Sitting of 15 May 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  (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.:—

  WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY 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
  580
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, 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.:—

  SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  (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 Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
  (Queen's Consent signified.)
  Read the third time, and passed.

  NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  COALVILLE URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to he read the third time.
  LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to he read the third time.
  BURY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SKIPTON URBAN DISTRICT CAS BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read the third time and passed.
  ST. ANDREW'S BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  BROUGHTY FERRY GAS AND PAVING ORDER BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABERAVON, &c.) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time and committed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Carshalton, Gateshead, Merthyr Tydfil, and Newton Abbot,
  582
  ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18).
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Royal Leamington Spa. ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Fleetwood, Innellan, Montrose, and Southwold, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Carshalton, Gateshead, Merthyr Tydfil, and Newton Abbot," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 18) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Royal Leamington Spa," presented, and road the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Fleetwood, Inellan, Montrose, and Southwold," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 202].
  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
  Sir Henry Fletcher reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills,

  583
  That the parties promoting the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Ystradyfodwg (Maerdy) Order] had stated that the evidence of John William Leyshon, Inspector-in-Chief, Engineer's Department, General Post Office, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said John William Leyshon do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That John William Leyshon do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Horsforth Urban District Council (Water) Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendment to—
  Perth Water, Police, and Gas Bill [Lords].
  Amendments to—
  Bristol Floods Prevention Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further borrowing powers on the Commissioners of the burgh of Wishaw for the purposes of their water undertaking." [Wishaw Water Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the sale and disposal of the site of the Church of Emmanuel, West End, Hampstead." [Hampstead Church (Emmanuel, West End) Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Gainsborough Gas Company to the Gainsborough Urban District Council, and to confer further powers on the said Council with respect to the supply of gas; and for other purposes." [Gainsborough Urban District Council (Gas) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the limits of supply of the Great Yarmouth Waterworks Company, and to
  584
  authorise that Company to construct new works; to raise further money; and for other purposes." [Great Yarmouth Water Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Leigh-on-Sea, in the county of Essex, to construct and maintain gasworks; and for other purposes." [Leigh-on-Sea Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Dundee Gas Commissioners to construct further works; to authorise the widening and improvement of streets and the construction of new tramways; and for other purposes." [Dundee Gas, Tramways, and Extension Bill [Lords] (changed to "Dundee Gas, Street Improvements, and Tramways Bill [Lords].)"

  WISHAW WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  HAMPSTEAD CHURCH (EMMANUEL, WEST END) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GAINSBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  GREAT YARMOUTH WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LEIGH-ON-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  DUNDEE GAS, TRAMWAYS, AND EXTENSION BILL [LORDS], CHANGED TO "DUNDEE GAS, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]."
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
  Petition from Northfleet, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Halifax, against; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petitions in favour;—From Worsley; —and, Nelson; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petitions for alteration;—From Govan; —and, Perth; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Petition from St. George's, Hanover Square, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) HILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From New Whittington;— Mitchell's Main;—and, South Wingfield Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Perth;—and, Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Petition from Paisley, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Perth;— and, Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Atcham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Falkirk, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From South Heigham;—Hull;—Ripon;—Darlington;—London;—Elland and Brighouse;—
  586
  Stockport;—and, Preston; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Petition from Perth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SERVICE FRANCHISE BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour;—to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS, 1867 TO 1898.
  Petition from Poplar, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  COMPANIES (APPLICATIONS FOR RETURNS).
  Return [presented 11th May] to be printed. [No. 197.]
  ARMY (PAY, NON-EFFECTIVE PAY, AND ALLOWANCES.
  Copy presented,—of List of Exceptions, to the Army Regulations sanctioned during the year ended 31st March 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (SUB-POSTMASTERSHIPS HELD BY TRADERS.
  Return presented, —relative thereto [ordered 17th March; Mr. Steadman]; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Crofters' Commission, being for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (AGRICULTURAL RETURNS).
  Copy presented,—of Agricultural Returns for Great Britain, with Statistics for the United Kingdom, British Possessions,, and Foreign Countries for 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  MEDWAY CONSERVANCY.
  Copy of Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of the Conservators for the year ending 25th March 1899 [by Act].
  EDUCATION (FEES FOR PAUPER CHILDREN).
  Copy ordered, "of Letters of Education Department sanctioning the imposition of Fees on Pauper Children under Section 4(1) of the Elementary Education Act,1891."—;(Mr. Charles Morley.)
  FEE GRANT (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing in respect of each of the financial years ending the 31st day of March 1890, to the 31st day of March 1899, inclusive,(1) theamount paid into the Bank of England to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account under Section 1 of The Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1888, and Sections 20 and 21 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889; (2) the payments made to each of the various objects under Sections 19 and 22 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, as amended by The Education and Local Taxation (Scotland) Act, 1892, showing separately the balance which fell to be applied as an addition to the fee grant; (3) the average attendance of children on the annual grant list entitled to the fee grant; (4) the total amount distributed in payment of fee grant under the foregoing Acts, and also under The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, including, and stating separately, after the financial year ending the 31st day of March 1892, the amount paid out of moneys provided by Parliament towards relief of school fees under the Act of 1892; and (5) the amount per head of average attendance paid as fee grant."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
QUESTIONS.

  SHIPS' OFFICES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in ships of the "Majestic" class the ship's office is half way forward on the lower deck, in bad light, and a considerable distance from any sentry's post; and whether, in view of the desirability of safeguarding the public money and ship's records, steps will be taken to select a more appropriate site.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The ship's office in the "Majestic" class is not on the lower deck. It is on the main deck, at a considerable height above water, and in a good position for light and ventilation. The office is situated immediately before the officers' cabins. The safeguarding of public money and ships' records is not prejudiced by the present position of the office.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Have any representations been received by the Admiralty in regard to this matter?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Not to my knowledge, but I will inquire.

ROYAL NAVY WRITERS.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the number of third writers in ships of the Royal Navy filling the post of second writers, and the number of second writers filling the post of chief writers; and, whether it is intended to fill up existing vacancies by means of the present automatic system of promotion, from one class to another, upon the completion of certain service.
MR. GOSCHEN: According to latest reports, 63 third writers are employed in lieu of second writers, and 13 second writers in lieu of chief writers. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative, so far as circumstances allow.

ARMY ESTABLISHMENT STATISTICS.
COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what number below establishment the cavalry, mounted artillery, garrison artillery, guards, and infantry, at home and abroad respectively were on 31st March, 1898; and, how many below establishment they respectively were on 31st March, 1899.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM, Dover): I assume that the honourable and gallant Member wishes to know the progress made during the year towards the ultimate establishments aimed at, which were given in the Estimates for 1898–9, but not in the Estimates for 1897–8. The ultimate establishment for the cavalry of the line is 18,559; for the horse and field artillery, 21,144; for the garrison artillery, 22,717; for the foot

589
guards, 8,705; for the infantry of the line, 148,272. On the 31st March, 1898, the cavalry of the line was 822 below this establishment. On the 31st March, 1899, 501 below it. The horse and field artillery fell short by 2,805 in 1898, and by 2,085 in 1899. The garrison artillery 3,293 in 1898, and 2,138 in 1899. The foot guards 1,948 in 1898, and 1,274 in 1899. The infantry of the line 12,421 in 1898, and 8,135 in 1899.

ARTILLERY HORSES.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the average age of field battery horses on the Home establishment, of the royal horse artillery, and of the cavalry.
MR. WYNDHAM: The average ages of the horses are as follows:—Cavalry 8 years and 10 months, royal horse artillery 9 years, held artillery 8 years and 10 months.

BRITISH OFFICERS IN INDIA.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that lieutenant-colonels of the Royal Engineers and other senior officers ordered to India for a term of service are deprived of rank and seniority by being ordered to serve in subordinate positions in the M. W. Department, while continuous service juniors are placed above them and, by what statutory authority is regimental seniority ignored.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am not aware of any cases in which lieutenant-colonels and other senior officers of Royal Engineers ordered to India have been placed under then juniors; the present organisation of the Military Works Department in India is about to be changed, but it has been decided, with the concurrence of the War Office, that, so long as it is maintained, an officer must accept the grading to which the Government of India think it right to post him, provided that he shall not be called on to serve directly under are officer junior to him regimentally.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON INDIAN EXPENDITURE.
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE (Bethnal Green, N.E.)I beg to
590
ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can state to the House why the Royal Commissioners on Indian Expenditure, appointed in 1895, have not made their Report; and, whether it is to be hoped that the Commissioners will make their Report without further delay.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I have already explained in replies to various questions that I have no power over the proceedings of this Commission; but the present condition of things can be best explained by the letter which I have had addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, which I will read:
"I am directed by Lord George Hamilton to call your attention to the fact that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into Indian expenditure held its last meeting upon July 27th, 1897, after which day it adjourned.
"A period of nearly two years has therefore elapsed, during which no meetings have been held, nor. so far as the Secretary of State can ascertain, has any material advance been made towards the adoption of a report upon the matters referred to the Commission for investigation.
"This delay is a matter of much regret to Her Majestys Government.
"Lord George Hamilton therefore requests that you should communicate this letter to every member of the Commission in order that they may inform him whether, and if so, when, they propose by the submission of a report to Her Majesty, to discharge the functions entrusted to them; and on receipt of their replies he will consider what advice he should submit to the Queen, through the Home Secretary, as to the continuance of the Commission.
"Considerable inconvenience has already been caused to this Department, from its inability to settle various outstanding financial questions which were specially referred to the Commission for their opinion."
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: Has any answer been received?
LORD G. HAMILTON: No; the letter has only just been sent.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Who was chairman of this Commission?
LORD G. HAMILTON: I think my honourable friend can ascertain.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am trying to.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The chairman is Lord Welby.

INDIAN P.W. DEPARTMENT.
MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has received a petition from Mr. A. S. Russell, of the Indian P.W. Department, dated May, 1898; whether this correctly represents the position of the officers sent out to India from the Cooper's Hill Engineering College during the first three or four years; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the grievances from which this officer and his contemporaries appear to suffer from want of promotion, and which was not considered by the Select Committee of the House in 1890.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Memorials have been received from Mr. A. S. Russell and other officers of the Indian Public Works Department who were recruited from the Royal Indian Engineering College in the years 1874–76. The contents of these memorials are now engaging my attention, but I can say nothing as to the decision which may be arrived at.

BRITISH TRADE WITH MADAGASCAR.
MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the views expressed by the Prime Minister in his despatches to Sir E. Monson, of 9th and 20th July of last year, that the action of the French Government in greatly increasing the import duties upon the principal articles of British manufacture was a further infraction of British rights in Madagascar, and inconsistent with the international rights of this country and with the assurances given by the Government of the Republic, and must inevitably kill the greater part of British trade with Madagascar, whether it is the case that the declared value of British goods exported from this country to Madagascar during the first quarter of this year was less than one-eighth of the value exported in the corresponding period of 1896; whether, in accordance with the promise of M. Delcassé made last July, that he would lose no time in answering the representation made by Lord Salisbury, any reply has been received; and, if so, what is the nature of it; and, what action Her Majesty's Government is taking to protect and enforce British rights in Madagascar.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies which I have made on several occasions during the present session respecting the action of the French Government in respect of British trade in Madagascar.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: Then no answer has been received.

TURKEY AND THE ARMENIAN BISHOPS.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government will represent to the Sultan the injury done to the Armenian archbishop and bishops, who are forcibly detained in the monastery of St. James at Jerusalem without trial, and without knowing for what offences they have been exiled from their dioceses; and, whether, seeing that those prelates are men of high character, the Secretary of State will communicate on the subject with the Powers which are parties to Articles 61 and 62 of the Berlin Treaty.
MR. BRODRICK: We have no information as to the detention of the Armenian archbishops and bishops referred to.

CHINESE CUSTOMS TARIFF—TREATY OF TIENTSIN.
SIR MARK STEWART (Kirkcud-bright): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations with the Chinese Government for the revision of the tariff of customs duties under the Treaty of Tientsin are proceeding; and whether he can give the House any information as to their progress.
MR. BRODRICK: Notice was given by the Chinese Government in April, 1898, under Article XXVII., of the Treaty of Tientsin, of their desire for a revision of the tariff, but no proposals have since been received from them on the subject, and no negotiations are at present in progress.

RAILWAY CONCESSIONS IN CHINA.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

593
he can give the House any information as to the reported application of the Russo-Chinese Bank for a concession to construct a railway from Niuchwang or some other point on the Trans-Manchurian Railway to Pekin, via Shan-hai-kwan, under similar conditions to the Russian Trans-Manchurian Railway, and whether the influence of Her Majesty's Government will be used to prevent such a duplication of railways between Niuchwang and Pekin as would divert the traffic from the Northern Extension line now being constructed with British capital.
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Pekin has reported that a demand by the Russian Government is stated to have been made to the Yamên, but we have no information as to the point on the Trans-Manchurian line from which the line is proposed to be made to Pekin. The Yamên up to the present have declined to grant the concession. Until the whole facts are before them Her Majesty's Government can make no pronouncement on the subject.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the intention of Russia to extend her Trans-Manchurian railway system to Pekin, and thus connect it with the railway already constructed by Russian capital southwards to Pao-ting, Her Majesty's Government will now take steps to have the basin of the Yang-tsze, referred to in the Anglo-Russian agreement, clearly defined.
MR. BRODRICK: The proposed extension of the Manchurian Railway to Pekin does not really affect the basin of the Yang-tsze, as to which Her Majesty's Government recently entered into agreement with the Russian Government.
MR. J. WALTON: Arising out of the reply, may I be allowed to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether the construction of a railway by Russia to Pekin, enabling her to connect her Manchurian system of railways with the rail way already built with Russian capital from Pekin southwards to Pao-ting—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

JAMAICA AND ITS RAILWAYS.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the conditions on which the Government of Jamaica has acquired and taken over the railway in that island, and the delay that has occurred in carrying out the colonial obligations involved; and whether he will take stops to press on the colony the duty of no further delay in the matter.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Government of Jamaica has not yet acquired and taken over the railway. An order has been made for the winding up of the railway company, and as soon as the accounts in the winding up have been taken the court will have to make an order vesting the railway in the Colonial Government. In the meantime the trustees of the mortgage bond holders are in possession of the railway. There has been no delay on the part of the Government in carrying out its obligations.

ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATION WITH LIGHTSHIPS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the necessity for electrical communication with lightships stationed off the coast of the United Kingdom, will he state why the sum of £663 2s. lld. of the Grant in aid for electrical communication with lightships was not expended during the financial year 1897–8.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The sum referred to by the honourable Member was the balance of the Grant in aid for electrical communication with lightships not expended during the financial year 1896–7, not 1897–8, as would appear from the honourable Member's question. This sum was not expended during 1896–7 because part of the work for which it was voted could not be completed within that year. It was carried forward to 1897–8, and spent in that year.

SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT TYPISTS.
MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the

595
Committee of Council on Education whether a temporary clerical assistant has been in charge of the typing room at the Department of Science and Art for about two years; and whether, seeing that there are several established clerks in the Department qualified to occupy the position in question, most of them having much longer service and lesser present remuneration than the temporary clerical assistant in question, the President will inquire into this matter, and in particular into the method by which the temporary clerical assistant was appointed to the said post.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (SIR J. GORST,): The clerical assistant referred to was placed in charge of the typewriting room about four years ago, because of his general efficiency and special qualifications. He has been retained in that position ever since, because he has done his work most efficiently and is believed to be the best qualified in the office.

EDUCATION ESTIMATES—THE 17s. 6d. LIMIT.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state approximately the amount by which the Education Estimates for the years ending 31st March 1898 and 1899 were increased owing to the repeal, by Section 2 of The Voluntary Schools Act 1897, of the 17s. 6d. limit.
SIR J. GORST: The Estimates for the former year where framed before the repeal of the 17s. 6d. limit; and it is impossible to say how much of the rise in the Estimates for the latter year was due to the repeal. It seems probable that the amount of the deduction in each of the two years, if the limit had remained in force, would have been between £60,000 and £70,000.

WILLINGTON (DURHAM) BOARD SCHOOL.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the head master of the Willington Board School (Durham) was, on the 9th of March (by letter from
596
the Education Department), threatened with the withholding of the annual grant, unless he fills up the school attendance cards with the names of the children of out-door paupers; and, whether he will state under which statute such threat was made, and by which statute it is intended to carry out the threat.
SIR J. GORST: The Guardians of the Durham Union represented to the Education Deparment that the sheets showing: the attendance of children of out-door paupers at the Willington Board School were not received. The Education Department informed the Willington School Board that, if the refusal to fill up these sheets was persisted in they would consider whether they could continue to make annual grants to the school. No threat was addressed to the master of the school. The Education Department have power to call for returns and information from a School Board under Section 95 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870.

WIMBLEDON DISTRICT COUNCIL.
MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to an irregularity alleged to have occurred in connection with the recent election of the Wimbledon District Council; whether he is aware that one of the presiding officers declined to permit a sworn agent to tape and seal one of the ballot boxes, a measure of precaution adopted in other cases; and, whether he has made inquiry into this matter.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction with regard to the proceedings at the recent election of district councillors at Wimbledon, and no authority to inquire into the matter. I am, however, informed by the Returning Officer that it appears that one of the presiding officers omitted to lock a ballot-box before sealing it and afterwards broke the seal in order to lock the box. The returning officer adds that there is no reason for supposing that the presiding officer was actuated by any fraudulent intention, and that on verification of his ballot paper account all the ballot papers were duly accounted for. With regard to the second paragraph of the question the Returning Officer states

597
that he was informed by the presiding officer that at the opening of the poll he declined to permit a candidate (not an agent as suggested) to affix his seal to the ballot-box. I am, however, advised that neither a candidate nor an agent has any legal right to claim to affix his seal to the ballot box at this stage of the proceedings.

EMIGRATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN TO CANADA.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can inform the House how many pauper children were emigrated to Canada during 1898; and whether he can state which Boards had sent children, and how many each of such Boards had sent respectively, and also by which of the accredited agencies.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Seventy-eight pauper children were emigrated to Canada in 1898, by 31 boards of guardians, through 10 agencies. If the honourable Member desires it I shall be happy to give him a statement as to the particular boards of guardians sending children and the agencies through whom they were sent.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1897.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Court of Appeal that poor appellants to the Court of Appeal from decisions of county court judges, acting as arbitrators under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, may be required to give security for costs before being allowed to prosecute their appeals; whether he is aware that persons appealing by way of new trial in cases tried by high court judges with juries cannot be required to give any security for the costs of the appeal; and, whether, in view of the importance of enabling workmen or their representatives to obtain high judicial authority on complicated questions of the construction of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he will undertake to make representations to the rule authority as to the advisability of making a rule dispensing with the necessity of giving security for costs when they desire to appeal.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): My attention has been called to the decision referred to, and I am aware that in applications for a new trial—which, I may observe, are not, strictly speaking, appeals—it is not the practice to require security for costs. As regards the third paragraph of the question I have to say that, after consulting with the Lord Chancellor, in accordance with the promise given by my right honourable friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in my behalf on the 7th March, I do not see my way to make to the Rules Committee the proposal suggested by the honourable Member.

METROPOLITAN POLICE PENSIONS— EX-CONSTABLE UPPERTON.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of ex-Police Constable Frederick Upperton, who, on retirement from the Metropolitan Police Force after more than 25 years' service, has been granted a pension based upon the amount of his pay as police constable for 52 weeks in the year, exclusive of the extra pay of 1s. a day granted to constables on duty at the Houses of Parliament; and if, having regard to the number of constables employed on similar duty, and in receipt of the same extra pay, and the desirability of getting a legal decision upon the matter, he will adopt the course taken in the case of ex-Inspector Ruff by the right honourable the Member for East Fife when Home Secretary, and will give facilities for the matter to be brought before the Court of Quarter Sessions, and will pay such reasonable costs as ex-Police Constable Upperton may incur in obtaining a legal decision on a matter affecting all constables on duty at the Houses of Parliament.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to this case, but I should not feel justified in adopting the course suggested. The circumstances on the occasion referred to by my honourable, friend were very different.

FALSE VACCINATION CERTIFICATES— PROSECUTION OF DR LAMONT.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary to

599
the Treasury whether he will state the amount of fees paid to Dr. Mackenzie for reports made at the instance of the Procurator-Fiscal of Lochmaddy in connection with the prosecution of Dr. Lamont, recently public vaccinator in the Island of Uist, for issuing false vaccination certificates, and the amount, if any, paid him for giving evidence at Dr. Lamont's trial at Inverness on the 15th of March last.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): From the Procurator-Fiscal at Lochmaddy Dr. Mackenzie received 16 guineas for medical inspections in September and October, 1899, being payment at two guineas a day for eight days' work (inclusive of subsistence). He also received £4 15s. 6d. for travelling expenses. From the Procurator-Fiscal at Inverness he received 16 guineas for eight days work and £3 13s. 1d. for travelling. The charges are still subject to audit.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, with reference to the arrest of Dr. Lamont on 17th September, 1898, whether he is aware that Dr. Lamont denies that he was ever informed that he should be arrested if he left the island of Uist, and asserts that in deference to Police Sergeant Philip's request he remained in the island for nearly a week after the date of the first warrant by him that there was not; whether Sergeant Philip ever received the warrant of 10th September for Dr. Lamont's arrest; and. with reference to Dr. Lamont's attempted re-arrest on 8th December, whether at that date Dr. Lamont was out on bail; if so, whether either the bailee or bailor was, between the issue of the new warrant on 25th October and the date of hit attempted re-arrest, informed that Dr. Lamont's re-arrest was contemplated; whether he is aware that neither Dr. Lamont nor his law agent knew of the existence of a warrant dated 25th October until it was mentioned in the House or the 8th instant; whether the police officer in Glasgow, who proceeded to Dr. Lamont's mother's house, for the purpose of arresting him, on 8th December had been furnished with the warrant of 25th October for Dr. Lamont's arrest; and, whether
600
the information sent to the Crown Office to the effect that Dr. Lamont's agent would be responsible for his appearing for trial, on which the Crown Office ordered that Dr. Lamont should not be re-arrested, was sent to the Crown Office by the Procurator-Fiscal at Lochmaddy or by Mr. Kennedy, Dr. Lamont's agent.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY, Buteshire): I accept the facts of the first paragraph from the honourable Member; I have recently received statements from Dr. Lamont's agent to a similar effect. In regard to all the points raised in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the question I have no accurate knowledge, and in no case, whether answered in the affirmative or the negative, would any one of these points be material. In reply to the last paragraph the information was received by the Crown Office from Dr. Lamont's agents.

DEDUCTIONS FROM NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the amount obtained by the deductions from the pensions of naval and military officers in civil employment amounts to only about £3,600, and seeing that the Act which gives authority for the said deduction is permissive, he will consider the advisability of remitting these deductions in future.
MR. HANBURY: It is not the case that Section 6 Sub-section (1) of the Superannuation Act would permit the remission of these deductions in future. The section provides that "the Treasury may frame rules" within one month after the passing of the Act, but when once the rules have been framed they become statutory; and, as no power is given to vary or alter them, a change could not be made except by fresh legislation.

IRISH MAIL CONTRACTS.
MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, when will the present contract with the London and North Western Railway Company for the carriage of Irish and American mails between London and Holyhead terminate; what is the amount paid for the carriage of these mails to the

601
London and North Western Company; whether any negotiations have yet been opened for the arrangement of a fresh contract; and whether, before any contract is agreed upon, he will state the proposed terms to the House.
MR. HANBURY: The contract may now be terminated at any time by twelve calendar months' notice on either side. The payment under the contract is £63,000 a year, but the contract covers not only the carriage of the Irish and American mails between London and Holyhead, but all other services over the Chester and Holyhead section of the Company's lines, and the amount specially applicable to the Irish and American service cannot therefore be separately stated. A payment of £5,150 a year, over and above the contract payment of £63,000, has been made since 1st April 1897, in respect of the acceleration of the Irish night mail trains, and a further payment of £6,500 a year (which is not, however, borne on the Post Office Votes) has been made since 1st August last in respect of the acceleration of the Irish day mail trains. No negotiations have been opened, or are at present contemplated, for the arrangement of a fresh contract. It is not usual to submit the terms of contracts for the conveyance of mails by railway to the House, and it cannot be stated beforehand whether any necessity for an exceptional course of procedure will arise in connection with the renewal of the contract referred to by the honourable Member.

THE BRITISH POSTMASTER AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the gentleman recently appointed a British Postmaster at Constantinople is the same gentleman who, while postmaster at Kingston-on-Thames and Lincoln, was reported for serious irregularities with regard to his official cash, and transferred from the latter office in consequence of the serious nature of such irregularities; and, upon what grounds he has now been rewarded by being selected over the heads of others with good records and longer service.
MR. HANBURY: The gentleman appointed British Postmaster at Constanti-
602
nople, who has rendered good service in the Post Office for nearly 30 years, is the same official who, after holding the Postmastership of Kingston-on-Thames for some years, was promoted to be Postmaster of Lincoln. The Postmaster-General informs me that he was not concerned in "serious irregularities" at Kingston, as stated in the question, but, that he was concerned in a single irregularity which occurred at Lincoln under very exceptional circumstances, and that that was suitably noticed at the time. He was afterwards transferred to another office at his own request, and not in consequence, I understand, of this irregularity. He has now been appointed to Constantinople on the ground that his qualifications for the position were, in the Postmaster-General's opinion, superior to those of any one of the other candidates who offered themselves.
MR. DUNCOMBE: Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether the irregularity in question did not consist of his using momentarily a large portion of official cash?
MR. HANBURY: What did happen was this, and although it was not a case of fraud I did look on it as a case of serious irregularity. It was discovered when he was on leave of absence that about £150 of Government property which should have been represented by hard cash, was only represented by a cheque drawn by the postmaster.

TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS AT OLDHAM.
MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to the great inconvenience suffered by the In inhabitants of Oldham through the great length of time that it takes to transmit a telegraphic message to that town; whether he has been informed that during the last month a message handed in at Fallowfield at 5.8 only reached s Oldham at 5.41; that a message handed in at Worcester at 1.0 only reached Old-ham at 3.45; that a message handed in at the Crystal Palace at 4.57 only reached; Oldham at 5.29; whilst one handed in at the Crystal Palace on the 9th instant at 12.30 only reached Oldham at 5.9 the same evening, the time taken being over 4½ hours for a distance under 200 miles;

603
and, whether he will take steps to improve the telegraphic communication with Oldham.
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster-General is not aware of any general complaint in regard to delay in the transmission of telegrams to Oldham. The telegram of the 9th instant was accidentally overlooked at the Crystal Palace. The Postmaster-General regrets any in convenience to which this may have given rise, and has taken suitable notice of the want of care displayed by his officers. The other telegrams referred to in the question have not been traced, but if the honourable Member will furnish the dates on which they were handed in and the names of the senders or addressees, enquiry shall be made and the result communicated to him. The telegraphic communication with Oldham has recently come under review, and there does not at present appear to be sufficient reason for putting up fresh lines or altering the present circuit arrangements, but the matter shall be kept in view in case there should be any fresh development.

THE TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION) BILL.
MR. COMPTON RICKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, &c.) Bill this session; if so, whether he can state when the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken; I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Government could make the provisions of the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, &c.) Bill applicable to non-county boroughs as well as to county boroughs; failing this, whether the Government would give special consideration to the cases of those non-county boroughs whose rateable value exceeds that of some of the county boroughs.
MR. HANBURY: I am sorry if the Telegraphs Bill has been delayed owing to my absence; but I hope that the Second Reading will be taken soon after Whitsuntide, It is intended to make the provisions of the Bill extend to urban sanitary districts, subject, of course to the discretion of the Postmaster-General in individual cases.

BALLYMONEY POST OFFICE.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster - General, whether he is aware that much inconvenience is experienced by the people of Ballymoney owing to the inconvenient position of the post office in that town, and whether the Postmaster-General has received a memorial from the inhabitants on this subject; whether he is aware that the letters by the two first mails for Belfast are collected from the pillar-box in the main street, Ballymoney, more than an hour before the mail starts; and, whether he will have these grievances of the people of Ballymoney remedied.
MR. HANBURY: The post office at Ballymoney has been for upwards of 18 years in its present position, which is considered to be reasonably convenient for the inhabitants generally. The memorial referred to by the honourable Member was duly received and considered. The Postmaster-General is aware of the arrangements for collections of letters as described by the honourable Member, but he finds that the circumstances do not admit of later collections. He is assured, however, that no serious inconvenience is caused, as both the letter-boxes in question are within three or four minutes' walk of the post office.

CAMPHILL SCHOOL, PAISLEY.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the labour certificate examination held at Camphill School, Paisley, on the 7th ult., out of a total of 217 applicants for pass certificates in Standards 3 and 5 only 100 passed; whether, when teachers were paid by the results of these examinations 90 to 100 per cent. of applicants passed, against only 46 per cent. at the last examination, the examination papers at such examinations have been made more difficult than formerly; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the examination papers used at the examination on the 7th ult.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: No communication has boon received from the School Board as to the matter referred to in the honourable Member's question. It is not surprising that the results of a general examination of the school showed better

605
average results than the examination of those candidates who are presented for the labour certificate, who, it is hoped, represent only those who desire to leave school before obtaining the merit certificate. Such examinations are not, as a rule, conducted by means of papers, and it would not therefore be possible to follow the course proposed in the last paragraph of the question.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) ACT.
MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, will he explain why, under the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, no fishing district has been created or any fishery committee formed in Scotland, whereas under the English Act of 1888 numerous fishing districts and committees have been formed; and, whether the Scotch Act has been inoperative owing to the restriction at the end of Section 5, Subsection (1); and, whether the Government will promote or will favour legislation to remove this restriction.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The initiative is in the Act left to the locality. One locality only applied since the passing of the Act, bat the Applicants tailed to obtain the necessary consents of the local assessing bodies. The cases of England and Scotland are not analogous in this matter, and the same necessity for district committees does not exist in Scotland. It is possible that the section referred to in the Act may have contributed to the result, but there are many other contributory reasons. The Government are not at present prepared to promote legislation on the subject.

SCOTCH EDUCATION REPORT.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, when the annual Report of the Committee of Council on Scotch Education will be printed and in the hands of Members?
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The Report of the Scotch Education Department is nearly completed, and it is hoped that it will be in the hands of Members when the House meets after the Whitsuntide recess.

NEW STAMP DUTIES ON LOANS.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
606
whether he has received a communication from the Glasgow Corporation as to the effect of Clause 7 of the Finance Bill; whether it was intended that the new duty on allotted capital therein proposed shall be paid once for all in the exercise by local authorities of the borrowing powers which would increase their capital indebtedness, or whether it will fall to be paid upon every sum which was borrowed by local authority; whether such sum is a new loan increasing the indebtedness of the authority, or merely the sum required to replace an old loan which fell to be renewed, or a new loan in respect of which a loan duty may already have been paid; whether, under Sub-sections 1 and 5 of the said clause it is intended that every time stock, funded debt, or bills are issued, or money borrowed from the bank, such issue or borrowing shall be liable to the new duty; and, if not, whether he will insert words in the clause to make it clear that is not the tendency of the proposed enactment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): It is provided in Clause 7 of the Finance Bill that in the case of money borrowed on duly stamped mortgages the duty paid on the mortgage shall be allowed for. Money permanently borrowed to replace an old loan would attract the duty; but the clause is not intended to apply to money borrowed temporarily by short bills or from bankers. I do not think it does so apply; but if necessary I should not object to the insertion of words to make the matter clear.

IRISH INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATIONS.
Mr. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the programme and rules for the Intermediate Examinations of 1900 have been ready since the 1st January, and are due about the 1st April; and, as these rules will prescribe books of which editions have yet to be prepared, if he will press on the Commissioners the early publication of the programme and rules, in view of the reopening of the various schools in August.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The rules and programme of

607
the Board of Intermediate Education for any year are usually published about the 1st of April of the preceding year, but it is not the fact that the rules and programme for 1900 have been ready since the 1st January last. I am informed by the Assistant Commissioners that the Board have deemed it advisable to delay the publication of the rules and programme for next year in view of the Commission of Inquiry, now sitting, into the system of Intermediate Education in Ireland.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when they will be published?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot. The matter is not under my control.

IRISH CHURCH FUND.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in detail the estimated effect on the Church Fund of the proposals in the Tithe Rent-Charge (Ireland) Bill, and also the estimated total net capital loss to the Fund which would be caused by the provisions of the Bill; and, whether the Irish Government had before them any Treasury statement as to the financial effects on the Church Fund of the proposals in the Bill before the Bill was drafted and submitted to the House of Commons.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: A statement on this subject is being prepared and will be laid before Parliament before the second reading of the Measure. The financial effects of the proposals in the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill were carefully considered both by the Irish Government and the Treasury before the Bill was introduced.

ALBERT AND MUNSTER INSTITUTES.
MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the amount of the salaries and superannuation allowances of the officers or persons now employed under the Commissioners of National Education in connection with the Albert Institution and the Munster Institution, and proposed to be transferred to the Department by the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill, Section 16 (1) (e).
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have called for a statement of the total amount of the salaries of officers or other persons employed at the two Institutions named, proposed to be transferred under the provisions of the Bill. As soon as I receive the information, I will communicate it to the right honourable and learned Gentleman.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Report of Ways and Means have precedence this day of the Finance Bill.—(Mr. Balfour.)

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 9:—
  MR. LOUGH: On behalf of my honourable friend the Member for Huddersfield (Sir James Wood-house) I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, at end, to add—
  "A borough council appointing under this Act any Committee, may from time to time make, vary, and revoke regulations respecting the quorum and proceedings of such Committee; and, subject to such regulations, the proceedings and quorum shall be such as the Committee may from time to time direct, and the chairman at any meeting of the Committee shall have a second or casting vote."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there added."
  MR. STUARTsaid the object of this Amendment was to make the procedure as to Committees the same as that of the County Councils Act of 1888, which regulated the proceedings of Committees in absolutely the same words as those which were now proposed.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said his impression was that this provision

  609
  was not really wanted, because the Councils already possessed such power, but if on further inquiry they found that this was not so, the point would be considered and, if necessary, such provision would be included in the Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the undertaking given by the Solicitor-General was really all that they required.
  MR. LOUGHasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. WHITMORE MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea) moved an Amendment, providing that the future committee under the borough councils should have power to levy the full amount which they had been able to levy before. He said it might be objected that a committee ought not to have automatic power of its own to levy a rate, and he did not wish to press the Amendment in its present form. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, had also put down an amendment to a later clause which might carry out this object, and therefore he did not wish to press this Amendment on the Committee if it was proposed to deal with the matter at a later stage. He begged leave to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, at end to add—
  "except that a Committee appointed for the purposes of the Libraries Acts, 1892 and 1893, may spend in any year a sum equal to the amount which would he produced in that year by the maximum rate winch, at the passing of this Act, could be levied in the district for which the Committee acts."—(Mr. Whitmore.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words he there inserted."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I quite agree that this is a matter which ought not to be lost sight of by the Committee, but as the honourable Member indicated in his speech, the matter will be dealt with at a later stage. The power proposed to be given to these library committees to raise rates up to Id. in the £ without the control of the governing body, is much too extreme, and the subject can be dealt
  610
  with on Clause 15, which offers a better opportunity for its discussion.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEagreed that the object of this Amendment could be better attained on Clause 15.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that a special Act was introduced not very long ago in order to enable certain Scotch counties to exercise similar powers to those contained in the Amendment which he was now proposing. He also wished it to be within the power of the borough council to have the power to co-operate with neighbouring boards of guardians to appoint joint committees to deal with matters in which they were jointly interested. The desirability of such power being granted was especially impressed upon his mind upon occasions when distress existed in the metropolis, and when it had been found necessary to provide some means of giving employment to those who would otherwise have remained unemployed. It had been found that the Boards of Guardians were not exactly the authorities best qualified to set men to work, for they had not the necessary machinery, whereas it had been found that the neighbouring vestry might very well carry out the object which was desired by a mere extension of the existing system. In those circumstances, he thought it would be very convenient to give the power which was sought by his Amendment, which be begged to move.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, after line 30, to add the words—
  "Any two or more Borough Councils, or any Borough Council or Councils, and any Board or Boards of Guardians in the metropolis, may from time to time concur in appointing out of their respective bodies a joint committee for any purpose in respect of which they are jointly interested, and may confer on any such committee any power which the appointing Council or Board might exercise for the purpose for which the committee is appointed."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed —
  "That those words be there added."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I sympathise with the object which the honourable Gentleman has in view, but I do not think the words he proposes will do,

  611
  partly because they introduce the Poor Law authorities, which I do not think should be included in this Bill. The honourable Member has probably in his mind the section of the Act of 1894 which dealt, in the case of the parish councils, with an analogous problem with which he tries to deal here. The question was then thoroughly threshed out, and I would suggest that he should move it in that form. If he will do so, I shall be able to accept it. It would be in the following form:—
  "Section 57 of the Local Government Act of 1894, which relates to joint committees, shall apply to Borough Councils as if they were District Councils."
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he was much obliged to the right honourable Gentleman for his offer, but he could not accept his suggestion. In moving this Amendment, what he was really anxious for was power to bring in the boards of guardians to enable them to co-operate with the neighbouring council in times of distress. That was his main object, and he did not see how he could accept the right honourable Gentleman's suggestion unless he would incorporate what he had suggested with regard to boards of guardians.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Even if such an Amendment is in order, I think it really goes outside the scope of the Bill in spirit, if not in form.
  MR. STUARTthought the proposal of his honourable friend was a very valuable provision, the necessity for which occurred at the time of very hard frosts, when the co-operation of the vestries and boards of guardians had been urgently desired by persons interested in philanthropic movements.
  MR. BARTLEYasked the right honourable Gentleman to bring up the clause he had suggested upon the Report stage.
  MR. LOUGHthought the right honourable Gentleman would readily admit that both the guardians and the borough councils dealt very frequently with the same areas. Without pressing the matter too far, he thought everyone would feel that there were occasions on which these two bodies impinged a little on one another's duties. The proposal was that
  612
  the two should be empowered to appoint a joint committee. There was a great deal of work which was common to the two bodies, and he should be glad to hear from the right honourable Gentleman whether the Government would recognise this principle at the present stage.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEasked if they might take it that the Government would propose the clause which had been suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury. He did not think that it was desirable that they should interfere with the boards of guardians at ail in this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The arguments of honourable Gentlemen opposite have not altered my view upon this matter, which is, that we must leave to the boards of guardians the whole responsibility in connection with the administration of the Poor Law. I do not think any exception should be made, and I rather imagine that in certain exceptional cases those honourable Gentlemen who are anxious to see this change might confer informally with the local authority, and co-operate with them in some way not distinctly specified to give relief. I think, however, that the whole responsibility should rest with the boards of guardians, and I should be sorry to see any such change introduced into this Bill as that suggested by the honourable Member in his Amendment.
  MR. STUARTdesired to point out that the Amendment did not necessitate the handing over of the powers of the guardians to the local councils, which only arose when the vestry endeavoured to give employment to the unemployed. There was a difficulty in discriminating between the really genuine unemployed person and the loafer, and it was only by co-operation with the guardians that a movement of this kind could work satisfactorily. This proposal was to meet a specific case, and there was no desire to take over any powers out of the hands of the guardians and transfer them to the council, which was a matter upon which there would be a great difference of opinion on both sides of the House.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he desired now to take the judgment of the Committee upon the question.
  MR COURTNEYthought that the object desired by the honourable Gentleman opposite was one of considerable value, and he thought it might be met by enabling a committee of the council to be appointed with power to add to their number. Although he did not think it was advisable to bring in outside members, he thought that in this particular case it might be appropriate to
  give the council power to co-opt two or three of the best known members of the board of guardians in that particular district.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 94; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 144.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  Palmer, SirCharles M. (Durham

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hy.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Austin, Sir. John (Yorkshire)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hedderwick. Thos. Charles H.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Baker, Sir John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northum.)

  Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

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

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Caldwell James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  Cameron, Sir Cnavies (Glasgow

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kay-Shuttle w'th,Rt.Hn. Sir U.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Colville, John

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Crombie, John William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land

  Thomas,David Alfd. (Merthyr)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Daly, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Ure, Alexander

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davitt, Michael

  M acaleese, Daniel

  Warner, Thomas. CourtenayT.

  Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

  M. Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dillon, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Leod, John

  Williams JohnCarvell (Notts.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Woodall, William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fitzmauriee, Lord Edmond

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  O'Connor, James(Wieklow, W.

  Mr. Piekersgill and Mr. James Stuart.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Gold Charles

  Oldroyd, Mark

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Blakiston-Honston, John

  Curzon, Viscount

  Aird, John

  Boalnois, Edmund

  Dalbiae, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Denny, Colonel

  Arnold, Alfred

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dickson-Povnder, Sir John P.

  Ascroft, Robert

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, Rt. Hn.J. A. (Glasg'w

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

  Carlile, William Walter

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Baillie, James E.B.(Inverness)

  Cecil, Evelyn (He tford, East)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Folkestone, Viscount

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fry, Lewis

  Bartley, George C.T. [Hunts

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Giles, Charles Tyirell

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

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Beresford, Lorn Charles

  Cox, Irwin Edw. B. (Harrow)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bethell, Commander

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Biddulph, Michael

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Bill, Charles

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

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

  Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Stavelev (Staffs,

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Stanley, Henry M.

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Milton, Viscount

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

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

  Howell, William Tudor

  Morrison, Walter

  Thorburn, Walter

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptf'rd

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Jessel, Captain Herbt. Merton

  Newark, Viscount

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Webster, Sir R. E. (IsleofWight

  Kimber, Henry

  Percy, Earl

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Duming-(Corn

  Purvis, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Williams, JosephPowell-(Birm

  Leighton, Stanley

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wodehouse, Rt Hon E.R.(Bath

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham, George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wyville, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Amendment proposed, in page 6, after line 30, to add
  "Section 57 of the Local Government Act' 1894, which relates to joint committees, shall apply to borough councils as if they were district councils."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LOUGHsaid that they had not yet received any explanation of these words.
  MR. PICKERSGILLcontended that, his Amendment having been defeated, the proposal now made by the Government was out of order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is a substantial difference between the two motions, and this proposal is quite in order.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10:—
  An Amendment made.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid that on behalf of the honourable Member for Westminster, who was not in
  616
  his place, he desired to move the Amendment on the Paper. This was not a general rate, and he thought it would be better to call it the borough rate, for the term "general" was too restricted. Upon those grounds he moved this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 10, page 6, line 33,—
  "To leave out 'the general,' and insert 'a rate to be called the borough.'"—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'the general' stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my honourable and learned friend has observed, this is simply a verbal Amendment, but I think the words of the Bill are more accurate than the words proposed in the Amendment, because the rate referred to is really not a borough rate, and therefore the word "general" is more accurate.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved to omit from Sub-Section 1, in line 35, the following words:—
  "But shall make provision for protecting the interests of the occupiers of any heredita-

  617
  ment which is exempt from any rate or liable to he assessed thereto at a less amount than the occupiers of other hereditaments."
  He thought that this was a very large power to give to those who might be responsible under this Act. There were a great many anomalies in London at present with regard to rating, and surely the opportunity afforded by this Bill was a good opportunity to remedy them by Act of Parliament.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 35—
  "To leave out the words from the word 'rate,' to the end of sub-section 1."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'but shall make provision for protecting the interests of' stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The honourable Gentleman expresses some doubt as to the intention of the four lines which he desires to omit. Surely that intention is quite clear. There are certain kinds of property which, for one reason or another, are exempted and founded upon statute with regard to part of the rates. We do not provide by this clause that those exemptions shall last in perpetuity, but we do provide in those four lines to which the honourable Gentleman objects that the interested occupier of those hereditaments shall be protected. I cannot imagine that the honourable Member seriously desires that those interests should not be protected, or that the privileges secured to these persons by Act of Parliament should be taken away by a single stroke of the pen without compensation.
  MR. STUARTcontended that the words as they stood did not make sense, and were not grammar. They read as a compound of two original ideas, one of which was that the occupiers of any heriditament should be exempted, and the other that the owner of the hereditament itself should be assessed lower than other occupiers. There were two broad distinctions to he considered in connection with the rating of London. First of all there were in London certain occupiers who had been allowed to deduct the sewers rate from the rent, and he supposed they wanted to protect those occupiers. That was one protection which was needed. The occupier was
  618
  called upon for his rate, and he found he had to pay so much, and he had a statutory right to deduct a portion of that amount from the owner. Then they came to certain hereditaments, which when the assessment authority came to assess them, were to be assessed differently to the others, for it was provided that certain specified hereditaments were to continue to be exempt from the ordinary process of assessment, and consequently there were two interests to protect. It seemed to him that this matter was confused in the four lines before them, and if they meant the protection of the statutory right of the occupier to deduct a certain part of the rate from the owner, he thought that ought to be continued, but if it meant that certain specified hereditaments were to continue to be exempted from the ordinary process of assessment, then he thought they ought to be discontinued. He admitted that this did not affect a very large interest in London. There were some curious old Acts of Parliament which exempted certain houses from being assessed in the usual way, and those anomalies had continued under a state of things which had now very largely passed away, and he thought these cases ought to be reconsidered now. It was pretty clear that the sewers rate would under this Bill be thrown upon the occupier, and he would not be allowed to deduct it. There were two sewers rates—one charged by the County Council, and the other charged by the local authority. By a pure inadvertence, in the Act of 1888 the sewers rate levied by the County Council was thrown entirely on the occupier, who was thus deprived of his right to deduct it from the owner. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had admitted this inadvertence, and he had promised to introduce a Bill to rectify that mistake. But owing to circumstances of greater moment they had not yet got that Bill, and unless they took care at the present stage, this Act would take away the same right with respect to the local sewers rate, which sometimes amounted to as much as 6d. in the £, which the occupier had at present the right to deduct very often by agreement with his landlord. In many long tenancies the occupier had this right, but it would be taken away from him by this proposal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the honourable Member explain how he gets this right of deduction?
  MR. STUARTpointed out that Sub-section 2 provided that—
  "After the appointed day the general rate and the poor rate shall be levied together as one rate, which shall be termed the general rate."
  He thought they would find that the sewers rate levied as it was now would be different under the Bill, and the occupier would be deprived of his right of deduction. He did not know whether the four lines referred to the retention of the statutable rights of certain existing occupiers to deduct certain rates, or whether they applied to the relief of certain hereditaments from special methods of assessment.
  SIR R. B. FINLAYpointed out that there were certain hereditaments which enjoyed total or partial exemption from certain rates, such as the lighting and the sewers rates. It would be very wrong, without providing for compensation, to undo that partial exemption, and the intention of the words alluded to was to preserve the exemption from rates enjoyed by the occupiers of those hereditaments until some fair arrangement was made to give them an equivalent. It did not necessarily imply that those exemptions should continue in perpetuity. He agreed that there should be some uniformity of rating, but that should not be established by inflicting an injustice.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that he understood that, so far as the Bill was concerned, there was no proposal whatever to alter the incidence of rating. It appeared to him that the words which were proposed to be left out were essential to secure that, so far as the incidence of rating was concerned, the Bill should make no change at all.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that some Members of the House did not understand this clause. He understood from the explanation of the Solicitor-General that it might be looked upon only as a temporary exemption.
  SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid that it was not necessarily temporary, for it would
  620
  be very desirable by a fair arrangement that it should be perpetual. The object of the words was to ensure that the exemption should not be done away with without provision being made.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaw no objection to this, but it should be remembered in regard to these exemptions that when these matters were reconsidered it should be taken into account what compensation, if any, was to be paid to these people. The Leader of the House had spoken of them as being statutory exemptions, and therefore it would be very difficult to interfere with them. He understood, however, that in a number of cases they were not statutory, and there ought to be words inserted which would exclude them from the operation of this clause.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he quite agreed that unless injustice was to be done, the words of the sub-section were necessary. They would come within the ambit of the scheme, and it might be. possible to work out a system by which, ultimately, uniformity would be secured.
  THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, Isle of Wight)said that, so far as he knew, with the exception of certain districts, all rating exemptions were statutory.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the honourable Member for Poplar had suggested, and the Government had heartily accepted, his idea that his Amendment might be accepted here, and that on a later clause in the Bill an arrangement might be made for compensation. As the words now stood, he thought they went a great deal further than that. He would point out that hospitals and tithes in the City were exempt from rating, while outside of London they were not exempted. That was one of the grievances which those outside London interested in tithes complained of. They ought to take care to make an equal system in this clause, and if it was found to press hardly upon any particular person, let them introduce words into Clause 15 to provide compensation for anybody who was aggrieved. The object of his Amendment was that those exemptions and irregularities should be swept away, and if this clause was passed in its present form, such exemptions might continue for ever.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Leader of the House had stated that all these exemptions rested upon statute, and the Attorney-General had just stated that in many districts the exemptions were not statutory.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he stated they were statutory except in certain areas.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that there were a very considerable number of these areas outside London in which these exemptions had been put an end to, and the question was whether this opportunity should not be taken to put an end to them in London also.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid the words proposed to be omitted referred to different rates, and the question whether A had a right to deduct anything from B was not raised, and might be dealt with hereafter. The clause provided for all the expenses of the borough council being levied out of the general rate. Therefore it was necessary to put in something so that the existing rights would be preserved. If certain Acts required to be repealed, that should be done specifically, for this Bill had been brought in with the idea of not disturbing those rights.
  MR. STUARTsaid he was extremely desirous of bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. When they had secured a uniform rate, surely what they wanted to do, instead of putting in those four lines, was to state that all exemptions of a partial kind should hereafter cease, and then they could proceed to protect the interests of the present occupiers. It seemed to him that this clause was in the wrong place, and the word "occupier" was contrasted with "hereditament," and he did not know which was the real word. Really, they wanted to know what the sentence meant. Assuming that it meant the protection of the interests of the owners and occupiers of certain exempted hereditaments, the exemption in those
  cases ought to cease, and along with it the protection of those concerned ought to take place.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the point raised by his honourable friend behind him was worthy of the consideration of the Government. The Government agreed that these exemptions should be extinguished, and that where they were extinguished there should be compensation. He suggested to the right honourable Gentleman the introduction of some such words as these:—
  "Shall make provision for extinguishing the interests of the occupier, giving compensation where it, is desirable."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite agree that some alteration in the wording is necessary, as pointed out by the honourable Member for Hoxton, for it is not right to make "occupiers" balance "hereditaments," and we must make some verbal alteration. The honourable Gentleman does not differ from the Government in this respect, for he thinks that it should be made obligatory. He suggested that they might meet the object in view by making the clause read—
  "But shall make provision for protecting the interests of the owners and occupiers of any hereditament which is exempt from any rate or liable to be assessed thereto at a less amount than other hereditaments."
  That, I am aware, does not fully carry out the object of my honourable friend, but the difference is not very great, and I hope he will not require a Division.
  MR. LOUGHthought he might be allowed to say that a hint in the direction of extinguishing these anomalies ought to be included. He did not wish to draw a hard-and-fast line, and he admitted that there might be some cases where extinction would press very hardly upon the occupier. The general impression was in favour of establishing a uniform system.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 114—(Division List No. 145.)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Goldsworthy, Major General

  Murra, Charles J. (Coventry

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Newark, Viscount

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St. George's

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Biddulph, Michael

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Bill, Charles

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pender, Sir James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gunter, Colonel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon LordGeorge

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

  Bowles. T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Purvis, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pym, C. Guy

  Builard, Sir Harry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rankin, Sir James

  Campbell, Rt, Hn. J. A. (Glasg'w

  Helder, Augustus

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Carlile, William Walter

  Henderson, Alexander

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, RobertTrotter

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Ch. Thomson

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

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chamberlain, J, Austen (Worc'r

  Houstn, R. P.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jollitte, Hon. H. George

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Stanby, Lord (Lanes.)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. B. (Harrow)

  Knowles, Lees

  Sturt, Hon Humphry Napier

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Leighton, Stanley

  Thorburn, Walter

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akeis-

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Win. Hart

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Webster, Sir R. E. (1. of Wight

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Banuatyne

  Malcolm, Ian

  Williams Joseph Powell-(Birm.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John

  Wyndham, George

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Milton, Viscount

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Forster, Henry William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Fry, Lewis

  Monk, Charles James

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Garfit, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sir William Walrond and

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

  Morrison, Walter

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Billson, Alfred

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ambrose, Robert

  Birrell, Augustine

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hry.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Colville, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Burt, Thomas

  Crombie, John William

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Daly, James

  Baker, Sir John

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed was to prevent a repetition of the great injustice which was done under the Act of 1888, the effect of which, by incorporating the metropolitan sewers rate in the county rate, was to sweep away the exemption which occupiers had from the sewers rate, and to throw the burden of the rate upon them. The effect of the present Bill would be the same with regard to the local sewers rates, and therefore he had drafted this Amendment to prevent it.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 6, line 38, at end, to insert 'and shall also provide, that as between landlord and tenant every tenant who, if this Act had not been passed, would have been entitled to deduct against or to be repaid by his landlord any sum paid by such tenant on account of the sewers rate, shall in like manner be entitled to deduct against or to be repaid by his landlord such portion of the general rate as represents the sewers rate.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERpointed out that even if he agreed with the Amendment this was not the proper place for it to be introduced. It was obvious if what was desired by the honourable Gentleman who moved it was
  626
  to be done it would have to be done by some clause. The insertion of the words suggested would not have the desired effect. If the honourable Member desired to carry the matter further he would have to bring in a new clause. The Amendment could not be accepted.
  MR. STUARTasked whether the Government would not see that the same thing did not occur under this Bill as occurred with regard to the metropolitan sewers rate. The supporters of the Amendment would be quite satisfied if a clause was introduced to protect the occupiers. Under the Act of 1888 the metropolitan sewers rate had been merged in the county rate, with the result that it was held to be all one rate, and therefore no deductions could be allowed. That would happen again under this Bill if care was not taken to prevent it. The occupiers ought in his opinion to be protected, and if the words suggested by the Amendment gave no adequate protection the Amendment might be withdrawn, but if it were he thought the Attorney-General ought to undertake to bring in a clause which would have the effect which it was desired to attain by the Amendment.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I have endeavoured to indicate that this is what

  627
  must be done; but the first sub-section is not the place to introduce it. I shall be glad to look into the matter and see what can be done, but it must be done in Sub-section 2.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he understood from his previous remarks that the honourable and learned Gentleman was against the Amendment, but if he admitted the point which had been put to him, then he(Mr. Pickersgill) would postpone the matter. If, on the other hand, there was any substantial difference of opinion, the question ought to be fought out now. The effect of the clause would be to merge the sewers rate into the general rate, and the burden would be put upon the tenants, who certainly ought to be protected against any such thing If there was any such difference of opinion between the honourable and learned Gentleman and himself, he should have to take the opinion of the Committee on the question. If there was not, then he should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEthought that the only difference which existed was as to where the Amendment ought to come in. He suggested that any question on which a substantial difference of opinion existed might be met by enacting, if it were not enacted already, that if there were a sewers rate it should be properly defined, and deduction should be allowed. The Poor Rate included, for instance, many other rates besides the Poor Rate, with regard to which there were no exemptions at present, but if deductions already existed the Amendment might be accepted in a modified form.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERbelieved that there was already some statutory definition of the rates, but he maintained that whatever was done in this matter ought to be done on Sub-section 2 of the Bill, which provided that all the rates should be merged into one rate. His honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General had, however, suggested to him that it would be possible to add some words at the end of Sub-section 2 which would protect both landlord and tenant.
  MR. ASQUITH: I agree with the right honourable and learned
  628
  Gentleman the Attorney-General. This is a matter of considerable importance, and there is obviously a substantial grievance. The tenant at present has a statutory right, except where he has bartered it away, to make this particular deduction with regard to the sewers rate. That rate is now going to be consolidated into a general rate, and it would be a great injustice if the, tenant's right of deduction with regard to the sewers rate should be annihilated.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The matter is one which may require consideration between this and the Report stage; but the view we take at present is that the objection might be met by the adding of some such words as "that this shall not affect any right between landlord and tenant as to the deduction of any rate." That expresses the intentions of the honourable Gentleman. The only question is whether those words are the best that can be found.
  MR. STUARTsaid that all that was wanted was an assurance that the statutory right now vesting in the occupier should not cease to exist, which was only justice. It would have been impossible to conceive that such a difficulty could have arisen had it not occurred under the Act of 1888. A scheme might possibly be devised by which a fixed sum should be deducted from the general rate, in the future, as representing the sewers rate. It might be difficult to do, but it was not impossible to make such an arrangement. He pointed out that with regard to the previous Act the President of the Board of Trade was of opinion that a small Bill ought to have beeh brought in to set the matter right. He would rather the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would not commit himself to any words at present; he would much prefer that he would undertake to deal with the matter without doing so; besides which, he very much doubted whether the words suggested would cover the matter. What was required was that he would deal with the matter in some such way as was suggested by the Amendment as soon as he had satisfied himself as to what was the true position.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then, perhaps, we had better leave this question until we

  629
  come to Sub-section 2. We are all agreed as to the object of the Amendment, and before we get to the end of Sub-section 2 the matter shall be considered.
  MR. PICKERSGILLexpressed his willingness to postpone the matter until the end of Sub-section 2, but he had grave doubts as to whether the words suggested by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would meet the case. It did not seem to him that they did.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. CRIPPS MR. CRIPPS moved to amend the third section of the clause, which is as follows—
  "Where a borough comprises more than one parish, the amount to be raised to meet the expenses of the borough council or other sums payable as part of their expenses shall be divided between the parishes in proportion to their rateable value."
  In discussing questions of valuation and assessment, it was important to make the Bill as simple and uniform as possible. The object of his Amendment was to introduce the borough itself in place of the parish. The advantage of that arrangement would appear by the reading into the rating clause the Amendments of which he had given notice. Under the proposal in the Bill there would be difficulty in the collection and levying of rates and appointment of overseers, but under his plan there would be the borough unit for the valuation and assessment and the council appointing the overseers. He did not think anyone would doubt that if a scheme of that kind was carried out it would be an immense improvement on the proposals in the Bill. In dealing with valuation and assessment the Government should see that they were absolutely fair for all purposes, both local and imperial. Everyone was aware that at the present time, according to the Valuation Act of 1869, the metropolis was far in advance of any other part of the country, because there was in the metropolis one basis of assessment, and the report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation was in favour of bringing the country up to the metropolitan level. Nor had any difficulty arisen in regard to unions which in London, as elsewhere, dealt with self-governing and
  630
  overlapping areas, when once a fair basis was established. All he wanted was to have the best possible machinery for valuation and assessment in the simplest possible way. He begged to move to omit the words "where a borough comprises more than one parish.
  Amendment proposed—
  In page 7, line 3, to leave out the words "Where a borough comprises more than one parish.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of clause."
  SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid his hon. and learned friend would to a great extent carry the Committee with him as to the desirability of as far as possible getting rid of the complications caused by division in the parishes, but in its present form the Amendment would introduce great confusion in the work of Local Government. It could not, therefore, be accepted. If they were going to have a rated area in all the boroughs coincident with their boundaries they must so re-arrange their unions that they did not overlap out of one borough into another. But where there were four boroughs, comprising, say, four parishes with three in one union, and one in another union, they must retain the parish as the rating unit when they had to get contributions from that parish as a portion of another union. If they had the borough as the rating unit then they had not the materials for dealing with the contributions to be made to the Union of which one of the parishes in the borough formed part. But there were other difficulties. Under the provisions of the Equalisation of Rates Act, distribution of the money between the parishes was made according to their population, and the Agricultural Rating Act,1896, dealt with the distribution of the amounts where several parishes were under one spending authority, between parishes according to assessable value, and so a conflict would arise between the machinery of these sections, because, as Amended, the third section would read—
  "The amount to be raised, to meet the expenses charged on the county rate, or other sums payable, shall be divided between the boroughs in proportion to their rateable value."
  For these reasons he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. STUARTsaid he agreed that the subject was an extremely difficult one to deal with. He had had the pleasure of sitting on a Commission relating to the subject, and he would venture to say that the first Report of that Commission was one that deserved the most serious attention of the House. He also agreed that London was, in the matter of assessment, very considerably in front of the rest of the kingdom. So far as the circumstances allowed, the Commission agreed that London should be dealt with by the same principle that they desired to apply to the rest of the kingdom. But while he agreed with the hon. and learned Member in his desire that the parish should not be the unit concerned in the arrangements under this Bill, he did not think that he accomplished this purpose by the Amendment proposed. As it stood now, Sub-section 3 was a direction as to how the borough rate has to be dealt with within the four walls of the borough, when they came to deal with separate parishes in the borough. Where there were not separate parishes in the borough no difficulty arose, but where there were separate parishes in the borough they had, under Sub-section 3, directed how to deal with those parishes in raising the new borough rate, which included the Poor rate, the County Council rate, the School Board rate, and, in fact, all the rates that were to be charged within the borough. But if the proposal of the hon. and learned Member were adopted, only the County Council rate would be taken, and it would be a direction as to how that rate was to be divided among the different boroughs. That would be an absolute transformation of the sub-section. It might or might not be a reasonable way of dealing with the subject, but it would be matter for a separate section or clause.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid there seemed to be a misapprehension as to the effect of the Amendment. Under his proposal they might still raise what sums they liked from areas they called parish unions, boroughs, or counties; and that power would not be interfered with in the least. It was a mere question of assessment, and the most simple and uniform way in which to make it was the right way. Why should they not take the borough area as the most convenient and simple unit for the purposes of valuation and assessment?
  632
  The second Amendment he had on the paper, that the amount to be raised should go to meet the expenses charged on the county rate, was an arguable point, and on reflection, he thought there were difficulties with regard to that. But if the words" where a borough comprises more than one parish, "were got rid of, the sub-section for the purpose for which it was inserted in the Bill went. He proposed to confine himself entirely to that, in order that the borough area should be taken as the proper area for valuation and assessment purposes, and that the borough council should appoint their overseers, or be the overseers themselves.
  SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid his hon. and learned friend instead of proposing the Amendment he did a quarter of an hour ago, was now proposing quite a different Amendment—namely, the omission of the third sub-section. He entirely objected to this new proposal, as he had done to the other, and for this reason, that they must under existing circumstances, have the parish as a unit for some purposes. They could not dispense with that. They could not make every borough one parish, much as for other reasons they should like to do it, until the machinery of the poor law was simplified, so that unions would not overlap into different boroughs. As long as they had different parishes in one borough there must be some provision for the manner in which the borough charges were to be distributed over the different parishes. The Amendment now proposed could not but be mischievous in its effects, and the discussion of it was merely a waste of time.
  MR. ASQUITHthought that his hon. and learned friend had led the Committee, with the best motives in the world, into a complete fog. If he had moved to omit the sub-section then they would have known where they were.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he had dealt with the matter in the same way as was done in Bristol and other places, where for the purpose of certain Acts the borough was constituted one parish.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that in order to understand the Amendment they had to look at other Amendments the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed on the paper. He thought that the hon. and

  633
  learned Gentleman's object was to allocate the county rate, but he appeared now to have some other object. They should be employing their time much more profitably by accepting the preliminary words of the sub-section, which indicated a case that must be dealt with, and then proceed to consider what was the best way to deal with it.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid it seemed to him that the assessment should be by the parish area, or the borough area, and that was conveniently raised by his hon. and learned friend by moving the omission of the sub-section. The objection that a borough might extend to two or more poor-law unions, or that a poor-law union might overlap into the borough was a kind of objection that could not be maintained. It could be met without any great difficulty by providing that the borough council should make a separate valuation list for each ward of the poor-law area, on which the poor-law guardians could easily raise the necessary amount by precept. Very serious objection could be taken to the proposal to have the assessment done by the parish, and not by the borough area. Of course, they knew this Bill did not provide for a uniform rate, but he thought the Committee would admit that whatever view might prevail on that subject, it was inexpedient to have a variety of rates that did not depend on any principle. For instance, in the case of Westminster, which would contain five parishes, if the proposal of Sub-section 2 was carried out there would be five rating authorities and five different rates, and five different contributions.
  MR. STUARTadvised his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his Amendment. He could then move to omit Sub-section 3, in order to substitute—
  "That each borough should constitute a parish for the making and collection of rates."
  Then they could have a further Amendment moved for the distribution of the central rates, such as the hon. and learned Member proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Amendment would not decide the question raised. He very earnestly suggested to
  634
  the Committee to pass from this Amendment as soon as possible, and come to the important problems which the Committee had to decide. They ought to have a question put from the Chair on which they could vote "Aye" or "No."
  MR. CRIPPSsaid this was an extremely important matter. The way in which he moved his Amendment was, in his opinion, the most convenient form, and this was the most convenient stage of the Bill at which to decide whether they were to have the borough or parish as the unit. He was, however, quite willing to withdraw his Amendment, and substitute for it the omission of sub-Section 3.
  MR. COURTNEYwas very loth to interfere on this question, for he was not quite sure if he were a perfect master of it; but he doubted whether the suggestion made was the best way out of the difficulty. The proper plan would be to withdraw the Amendment and leave Sub-section 3 untouched, and then to move to insert before the sub-section another sub-section which would deal with the simple question of the borough being made the assessment unit.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid the question of assessment had not yet arisen. The clause merely dealt with the division of the amount raised by the county council. They must have assessment by parishes, for different accounts had to dealt with.
  MR. CRIPPSbegged leave to withdraw the Amendment in order to move afterwards the omission of Sub-section 3.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Page 7, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (3.)—(Mr. Cripps.)
  Question put—
  "That the words 'where a borough comprises more than one parish' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 129.—(Division List No. 146.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.

  Ascroft, Robert

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

  Aird, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. GrldW. (Leeds

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Baillie, James E.B (Inverness)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Arnold, Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Barry, RtHn AH Smith-(Hunts

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Goldsworthy, Major General

  Murra, Charles J. (Coventry

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Newark, Viscount

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St. George's

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Biddulph, Michael

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Bill, Charles

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pender, Sir James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gunter, Colonel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon LordGeorge

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

  Bowles. T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Purvis, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pym, C. Guy

  Builard, Sir Harry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rankin, Sir James

  Campbell, Rt, Hn. J. A. (Glasg'w

  Helder, Augustus

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Carlile, William Walter

  Henderson, Alexander

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, RobertTrotter

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Ch. Thomson

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

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chamberlain, J, Austen (Worc'r

  Houstn, R. P.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jollitte, Hon. H. George

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Stanby, Lord (Lanes.)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. B. (Harrow)

  Knowles, Lees

  Sturt, Hon Humphry Napier

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

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

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Leighton, Stanley

  Thorburn, Walter

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akeis-

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Win. Hart

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Webster, Sir R. E. (1. of Wight

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Banuatyne

  Malcolm, Ian

  Williams Joseph Powell-(Birm.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John

  Wyndham, George

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Milton, Viscount

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Forster, Henry William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Fry, Lewis

  Monk, Charles James

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Garfit, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sir William Walrond and

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

  Morrison, Walter

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Billson, Alfred

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ambrose, Robert

  Birrell, Augustine

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hry.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Colville, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Burt, Thomas

  Crombie, John William

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Daly, James

  Baker, Sir John

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Davitt, Michael

  Lambert, George

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leng, Sir John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Cartan, Michael

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Steadman, William Charles

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  M'Leod, John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Hbrt. John

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorg. E.)

  Gold, Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Ure, Alexander

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Nassey, Thomas Willans

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T.

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

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Palmer, Sir Charies M. (Durham

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wilson, John (Covan)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pease, Alfred F. (Cleveland)

  Woodall, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Mr. Lough and Mr. James Stuart.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Price, Robert John

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Monk, Charles James

  Aird, John

  Finch, George H.

  Moon. Edward Robert Pacy

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ascroft, Robert

  Flower, Ernest

  Morrison, Walter

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzBoy

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fry, Lewis

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Garfit, William

  Newark, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Baldwin, Alfred

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

  Orr-Ewine, Charles Lindsay

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

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Penn, John

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Percy, Earl

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Pilkington, Richard

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants

  Goschen, Rt. Hn G. J. (StGeorge's

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin

  Bethell, Commander

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Purvis, Robert

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gunter, Colonel

  Pym, C. Guy

  Biddulph, Michael

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Bill, Charles

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

  Bond, Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Round, James

  Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex

  Henderson, Alexander

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Hermon-Hodge, Rohert Trotter

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Saunderson,Rt. Hn. Col. Ed. J.

  Ballard, Sir Henry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Butcher, John George

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Glasg'w

  Houston, R. P.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

  Howell, William Tudor

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Spencer, Ernest

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Strauss, Arthur

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Clarke, Sir Edward(Plymouth)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H.

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Knowles, Lees

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Thorburn, Walter

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Leighton, Stanley

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, A. (Cameron (Glasgow

  Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

  Webster. R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Webster, Sir R.E. (Isle of Wight

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vornon-

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Currie, Sir Donald

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Williams. Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macdona, John cumming

  Williams. Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Maclure, Sir John William

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

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

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Doughty, George

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Wyndham, George

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas J.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Elhott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Milton, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

  636

  637

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Grey, Sir Eilward (Berwick)

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Baker, Sir John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Billson, Alfred

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Birrell, Augustine

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Burns, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D Gibson-

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfar)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lamie, Lieut.-General

  Spicer, Albert

  Clark. Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Steadman, William Charles

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Colville, John

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  MacAleese, Daniel

  Ure, Alexander

  Daly, James

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wallace Robert (Edinburgh)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wallace Robert (Perth)

  Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Leod, John

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Malcolm, lan

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton

  Morgan J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morley, Rt.Hn. John (Montrose

  Wilson, John (Goran)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Woodall, William

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goldard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Mr. Cripps and Mr. James

  Gold, Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stuart.

  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that under the present system, although certain rates were nominally equal throughout London, —for instance, the county rate and the education rate—as a matter of fact, owing to the loss entailed by collection, they worked out very unequally even in neighbouring parishes. He was anxious to see the loss to which he referred fall on the whole borough, and not on the separate parishes. He moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 5, after the word 'expenses,' to insert the words 'including the amount of the estimated cost of and loss in callection of the same."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he understood the hon. Member to wish that the
  638
  inequality which at present existed in different parishes should be removed, and that the cost of collection should be equalised by being thrown over the whole borough. He would suggest that such a proposal, although there was much to be said in its favour, should not be adopted at this period. They were dealing with boroughs which comprised several parishes. As the law at present stood the amount to be raised from each parish might be swollen by a certain amount to cover the cost of collection, and he did not think they ought to seize this occasion for making a change of the sort proposed in the Amendment, as it would alter the whole incidence of the charge. Their desire was now to simplify the machinery.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that most of his friends behind him thought

  639
  the Amendment to be a practical and just one. He was glad to hear from the Solicitor-General that there was much to be said for making these charges metropolitan charges, and when they put down that Amendment they certainly did hope the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to accept it. If they came to the cases of individual parishes, they would find that in consequence of the different modes in which compound rates were taken and the different ways in which rebates were allowed, differences existed which ought not to prevail. In the case of Poplar he found the difference amounted roughly to about 3d. in the pound; and when they had three parishes comprising one borough he did not think that there ought to be any difference made with regard to the cost of collection, seeing that it arose from the way in which property was assessed.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he should like to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill proposed that where a borough consisted of several parishes the same persons should be appointed to act as overseers for all the parishes. Surely, then, this was the proper place for the Amendment.
  MR. STUARTsaid he regarded this as an extremely important Amendment. If they were going to constitute boroughs which should combine a variety of parishes, some poor and some rich, they ought certainly to do away with this anomaly. It was the case with London parishes that in proportion to their poverty the leakages were great; the richer the parish the smaller the leakage. He did not know whether the Solicitor-General recognised the fact that the leakages varied from about a ½d. rate to a 1s. 4d. rate. He did not think his hon. friend's Amendment went far enough: he preferred the words of his own Amendment—that "they shall be levied at an equal rate in the pound over the whole borough." He did not think that the Amendment of his hon. friend would cover the case of loss from empty houses, which certainly did not come into the cost of collection. He hoped the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment; suitable words could be framed later on. What they wanted to have was a uniform rate for the whole borough, and they did not want the wealthier portion of a
  640
  borough to turn its back on the poorer portion. Why should the poorer part of a parish be punished by the imposition of a heavier rate in perpetuity? As he had pointed out, the variation was very considerable, and he knew of contiguous parishes in which the difference was as much as 9d. Personally he was entirely in favour of making this a metropolitan charge, but if they could not do that, let them at least make it a borough charge. This was one of the conditions of poorer life which made poverty its own punishment. Very much of the difference arose in the case of tenement dwellings, where the owner, in consideration of paying the rates, was allowed a certain amount off. This was found to be convenient to all parties, but as from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. was frequently allowed, it constituted an enormous addition to the cost of collection in the poor districts. He urgently pressed on the Government the consideration of this Amendment, which he submitted was a fundamental one as regarded the question of rating.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government are far from denying that there may be a hardship in the poorer districts, arising from the fact that there is a leakage in the rate collected. This hardship, which varies in different localities, can only be dealt with by some scheme of equalisation of rates either in respect of the whole metropolis or as regards the subordinate areas of the metropolis. I strongly deprecate any attempt to deal with this question in the Bill. It seems, at all events on the face of it, it would be equitable to throw the loss on the whole of the metropolis where the County Council charge is concerned, to throw the whole of the loss on the borough where the borough charge is concerned, and to throw the whole of the loss on the union, where the union is concerned; but the plan of the hon. Gentleman to leave out the union and the County Conncil and to throw the whole of the loss on the borough does not appear to me to be a logical or fair way of dealing with the problem.
  MR. STUART: The County Council rate would come in.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But it is not equalised over the area of the county council. I would specially point out to

  641
  the hon. Member that under the existing law there is power to make the parish coterminous with the borough, and to modify union boundaries, so as to prevent them overlapping. On the whole, I advise the Committee not to attempt in this Bill any transfer of the charge from one area to another, for that would raise the very difficult and complicated question of equalisation. I think that if I attempted to touch the fringe of this subject in the somewhat illogical, although well meant, method suggested by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, we should only be involving ourselves in a very complex question, which, in this Bill, it would be impossible for us to deal with in a broad and comprehensive spirit.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid that if they had equalisation over the boroughs of the loss with regard to empties, that would be an injustice to the poorer parishes in the borough, for it was well known that there were fewer small than large houses empty. Indeed, the loss on empties in most boroughs, and especially in those containing mixed parishes, arose to a great degree with regard to the larger class of property. Therefore, if the loss were spread over the whole borough, poor and rich would alike have to pay, instead of, as at present, the rich paying the greater portion.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid a great deal of the loss depended on the mode of collection. Islington was a parish which might be considered as very poor, and it certainly got the largest share under the Equalisation of Rates Bill. Yet their losses were, perhaps, smaller than those of any other parish, simply because they had a most efficient system of rate collecting. He held that it was of great importance that the same system should prevail throughout a borough, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid he understood the First Lord of the Treasury, when speaking on the question of the equalisation of the charges incurred for duties administered by the London County Council, to support the principle that those charges should be equalised over the whole county council area. That was precisely what this Amendment proposed, viz.,—that where special duties were cast upon a borough council, the
  642
  cost of performing them should be spread over the whole borough area. As far as the county council rate was concerned, the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted that it should be equalised.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said it was a question which, in my judgment, should not be raised on this Bill. I admitted that there might be good reasons for throwing over the whole county council area any leakage occurring in regard to the county council rate.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid they were now considering the amount to be raised to meet the expenses of the borough councils, and he submitted it was clear that that amount should be equally borne by the whole borough. This was, of course a matter of detail, but it was important for the reason that it applied only to two of the scheduled areas. He supported the Bill on the assumption that these areas were suitable areas for homogeneous boroughs, but if they were to be separated in the matter of rate collection, etc., let them be separated in every way.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the idea of the Bill was to group together a certain number of parishes, taking it for granted that, by so grouping them, districts would be formed which could be better governed than they now were. The right hon. Gentleman had himself agreed to the application of the principle of the Amendment in the matter of the county council rate, yet he would not extend it to the boroughs. Did he not know that there were areas around London where more than one-third of the property consisted of tenement property, and where as much as 25 per cent. discount was allowed to the owner to facilitate the collection of rates? He hoped that in the interests of the poorer districts throughout London the right hon. Gentleman would give way.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he should like to point out that in the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation this year a recommendation was made on exactly the same lines as the Amendment.
  MR. LOUGHsaid there was a very small, but, at the same time, a just principle involved in the Amendment, and he

  643
  hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. It should be remembered that it was for the benefit of the whole borough that the rates were collected. It was in the poorer parishes that the greatest loss occurred in the collection of rates, and Government proposed to continue that loss, thereby
  perpetrating a great injustice. He ventured to think there was no charge which could be more fairly spread over the whole borough.
  Question put—
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 203. (Division List, No. 147.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Price, Robert John

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon.CharlesSeale-

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Baker, Sir John

  Hedderwick,ThomasCharlesH

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Holland, Hn. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Billson, Alfred

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

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burns, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfar)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Spicer, Albert

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

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

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Colville, John

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Crombie, John William

  M'Leod, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Meinil, Sigismuod Ferdinand

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Daly, James

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davies, M'Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Williams, John Carvell(Notts.)

  Davitt, Michael

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham

  Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Lough.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  NOES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Brassey, Albert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Arnold, Alfred

  Butcher, John George

  Curzon, Viscount

  Ascroft, Robert

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

  Dalkeith, Eail of

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Doughty, George

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

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour,Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

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

  Finch, George H.

  Beach, W. W. Bramston(Hants.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bethell, Commander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bond, Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Boustield, William Robert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Fry, Lewis

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Garfit, William

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Gibbs, Hn. AGB (City of London

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Saunderson, Rt.Hon.Col. E. J.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Sidebottom, William (Derby)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F.

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

  Goschen, Rt. Hn G.J.(StGeorge's

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Spencer, Ernest

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Gretton, John

  Milton, Viscount

  Stewart, Sir M J. M'Taggart

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Stone. Sir Benjamin

  Gunter, Colonel

  Monk, Charles James

  Strauss, Arthur

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld George

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Mose, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm thsh.

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thorburn, Walter

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton. A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Henderson. Alexander

  Mount, William George

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray

  Herman-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Houston, R. P.

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Penn, John

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Percy, Earl

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm

  Jessel, CaptainHerbertMerton

  Pilkington, Richard

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Wyndham, George

  Lawrence, SirE.Durning-(Corn

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Young, Commander (BerksE.)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Richardson, SirThos.(Hartlep'l

  Younger, William

  Leighton, Stanley

  Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'nsea

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Sir William Walrond and

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Round, James

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. STUARTsaid that he had an Amendment on the Paper to omit certain words in Sub-section 3 which he did not quite understand. That sub-section provided that—
  "Where a borough comprises more than one parish the amount to be raised to meet the expenses of the borough council or other sums payable as part of these expenses shall be divided between the parishes in proportion to their rateable value."
  Was that meant to include the county rate, the precept from the school board, and other central rates, or not; or was it meant to apply only to the expenses incurred by the county council as such?
  SIR R. B. FINLAYpointed out that the other rates were already provided for by the Acts.
  MR. STUARTunderstood that this clause only applied to the expenses in-
  646
  curred by the county council as such, exclusive of the central cost of expenses in London.
  SIR R. B. FINLAYdid not think that any such provision was wanted, because it was already provided for.
  MR. STUARTsaid he regretted very much that this provision did not cover the whole of the rates, central and otherwise, for he thought they would find themselves in a still greater fog than they were in now. Apart from what might arise from loss of collection, he contended that there was no want of logic in his Amendment, which simply provided that all the inhabitants of the borough should be treated in the same way and on the same basis and pay the same general rate. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 5, to leave out the words from the words 'shall be,' to the end of the subsection, in order to insert the words 'levied at an equal rate in the pound over the whole borough."'—(Mr. James Stuart.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that I have much to add to what I have said before upon this point This question really ought to he considered in connection with the whole subject of leakage, and not in connection with this branch of the subject. I would ask the Committee to resist the very attractive proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, which I am convinced would lead us into difficulties and endless complications, and finally into an arrangement which could not be regarded as satisfactory settlement of this subject.
  MR. LOUGHpointed out that if the only difficulty was in connection with the poor law surely it would be quite easy to arrange a method by which this difficulty could be overcome, and it would be quite easy to carry out the Amendment which his hon. friend proposed. Islington was the largest parish in the Metropolis, and it was now going to be formed into a borough council. If Islington were divided like many other districts so that some of the poor districts would form parishes by themselves, then the loss there would be very great. The reason why the loss there was so little at present was because it was one poor law union and one parish and one borough council, and the loss which arose in poor localities was there spread all over the borough, and that was what they wanted to be the case in the boroughs throughout London.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERthought it was desirable to have an equal rate all over London, which should he defined in the Bill. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent there was the richer district of Regent's Park, and the very poor district of Somers Town, which was probably one of the poorest districts
  in London. If they were going to form other parishes, they should be uniformly rated and assessed, and uniformly managed. Suppose he lived on one side of the street and his rates were 5s. in the pound, and he found that on the other side of the road his richer neighbours in a different ward were rated at 4s. 6d. in the pound, naturally he would consider that he was hardly living in the same borough. He thought this was a question upon which the Government might do something for the uniformity of rating.
  MR. STEADMANsaid he rose for the purpose of obtaining some information from the Government. Under the Schedule Poplar was already scheduled as a borough council. Whitechapel, Mile End, St. George's, and Limohouse, were still left to be scheduled. Assuming that Mile End and Limehouse were scheduled as one borough they would then have two parishes with two Poor Law administrations. In Limehouse the rates were 6s. 4d., and in Mile End 6s. 8d. If they were made into one borough he wished to know would the rates remain the same? Then, again, the Mile End Union believed in granting outdoor relief, and paid £4,000 a-year in that way; on the other hand, Limehouse did not believe in outdoor relief, and the result was that the poor rate was much lower. Were they to understand that under this Clause Limehouse and Mile End would still continue to administer the poor rate in their own way? So far as the equalisation of rates was concerned it was based upon population, and if Limehouse and Mile End were made one borough Mile End would lose under the new borough council system unless the equalisation was going to be administered in accordance with the present state of things.
  MR. McKENNAcontended that if they had different rating authorities they would never get any uniform rating at all.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 149; Noes, 73.—(Division List No.

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Ascroft, Robert

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Arnold, Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir Jn Eldon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Beach, W. W Bramston (Hants.

  Goschen, Rt. Hn GJ (St. George's

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Bethell, Commander

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsey

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Percy, Earl

  Bond, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gunter, Colonel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Pilkington, Richard

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pym, C. Guy

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Helder, Augustus

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Houston, R. P.

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)

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

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Spencer, Ernest

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kimber, Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Thorburn, Walter

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Thornton, Perey M.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Usborne, Thomas

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chath'm

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lowles, John

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Doughty, George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isleof Wight)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Wyndham, George

  Forster, Henry William

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fry, Lewis

  Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Garfit, William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Younger, William

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Morton, Aithur H. A. (Deptford

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Mount, William George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Mr. Austruther.

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb't John

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Baker, Sir John

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bryce, Rt Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Burns, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Spicer, Albert

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Steadman, William Charles

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Colville, John

  Leng, Sir John

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Daly, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Davitt, Michael

  M'Leod John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fenwick, Charles

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Mr. James Stuart and Mr.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Robert Wallace (Perth)

  MR. CRIPPSsaid he thought the Amendment he had now to propose would make the rate quite general, although he did not think that it was a question upon which it would be necessary to divide the Committee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 7, to leave out from beginning, to 'shall,' in line 9, and insert 'Where any rate is required to be levied over a portion only of a borough, such rate.'"—(Mr. Cripps.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of clause."
  SIR R. B. FINLAYthought this was a point upon which opinions might differ, but they preferred the words in the Sub-section, which covered the whole ground, and were a little more precise.
  MR. STUARTasked if he was right in supposing that the object of this Amendment was to enable the overseers appointed by the borough council to act in the various parishes under all circumstances?
  MR. CRIPPSreplied that the hon. Member for Hoxton was quite right in assuming that that was the motive of his Amendment. He understood from the learned Solicitor-General's reply that all the cases were already covered, and under the circumstances he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11:—
  MR. LOUGH, in moving to omit Sub-section (1), said he wished to substitute a more uniform system for the anomalous system which at present existed. He thought this Amendment would at any rate be a suitable opportunity for the Government to explain what they intended to do with regard to the question of the overseers. Practically, the whole matter was settled in this clause, and the first Sub-section gave the council of each borough the duty and power of appointing overseers. London was almost unanimous that the present system was not the best one to adopt, and that the borough councils themselves should be overseers. The effect of this Sub-section, if adopted,
  652
  would be to establish several bodies of overseers with separate offices and separate staffs.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words 'After the appointed day stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member who has just sat down has made an appeal to the Government to state their views upon this question. We quite agree that the overseers should be under the control of, and should be appointed by, and responsible to, the borough council. We also hold that they should be personally liable for the conduct of their important functions. The Local Government Board has always held this view very strongly, and, in so far as that Department is concerned, they have declined to allow personal responsibility to be merged in corporate responsibility. The advantage of that is quite clear. The duty of overseers is twofold, and with regard to both sets of their functions personal responsibility should be retained. They are responsible for the collection of the rates, and also for the preparation of the lists. So far as the collection of rates is concerned, it certainly seems right that there should be the power of legal remedy against persons responsible for these great financial transactions, involved in which are the personal rights of the individual ratepayer, and by a parity of reasoning it is most important that in the Imperial duty of the preparation of the lists there should be a remedy, not against the corporation, but against individuals, for wrongs done, or which might be done, to other individuals in their capacity as citizens, and as persons who had a right to take part in the direct government of the country. If the duty of collecting the rates and preparing the lists is in any way merged in the corporation, everybody knows that personal responsibility will entirely cease. That is the reason why the Government has not adopted the plan which exists in the case of one or two vestries in London at the present time—namely, the plan of making the vestry, or, in any case, the Board of Guardians, overseers, in their corporate capacity. We entirely agree with hon. Gentlemen who favour this

  653
  Amendment in desiring that the functions and appointments of overseers and the management of their work should be put in the hands of the new borough councils. We do not wish to deprive them of any part of the functions and duties which they may desire to perform. I shall, therefore, be prepared, if it will meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, to make it obligatory that the overseers shall be members of the borough council. If that is done, it is clear that the overseers would practically be a committee of the borough council, personally liable, no doubt, to outside suitors for the performance of their duties, but as regarded the borough council, they will be a committee. I cannot see that that is in any sense derogatory to the borough council. It is well known to the Committee that borough councils in the provinces have only the management of their own police in the sense that there is a committee composed of their members, called the Watch Committee, which is responsible for the police, and for law and order within their area. The fact that there is a statutory committee dealing with such matters is not derogatory to the great provincial borough councils, nor do I see that it would be in any sense derogatory to the new boroughs which are being created if we were in a somewhat similar, though not absolutely identical, fashion to throw the duties of the overseers upon what would be a committee of the members of each council. By that arrangement we shall certainly preserve what the Local Government Board attaches great value to—namely, personal responsibility; and therefore I shall be quite satisfied to have this committee. On the other hand, I should have thought those hon. friends of mine who desire to see the borough councils thrown into closer touch with the work of the overseers would find in the solution I have provided a plan which would meet their wishes. I hope, if it does not give them everything they desire, they will recognise that, at all events, it is a step in the direction of their wishes, and that they will be content to accept the plan I place before them.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was better than the proposal contained in the Bill, because under it it was obligatory for the overseers to become members of the
  654
  borough councils. But, nevertheless, the overseers would still have everything in their hands; the power would not pass into the hands of the whole borough councils, but into a committee. He himself thought it would have been much better if the previous proposal had been accepted, because in 1894 the Local Government Board were given the power to transfer the powers of overseers to the vestries, and, as a result, at the present time it was in the hands of no less than 15 of the most important vestries in London. So far as he was aware, no difficulty had arisen with regard to the matter, and the only argument adduced against the power of the overseers being given to the new borough councils was that, as they acted in the corporate capacity, it would be difficult for an individual to obtain any remedy from them. That might be so, but at all events he would be able to obtain it through the town clerk, who is responsible, and so far as any action could be brought at all it could be brought against him.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You cannot distrain on the town clerk.
  MR. LOUGH: But you can distrain upon the rates.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought there was no case where an individual bringing an action against the town clerk could not recover. Looking at the fact that these powers were already in the possession of 15 vestries, he did not see that there was any reason for withholding them from the new bodies to be created by the Bill. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter. In his opinion the borough councils certainly ought to be the overseers, and having regard to the excellent manner in which the corporate capacity had worked he should support the Amendment if it went to a Division.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the progress that had been made with the Bill was due to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had laid himself open to consider representations from both sides of the House. In this particular instance he sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have regard to the views which had been expressed, and that

  655
  he would reconsider this point before the Report stage. It was alleged against the proposal that a corporate body could not afford such security as an individual, but in his opinion the security which it could afford was much greater than any which could be given by an individual. Instances had been given in which it was shown that this power in the hands of a corporate body was most advantageous. A corporation could be indicted. He did not see that the matter in question could be in any way compared to a Watch Committee. The Watch Committee was an institution which no doubt worked well, but in this case, as he understood, there was not to be a committee of several members, but one or two persons only were to be responsible. The difficulty, in his opinion, would be to get councils to appoint men who would be personally responsible. All that he desired was that the matter should be reconsidered. This clause was a vital one to those vestries which already possessed the power. If it were allowed to go through in the present form, it would, in his opinion, cause a feeling of intense disappointment in the metropolis.
  CAPTAIN NORTONpointed out that power had been given to transfer these duties to the vestries, and it could not be denied that certain parishes did exercise them with great satisfaction and advantage, and where the duties were not performed by the vestry, four gentlemen, who were not paid, were appointed for the purpose. He thought that when the new boroughs came into existence it would be impossible for the councils to appoint a sufficient number of persons whose knowledge of the borough was such that they could undertake those functions. He certainly thought these duties should be performed by the boroughs themselves, and the responsibility could, if necessary, be fixed on the town clerk. He believed that in a large number of parishes the overseers had been influenced by large local interests, with the result that certain property had been under-rated. The practice was rampant, and for years the public-houses in many parishes had been under-rated to a scandalous degree. The voters' lists were simply copies of the rate book and nothing more, and in certain parts of poor parishes where the property was principally tenement property, where the compounders were supposed to make
  656
  an annual return, either a most imperfect one, or none at all was made, in consequence of which hundreds of voters were disfranchised. Having regard to the important duties which devolved upon the overseers, he thought those functions ought to be performed by the local governing body. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter and place the responsibility for those duties where it ought to be—namely, in the hands of the popularly elected bodies of the districts.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid the difficulty which would have to be faced would be the opposition of those vestries which had undertaken the duties of overseers. In some cases the power went back to 1818, and those who had exercised those powers for many years were not likely to forego them without a struggle. There were, no doubt, many objections to independent overseers. As soon as they were appointed they could do just what they liked for a twelvemonth, and if the vestry or anybody else spoke to them as to the way in which they performed their duties, their reply simply was that they were elected for that period and they would do as they pleased. Nobody could see what they were doing. He did not suggest that they would do anything wrong, but, after all, overseers were only human like other people. If the councils were called upon to perform the duties of the overseers, the chief of which was to make the rate, they would feel a very much higher responsibility than any vestry. They would be responsible for their own part, and for the explanation of the other part. Those vestries which had possessed these powers for many years would be loth to give them up, and it would be a great improvement in administration that these independent borough councils should make the rates and be responsible for them, rather than that half-a-dozen individuals should do so who were absolutely irresponsible. It had been contended that most of the objections to this clause would be met by there being a statutory committee of the council; but in the one case the borough council would be responsible, and in the other the gentlemen forming the committee would be responsible to no one, not even the borough council. They could meet when they liked, and the council could ask them no questions. The duty of the

  657
  borough council was to govern the borough, and they could not do so properly unless they exercised the functions of the overseers of the borough direct.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that if the announcement of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the overseers' clause was to be regarded as the final decision of the Government, it would cause the greatest disappointment to both sides of the House, and also to the public at large. What was the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman now submitted, and which he asked the House to accept in place of the Amendment lower down on the Paper? In the first place the overseers were to be members of a borough council. That was a very small concession; in fact, no concession at all, because in practice overseers were, as a rule, members of the vestry now. Then, in the second place, the overseers were to be a committee of the council, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman also said that they were to be under the control of the council. But if they were to be under the control of the council it was clear that that was altogether inconsistent with personal responsibility on the part of the overseers. It would be impossible to impose upon the overseers a statutory responsibility, and at the same time to place them under the control of the council. They would naturally say if the council passed their resolution under which they objected, "It is impossible for us to accept your resolution, because responsibility is placed by law upon our shoulders, and we must, decline therefore, to do as you tell us, lest a worse thing should befall us in incurring the heavier penalties of the law." If personal responsibilities were to be imposed, the overseers could not be in any real sense of the term a committee of the council. The right hon. Gentleman attached too much importance to merging personal responsibility in corporate responsibility, He ventured to think that up to the present time the value of personal responsibility had been very slight. It was notorious that in many cases the overseers discharged their duties in a most inadequate and negligent way. In how many cases had proceedings been taken against overseers? In how many cases had an attempt been made to enforce the responsibility of which so much was
  658
  made by the light hon. Gentleman, and in what percentage of the cases brought had the overseer been held to be liable? He ventured to think that the cases could be numbered almost upon the fingers of one hand. With regard to the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman as to the taking away of the personal responsibility, he pointed out to the Committee that the House did not entertain them. The House contemplated the powers, duties, and liabilities of overseers being transferred to a corporate body. Only a few years ago, by the Local Government Act of 1893–4, Section 33, Parliament enacted as follows—
  "The Local Government Board may, on the application of the council of any municipal borough, make an order conferring upon that council any powers, duties, or liabilities of overseers."
  What was the answer to that? The answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave was that as a matter of fact the Local Government Board had not in a single instance exercised those powers. Very great complaints from all parts of the country had been made against the Local Government Board, and the fact was that the Local Government Board were assuming a power which a mere administrative department ought not to assume. In 1893–94 Parliament clearly contemplated that there were cases in which it would be right to transfer the powers, duties, and liabilities of overseers to a corporate body. The Local Government Board said, "No; there are no cases in which we will transfer those powers." He therefore ventured to say that the Local Government Board were now really flying in the face of that Act of Parliament. He cited this section of the Act as showing that Parliament did not fear what the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself as so much afraid of—namely, the merging of personal responsibility, because Parliament always contemplated that there might be cases in which it might be proper that the personal liability should he merged in a corporate liability. It was apparently suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that Parliament would be helpless in the face of a corporate body which failed to do its duty. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten the writ of mandamus, which would bring the most obstinate body very rapidly to its knees. In fact, he did

  659
  not hesitate to say that a writ of mandamus against a corporate body would-be more rapid in its effect than an action against overseers. But one of the strongest arguments against the Bill as it stood was that there were more than a dozen vestries in London which were already entitled to exercise, and which did exercise, the functions of overseers; and he spoke the more freely upon this point because a parish in Bethnal Green, a part of which he represented, was one of the vestries which was entitled to exercise the duties of overseers. He submitted that the proposals of the Bill ware distinctly retrograde. The vestries which were already entrusted with powers had good right to complain if the powers which they had enjoyed so long, and in the exercise of which they had not, so far as he knew, incurred any censure, were taken away from them. So far as the financial operations were concerned, surely the responsibility of a corporate body was far more effectual and far better security than that of an individual. As to the question of expense, the Bill expressly indicated that it should be the duty of the borough council to provide and maintain the office of the overseer. It must be obvious that the expense of providing and maintaining a separate office for the overseers would be considerably greater than the expense which it now incurred when the duties of overseers were performed as part of, and along with, other duties which the vestry had to perform. On all these grounds he hoped the decision of the Government was not final, and that, yielding to representations from both sides of the House, they would accede to the substance of the Amendment standing lower down in the Paper.
  MR. LOWLESventured to join in the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. If they were to collect and analyse the opinion of the provincial boroughs, which had been so largely quoted in the course of the discussion, they would find they were unanimously against the perpetuation of a system which ought long ago to have been obsolete, and which had been found in practice disadvantageous from every point of view. He held in his hand a letter from the controller and auditor of the Borough of Liverpool, in which he strongly supported the proposal to make
  660
  the important changes suggested by the Amendment. The Town Clerk of Wakefield wrote him in a similar sense, and the whole of the municipal boroughs throughout the country urged the reform in the direction of the Amendment. As had been urged by several speakers, they could quote practice in support of the proposal. No fewer than 13 metropolitan authorities—and those the most important and progressive and best managed of the Local Authorities of London—had for a long time enjoyed, under certain local Acts, the privilege of making the rates directly by the vestry. In the case of Shoreditch, the privilege had been enjoyed for nearly 100 years; and the opportunities he had had for comparison convinced him that the advantage was all on the side of the vestry, which had the powers vested directly in itself. He could easily imagine that if they duplicated offices they doubled expenses. He did not see why they should want to perpetuate an anomaly in place of securing throughout London a very important reform. He ventured to say, as against any sentimental objection, that the practical advantage of the proposed reform was so manifest that it ought to have weight with the Government.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERbegged to associate himself with hon. Members opposite, and many hon. Members on his own side of the House, in making a strenuous appeal to the Government to listen to their suggestions with regard to the question of overseers. The compromise that the Government had suggested was, in effect, that they would allow the Local Government Board to appoint certain overseers, provided those overseers were members of the borough council. Without going back in any way upon what they had laid down in that clause, he suggested to the Government that they might utilise a subsequent clause in the Bill, namely,—Clause 15, Sub-section c, which provided that a Committee of the Privy Council might have powers to exercise the duties which the Local Government Board exercised in the past. It was generally understood that the unanimous desire of all the London boroughs was that they should have the control of the overseer's themselves; and if the Committee of the Privy Council, when they were working out their scheme for the

  661
  future, approached the boroughs, he was perfectly certain that that would be found to be the fact. The Privy Council might very well be left to decide the matter.
  MR. SHARPEsaid his constituents were very strongly in favour of the borough council obtaining the power which was now exercised by the vestry. He must say that he did not regard the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury about the personal responsibility as a fatal objection. It seemed to him that pressure could be brought by mandamus against the corporate body, and would have as much effect as against individuals, and he hoped the Government would see their way to allow the change proposed. Next to that, the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury seemed to open the way for conciliation between those holding opposite opinions, namely, that the councils should appoint overseers from their own bodies. It had been suggested to him that there would be a difficulty as to whether members of the council would be willing to act as overseers. However, if the statutory obligation were thrown upon them, he could not but think that the members of the council would have sufficient local patriotism to rise to the occasion. He thought that if it were provided that the overseers should not be too numerous, the views of hon. Members on both sides might be harmonised, but he trusted that whatever might be done, the selection of overseers would be confined to the council itself.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITHdesired to associate himself with the remarks made on both sides of the House as to this question. He hoped very earnestly that the Government would be ready to reconsider their decision. He hardly liked to say it, but he really did not think the proposal that the Government had made could, in effect, be called much of a concession at all. The committee which the Government proposed to appoint would not report their proceedings to the council, but they were to have the whole management of the duties of overseers in their power, without reference to the council of which they were members. It really seemed to him that they might as well not be members of the council. Reference had been made to the various vestries which already had the power, and he confessed that if the
  662
  Government had brought forward one single instance of fraud in levying rates, or in the preparation of the voters' list, he would have been prepared to take up a different position. But no such case had been brought forward.
  MR. KIMBERsaid he quite concurred in the criticisms which had been made, and agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the object he desired to obtain. He ventured to suggest, however, that a much more simple way of achieving the object which seemed to be desired would be by adopting the phraseology of the Government clause, and making a series of very simple verbal alterations, instead of the long clause which the hon. Member had so carefully prepared.
  MR. MARKSsaid that while there had been quite exceptional unanimity amongst the London Members in favour of the abolition of overseers on the new borough councils, not a single argument had been adduced in support of the retention of overseers as they at present existed. The institution of overseers was an antediluvian office, without honour, without distinction, and almost without utility. There was no duty which the overseers now perform which the new borough councils could not perform equally well, and, perhaps, with greater usefulness. He sincerely hoped that the Government would see their way to make some substantial and useful concession to the body of opinion on both sides of the House. This was not a question which involved a high political principle, but it was a matter of extreme importance to the proper discharge of the duties of the new councils. Both sides of the House were practically unanimous, and the Government would be wise to give way.
  SIR T. G. FARDELLsaid that under an old Act of George IV. the overseers in Paddington had always been members of the vestry, and, having been himself a member of the vestry for 22 years, he could say that it had answered perfectly well. As an illustration that it was an advantage to have overseers in place of a committee he said that two years ago, when there was a wide difference of opinion in regard to the manner in which the list of

  663
  voters had been prepared, the revising barrister had the overseers up before him, and threatened to inflict all sorts of pains and penalties upon them. He believed that when they had important duties to perform, it was not so well to appoint a committee of the council, as to elect two or three to represent the body. He believed what the First Lord of the Treasury had in his mind was expressed in an Amendment by his hon. friend the Member for Bow, that it should be the duty of every borough council to appoint certain numbers of their members to act under the direction and authority of the council in all matters relating to the duties of overseers.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDcould not understand how the Government considered that these duties would be better discharged by overseers than by the borough councils. There were 13 vestries now in London which discharged the duties of overseers, and no one could say that their duties had not been well discharged. The opinion of the Local Government Board must not be allowed to overrule the practically unanimous opinion of those who were interested and took part in local government work, and certainly it ought not to be allowed to interfere with the actual efficient working of this Bill. The Bill was intended to promote simplification, but it would promote further complications. It was intended to reduce the number of subsidiary bodies, but it would, in many districts, increase their number. It was intended to increase the powers and dignity of the borough councils, but the tendency of the Bill was to strip many of the vestries of many of the powers which they at present possessed. He believed the opinion of the Local Government Board on this matter rested on a very shadowy basis. The overseers at present had no appreciation of their duties, and no appreciation of the pains and penalties which might be inflicted on them. In many of the districts the overseers were small shopkeepers, on whom it would be absurd to distrain, and therefore the safeguard to which the Local Government Board attached such value was quite unreal. As a matter of fact, now the duties of the overseers were performed, and would continue to be performed, by the officials of the borough councils. It was clear, therefore, that those officials should have no divided
  664
  loyalty, but that their services should be devoted to the borough council, and not to a separate body.
  MR. COHENsaid that the House was absolutely harmonious, the London Member's were unanimous, and on a matter of London government the voice of London's representatives should be hoard when they asked for an arrangement which had been proved to be economical and in every way advantageous. There were countless reasons which could be given in support of the Amendment, and he had been perplexing his mind what could be the reason for the Government refusing it.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Local Government Board.
  MR. COHEN: Oh! he dismissed the Local Government Board. He did not think the Local Government Board should be heard on a question of local government when it had been shown to be in absolute and diametric conflict to the voice of the representatives of London. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that he desired to have councillors as overseers, not in their corporate capacity, but as individuals who could be held responsible. He did not think there was much in the argument.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that, of course, the overseers would remain exactly as they are, personally responsible. But, as they will all be appointed by the borough council from the members of the borough council, they would, from the point of view of the borough council, be practically a committee of the council.
  MR. COHENthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation, but he still remained perplexed. This was an arrangement which did not give the right hon. gentleman what he wanted, namely, the individual responsibility, while it did not give the representatives of London what they wanted, the corporate responsibility in the management of their affairs. This was no capricious desire on their part. The arrangement had been tried, and proved to be successful. He had a return before him which showed that out of a rateable value of over 25 millions the rates on 15 millions were made and collected

  665
  directly by existing vestries; and that the average in the £ of the rates so collected was 5s. 10¼d., as against an average of 6s. 4½d. in the parishes where the rates were collected by overseer or other bodies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Which are the richest vestries?
  MR. COHENsaid the return did not show that, but those that were the lowest were St. George's-in-the-East, Plumstead, Bermondsey, Camberwell, Mile End, Rotherhithe. His right hon. friend might be assured that the return was made up less according to the wealth of the various parishes than according to the rateable value which assured their income. But he did not press this matter soley on the ground of economy, but because it was almost the unanimous desire of London expressed through its representatives.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid the objections of the Government to the Amendment were rather theoretical than practical, and until it was shown that it was easier to deal with individual overseers than with the different vestries, the objection would remain theoretical. When they imposed public duties on these public bodies, reliance ought to be placed on their public spirit. The Government should give way to the unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the London representatives, as well as those vestries and people who were practically acquainted with local government.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid he wished to add his voice to the chorus of opinion in favour of the Amendment. The local authority of St. Pancras, which returned four supporters of the Government, carried out the duties of overseers by a finance committee, and they did their duty very well. They were told that the finance committee had not personal responsibility. He should like to ask if the overseers were really responsible. In some cases they collected as much as a million sterling of rates, and he ventured to say that, if called upon, they could not pay £500. If the overseers, or overlookers, who had overlooked every duty they had had to perform, were absolutely abolished, the duty could be carried out by thoroughly efficient
  666
  officials. Why should hon. Members pay £100, or £200, every year for registration expenses instead of the work being done by Government officials, as was the case in Scotland, and in some parts of Ireland? He wondered why the Government in this matter did not take into their counsels some of their supporters in the east and south, or even the north, of London.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am bound to say that the unanimity of the London Members, when they are unanimous, is marvellous, as Sheridan observed on a similar occasion. While I have listened to a great number of speeches on both sides of the House, all pointing in the same direction, I confess they do not seem to me to grasp the real point. Remember that London in this respect is not in any sense peculiar. Lists have to be prepared and rates collected in other places besides London. Over the whole of England, municipal and non-municipal, the system of personal responsibility, which is that which I desire to maintain in the Bill, is maintained practically intact. To tell me that London Members are unanimous is not to tell me quite enough. This is not a matter peculiar in London. If we say that in London every borough is to be the authority for the purpose of the collection of rates and the preparation of lists, of course the case is given away for the whole of England.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend who wants that change very naturally cheers the sentiment, but nine-tenths of the members who are listening to me are Members for London constituencies and are not members for England—outside London. This question cannot be decided on a debate confined to London. Hon. Members for London practically desire to settle a controversy in which all England is as much concerned, and as directly concerned, as they are. That, it will be admitted, is a very strong argument for consideration. It is perfectly true that there have been a certain number of private Acts giving to individual bodies the power now desired to be given to all London, but the option has been endorsed by no general Act applying to all cases. The only power at all approaching this which the House of Commons has given

  667
  to any body is the power given by the Act of 1894 to the Local Government Board, and which was a power, not of making local bodies overseers, but only a power of appointing overseers.
  MR. STUARTsaid that by Section 33 of the Act of 1894 local bodies might be made overseers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have got the section, and I read it in a different sense from the hon. Member. I rather think that the Local Government Board also have interpreted it in a different sense. The power thus conferred on the Local Government Board six years ago has never once been used in giving to any body the duty of the overseers. I think that everybody must feel that, taking so great an initiative on a large scale, of making the overseers a corporate body with no personal responsibility, is taking a departure which ought only to be taken after the fullest reflection, after the most careful examination of its effect, both in the country and in London, and after opinion in the country, as well as opinion in London, has been consulted. I cannot consent, at the present stage of the Bill, to accept the opinion which has been so unanimously pressed upon me by my hon. friends. I admit that that unanimity is a fact which the Government cannot ignore. It must, however, be taken into most careful and deliberate consideration, and I am sure the London Members will feel for me that I am not unduly obstinate or unduly wedded to the opinions I have expressed to the House when I say that in view of the general and national bearings, on England, at all events, and the decision which the House of Commons is asked to give to-night, they must give me time between now and the Report stage to consider the opinions expressed. I can promise them that I will give it—with the assistance of such advice as I can obtain from the Local Government Board—the most impartial consideration. In the opinion of the Local Government Board personal responsibility has proved a great check in the past. I shall examine that very carefully; and I am sure if I can show the House that personal responsibility in this matter is a vital and important question over a large portion of the country, it will feel with mo that this change should be made not only for London alone, but for the country at
  668
  large. If I find this is an academic point which may look very well on paper, But which is seldom employed in practice, I shall be very glad to give way. I fully recognise that the proposal is almost the unanimous wish of the London Members, and the Government will consider it without any foregone conclusion. If hon. Members will consent to refer the final decision on this question until Report, it shall receive the fullest and most partial consideration of the Government.
  MR. STUARTsaid he desired to point out that the point had been raised without any party feeling and with practical unanimity. He would not say the House had been unanimous, but London had been unanimous for the reform suggested, and there had not been a voice raised from the rest of the country to protest against it. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if it, were done for London it would decide the question for the rest of the country, but the whole question of overseers was bound up with that of assessment and valuation, and the law for London under the Metropolis Valuation Act and Amending Acts was essentially different from the valuation law of the rest of the country, and had been so for thirty years. He had been a member of the Royal Commission which recommended that it should be extended to the rest of the country, but it had not yet been done, nor was it likely to be done. If the reform were made for London they would only be adding one more change to the many others which existed in the valuation law between London and the provinces. Even if the question were now to be decided for the rest of the country, all the evidence showed that the rest of the country would welcome the decision. They had not had one word in defence of the proposal in the Bill except that it would give personal responsibility, but in all the most important vestries of London, such as Kensington, Paddington, Marylebone, St. George's, Hanover Square, St. James's, Westminster, St. Pancras, and Islington, whose government was sound and successful, they had the arrangement of being themselves the overseers, and the system had been in force for close on a hundred years. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill was intended to give additional power to the vestries, but if the proposal in the Bill were adopted, they would take away from the most im-

  669
  portant and successful vestries a power which practically would counterbalance in its effect many of the powers to be given to them. This was not a party question, as was shown by the names of the vestries he had mentioned, and he echoed the appeal of the hon. Gentleman the member for East Islington for the reform now proposed. The only argument against it was that it might prepare the rest of the country for that reform also. He had shown there was no reason to believe or imagine or expect it would do so, and even if it did the country would welcome it.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid he wished to meet the argument of individual responsibility on the part of the overseers. The responsibility of the overseers would be greatly diminished under the Bill. They could not even draw cheques or pay their own expenses, and the office where they would transact their business would be provided by the borough councils. He did not think that overseers would take office if they were shorn of their powers in such a manner. Why should they disturb the fifteen large vestries who now were overseers themselves, or the desire of the other vestries to have that power? The new overseers shorn of their power would be merely dummies. In his opinion the proper course would be that a committee of the borough council should be responsible as overseers, the difference being that the borough councils could remove the committee at any time, but if they appointed half a dozen men as overseers they would have no control over them, and the only knowledge the ratepayers would have of their existence would be a demand note for the rates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I may interrupt my hon. friend, he will have noticed that the whole of my point from the beginning to the end of the discussion has been to maintain the view which I believe to be the view of the Local Government Board, that personal responsibility must, in some way, be maintained. I do not know whether the Committee would accept my hon. friend's view. Personally I have no objection to it, but I would strongly urge that the question should be deferred.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the Leader of the House stated he could not
  670
  accept the Amendment because it would involve a change of the law for the rest of the country. He did not see why London should be damnified and placed in a worse position than it was before, because of the question of the law affecting the rest of the country. As regarded assessment and rating, London was always,and must be always, different from the rest of the country. Therefore he did nut think that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman should stand, and he advised his hon. friend to take a Division. It was not a party question, and they had the unanimous support of the London Members.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that before the Report stage he would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that provincial opinion was not unanimous in regard to this matter. In matters relating to rating and the right to vote they did not want different authorities, they wanted one well-known authority able to deal with the question.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he had never seen so good a champion for so bad a cause as the right hon. Gentleman. Why had he not left it to the President of the Local Government Board to take on himself to argue for the personal responsibility he advocated? His answer to the right hon. Gentleman was, where was the President of the Local Government Board? He had involved the Leader of the House in a difficulty, and he now asked that he be produced. As he did not see the President of the Local Government Board present, he would give one or two reasons why they should have a decision on the subject now. The Committee had been struck by the practical unanimity of the London Members, and he had in a very compact form the view of his district on the matter, and it was that the powers, duties, and responsibilities of overseers should be transferred to the borough councils. Why did Battersea want to get rid of the overseers? For precisely the same reason as the right hon. Gentleman desired to retain them. They wanted responsibility. They had now a clique of gentlemen who acted as overseers. They were not always the best men of the parish, who were generally men on the Parliamentary and finance committees, and he believed that if the duties of the

  671
  overseers were transferred to those committees, the work would be better done and there would not be that dissatisfaction with the way in which the duties were now discharged. He now came from the general to the particular. The House of Commons dearly loved a precedent, and while the right hon. Gentleman was finding one in one direction, he found another in the opposite direction. In the Local Government Act of 1894 all the powers and duties of overseers of parish councils had been transferred to a committee of these councils, and the churchwardens of every rural parish ceased to be the overseers. If the right hon. Gentleman had ever seen churchwardens and overseers jobbing and mal-administering charities he would not have such sympathy for them, and would exclude them on this clause, and not defer their punishment until the Report stage. If the reform were necessary for ordinary parish councils, how much more necessary was it for districts like Westminster and Battersea. The London overseer's sat in private, never reported, and many of the chief committees had to adopt their warrants and accept their whims and idiosyncrasies. In preparing the list of voters the primary responsibility ought to be fixed on the clerk of the new borough councils, and the duties of the overseers should be discharged by the finance committee. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to defer the consideration of the matter until the Report stage. It would only give the London Members an opportunity of accumulating more arguments. If the question was deferred, and if the President of the Local Government Board were in the House, it would take him two days to reply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should suggest that the discussion be dropped, or that we should divide. I think it will be admitted on all sides that I have done my best to weigh the arguments, and under the circumstances it will be wholly undesirable to press the matter to Division. Parish councils can only appoint overseers, they have no power to act as overseers themselves, and therefore the deliberate intention of Parliament in the matter was certainly, in 1896, not to give these powers. Little can be gained by further prolongation of the debate.
  MR. SHADWELLsaid he entirely supported the line adopted by the Metropolitan members. He, however, asked the hon. Member not to press the matter to a Division after the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter before the Report stage.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to direct the attention of the Committee to the most extraordinary Parliamentary situation they had ever witnessed. No one had risen on either side of the House to support the view which the First Lord of the Treasury wanted to press down the throats of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman asked them to postpone the matter until the Report stage. That appeared on the surface a reasonable request, but the whole point was raised a fortnight ago, and the Solicitor-General then asked them to postpone the matter until Clause 11, and they were told that they should then hear the views of the Government, and now on Clause 11 they were asked to postpone it until the Report stage. He did not think that was a reasonable request. Every point had been argued out, and he thought some decision should be come to. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficient attention to the experience of London, which claimed to be the greatest municipality in the kingdom, and which had as large a population as all the other municipalities put together. The Metropolitan Board of Works invariably sent its precepts to the vestries, but in the Act of 1888 an arrangement was put in at the instigation of the Local Government Board that the precepts should be sent to the overseers. They had had 30 years' experience of the precepts going direct to the vestries, and only 10 years' experience of the precepts going to the overseers direct. The right hon. Gentleman said if the precepts went to these bodies there would not be any question of responsibility. He wished to examine that argument. When the precept of the Metropolitan Board of Works went to the bodies, the Board could, if necessary, collect, but when the precepts went to the overseers and was not collected, there was nothing left but distraint on the furniture of the overseers. Therefore the argument that there was better security in the collection of the rates by the overseers direct was absurd. The right hon. Gentleman now suggested

  673
  a concession which was worse than the clause, and which was unworkable, namely, that certain members of the new council should be appointed overseers. He would give one instance. Wandsworth had five great parishes. How could the suggestion be carried out there? Would there be five committees of two each, one for each of the five parishes, or would there be only one committee of ten? If only one committee, then the system would be unworkable. He acknowledged the fair spirit shown by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and he inquired why was he so obstinate now. The reason was that he had got the President or the Secretary of the Local Government Board near him during the Debate. The Local Government Board was always the devil's advocate when London questions were raised. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to put aside the evil counsels of the Board. If there were to be a Division let it be a Division of London members only, as it was a London question; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman not to vote them down by the mechanical majority of the Government.
  MR. MARKSsaid he accepted the conciliatory proposal which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and he earnestly appealed to hon. Members on the other side not to go to a Division. By so doing they would only be courting an adverse verdict on a matter in respect to which at a later stage they might hope for a satisfactory solution. The undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman had been most uncompromising, and he earnestly hoped there would not be a Division.
  MR. STUARTsaid, that as he saw the President of the Local Government Board present, perhaps he would let the Committee know what was the difficulty which the Board had found in carrying out the system proposed.
  MR. BARTLEYasked if was intended that they should go on amending the clause, or would it be withdrawn temporarily.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend has addressed a very reasonable question, and I will answer it. I think the clause should be passed as it is pro formâ. Everyone who desires the rapid progress of the Bill will accept that,because it is distinctly
  674
  understood that no one is committed by assenting to that course to any line of the clause on the Report stage, and every Member will be as free on the Report stage as if the discussion had never taken place.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid that if hon. Members persisted in fighting the matter to a Division after what the Government had said they would be doing more harm than good. A great many Members who believed in the Amendment would, after the statement of his right hon. friend, feel bound to support the Government. He would therefore ask hon. Members not to press the matter to a Division.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the course proposedby the right hon. Gentleman is hardly an entirely reasonable one, nor a course in accordance with the ordinary practice in Committee of this House. It has been suggested that the clause should be withdrawn, and if the clause is going to be a subject of consideration on the part of the Government, surely the best course is not to express an opinion on the subject at the present stage. If the clause is persisted in, my hon. friends on this side who entertain so strong an opinion on the subject will be obliged to carry the Amendment to a Division. Undoubtedly that Division would not represent the general sense of the House, because a large number of Members on the other side will regard it as merely a formal matter, and they will support the Government, not meaning what they vote for. That is the condition under which such a Division would be taken, and it seems totally new in our practice. It may occur without being declared publicly; but on this occasion you would be going into the Lobby with the public declaration that it all meant nothing whatever. The most regular, proper, and convenient course would be that the right hon. Gentleman, without in any way compromising his position, should withdraw the clause and allow the whole matter to be considered de novo on the Report stage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I only rise now to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee is, to a certain extent, in a difficult position. I think the best course is to pass the clause pro formâ. He thinks the best course is to omit

  675
  the clause altogether, but neither course is without objection. Against mine, it may be urged that the House of Commons has apparently assented, at this stage of the Bill, to the clause as it stands; but if this course is adopted it will appear as if we were dealing with a topic not to be dealt with in the Bill. I therefore still think that the course I suggested is the better one, and I trust hon. Gentlemen will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, seeing that it would not express the general views of the House.
  MR. ASQUITH: I should like just to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of procedure, that if the course he suggests is adopted we should go on amending this clause, because, on the assumption that the clause stand part of the Bill, those Amendments will have to be properly discussed and divided on. If the suggestion of my right hon. friend be adopted, a great deal of time will be saved, and we will have, on the Report stage, the amended proposal of the Government for discussion.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid he believed that the Committee had arrived at a point of agreement, and he would therefore propose to add to Clause 11 the following—
  "After the appointed day a borough council shall appoint a committee of their body, which committee shall discharge the duties and powers of overseers."
  MR. LOUGHsaid if they postponed the clause until the Report stage, it would be assumed that the Committee was not able to deal with the question. He suggested that the matter should be postponed, not till the Report stage, but simply to a later stage.
  MR. COURTNEYasked whether a way out of the difficulty had not been suggested by the hon. Member who had just spoken—namely, not to postpone the matter till the Report stage, but to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee, and then postpone the consideration of the clause to a later stage in the Committee. They would, by that means, get rid of the difficulty in which they now were, and they should reserve the consideration of the clause in Committee.
  SIR. J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he was going to make a similar proposal. He would ask the Government to adjourn the whole Debate on the Bill until after Whitsuntide.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think my hon. friend's suggestion is a very practical one. What has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, however, might be carried out. If the Amendment is withdrawn, I have no objection.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause postponed.
  Clause 12:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 24, to leave out 'rest of the parishes,' and insert 'boroughs.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Qustion proposed—
  "That the words 'rest of the parishes' stand part of the clause."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Clause 12 was originally introduced into the Bill in the hope of arriving at some financial arrangement between the Corporation and the County Council. I understand that the London County Council are not prepared to accept any real financial advantage from the proposed arrangement. The Committee is aware that it has never been the intention of the Government to interfere with the autonomy of the City in any respect, and as there is no chance of the County Council accepting the financial arrangement proposed, I see no ground for pressing this clause further. It was put down in the hope that some agreement would be come to by the high contracting parties; but as they have not been able to agree we must leave the matter where we found it, and let them settle their affairs in their own way. I therefore propose to withdraw the clause.
  MR. STUARTsaid that the County Council had not expressed any opinion on the matter, but if he had been asked what he thought of it his advice to the County Council would be not to accept the financial arrangement with the City. The method of bargaining between two corporations for the practical handing over for pecuniary considerations of the management of certain affairs, which,

  677
  according to the traditions of local government, ought to be in the hands of the central authority, was not a proper step to take. The sum proposed to be paid by the City might be very gravely called into question by the City rate-payers. He ventured to say that no pecuniary consideration ought to allow two corporations to bargain as to what their powers should be. They had in the Bill already a clause under which objection could be taken by the City or the County Council, and that seemed a very reasonable way of dealing with the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause disagreed to.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDproposed in Clause 13, line 35, to leave out—
  "Where the whole of a Poor Law Union is within one borough."
  He said the object of the Amendment was to provide that there should be, if possible, one assessment committee for each borough. The clause provided that where the whole of a Poor Law Union was within one borough the assessment committee should be appointed by the borough council instead of by the board of guardians, and where the borough comprised the whole of two or more unions, there should be only one assessment committee for those unions. The difficulty arising out of overlapping might be met by providing that a borough council should make a separate valuation list for each part of each Poor Law area which came within its boundaries. As the clause at present stood there might be two assessment authorities within a borough, which would surely not be desirable. The principle of the clause, he took it, was that the borough council should appoint their assessment committee. It raised the greater part of the rate, and seemed to be the right body for the purpose. He had no doubt the Government desired to have only one assessment authority in each borough area, and therefore he hoped his Amendment would be accepted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 35, to leave out from the beginning of the Clause, to the word 'the,' in line 36."—(Mr. Lionel Holland.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR R. B. FINLAYhoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment. The appointment of the assessment committee would, in many cases, naturally rest with the guardians, in order that the valuation of the several parishes might be on the same basis. It was now proposed that where the whole of the Poor Law Union was comprised within a borough, the borough council should have the right of appointing the assessment committee. The case was different where the union extended into other boroughs. There the guardians possessed the right to appoint the assessment committee, and he asked the Committee not to dispossess them of that right. He thought they might hope that the result desired by the hon. Member would be attained. There was power under the law, as it existed at present, to re-arrange and group parishes generally, and it was hoped that any discrepancy which might exist between the area of the unions and the boroughs would disappear.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he had a similar Amendment on the Paper to the one moved by the hon. Member for the Bow and Bromley division of the Tower Hamlets. One of the most prominent recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, by whom the question of overlapping was thoroughly considered, was that the assessment committee of a borough should be appointed, not by the guardians, but by the borough council. He asserted, without hesitation, that the right principle was to make the local authority the assessing authority. If the hon. Member pressed his Amendment to a Division he would support him.
  MR. STUARTsaid he thoroughly supported the view taken by the hon. Member who had just spoken. He maintained that they would never do right in this matter until they divorced assessment from the question of the Poor Law. It was a pure entanglement of the whole work of local authorities that they should have anything to do with assessment or rating. They should be clear of that, and devote themselves entirely to Poor Law relief. The Royal Commission, composed of persons of different political views, were absolutely unanimous on this point. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, as, by not accepting it,he would be delaying the

  679
  reforms which the Commission appointed by his own Government had unanimously recommended.
  COLONEL HUGHESthought that until the borough councils could do all the assessing throughout London it was better to avoid a mixed jurisdiction, and leave matters as they were.
  MR. LOUGHsuggested that this clause might also be postponed. There was, he said, quite as much unanimity on the other side as on his side of the House, with regard to the course which ought to be adopted. He did not think the process proposed in the Bill would work in London. The object of the Bill was to simplify
  matters, and if the Government had accepted the Amendment it would have resulted in simplifying the question of assessment and securing the adoption of the method upon which everybody was agreed.
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDsaid he would not press his Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw the Amendment being refused,
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 99.—(Division List No. 149.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finch, George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Arnold, Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Melville, Beresford Valentune

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. John

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

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Milton, Viscount

  Balfour Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Forster, Henry William

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Garfit, William

  Monk, Charles James

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Bethell, Commander

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Morgan, Hon. Fred. (Moa.)

  Bigwood, James

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford).

  Bond, Edward

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Mount, William George

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Bowles, Capt. H.F (Middlesex

  Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bate

  Brassey, Albert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Butcher, John George

  Green, Walford D. (Weds'bury

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Green, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r.

  Gunter, Colonel

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Pilkington, Richard

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hermon-Hodge, RobertTrotter

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Rankin, Sir James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

  Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow)

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Round, James

  Cross, Herb't Shepherd (Bolton

  Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpool)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lea, Sir Thos.(Londonderry)

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Leighton, Stanley

  Sidebottom, William (Derbys.

  Denny, Colonel

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Dis a li, Coningsby Ralph

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Stanley, Edward J.(Somerset)

  Doughty, George

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpl.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Valentia, Viscount

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

  Wilson, J. W. (Woreesters N.)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Wyndham, George

  NOES.

  Allen, Wm. (Newe. under Lyme

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  Pickorsgill, Edward Hare

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Balnbridge, Emerson

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Robson, William Snowden

  Baker, Sir John

  Hazell, Walter

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfar)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Spicer, Albert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Steadman, William Charles

  Burns, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvon)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Burt, Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kenyon, James

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Caldwell, James

  Kimber, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumbland

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Ure, Alexander

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lowles, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Clough, Walter Owen

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Weir, James Galloway

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Colville, John

  M'Leod, John

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

  Daly, James

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

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

  Davitt, Michael

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Doogan, P. C.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Lionel Holland and

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Mr. Cripps.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Philipps, John Wynford

  The next Amendment on the Paper was—
  "In page 8, line 40, at end, to add 'appointed by the borough council, but no councillor shall be eligible to sit on such assessment committee who has acted as overseer, or otherwise, in the primary valuation of the property.'"—(Mr. R. G. Webster.)
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the question was dependent upon the decision the Committee had recently come to, and that the Amendment was therefore out of order.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STUARTsaid the clause was dead in the teeth of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and as a member of that Commission he could not assent to the passing of the clause.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided—Ayes, 170 Noes, 78.—(Division List No. 150.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bethell, Commander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Bigwood, James

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bond, Edward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

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

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Coghill, Douglas, Harry

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Butcher, John George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Pilkington, Richard

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow

  Jettreys, Arthur Frederick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Purvis Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Pym, C. Guy

  Curzon, Viscount

  Kimber, Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chath'm

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

  Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

  Denny, Colonel

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dorington, SirJohn Edward

  Leighton, Stanley

  Round, James

  Doughty, George

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

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

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowles, John

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sidebottom, William(Derbyslh.

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Stanley, Edwd.Jas.(Somerset)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Garfit, William

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Milbank, SirPowlett Chas. J.

  Webster, R.G.(St.Pancras)

  Gibbs, HnA.G.H.(CityofLond.

  Milton, Viscount

  Webstor, SirR.E.(IsleofWight

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Monk, Charles James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, Hn.Fred.(Monm'thsh.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh.N.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sbury

  Merton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

  Wyndham, George

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Mount, William George

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Gunter, Colonel

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hermon-Hodge, RobertTrotter

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Sir William Walrond and

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Mr. Anstnither.

  NOES.

  Allen, Wm.(Newe.under Lyme

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Hazell, Walter

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Hedderwick, Thus Charles H.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Baker, Sir John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Sinclair,Capt.John (Forfarsh.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Spicer, Albert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Steadnian, William Charles

  Burns, John

  Kenyon, James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Ure, Alexander

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Warner, Thomas Courtney T.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wedderburn, Sir William

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

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Weir, James Galloway

  Clough, Walter Owen

  M'Leod, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Colville, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd Carmarthen

  Williams, John Carvell(Notts)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Daly, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Lough

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Committee report Progress: to sit again to-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS [12TH MAY].
  Resolutions reported—

  SPIRITS IN BOTTLE.
  1. "That, in addition to the Duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall be charged levied, and paid the Duty following, that is to say):—
  "Spirits in bottle (including perfumed spirits and liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations in bottle entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested) the liquid gallon… One Shilling."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that on Friday night the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked if he could give the Committee any figures at all on the subject of his new proposal for the surtax on bottled spirits and bottled perfumes. The House had full statistics on the subject of bottled wines, but they had no figures before them with regard to the tax on bottled spirits, because the Customs had not hitherto distinguished between bottled spirits and spirits imported in cask. There was, however, a report from the Consular district of Bordeaux, from which a considerable amount of brandy was shipped to this country, and from that report he gathered that the trade in bottled brandy sent to this country was very large indeed. He imagined that the trade which would be hit by this tax was especially the trade in high-class French brandy, liqueurs, and high-class perfumes. The trade in high-class bottled brandy from Bordeaux alone last year was 325,000 bottles. That was an enormous quantity, and he should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could place before the House any figures with regard to the effect of this tax.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would like to understand the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman was proceeding, and asked whether the proposed tax made any differentiation in favour of home-made spirits.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M.HICKS-BEACH, Bristol, W.): There will be no differentiation between the spirits manufactured in this country and foreign spirits not imported in bottle. With regard to the question asked
  686
  by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the Forest of Dean, it is true that there are no existing statistics showing the amount of spirits imported in the year in bottle and in cask, but from figures for two months, which I have taken out, it may fairly be calculated that for the year there would be roughly an import of bottled spirits of 1,200,000 gallons, and of this amount, not far short of two-thirds would be brandy. The rest would be made up from the different classes of spirits, some less and some more valuable.

  STAMP DUTIES.
  2. "That, in lieu of the Stamp Duties mentioned in the Resolutions numbered 2 and 4, relating to Stamp Duties agreed to by the House on the fourteenth day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, there shall be charged the following Stamp Duties, namely—
  (1) on all foreign and colonial marketable securities transferable by delivery which are not at present chargeable with Stamp Duty, and which are negotiated in the United Kingdom after the first day of August one thousand eight hun-and ninety-nine; and
  (2) on any instrument to bearer by means of which any share or stock of any company or body of persons formed or established out of the United Kingdom is, after the first day of August one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, negotiated in the United Kingdom,
  a stamp duty of one shilling for every ten pounds, and also for any fractional part of ten pounds, in the case of a marketable security of the money thereby secured, and in the case of any such instrument to bearer of the nominal value of the share or stock to which the instrument relates."

  STILL WINES IN BOTTLE.
  3. "That, in lieu of the Duties of Customs payable, under the Resolution reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on the fourteenth day of April and then agreed to by the House, on still wine imported into Great Britain or Ireland in bottle, there shall be charged, levied, and paid the same Duties in respect of alcoholic strength as if the wine were in cask, and an additional Duty, the, gallon.… One Shilling."
  Ordered, that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision there in pursuant to the said Resolutions.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  FINANCE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2, amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 3, amended, and agreed to.
  New clause (Additional duties on spirits)—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer) brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. COURTNEYasked what was the amount expected to be realised from this new duty.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I am afraid the result will be that I shall be several thousands of pounds worse off than I had expected. The loss on wines is estimated at £110,000, while the additional duty on
  688
  spirits will not produce more than £40,000 or £50,000.
  Clause added.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL. [Lords.]
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) [Lords].
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) [Lords].
    And also the certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—

OWEN'S COLLEGE, MANCHESTER [Lords].
EDINBURGH CORPORATION.
GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAM-WAYS.
GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
Reported with Amendments.
GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
PAISLEY AND BARRHEAD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE FUND BILL [Lords].
Reported with Amendments.
BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords].
Reported with Amendments.
FURNESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Reported with Amendments.
STRETFORD GAS BILL [Lords].
Reported with Amendments.
BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
TENTERDEN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported without Amendment.

LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords].
MOSS SIDE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
Committee to meet to-morrow.

YORKE ESTATE BILL [Lords].
Read 2a.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
ST. NEOTS WATER BILL [Lords].
BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL [Lords].
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHURCH STRETTON WATER BILL [Lords].
Read 3a; amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords].
  BEXHILL AND ST. LEONARDS TRAM ROADS BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BURLEY-IN-WHARFEDALE URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the amendments; a further amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
NUNEATON AND CHILVERS COTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  WOODHOUSE AND CONISBROUGH RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
REDDITCH GAS BILL.
  WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
WALLASEY TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with amendments: The said amendments considered, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.1) BILL.
To be read 2a to-morrow. (The Earl of Dudley.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.10) BILL [Lords].
To be read 2a to-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.11) BILL [Lords].
To be read 2a to-morrow.
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
Read 2a (according to order).
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LIVERPOOL) BILL [Lords].
Read 2a (according to order).
WESTON-SUPER-MARE, CLEVEDON, AND PORTISHEAD TRAMWAYS COMPANY (LIGHT RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL [Lords].
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Raglan be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee in the place of the Earl of Denbigh. Read and agreed to.
WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Raglan be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee in the place of the Earl of Denbigh. Read, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  ARMY (PAY, &c).
  List of exceptions to Army Regulations as to pay, non-effective pay, and allowances sanctioned during the year ended 31st March 1899.
CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1886–87.
Report by Crofters Commission, being for the year ended 31st December 1898.
DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Statistical tables for the year 1898.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.
Agricultural returns for Great Britain, showing the acreage and produce of crops, prices of corn, with agricultural statistics for the United Kingdom, British possessions, and foreign countries, 1898. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
MEDWAY CONSERVANCY.
Statement of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ended 25th March, 1899. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petition against the sale of, on Sundays; —Of the inhabitants of Aylesbury and elsewhere, in the County of Buckingham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
Petition for Amendment of;—Of the Northfleet Urban District Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [Lords].
Petition in favour of;—Of the Members of the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange, Limited; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILL INTRODUCED.
  MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL [Lords].
  A Bill to validate certain marriages was presented by the Lord Bishop of London; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 90.)
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [Lords].
To be read 2a, on Tuesday the 6th of June next.
SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
Commons Amendments, to be considered To morrow.
QUESTIONS.

  RECRUITING FOR THE ARMY AND MILITIA.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I rise to call attention to an order issued from the Horse Guards, commanding the sergeant-instructors of the Volunteer Force to recruit for the Army and Militia, under penalty of dismissal unless this order is zealously obeyed. To enable your Lordships to clearly understand the position, it is necessary that I should go back to the state of things existing when Volunteering first began in 1859. The only inducement to Volunteering then was that if a volunteer
  566
  serving under the old Act of George III. lost a leg or an arm, he had the benefit of Chelsea Hospital, and if he was killed there was a pension for his wife. Your Lordships will recognise the wholesome element of patriotism which animated the Volunteer Force in the early days of the movement. Volunteers patiently bore expenses of all kinds, including the cost of uniform, accoutrements, drill sergeants, drill grounds, ranges, targets, armouries, armour, headquarters, advertising, postage, stationery, and travelling expenses. The State did little or nothing for the Volunteers, except give them the rifle of the day—the Snider—and from private sources no less a sum than £1,500,000 had been expended patriotically by the Volunteers and their friends in aid of the public service. The state of our defences was such that we all felt the desirability of something stronger being done. The subject was raised in the House of Commons in 1861, and a Commission appointed. The Commission reported in favour of help being given to the Volunteer Force, this help taking the form of a capitation grant and the payment of sergeants. These sergeants were appointed solely for the service of the Volunteers, and their number was in proportion to the men with whom they had to deal and to drill. What has happened? If it is true that the Order to which I refer in my question has been issued, and that these sergeants are employed in recruiting for the Army and Militia, all I can say is that assuredly such employment had not been present to the mind of the authorities of the War Office when the duties of these officers were first imposed. Under what power this Order is issued I do not know. When the Act of 1863 was passed, the Noble Duke the Lord President of the Council was Secretary of State for War, and it was clearly understood then that these men were appointed for the Volunteer Service, and the Act contained nothing which was intended in any way to interfere with the position or status of that force. But this Order has gone out, and remonstrances have been made against it. It has been pointed out that the Volunteer staff at present is insufficient in many cases to discharge its proper duty. The Volunteer Force under these circumstances naturally suffers in its efficiency. I have a letter here from the Commander-in-Chief,

  567
  in which it is stated that recruiting for the Army and Militia forms an integral part, and a very important part, of the duty of these sergeants. I venture to say, my Lords, that to make recruiting an integral part of the duty of these sergeant-instructors is a perversion of the intention of Parliament. The letter from the Commander-in-Chief continues:
  "If the Staff-sergeants fail in obtaining recruits, Lord Wolseley is prepared to take steps for their removal, and their replacement by others who will at least make every effort compatible with their other duties to raise recruits. The Commander-in-Chief will also look to the Adjutants of these corps in future taking a larger part in enforcing and stimulating this operation."
  A question was asked as to which of the duties were to have priority, and if the sergeants were to do double duty—their duty as sergeants of the Volunteer force and their duty as recruiting officers. The answer was that no priority of importance could be assigned to the duties attached to non - commissioned officers of the permanent staff.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): From what is the noble Lord quoting?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I am quoting from one of these letters.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: One of which letters? Who signed that letter?
  THE, EARL OF WEMYSS: The letter is signed by Colonel Fludyer, commanding the Home District. I can assure the noble Marquess that it is all right. My noble friend does not appear to like it. Then it was asked whether the instructors were to recruit from the Volunteers, and the answer was that they were not to recruit from their own regiments. A case was brought under my notice where a sergeant who ought to have been on parade was away, having been ordered to go to a district five miles off to recruit for the Army and Militia. When these staff-sergeants were appointed they were appointed for the benefit of the Volunteers, and I wish to give the House only a short and simple statement of facts without comment. In the view of a great military authority—not the Commander-in-Chief—the Volunteers are acting con-
  568
  trary to discipline in bringing their grievances before Parliament. But to take that view is to ignore the whole principle of Volunteering, which is, that the Volunteers, when not on military duty, retain all their civil rights. I have always held that when Volunteers are no longer on military duty they retain their civil rights, one of which my noble friend tried to take from them by a Bill last year or the year before. I therefore feel quite justified in bringing before the House a matter materially affecting the force with which I have been so long connected, and to which I am proud still to belong.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am afraid that what the noble Earl on the cross benches calls a short and simple statement of facts requires a good deal of correction. It is quite evident from the tenor of his speech that he is under the impression that some entirely new departure has been made in regard to the employment of these sergeant-instructors of Volunteers on recruiting.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: A departure from the original intention.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Earl hinted that the change had been made during my administration.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: No.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will tell the House what are the present Volunteer regulations on this subject, and I will show how little they differ from the regulations to which the noble Earl has been accustomed for a great many years past. Under the present regulations, dated 1896, it is laid down that the principal duty of an instructor is to attend to the drill and instruction of the corps to which he is posted. That deals with the question of priority of duty, upon which the noble Earl waxed so eloquent. It is also laid down that sergeant-instructors will be required to perform such military duties as may be directed by the district officer commanding; and that every sergeant-instructor is to have it explained to him that he is liable for duties of this kind. The noble Earl thinks this is a recent invention.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Comparatively.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not know what the noble Earl's idea of a comparatively recent invention may be, but I am sure he recollects the Committee presided over by Sir Patrick MacDougall, who prepared the mobilization scheme when His Royal Highness was in chief command of the Army. That Committee sat in 1872, and it was proposed by the Committee that—
  "The Colonel of any sub-district will superintend and direct ….. the recruiting service for the Line and Militia Battalions of his brigade ….. and for such service he will direct the employment of the officers and N.C.O.'s of the depot ….. as well as of the adjutants and sergeant-instructors of Rifle Volunteers, within the sub-district, as he may see fit."
  That was the recommendation of the MacDougall Committee, and in the following year—1873—general regulations were issued to all officers commanding regimental districts, under which the officer commanding the brigade depôt was to have at his disposal for recruiting purposes, amongst others, the adjutants and sergeant-instructors of Rifle Volunteers. How, with his knowledge of the Volunteer force and its history, the noble Earl can find it possible to say that the idea of employing those instructors in this way never entered into the heads of the War Office passes my comprehension.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I said it never entered into the heads of those who first appointed these instructors.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I must remind the noble Lord that the regulations to which he has referred have been in force for more than twenty-five years, and I believe they have never been objected to until to-day by the noble Lord, with all his knowledge of the Volunteer force. Now what are the facts? The Inspector-General of Recruiting observed that in the Home District, or rather a part of the Home District—the London portion of it—there was almost a complete failure of these sergeant-instructors to obtain recruits. The figures are so remarkable that I will state them to your Lordships. In this part of the Home District, there are 135 of these sergeant-instructors, and they produced among them last year the magnificent total of
  570
  36 recruits. Of these 19 were collected by a single sergeant, so that 17 recruits were gained by 134 sergeants-instructors, whose duty it was, under the Volunteer Regulations, to assist in recruiting. The Inspector-General of Recruiting called, very properly, the attention of the General Officer Commanding the District to this matter, so that inquiries might be made on the subject, and I think a more legitimate course of proceeding could not possibly be followed. In reply to that, the commanding officer stated very clearly and frankly the objections of colonels of Volunteer battalions to having their sergeants employed as recruiters. They said it took them away from their work and made them mix with a class of the population from which the recruits for the Regular Army wore drawn, and a class which it was undesirable they should enter amongst. The Inspector-General of Recruiting replied that if these arguments were to prevail, no recruits could be obtained in any part of the United Kingdom by the members of the permanent staff of the Volunteers, which at present raises every year something like from 4,000 to 6,000 recruits. We certainly are not prepared to forego that source of supply merely because the work of recruiting happens to be a little unpopular with these sergeants in the London District. The General Officer Commanding the Home District was told that if the sergeant-instructors could not succeed in getting a better average than one-eighth of a recruit apiece the Commander-in-Chief would endeavour to find other sergeant-instructors with a greater aptitude for recruiting. The Commander-in-Chief was within his right in giving that warning. I have shown your Lordships that this duty of recruiting has for more than twenty-five years been part of the regular duty of these sergeants; I have shown you that the duty was not adequately performed by the sergeants in the London District; and I must say I think the Inspector-General would have failed in his duty had he not taken notice of this matter. But when I say that, I do not wish for one moment to suggest that we should have any right to take these non-commissioned officers away from the work of the corps to which they are attached, and which, of course, has the first call upon their time. I saw the other day a letter from a well-known colonel of Volunteers, whose language

  571
  seems to me to very correctly summarise the proper view of this matter. He writes:—
  "In common with every colonel of Volunteers, I am anxious to do, and to allow the Adjutant and permanent staff to do, anything which is possible to popularise the Regular Army, and to obtain recruits for it, consistently with the interest of the unit committed to one's charge."
  That is exactly our point of view, and it seems to me a reasonable one. That is all we ask. We recognise that the principal duty of the permanent staff is with their own corps, but we believe it is compatible with the discharge of that duty that they should help the Regular Army to the best of their ability in obtaining recruits.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I had the honour of commanding a Volunteer corps from the year 1866 down to five years ago, and therefore I can remember the state of things which existed before 1872. It is perfectly true that this system of employing non-commissioned officers for recruiting has been in force since the year 1872, but as far as I know it has always been objected to by officers commanding the Volunteers, and what I am saying now applies equally to the Militia. The same policy has been pursued in regard to the Militia, and has been constantly objected to. Although the system dates back to 1872, it was a very different thing then to what it has recently become. The pressure has been gradually greater and greater upon commanding officers to allow their non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff to be employed in recruiting service. Commanding officers find that in order to maintain the efficiency of their corps they require the full time of their non-commissioned officers, and I deprecate, as I have always deprecated, the constant effort of the War Office to try and make one and the same person perform two incompatible duties. It is very cheap; it is no doubt admirable from the recruiting point of view; but it is fatal to the Reserve Forces. If it is the wish of the War Office that either the Militia or the Volunteers should be in a proper state of strength and efficiency, it is, in my judgment, absolutely necessary that they should secure to the command-
  572
  ing officers of corps the full control of the non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff. It must be admitted, I think, by all who have ever been connected with the Militia or the Volunteers that admirable as no doubt the officers of these corps are, and admirable as is the material of which the private is made, the weak point in them is the Volunteer noncommissioned officer. It is not, I think, his own fault altogether. It is largely owing to the circumstances of the case; but to whatever it may be due, every commanding officer to whom I have spoken has experienced difficulty in coping with Volunteer non-commissioned officers. Therefore it is doubly important that he should have a good and efficient permanent staff under his control. It is upon them he must rely to a very great extent for the efficiency of his battalion. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War said it was hardly to be expected that the War Office should modify its regulations because recruiting happened to be unpopular with these officers. But he must remember that if you make the Volunteer or the Militia Service unpopular with the non-commissioned officers of the Army, you will not get the best men for the position, and great difficulty is experienced now in getting the best men from the regiment to join the staffs of the Militia and Volunteers. It has long been my opinion that both the Militia and Volunteer Forces have suffered very severely from this cheese-paring policy of trying to get recruiting service out of men who are really employed, or ought to be employed, on a totally different service, and thereby crippling the efficiency, of the noncommissioned officer, and complicating the whole system. I believe nothing can be done which would more improve the Militia and Volunteer Forces than a reversal of this system.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: We have got from my noble friend, the Secretary of State for War, at any rate a clear expression of opinion that recruiting is a secondary duty. However, I think we ought to show some consideration to my noble friend in this matter, because the War Office are at their wits' end to get men. I find that a boy of 13 enlisted six times in six regiments and is counted in the Estimates as six men.

PROPOSED PACIFIC CABLE.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN (Viscount GORDON): My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the importance of an understanding being arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Canada and of the Australian Colonies, with reference to the proposed Pacific cable, Her Majesty's Government will be disposed to reconsider some of the stipulations recently set forth by them in relation to the scheme. My question is expressed in a somewhat guarded and condensed manner, and therefore I hope your Lordships will not consider it out of place if I add just a word or two by way of explanation. Your Lordships will have observed that in the year 1896 a Committee was appointed to consider the question of the Pacific Cable. It was a very strong and representative Committee, as its constitution shows, and anyone reading the Report will at once see that the members of the Committee were entirely in favour of carrying out the Pacific Cable. Various recommendations are, of course, given as to the methods to be adopted, but the Committee are favourable to the proposal. On August 29, 1898, the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland agreed that if Great Britain and Canada paid five-ninths and New Zealand one-ninth, New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria would contribute one-ninth each. New Zealand practically complied with that proposal in giving their one-ninth. In December, 1898, the following message was received from Canada approving of the proposal alluded to in the Australian telegram:—
"Am authorised to inform Mr. Chamberlain that the Canadian Government will gladly join Imperial Government in contributing each a half of five-ninths for Pacific cable provided Australian Colonies contribute remaining four-ninths."
In consequence of these communications, a letter was sent to the Agents-General for the Australian Colonies and the High Commissioner for Canada by the Colonial Office. This is an exceedingly important letter. It gives the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the Pacific cable, and states what they are prepared to do; but I should like to remark that before this authorised statement appeared there was an announcement, which had all the appearance of being authentic, which
574
stated that Her Majesty's Government had decided to do something considerably more than they really had decided to do, and this more favourable announcement was greeted with unanimous approval not only by the Colonies concerned but by the British Press generally. In the letter to which I have referred it is stated that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the construction of a Pacific cable was a matter of much greater importance to Australia and Canada than to the United Kingdom, but it also remarked that the success of the project cannot fail to promote Imperial unity. I venture to submit that anything which supports Imperial unity is of very practical consequence, though in an indirect sense perhaps, to the central portion of the Empire. Moreover, there is no allusion in this letter to another important feature of the cable—namely, that it would provide an all-British line of telegraphic communication. I think the significance and importance of that, from a strategical point of view, is obvious. Canada and the other Colonies have often been exhorted to do their part in contributing to the defence of the Empire, and so forth. I think the active part they propose to take in this cable is an indirect contribution to what will be of great value in military organisation. Then we come to the conditions upon which a certain measure of support will be given by Her Majesty's Government. The letter states that the Government are prepared to offer
"For a period not exceeding 20 years, an annual subsidy not exceeding a maximum limit of £20,000 in any one year."
There are several other conditions, and the feeling on the part of Canada and of the Australian Colonies, so far as I have been able to ascertain it, is that these conditions are extremely stringent, and consequently have created great disappointment. Another condition of the Government's contribution is that the cable must be in accordance with specification, and samples to be approved by the Treasury, and to the satisfaction, and so forth, of the Treasury, and to be effectually worked with a sufficient staff who must be British subjects. The condition as to the employment of British subjects is an indirect indication that Her Majesty's Government do recognise the importance of a British cable under absolutely British control. But the point is that it is difficult for Canada and the

575
Australian Colonies to estimate what they would be liable for under this stipulation. Your Lordships know that the cost of the cable will largely depend on the number of words which it is to be capable of conveying per minute, and obviously it is very desirable to have a cable capable of rapid transmission; but, at the same time, if Her Majesty's Government lay so much stress on the efficiency of the cable in that respect, one would think they might give further encouragement to secure that the cable should be of the highest possible efficiency. There are several other conditions which seem to me extremely severe. For instance, the Government insists that all rates charged to the general public shall be approved by the Treasury. At first sight that might seem for the protection of the public, but when we think of the delicate questions in regard to possible competition I am afraid this clause might have a hampering effect, and perhaps make it more difficult for the Governments concerned to raise such loans as they might wish to raise for the purpose of carrying out this project. We all know the damaging effect of too many restrictions being imposed upon the contribution contemplated by the Government. I am afraid that an impression may be created that Her Majesty's Government do not regard the project with that confidence which we had hoped for, and that therefore it may not be carried out with such facility as is desirable. The principle of giving some contribution having been contemplated, I cannot help thinking that it would be a perfectly safe and reasonable course for the Government to have gone a little further, not merely as to the amount, but as the manner in which their aid is offered. It is well known that the feeling of Canada and of the Australian Colonics towards the Mother Country is of an excellent character, and it would be a great pity if anything were done which would check their confident expectations regarding the readiness of the Government to meet them at least half way in such an undertaking as this, which is obviously either directly or indirectly for the benefit of the Empire at large. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government, hitherto as expressed through the Colonial Office and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, has been eminently one to encourage and foster the desirable state of
576
feeling to which I have alluded, and I hope it may be possible for Her Majesty's Government to still further strengthen the ties between the Colonies and ourselves, and help forward this great scheme by relaxing something of the stringency of the conditions upon which the subsidy is offered.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, the noble Earl has criticised the letter announcing the decision of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject, but I assure him that there was no intention in the letter either of throwing cold water on a project of such great public interest, or of conveying the decision in a manner which would seem to be ungracious. Government departments are constantly striving to formulate their proposals in letters which shall not appear to be ungracious, but I am aware that they are constantly finding that they fail in that attempt. The point raised has been a good deal discussed in the Press, and, somewhat to my surprise, particular stress has been laid on that paragraph of the letter which states that the construction of this cable is a matter of greater importance to Australia and Canada than to the United Kingdom. Now, my Lords, surely the two proposals are not incompatible. It may be perfectly true at one and the same time that a project such as this may be of great general interest to the Empire, and also that it may have greater importance to specific portions of the Empire. I think that what was meant to be expressed in this paragraph states no more than the fact. It is open to anyone who reads this letter to form his own opinion as to whether the particular form of proposal which the Government have made is the best or not in the circumstances, but I do not think that anyone who really understands the proposal in its financial aspect can say that it is ungenerous, because it is nothing more or less than an offer to bear the full share of the annual burden which has been suggested as appropriate by the colonies concerned, and at the same time not to demand any share in any profits that may arise. That may or may not be the best attitude to adopt, but whatever opinion may be formed in that respect I do not think it can be criticised as an ungenerous offer. The maximum of £20,000 seems, according to the evidence

577
adduced before the Committee, to be the highest possible sum, on the proportion of five-eighteenths, that could ever fall upon the Government of this country to bear. The noble Lord has animadverted on what he has described as the stringency and severity of the conditions. I speak with deference in the presence of my noble friend opposite, who was once Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, but those conditions are only of the kind which the Treasury make it a rule to impose whenever this country bears a share in any project such as this one of the Pacific cable. I do not know whether the details are identical with the details of similar conditions which have been imposed when this country has subsidised a cable, we will say, of the Eastern Telegraph Company, but I do not think they will be found in any way to differ in principle. There is no ulterior motive lurking underneath them. They are merely those which the experience of the Post Office and the Treasury has shown it is prudent to insist upon as the most likely to conduce to efficiency of the work and the satisfactory maintenance of the service. But if, as would appear, the Australasian and Canadian Governments have any objection to urge on any ground to the exact form in which this proposal has been made, Her Majesty's Government are perfectly prepared to review the whole matter in the light of those representations, with a sincere desire, if possible, to arrive at a decision which will be mutually satisfactory to all the Governments concerned.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the closing words of the noble Earl, for at any rate we have the assurance that this arrangement is open to revision, and that the door is not finally closed. But I am sorry the noble Earl has taken as the sort of keynote of his speech to-night the last paragraph of the letter, which says that Her Majesty's Government trust that the liberal arrangement proposed will meet the views of the Colonies. This arrangement may be a sufficient one; as to that, I say nothing; but I do not think it can rightly be called a liberal one. The noble Earl rather challenged me with regard to the financial aspect of this question. What was the proposal made by the Colonies to the Mother Country? It was that the Australian Colonies and New Zealand
578
should bear four-ninths of the cost of the construction of the Pacific cable, provided that Canada and the Mother Country bore the other five-ninths. Canada said she was ready to bear her part—five-eighteenths—if the Mother Country would bear her part—the other five-eighteenths. Five-eighteenths of a million and a-half amount to £417,000 in round figures. That is what the Mother Country was asked to bear. Now, what is the "liberal offer" that was made by Her Majesty's Government to the Colonies? Not that they would bear five-eighteenths of the cost of this cable, or even of the cost of working this cable, but that they would bear five-eighteenths of any deficit that might occur from year to year for 20 years up to a sum of £20,000. Before the Mother Country would be called upon to pay its five-eighteenths —to pay £20,000 in any single year— the total deficit on the working of this cable would have had to amount to £70,000. Therefore the risk the Mother Country was taking for the next 20 years was not a large one, for we expect the cable will prove a profitable concern. Then the noble Earl said the Mother Country was very generous because it gave up all claim to any part of the profit. Naturally it would if it did not provide any of the money on which the scheme is to be carried out, but by a clause in these provisions it is laid down that the messages of the Imperial Government are to be transmitted in priority to all other messages, at rates not exceeding half the charge made to the general public. To begin with, the Mother Country insists on reducing the profits in respect of the cable, which seems to me commanding a very considerable concession on the part of the Colonies, and I cannot say I am surprised that they consider these conditions by no means satisfactory. I quite agree with my noble friend that these are the conditions that are ordinarily imposed by the Treasury in the case of any enterprise in which they take a part. That is exactly the point. It looks as if these conditions had been framed when the intention of the Mother Country was to take part in the construction of the cable, and pay its portion towards the capital cost, but I do think these conditions are extremely stringent and unfair to the Colonies if all we are to do is to provide, in the event of a deficit, a certain proportion of that deficit.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE (NOTIFICATION) ACT (1889) EXTENSION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL [Lords].
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL [Lords].
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six of the clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten of the clock.