and become part of the waste of the forest." [Infant Orphan Asylum Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Friends' Provident Institution to sue and be sued in the name of a public officer; for more effectually vesting in their trustees for the time being the funds and property of the Institution; for conferring further powers on the Institution as to the investment of their funds; and for other purposes." [Friends' Provident Institution Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the South Hants Waterworks Company to make additional waterworks; to extend the limits of supply of the Company; to raise additional capital; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes. [South Hants Water Bill [Lords].
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the municipal and police boundaries of the burgh of Renfrew; to authorise the construction of a tidal dock or basin and other works at the harbour; and for other purposes." [Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension Bill [Lords].

  HASTINGS AND ST. LEONARDS GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  INFANT ORPHAN ASYLUM BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
  Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Crewe;—and, Wimbledon; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Tenbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour;—From Bedwellty;—Tredegar;—and, Poplar; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND VALUES (TAXATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Coatbridge, in favour; to lie upon the Table:
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Lower Conygre;—Upper Conygre;—Spring-field;—Greyfield;—Black Park;—Westminster;—and Eccleston Hall and Lancaster Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dumfriesshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Wallsend, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Edinburgh, for establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition from Waterford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Salford;—Camberwell; Hindley;—and Newport (Isle of Wight); to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition from Dorset, for repeal, to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEER CORPS).
  Copy presented, of Annual Return for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (IRELAND) (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of General Regulations for the Management and Discipline of Certified Inebriate Reformatories in Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. (No. 182.)
  SUEZ CANAL (COMMERCIAL, No. 4, 1899).
  Copy presented, of Returns of Shipping and Tonnage, 1896, 1897, and 1898 (in continuation of "Commercial, No. 4, 1898") [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2250 and 2254 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Charitable Endowments (West Riding of the County of York) and Leeds (Inquiry into Charities). Further Return relative thereto (ordered 10th August, 1894, Mr. Francis Stevenson, and 8th April, 1897, Mr. Grant Lawson); to be printed. (No. 183.)
  2. Charitable Endowments (West Riding of the County of York). Further Return relative thereto (ordered 10th August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson); to be printed. (No. 184.)
  3. Charitable Endowments (West Riding of the County of York), Inquiry into Charities (Parish of Halifax, including County Borough of Halifax), and Huddersfield, County Borough (Charities). Further Return relative thereto (ordered 10th August, 1894, Mr. Francis Stevenson, and 13th May, 1896, and 29th July, 1897, Mr. Grant Lawson); to be printed. (No. 185.)

QUESTIONS.

  WAGES.—DISTURBANCES IN GLAMORGANSHIRE.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the decision of the High Court on Monday last, in the case of The Queen v. the County Council of Glamorgan, when it was held that the cost of supplies furnished to Her Majesty's troops by Aberdare tradesmen, at the instance of certain local magistrates upon whose request the troops had been brought into the district to maintain order, was not payable by the

  31
  County Council, but was an Imperial obligation; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will, in accordance with this decision, pay to such tradesmen the sums due in respect of the goods so furnished?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The legal points that have been raised by the decision in question have been referred by the Secretary of State to the Law Officers of the Crown, who are considering them.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, what is the number of Roman Catholic elementary schools in receipt of grants to which parents demanding free places for their children have been directed by the Department to send their children; what is the number of Roman Catholic elementary schools to which, owing to there being no other school or no places in other schools, parents are compelled to send their children; whether he will grant a Return of such schools; and, whether, in such Return, the number of children of non-Catholic parents can be included?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I am unable to supply the numbers, or to grant the Return, requested by the honourable Member. The Department does not direct parents to send their children to any particular school, but supplies them with the names of schools at which free places are available. This is done without reference to the religious denomination to which the schools belong; and the Department has, as a rule, no information as regards the religious tenets of the parents who make the applications.

  DISEASE AT GIBRALTAR.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the state of affairs in regard to venereal disease which prevails in
  32
  Gibraltar; whether the committee, which was appointed recently to inquire into the general and sanitary condition of the fortress, has reported on this question; whether he will state to the House the comparative figures as to venereal disease between Gibraltar and the other Mediterranean stations, as well as the Home stations; and, whether any steps are being taken in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM,): The report from the Committee on Gibraltar has been received. It deals, among other matters, with venereal disease. In respect of the garrison, during the five years ending in 1897, the admissions averaged 290 per thousand in each year, as against 152 at Malta and 170 in the United Kingdom. The average daily number in hospital was 28·3 per thousand, as against 13·5 at Malta and 15·0 at home. The report of the Committee is under consideration.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many school boards in Scotland have submitted to the Scotch Education Department during the year 1898 resolutions in favour of the establishment of technical schools, under the Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887; will he state how many of these resolutions referred to day and how many to evening schools; and, whether any such resolutions were received from the Highland crofting counties; if so, how many?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): No resolutions in favour of the establishment of Technical Schools under the Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887, were submitted to the Scotch Education Department during the year 1898.

GAELIC IN HIGHLAND SCHOOLS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he will state the number of Gaelic-speaking pupil teachers employed in each of the six Highland crofting counties in giving bilingual instruction to Gaelic-speaking children?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The number of pupil teachers in the counties referred to, on whose account payment was made for bilingual instruction to Gaelic-speaking children, was in Argyll 11, Inverness 10, Rossshire 6, and Sutherland 2.

INSTRUCTION IN COOKERY IN HIGHLAND SCHOOLS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he can state the number of classes which have been held for the practical teaching of cooking, under Article 22 of the Scotch Code, in each of the six Highland crofting counties during the year 1898; and, will he state the entire amount earned by teachers in respect of cookery in each of the aforesaid counties during the year?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is impossible to give the details required in reply to a question. If the honourable Member applies to the Scotch Education Department he will be supplied with a statement of the facts.
MR. WEIR: Will the right honourable Gentleman take care that the information is supplied?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I try to furnish everything the honourable Member asks for.
MR. WEIR: But I mean before the Vote is taken.
MR. DUNCOMBE: Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the honourable Member in Gaelic in future?

FERMANAGH LAND CASES.
MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that one legal and one lay Sub-Commissioner have been told off to hear 107 land cases in three days in the county of Fermanagh this month; and, if so, whether, taking into consideration both the Report of the Fry Commission and also the strong remonstrances by both landlords and tenants to their cases being heard by only one lay Commissioner, he will represent to the Land Commission the desirability of appointing another, and also give longer time for hearing the cases.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I am informed that 107 cases from the Enniskillen Union have been listed for hearing before one legal and one lay Assistant Commissioner on the 15th, 16th, and 17th inst. The list comprises a number of cases in which negotiations for purchase are pending, and which may not, therefore, proceed to a hearing. If, however, all the cases should stand for hearing, the Sub-Commission will, if necessary, spend the remainder of the week in disposing of them. It is not intended that the hearing should be hurried in the least degree. It would not be possible to arrange for the hearing of these cases, at the period mentioned, by two lay Assistant Commissioners unless by postponing the hearing of lists from other districts. Sub-Commissions must work with one lay member until the appointment of the additional Assistant Commissioners, already sanctioned, has been perfected; and to postpone lists in the meantime would lead to delay, and would not be satisfactory to the parties.

BILLINGSGATE FISH TOLLS.
MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that five times as much toll is charged for land-borne fish at Billingsgate Market as is charged for sea-borne; and, whether, considering the enormous quantity of fish coming into that market by rail from Ireland and the great fishing centres of Great Britain, he can take any steps to remedy that grievance.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,, for the PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE): The amount of tolls charged for fish at Billingsgate Market is a matter as to which I have no jurisdiction. I have, however, received the following statement from the Markets Department of the Corporation of the City of London:—
"The rate charged for land-borne fish represents about one halfpenny for 1121bs., and for water-borne fish about one farthing for the same quantity. The toll is levied in the case of land-borne fish upon each van or machine, and in the case of water-borne fish according to the tonnage of the vessel. At the present time but half toll is levied on water-borne fish, having regard to special representations made

35
by the trade, so that when the full toll authorised by the bye-laws is again levied the result will be that land-borne and water-borne fish will, as a rule, pay about the same rate of toll, which the Commissioners on Market Rights and Tolls refer to in their final Report of January, 1891, as inappreciable."

UNITED STATES TARIFF.
MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the injury that has been done to our trade by the present United States tariff, the Foreign Office will enter into specific commercial negotiations with the Government of the United States with a view to obtain either some modifications in the tariff, or to propose retaliatory measures.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): Any opportunity which may occur to make more favourable arrangements as regards Tariffs with the United States will be taken advantage of, but I cannot promise any immediate action.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what steps, if any, have been taken to carry out the promise given by the Home Secretary in 1890 with respect to lodging allowance for members of the Metropolitan Police Force serving in town divisions.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I am not aware of any promise such as is suggested having been given by any predecessor of mine, and I am afraid I do not see my way to give any such promise now.

DR. LAMONT'S CASE.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he is aware that Dr. Lamont did not leave South Uist until the evening of the 15th of last September, and why, therefore, the warrant for his apprehension, dated 10th September, was not executed before he left the island; whether the police, who arrested Dr. Lamont in his mother's house in Glasgow at 12 o'clock p.m. on 17th September, had
36
in their possession the warrant for his apprehension, and whether they exhibited that warrant to him when apprehending him; whether he is aware that, before leaving Lochboisdale on 15th September, Dr. Lamont gave Police Sergeant Philip his address in Glasgow at his mother's house; and, if this is denied, if he would state how the police officer who arrested Dr. Lamont in Glasgow knew exactly where to find him; whether Dr. Mackenzie, the honorary Sheriff-substitute, who granted warrants for Dr. Lamont's apprehension on 10th September, 19th September, and again on 22nd December, 1898, was employed by the Procurator-Fiscal, on whose petition he granted the said warrants, to draw up medical reports on the case, and that two medical reports by Dr. Mackenzie, dated respectively 23rd September and 24th October, figure in the list of Crown productions in the case; whether Dr. Mackenzie has been paid, or has been promised, any fee for these reports; and, if so, how much; and, whether, when the police called on Dr. Lamont's mother on 8th December, and stated that they had instructions to re-arrest him, any warrant had been issued for his re-arrest; and, if so, what was the reason for the issue of the warrant for his re-arrest granted by Dr. Mackenzie on 22nd December.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: As regards Paragraph 1, I have already told the honourable Member that the instructions given by the Procurator-Fiscal were only to apprehend Dr. Lamont if he left the island; and as the Police did not know that he was leaving on the 15th there was no need to execute the warrant. As regards Paragraph 2, the Glasgow Police had no warrant in their possession, but the fact of the existence of a warrant had been communicated to them by telegraph from the Chief Constable at Inverness. As regards Paragraph 3 I have made inquiry, and find that Sergeant Philip had, in conversation with Dr. Lamont, been given by him Mrs. Lamont's address in Glasgow, and this address Philip communicated by telegram, on the 17th of September, to the Chief Constable at Inverness. The information in the fourth paragraph is correct. Fees will of course be paid in the ordinary way, and on the ordinary scale allowed by Exchequer. As regards the fifth paragraph, every

37
petition with fresh charges contains a warrant to commit in ordinary form. Fresh charges were made on 21st September, 25th October and 22nd December, but no fresh arrest was made because Crown Counsel, to whom the case had by this time been reported, ordered that Dr. Lamont should not be re-arrested, his agent undertaking to produce him for declaration.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: What is the amount of the fees paid to Dr. Mackenzie?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The fees vary from one guinea to three guineas, according to what he has done.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Seeing that neither Dr. Lamont nor his agent have seen the warrant, will the right honourable Gentleman have any objection to its being shown to them?
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have seen it; it is absolutely in the ordinary form.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Can Dr. Lamont's agent see it?
[No reply.]

LAMBOURNE NATIONAL SCHOOL.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that it has been the custom to take all the children at the national school at Lambourne, in Berkshire, over six years of age, on saints' days, to celebrations of the Holy Communion at which no one communicates but the minister; and that during Lent the children went to church every Wednesday and Friday from 11.40 to 12; whether this was an infringement of the conscience clause, as religious instruction was not on the time table at that time and secular instruction did not begin till 10; whether he is aware that for some months the curate has taken a class in algebra during the time set down on the time table for religious instruction, this having been done three times a week; whether the aid grant has been used this year for the purpose specified on the conditions under which it was granted; whether the balance sheet of
38
the school accounts was published last year, in accordance with the Government requirements; and, whether the balance sheet supplied to the Education Department last year was correct, or whether one of the instalments of the fee grant was omitted.
SIR J. GORST: I have no information on the facts alleged in the first three paragraphs. The practice of any religious observance, or the giving of religious instruction, at any time not inserted in a time-table approved by the Education Department, would be an infringement of Section 7 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870; the Department have not yet received the accounts for the school year just ended, and therefore cannot say how the Aid Grant has been spent; they have no reason to think that the previous year's balance sheet was not duly published, or that it was incorrect; the fee-grant was correctly entered.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Will the right honourable Gentleman make inquiries as to the truth of those allegations?
SIR J. GORST: I should like to explain that the Education Department have nothing to do with the kind of religious instruction given in schools. All they can see to is that religious instruction is given according to the time tables, and that those parents who object to the religious instruction given should have the opportunity of withdrawing their children.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: Is it not part of the duty of the Education Department to ascertain whether children are marched to church during hours set apart for ordinary secular education?
SIR J. GORST: If the children are taken to a religious service during hours which are devoted to secular instruction that would be an infringement of the Education Act, and that the Department would take notice of.

IRISH NATIONAL ASSISTANT TEACHERS.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Commissioners of National Education on any occasion have asked to have provision

39
made for paying assistant teachers in Irish National Schools salaries corresponding to their classification; and, if so, what has been the result of such application.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have nothing to add to my reply to the question which the honourable Member addressed to me on this subject on the 20th February last.

HOURS OF LABOUR IN FRUIT PRESERVING FACTORIES.
MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the statements quoted by the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1897 as to the excessive hours of work exacted of young persons in fruit preserving, especially to the passage "Complaints reach me of work continued by girls of 13 and upwards from 6 a.m. until midnight, and this not only on five but on six days in the week"; and, whether he will consider the expediency of removing the exemption of this particular trade from the operation of the Act of 1895.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have for some time been fully informed of the long hours worked in the fruit-preserving industry. As I stated in answer to a very similar question a few days ago, I consider that legislation in this matter is desirable.

LABOUR IN LAUNDRIES.
MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he purposes to bring in a Bill to amend the Factory Acts; and, if so, whether it will deal with laundries, or with what class or classes of labour?
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have a Bill to amend certain points in the Factory Acts ready for introduction if opportunity serves, and the law affecting laundries is one of the matters with which I should like to deal. But I am unable, at present, to say how much it may be found desirable to include in the Bill.

CORK COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he
40
will cause further inquiry to be made into the alleged refusal by Mr. Foott, J.P., to sign, in his capacity as magistrate, forms of declaration of secrecy in connection with the recent county council election for Cork: whether he is aware that, on Monday 3rd April, on two occasions, Mr. Foott positively refused to sign declarations presented to him, in the presence of his steward, Mr. Charles Coleman, by Mr. Edward Buckley, agent for Mr. Thomas Barnes, a candidate, though later on the same day Mr. Foott signed a declaration for Mr. William Welsh, agent for Mr. Newman, another candidate; if the returning officer to whom Mr. Foott is said to have referred Mr. Buckley resides at Skibbereen, 80 miles distant, a fact well known to Mr. Foott; and whether the magistrate acted within his right in refusing to perform this duty.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The magistrate refused to sign the form of declaration referred to under an erroneous impression, due to his imperfect understanding of the document, that the declaration was not in proper form, and not from any desire to evade the discharge of his duty, or for the purpose of causing inconvenience to any of the parties interested. Under these circumstances he cannot be held to have violated his duty. When Mr. Newman's election agent asked him to sign a similar form it was fully explained that it was one that should be signed by him. The erroneous impression which he had at first formed was thus removed, and he affixed his signature to the form for Mr. Newman's agent.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Will any action be taken by the Lord Chancellor to see that this magistrate in future performs his duty without fear or favour?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It was not a question of fear or favour. The magistrate, as I have explained, did not understand the nature of the document submitted to him. It may have been stupidity on his part, but that is the fact.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: How was it that a few hours after his refusal to sign, he found himself able to sign a similar document for another candidate?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have explained that it was fully explained to him by Mr. Newman's agent that the document was one he ought to sign.

EXPENDITURE ON CATTLE DISEASE.
MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, what was the total amount received from the Parliamentary Grant and the Local Taxation Account respectively, from 1894–5 to 1898–9 inclusive, to meet expenditure in respect of cattle pleuro pheumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, and swine fever; and, what was the net expenditure incurred during the same period on pleuropneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, and swine fever respectively.
MR. LONG: The total receipts from Parliamentary Grants and the Local Taxation Accounts towards the suppression of pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever in Great Britain during the five years, 1894–5 to 1898–9, inclusive, amounted in the aggregate to £188,400 and £510,000 respectively. The net expenditure incurred during the same period of five years was £20,500 for pleuro-pneumonia, £1,100 for foot-and-mouth disease, and £724,000 for swine fever.

TELEGRAPHIC WITHDRAWALS FROM THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank for the year 1898, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal; and, will he also state the number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice.
A JUNIOR LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ANSTRUTHER,for Mr. HANBURY): The number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank during the year 1898 was 141,783, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal was about 1s. 3d. The number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day was 10,563, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice was about 9d.

INVER WATER SUPPLY.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the County and
42
Chief District Sanitary Inspector for Ross and Cromarty states, on page 8 of his Report for the year 1898, that the water supply of Inver village, in the parish of Tain, is unsatisfactory; and, will he say what steps it is proposed to take with a view to provide the village with pure water.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that the annual report of the County Sanitary Inspector has only just been received by them; and that the Board, in accordance with their usual procedure, are in communication with the local authority of the Easter Ross district of the county regarding the water supply of Inver village.

RAILWAY EXTENSION IN INDIA.
SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, what is the estimated total amount proposed to be contributed towards railway extension by the independent States of India during the current year, and for the three years covered by the Indian Government's programme; what is the aggregate mileage that will be constructed from the funds of these States apart from the proposed line in Kashmir; can the names of the States thus contributing to railway extension be given, with the amounts which each will contribute; and, on what terms as to interest, acquisition of lands, and jurisdiction are these railway advances made by these States, and are the princes and chiefs treated with as free agents in these transactions.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The estimated total amount to be contributed towards railway extension by native States during the next three years is 5,800,000 tens of rupees, including about 1,500,000 for the proposed Kashmir line; and the aggregate mileage under construction or projected as a charge upon these funds is 1,087 miles, or, excluding the 175 miles of the Kashmir railway, 912 miles. Roughly speaking, about a third of each of these totals may be allotted to each of the next three years. The names of the contributing States, besides Kashmir, are Hyderabad, Jodhpur, Jeypur, Gwalior, Mysore, Oodeypur, Bickanir, Rewa, and Rajpipla. The terms and conditions vary in each case.

PENALTIES ON NAVAL CONTRACTS.
MR. J. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, in how many cases were penalties incurred for delay in the fulfilment of Naval contracts; what was the total amount of such penalties during the year ending the 31st March, 1899; in how many cases were penalties enforced; and what was the total amount of such penalties.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): During the year ended 31st March last potential penalties were incurred in 115 cases by contractors for shipbuilding, armaments, gun mountings, and yard machinery, to the amount of £223,989, and penalties to the extent of £65 were enforced in two cases.

INDIAN SUGAR DUTY PAPERS.
MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the Indian Sugar Duty Papers, which were stated a month ago to be in the printer's hands, will be distributed among Members.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I am informed that copies will reach the House this evening.
MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Is the noble Lord in a position to redeem the promise made before Easter that we shall have a day for the discussion of the Papers?
LORD G. HAMILTON: I made no promise.
MR. J. M. MACLEAN: The First Lord of the Treasury did.
LORD G. HAMILTON: What I told my honourable friend was that he had better ask the First Lord of the Treasury. I can assure my honourable friend that I should be delighted to discuss the question.
MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Will the noble Lord communicate with the First Lord? He has much more influence with him than I have.

MINISTERS OF RELIGION AND THE LAND TAX.
SIR POWLETT MILBANK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether property held by
44
trustees for the benefit of a minister of religion, whose income from all sources is under £160 per annum, is entitled to relief for Land Tax under the Finance Act of last year.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): The answer is in the affirmative, if the minister is, by the instrument under which the lands are held, constituted the owner in possession of the rents and profits; otherwise the property would not be entitled to relief. If the honourable Member will give the particulars of any case in which he is interested I will cause inquiry to be made as to the minister's claim to relief.

IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will now state the difference in time in the departure of the Irish mail train from Euston Station to Holyhead from what it formerly was, when the present time for posting letters from the House of Commons for Ireland was first fixed; and if he will explain why Members of Parliament derive no advantage by the later departure of the Irish mail train from London; and, if he will make inquiry with the view of extending the time for posting letters to Ireland from the House of Commons.
MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The difference in time in the Irish mail train from Euston Station to Holyhead is 25 minutes, that is, the departure is at 8.45 p.m. instead of 8.20 p.m., but the difference for mail purposes is only 15 minutes, as the Scotch mail train at 8.30 p.m. formerly carried the Irish mails as far as Crewe, where it overtook the Irish mail train. The reason why the time of posting Irish letters at the House of Commons has not been extended was explained to the honourable Member in reply to a former Question on the 9th March.

LURGAN POST OFFICE.
MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to

45
the proposed erection of a new post office at Lurgan, whether the site has yet been secured; and, if so, in what part of the town, and at what price; if he can state when the work will be commenced, and within what time it is expected to be finished; and, whether he can give any estimate of the probable cost of the building.
MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): Neither of the two sites which have been under consideration has yet been secured for a new post office at Lurgan. Owing largely to the high prices asked for the sites, the estimated cost for site and building under either of the two schemes is so much in excess of the amount which the business would warrant that it has been necessary to consider very carefully how the expense can be reduced, and this question is still under examination.

IMPERIAL EXPENDITURE.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the amount of the estimated payments to the Local Taxation Accounts from Imperial Revenue for the year ending 31st March 1900; what is the estimated expenditure from Surplus Revenue, 1895–6, for naval works for the year ending 31st March 1900; what is the estimated expenditure from Surplus Revenue, 1897–8, for Military Works for the year ending 31st March 1900; what is the estimated expenditure from borrowed money during the year ending 31st March 1900 under The Barracks Act, 1890, Naval Works Acts, Uganda Railway Act, 1896, and Telegraph Acts, 1892, &c.; and, what is the estimated gross total of Imperial Expenditure for 1899–1900.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH:

£

For the year ending 31st March, 1900, the Estimated Payments from Imperial Revenue to Local Taxation Accounts are

9,393,000

The Estimated Expenditure from Surplus Revenue, 1895–96, for Naval Works is

768,000

The Estimated Expenditure from Surplus Revenue, 1896–97, for Military Works is

1,100,00

46

£

The Estimated Expenditure from borrowed money is:

£

Under the Barracks Act, 1890,

195,000

Under the Naval Works Acts

982,000

Under the Uganda Railway Act, 1896

900,000

Under the Telegraph Acts, 1892, &c.

500,000

2,577,000

These figures added to the Estimated Expenditure, as shown in my Financial Statement, of

110,927,000

make a total of

£124,765,000

MR. J. A. PEASE: Does this include anything for Supplementary Votes?
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It is quite impossible to make an estimate of the Supplementary Votes until they are agreed to, but perhaps I may say that the estimates of the expenditure on naval and military works are always fallacious. No one can tell how much will be expended.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN SCOTLAND.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he can explain how that in the Return just issued "Schools (Scotland) Number of Scholars, &c.," there is given in the summary as the actual average attendance for the year ended on 30th September 1897, 609,061, whilst in Return [C. 9,263] the average number of scholars in attendance on the Annual Grant List is given as 611,205, and for the inspected schools as 605,776 for the same year; similarly, as regards the number of scholars on the Register, 721,588, as compared with 724,268 on the Annual Grant List, and 717,747 on the registers of inspected schools; and, whether any and what number of scholars are included in the 609,061 and 721,588 respectively as being the number of children for whom additional attendances were allowed in respect of Article 23 (b) 1 (a) and Article 23 (b) 1 (b) of the Code.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The honourable Member's figures are correct, except that he has given certain figures for 1897 which properly belong to 1898. It is true that the slight discrepancy pointed out exists, but it is unavoidable. The Department is unable to give the particulars in the first-named Return with respect to all Schools on the Annual Grant List, because some of these schools had not been on the List for a year, and the statistics were therefore incomplete. On the other hand, in order to make the Return more accurate, it did not follow strictly the numbers of inspected schools. Had it done so, it would have included schools inspected twice, and omitted others paid without inspection. The totals given in the last paragraph include the children for whom additional attendances were allowed, but do not include the attendances so allowed.

ARREST OF A HULL TRAWLER BY A DANISH GUNBOAT.
MR. DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that the steam trawler "Fulmar," of Hull, was arrested by a Danish gunboat on the 9th of April last while fishing along with the steam trawler "Euphrates," of Hull, off Reckcanaes, Iceland, Reckcanaes bearing S.S.E. about 10 miles distant; whether he has received a sworn statement from the captain of the "Euphrates" that the "Fulmar" was between five and six miles from the nearest point of land when arrested; that the captain was transferred to the gunboat; that he asked the commander to take the bearings, urging that he was between five and six miles from the land, but was told to mind his own business and await his trial; that on arriving at Reckevek a court was formed on board the gunboat, consisting of the sheriff, the consul, the commander, and two officers; that the captain strongly denied having broken any law, and when he appealed to the English consul was told that the commander and his mates must be upheld; that he further states that he was coerced to sign certain papers, being told by the English consul that he must sign or not be able to got his vessel away; that he was fined £56, his gear and 200 fathoms of steel warp was removed, and the whole of his cargo, valued at £500, was confiscated; that the loss to the owners is estimated at £800; whether,
48
seeing that Captain Rickell has been master of vessels for his present employers for 28 years, and never before been charged for any offence against the law, he can state what course Her Majesty's Government intend to take in this case; and, what action they propose to prevent the destruction of British fishing interests in these waters.
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have brought this and other cases to the notice of the Danish Government and the whole of the facts will be carefully investigated. We have sent a ship to the spot for the purpose.

PRISON RULES.
MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, under The Prisons Act 1898, and the Rules made thereunder, persons committed for non-payment of arrears due under orders in bastardy, or arrears made under The Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, are entitled to be treated as debtors and not placed in association with criminal prisoners; whether, under Section 54 of The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, persons imprisoned for non-payment of such sums have not been hitherto treated as ordinary criminal prisoners, and compelled to wear the prison dress; and, whether, if persons so imprisoned are not now entitled to be treated as debtors, the court may give directions as to the division in which they shall be placed under Section 6, Sub-section (2), which relates only to persons convicted by any court of an offence, and sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative, and consequently no answer is required to the third.
MR. NUSSEY: Were persons thus imprisoned treated as ordinary criminals and made to wear prison clothes?
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes.
MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, by Section 9 of The Prisons Act, 1898, as to the release of a prisoner on payment of a portion of a fine, and the rules made thereunder, any provision is

49
made, similar to that contained in Section 21, Sub-section (4) of The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, in respect to payments prior to committal, that the term of imprisonment for non-payment of an unsatisfied balance, shall not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment to which the prisoner might have been subjected if the unsatisfied balance had constituted the original amount adjudged to be paid by the conviction, e.g., if the defendant, ordered to pay a fine of £5 and 5s. for costs, or in default two months' imprisonment, pay to the governor of the prison 5s., will the term of imprisonment be reduced by three days or by one month; and, whether the provisions of Section 9 extend to the case of a person imprisoned for non-payment of any sum adjudged to be paid by an order (as distinguished from a conviction) either when the sum is a civil debt or otherwise, and whether the sum adjudged be for penalties under Section 34 of The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, or otherwise for costs only.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to both paragraphs is in the negative. Reduction of imprisonment is earned by payment after committal of a proportionate part of the sum for which the prisoner stands committed, whether or not the committal has been altered under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act referred to.

THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what are the sums that have been voted by Parliament in successive years to make good the deficiencies on the Post Office Savings Bank account; and, what would be the estimated annual saving to the State if the interest on deposits in Post Office Savings Banks were reduced from two and a half per cent. to two per cent.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Three sums have been voted by Parliament to make good deficiencies on the Post Office Savings Bank account, namely:

£

In the year 1896–7

3,791

In the year 1897–8

11,702

In the year 1898–9

9,674

The reduction of interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks from two and a-half to two per cent. would of course
50
be equivalent to a reduction of the amount of interest by one-fifth. The estimated amount of interest for the year 1898 at two and a-half per cent. was, in round figures, £2,841,000; at two per cent. the amount would be £2,273,000, a saving in respect of that year of £568,000.

THE TRANSVAAL.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that the correspondence with the South African Republic as to the dynamite concession has been published in the Transvaal; and, whether he can state when it will be in the hands of Members.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As to the second, I have to say that the correspondence will be laid on the Table at once.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will state which Article of the London Convention with the South African Republic is contravened by the dynamite concession.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Article 14.
DR. CLARK: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware of the fact that the concession was granted two years before the Convention?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the honourable Member will put the question down on the Paper.

FRANCE AND NEWFOUNDLAND.
MR. J. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will, at an early date, make a statement to Parliament as to the present position of questions relating to the French shore of the Newfoundland coast; whether his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory conditions imposed by existing Treaties between this country and France upon the fishing and other industries of our fellow subjects in that colony, and to the consequent serious injury caused to their trading operations;

51
and, whether, in view of the disposition now shown by the French authorities to reconsider the bearing of these Treaties, he will state whether the Government are taking steps to secure the readjustment of onr relations with France in respect to these Treaties.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position to make any statement respecting the question of the French Treaty rights affecting part of the shore of Newfoundland, except that Her Majesty's Government have now under their consideration the report of a Commission appointed last autumn to inquire into the matter.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will that be laid on the Table?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say at present.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF JAMAICA.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether it was by direction of the Colonial Office, or with its assent, that the Governor of Jamaica recently created additional nominated members of the Legislative Council, so as to outnumber the elected members; and, whether, in consequence of the opposition in the Colony, these appointments were subsequently withdrawn.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I instructed the Governor to take whatever steps were necessary to secure the First Reading of a new Tariff Bill. To carry out those instructions he appointed additional members of Council, and I approved his action in doing so. He subsequently informed me that on the distinct assurance of the elected members of Council that they would co-operate in passing a tariff law, he had allowed the additional members to resign.

SAFE CUSTODY OF ARCHIVES AND RECORDS.
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the insufficient provision now made by law for the custody and protection of local archives and records, ecclesiastical and civil, and to the consequent injury or loss
52
of many documents of public interest and permanent value, as well as to the difficulty of ascertaining in what keeping many such archives or records are, so that they may be consulted for historical or administrative purposes and, whether the Government will advise Her Majesty to take steps, by the appointment of a Royal Commission or otherwise, to have a full inquiry made into the present condition of such archives and records and into the best means of making a public provision for their safe keeping, and generally of rendering them more accessible and available for study than they are at present.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Government will gladly consider the subject of the Question, and inquiry shall be made as suggested in the last paragraph. There seems to be a great deal to be said for the proposal, but, from such consideration as I have been able to give to the matter, I have been forced to the conclusion that the responsibility for preserving and indexing this voluminous mass of materials could never be undertaken by a Government Department.

DIPLOMACY IN SOUTH AFRICA.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, seeing that Her Majesty carries on her diplomatic intercourse with all other Republics through the Foreign Office, he will explain why a difference is made in the cases of the South African Republic and the Orange Free State; and, whether, on various occasions, these States have protested against the present system, and have expressed a desire to be in communication with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that no protests have been made against the present system during the last twenty years, and Her Majesty's Government see no reason to change that system, which is founded on considerations of convenience and public policy.

WORKMEN'S TRAINS FROM FENCHURCH STREET.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is now able to announce the

53
decision of Sir Francis Marindin, in the case of the London Reform Union against the London Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company, for an improved service of workmen's trains at a later hour and at lower fares between Barking and intermediate stations and Fenchurch Street.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (for Mr. RITCHIE): Sir F. Marindin recommends that the Company should be required to run three additional workmen's trains from Barking, starting one at about 6.30 and two between seven and eight o'clock, at the present fares for workmen; the local fare between Barking and Bromley to be reduced. The Board of Trade will communicate with the Company as to the exact times at which the trains should be run.

VACCINATION OF INFANTS.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he has received any communications, and, if so, to what effect, from the authorities of Queen Charlotte's Hospital, the St. Pancras Workhouse, and other similar institutions to whom he has made representations, that the vaccination of infants within a few days of birth is undesirable and should be discontinued.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board has been in further communication with the authorities of Queen Charlotte's Hospital with the view of giving effect to the views already expressed by the Board, but it has not been deemed necessary to make any further communication to the other authorities referred to.

HONG-KONG CABLE AGREEMENTS.
MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Agreement was made on the 28th October 1893, between the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the one part and the Eastern Extension, Australasia, and China Telegraph Company, Limited, of the other part, for laying a second submarine telegraph cable between Singapore and Hong-kong; whether this agreement secured the Company against competition and placed them in possession of a preferential right to any future contract or concession for laying further cables between
54
Singapore and Hong-kong for a term of 25 years; and, whether such Agreement was ever presented to Parliament; if not, will he state the reason why?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: An Agreement was made on the 26th of October 1893, between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Eastern Extension, Australasia, and China Telegraph Company, for the laying and maintaining for 25 years, at their own cost, by the Company, of a second submarine telegraph cable connecting Singapore, Labuan, and Hong-kong. 2. The Agreement contains the following Article:—
"Article 4. In consideration of the engagements entered into by the Company in this Agreement, and of the strict fulfilment thereof, Her Majesty's Government undertakes to secure the Company against competition to the extent following, that is to say:—
Her Majesty's Government will not during the term of this Agreement lay, nor grant, nor permit to be granted, any concession or authority for laying any new submarine cables connected with Hong-kong, Singapore, or Labuan (whether in competition with the cables of the Company or not) unless such new cables should, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, be found necessary in the public interest of Great Britain, Hong-kong, the Straits Settlements or Labuan, or in the general interests of international telegraphic communication. Provided always, that if it shall be decided that new cables are to be laid the Company shall, all things being equal, have the preferential right to the contract or concession for laying the same. Provided that this Article shall not prevent the Great Northern Company from repairing, renewing, or replacing any submarine cable connected with Hong-kong, and shall not prejudice or affect the existing rights of that Company.
3. The Agreement was not presented to Parliament, as it imposed no charge on the public revenue.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the usual question as to the nature of the Supply to be taken on Friday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite recognise that this is a usual question for Monday, but I am rather in a difficulty, owing to the absence, through indisposition, of the Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps I may be allowed to defer my answer till to-morrow.
MR. J. LOWTHERWhat about the Finance Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Thursday.

REPORTED CRISIS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
CAPTAIN BETHELL: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, whether he has any information of the existence of a so-called crisis in the Transvaal, as there has been a somewhat alarming crop of rumours attributing all sorts of designs to him in some cases.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, sir; I do not think it necessary to take notice of all the rumours which are published with regard to the Transvaal.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR,): I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill "for establishing a Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith." It will be within the recollection of the House that I introduced a Bill two years ago for establishing a Department and Board of Agriculture and Industries in Ireland. The Bill was subsequently withdrawn, upon the announcement of our intention to deal in the first place with the larger question of Local Government. But the policy was not abandoned, only postponed. The present Bill covers, broadly speaking, the same ground, and something more. Its object is threefold: First, to concentrate in one Department, which shall be directly responsible to Parliament, through the Chief Secretary as its President, and a new Parliamentary officer as its Vice-President, the functions already performed by Government in connection with agriculture in Ireland, but at present distributed among five or six different Departments; secondly, to provide machinery and funds for carrying out in other parts of Ireland a work analogous to that carried out in the congested districts by the Congested Districts Board; thirdly (and in this respect the Bill breaks fresh ground), to provide machinery and funds for promoting technical instruction in relation to industries of an urban character in Ireland. In asking leave to introduce the measure,
56
it will hardly be necessary at this stage to offer any vindication of its general policy. I will content myself with a concise statement of its principal provisions, especially of those in which it differs from our former proposals. So far as concerns the transfer to the new Department of existing Governmental functions, the Bill closely resembles its predecessor. But to the powers and duties formerly proposed to be transferred are added those of the fishery inspectors, and also most of the functions exercised in Ireland by the Science and Art Department. As regards the machinery and funds for carrying out the work of aiding and developing agriculture and other industries on the lines of the Congested Districts Board, considerable changes have been introduced, while the corresponding provisions with respect to technical instruction are of course new. The executive and administrative authority for these purposes will be the Department, and there will be placed at its disposal, in addition to the moneys annually voted by Parliament for the discharge of its other functions, a total income of between £160,000 and £170,000 a year for aiding and encouraging agriculture and other industries and technical instruction. The chief sources from which this income will be derived are as follows:—In the first place, there will be transferred to the Department the annual sum of £78,000 now paid to the Commissioners of National Education out of the beer and spirit money. This is a contribution from the Imperial Exchequer, inasmuch as the loss to the Commissioners of Education will, of course, have to be made good out of voted money. In the second place, the Department is to be made the residuary legatee of the Irish Church Fund. The amount which will remain available from this source, after the other claims on the fund have been met, cannot be calculated with absolute certainty or exactness; but from the year 1901 I estimate it at an annual sum of £70,000, or thereabouts, for many years to come, and it is quite possible that the fund may be able to afford this sum in perpetuity. To the £78,000 from the beer and spirit money, and the £70,000 from the Church Fund, there is further added £12,000 a year, representing the savings effected under the Judicature Act of 1897, and £6,000 a year out of voted money, most of which latter sum represents the present cost to the State of the

57
Albert Agricultural Department at Glasnevin and the Munster Dairy School and Agricultural Institute. This makes in all an income of £166,000 a year. There will also be available for the purposes of the Department a capital sum made up chiefly from the residue of moneys paid to the Local Taxation Account, under the Estate Duty Act of 1896, the amount of which cannot be determined at present, although I should hope it would not be less than £100,000. The executive and administrative authority in connection with the application of these moneys is, as I have said, vested in the Department. The Department may, however, use any public body, as defined in the Bill (and the definition is a wide one) as its instrument or agent for this purpose. Moreover, it is not to be inferred that it will have a free hand in the spending of the money. In the first place, a definite sum of £55,000, or about one-third of the whole, is allocated to technical instruction of an urban character, and the portion of this allotted to county boroughs will be administered by the local authorities themselves, snbject to the approval of the Department; £10,000 a year is allocated to purposes connected with the sea fisheries, nnd the remainder to agriculture and other industries of a rural character. Definite provision is also made in the Bill for capital expenditure on the Royal Veterinary College and the Munster Dairy School. In the second place, the Department is to be assisted in the application of the funds at its disposal, and its powers considerably limited, by having associated with it for this purpose an Agricultural Board and a Board of Technical Instruction. Only a minority of the members of these boards will be nominated by Government. The majority will be appointed, in the case of the Agricultural Board, by a body called in the Bill a Council of Agriculture, which itself will consist, as to two-thirds of its members, of representatives chosen by the different county councils, and in the case of the Board of Technical Instruction of representatives of the councils of county boroughs and of various public bodies. As the names imply, the two boards are respectively concerned with the two branches into which the work of the Department is divided, namely, agriculture and technical instruction in towns. Their functions are primarily of an advisory character, but they will occupy a position
58
of much influence and power, inasmuch as the concurrence of one or other of them is required in almost all cases for any expenditure by the Department of the money placed at its disposal. Rating powers to a limited amount are given to county councils and urban district councils, and as a general rule no money is to be spent by the Department on any local object without some contribution from local sources. No attempt is made in the Bill to interfere with the system of national elementary education in Ireland, or with that of intermediate education; but in order to secure greater unity of action between the different educational authorities in Ireland, it is proposed that the Vice-President of the Department should be an ex officio member of the Board of National Education and of the Intermediate Education Board, and that each of these bodies should have a representative on the Board of Technical Instruction. I think it will be found that this short statement comprises the principal provisions of the measure, which I now commend to the favourable judgment of the House. Any further explanation or defence of those provisions I must leave to a future stage. I beg leave to move the First Reading of the Bill.
MR. DILLONsaid the introduction of an important Bill like this at the commencement of public business, under the ten minutes rule was a glaring instance of the abuse of that rule by Ministers. On the 12th April, 1897, a Bill on a similar subject was introduced by the right honourable Gentleman, but he did not then take refuge under the ten minutes rule. He brought it in in the usual manner for Bills of importance, when Members are afforded an opportunity of seeking information and of discussing details. It would appear that Ministers, by the operation of the ten minutes rule, were determined gradually to abolish one stage of all their measures, or that in the mind of the right honourable Gentleman this subject had receded in importance since 1897. It was perfectly idle under the ten minutes rule for anyone to attempt to follow the Chief Secretary in his gallop through a complicated measure which dealt with an extremely important subject. In regard to finance, he had followed very closely what the right honourable Gentleman had said, and he regretted to say that nothing could

59
be possibly more shabby and unsatisfactory than the financial proposals of the Bill. Practically speaking, the Government proposed to shuffle off all their financial responsibily as far as the Treasury was concerned. Whereas, in the Bill of 1897, they proposed the sum of £150,000 a year, which was declared to be entirely insufficient by all the Irish Members, and even by Lord Londonderry, when speaking in the North of Ireland in October or November last, they now proposed to give only the sum of £70,000 from the Treasury towards the whole scheme with which the Bill dealt. There might be some misconception in regard to this £70,000, which was to be almost all allotted to technical instruction, but under the Bill of 1897 technical instruction was left out of it altogether, and the right honourable Gentleman at the end of 1897 said it was the intention of the Government to introduce another Bill dealing with technical education, and allotting further funds for the purpose. Practically, then, instead of £150,000, which was allotted under the Bill of 1897, they were to be put off with £20,000 from the Imperial Treasury; that was a proposal which certainly would not be received with enthusiasm in Ireland. He protested against making the new body the residuary legatee of the Irish Church Fund, for it was always believed in Ireland that the Department would be financed from the Imperial Exchequer.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Nothing I have ever said gives foundation for that expectation.
MR. DILLONsaid that during the discussion of 1897, here and in Ireland, all sections of the Irish people were under the impression that the Imperial Government were going to accept the financial responsibility for the Department. Now the expense of the Department was to be met by seizing the last remnant of the much-plundered Irish Fund, which was to be mopped up and handed over to the new Board to save the Imperial Exchequer from a burden which unquestionably it should have paid. If the Government persisted in their mean policy of financing this purely Imperial body out of Irish funds, it would be impossible for them to adhere to the constitution which they proposed to give to this Board. The chief power and voice in the management
60
of the new Department and the expenditure of money, would be given to Government nominees, and not to the representatives of the Irish people. If the whole of the money had been granted from the Imperial Exchequer, there might have been a strong argument for giving the Government a large voice in the expenditure of the money, but if the Government were to shuffle off their financial obligations and throw them on the plundered Irish Fund it would be impossible to resist the claim that the management of the expenditure should be entrusted to the people who represent Ireland. The Government, he knew, proposed to introduce some slight improvement in the constitution of the Board, making it somewhat more democratic than in the previous Bill. He was not aware that the new Board was to have any substantial power. One of the great faults found with the previous Bill was that while a Board was set up as well as the Department, the Board was to have no power, and the Department all the power. He did not see that this Bill made any improvement on the old one, and if they wanted machinery to work smoothly there ought to be only one head.
MR. W. REDMONDasked, on a point of order, whether it was in accordance with practice and usage of Parliament for a Minister to introduce an important Bill like this under the ten minutes rule.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no order of the House against it. It is in the option of a Minister to do it. I do not say there might not be cases in which I might consider it my duty to interpose, but I do not take that responsibility now.
MR. CLANCY: What date is proposed for the Second Reading?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: On Monday.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
Bill for establishing a Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.
AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
"For establishing a Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 2:—
Amendment again proposed, after the words last added, to add to the words—
"(b) The Local Government Board may, on request made by a borough council in pursuance of a resolution of the council passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present at a meeting of the council duly convened for the purpose, make an order directing that the whole of the councillors shall retire together on the ordinary day of election in every third year, and may on like request rescind any such order."—(Captain Jessel.)
Question again proposed—
"That those words be there added."
MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.) moved as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out on the first line "may," and insert "shall." He said that the words of the Amendment as it stood hardly fulfilled the expectation formed by the promise of the First Lord of the Treasury. He knew that in an Act of Parliament "may" ought to mean "shall," but he did not think it was so in this case. The objection to keeping in the word "may" was that the Local Government Board would decide whether the election should be annual or triennial. It was clearly understood that the councils should themselves decide the point.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed—
"That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,)said that the word "may" occurred in the Act of
62
1894, which gave the county council power at the request of the local authorities to make an order. That was a precedent, and in such cases it was much better to keep the word "may." It was conceivable that there might be instances in which it would be very wrong and in which an order should not be made, and the Local Government Board should not be liable to a mandamus.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Can the right honourable Gentleman suggest an instance in which the Local Government Board would be justified in refusing to make an order?
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I admit that such cases are not likely to occur often. But, suppose that the majority of a borough council have declared for triennial elections, merely for the sake of prolonging their own tenure of office!
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is a case which is quite impossible to happen, if they were to adopt the triennial system on its merits.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought I had done a great deal to meet the wishes of both sides of the House, in adopting the scheme of the Act of 1894. The Local Government Board will never interfere unless under circumstances which it may be difficult to foresee; and certainly what they would do would not imply any limitation of the true liberty of the borough councils. I hope the honourable Member will not press the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
MR. PICKERSGILL MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.) moved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert the words "and voting" after the word "present." In support of his Amendment he would use the same argument as the Solicitor-General had used in opposing the last Amendment. The right honourable and learned Gentleman said that the Government desired to follow the precedent of the 1894 Act. This Amendment followed the 1894 Act. As he understood, the First Lord of the Treasury said that the Local Government Act of 1894 provided that a two-thirds majority must be necessary in order to substitute annual

63
for triennial elections. That was a misapprehension. So far as he had been able to ascertain, and so far as the enacting section went, it provided that a bare majority might carry a resolution. He did not see why a different rule should apply to the new boroughs from the Boards of Guardians.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "present," to insert the words "and voting."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed—
"That the words 'and voting' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I recollect the discussions which took place in 1894. I cannot conceive that the intention of the framers of the Act was that a very small number of persons out of the total number present should carry this important change. If the honourable Gentleman's Amendment were carried, to take an extreme case, supposing the whole council were present at a meeting and supposing that only 6 out of the 70 members chose to vote, then four persons present would carry this great change. That seems to me to be rather a comical result.
MR. PICKERSGILLconld see nothing comic about it. The gist of the Amendment was that due notice was given, and if those present did not choose to vote, the purpose of the provision was obtained without them.
MR. LOUGHthought that the words were harmless. Suppose there was a quorum present, the decision should be taken by those who actually voted.
CAPTAIN JESSELhoped the Government would not adopt this insidious Amendment. If the suggestion of the honourable Member was adopted, it would have the effect of making it possible to carry a resolution in favour of triennial elections by a less majority than was necessary in the case of resolutions on other points.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought it was only common sense that a resolution should be carried by a majority of two-thirds of those voting on the resolution.
64
It would be very difficult to decide whether at a particular moment there were two-thirds of the members present or not, whereas the matter could be decided at once if the votes were actually recorded. He could not see anything insidious in the proposal.
MR. STUARTheld that, under all circumstances where a vote could be legally taken, the question ought to be decided by two-thirds majority of those voting. He did not know of any case where a question like this had to be decided by a majority of those present, whether they voted or not. From a long experience on local bodies he could say it was very difficult to declare how many persons were present when a given vote was taken. The only determining fact was the numbers taken down by the tellers. He did not see why this Bill should differ from the Act of 1894, which stated that a resolution should be carried by a two-thirds majority of those voting.
MR. COURTNEYsaid that, in the House, when a Division was taken everyone present must vote. He did not think they ought to pay much respect to those members of council, who, being present when a question was put, did not take the trouble to vote.
MR. DILLONsaid that the only people whose rights the honourable Member for St. Pancras sought to safeguard were those who, being present in the room, declined to vote. How could they consider the matter under discussion of great importance if they refused to vote? It seemed to him that there was substance in the Amendment, and it might prevent the greatest possible difficulties and disputes.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSasked the Solicitor-General whether the word "present," used in this sense, meant those who were present at the voting, whether they voted or not. He had always understood that the word present meant those who were "present" and voted.
SIR R. FINLAYsaid that the word "present" meant "present"; that was to say, the Chairman would have to ascertain whether two-thirds of those present were voting, and he would count them.
LORD E. FITZMAURICEsaid that the responsibility of taking a vote of this kind rested with the Chairman. It seemed to him that if they took the words as they stood the advantage would be on the side of the Amendment. If they took the persons actually voting there could never be a question afterwards as to the legality of the vote, for the numbers would speak for themselves.
MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid it seemed to him that his honourable and gallant friend opposed the Amendment with the object of preventing the proceedings being gerrymandered. That object could be obtained by agreeing to a majority of two-thirds of those present and voting, provided that such a majority was not less than a certain proportion of the whole council.
MR. R. WALLACEsaw no reason why they should depart from the Act of 1894. If it were necessary to safeguard the position it would be possible to add other words making it necessary that one-half of the council should vote. That would prevent a snatch vote being taken.
MR. STUARTcould not see why they should depart from the precedent before them, which was perfectly clear. The honourable and gallant Member had not had the same experience of the business of local government bodies as some other Members, and he could assure him that it was extremely difficult at times to decide who was present at a particular moment. He urged on the First Lord of the Treasury that this Amendment was for the advantage of no particular party, but simply to avoid disputes and discussions as to what had actually occurred. It was most desirable that there should be something definite and that there should not be squabbles afterwards as to what had happened.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only danger I want to guard against is a danger that may not be imminent, but which might arise. There might be a large number present at the discussion, but only a small number might vote. My right honourable friend the Member for Bodmin seems to think that I object to the Amendment out of regard for
66
the people who do not vote. My sole object is that this considerable change in the mode of electing the councils should be carried only by the solid and determined will of an emphatic majority. I do not attach myself much importance to the difficulty as to the counting, and the reason is that no act of the council can be legal without a quorum being present, and the counting would come up in every case.
MR. COURTNEYsaid that the counting by the vote would show whether there was a quorum present or not.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite ready to leave all that, and to adopt the suggestion of my honourable friend the Member for Hallam that the resolution must be carried by an absolute majority of the council.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the proposal a fair one. An important decision like that ought to be adopted by a majority of the Council.
MR. COHENthought that the honourable Gentlemen opposite ought to accept this very conciliatory proposal. He would put it in concrete shape, and move to insert after the words "convened for the purpose" in the proposed Amendment the words "provided that such majority is not less than a majority of the whole council."
MR. STUARTsaid they should have the two Amendments put separately.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, after the word "purpose" to insert the words—
"Provided that such majority is not less than the majority of the whole Council."—(Mr. Cohen).
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. DILLONsaid that under the cloak of giving a concession to the honourable Member who had originally introduced the Amendment, the Government had now introduced a greater barrier. As the Clause stood, a quorum was to be one-

67
third of the council, and the resolution could be carried by two-thirds of the quorum. The new Amendment, under the guise of a concession, was to make it necessary that the resolution should be carried by a majority of the whole council.
MR. STUARTsaid that the Tramways Act was worked by a majority of those who took over the tramways. If two-thirds of the council voted, a curious position might arise, inasmuch as a person by voting against the proposal might facilitate its being carried, but the object was perfectly clear. If two-thirds of those voting were to be the majority, he could understand the position, but to say the majority should be two-thirds of the entire Council was to try and find something which did not exist in any Act.
MR. MARKSpointed out that in a council of seventy-two members, of which a majority was thirty - seven, it would be in the power of sixteen members, by absenting themselves from the meetings of the council, to prevent in perpetuity any resolution from being carried. He could not think that was the intention of the Government.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid this was proposed to be a concession, and all that the Committee was doing was proposing that something could be done by
a majority of the council which could be done without any enactment whatever. He could not see the object of this particular Amendment.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERthought that as the matter stood there must be thirty-seven members to vote for a proposal, so that if fifteen of the council stayed away the whole thing became void.
SIR H. H. FOWLERappealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to follow the precedent he had made in making these concessions, and to follow the Clause which the then Government was compelled to insert in the Act of 1894. That Clause was perfectly just and fair, and its meaning was perfectly intelligible. The words were "provided that the County Council may, on a request made by resolution of an urban district council, passed by two-thirds of the members voting on the resolution." That seemed to him to afford all the precaution that was needed.
SIR BLUNDELL MAPLEthought that there should be at least two-thirds of the council present to deal with any question which might arise. He was of opinion that the suggestion of the Government was the best solution which could be arrived at.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 117.—(Division List No. 120.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bond, Edward

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cox, Irwin Edward B.(Harrow)

Arrol, Sir William

Bousfield, William Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Ascroft, Robert

Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Brassey, Albert

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Curzon, Viscount

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Brown, Alexander A.

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Baird, John George Alexander

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

Butcher, John George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

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

Doughty, George

Banbury, Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Barnes, Fredk. Gorell [(Hunts')

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith-

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bartley, George C. T.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chelsea, Viscount

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

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

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane'

Beach, W.W. Bramston (Hants

Coddington, Sir William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fisher, William Hayes

Beresford, Lord Charles

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Bethell, Commander

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Bill, Charles

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Flower, Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Round, James

Folkestone, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Fry, Lewis

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Galloway, William Johnson

Lowe, Francis William

Seely, Charles Hilton

Garfit, William

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Seton-Karr, Henry

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

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Gilliat, John Saunders

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Malcolm, Ian

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Spencer, Ernest

Graham, Henry Robert

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Gunter, Colonel

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hardy, Laurence

Milward, Colonel Victor

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Monk, Charles James

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

Heath, James

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Thorburn, Walter

Heaton, John Henniker

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Helder, Augustus

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hickman, Sir Alfred

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Usborne, Thomas

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Morrison, Walter

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Howard, Joseph

Mount, William George

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Howell, William Tudor

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

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Webster, Sir R.E.(Isle of Wight

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Myers, William Henry

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Newark, Viscount

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Williams, Joseph Powell(Birm)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pender, Sir James

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Percy, Earl

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

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Wodehouse, Rt Hon E.R.(Bath)

Kenyon, James

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Pilkington, Richard

Wyndham, George

Kimber, Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Knowles, Lees

Purvis, Robert

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Lafone, Alfred

Rankin, Sir James

Younger, William

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Richards, Henry Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Leighton, Stanley

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Sir William Walrond and

Llewellyn, Evan H.(Somerset)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Allen, W. (Newe. under Lyme)

Dunn, Sir William

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Allison, Robert Andrew

Ellis, John Edward

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Asher, Alexander

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Labouchere, Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, George

Baker, Sir John

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumber.)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair(Claek.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Leng, Sir John

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Billson, Alfred

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. J.

Lloyd-George, David

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lough, Thomas

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gold, Charles

Macaleese, Daniel

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Caldwell, James

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

M'Ghee, Richard

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Haldane, Richard Burton

M'Leod, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Maddison, Fred.

Causton, Richard Knight

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Maden, John Henry

Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Clough, Walter Owen

Horniman, Frederick J.

Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)

Crombie, John William

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Daly, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Dillon, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Doogan, P. C.

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

70

71

Moulton, John Fletcher

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ure, Alexander

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Robson, William Snowdon

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Weir, James Galloway

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Souttar, Robinson

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Paulton, James Mellor

Spicer, Albert

Wills, Sir William Henry

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

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

Perks, Robert William

Steadman, William Charles

Wilson, John (Govan)

Philipps, John Wynford

Strachey, Edward

Wilson, Jos. H.(Middlesbrough

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Woods, Samuel

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Tennant, Harold John

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Reckitt, Harold James

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorg. E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Mr. James Stuart and Capt.

Rickett, J. Compton

Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

Sinclair.

Words, as amended, added.
MR. TREVELYANproposed to add to the Clause:—
"Provided that any person possessing the necessary qualification for the election as a member of one of the metropolitan borough councils shall be qualified to be elected either as councillor, alderman, or mayor of any borough council within the administrative county of London."
He said that he moved the Amendment, which received the support of a great many people outside the House, in the hope that the Government would accept it. The Bill as it stood would exclude many men who would make most desirabl members of the new councils, and whose interests were or might have been largely concerned with the borough, who lived outside the boundaries of the borough. Another class of men was that class who had lived and spent the greater part of their lives in the borough, but who after having made their wealth would move to another part altogether, and thus disqualify themselves from acting as councillors in the district where they had spent their lives. Everybody agreed that it would be a very great loss if that class of men were disqualified. With regard to the other side of the Amendment, there were frequently men coming from the outside of the borough who possessed very great knowledge of the different districts, who under present circumstances would be disqualified as the Bill now stood which would be a very unfortunate thing for the borough. It was to include persons interested in the borough, whether they reside inside or outside the boundaries, that he moved his Amendment, and his object in this Amendment was to provide that they should be eligible for election as members of the councils.
Amendment proposed—
"After the words last added, to add the words, 'Provided also that any person possessing the necessary qualification for election as a member of one of the metropolitan borough councils shall be qualified to be elected either as councillor, alderman, or mayor of any borough council within the administrative county of London."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there added."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there is something in what the honourable Member says and in the principle he advocates, but I think the Amendment carries that principle a great deal too far. The local element would, in my opinion, be deprived of its proper position if we adopted so sweeping a proposition as that now made. I shall be prepared, however, so far to meet the honourable Member's views as to suggest that, if the councils desire it, they may go outside their own district for aldermen. But that point will, perhaps, be better raised on an Amendment which stands lower down the upon the Paper in the name of the honourable Member for Chelsea.
MR. STEADMANsaid this was an Amendment which he sincerely hoped the Government would not accept, because the dignity and personnel of the council were at stake. It assumed that there were not enough men in the locality to form a council, and that therefore there was a power to elect from outside the borough. He believed that an Amendment had been carried which precluded aldermen being co-opted from outside the district. He regarded the Amendment as a direct insult to hundreds of men who had given the best years of their life to administrative work

73
in London, and therefore he trusted the First Lord of the Treasury would not accept it.
MR. MARKSventured to submit that the adoption of this Amendment in the Bill would have the effect of qualifying every resident in London to sit on any London borough council, and it would defeat one of the main objects of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced it was stated that one of the chief features was to give additional dignity to municipal life in London and attract to the service of the proposed municipal boroughs a class of men which had not been attracted previously to the service. It was admitted that there was great room for improvement in the service of parochial institutions, but the principal safeguard for the proper discharge of the duties of those institutions was surely to be found in responsibility to and dependence upon the consideration of the people among whom they lived of the men who sat on the borough councils. The welfare of each district should engage the attention of the best men resident in it. No one with any knowledge of local government could doubt that the proper discharge of local duties was best attained by those of intimate local knowledge. The proposed new boroughs would have power to levy rates amounting to two and a half millions a year—a considerably larger sum than either the County Council or the School Board—and power to spend their own funds, and those who had to vote upon the raising of the rates should be people who had to share the burden of the rates when levied. He thought that every alderman should be resident in the ward he represented. No doubt there would be some desire to turn a borough to political use, and it might be easy to have a sort of flying squadron to facilitate matters, but it would not add to municipal dignity if these boroughs were turned into miniature County Councils, and so into ante-chambers for the discussion of party politics and the promotion of partizan interests. If people were to be brought into a borough from east, west, north, and south, it might be taken for granted that they would be attracted not so much by local interest, as by the wider political interests which they would desire to serve.
MR. J. SAMUELdesired to oppose the Amendment, and expressed
74
surprise that it was moved from the quarter whence it came. What right had a man to become councillor, alderman, and mayor, without having a rating qualification in the district he represented? So far as the provincial municipalities were concerned, the honourable Member showed that if a man was an occupier and lived within seven miles of a borough he was eligible to be mayor, alderman, or councillor, but if he lived beyond seven but within fifteen miles of the borough, Section 10 of the Municipal Corporations Act provided that to be qualified to be mayor, alderman, or councillor, he must be rated at £50 to the poor, if the town had four or more wards, but if it had four wards only he must be rated at £15 or possess real or personal estate to the value of £500. He protested against the Amendment, and thought it would be an insult to the new municipal boroughs in London if men from outside were allowed to vote away the ratepayers' money who had no share in the burden of the rates in those boroughs.
CAPTAIN NORTONsuggested that the Amendment should not be pressed. There were many arguments against it. It would be possible under such an Amendment for any number of people to go from one district to another and sweep out municipal government altogether. The man living in the locality would not be able to give voice to the aspirations of the persons among whom he lived. He thought the fundamental principles of the Bill would be undermined if the Amendment was allowed to pass.
MR. STUARTsaid he agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury on this subject.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he had brought forward the Amendment because many outside the House shared his opinions on the subject. He was surprised that he had not received more support from his own side, because he thought it was one of the principles of democracy that the people should choose whom they wished, provided they got the best men. Under the circumstances, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. BARTLEYasked, upon a point of order, whether, if all the Amendments were negatived, it would cut out all discussion on aldermen?
MR. WHITMORE MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea) moved to omit the words, "either as borough councillors" in order that the "aldermen" might be left for discussion. He was opposed to persons from outside the proposed municipal areas being elected as councillors. It was said that such a suggestion was an insult to the borough councillors, but in his opinion the insult was given by those who imputed such foolishness to the boroughs, as that they would elect these young bloods, who it was suggested would come down and carry the council by storm. But when he wished to hear scorn poured upon a democratic body he always went to a democrat. He saw no reason why the boroughs should elect men from outside, though there were good reasons why aldermen should be chosen. The only object the local authority would have in exercising the power would be to have the assistance of a man whose knowledge, experience, and ability would add strength and efficiency to local administration. In many districts there were men who were not qualified as voters who had devoted much time to district affairs, and no doubt they might be co-opted as aldermen. Then again there was the tradesman who had made money in his district, and who had been identified with the progress of the district, and served upon the Vestry, and who retired and went and lived in the suburbs. He retained his interest in his old borough and his years of experience in municipal work. There were many cases of that kind where such a man would be most useful on the council of the borough. If he thought for a moment that the Amendment could have the effect which some gentlemen imputed to it he should oppose it, but he thought its operation would be entirely different.
Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "either as councillor" and the words" or mayor.
Question proposed—
"That the words 'Provided also, that any person possessing the necessary qualification for election as a Member of one of the metropolitan borough councils shall be qualified to be elected alderman of any borough council within the administrative county of London' be there added."
MR. STUARTdid not think the discussion turned upon the meaning of the words "as councillor," but really what
76
the result would be of extending this privilege to "aldermen and mayors." Every argument which had been used in favour of extending the privilege told more extensively the other way. There were men in different parts of London who were anxious to act on the councils of one of the new boroughs, and it was open to anybody to select them. The question was whether it should be open to the general body of electors to select them. He was against the wider view that was now suggested. What was the ground for letting certain persons have any qualification at all in connection with local or general work? A Member of Parliament was required to be a man with a stake in the county, and in the County Council a man was required who had a stake in the county. The only great exception to the otherwise universal rule of qualification was in the election to the School Board. For the School Board there is no qualification necessary at all, though that Board at the same time levies taxes and deals with local interests. The honourable Member was unable to say why that alteration was made, but he thought that in all probability it was felt in that case it was desirable to sweep into the School Board expert opinion. That being the case, he did not see the desirability of breaking through the established rule in this particular instance without some very good ground for it, though there was a great deal of truth in the suggestion that a man interested in London as a whole was interested in all parts of it. London as a whole is governed by a central body, but in each of the boroughs, so far as they are boroughs, the men who had to govern them were only interested in that particular locality. The rates which they had to deal with are the remainder after the general rate for general purposes, and therefore it was a matter for them alone. He could quite understand those who argued that there should be no qualification for the borough councillors and aldermen, although he did not agree with them. But when it was suggested that they should be ratepayers of London as a whole, that was a thing he was unable to understand. It was unnecessary to labour the point, as the arguments were so well known. On the other hand there was the confidence in the Local Government body to be considered. By these elections there might be people elected who were not interested in the borough, and as

77
representatives of the borough they might not get its support, because they would not have its confidence. If this non-representative element was brought in, the Committee would have to remember that it was brought in for six years, and that in placing these men on these councils the councils would be deprived of confidence to which they were entitled. He believed that the grand success of this Bill depended upon not introducing any foreign element in the sense that was proposed. He should give his vote against the extension of the principle.
MR. GOULDING, said that he thought the object of the Bill was to create greater interest in localities and to strengthen the Local Government body, and he considered the Amendment before the Committee would rob it of anything that could be said in its favour. He himself should oppose the Amendment, and he should have thought that the experience of his honourable friend as a member of the London County Council would have shown him that the majority of that body selected their own aldermen, and that in nine-tenths of the cases they had been mainly selected on political grounds. Exactly the same thing would happen in the East-end of London. Even if these emissaries did come from the Fabian Society and Toynbee Hall and other places—they would not be elected. He had confidence in the working-men, and he was certain that the introduction of these emissaries from other districts would be viewed as an insult by the constituencies.
MR. BARTLEYthought that London was in many respects so different from other places that it was going absurdly strictly into the matter to say that only those who resided in that district should be aldermen for the borough of that district. It was not necessary for an alderman to live in his borough, and as London was subject to a different law to the provincial boroughs, he did not think the rule should be so rigidly enforced. He instanced the case of a street dividing a borough, and characterised it as absurd to say that a man living on one side of the street was entitled to be an alderman while a man residing upon the other was not. He thought it was rather a strong order to suggest that any council having
78
already sixty men would turn their attention to selecting all the most unreasonable people they could find as aldermen. He did not think that the privilege would be much used in any case, but at all events he favoured giving the council a right to select their aldermen from where they pleased, and if they did happen to select gentlemen coming from Toynbee Hall and other places, it might not be so bad a thing for the council after all.
MR. HALDANEwas indisposed to yield to the vague terror which seemed to have seized Members on both sides in connection with this Amendment. Why fears should prevail that outside candidates would enter the councils in the form of representatives of the Fabian Society, the Primrose League, or of a large contractor, he did not know. They must trust to the good sense of the constituencies to make the most suitable selections. He was in favour of the Amendment. He wished to see the power of selection applied to the best advantage, and to provide that the best talent would be available, from whatever part of London it came.
MR. H. S. SAMUELopposed the Amendment, because he firmly believed that if London was divided into a series of boroughs, it was very desirable to inculcate local feeling in the borough so far as possible, otherwise the Bill would be absolutely useless. He thought that aldermen should be qualified by rating for the district in which they sat, and under the circumstances it would be ridiculous to allow an alderman to be elected who was not so qualified. He sincerely trusted that the First Lord of the Treasury would not accept the Amendment, which was subversive of everything that the Bill aimed at bringing about. That was the view that he believed was held by a great number of the poorer classes.
LORD HUGH CECILexpressed the hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. He did not think there would be any temptation to select unduly people who did not reside in the locality; on the contrary, he thought the temptation was the other way, and that only when the candidate was very strong indeed, would he be selected in preference to a local man. He thought that councils

79
should be allowed to elect from as wide a field as possible in order to obtain the services of the best men. In asking himself what was the true underlying motive for much of the disapproval that was felt towards the Amendment, he could not help coming to the conclusion that there was a certain jealousy of these new bodies on the other side of the House, and that some honourable Members were unwilling to accept any Amendment which would induce good men to serve. If they were satisfied that better people would come from the other parts of London to be aldermen or councillors, they ought to give the electoral bodies the fullest freedom to select them with a single eye for the good government of their respective districts.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that if the argument of the noble Lord were worth anything, any men resident in the United Kingdom, not merely in London, should be admissible. Why should not those who happened to reside at Richmond or West Ham be able to take part in the local government of other portions of London? An honourable Member had asked why they had any fears. They had fears because they had in London great knowledge of wire-pulling. There were a large number of men who in certain localities were so well known that they were able to obtain municipal honours. They had not the confidence of their neighbours, but having wealth at their disposal, they could, with comparative ease, succeed, although unsuited for local government, in planting themselves upon the poorer constituencies in the East End. It was a remarkable fact that almost every Member who had spoken, who hailed from the East End or represented a poor constituency, had been definitely against the Amendment. He regarded that as one of the strongest arguments against it. If the object of the Bill was to interest localities in local government, it was only proper and right that those who belonged to them should have the honours and dignities attached to the successful performance of the duties.
MR. KIMBERsaid the argument that a man should not be disqualified because he lived on the further side of the road, along the centre of which the borough boundary ran, was very easily disposed of. If he were so disqualified he
80
would not contribute to the rates of the district over which he might be called to legislate. He hoped they would exclude from the representation of the borough councils anybody who had not a direct interest in the boroughs themselves, and who might have an interest in voting for expenditure to which he did not contribute.
MR. MARKSsaid that if it were a good thing that they should elect for the borough councils members from London at large, they could hardly have too much of it, and the rule should apply to councillors, aldermen and mayors. The success of experimental legislation must depend in a very large measure upon the spirit in which it was taken up by the people whom it most directly concerned. After what had taken place in Committee, those who composed the borough councils would be justified in saying: "In the opinion of the House of Commons there is no reason why we should go outside our boundaries to find councillors. We are good enough to serve in the ranks; but when it comes to the question of appointing officers, when it comes to the question of the dignities, when it comes to the question of distributing the plums, then these things will not be for us in the limits of the borough, but for those great and good men who came from the west, or the south, or the north." If the Committee had practically decided that it was not a good thing to go outside the boundaries of a borough for councillors, but that it was a good thing to go outside for the one-sixth who would constitute the aldermen, a very peculiar position was created, because that one-sixth in a large number of cases, if not in the majority of cases, would hold the balance of power on the Council, and vital questions affecting the locality, which would come up for decision before those Councils, would depend upon the ultimate judgment, not of the members who represented the localities, but of the imported carpet-baggers from other parts of the Metropolis. When it was remembered that the county councils had to levy rates, that they had to vote upon various questions of local importance, and that many questions would arise as to the apportionment of the cost of improvement between one council and another—and frequently between adjoining districts, the difficulties were numerous and

81
considerable. It was perfectly true that there might be a good many more competent men residing in one part of London than another, but where these men were really competent, where they really desired to serve on these borough bodies, they would be wanted in their own constituencies. He could not help thinking that the acceptance of the Amendment would have the result of suggesting—whether rightly or wrongly he would not stop to inquire—that it was not intended to give to these new municipalities the full advantages of the enhanced dignity which had been claimed for them, but that these were to be reserved for the inhabitants of the more wealthy and distinguished parts of London.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have listened with some interest, but I must confess with some surprise also, to the Debate. My inclinations are rather in favour of the Amendment, but whether I am right or wrong I cannot understand the subject being made one of heated disputation. Honourable Members on both sides of the House, I think, have talked as if the poorer constituencies of the Metropolis would regard this as a slight deliberately planned by the Government and inflicted by the House upon them. Well, Sir, I need hardly say that if this Amendment were carried, that would not represent either the intentions of the Government or of the House of Commons. I do not believe that in one case out of 100 these constituencies would think of going outside their own area to find assistance. The intention of the Bill is undoubtedly to confer a greater dignity upon these local bodies, and one method of doing that is to create the office of aldermen, which may form the object of local ambition. That, I am sure, will be the view taken by the borough councils, and there will, therefore, be no temptation to go outside their own numbers, except in those very rare cases where an individual has, for some special reason, made himself a persona grata in the locality. We have, I think, the strongest confirmation of that view in the action of the borough councils in the provinces. I doubt whether half a dozen cases could be produced of aldermen in the provincial councils.
MR. H. S. SAMUEL: They must have a rating qualification.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The point is whether the Council, once elected, are to go outside their own members for aldermen.
MR. H. S. SAMUEL: They do so. I can give several cases, one of which is that of the honourable Member for South-east Durham, who has served as councillor before.
MR. A. J. BALFOUE: Then the honourable Member, broadly speaking, agrees with me. I do not see why the London borough councils should be different from provincial borough councils. I think they should be exactly the same. The operation of this Amendment, if carried, will be very insignificant. But, of course, after the strong expression of opinion from the Members for East London on both sides of the House, I shall not make a Government question of the Amendment. Personally I retain my predilection for the elasticity which the Amendment would give.
SIR BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he was glad the Government were not going to make this a party question. He felt it was the greatest possible mistake for councils to go outside their own body for aldermen, as it encouraged party politics inside the chamber, and did not lead to the selection of the best men.
COLONEL HUGHESbelieved that the substance of the Amendment was already embodied in the Bill, for under the London Government Act of 1888 there was power given to elect aldermen from any part of the County of London and from outside the county, provided they were freeholders. That provision was carried into this Bill in Section 2, Sub-section 3.
MR. R.G. WEBSTERpointed out that if aldermen could be elected from all over London it was to a body which had to deal with the whole of London, whereas now they were dealing with the constitution of purely local bodies. Ten aldermen were to be elected for St. Pancras, and he protested strongly against their being chosen from outside St. Pancras, as there were plenty of suitable men in the constituency. He could understand very well the position taken up by his honourable friend the Member for Chelsea. He

83
had the honour of being an alderman of the London County Council, and was one of those gentlemen who wished to rule the whole of London. He did not think it would be in the interest of local self-government to make the selection from outside.
MR. GODDARDsaid that no doubt there were many cases in which provincial municipal boroughs had elected aldermen from outside the council. In Ipswich he could recall many instances. But was there not a great difference between that case and the case of London? Gentlemen elected as aldermen in municipal boroughs had certain qualifications locally, and there would not be the same objection to a similar system applying in London if the aldermen selected resided in the district included in the borough. But the amendment would enable them to be chosen from any part of London to sit in any particular borough council, and that was where the injustice came in. The First Lord of the Treasury had somewhat complained that the argument on the point had been heated, but he seemed not to know how people objected to have their local influence over-ridden by gentlemen from outside.
MR. HUBBARD, said he thought the opposition to the Amendment was founded on a fallacy. The honourable Member for East St. Pancras expressed a fear that ten gentlemen from Chelsea would go down to his constituency to manage local affairs there. But he overlooked the fact that if they did go it would be not at their own wish but at the request of the council. Every Member who had spoken against the Amendment had argued as if it were proposed to take away from the borough councils the power of choosing the aldermen, and he did protest against what was an actual privilege being interpreted as a
slight and indignity on the Council. It was only giving the freest expression and liberty to that democratic choice which every council should possess. Suppose a council went outside its own body and selected the right honourable Baronet the Member for the University of London as an alderman, would he not be a source of strength to the council?
MR. H. S. SAMUELhoped honourable Members from the East End of London would fight this question as a matter of principle. The law, so far as London municipal councils was concerned, was quite different from that affecting provincial councils. In this matter they ought to be guided by the Law Officers of the Crown. As had been pointed out, sub-section B of section 10 of the Municipal Corporations Act required that anyone elected as an alderman should possess certain rating or occupying qualifications in the borough, and surely no man who had not such a qualification ought to be allowed to sit on a council and spend the ratepayers' money. Yet that was what this Amendment proposed. He hoped the Committee by its vote would affirm the principle he had cited from the Municipal Corporations Act.
MR. COHENsaid the Amendment gave the borough councils exactly the same facility as that which the right honourable Gentleman proposed to give honourable Members in voting upon it—full liberty of action. Honourable Gentlemen opposite who were members of the London County Council had in the past shown their readiness to avail themselves of this power of electing aldermen from outside the council.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes, 221. (Division List, No. 121.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Anstruther, H. T.

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

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Arnold, Alfred

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

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

Arrol, Sir William

Beresford, Lord Charles

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bond, Edward

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Baird, John George Alexander

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Brassey, Albert

Charrington, Spencer

Banbury, Frederick George

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Clarke, Sir Edward(Plymouth)

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

Coddington, Sir William

Bartley, George C. T.

Butcher, John George

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Priestley, Sir W.O.(Edinburgh

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Rankin, Sir James

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thompson

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cranborne, Viscount

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Round, James

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Keswick, William

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Doughty, George

Knowles, Lees

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lafone, Alfred

Spencer, Ernest

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lowe, Francis William

Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

Folkestone, Viscount

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Garfit, William

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lon.

Maclure, Sir John William

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Malcolm, Ian

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Middlemore, John Throgmort.

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. (Kent)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Monckton, Edward Philip

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Graham, Henry Robert

Monk, Charles James

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Gunter, Colonel

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Mount, William George

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

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

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Wylie, Alexander

Hardy, Laurence

Myers, William Henry

Wyndham, George

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Newark, Viscount

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

Young, Commandr (Berks, E.)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Penn, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitmore and Mr. W. F. D. Smith.

Howard, Joseph

Philipps, John Wynford

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.

Forster, Henry William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Allen, W.(Newc. under Lyme)

Channing, Francis Allston

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Allison, Robert Andrew

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Allsopp, Hon. George

Clough, Walter Owen

Galloway, William Johnson

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Ascroft, Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Asher, Alexander

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Godson, Sir Augustus F.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gold, Charles

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Crombie, John William

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Bainbridge, Emerson

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Baker, Sir John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Balcarres, Lord

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. J. Blair(Clack.

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Barlow, John Emmott

Currie, Sir Donald

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Barnes, Frederic G. [Hunts

Curzon, Viscount

Heaton, John Henniker

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Helder, Augustus

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Daly, James

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Beckett, Ernest William

Dalziel, James Henry

Hoare, Ed. Brodie(Hampstead

Bethell, Commander

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Billson, Alfred

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Horniman, Frederick John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Dillon, John

Howell, William Tudor

Bousfield, William Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

Doogan, P. C.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Dunn, Sir William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Burns, John

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tattoe

Kemp, George

Caldwell, James

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kenyon, James

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

Ellis, John Edward

Kimber, Henry

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Causton, Richard Knight

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, George

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man.

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

86

87

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Leng, Sir John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Lewis, John Herbert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Steadman, William Charles

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Stephens, Henry Charles

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

O'Malley, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lough, Thomas

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Strachey, Edward

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Strauss, Arthur

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Paulton, James Mellor

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Macaleese, Daniel

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Macdona, John Cumming

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Tennant, Harold John

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Pease, Joseph A.(Northumb.)

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Pender, Sir James

Thorburn, Walter

M'Ghee, Richard

Percy, Earl

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin. W.)

Perks, Robert William

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Pilkington, Richard

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Leod, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Maddison, Fred.

Price, Robert John

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wedderburn, Sir William

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Purvis, Robert

Weir, James Galloway

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Reckitt, Harold James

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. Jn.

Rickett, J. Compton

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Milward, Colonel Victor

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Robson, William Snowdon

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Russell, Gen. F.S.(Cheltenham

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

More, Robt, Jasper(Shropshire)

Schwann, Charles E.

Wilson, Jos. H.(Middlesbrough

Morley, Charles(Breconshire)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Woods, Samuel

Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

Yoxall, James Henry

Moss, Samuel

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Moulton, John Fletcher

Souttar, Robinson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Marks and Mr. Goulding.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Spicer, Albert

CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid the next Amendment which stood in his name was to insert words providing that the poll should be kept open until 10 o'clock at night. He held that this extension was necessary to meet the needs of classes who had to go long distances to work and to return again at night. Many of the working classes did not leave work till seven at night, and they had the greatest difficulty in getting to the poll by eight o'clock.
Amendment proposed, after the words last added, to add the words—
"Provided that at every election of councillors under this Act the poll (if any) shall commence at eight o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open till ten o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and no longer,"—(Captain Sinclair.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there added."
SIR R. B. FINLAYhoped the Amendment would not be pressed. No doubt there
88
was a precedent for it in the case of the election of guardians in London, where, by order of the County Council, the hours could be extended, but the present arrangement had hitherto worked satisfactorily, and as it was in accordance with the general law he thought it should be maintained.
MR. STUARTsupported the Amendment, on the ground that many working men had to leave their homes before the poll opened and could not get back by 8 p.m. The polling booths were always very crowded during the last hour. He had made careful inquiry in the district with which he was more particularly connected, and he had found that the extension would benefit both political parties equally. He understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to create a larger amount of interest in the elections, and he believed that the Amendment would enable large numbers to vote who were now excluded by the closing of the poll at 8 p.m.
MR. SPICERsaid that as one who had lived in London all his life, and knew something of the conditions of the employment of the people, he was convinced that if the closing hour remained at 8 p.m. a large number of clerks and shop assistants would be disfranchised. No doubt daily work commenced later in London than in the country, but it also ended later, and hence it was desirable to keep the poll open till 10 p.m.
MR. BARTLEYbelieved that however late the poll was kept open a certain number of people would refrain from voting until the last moment. It should be remembered that they had a staff of clerks engaged in the polling booths from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and it would be very hard on them to make them work 14 hours. In Parliamentary elections, in which the poll closed at 8 p.m., 90 per cent. of the electors registered their votes, and the same percentage ought in municipal elections to record their votes in the same hours.
MR. SOAMESsaid he should be surprised to hear of any place in which 90 per cent. of the electors polled.
MR. BARTLEY: In some Parliamentary divisions in London we certainly get 90 per cent.
MR. SOAMESsaid he should like to see the figures. It was all very well to argue that it would be unfair to the polling clerks to make them work more than 12 hours a day; but how about the working men who had to do it every day? If they asked these men's wives they would be told, "My husband leaves home before eight in the morning and will not be back till after eight at night." He submitted it was absolutely necessary to extend the hours, and he hoped that under the circumstances the Leader of the House would leave his followers free to vote as they liked.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the matter was an important one, and could not be dismissed in the cavalier manner which the honourable Member for Islington had adopted. He certainly should like to know of any Parliamentary division in which 90 per cent. of the electors polled.
90
It assuredly was not the case in the East End of Loudon, where hundreds were simply disfranchised by the early hours of closing the poll. He thought they were entitled to something more than the perfunctory reply given by the Solicitor-General. London was a city by itself, and country precedents could not be applied to it.
MR. JOHN BURNSdeclared that though, no doubt, skilled and unskilled labourers might be able to vote between five and eight o'clock, there were thousands of clerks, warehousemen, and railway employees working many miles from home who did not leave work till 7 p.m. They were the ones who were disfranchised. He knew that in his own district at Clapham and Brixton hundreds were unable to vote in the School Board and Country Council elections because they did not leave their work in the City until after 7 o'clock. He hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury would agree to extend the hour to 10 o'clock, or at least to 9.
MR. ASQUITHthought that the balance of argument was very strongly in favour of an Amendment in the sense of that moved by his honourable and gallant friend. This was, admittedly, not in any sense a party matter, and he could not help hoping, therefore, that the Government would make some response to the appeal addressed to them. It was impossible in this case to ignore the fact that London had been already treated as a place which required exceptional legislation in matters of this kind. If there had been a uniform rule as regards the hours of poll, then he would admit that there might be a prima facie objection to the change. The conditions of London labour were exceptional, and required exceptional legislation to enable large numbers of people to exercise the vote. He could not see any ground, either of principle or expediency, for preventing the extension of exceptional treatment to London on this question.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid this was not a party matter at all Many Members on his side of the House would regret that it should go forth to London that a party division was taken as to whether the poll should be kept open an hour or two longer. In fixing the

91
hours of polling regard should be had to the convenience of the large majority of voters. The convenience of the large majority differed in different parts of London, and he ventured to suggest as a compromise that it should be left as a matter of local option, having regard to the circumstances of the particular locality, to extend the hour to 9 o'clock. He represented a portion of London where a large number of working men could not get home in time to vote before 8 o'clock, and the extra hour would enable an increased number to record their votes over those who did so at present. He agreed with the Government that 8 o'clock should be the normal hour, and he thought that 10 went too far in the other direction.
CAPTAIN NORTONmost heartily supported the Amendment of his honourable and gallant friend, because that gentleman had considerable knowledge of the subject, not only in connection with the London County Council, but with philanthropic movements in the East End. He himself had had considerable experience as to the hours when working men returned to their homes at night, and he could say that to fix the close of the poll at 8 o'clock would be to disfranchise a large proportion of working men. Further, when the elections took place in the summer months a large proportion were disfranchised because they had to go to their work outside the radius of London. Honourable Members had pleaded against the Amendment that it would cause the staff to be employed two hours extra, but the staff might very well work an hour later when they were highly paid for it. The same honourable Gentlemen had spoken of 90 per cent. of the voters in London going to the poll. This was preposterous. The highest percentage was in Woolwich, where 72 per cent. voted, but that was at a Parliamentary election, and the voters were resident on the spot. In other parts of London, even in Parliamentary elections, it depended frequently on whether a man succeeded in catching a 'bus, a tram, or a train as to whether he would be able to vote or not. If the object of the Bill was to create an interest in local government, surely they ought to provide for bringing as large a number of voters to the poll as possible. With the present hour there was always an unseemly rush of people to the poll at
92
the last moment. Returns in regard to the School Board Elections in one district showed that up to 1 o'clock 210 had voted, at 5 o'clock 397, at 6 o'clock 456, at 7 o'clock 544, at 8 o'clock 820, and at 9 o'clock 926. These figures demonstrated the extreme importance of the extension of the polling. Where the poll had been extended to 9 o'clock there had been nothing approaching riotous proceedings, and even if a very small proportion went to the poll under the influence of liquor, that was no reason why the majority of the constituency should be deprived of their votes.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Committee had forgotten the extent to which London had been treated exceptionally in this matter. Long ago, when Parliamentary elections closed at 4 and 5 o'clock in the rest of the United Kingdom, London had already an 8 o'clock poll. He had personally investigated the subject, and found that even after the hours of polling had been extended to 8 o'clock large numbers were disfranchised. It was also found, after litigation, that those who had got into the polling room could not vote when the hour arrived. So far as he knew, the only reason which had been alleged against the extension of the hour was the work of the clerks. As matters stood it was an exceptional day's work for a highly trained staff. Moreover it was proved that some of the staff were generally employed at the counting, and the counting frequently went on to midnight or 1 o'clock in the morning. If the staff were able to conduct the business of counting after the work they had done in the polling booths, he submitted that this exceptionally trained staff would be quite able to carry on their work at the poll for an hour or two longer.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether the Solicitor-General or the Leader of the House could give any substantial reasons why the proposed extension should not be made. The only reason he had heard was that it would impose extra work on a few officials. Well, that meant only once in three years, and their convenience ought not to stand in the way of the convenience of the electors.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite clear that this is a question on which, from the

93
nature of the case, considerations may be adduced on both sides. It can only be decided on the balance of the argument. So far as the two most important elections in London are concerned, namely, Parliamentary and County Council, Parliament has decided in favour of the poll closing at 8 o'clock, although, no doubt, in the case of the School Board election, the poll was extended to 9 o'clock. In the case of vestries the polling is also from 8 in the morning to 8 at night. It is possible, I do not deny it, that even the twelve hours during which the poll is open may be insufficient, but I would point out to the right honourable Baronet that since the twelve hours' polling has been fixed by Parliament the hours of labour have been considerably diminished. If 8 o'clock was a suitable hour for closing the poll when Parliament last discussed the question, it is still more suitable at the present time, when the fact is taken into account that there has been this diminution in the hours of labour. If the hours are to be changed for London elections, they should be changed for all London after a careful enquiry in regard to all London. I do not think it would be desirable in regard to this Bill to make an exception to the decision which the House deliberately came to with reference to the more important elections.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the House ought to be well up in the facts. In regard to School Board elections, both parties agreed that the hours should be extended from 8 to 9. That had been done on two occasions, and the result was that from 8 to 9, more voters polled than between 7 and 8. The Boards of Guardians had asked the London County Council to extend the hours from 8 to 10, and this had been done to the great satisfaction both of the electors, and of the candidates of different views. If that could be done with the School Board and the Boards of Guardians, it surely could be done in the case of the new councils, in which even more interest would be taken. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to recognise another fact. The Vestries had frequently changed the election day from an ordinary working day to a Saturday, so as to give a large number of clerks and warehousemen an opportunity of voting. The effect had been to materially increase the number of voters going to the poll. If the First
94
Lord of the Treasury were to declare that henceforth all those elections would take place on Saturday, there would be no reason to extend the hours from 8 to 10. But if he could not do so, then in the face of experience, and the complex conditions of London life, the hours of polling should be extended as proposed in the Amendment.
MR. STEADMANappealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to grant this moderate concession. The right honourable Gentleman said that the hours of labour had been reduced, and that working men had time to vote in the twelve hours at their disposal. But that applied to a very small section of the working classes. In the East-end of London men were employed in warehouses till 7 in the evening. Many of them were glad to get home, and if after a cup of tea they rushed to the polling-booth, the consequence was the crowd of voters was so great that they could not record their votes. The First Lord of the Treasury himself deplored the apathy in London in regard to elections at the present time. The only way to decrease that apathy was to enable every voter to record his vote. He would like to take the First Lord down to Mile-end on the 17th of this month, where he would find that from 8 o'clock in the morning to 5 in the afternoon the presiding officers and their clerks had nothing to do but to sit and smoke their cigars. If inquiry were made all over London, it would be found that the great majority of the people were in favour of an extension of the polling hours both of Parliamentary and municipal elections.
MR. MADDISONpointed out to the First Lord of the Treasury that the decrease in the hours of labour applied in London in quite a different way from out of London, and he knew from experience of both. In the skilled trades, for instance, a man might be living in Camberwell and working in Woolwich. Warehousemen and clerks also had to leave their homes before 8, and therefore could not vote in the morning; and they returned so late as to be unable to vote even at the last moment. If the right honourable Gentleman could not go the whole length of 10 o'clock, he could assure him that 9 o'clock would make an enormous difference. This was

95
a real grievance, and he assured the First Lord of the Treasury that he was now resisting one of the most reasonable appeals that had been made to him.
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he desired to amend the Amendment by inserting after the word "till," the following words—
"Eight o'clock, or nine o'clock in the evening, if the Council shall previously so decide."
He did not think the Government had realised the importance of this matter, or what it meant to them if they treated the question in this way. If they went solid for eight o'clock the effect would be that an agitation in favour of elections on Saturday would be started, and then instead of the working classes being disfranchised, some of them would be disfranchised. He thought the Government would make a great mistake if they fixed the hour at eight o'clock, because a large number of people in London could not record their votes before that hour.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out from the word 'till,' to the end thereof, in order to add the words 'eight o'clock or nine o'clock in the afternoon if the council at a previous meeting shall so decide.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
Question—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.
Put and agreed to.
Question put,—
"That the words 'Provided that at every election of councillors under this Act the poll (if any) shall commence at eight o'clock in the forenoon and be kept open till ten o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and no longer' be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 161.—(Division List No. 122.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Baker, Sir John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Rickett, J. Compton

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Horniman, Frederick John

Schwann, Charles E.

Burns, John

Howard, Joseph

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Souttar, Robinson

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lambert, George

Spicer, Albert

Causton, Richard Knight

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Steadman, William Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Clough, Walter Owen

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crombie, John William

Lloyd-George, David

Tennant, Harold John

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr)

Daly, James

Macaleese, Daniel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

M'Ghee, Richard

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Weir, James Galloway

Dillon, John

Maddison, Fred

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Donelan, Captain A.

Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

Fenwick, Charles

Moss, Samuel

Woods, Samuel

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Mr. M'Arthur

NOES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Arnold, Alfred

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Arrol, Sir William

Bartley, George C. T.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Ascroft, Robert

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Beckett, Ernest William

Charrington, Spencer

Baird, John George Alexander

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

Balcarres, Lord

Big wood, James

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

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

Bond, Ed ward

Coddington, Sir William

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Banbury, Frederick George

Burdett-Coutes, W.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsey

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Penn, John

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Percy, Earl

Cranborne, Viscount

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pilkington, Richard

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Kemp, George

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Curzon, Viscount

Kenyon, James

Purvis, Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Keswick, William

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kimber, Henry

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Donkin, Richard Sim

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Round, James

Doughty, George

Lafone, Alfred

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Seely, Charles Hilton

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert. V

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lock wood, Lt-Col. A. R.

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lowe, Francis William

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Folkestone, Viscount

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Forster, Henry William

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Galloway, William Johnson

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Thorburn, Walter

Garfit, William

Maclure, Sir John William

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Webster, Sir R. E.(Isle of Wight)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Middlemore John Throgmorton

Whiteley, George (Stockport

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Milton, Viscount

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Milward, Colonel Victor

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Monckton, Edward Philip

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Graham, Henry Robert

Monk, Charles James

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wylie, Alexander

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wyndham, George

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Henderson, Alexander

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Hoare, Edw Brodie(Hampstead

Mount, William George

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Howell, William Tudor

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sir William Walrond and

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Myers, William Henry

Mr. Anstruther.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed—
"That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. PICKERSGILLdrew the attention of the Committee to Sub-section 3, and said it was impossible to determine what it really meant. The Bill was mainly based upon the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and was referred to through the Local Government Act, 1888. Surely the proper course would be to refer directly to the Act and insert the necessary modifications. Some of the provisions applied to the country at large and some to London, and it was difficult to know to which reference was made. With regard to Sub-section 4, it was provided that the law relating to the proceedings of the administrative vestry should apply to the new boroughs. That law was contained in the old Metropolis Local Management Act, which was very antiquated, and
98
certainly not in harmony with the common forms of local government which they had been introducing lately.
SIR R. B. FINLAYpointed out that the clause as it stood was quite clear and much shorter than it would have been if the provisions of the Act of 1882 had been set out in this clause. With regard to aldermen, he did not think that any doubt could arise, because they had cleared up that point by saying that the number of aldermen was to be one-sixth. As to Sub-section 4, the Government desired to keep intact what related to the constitution and the proceedings of the vestries. The provisions of the Metropolis Management Act were perfectly well understood in the Metropolis, and he thought it would be better to adopt that course instead of trying to draft fresh clauses.
MR. STUARTthought that when their friends outside came to put their heads together to find out what this meant, they would fall into the same difficulties as the Member for Woolwich and himself had fallen into. No one was more intimate with this subject than the hon. Member for Woolwich, who had taken a different view to the Solicitor-General. If the Solicitor-General feared that, by setting this clause out fully, ingenious persons would take advantage of it by putting down Amendments, he would ask him to set the clause out fully when the Bill went up to the House of Lords. He was not pleading that anything unpleasant should be done to the Bill, but he was desirous that it should be made more self-contained, and he hoped the Solicitor-General would take his suggestion into consideration. When he tried to understand this clause he had ten different volumes of statutes before him, and he found that it was necessary to go through them all, before he could manage to probe to the bottom of what it meant.
Clause 2, as amended, added to the Bill.
CAPTAIN NORTONin moving the next Amendment contended that its importance had been increased on account of the decision of the Committee not to extend the hours of polling. Many of the arguments brought forward against Saturday polling did not apply to London. The stock argument was that it would be highly inconvenient for seaside towns, because Saturday was their busiest day. Their object ought to be to fully ascertain the feeling of the electorate, and to bring the largest possible number to the poll, and the best day to accomplish that was the day on which the majority of the voters had the largest amount of leisure. He would be told that that day was Sunday, and that was the case in most continental places. English people, however, did not desire to have elections on Sunday, and he maintained that the next day upon which the majority of them were most free was Saturday. It had been argued that Saturday would be inconvenient for business men who had to leave for the country, but he thought that they might vote early in the day. It had been said
100
that the working man received his weekly wage on a Saturday, and not infrequently took the opportunity of having a drink, and, consequently, was not in a fit state to go to the poll. That was a very unjust argument towards by far the larger portion of working men.
THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): Nobody has brought forward that argument.
CAPTAIN NORTONreplied that it had been frequently urged that if the elections were held upon a Saturday it was likely to lead to riotous proceedings, which would necessitate a large force of police being brought into certain districts, and that was an unfair imputation against working men as a class.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Hear, hear.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that large numbers of builders and mechanics had to go out into the country to work, and did not arrive home except on Saturday in sufficient time to go to the poll, and consequently they would be disfranchised unless the poll took place on that day. Not only would this class be debarred from taking part in the election, but as to a very large proportion of the best class of men who influenced their fellow-men, who were active workers, and who generally devoted three or four hours after returning home on Saturday to bring up their mates to the poll, their services would be lost if the poll did not take place on Saturday.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, after the words "held on," to insert the words "the Saturday next following."—(Captain Norton.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid it was quite impossible for him to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member had stated that some Member of this House—he did not remember his name—or some orator whose name was lost to history, had stated that Saturday was an improper day, because a good many of the working men of London on that day were incapacitated by drink from going

101
to the poll. All he could say was that he did not believe there was a single Member on this side of the House who ever used that argument. When the hon. Member for West Newington made a suggestion of that kind, he should furnish the name of the hon. Member who made the charge. He hoped the House would remember that this suggestion came from an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House. In reference to Saturday polling, he claimed to know as much about the East End of London and the working classes as the hon. Member opposite, and he was quite satisfied that Saturday was in the populous parts the busiest day of the week. Then there was a large class who ought to be considered, and that was the Jewish population, who would be to a large extent disfranchised by Saturday polling. Under the circumstances he did not think there was any reason whatever for adopting a hard and fast rule that Saturday must be the day.
MR. STUARTthought the arguments of the Attorney-General were rather thin. With regard to the Jews, there were specific arrangements made for them which covered that question. The County Council elections had been taken on Saturday, and there had been no difficulty experienced in that respect. With regard to the preparation of the list of voters the Amendment would give a few days longer. There was no doubt that the generality of the working classes of London had more leisure on Saturday than upon any other day. The Attorney-General had said that he was well acquainted with the East End of London, but perhaps he had not had so much experience of local elections as other Members had had. Unhesitatingly he said that Saturday was freer than any other day, and that was illustrated by the fact that they had had a larger poll generally throughout London on Saturday than upon any other day. As to Saturday being inconvenient for shopkeepers, he would point out that they were not very seriously engaged on Saturday mornings, although they were later in the day. He did not think the Attorney-General had brought any arguments of weight against Saturday polling.
MR. COHENsaid that reference had been made to the members of his own community, but he wished to say that where the requirements of the Jewish
102
community in any way conflicted with those of the general community he should be the very last person to urge that their requirements should prevail. Tolerance had been shown towards the Jewish community by a special arrangement with regard to Saturday, but in spite of this he did not think that Saturday polling could be defended on the plea of convenience for the community at large. There were a great many boroughs who would prefer any day of the week but Saturday, and there were many sections of London where Wednesday or Saturday was an early closing day. He wished to protest against the plea that they could dogmatise generally, and say that Saturday was the best day. He hoped the Government would adhere to their decision upon this point.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down forgot that if the Government had conceded an extension of the polling hours, Saturday would not have been pressed as the alternative which was now proposed. The object of every municipal reformer should be to get the greatest number of persons to the poll to record their votes. He thought exceptional arrangements were requisite for polling in London, for the overwhelming bulk of artisans, both skilled and unskilled, and at least 90 per cent. of the persons who earned under £4 a week had some part of Saturday between two o'clock and eight available for voting. The convenience of the largest number ought to be considered, and Saturday gave a larger number of men better facilities for voting than any other day in the week afforded. If they had the election on Wednesday or Thursday, which were the early closing days, that would only give to a limited class in the neighbourhood a special facility for voting, and that class would be the shopkeepers and their assistants. In Islington and Battersea, shopping did not really begin to any appreciable extent before 12 o'clock on Saturday, and therefore this allowed part of Saturday morning, when the shopkeepers or their assistants could go out for 10 minutes to record their votes. On the ground that he wanted this Bill to create an interest in local life, which could only be done by meeting the wishes of the majority, he should support Saturday as a day on which the shopkeepers and their assistants could vote,

103
and because 90 per cent. of the voters in this big city had a better opportunity of voting on Saturday than upon any other day. The experience of the County Council elections, and those held in connection with vestries and guardians, had proved that on a Saturday they had a larger proportion of voters who went to the poll, and he believed they would stimulate local life and rouse more enthusiasm in every section of the community by fixing Saturday as the polling day.
MR. LOWLESsaid the 90 per cent. of the electorate spoken of as having Saturdays free only represented about 10 per cent. of the ratepaying element. He made a special study of the question at the last County Council election, and he ventured to declare that nine-tenths of the street traders, i.e., costermongers, who had stalls in the streets on Saturdays, as well as the small shopkeepers, were practically disfranchised by Saturday polling. This was surely a question in which the ratepayers' interests ought to be considered, and in constituencies like his own, where the small shopkeepers were most affected by the increase in the rates, it was right that their interests, even if they only represented—which he did not admit—10 per cent, of the electorate, should be considered. He ventured to think that they would not be considered if Saturday polling were made a sine quâ non of the Bill.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he frankly admitted that in certain districts and in certain trades it might be inconvenient to choose Saturday, but they ought to look at the matter from the point of view of the entire electorate. It had been conclusively proved that Saturday gave the heaviest poll, and if the object of the Bill was to create an interest in local elections, the point required no further argument. He had made special inquiry with regard to the question of the Jews, and was informed that it was of little moment to them, and that the number of Jewish voters throughout London was very small. As regarded the shopkeepers, all the middle class shopkeepers closed their establishments early on Saturday. It was only the small shopkeepers who kept open late at night, but these did not
104
do much business on Saturday morning. It was not until after two in the afternoon that they were busy.
MR. R. G. WEBSTER, as representing what might be called a railway constituency, said he knew that railway men were more busy on Saturday than any other day of the week. There was no doubt a very large number of electors in London who did not want to dawdle around polling booths on Saturday afternoons, but preferred to go into the suburbs, probably to play football at Battersea or Kennington Oval. It was absolutely incorrect to say that the working men of London received their pay on Saturdays. He was informed that nine-tenths of them received their pay on Fridays. Meetings were never held on Saturday afternoons or evenings, for the reason that they could not get the people together. If they could not get them together, how could they get them to the poll? He ventured to think there could not be a worse day for polling than Saturday.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid he was prepared to admit that more people might go to the poll on Saturday than any other day of the week, but at the same time Saturday was a very inconvenient day for a great number of people, viz.: the women voters and the tradesmen. Others liked to spend their Saturday afternoon as a half-holiday, and to go to football. The advantage, therefore, of fixing the 1st of November was that sometimes the election would come on Saturday and sometimes on Friday, and, in fact, any day of the week, so that they would all have a turn at some time or other. Still, he was prepared to say that the poll would be heavier on Saturdays, not so much because the working men could not vote on any other day, but because on the Saturday afternoon they had an opportunity of turning out and bringing voters to the poll. Whatever day was fixed would be an inconvenience to some class of voters.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 173. (Division List, No. 123.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Moss, Samuel

Austin, Sir John (York hire)

Griffiths, Ellis J.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Baker, Sir John

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bayley, Thomas (Derby-hire)

Haldane, Richard Burden

Power, Patrick Joseph

Billson, Alfred

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hogan, James Francis

Rickett, J. Compton

Burns, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Schwann, Charles E.

Caldwell, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Joicey, Sir James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Spicer, Albert

Causton, Richard Knigh

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Steadman, William Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

Kitson, Sir James

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-h.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan. E.)

Clough, Walter Owen

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Thomas, David Alfd. (Mefthyr)

Crombie, John William

Leng, Sir John

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Lewis, John Herbert

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, s

Daly, James

Lloyd-George, David

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lough, Thomas

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles

Macaleese, Daniel

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

Dillon, John

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Wilson, Jos. H.(Mddlsbrough)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Ghee, Richard

Woods, Samuel

Doogan, P. C.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Fenwick, Charles

M'Leod, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Maddison, Fred.

Captain Norton and Mr. James Stuart.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt John

Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)

NOES.

Allhusen, Augustus Hny. Eden

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Howell, William Tudor

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Arnold, Alfred

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Arrol, Sir William

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Curzon, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Baird, John George Alexander

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Jessel, Captain Herbt. Merton

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

Denny, Colonel

Kemp, George

Balfour, Rt Hon Grld. W.(Leeds

Donkin, Richard Sim

Kenyon, James

Banbury, Frederick George

Doughty, George

Keswick, William

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kimber, Henry

Barry, R. Hn AH. Smith-(Hunts

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Bartley, George C. T.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Lafone, Alfred

Barton. Dunbar Plunket

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

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

Finch, George H.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Beckett, Ernest William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bigwood, James

Flower, Ernest

Long, Rt. Hn. Wltr.(Liverpool)

Bond, Edward

Folkestone, Viscount

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Bousfield, William Robert

Forster, Henry William

Lowe, Francis William

Brassey, Albert

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster;

Lowles, John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Burdett-Coutts. W.

Garfit, William

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Cecil, EVelyn (Hertford, East)

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lnd.

Macdona, John Cumming

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary(St. Albans)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

Gilliat, John Saunders

Maclure, Sir-John William

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk

Marks, Henry Hananel

Charrington, Spencer

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Coddington, Sir William

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Milton, Viscount

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gull, Sir Cameron

Monckton, Edward Philip

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Monk, Charles James

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Moon, Edward Robert Paey

Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Helder, Augustus

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T.D.

Henderson, Alexander

Morrell, George Herbert

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Hoare, Ed. Brodie(Hampstead)

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

Cox, Irwin Edwd. B. (Harrow)

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Mount, William George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Howard, Joseph

Murray, R Hn. A. Graham(Bute

106

107

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Myers, William Henry

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Williams, Jsph. Powell-(Birm.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

Pilkington, Richard

Stock, James Henry

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wylie, Alexander

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Strauss, Arthur

Wyndham, George

Purvis, Robert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'd. Unv.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Richards, Henry Charles

Thorburn, Walter

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Round, James

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

Sir William Walrond and

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Webster, Sir R.E. (Isle of W'ht.

Mr. Anstruther.

MR. STUART MR. STUART moved the substitution of May for November as the date of the elections. He pointed out that the elections for the vestries had for a long time been held in May, and the experience to be derived from London elections was decidedly in favour, having regard to the comfort of all concerned, of holding them in that month.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, to leave out the word "November," in order to insert the word "May."—(Mr. Stuart.)
Question proposed—
"That the word 'November' stand part of the Clause."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid it was impossible for the Government to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. There had been a disposition throughout the country for years that the municipal authorities should come into office in November. Apart from that, the Government desired to assimilate the date of the election for the new municipal boroughs to the same date as in boroughs in other parts of the country, and there was no reason why the representatives should not come into office all at the same time.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONwas sorry that the Attorney-General had decided that there was no possibility of an alter-
native date other than November. There was no practical reason why November should be adopted.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESconsidered that it was very desirable to select those times and seasons which were most convenient to the great majority of electors, but he really thought November was a better month than May. In May a great many people were out of town. In November London had settled down, and the great bulk of Londoners were in residence.
MR. LOUGHthought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would get into trouble if he insisted too much on observing the analogy between the new municipal boroughs and the corporations in the country. It had always been recognised in this House that in London a system should be adopted which was suitable to itself, and the proposal contained in the Amendment was one of those very points where it would be much more convenient to depart from the practice of the provinces. He thought the proposal would commend itself to London men, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided. Ayes 189; Noes 84. (Division List No. 124.)

AYES.

Allhusen, August. Henry Eden

Baird, John George Alexander

Bartley, George C. T.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Balcarres, Lord

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Arnold, Alfred

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man'r

Beach Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Beckett, Ernest William

Arrol, Sir William

Banbury, Frederick George

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Bigwood, James

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

Bond, Edward

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bousfield, William Robert

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Morrell, George Herbert

Brassey, Albert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morton, Arthr. H. A. (Deptford

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Mount, William George

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grahm. (Bute

Butcher, John George

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Myers, William Henry

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Helder, Augustus

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Henderson, Alexander

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Charrington, Spencer

Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

Pease, Herbrt. Pike(Darlington

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

Howard, Joseph

Pilkington, Richard

Coddington, Sir William

Howell, William Tudor

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Purvis, Robert

Collins, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Richards, Henry Charles

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Round, James

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw T. D.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow)

Kemp, George

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kenyon, James

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Keswick, William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kimber, Henry

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

Curzon, Viscount

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Lafone, Alfred

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

Stock, James Henry

Denny, Colonel

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Donkin, Richard Sim

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

Strauss, Arthur

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Doughty, George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

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

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Thorburn, Walter

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lowe, Francis William

Tollemache, Henry James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lowles, John

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Fergusson Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Finch, George H.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Webstor, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Gumming

Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

MacIvor, David (Liverpool)

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Flower, Ernest

Maclure, Sir John William

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Folkestone, Viscount

Marks, Henry Hananel

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Forster, Henry William

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R. (Bath

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Melville, Boresford Valentine

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Galloway, William Johnston

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Wylie, Alexander

Garfit, William

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Wyndham, George

Gedge, Sydney

Milton, Viscount

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

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

Milward, Colonel Victor

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Monckton, Edward Philip

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Monk, Charles James

Younger, William

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Channing, Francis Allston

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Clark, D. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Crombie, John William

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshre)

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Billson, Alfred

Daly, James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hogan, James Francis

Burns, John

Dillon, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Donelan, Captain A.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Caldwell, James

Doogan, P. C.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Joicey, Sir James

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Causton, Richard Knight

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Cawley, Frederick

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Kitson, Sir James

110

111

Lambert, George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cnmb'land

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr

Leng, Sir John

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

Lewis, John Herbert

Piekersgill, Edward Hare

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.

Lloyd-George, David

Power, Patrick Joseph

Weir, James Galloway

Macaleese, Daniel

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

M'Ghee, Richard

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

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Pickett, J. Compton

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Wilson, John, (Govan)

M'Leod, John

Schwann, Charles E.

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Maddison, Fred.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Yoxall, James Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Spicer, Albert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Lough.

Moss, Samuel

Steadman, William Charles

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:—
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER SIR RICHARD WEBSTER moved in page 2, after "council" to insert:—
"Who shall also fix a corresponding date for the first elections for mayors and aldermen,"
Amendment agreed to.
MR. TREVELYAN, said that the Amendment he now moved would settle the day and the hour at which the first meeting should he held. He wished that the first meeting should be held in the evening, after six p. m., as a very large class could not possibly attend before that hour. The chief class concerned was the working men of the metropolis, who in nine cases out of ten could not attend earlier. Another class also deserved consideration, namely, civil servants, who very often took considerable interest in local government. If the first meeting were held after six p. m., the borough councils would be able to settle the subsequent meetings for themselves, but he thought it was clear that an opportunity should be given the working men to attend the first meeting.
Amendment proposed, in page 2 line 24, at end, to insert—
"The first meeting of all the newly elected borough councils shall be held within three weeks after the election, and in the evening after the hour of six p.m. "—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAYhoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. He did not see why it was necessary to say that the first meeting should be held at any particular hour. If necessary, pro-
112
vision could be made under Section 21 or by Order in Council for the first meeting. It seemed entirely out of place in this section.
MR. BOUSFIELDasked how was the first body to be brought together.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid that when the body was formed it would, of course, arrange to meet.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in the Act of 1894 a similar provision was inserted.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that he did not see why the Solicitor-General should not accept the Amendment. In the Act of 1894 it was provided that the first meeting should not be held earlier than six o'clock. He would suggest that the Amendment be accepted. The vestries included in Schedule A now met between six p. m., and 7.30 p.m., which showed that experience was against an earlier meeting. The argument might be used that that hour was not convenient for shop keepers. As a matter of fact, it would be very convenient for London shopkeepers, as it would be found that the majority of the Schedule A vestries met on Wednesday or Thursday evening, both early closing days, and as the overwhelming bulk of working men, civil servants and others could not get to the council meeting before six, he saw no reason why the first meeting should not be fixed after that hour.
MR. LOUGHappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point, because if he did not it would seem as though there was some prejudice against giving the working men an opportunity of attending the first meeting. It was

113
well known that in many cases working men had had to lose half a day's wages in order to attend the local meetings.
MR. LOWLESsaid he was in favour of giving the working men a chance, but it was a matter for the convenience of the local bodies themselves.
MR. STUARTsaid there was nothing in the Amendment that prevented the local bodies fixing the day of the meeting.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is rather a small point, which really comes under Section 21. I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, and the hon. Gentlemen who supported, are not right in saying that something must he put into the Bill as to the first meeting; but the proper place is in Clause 21, and the matter will be considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BOUSFIELD MR. BOUSFIELD moved, in page 2, line 24, after "council" to insert:
"All members of elective vestries and district boards in the County of London in office on the first day of January in the year 1900 shall continue in office till the appointed day. "
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid the Government would accept the Amendment as far as the principle was concerned. Clause 3 was not, however, the proper place to move it, as it had nothing to do with elections.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STUART WORTLEY MR. STUART WORTLEY moved—
"In Clause 3, page 2, line 27, at end, to insert: 'The ordinary day of election of the mayor and aldermen shall be the ninth day of November, or if that day he a Sunday, then the following day. '"
Amendment agreed to.
CAPTAIN JESSEL, in moving a new Sub-section (3), said he thought it was impossible under the Bill that the work could be accomplished by the 20th of October, or that candidates and agents would have sufficient time up to the 1st November in which to put the electoral machinery into working order. He proposed to extend the time by five days, by providing
114
that the list should be published on the 16th of October. It might be said that that was not very much, but when it was remembered that the total time given by the Bill was only ten days he thought it would be a considerable concession if an addition was made of five extra days. The part of the Amendment dealing with the functions of revising barristers was inserted in order that their work should be finished by the 1st of October, so that the returning officer would have the list earlier, and be enabled to do his portion of the work by the 16th instead of the 20th of October. He also proposed that they should change the name from "Parochial Register" to "Borough Register," as being more in harmony with the spirit of the Bill. He wished that every possible means should be taken to ensure that the list of voters should be as perfect as possible.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (3) in order to insert—
"(3) The lists of Parliamentary voters, including the ownership lists of voters, and the lists of county electors, shall, in each year after the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, he revised in every metropolitan borough between the eighth day of September and the thirtieth day of September, both inclusive, and shall he revised as soon as possible after the seventh day of September. Such revised lists shall be printed, and signed, and placed on sale by the town clerk appointed under this Act before the sixteenth day of October, and shall come into operation as the register of borough electors on the first day of November next following, and the law relating to the register of electors shall, with the necessary modifications, apply accordingly. "
Question proposed—
"That Sub-section (3) stand part of the clause. "
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid the Amendment raised two important points: one as to revision, the other with regard to the publication of the lists. The information he had received with regard to the work likely to be required to be done in London led him to conclude that the time provided was sufficient. It was quite possible, however, that his hon. and gallant friend might be right, and he would undertake to make further inquiries into the matter. He thought himself the work could be well done, without any difficulty, in the time provided. With regard to the five

115
days he suggested, he would point out that for all practical purposes the work he referred to would be done to a very large extent from the lists as deposited, but it might be desirable to make arrangements to have the lists printed at an earlier date. The difficulty was one of printing, not of revision. He would undertake to make further inquiry if his hon. and gallant friend did not press the matter now.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, as he understood it, the Amendment aimed at accelerating the publication of the lists. He thought that the Attorney-General forgot, when he said there was plenty of time, that in London a large number of service and lodger voters were not included in the old municipal franchise. He was prepared to accept the undertaking of the Government that something would be done to accelerate the publication of the lists, and he hoped that when they were published they would be found to be correct and properly revised.
MR. STUARTsaid that after the lists were considered and altered by the revising barristers they were re-set altogether, and a large expense was incurred. The matter had often been brought to his notice, and he had been asked to bring it before the Committee in order to see whether some arrangement could not be come to to avoid the re-setting of the whole lists.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERthought there was a great deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch. He had often heard it stated that after the lists had been set up in the first instance they were altered again and again, at great expense. The points that had been mentioned would receive consideration.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the Attorney-General had admitted that Sub-section (3) was very unsatisfactory, and he thought they ought not to allow it to stand in the Bill unless they got some definite promise about it. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, London lost about £10,000 a year by having the lists which were already in type set up again. That loss should be avoided, and one list should be available for all purposes. He did not see why
116
the two lists should not come into operation on the same day.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid they had no power in the Bill to alter the day on which the Parliamentary lists were published.
MR. LOUGHsubmitted that, as the overseers who prepared the lists would be officers of the borough council, it would be within their power to enact that the list, for all purposes, should come into operation on a certain date; otherwise they would have double printing and much waste.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid the revision would undoubtedly be very heavy, but that difficulty might be met by having a sufficient number of revising barristers. Under the present system there might be a parliamentary election in November or December, which would be on the old list, although there was a new list printed and brought up to date. Another difficulty was that the clause stated that the town clerk was to publish the list, but the town clerk would have to be elected by the council.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERpointed out that that was just one of the matters to be dealt with under the transitory provisions in Clause 21.
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the point ought to be dealt with now. He could not understand why the lists should not come into operation on the same date.
THE CHAIRMAN: You cannot, by this Bill, alter the law with reference to Parliamentary elections. It is not within the scope of this Bill.
An amendment made.
MR. BOUSFIELD MR. BOUSFIELD moved—
"In Clause 3, page 2, line 28, to leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 29, and insert 'after the appointed day.'"
He said that the sub-section provided that in each year after 1899, that was in 1900, the lists should be printed and signed by the town clerk before the 20th of October, but on that date there would not be a town clerk. Of course, under

117
Section 21 provision might be made for 1900. The clause was widely misunderstood outside the House, and he suggested that it would be better to amend it by saying each year after the appointed day.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid that 1900 would be dealt with under Section 21.
MR. STUARTthought there was a good deal to be said for the Amendment on the ground that the appointed day would undoubtedly in some instances not take place until after November 1st, 1900. It would be necessary to say that if the new authority was not constituted the list should be drawn up by the old authority, if it existed. He thought something would have to be put at the end of the clause to show what was to be done if the new body was not constituted.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid he quite appreciated that for 1900 arrangements would be made under Section 21, and that, therefore, the clause must refer to some year after 1900, and either "after the appointed day" or "every year after 1900" should be put in; but to say that Section 21 would provide for 1900, and then in Section 3 to say that the town clerk might do something also in 1900, seemed a contradiction.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he was quite willing, if the hon. Member would move, to leave out 1899 and insert 1900.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—
"That '1899' be left out in order to insert '1900'"
put and agreed to.
MR. FREDERICK COOKwho had on the Paper the following Amendment—
"In Clause 3, page 2, line 29, to leave out 'twentieth' and insert 'first. '"
—said it was very important that more time should be given to correct the lists. There were two objects mentioned in the Bill. One was to set up a number of municipalities and to give them greater power and dignity, and the other was to increase the interest of the people themselves in
118
the municipalities; and unless the various associations had time to revise the lists he did not think the people would go to the trouble to poll. However, as the Attorney-General had promised to look into the matter, he did not propose to move the Amendment.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTS MR. BURDETT-COUTTS moved—
"In Clause 3, page 2, line 31, to leave out parochial' and insert 'borough. '"
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he was not quite certain whether the word "borough" was preferable to "parochial." If the hon. Member withdrew his Amendment he would move to insert after "register" the words "for the purpose of a borough election."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER SIR RICHARD WEBSTER moved—
After "register" to insert for the purpose of a borough election.'"
Amendment agreed to.
Question—
"That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
put and agreed to.
Clause 4:—
MR. STUART MR. STUART moved—
"In Clause 4, page 2, line 36, after 'appointed day' to insert, 'which shall be the same in all cases.'"
He said the object of the Amendment was to secure that the Act should come into operation all over London at the same time, otherwise they would have different forms of government and different powers in different parts of the metropolis for a very extensive period. There would have to be local investigations and perhaps Petitions, which in some cases might have to come before Parliament, and considerable opposition might arise; and therefore in some places the appointed day might be a year, or perhaps two years, from the appointed day in other places.
SIR R B. FINLAYsaid that that appeared sufficiently clear in Clause 76, which said that for the purposes of the Act the appointed day should be the day on which the members of the borough councils came into office. It was undesirable to raise the point now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved—
"In Clause 4, page 2, line 35, after 'board,' to insert 'and every body of overseers and other bodies discharging the duties of overseers as regards the making and collection of the rates. '"
SIR R. B. FINLAYsubmitted that a clause which dealt with the transfers to borough councils of powers from vestries and other local bodies was not the place to move an Amendment dealing with overseers, which could be dealt with in Clause 11.
MR. LOUGHsaid the object of the clause was to do away with these local bodies and to transfer their duties to the new councils. The duties of the vestries included the duties of overseers.
THE CHAIRMAN: Clause 11 specifically deals with the appointment and duties of overseers. That is the proper clause on which to raise the point.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSunderstood that there had been considerable difficulty in some cases in regard to the custody of documents. He suggested that some words should be added to the clause to make it clear as to who should have the custody of the documents.
SIR R. B. FINLAYhoped that his hon. friend would not press his Amendment, as it was quite unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved the following Amendment—
"In Clause 4, page 3, lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words 'and the clerk of the council shall be called the town clerk. '"
He thought it was obvious that these boroughs would be different from the municipalities, and that a better title would be "borough clerk."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have determined that the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act should be followed, and I see no reason why we should depart from the general line of policy adopted. It seems to me that, as we have put these boroughs in precisely an analogous position to the provincial boroughs, we should adopt the name so well and honourably identified with the clerks of the boroughs.
Amendment negatived.
SIR CHARLES DILKE*SIR CHARLES DILKE moved the following Amendment—
"In Clause 4, page 3, line 3, to omit the words: 'Provided that in the case of borrowing powers so transferred the sanction of the Local Government Board shall be substituted for the sanction of the London County Council. '"
In the days of the Metropolitan Board of Works the Treasury promoted the Finance Bill of the Board, which included loans to various vestries. Since the institution of the London County Council these loans had been made by the London County Council. At every conference at which the future government had been considered there was some difference of opinion on this question among the local authorities; but at every one of these conferences there was a majority in favour of leaving the question of finance with the London County Council. The London County Council had always had upon it financial authorities of the very highest experience, and in this respect it had the confidence of every one in London. On the conservative principle of leaving well alone, he thought that the London County Council should continue to finance the local authorities. The Royal Commission presided over by the right hon. Member for Bodmin recommended that the matter should be left as it at present stood. The proposal of the Government was to reverse matters. If that were done it would undoubtedly cause a greater cost in obtaining loans than at present. It could not be said that the London County Council had been lax in regard to the matter of loans. It had exercised effective supervision on the character of these loans, and it had trained up a financial staff which had now the confidence of all local bodies in London. The most highly conservative vestries had, indeed, made strong remonstrances against this change. He could not conceive why this change had been proposed, unless the Government had been scared at the mere name of the London County Council. The Amendment had the support of many members on the Government side of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The result of the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet would be to leave in the hands of the London County Council practically absolute control over the borrowing powers of the new boroughs created by

121
the Bill. I am one of those who think that the London County Council has managed extremely well the financial business in connection with the metropolitan loans entrusted to it. I hope to conciliate all parties, and in what I have to say in defence of the view that the London County Council ought not to have absolute control in finance over these new boroughs, it must not be supposed that I desire to make any reflection on that body. But it is evident that if the municipalities are to be supreme and unfettered within their own sphere of action they must hare as unfettered powers of borrowing as are possessed by the other municipalities in the country. That seems to me to be axiomatic. If you allow the London County Council the powers which it already exercises—well as they have been exercised—it would always be in the power of the London County Council to control all the actions of these municipalities which are dependent on their power to borrow money. The Committee will feel that it would be entirely antagonistic to the fundamental principle of the Bill to put these municipalities entirely under the control of the County Council. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet. At the same time I am fully alive to the importance of the arguments addressed to the House on the second reading of the Bill by him and, amongst others, the hon. Member for Islington. They hold that it is very important, for financial reasons, that as far as possible the debt of London should be a consolidated debt, to be contracted by a single body, having as its security a single mass of property. It seems to me that these two views could be reconciled if we left it to the London County Council in the first instance to make the loan, and only gave the local bodies the power of going outside the London County Council if the London County Council had attached conditions to that loan or had forbidden it. The power of the London County Council would still remain unimpaired. If the time should ever come, as I hope it will never come, when by the mutations of public, party, and municipal life, there shall ever be a contest, a controversy, between one of these new municipalities and the central authority over some scheme of local improvement; if the
122
London County Council should attempt in an evil moment to abuse the great powers they have hitherto so admirably employed, the local authority should have the power to pass on one side, and appeal to some independent tribunal to decide whether the loan it desired should be granted or not, and under what conditions. There are Amendments I believe on the paper, in the name of my hon. friend, which carry out in the main the view which I have been endeavouring to express to the Committee. Perhaps the best form of words would be to make the paragraph read as follows:—
"Provided that if the London County Council refuse their sanction to a loan, or attach conditions to their sanction, an appeal shall lie to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final. "
That generally, I think, coincides with the view expressed by one or two of my hon. friends. It leaves the London County Council, probably for all time, with the control of the great metropolitan debt, but provides that in case these powers under changed circumstances should be abused, the local authority should not thereby suffer, but should retain the independent power of borrowing possessed by all the sister municipalities in the kingdom.
MR. COHENthanked his right hon. friend for the just and generous tribute he had paid to the way in which the London County Council had managed its finances. He thanked him also for the generous way in which he wished to meet the views of the members of the London County Council who shared the opinion that it was as much for the advantage of the borrowing bodies as for that of the ratepayers of London, that the control of the London County Council should continue. At the same time he did not think the friends of the London County Council need further resist the proposal of his right hon. friend, because he believed that the provision he had made would result in the London County Council having control nearly as complete as it was at this moment. He doubted, however, whether the phrase in reference to conditions made by the London County Council might not lead to complications. If the Committee would allow him, he might say that since the London County Council had been in existence, three and a-half millions had been granted in loans, and that

123
these loans numbered 470. Further, that during the ten years only 18 loans had been refused. The refusal was not merely approved of by all the members of the London County Council, but the wisdom of the refusal had been acquiesced in by the Treasury, to whom he would like the appeal to lie. In one instance it was decided that the borrowing body should be precluded from raising a loan because it was outside the powers of the local authority to raise money for the specified purpose. In the second instance the local authority wanted a loan for a term longer than the life of the works to be made with the loan. The Treasury recognised the necessity of the conditions made by the London County Council. He could claim for the London County Council that it had never sought to impose conditions or to exercise its powers in any inquisitorial or censorious way, but only in the interest of the economic finance of the whole of London. He believed that those powers had really been exercised by the London County Council to the advantage of the local bodies and of the debtors of London.
MR. STUARTsaid he did not quite understand what the meaning was of imposing conditions on the London County Council. He would like to know what was to be barred out by the words in the Clause as it stood. It was scarcely possible to grant a loan except under conditions, and the Clause would give an appeal which would render the matter extremely complicated. The existing machinery had worked thoroughly well for all concerned. There had been no friction. Out of 500 loans, only four difficulties had arisen, and these had arisen with the parish of Islington, although they were not of a serious kind. The First Lord of the Treasury said that the new boroughs ought to have the same borrowing powers as the other boroughs. That was impossible. As the borrowing which had to be made by the London County Council depended upon the financial security of the whole of the parts of London put together, it was absolutely essential that there should be some control by the London County Council. He desired to see the Treasury rather than the Local Government Board as the body to whom the appeal ought to be made. The whole of the finance of the loans from 1855 had been in the
124
hands of the Treasury, rather than that of the Local Government Board, and it seemed to him to be a great mistake to hand over the general control now to the Local Government Board.
MR. LOWLESwanted to know whether the local authority would have power to borrow in the cheapest market. He knew of a case where a local authority borrowed from a local bank at ¼ per cent. lower than they could have borrowed from the London County Council.
SIR BLUNDELL MAPLEthought it was most important that all the loans should pass through the London County Council, and if the London County Council refused the loan without any proper cause, the Local Government Board should order the London County Council to sanction the loan.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, as regarded the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, the mere imposing of conditions would not in itself necessitate an appeal. He was satisfied that the financial arrangements between the London County Council and the local bodies would be carried out as successfully after the passing of this Bill as they had been before. They did not contemplate any conflict between the London County Council and the local authorities; but it was possible that onerous conditions might be imposed by the London County Council, or that loans should be refused to the new boroughs altogether. What was intended was that the new boroughs should not be absolutely in the power of the London County Council, although, no doubt, in 99 cases out of 100 they would be in the hands of the London County Council. An hon. Member had raised the point that the appeal should be to the Treasury, and not to the Local Government Board. But he would remind him of the position of the Local Government Board in regard to district and urban authorities, all over the kingdom. All loans for public improvements and sanitary matters were now sanctioned by the Local Government Board, after inspection made by their own inspectors, and it seemed to the Government that the Local Government Board was, therefore, the proper authority to deal with any questions which might arise between the London County Council and

125
the new borough authorities. When the loan was sanctioned the local authority would be allowed to borrow in the cheapest market. He thought that in 99 cases out of 100 the County Council would be the cheapest medium.
MR. ASQUITH: I congratulate my right honourable friend the Member for the Forest of Dean on having drawn the declaration we have heard from the Treasury Bench. I certainly think there are abundant grounds for maintaining the power as a normal power in the hands of the County Council. Everybody admits that the London County Council have exercised these powers with great efficiency on behalf of London as a whole. I do not think myself the Local Government Board would arbitrarily or capriciously interfere with the way in which the County Council exercises its discretion.
MR. JOHN BURNSexpressed the opinion that no local authority should be allowed to vary the period of years for which a loan was granted by the Couuty Council.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER SIR RICHARD WEBSTER moved the insertion of the words—
"Provided that if the London County Council refuse their sanction to a loan, or attach conditions to their sanction, an appeal shall lie to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final. "
Amendment agreed to.
MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved to add at the end of Sub-Section 2 the words—
"and the Council shall have, and exercise the powers of any such Act over the whole area of their borough. "
His object was to provide that there should be a uniform system with regard to the adoptive Acts over the whole area of the borough. If the change were not made now, he thought it would be very difficult to make it hereafter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 12, after the word 'council,' to insert the words, 'and the council shall have and exercise the powers of any such Act over the whole area of their borough. "—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, which could not possibly be accepted. The effect would be that if Kensal Town, where there were Free Libraries, were joined to Paddington, the whole area would have to adopt Free Libraries, whether the ratepayers liked it or not.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Government had refused, at every stage of the Bill, to face the difficulties which they had got into by breaking up the continuity of the existing districts. The Kensal Ward of the Parliamentary Borough of Chelsea had been provided with magnificent Baths and a very fine Library. The district itself was quite unable to keep up the Library or its Baths. What was going to happen? Queen's Park and the district of Kensal Town were going to be attached to the Borough of Paddington. In Paddington there was no Library rate. For anything he could see, if the matter was not thoroughly guarded, the Library in Kensal Town would be closed because there would be no power to pay for it out of the rate. The matter was one of extreme dfficulty, and ought to be taken into consideration.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he thought everybody was agreed that the proposed Amendment should not be accepted. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the matter would have to be carefully considered, but he could not ask the Committee to adopt an Amendment which dealt only with libraries.
MR. ASQUITH: I think the Government might very well extend the application of the Amendment from public libraries to any institution under the adoptive Act. It would be a shocking state of things if a library or a wash-house establishment in a small district should be put an end to by the absorption of such a district in one of the new boroughs.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid it was something of the kind which he had in his mind. The matter, however, could best be discussed under Clause 15.
MR. LOUGHsaid there appeared to be a general idea that the Amendment in its present form would not entirely meet with approval, and he would therefore withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow.

SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee, and reported, as amended; to be considered To-morrow.
FLOODS PREVENTION.
Bill to give further powers to County Councils with a view to the Prevention of Floods and other damage arising from Rivers or Watercourses, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Milward, Sir John Dorington, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Mr Humphreys-Owen, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Bill.

FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
"To give further powers to County Councils with a view to the Prevention of Floods and other damage arising from Rivers or Watercourses," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]
Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted 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:
GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (PENSIONS).
  Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
SHOTLEY BRIDGE AND CONSETT DISTRICT GAS.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petitions for the following Bills, viz.:

BROOKE'S PARK (LONDONDERRY) AND OWEN'S COLLEGE (MANCHESTER),
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bills.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petitions for the following Bills, viz.:

LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2), and MILLWALL DOCK.
ought to be dispensed with.
Read, and agreed to.

JONES'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Petition of Charlotte Jane Jones, of St. Helen's, Dalkey, in the County of Dublin, that substituted service of a copy of the Bill be made upon Robert Colvill Jones and Ffolliott Jones, cousins of Robert Colvill Jones, the husband of the said

3
Charlotte Jane Jones; and that the depositions of A. M. Harry Jagesvari, alias Bigili, and Anupa, taken on commission in India in pursuance of orders of the Queen's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, dated the 16th of January, 1899, and the 29th of March, 1899, be received in evidence on the Second Reading of the Bill, or that in the alternative the examination of the said A. M. Harry Jagesvari, alias Bigili, and Anupa, touching the allegations mentioned in the petition, be taken in India, and that a proper warrant, or warrants, be issued for that purpose; read.
Ordered that the said petition be considered on Friday next.

TRANSVAAL MORTGAGE LOAN AND FINANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 20th of March and Tuesday last discharged; and Bill committed.
BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
BEXHILL AND ST. LEONARDS TRAM-ROADS BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
ST. NEOT'S WATER BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL [Lords].
Reported with amendments.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords].
Reported with amendments.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet on Wednesday next
WOODHOUSE AND CONISBROUGH RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
Committee to meet on Wednesday next.
STRETFORD GAS BILL [Lords].
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The order made on the 6th of March last discharged; and Bill committed.
HASTINGS AND ST. LEONARDS GAS BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LISBURN TOWN COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LOUGHBOROUGH AND SHEEPSHED RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments.
WISHAW WATER BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment.
WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported with amendments.
METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 81.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Annual return of the Volunteer corps for 1898.
  COMMERCIAL, No. 4 (1899) (SUEZ CANAL).
  Returns of shipping and tonnage in 1896, 1897, and 1898 [in continuation of Commercial, No. 4 (1898)].

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual series—
  No. 2250. France (Bordeaux and District).
  No. 2251. France (Pondicherry and Karikal).
  No. 2252. Greece (The Cyclades).
  No. 2253. Netherlands (Java).
  No. 2254. Austria-Hungary (Trieste).

  TREATY SERIES, No. 11 (1899).
  Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and Russia with regard to their respective railway interests in China.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT).
  Return of prices of agricultural produce for the years 1881 to 1898 inclusive.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition for repeal of; of Guardians of the Leominster Union: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INFANT ORPHAN ASYLUM BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  FRIEND'S PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a, and sent to the Commons.
  ISOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  To be read 2a on Tuesday, the 16th instant.
QUESTIONS.

  THE ARMY AND RITUALISTIC SERVICES.
  LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the soldiers stationed at Brighton, who are members of the Church of England, are marched each Sunday to St. Martin's Church, the incumbent of which is a member of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and of the English Church Union, and at which the law is violated every Sunday by the use of incense, vestments, lights, and other illegal practices, for the performance of which services Mr. Hardy Little now receives from the Government 50 l. per annum; and whether such involuntary participation in lawbreaking will continue to be enforced upon the rank and file with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. You, no doubt, my Lords, are aware that all recruits on joining the Service have to inform the authorities, or the authorities ask them, what religious persuasion they belong to, and then they, of course, are marched on Sundays, and perhaps on other days as well, to a church or denomination they say they wish to belong to. I should have thought the Government could have found in Brighton plenty of churches representing the Protestant religion, or the Church of England, instead of which, as my question implies, these men are taken nolens volens to a church which practises a new religion—which I never heard of until the other day, and perhaps your Lordships have not heard much about it—called the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. That is not a religion, surely, which belongs to the Church of England, and if it does not belong to the Church of England why should the Government

  7
  allow our soldiers to attend services in connection with that religion? And then, again, Mr. Little is paid 50 l. a year by Her Majesty's Government for being the Chaplain of this St. Martin's Church, and surely it is not very good for the Army, which has been celebrated for its discipline, to be taken to a church wherein lawlessness exists. I have had letters from all parts of England, from five officers, from 20 non-commissioned officers, and 21 privates and troopers, all saying that they are powerless and can make no complaints of being taken to these Ritualistic churches; they are taken nolens volens either to such churches or to one of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. In adition to that, I have letters from three clergymen who wrote and said that they had themselves acted as chaplains and are perfectly well aware of the state of things that is going on in many churches. One clergyman said that I was at liberty to read his letter to your Lordship's House, but I wrote back to him that I thought it better not to read it, as perhaps some of the Ritualistic Bishops would boycott this clergyman. To convince your Lordships of the sort of service which is held, I will, with your Lordships' permission, read to you exactly what took place on Sunday, May 7th, at Brighton, at this church, where the clergyman is Mr. Hardy Little:—

  1. In the reredos at the back of the Communion Table is an idolatrous image of the Virgin Mary, with the infant Saviour in her arms.

  2. Three large sanctuary lamps are kept burning before the Communion Table.

  3. An illegal brass cross forms part of the Communion Table.

  4. Thirty-six candles are on or over the Communion Table.

  5. A processional cross forms part of the paraphernalia of the church.

  6. There are three confessional places in the church, each supplied with a crucifix.

  7. In the side chapel is a tabernacle for the reserved Sacrament.

  8. A sanctuary lamp is kept burning in the side chapel.

  9. There are a number of framed pictures of saints and angels in various parts of the church.

  10. At the service yesterday morning, when Her Majesty's troops were
  8
  present, the following prayers were omitted: (a) the Prayer for the Queen's Majesty; (b) the Prayer for the Royal Family; and (c) the Prayer for the High Court of Parliament.

  So the House of Lords has been put out into the cold. But next:—

  11. The vicar, in pronouncing the Benediction, unlawfully made the sign of the cross over the people.

  12. At the Communion Service the celebrant were the following illegal vestments:—A chasuble, alb, stole, maniple, and biretta.

  13. A procession marched round the church, consisting of a thurifer, cross-bearer, acolytes carrying lighted candles and banners, accompanied by the vicar in biretta and embroidered cope.

  14. At the Communion thirty-six candles were lighted unlawfully when not required for the purpose of giving light.

  15. Incense was used.

  16. Two acolytes with lighted candles stood at the north end of the Table during the reading of the Gospel.

  17. Immediately before the consecration of the elements the large bell of the church was tolled.

  18. The manual acts were entirely hidden, contrary to law.

  19. At the words, "This is My body," the celebrant elevated the paten, and then knelt, the bell outside being tolled and lighted candles elevated, after which the acolytes prostrated themselves with their faces to the ground.

  20. Wafer bread was unlawfully used.

  21. The celebrant administered the Communion contrary to the Rubric, as there was only one communicant.

  That is the service which took place yesterday, and to which Her Majesty's troops were sent. I very much hope to hear that the Government, or the Minister for War, will be able to give some explanation why our soldiers should go to this sort of church, and why the ratepayers should pay their money to Mr. Little, who, I think, cannot call himself a member of the Church of England if these sort of practices exist at his church.

  9
  Here is a letter which I am at liberty to read to your Lordships; it is a letter from Brighton, which I received this morning:—
  "I have heard complaints of both non-commissioned officers and privates of the different regiments stationed here—the Scots Greys, Lancers, Dragoons, Royal Irish, the Sussex, and the Buffs, the latter of whom are stationed here at present. Many of them complain, and do not care to go to church at all. Some say if is of no use to make any objection, as no notice would be taken of it. I have been in business here for nearly thirty years, and have had numerous transactions with both officers and men of the different regiments, and can fully endorse all that has been said on the subject. I myself am driven away from St. Martin's, which is my parish church, on account of the Romish teaching and practices. The children in both Sunday and day-schools are taught to call themselves 'little Catholics,' and to deny being Protestants."
  That is signed, and the name of the gentleman who wrote it is Mr. Fisk. There is one other paragraph, from a letter sent to me by an officiating chaplain for Her Majesty's forces, and it gives a case that occurred at Aldershot. A well-known colonel was in command, and a clergyman came down to officiate for the regular chaplain, and introduced some Ritualistic antics into the service. Afterwards the colonel drew up his men and addressed them in the following laconic terms:—
  "Those who play at soldiers are fools; but those who play at religion are blackguards. I shall rectify this."
  Next morning he reported the matter to the Duke of Cambridge, and the clergyman referred to never again appeared at Aldershot while that officer was in command. There are at the present moment twelve chaplains who are all paid by the Government for—shall we say?—doing their duty. Two are at Aldershot, two at Colchester, one at Dover, five in Egypt, one at Halifax (Nova Scotia), and one in London; and of these twelve, four are members of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, and the others are all members of the English Church Union. I have the names here at the disposal of any noble Lord who desires to know them. I think I have said all that I have really got to say about this matter at Brighton, but I propose in another fortnight or so to bring up this subject again before your Lordships' House with regard to a place at Colchester,
  10
  for I have got some letters in regard to it which I am at liberty to read to your Lordships, including one from a colonel who has retired from the Army, and is therefore at liberty to have his views expressed. But I think I may read one short sentence from Sir William Harcourt's celebrated book. This is how he winds up:—
  "For the present I confess I feel obliged to adhere to the two very pregnant opinions expressed by Lord Salisbury: first, that there is at present no discipline in the Church of England; and, secondly, that no man is fit for office in that Church who is not resolved to stand by the Prayer Book as it is."
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, as the noble Marquess can hardly answer the noble Lord opposite without reference to the Questions which stand in my name, it may be convenient perhaps that I should ask my Questions now—namely, How many regiments have been stationed at Brighton since the incumbency of Mr. Hardy Little; Whether any complaints have ever been made to the authorities previous to the arrival of the present regiment; Whether Colonel Hickson, the present commanding officer, has, in fact, made any complaint; Whether the service at which the regiment attends is not Morning Prayer and a service at which no "ritual" is used; Whether Colonel Hickson has been directed to inquire of every officer, non-commissioned officer, and man, if they object to any portion of the service; and, if so, Whether all other commanding officers will be directed to make a similar inquiry. I am quite certain that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Greville) had no intention of misleading this House by suggesting in his question that the soldiers stationed in Brighton are participating in what he calls law-breaking by their being present at the performance of the acts of which he complained. But I desire to ask the noble Marquess whether it is not a fact that the only service at which the soldiers are called to be present at Brighton is, Morning Prayer with sermon, at which no ritual whatever, so-called, is used? I may add that the only way that service departs from common rule is that "God save the Queen" is played at the end. I am not sorry that the noble Lord opposite has put this question, because it enables a public exposure to be made—not for the first time—of a body calling itself the Church Association, which exists for the purpose of stirring up strife in the Church and for

  11
  setting ministers against congregations and congregations against ministers. I am informed that there have been six regiments stationed at Brighton during the incumbency of Mr. Hardy Little, as enumerated by the noble Lord, and one of these, the Royal Irish Rifles, is a regiment in which I am interested. When the noble Lord announced his intention of putting this question, it was communicated to Col. Knox, who commanded them when they were stationed at Brighton, and with your Lordships' permission I will read a letter from him, addressed to Mr. Hardy Little and dated April 24th. Col. Knox says:—
  "I have seen in the papers that a question is to be asked in Parliament as to the services conducted in St. Martin's Church for the military—namely, exception has been taken to Ritualistic ceremonies, and the question will be that the military do not in future attend in this church. As you know, I was commanding my regiment, the Royal Irish, for two years in Brighton, from 1894 to 1896. This regiment is largely composed of North of Ireland men from the Belfast district. The military service consisted of Morning Prayer, and the service was of an ordinary character. As Colonel of the regiment I frequently attended the service, and was always struck by the great interest the men took in it, and I never had from anyone, either officer or man, a single complaint as to the way the service was conducted. The band of the regiment, under my sanction, and at the wish of the officers, used to give their services voluntarily to assist the choir. I can only say that, from my experience, the services at St. Martin's were heartily appreciated by myself and all members of the battalion. The fact that the regiment is largely recruited from the Belfast district of the North of Ireland, shows that there was nothing in the service disloyal to the Church to which they belong. "
  I think that letter is sufficiently emphatic. I think it is quite clear from it that no complaint of any description was made, and, further than that, that the soldiers appreciated the service. I believe that the same is the case with the regiment stationed there now; and I think that as it is with the soldiers, so it is with the civil parishioners. It may be within the knowledge of your Lordships that the Church Association sent out circulars shortly before the Easter Vestries, addressed to Churchwardens. That circular fell flat, and it fell nowhere flatter than at Brighton. The meeting there was duly held; the room was filled, and the meeting was unanimously in favour of the Vicar. In fact, my Lords, this trouble at Brighton has been entirely got up by the Church Association. It is
  12
  like a great deal more in connection with this Church crisis—a got-up affair. I see the noble Lord refers in his question to "the use of incense, vestments, lights, and other illegal practices." This is not the place in which to discuss the right and wrong of these matters. But how does the noble Lord know that they are illegal? The Most Rev. the Archbishop of Canter-bury, speaking in London last week, used these words:—
  "The man who said that incense was idolatrous showed that he did not know the meaning of the word idolatrous. But when he said it was illegal, that was another matter altogether. That was a question which was going to be looked into and settled. "
  With regard to lights, they were expressly allowed by the Lambeth judgment, and confirmed by the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Lights have always been used for other than illumination purposes. I believe they were used at the Coronation of Charles the First. At present they are used in most of our cathedrals, in ten college chapels at Oxford, in eight college chapels at Cambridge. Lights are at present in use in 4,000 parish churches of the Church of England, and in most large cities, such as Manchester, Liver-pool, and London—and also at Hatfield. With regard to vestments, their legality was not even contested in the Lincoln case. I submit, therefore, that to call these things illegal practices is simply begging the question. Mr. Cecil Rhodes, in his speech at the Mansion House a few days ago, said that in his Church they were engaged quarrelling over ritual, while in the Salvation Army a great social and religious work was being done. My Lords, it is no doubt true that the work of the Church is being largely hampered, but it is not by those who use ritual, but by the efforts of those who try to put ritual down. Mr. Hardy Little is popular in his parish, where he has a population of 10,000, mostly poor; he is keeping four curates, he has flourishing schools, Bible Classes for men and women, and in fact all the machinery of a well-ordered parish. Mr. Hardy Little is a poor man; he takes no rent for his pews, and the whole of his assured income is £200 a year, and it is from that man the noble Lord opposite wishes to take the Government pittance of £50 a year. I earnestly trust that in the name of common justice the Government will do nothing of the kind, and that this capitation

  13
  grant will not be taken from him. I am told that Col. Hickson, commanding the Buffs, stationed at Brighton now, has been directed to inquire individually of the officers and men as to whether they had any objection to the services. I think this is fishing for discontent in an extraordinary manner, and I hope that the answer of the noble Marquess will show that the Government have not been doing anything of the kind. I beg to ask all the questions standing in my name on the paper.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I cannot help thinking that your Lordships must have been struck by what I am tempted to describe as the forensic ingenuity with which these two sets of questions have been framed. I should have been glad if it had been possible for me to leave the noble Lord who spoke second to dispose of the noble Lord who spoke first, but I suppose I shall be expected to say a few words as to the manner in which this case presents itself to the War Office. I think it will be convenient that I should I first reply to the questions addressed to me by Lord Teynham. In reply to him I have to say that so far as I can discover Mr. Hardy Little came to St. Martin's in the year 1887, and that since that time, I think, four regiments of cavalry and the headquarters of three battalions of infantry, besides sundry detachments, have been stationed at Brighton. No complaints have until now reached the War Office as to the character of the ceremonial followed at St. Martin's during the services which the troops attend. Colonel Hickson did not, in fact, volunteer any complaint in regard to this matter, but when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Greville) put his question upon the paper we desired him to report whether, within his knowledge, there was anything in the ceremonial which was repugnant to the troops under his command. That, I think, was a very fair inquiry to address to him. Of course, it was not as if we had asked him to advise us as to the legality of these practices. I should be very sorry to constitute any military officer, however distinguished, an arbiter of the legality of religious ceremonial. The noble Lord refers to the services attended by the troops. It is quite true that the service is an ordinary
  14
  morning service—matins—followed by a sermon, and it is attended not only by the troops, but also by a considerable civil congregation. I have endeavoured to find out something as to the character of the ceremonial followed at these morning services. I have seen a letter from the Vicar of Brighton, and I understand the Parish of St. Martin's is an offshoot of the Parish of Brighton. The vicar writes that his information is to the effect that the service is conducted in the simplest possible fashion, and that he has never received any complaints with regard to it, though he has frequently conversed upon the subject with the commanding officers concerned. The incumbent himself—Mr. Hardy Little—states positively that there is no ritual, in the sense of anything unusual, at this service, and the Chaplain-General, whom I have consulted, informs me that the service consists of morning prayer and a sermon, that it is perfectly simple, and that in his belief there is no approach to illegality in it. No vestments are worn other than surplices, and no incense is used. The Chaplain-General says it is the ordinary service of all churches. I thought it due to the right reverend Prelate who presides over this diocese—the Bishop of Chichester—to ask him for any observations which he might desire to make, and I gather from his reply that in his view the complaint which has been made is not a reasonable complaint, and that in the services attended by the troops at St. Martin's there is nothing objectionable either upon legal or upon other grounds. The noble Lord asks me whether all other commanding officers will be directed to make investigation similar to that made by Colonel Hickson. My answer to that is in the negative. We wrote to Colonel Hickson in consequence of the notice put upon your Lordships' paper, and for that reason alone. Colonel Hickson's report certainly went to show that what might be described as the general tone of the church and of the services was what I suppose would be colloquially termed "high." I find nothing in his observations that there was any reason for altering the present arrangements under which the troops attend morning service at this church, and under which the incumbent receives the usual capitation grant. I think I have answered the whole of the questions put to me by the noble Lord on my right (Lord Teynham).

  15
  The noble Lord opposite (Lord Greville) asks me whether the incumbent is a member of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament and of the English Church Union. I am not able to tell him. I have not asked the incumbent, and I have no intention of asking him. I understand that these are private associations, and if I were to make such an inquiry I should not be surprised were he to tell me in the most polite ecclesiastical language to mind my own business. I have already communicated to your Lordships that we have no reason to doubt the legality of the ceremonial observed at the services attended by the troops, and I wish to make it perfectly clear that it is with those services alone that we are concerned. I do not think it is my business to inquire into the proceedings at the other services. The question of the noble Lord is so framed—I have no doubt unintentionally so framed—that it points, and I think his observations also pointed, not only to the service attended by the troops, but to other services which take place at the same church. And the suggestion of the noble Lord is that the troops are involuntarily participators in law-breaking, because he apprehends that the law is violated at other services at which they do not attend. To stigmatise these soldiers as law-breakers because they attend at one hour a church at which the noble Lord supposes the law to be broken at another hour seems to me a strange interpretation of the words, and I doubt whether any such view of law-breaking can be established from anything to be found in the Statute Book. Upon the whole, then, I see no occasion for altering the present arrangements, and as at present advised I do not propose to do so. Perhaps before I sit down I ought to make clear to your Lordships what is our policy in dealing with this matter. That policy is, I think, very well expressed in the instructions which are issued to the Regular Army chaplains. Those chaplains are expressly warned to be careful not to adopt any custom of doubtful legality, or which is likely to offend really earnest worshippers in the congregation. That seems to me a wise and sensible instruction, and I think that the same rule should apply to those cases in which the troops are ministered to, not by Army chaplains, but by other clergymen, and I can assure the noble Lord opposite that if in any case
  16
  we have good reason to believe that the services attended by the troops are such as to give offence to really earnest worshippers amongst our soldiers we should think it necessary to take notice of the fact, and to modify our arrangements accordingly.

PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL (SECOND READING).
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I hope you will be willing to give a Second Reading to this very short and simple Bill. It enjoyed a quiet and cheerful passage through the other House of Parliament, and received the approval of the Secretary of the Local Government Board. Although it is short and simple, it introduces a very radical change in the position of a Parish Councillor, as it alters his tenure of office from one year to three years. By the first Clause of the Bill the tenure becomes three years, the same as that enjoyed by members of other local authorities—District and County Councils, and School Boards. The operation of the Bill begins in 1901, and on the 15th day of April. That date is fixed so as to make the new tenure of the Parish Councillor coterminous with the tenure of office of the District Councillor. At present the Parish Councils elections are held in March. So much for the practical effect of this Bill. I had better, perhaps, say a word or two as to its good qualities. In the first place, by bringing the Parish Council elections into harmony with the District Council elections, there will be a saving of expense and of machinery. On this particular point of expense I might mention that in a South Devon parish the Parish Council was limited to spend only £13 in its year of office, but this particular Parish Council, no doubt perfectly conscientiously, spent £7 2s. 6d. out of its total assets on a poll, which only left them a little over £5 for carrying on such improvements in the village as might have appeared desirable. Another advantage I claim is that under this Bill you get more continuity into the work of the Parish Council, and I think you would also get this other advantage, that Parish Councillors would be encouraged to make themselves acquainted with the Act. If a man is only elected

17
for a year, he naturally does not take so much trouble as he would if he was elected for three years to make himself acquainted with the duties of the Parish Council. Under the present system, with the elections in March, and the Parish Council not taking up its work till well on in April, the Parish Council may be said to go into winter quarters early in February, because the outgoing Parish Council does not care very much about initiating any new work. Another advantage is that in some districts the turmoil of annual elections will be got rid of. Nervous and irritable people may be more inclined to come forward as Parish Councillors if they know they will not have to expose themselves to the excitement of an election more than once in three years. I hope you will pass the Bill into law just as it stands. Its provisions seem to me to be worded in good plain Queen's language. I believe it to be a straight-forward, practical, and valuable measure.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be now read a second time"—(The Lord Ribblesdale.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): At present this appears to me a very plain, straightforward, and practical Bill, and the Government have no sort of objection to its being read a second time. I suspect there is something in it we do not see. I have no doubt we shall discover its advantages on going more into it.
On question, agreed to.
Bill read the second time, and committed.

DISCIPLINE IN MILITARY PRISONS.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken, or are being taken, to carry into effect the recommendations of a Departmental Committee on Discipline in Military Prisons which reported in June, 1895, with special reference to the condemnation of shot drill and the crank as ordinary forms of prison labour; and to move for papers. I propose to postpone any comment I may have to make until the noble Marquess has replied.
Moved—
"That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty for the report of a departmental committee on discipline in military prisons which reported in June 1895. "—(The Lord Monkswell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord need not be at all afraid that the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee over which he presided will be lost sight of. The policy of those recommendations entirely commends itself to us. We are acting upon them, and we shall continue to act upon them as time goes on. Some of those recommendations have already been carried out; others, again, are embodied in new revised rules which are ready for issue, but the issue of which has been delayed under circumstances which have been explained in the other House of Parliament. We intend to deal with the whole of this question of the treatment of military prisoners. It has become an accepted doctrine that habitual criminals ought not to be retained in the Army, and when a soldier commits a serious offence against the civil law it is usual to hand him over to the civil authorities for imprisonment in a civil prison. It comes, then, to this, that these military prisons are used for the imprisonment of soldiers who have committed offences, not against the civil, but against the military laws—offences which are usually described as offences against discipline. We hold very strongly that, although it is desirable to punish such offences in a manner which will deter those who commit them from committing them again, the punishment should be as little as possible of an ignominious or degrading character. That point has been very strongly taken up by the distinguished general officer who commands at Aldershot—Sir Redvers Buller—who has specially called our attention to it, and a Committee, presided over by him, is at this moment sitting, and will report to us on the whole matter. I think I may say that the standpoint from which we now approach the question is a rather broader standpoint than that taken by the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, because he will remember that his Committee stated that they understood the main point to which their investigations were to be directed was the capability of the men on rejoining the regiments after terms of imprisonment to

19
carry on their military duties without loss of either physical condition or professional knowledge. We, as I said just now, want to push the matter a little further, and to consider whether the imprisonment to which soldiers are subjected should not be made of a somewhat different character, and one equally deterrent, but not so degrading as the kind of punishment to which they have in the past been subjected. I will state to the noble Lord exactly what has been done towards carrying out the recommendations of his Committee, premising, for your Lordships' information, that we have to deal with three kinds of prisons—the large military prisons, which are under the control of the Inspector-General of Military Prisons; the provost prisons under the control of the Commanding Officer of the District; and, finally, the regimental provost prisons, which are under the control of the Officer in command of the Regiment. The first recommendation made by the Committee was that we should limit the licensing of barrack cells to sentences of 14 days and under, and of provost prisons to sentences of 42 days and under. That recommendation has been carried out. The next recommendation was that barrack cells and provost prisons should be lit in the same way as military prisons were lit. That has also been carried out. Then there was a recommendation that in these prisons the hour of putting out the lights should be extended from half-past eight till nine o'clock. That has been carried out in military prisons, and is provided for in the case of the other prisons in the revised rules to which I referred a moment ago. In the next place the Committee recommended that governors should be appointed to the more important military prisons. That has been done in the case, I think, of five or six of the most important of those prisons. Then there is a recommendation that Sunday exercise should be allowed. That has been introduced already in the case of the military prisons. In the case of the provost prisons it is provided for in the new rules. The Committee further recommended that gymnastics, drill, and other forms of military instruction should be allowed. Drill and physical exercise were introduced in the military prisons in 1896. The matter is still under consideration in the case of the provost prisons. Then we come to the recommendation to which the noble Lord attaches most importance—
20
the question of shot drill and the crank. In the military prisons shot drill has, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, been abolished, except as a punishment for prison offences. The use of the crank has not been entirely abolished, but other forms of punishment have, so far as possible, been substituted for it. In the provost prisons shot drill has not yet been abolished, but its abolition is provided for in the revised rules. The same remark applies to the case of barrack cells. The Committee advised that a free choice of library books should be allowed to soldiers during their term of imprisonment. We have accepted that recommendation in part only. Wo allow a free choice of library books after the first fourteen days. That has been done in the case of military prisons and will be done in the case of the provost prisons under the revised rules. The limit, fourteen days, excludes the barrack cells, in which a prisoner cannot be kept for more than fourteen days, from the scope of this recommendation. Then we come to the only recommendation on which I do not think that anything has yet been done, and that is the recommendation that all prisoners in military prisons should be given compulsory education who, in the opinion of the governor, would derive benefit from it. That matter has been considered, but the question raises a good many difficulties. The change would be troublesome and expensive to make, and it is, as the noble Lord knows, held by some very high authorities—it was held by one member, at least, of the Departmental Committee—that the introduction of this practice would lead to a differentiation between one class of prisoner and another which it was not desirable to introduce, and that it would only have the effect of taking away from these punishments a great part of their deterrent effect. There is one other recommendation, which is that the hair of prisoners in provost and barrack cells should be cut only so far as necessary for cleanliness. That recommendation has been adopted and carried out. I think I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord that we have by no means lost sight of the recommendations which his Committee has made. It is, of course, necessary, in considering these matters, to remember that there is the risk of making these punishments insufficiently deterrent. We have endeavoured to steer our way judiciously between that danger and the

21
undoubted defects which existed in the old system of punishment in military prisons.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I am glad to hear the statements of the noble Marquess. With regard to the motion at the end of my question, I would suggest that, as there is nothing of a private nature in the Report of the Departmental Committee, it should be circulated as a Parliamentary Paper. We not only took evidence, which the noble Marquess may or may not think of some value, but in the Appendix is the experience of foreign countries, particularly of Germany, in the matter of prisons, on which we based a good deal of our Report. I am glad to hear that in military prisons at all events, shot drill and the crank have been abolished.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I said that the crank was not altogether abolished in military prisons.
LORD MONKSWELL: I am sorry to hear that, but I am glad to find that shot drill has been abolished. I am all the more glad because a few weeks ago, in the case of the lamentable death of Trooper Lorrimer, which was discussed in the House of Commons, every member who took part in the Debate was under the misapprehension, shared also by the Under-Secretary for War, that shot drill was still a common form of prison labour in military prisons. I am sorry the noble Marquess has not seen his way to re-introduce compulsory education, which up to 1872 was the rule. Compulsory education is to some extent carried on in civil prisons, and it is even more important that it should be carried on in military prisons. While this Departmental Committee of the War Office was sitting, another Departmental Committee was considering the same questions with regard to civil prisons. That Committee reported about the same time, and their recommendations bore a very striking resemblance to the recommendations put forward by the Departmental Committee of the War Office. If it is considered necessary to increase the teaching in civil prisons, surely it is much more important, if the noble Marquess thinks it is desirable that the difference between military and civil prisons should be accentuated, that you should emphasise that difference by
22
giving the soldier every opportunity of keeping up his education. In Germany they lay great stress upon keeping up, at all cost, the military education of the prisoner. In Germany the regulations prescribe that the fact is not to be lost sight of, that military prisoners are still soldiers, and will return to military duty. On all occasions, therefore, steps should be taken to foster their soldierly instinct, and to maintain their military bearing. Again, in the matter of gymnastics, I hope the noble Marquess will do everything he possibly can to see that gymnastic exercises are taught in all military prisons. I am glad to hear that most of the recommendations have had some attention paid to them. I would remind the noble Marquess that it is now four years since the Committee reported, and I should have thought that possibly some complete provisions might have been put in force at an earlier date than the noble Marquess seems to have thought necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the question of education, and, indeed, the other points upon which the noble Lord has touched, will undoubtedly be considered by the Committee which is now sitting, and I will take care that they are considered. I forgot, in replying to the noble Lord, to take notice of his request that I should lay the Report of the Committee on the Table. I hope he will not press me to do so, not because there is anything in the least mysterious or secret in the Report, but because I think it is undesirable that the reports of these Departmental Committees should be presented to Parliament. It is not like the case of the Report of a Parliamentary Committee or of a Royal Commission Reports of a Departmental Committee of this character are really like official minutes, and what I am afraid of is that if we get into the way of presenting them to Parliament, such Committees will not report to us with the freedom and frankness which they now adopt.
LORD MONKSWELL: I should be the last person to suggest that it should be made a condition in all cases that the Reports of Departmental Committees should be issued as Parliamentary Papers, but when it turns out that there is absolutely nothing in the whole of this Report which is of a secret nature, and when it gives information that some people desire

23
to have, I should have thought there would have been no objection to lay it on the Table, the more particularly as the Report of a Departmental Committee of the Home Office which has considered exactly the same questions in relation to civil prisons has been published as a Parliamentary Paper. However, I will not press my Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House), with-drawn.

PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, that the evening sitting of the House to-morrow do commence at half-past Five of the clock.
House adjourned at half-past Five of the clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.