Sitting of 16 May 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  (Standing Order 63 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. 63 has been complied with, viz:—

  IONIAN BANK BILL
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS. [Lords.]
  (Standing Orders not, previously inquired into complied with.)
  MR. SPEAKKER MR. SPEAKKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, hive been complied with, viz.:—

BARTON-ON-SEA WATER BILL. [Lords.]
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (GAS AND WATER) BILL. [Lords.]

    GLASGOW CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, &c.) BILL. [Lords.]
    LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
    MID-KENT GAS BILL. [Lords.]
    OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL. [Lords.]
    STOCKTON AND MIDDLESBROUGH WATER BILL. [Lords.]
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

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

LONDON HOSPITAL BILL. [Lords.]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL.
(Queen's Consent signified.)
Read the third time, and passed [New Title.]

BELFAST WATER BILL.
(Queen's Consent signified)
Read the third time, and passed.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BIILL.

    DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
    EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
(Queen's Consent signified.)
Read the third time, and passed.

NORTH PEMBROKESHIRE AND FISHGUARD RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
SURREY COMMERCIAL DOCKS BILL [Lords], AMENDMENT.
Read the third time, and passed, without. Amendment.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS BILL.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE STIPENDIARY JUSTICE BILL.
  As Amended, considered; to be read the third time.
CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL.
To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bournemouth (Public Purposes), Eastbourne, Hendon, and to the extension of the area of supply of the Midland Electric Corporation for Power Distribution (Limited), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
To confirm certain Provisional order of the Local Government Board relating to the parishes of Devonport and saint Mary, Newington, and to the Greenwich and Wolverhampton Union, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W Russell and Mr. Ritchie.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No 9) BILL.
confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Luddenden Foot, the Ludworth and Mellor, the Oakwell, and the Portslade and Southwick United Districts, ordered to lie brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bradford (Yorks.) Itchen, Kingston-upon-Hull, Ryde, and Shifnal (Rural), ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Croydon (Rural), Jarrow, Ramsgate (two), Ripon, and West Bromwich (two), ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No 3) BILL.
To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Drogheda, Londonderry (Rural), and Tobercurry (Rural), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Killarney, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bournemouth (Public Purposes), Eastbourne, Hendon, and to the extension of the area of supply of the Midland Electric Corporation for Power Distribution (Limited)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 203]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the parishes of Devonport and Saint Mary, Newington, and to the Greenwich and Wolverhampton Unions," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Luddenden Foot, the Ludworth and Mellor, the Oakwell, and the Portslade and Southwick United Districts," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bradford (Yorks), Itchen, Kingston-upon-Hull, Ryde, and Shifnal (Rural)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Croydon (Rural), Jarrow, Ramsgate (two), Ripon, and West Bromwich (two)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Drogheda, Londonderry (Rural), and Tobercurry (Rural)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland

725
relating to Killaruey," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the Brooke's Park, Londonderry Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to he dispensed with:— That the parties ho permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the ease of the Owens College, Manchester, I Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to he dispensed with:— That the parties he permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3. "That, in the case of the Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the; Standing Orders ought to he dispensed with:—That the parties he permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

4. "That, in the case of the West Metropolitan Railway Bill, Petition for; additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to lie dispensed with:—That the parties he permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to he read the third time Tomorrow.

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN (NEW RAILWAYS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.
BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 7).
MR. MOLLOYreported from the committee on Group 7 of Railway Bills;
726
That, to meet the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Thursday, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Huntingdon, against; to lie upon the Table.
GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHERITIES).
Petitions in favour, from Woking and Middlesbrough; to lie upon the Table.
LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour, from Melrose, Cowdenbeath, and Morebattle; to lie upon the Table.
LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
Petition from St. Leonard, Shoreditch, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
Petitions in favour, from Kelty, Lumphinnans, Begg, Oakley, Blairhall, East Wemyss,Lassodie, Irvyn Gwyn, Bradford, Coaltown of Wemyss, Lachgelly, Raith, Townhill, Buckhaven, Cowdenbeath, and Lochore; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) HILL.
Petition from Forfar, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Petition from Manchester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
Petition from Forfar, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour, from Stoke Gabriel, Hele, High Wycombe, Leeds, Babbicombe, Brixham, Stockport, and Sheerness Sea; to lie upon the Table,
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
Petition from London, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition form Auchterarder, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  POLICE (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Forty-first Annual Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, being for the year ended 31st December 1898 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, 1898–9 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (PRELIMINARY RETURN).
Copy presented, of Preliminary Return of the British Army for 1898, with Abstracts, &c, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
Copy presented, of Rule made by the Irish Land Commission under the Land Purchase Acts, dated the 29th April 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRISONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Order in Council approving of a Rule made by the General Prisons Board for Ireland, dated the 5th May 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COAL EXPORTS, &c.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st March 1899; Mr. D. A. Thomas]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 198.]
PATENTS DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
Copy presented, of Sixteenth Report of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1898 [by Act];to lie upon the table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2259 to 2262 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (PARCEL POST WITH PORTUGAL INCLUDING MADEIRA AND THE AZORES).
Copy presented, of Agreement for the Express Delivery of Parcels exchanged between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Portugal, including Madeira and the Azores [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CROWN'S NOMINEE ACCOUNT.
Abstract Account presented, of Receipts and Payments of the Treasury Solicitor, in the year ended 31st December 1898, in the Administration of Estates on behalf of the Crown, and Alphabetical List of Intestates' Estates in respect of which Letters of Administration were granted to the Treasury Solicitor as Crown's Nominee, and of other cases (partial intestacies, &c.) in which Accounts were opened in the Books of the Treasury Solicitor in the same year in respect of moneys received by him as Crown's Nominee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 192.]
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 200.]

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE EXCHANGES).
Return ordered, "giving the names of all Telephone Exchanges which the Post Office has at any time opened in the United Kingdom, with the date of opening: the number of subscribers at opening; the date on which each Exchange had the largest number of subscribers, and their number, the date on which each Exchange now without subscribers on the 31st day of December 1896, 1897, and 1898 on Exchanges then open; the number of subscribers who have given notice to leave any Exchange; and the tariff, in the following from:—

Name of Exchanges.

Date of opening.

Number of subscribers at opening of Exchange.

Date on which each Exchange had the largest number of subscribers, and their number.

Dates on which Exchanges now without subscribers became so.

Number of subscribers on Exchanges open 31st day of December 1896.

Number of subscribers on Exchanges open 31st day of December 1897.

Number of subscribers on Exchanges open 31st day of December 1898.

Number of subscribers who have given notice to leave any Exchange.

Tariff.

(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 97, of Session 1898)." (Mr. Prorand.)

GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
Return ordered, "relating to all autherized Gas undertakings in the United Kingdom other than these of local Autherities, for the year ended 31st day of December 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper (No. 364, of Session 1898)."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AYTHORITIES).
Return ordered, "relating to all authorised Gas Undertaking in the United Kingdom belonging to local Authorities, for the year ended the 25th day of March 1899 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No 635, of Session 1898)."—(Mr.Ritchie.)
QUESTIONS.

  THE AUSTRALIAN STATION—TONGA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a report from the Admiral in command of the Australian station in reference to a recent sudden visit of H.M.S. "Tauranga" to the native kingdom of Tonga; and if so, whether he can state the object of the mission and the result of Captain Stuart's interviews with King George.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. The report of the captain of H.M.S. "Tauranga" has only just been received, and I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will postpone his question till after the holidays, to give time for its consideration.

VOLUNTEER ORGANISATION.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if a reorganisation of the brigade system of the Volunteer force is in contemplation with a view to making the brigade units more efficient for mobilisation and easy to handle for peace training; and, in such case, if the Secretary of State will take care that brigades shall be left, as far as possible, to the charge of these who, on mobilisation, will be available for that purpose, and not devoted solely to the training as brigadiers of colonels in the Regular Service, and as staff officers of these serving temporarily at a depÔt.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There is no impending change, but as Volunteer brigadiers resign their appointments will be filled by colonels commanding regimental districts. These officers will command the brigades on mobilisation.

EXAMINATION FOR MILITIA OFFICERS.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for state for war whether he is aware that Militia officers who presented themselves at the last examination for entrance to the

731
Royal Military College, and who obtained more marks than some of these who went up at the same examination as military literary candidates, have been informed that they are not qualified from a literary point of view; whether he is aware that both classes of candidates had the same papers, and were marked according to the same standard; and if he will explain why the decision above referred to was arrived at.
MR. WYNDHAM: The competitive examination for Sandhurst and the qualifying examination for Militia candidates for commissions are two distinct examinations of different categories of candidates, although, for convenience, the same papers are generally, though not always, used for both.

FUSE MANUFACTURE.
CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what sum has been expended in the plant for the manufacture of fuses at Enfield; and if the small order that has been carried out there compares favourably with cost of manufacture at Woolwich.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The amount expended on plant for the manufacture of fuse bodies at Enfield was £4,673. The cost of preparing fuses at Enfield compares not unfavourably with that at Woolwich.
CAPTAIN BOWLES: Does that mean that the fuses are manufactured more cheaply at Enfield than at Woolwich?
MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have said the cost compares not unfavourably.

ORDNANCE FACTORIES—MR. DONALDSON.
CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state what are the duties attached to the new office created for Mr. Donaldson; and in what respect do they differ from the duties he was called upon to perform as Assistant Director-General of Ordnance Factories.
MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Mr. Donaldson's present duties are laid down in the Memorandum showing the duties of the principal officers of the War Office recently presented to Parliament. His duties have always been these of Chief Mechanical Engineer; but, until the recent Order in Council, he also acted as the Deputy of the Director-General of Ordnance Factories.

CASE OF COLOUR-SERGEANT WOOLDRIDGE.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the decision arrived at relative to the case of Colour-sergeant Wooldridge, 1st Battalion Oxfordshire Light Infantry, who was recently tried by court martial and sentenced to be reduced to the ranks.
MR. WYNDHAM: The proceedings of the court martial on Colour-sergeant Wooldridge have been reviewed by the Judge Advocate General. He has found nothing in them to object to, and the sentence therefore stands.

MADRAS PRESIDENCY-TROUBLES AT BANGANAPALLL
MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the troubles which recently arose in the small Native State of Banganapalli, in the Madras Presidency, and to what is alleged to have been the harsh treatment by the Nawab of that State of a number of his subjects; and whether he will look into the matter, and consider whether some searching inquiry into the facts should be directed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): My attention has been called to the proceedings referred to in this question, and I have been in communication with the Government of Madras on the subject. I learn from them that the political agent at Banganapalli was specially instructed to watch the trial of rioters which took place after the recent disturbances, and that measures wore taken to prevent any miscarriage of justice. I also learn that the Nawab has been constantly reminded by the Government of Madras of his obligations, and that they are endeavouring to induce him

733
to improve his administration. The right hon. Gentleman may rely on it that I shall continue to give my attention to the matter, and shall take any measures which may appear to me, after full consideration, to he advisable.

BOMBAY COLLEGE OF LAW.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a new College of Law, with a suitable stall of professors, under the presidency of the Hon. Mr. Justice Tyabji, was established in Bombay in 1897 by private enterprise, and that in January, 1898, this college was affiliated to the Bombay University; whether he will state for what reasons the Bombay Government refused its sanction to such affiliation when applied to by the University authorities; whether he is aware that since the founding of the University in 1857 such sanction has in no other case been refused; and whether he will explain how this refusal is in accordance with the declaration of Her Majesty's Government in 1884, upon the report of the Education Commission, that in higher education private effort should be increasingly and mainly relied on and systematically encouraged.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no information as to the character of the private institution referred to in this question, or of its staff of professors. But I understand that the Government of Bombay, who have quite recently taken steps to improve the Government School of Law and to make it equal to all demands, considered that it was not advisable that the control of the higher legal education should be wholly or partially in private hands. They therefore, with the full concurrence of the Government of India, refused the affiliation which had been applied for. As regards the question of precedents, it is obvious that every application of this kind must be dealt with on its own merits. I see no reason to doubt the soundness of the decision arrived at in this case; nor does it appear to me to be inconsistent with the views of the Education Commissioners, who considered that the establishment of competing schools in one locality might involve "a clashing of interests and a waste of power."
SIR W. WEDDERBUUN: May I ask
734
whether the noble Lord is aware that the Government contribute nothing to the support of the schools, but, on the contrary, make a profit of 8,000 rupees a year from the fees? Does he consider it desirable that a monopoly should be created in this way?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

COOPER'S HILL ENGINEERING COLLEGE.
MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the existing president of the Engineering College at Cooper's Hill accepted his appointment three years ago on the express condition that he should also discharge the duties of a professor at that institution; whether he is aware that this condition, thus first introduced, caused other eligible candidates to withdraw, on the ground that both functions could not be efficiently discharged by the same individual; and whether, as the Secretary of State has now reverted to the former system, and invited applications for the post of professor, it is intended to reduce proportionately the president's emoluments now that he will be relieved of the professor's work.
LORD G. HAMILTON: It is true that the existing president of Cooper's Hill College was appointed on condition that he should act not only as president, but also as professor of constructive engineering. Whether this condition deterred other candidates from applying I am unable to saw The combination of duties had not been tried previously to Colonel Pennycuick's appointment; and, after about two years' experience, he represented to me that the arrangement was one which could not be satisfactorily worked. After very careful consideration of the matter in Council, I decided to relieve Colonel Pennycuick of his professorial duties without reducing his salary, which was the same that had been drawn by his predecessors, who took no part in the teaching of the college.

INDIAN SUGAR DUTIES.
SIR H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the despatch from the Government of India, No. 129, dated 5th May, 1898, was signed by all the members of the Viceroy's Council.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, Sir; the despatch was signed by the Viceroy and by all the members of his Council.
MR. MACLEAN: Are these members of the Viceroy's Council the same who agreed with the Viceroy in reversing his predecessor's decision?
LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, I believe they are. As the hon. Member is aware, when people got more accurate information on a subject they sometimes change their opinions.

INDIAN RAILWAY GAUGES.
SIR J. KITSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the continued extension of the metre and other smaller gauges of railways in India in competition with the legitimate spheres of the standard gauge; and whether he will take stops towards defining the scope of the smaller gauges.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I am quite aware of the importance of defining the limits within which the metre gauge and other smaller gauges should be used. They are sanctioned, not in competition with the standard gauge, but either for feeder lines, as an improvement on ordinary roads, or for railway systems in districts such as Burma, where broad-gauge lines would he impracticable on account of their comparatively high cost.

WEST AFRICA—ARROW POISONS AND THEIR ANTIDOTES.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has boon drawn to the frequent use of poisoned arrows by the natives of West Africa; and whether any arrangements can or will be made for the scientific analysis of the poisons so employed, and of alleged native or other antidotes, in the Colonial Medical Institution whose functions he recently described.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): It is not proposed to make arrangements in the School of Tropical Medicine for the scientific analysis of arrow poisons or their antidotes, as such arrangements would entail expense which the school is at present hardly in a
736
position to meet. Only one case of the use of poisoned arrows in West Africa has been brought to my notice, and in that case an analysis of the poison and of the supposed antidote was made at Netley.

ANTICOSTI.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether ho has now received an official report from the Government of the Dominion of Canada in reference to recent proceedings in the island of Anticosti; if so, can he give a general indication of its purport, and does he contemplate any action in connection therewith.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received such a report. The purport of it is that the island of Anticosti is private property, the title being derived from a grant by the King of France in 1680. The present proprietor, M. Menier, has taken proceedings for the eviction of certain persons who have been settled for a considerable period on the island, and the actions wore at the date of the report (the 29th of March) pending in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec. The settlers being poor, the Provincial Government of Quebec had retained counsel to act in their behalf, and had undertaken to bear the costs of their defence. I do not contemplate any action in the matter.

THE "TOURMALINE" CASE.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to prosecute Major Spilsbury, who was recently acquitted at Gibraltar, under any other charge connected with or arising out of the expedition of the "Tourmaline" to Sus territory.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, Isle of "Wight): I am not aware of any further proceedings being in contemplation; but I cannot give an undertaking.

SIR ALFRED MILNER.
MR. E. J. GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any communication or report from Sir Alfred Milner on the subject matter of the petition recently despatched for presentation to Her Majesty by British subjects

737
resident in the Transvaal; and if so, whether he will lay upon the Table such communication or report.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINwas not in his place.
MR. E. J. GRIFFITH: I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is not usual for Ministers to remain in the House until questions have finished.
No answer was given.

THE PARIS EXHIBITION.
MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the complaints of British manufacturers in respect to the refusal of the British Commission to grant them suitable space at the forthcoming Paris Exhibition; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the fact that Messrs. James Stott and Co., of Oldham, the manufacturers of the patent gas governor, have received the highest awards made at all the International Exhibitions during the last 20 years, their application for space has been refused; and whether he will consider the advisability of suggesting to the Commission that the large employers of labour in this country should have every facility given to exhibit the articles manufactured by them at the Exhibition.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): No, Sir, I have not had any such complaint before me. I have no doubt that the Royal Commissioners are doing the best they possibly can, having regard to the various demands which are made for space, to procure facilities for the exhibitors of this country.

CROWN SALMON FISHING RIGHTS IN SCOTLAND.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the grounds on which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have resumed the practice of selling the Crown rights of salmon fishing in Scotland, which had been discontinued since 1888, owing to the strong expression of opinion in Parliament at that time.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): In ordinary cases the Commissioners of Woods invariably decline to sell Crown rights of salmon fishing in Scotland. Sales are made only when there are very exceptional circumstances rendering that course desirable.

IMPERIAL PENNY POSTAGE.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is in a position to give the names of other colonies and dependencies of the British Crown which have, since the last notification, given in their adhesion to the plan for Imperial penny postage.
MR. HANBURY: Since the last public notice issued by the Post Office on this subject Jamaica, Mauritius, British North Borneo, and Labuan have given in their adhesion to the scheme. The penny letter late will come into force both here and in these places on the 24th instant.

TELEPHONE WAYLEAVES.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that serious delay in granting wayleaves between Bradford and Scarborough and other towns has arisen; and, as the Post Office control the wayleaves for telephone communication along the railway lines, whether the Postmaster-General can facilitate the more expeditious granting of the wayleaves in question.
MR. HANBURY: No, Sir. The Postmaster-General is not aware of any delay in granting wayleaves between Bradford and Scarborough and other towns, or of any applications for such wayleaves to which the question could apply.

LONDON SCHOOL BOARD ACCOUNTS.
MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the prescribed form of audit of accounts of the School Board for London.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Certain Orders have been prescribed for the accounts of school boards generally, but there is no

739
special Order applicable to the School Board for London. The principal Order has already been published in the Annual Report of the Local Government Board for 1880–81, and it does not seem necessary that it should be published again. But I shall be happy to furnish my hon. friend with copies of the Orders referred to if IKS desires to have them.

SUTTON BARRACK SCHOOL.
SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is his intention to permit the managers of the Button Barrack School to parade the pauper children of that school for the purpose of attracting the alms of the persons going to the races on Derby Day; whether his attention has been drawn to the extensively signed memorial on the subject issued by the State Children's Aid Association; and whether, in view of the facts there set forth, he will interfere on behalf of the children.
MR. CHAPLIN: My attention has been called to the memorial from the State Children's Aid Association, which reached me to-day. But I see no reason for my interference in this matter, and I can only refer the hon. Baronet to the replies which I gave to similar questions last year and in 1897.

SOMERSET CHARITIES.
MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the lion. Member for Thirst, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware that, after four years' negotiation and correspondence between the Charity Commissioners and the Hector and churchwardens and the Parish Council of Glutton, Somerset, in relation to the Chewstoke and other charities, the Parish Council has accepted a proposal of the Rector and churchwardens for the settlement of all questions in relation to these charities; whether the Commissioners have declined to sanction this unanimous arrangement on the ground, that they do not consider that the Chewstoke charity should be made entirely non-ecclesiastical; and whether, seeing that the churchwardens have to pay off a debt to the Perry and Adams charity of £293 out of their ecclesiastical charities, the Commissioners will sanction the use of a part of the Chewstoke charity for that purpose.
THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The Parish Council and the new Rector of Glutton have proposed that a debt due from the ecclesiastical charities of the parish to the educational charities of Perry and Adams should be cancelled, and that, by way of exchange, the Chewstoke charity, which is primarily a Church charity, should be entirely diverted to non-ecclesiastical purposes. The Commissioners cannot assent to this arrangement, but propose that the debt should be paid out of the capital of the Glutton Church Lands charity, and the Chewstoke charity apportioned between ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical purposes. The Chewstoke charity has no capital out of which the debt could be paid.

GUN LICENCE PROSECUTION AT WICK.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the case of James Sutherland, of Wick, who was recently prosecuted for using a gun without having a gun licence, the said gun being a toy gun used for shooting little darts at a mark in a private house by means of a spring mechanism; and whether such a prosecution was undertaken with the sanction of the Government; if not, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I have inquired into this case. I find that the gun used was one of a class advertised to drive a metal dart through three-eighths of an inch of pine at a distance of -So feet, and that James Sutherland was carrying on a public shooting gallery in an unoccupied shop with this instrument. I see no occasion for my interference.

RHODESIA.—IMPERIAL ASSISTANCE TO RAILWAYS.
MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received proposals from Mr. Rhodes in regard to the extension of the railway northwards through Rhodesia in return for a guarantee of the interest at three per cent, on the existing £2,000,000 debentures of the Bechuanaland Railway; whether he is

741
aware that Mr. Rhodes has offered as security the existing riot revenue of the railway, amounting to over £100,000 a year, the guarantee of the Chartered Company, and to deposit £300,000 in Consols to meet any possible deficit; whether he is aware that under an existing agreement £20,000 a year has to lie paid by the Imperial Treasury for another eight or nine years, and £10,000 a year also by the Chartered Company to the railway company; whether Mr. Rhodes did otter to relinquish this £20,000 a year from the Treasury in case of a guarantee being given; whether, therefore, the ultimate new risk to the Treasury could not have exceeded £30,000 a year as against the securities offered; and whether it was upon financial or upon political grounds that he refused assistance to this railway through Imperial territory.
Sir M. HICKS-BEACH: I hardly understand why the hon. Member should ask me this question, because I observe that he recently attended a meeting of shareholders of the Bechuanaland Railway at which the proposal of Mr. Rhodes and the reply of her Majesty's Government were discussed. It will be found, as well as our reasons for declining it, in the papers which will soon be issued by the Colonial Office. But I may say that the question does not accurately represent it. Mr. Rhodes's letter did not include an offer to relinquish the £20,000 a year, which for eight or nine years more will be payable by this country; and we were asked to incur a liability of £60,000 a year practically for 73 years. Nor do I think the net revenue of the railway could properly be put at £100,000 a year. Such an; estimate would include the receipts of the first few months, which were entirely abnormal.

THE WINE DUTIES.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount the estimated Budget surplus of £230,000 will be reduced by the concession of extra duty he was so good as to give the foreign and colonial producer of cheap wines; and how it compares with the £17,850 which would have been lost by remitting the whole of the extra duty in respect of wine produced in and imported from British colonies and possessions.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The net loss from the concessions I made with regard to the duty on light wines in cask and bottle, after allowing for a gain from spirits in bottle, will probably be about £70,000. But it does not at all compare with my hon. friend's figure of £17,850; for if the colonies had been exempted from the increased duties, much more than that might have been lost by Colonial wines at the lower rate of duty taking the place of foreign wines which would have been subjected to higher duties.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Would not such a process have largely promoted trade between the colonies and the Mother Country?
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Yes, but it would not have promoted my revenue.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already lost by the change from one system to the other?
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: No, Sir, I have not.

THE BURIAL LAWS.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he can now name a time for the introduction of the Bill for the Amendment of the Burial Laws, which he has stated has been prepared.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR 'THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lanes.,): I fear that in the present state of public-business I can make no definite promise with regard to the introduction of this Bill.

SCARLATINA AT BUXTON.
MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that on the occasion of an outbreak of scarlatina at Buxton the milk from certain farms had been prohibited from entering the council district, and that the council prohibited the sale of the milk without any evidence of its having produced the disease; and whether this prohibition is based on any statutory power.
MR. CHAPLIN: I have communicated with the Buxton Urban District Council, and I am informed that in consequence of an outbreak of scarlatina the district council prohibited, the milk from three farms outside the district from being supplied -within the district. The orders appear to have been made under Section 4 of the Infectious Disease (Prevention) Act, 1890, on the Report of the Medical Officer of Health that on an inspection of the farms, and, in the company of a veterinary surgeon, of the animals therein, he was of opinion that infectious disease was caused by the consumption of the milk supplied from the farms.

PRISON OFFICIALS.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether a now scale of fines on subordinate officers in prisons has been issued under date 1st April, 1899, by which the maximum fines have been increased from 3s. to 5s. for such offences as carelessness, slovenliness, un-punctuality, using bad language, leaving a cell door unlocked, and conduct unbecoming a prison officer; and whether the regulation that each officer should be made acquainted with this scale is strictly enforced in all prisons.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The maximum fine is fixed by No. 140 of the new Prison Rules, a draft of which was laid before the House at the beginning of the session. The Standing Order dated 1st April directs as follows—
"Each officer will be made acquainted with this scale, and a copy of it will be placed in some position in which any officer can refer to it."
MR. LOUGH: I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the number of hours of duty per week, including one evening duty, done by subordinate officers in London primus is 78 to 94, and when two evening duties fall in the same week 92 to 106; and whether, when an officer goes on for the evening, he is obliged to be on duty for:36 hours consecutively; if so, whether anything can be done to reduce these hours of work.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The hours of duty of a subordinate officer in all local prisons; are, on the average, about
744
62 hours a week, including evening duty, I and whether on evening duty once or twice a week. He is never employed continuously on active duty for more than about 10 hours a day, but lie takes his turn of sleeping in the prison, and is there nominally on duty, or available for duty, for 36 hours consecutively, though he is out of the prison during nearly six hours of that time for meals and recreation.
MR. LOUGH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that 30 hours' consecutive duty, even if sleep is allowed, is excessive?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That is a matter of argument.

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATIONS IN SCOTLAND.
SIR WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in cases in which post-mortem examinations are made by order of the Procurator-Fiscal, medical men who have had charge I of a patient prior to death are allowed to be present at the examination, or whether the practice throughout Scotland in regard to granting or refusing permission is not uniform; whether persons suspected of having caused the death by criminal or other means are granted facilities for being medically represented at the examination; whether intimation is given to interested persons in time to allow their making application for representation to the right quarter: and if lie will state what is the right quarter where such application should be made.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY,): No person except the medical men instructed to conduct the autopsy is allowed to be present, except with the consent of Crown counsel, or on the order of the sheriff. Crown counsel may, in their discretion, sanction the presence of a medical man who has attended the case or in the interests of the accused; but this is done on condition that he is to be present merely as an onlooker, and is not to interfere in any way with the Crown examination. No formal intimation is given that an autopsy is to be held, but in all eases where any person is in custody on suspicion of causing death an autopsy is made as a matter of course, so that an accused person, or his advisers,

745
Cannot be in doubt as to the necessity making immediate application for permission to send a medical man to witness the autopsy if they so desire it. The quarter to which application should be made is the Procurator-Fiscal, whose duly it is in all cases of urgency to communicate by telegraph with the Grown Agent for the, instructions of Grown counsel. If an independent post-mortem examination is desired, it can he made after the Crown examination.

THE SCOTTISH ARMS.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what is the difficulty in embossing the Scottish Royal Coat-of-Arms on Scottish Papers printed in England, in view of the fact that, after due consideration last Session, it was found possible, as far as regards the Reports of the Scottish Education Department, to emboss the Scottish Arms on them instead of the English, although printed in England, and whether the same consideration can be extended to other Parliamentary Papers referring to purely Scottish departments, such as the recent Scottish Minute regarding the Office of the Register of Sasines, Edinburgh; and whether steps could be taken in future so that as many as possible of the Scottish Papers and Minutes should be prepared in Scotland.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland will arrange with the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office to carry out, as far as possible, the suggestion of the hon. Member.

ENGLISH AND SCOTCH EDUCATION GRANTS.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, will he explain why, under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and Elementary Education Act, 1897, England is to receive on this year's Estimates a grant of £622,000 for Voluntary schools, and of £170,000 additional for necessitous Board schools, with a further sum of £60,000 as the result of the repeal of the 17s. 6d. limit, or a, total of £852,000, as against only £12,000 for Voluntary schools in Scotland, £24,000 additional for necessitous Board schools, and £5,000 to keep up the Scotch capitation fee grant to 12s. per head, or a total of £41,600 borne on the imperial Estimates for the current year in respect of the
746
corresponding legislation for Scotland whether the amount thus actually payable to England has greatly exceeded the amount estimated in 1897, whilst the amount payable to Scotland has turned out to be greatly less than that estimated (£41,600 in place of £66,000); and, whether the Government will reconsider the grant which was made, to Scotland under the legislation of 1897.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: As I have already stated, it is extremely difficult to I deal with the matter involved in the question of the hon. Member by way of question and answer in the House. I shall be prepared to deal with it more fully in the discussion on the Estimates, but, meanwhile, I am to state that the Government is not prepared at present to re-open the question of the proportion between the grants to England and Scotland in connection with the legislation of 1897.

LOCAL VETO IN SCOTLAND.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the demand for Scottish legislation in accordance with Scottish opinion is met by the declaration of the Government of a desire on its part to comply with that opinion when it is expressed with sufficient clearness, and seeing that Scottish opinion in favour of a measure of temperance reform was proved by a vote in favour of the Local Veto (Scotland) Bill of 40 to 15, the Government will consider the propriety of introducing temperance legislation for Scotland at an early date.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not know what the hon. Member refers to in the first part of the question, the whole of which appears to be of an argumentative character. But I certainly cannot promise legislation this session on the subject to which he specially refers.
MR. PIRIE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the demand for temperance reform in Scotland has been made in the same form for a quarter of a century?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.
MR. PIRIE: But it is a fact.

PRIVATE HILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
MR. THEORNTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, looking to the anxiety of the people in Scotland for the passing into law of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill, he can give any assurance that it will be taken up and pushed through after the Whitsuntide recess.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have every hope and expectation that the Bill will be passed before the end of the session.

PROCLAIMED MEETING AT BREAFFY, Co. MAYO.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the fact that a public meeting announced to be hold on Sunday last, at Breaffy, county Mayo, to advocate the programme of the United Irish League and the manifestation of a public protest against the continued imprisonment of the widow Brennan, was proclaimed and suppressed, will he state on what grounds, if any, such exercise of the right of public meeting was by force taken away from the people of that locality.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The meeting referred to was prohibited because there were strong grounds for apprehending that it was convened for the purpose of advocating the boycotting of certain persons who, in the exercise of their legal rights, had become tenants of grass lands in the district, and of intimidating and unlawfully preventing other persons from exercising the same rights by becoming tenants of such lands, and that intimidation would follow. The avowed object of the meeting so far as disclosed by the placards convening it, was "to denounce land-grabbing and other such practices detrimental to the interests of the people." If this is an accurate description of the programme of the United Irish League, it is so far correct to say that the meeting was announced to advocate that programme, although, no doubt, particular individuals were aimed at. There was no mention in the placard of the case of Mrs. Brennan, who was committed to prison for contempt of Court on an order of the Vice-Chancellor.
MR. DILLON: On what ground was it anticipated that objectionable acts would be committed?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I cannot answer in detail, but before the meeting one of the individuals concerned was referred to in a newspaper, published in the district, as one whom the meeting was to be held to denounce.

THE LAKES OF KILLARNEY.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Muckross estate, on which the Lakes of Killarney are situate, is now for sale; and if he will take steps to secure this property for the people of Ireland.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I understand that the estate referred to is for sale by private treaty. I do not propose to take the steps suggested in the second paragraph of the question.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Cannot a slice of the 100 millions due to Ireland be applied for the purpose, and is there not a still undiscovered remnant of the Irish Church Fund?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. LOUGH: Is there no fund for the preservation of national and historic monuments which could be resorted to?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The property in question cannot be described as a national or historic monument.

IRISH PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will request the Government to apply the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament to Ireland this session?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have received no communications on this subject from hon. Members representating Irish Constituencies, and, as at present advised, 1 am of opinion it would be better to deal with the matter of Private Bill Procedure fur Ireland by means of a separate Bill.
MR. DALY: Will it be this session?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTION; SPOILT VOTING PAPERS.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the late election of a county councillor for the Ballyconnell division of county Cavan, there were 60 voting papers (all in favour of one candidate) spoilt by reason of the writing a name on the hack of each, the writing in every case being in the same hand; and whether, without regard to the plea that an election petition is available, he will inquire how at one booth, and in respect of only one candidate, so many votes were invalidated by the same individual.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: A complaint of the nature mentioned in the first paragraph was made to the Local Government Board by the defeated candidate at the election of a district councillor for the Bawnboy Division of the County Cavan, and was subsequently withdrawn by him. The Board have no information that a similar occurrence took place in connection with the election of a county councillor in Cavan. With regard to the second paragraph, the Board have no power to hold an inquiry as suggested, as the Returning Officer, under the provisions of the Ballot Act, adapted by the Countyaud Rural District Councillor's Elections Order, is prohibited from allowing any person to inspect any ballot papers in his custody except by order of a Court having jurisdiction in the matter, or of airy tribunal in which the election is questioned.

FAIR RENTS AT CARRICKMACROSS.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in February last there were in the unions of Carrickmacross and Castleblaney about 300 applicants to have fair rents fixed in the Land Courts, and that some of these applicants had entered in 1897; whether-he can state what steps he intends to take to have cases referred to heard and fair rents fixed; and if he can state the cause of the delay.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed be the Land Commissioners that the hear-
750
ing of a list containing 299 fair rent applications from the unions of Carrickmacross and Castleblaney—a number of which had been entered in 1897—was commenced in February last, but that all the cases on that list have not yet been heard, as the arrangements for the hearing of the latter portion of it had to be altered owing to the illness of the Lay Assistant Commissioner before whom the eases were listed. It is expected that the hearing of all the cases on the list referred to will be completed by an early date, and the decisions will then be announced on the earliest possible opportunity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to supplement the answer I gave yesterday as to the proposed course of business. On. Friday I propose to take the Customs mid Inland Revenue Vote in Committee of Supply, and Class 7, Votes for temporary commissions and for miscellaneous expenses, and in Class 2 Vote 17 and the following Votes. On Thursday, June 1, the first Government night after the House reassembles after the holidays, I propose to take the remaining Revenue Votes, including the Post Office, and to put down Class 6, non-effective and charitable services, and I have chosen these because I hope may consider them non-controversial. On June 2 1 shall ask the Committee to take the Local Government Board Vote and after that Vote 11 and remaining Votes. It might be convenient to Members to have a discussion of the Foreign Office Vote at no very distant date, and unless sufficient reason is shown against it, I shall ask the Committee to take that Vote on June 9, and I trust that will relieve hon. gentlemen from the necessity of raising Foreign Office questions on that rather inconvenient opportunity supplied by the motion for adjournment on Friday.
SIR H. H. FOWLER: Is it to be understood that it is the intention to actually take the Foreign Office Vote On June 2? The House has always been unwilling to part with control of that Vote, until late in the session, for the passing of the Vote precludes discussion on foreign affairs.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I thing that earlier in the session the right hon. Gentleman reproached me for allowing Votes to go over from day to day, and I agree with him that it is generally an inconvenient practice; but perhaps an exception should be made with the Foreign Office Vote, which stands in a rather special position. I will engage either not to ask the Committee to come to a decision on the Vote on June 9, or I will keep the Report over so as to allow the opportunity for dealing with Foreign Office subjects, should the House so desire, before the end of the session.
MR. DILLON: I suppose I may take it that no Irish Votes will be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the programme I have sketched there is no intention to take Irish Votes.
SIR W. LAWSON: At what period of the session does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring on the Vote for Lord Kitchener?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it will be long after the Whitsuntide holidays, certainly not before. It might be convenient for mo to make a statement on Friday, and I shall be prepared to do so.
MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give any date when the Agricultural Holdings Bill will be introduced.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, sir; I cannot mention any date.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (BYE-LAWS) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 31st May, and to be printed (Bill 210).

FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
Major Bowles, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Duncombe, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Heath, Mr. Howell, Mr. Malcolm, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Pym, Mr. Harold Reckitt, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Alfred Thomas and Major Wyndham-Quin nominated Mem-
752
bers of the Select Committee on Fire Brigade Bill.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.— (Sir William Walrond.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
VALE OF GLAMORGAN RAILWAY BILL.
Without Amendment.
BURLEY-IN-WHARFEDALE URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  NUNEATON AND CHILVERS COTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.

    WOODHOUSE AND CONISBROUGH RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT BILL).
    With Amendments.
    Amendments to—

SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [Lords.]
With an Amendment.

WALLASKY TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL [Lords].
Without Amendment—
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the establishment of a Board of Education for England and Wales, and for matters connected therewith." [Board of Education Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Wick and Pulteney Harbour Trustees to construct additional work's; to amend the Pulteney Harbours Act, 1879, and The Wick and Pulteney Harbours Order, 1883; to confer further powers upon the Trustees; and for other purposes." [Wick and Pulteney Harbours Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the St. Neot's Water Company to extend their limits of supply; and for other purposes." [St. Neot's "Water Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Bury to con-

753
struct additional waterworks; and for other purposes." [Bury Corporation Water Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with reference to the employment of pilots in the port of Liverpool; and for other purposes." [Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Pilot-age) Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to create redeemable stock, and to enable the Board to raise money temporarily by bills of exchange or promissory notes; and for other purposes." [Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Finance) Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for supplying with water the parish of Church Stretton, in the county of Salop." [Church Stretton Water Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend and amend The Humber Conservancy Acts, 1852 to 1876, and to confer further powers on the Humber Conservancy Commissioners; and for other purposes." [Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords].
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the British Electric Traction Company (Limited) to construct tram-roads in the county of Sussex; and for other purposes." [Bexhill and St. Leonard's Tramroads Bill [Lords].

WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
  ST. NEOTS WATER BILL [Lords].

    BURY CORPORATION WATER BILL [Lords].
    MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords].
    MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [Lords].
    CHURCH STRETTON WATER BILL [Lords].
    HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [Lords].
    BEXHILL, AND ST. LEONARD'S TRAMROADS BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 14:—
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Amendment he proposed was one about which there was not much to be said. It should be remembered that this Committee of the Privy Council was an entirely new body, quite unknown to this House, as far as London was concerned; and no very great amount of confidence had been shown in it by the London constituencies, for Members on both sides of the House had presented petitions against the selection of that body. Therefore it was all the more necessary that their decisions should be laid before Parliament, and that Committee ought not to be entrusted with such important legislative powers. He very much doubted whether the Committee had thoroughly followed the distinction between schemes and Orders. He had noticed in a very important organ of public opinion a defence of the provisions of the Bill, which explained that the second sub-section of this clause enacted that, where a local inquiry was held, it would have the effect of bringing the proposal of the Committee of the Privy Council before the House. That, he was prepared to say, was not the case at all. The Amendment he proposed was one which explained itself, and its acceptance would not change the framework of this Bill, and yet it would make so much difference that, taken with the Amendments already made, it would turn them from opponents to supporters of this Bill. The worst point now left in the Bill was the serious changes which were to be made by this unknown Committee, which were not to be brought before Parliament. He wished to point out to the Leader of the House that he had drawn his Amendment in accordance with precedent, so as to avoid any constitutional difficulty, for the words he proposed had been taken from the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, and they would be found in the fourth section. He could not help thinking that many Members on both sides of the House would share the views which he had expressed upon this matter, for the Amendment he was proposing was the one thing needed to restore this Bill to a

755
form which would enable them on his side of the House to become supporters of the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 7, at end, to insert, 'before any Order in Council is made under this Act, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than 30 days on which that House is sitting, and if either of these Houses before the expiration of 30 these days presents an address to Her Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall he taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As far as the abstract merits of this Amendment, are concerned, I confess that I cannot see that it would be any great improvement in this Bill, for the House is not a tribunal which is well qualified to deal with questions of boundaries—and it never has been a good body to deal with boundaries. It is especially difficult for this House to deal with the boundaries contained in a London Bill, because they cannot be considered merely with reference to the borough itself. There is another objection, although, perhaps, it is not a very serious one, and that is that a month will be required after the Order is framed before statutory effect can be given to it; and it would be prepared so late next session that it could not lie on the Table for 30 days, and there might be some difficulty in doing what the House is extremely anxious to do—namely, to bring the Act into working order by 1st of November 1900. I confess that I should prefer leaving the Bill as it is, for it follows the analogy of previous legislation, and not bring this question of boundaries in any way before the House. At the same time, if there is any strong and earnest feeling in favour of the proposed court of review in case of any erroneous or inexpedient decision on the part of the Commissioners, if the Committee are really anxious that there should be an appeal to this House against the decision of the Commissioners, I should not offer any strenuous opposition to the proposal on behalf of the Government.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was very glad to
756
hear the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, for they were quite in accord with the spirit in which he had conducted this Bill from the commencement. He was bound to say that, in their effort to render these borough councils more efficient, the First Lord of the Treasury had met them very fairly. He agreed with his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean that this part of the Bill was one which was looked upon with great suspicion, for the clause proposed to place these areas in the hands of an unknown body, in whom the districts concerned had no confidence. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was ready to accept the proposal to bring these matters when decided under the purview of the House. They attached very great importance to the Amendment, and he did not think that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman had much weight. Under the circumstances, he was very glad to hear what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, because the course ho had taken would facilitate the progress of the Bill through the House, and would give greater confidence in the measure when it became law.
MR. STUART, echoed the sentiments of his hon. friend in reference to the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had met them. He had no doubt that in many cases if it was felt that there was a court of revision in the House, objections would not be taken that might otherwise have been taken. Knowing as he did the views of some of the local authorities, he might say that if this Amendment was accepted their objections would almost vanish. The object of the Amendment was to give confidence to these outside the House, and he believed it would have a tendency to shorten the procedure when the Bill became an Act. They all desired that this Bill should come into operation at an early date, and he thought tin's object would be facilitated by the adoption of the proposal of his right hon. friend below the gangway, which would make the Bill more acceptable than anything else which the right hon. Gentleman could do. All through there had been an absence of party feeling, although there had been a very strong London feeling exhibited, which had been met very reasonably by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman.
CAPTAIN NORTONas the representative of a very large parish which he said was to he thrown into the melting pot under this clause, thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the generous manner in which he had met their wishes, and he was quite sure the effect in the districts which were to be amalgamated would he that the suspicion which had been aroused in the minds of main of the inhabitants would, to a large extent, vanish, if they knew that this House was to he the final court of appeal.
Question put and agreed to.
Words added.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that so far as he understood the Municipal Corporations Act and the procedure which was provided by it there was no provision that the Commissioners before they submitted their scheme should hold a local inquiry, and the object of this Amendment was to secure local inquires by the Commissioners before they submitted their proposals to the Privy Council. He thought it was very desirable that the views of the local people should be made known to the Commissioners before any scheme whatever was submitted to the Privy Council. He was aware that the Municipal Corporations Act provided for representations to be made by the local authorities when a draft had been settled by the Privy Council, but there was no provision for a local inquiry in the first instance.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 10, at end to insert, (3) The Commissioners, before preparing any Order or scheme under section one of this Act or any other Order or scheme for carrying this Act into effect when the subject matter is one, to which a local inquiry is applicable, shall cause to be made a local inquiry, of which due public notice shall be given, and at which any vestry, district board, or other local authority affected thereby shall be permitted to tender evidence and make representations which the Commissioners shall consider.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely concur with the object which the hon. Gentleman has in view in proposing this Amendment, but I think it is met by the conditional and recognised procedure of
758
the Privy Council, which gives the very fullest opportunity to every local authority or local institution by either Order or scheme to make its views heard. As I understand it, the procedure is, in the first place, that an Assistant Commissioner is sent down to the locality, who is bound to hear all the interested persons, and after he has heard them he lays their views before the Head Commissioners, who thereupon frame their provisional scheme, which is itself again publicly submitted to all the authorities, and I every opportunity is given for them to make such representations as they please before the Head Commissioners. I believe there will also be a subsequent opportunity for interested persons to be heard before the Privy Council. I do not think that this Amendment is necessary; indeed, it may be said, in a sense, to weaken the procedure already in force, and I think it is hardly necessary to press the matter further.
MR. STUARTasked whether the same procedure as to inquiry locally referred to an Order as well as to a scheme. Of course there was a considerable difference between an Order and a scheme, and he took it that his hon. friend desired to see that the local inquiry should apply to both cases.
MR. A J. BALFOUR: I will undertake that there shall be a full local inquiry in each case, and full opportunity shall be given to the local authorities to be heard.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that, under the circumstances, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUGHcontended that the expenses incurred by the Committee under this Act should not be paid out of the county fund at the disposal of the London County Council, and he accordingly moved to omit Sub-section 3.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 11, to leave out Sub-section(3)."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed—
"That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this Amendment is quite an unreasonable one, for there is no reason why the taxpayers at large, should pay for the work involved in these schemes and Orders. We are only by this proposal following the precedent of the Local Government Act, 1888.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he desired to say a word in support of the object which his hon. friend had in view. So far as precedent was concerned, it was on the side of the Amendment, for in 1887, then the Boundaries Commission was appointed, it was provided that the expenses should be paid by money provided by Parliament, and London had, of course, to pay its share of the cost. Those were surveys and inquiries precisely of the same character as those for which the London County Council was now asked to pay. He certainly thought the cost should fall not upon the County Council, but upon the national exchequer.
MR. LOUGHcontended that the point had not been adequately dealt with by the Government, and he considered the matter was one of great importance. The London ratepayers were a long-suffering class, and he hoped the Government would reconsider the matter.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,)contended that as this was a matter which concerned London only, it was only right
that the cost should be borne in the manner provided by the Bill.
MR. PICKERSGILLpointed out that he relied upon the Act of 1887, which applied to the boundaries, and was very much nearer the present case.
MR. STUARTsaid that so far as the clause; threw the expense upon the London County Council instead of the individual boroughs, he quite agreed with it, because it relieved the poorer districts, and was in reality a matter of equalisation. He thought there was a great deal of force in the argument of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who reminded the House that in 1887 the cost was put upon the national fund, to which London contributed a very large sum, although London was excluded from the operation of the Act. He was in favour of throwing this expense upon the country generally, although he agreed that the Government had gone in the right way in throwing it upon the County Council instead of upon the individual boroughs.
THE CHAIRMAN: The effect of carrying the Amendment will not be to throw the expense on the taxpayers. The only effect will be that the Commissioners will not get paid at all.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 100.—(Division List, No. 151.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Aird, John

Biddulph, Michael

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Blakiston-Houston, John

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Allsopp, Hon. George

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Denny, Colonel

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bousfield, William Robert

Doughty, George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bowles, Capt.H.F. (Middlesex)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Arrol, Sir William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Ascroft, Robert

Bullard, Sir Harry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Carlile, William Walter

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Fisher, William Hayes

Baldwin, Alfred

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Fison, Frederick William

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

Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W. (Leeds

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'

Flower, Ernest

Banbury, Frederick George

Channing, Francis Allston

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fry, Lewis

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. Smith-(Hunts

Chelsea, Viscount

Garfit, William

Bartley, George C. T.

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

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gilliat, John Saunders

Beach, W.W. Bramston(Hants

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Beckett Ernest William

Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

Goschen George J. (Sussex)

Bethell,Commander

Cox, Irwin Edward B.(Harrow

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

Gretton, John

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

Rutherford, John

Gull, Sir Cameron

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Gunter, Colonel

Lorne, Marquess of

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Loyd, Archie kirkman

Savory, Sir Joseph

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Macdona, John Cumming

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Maclure, sir John William

Sinclair, Louis (Rumford)

Hardy, Laurence

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

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

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Heaton, John Henniker

M'Killop, James

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Marks, Henry Hananel

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Helder, Augustus

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stephens, Henry Charles

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hill, Rt. Hn A. Staveley(Staffs.)

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hill, Arthur (Down. West)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

Monk, Charles James

Strutt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hoare, Edw. Brodie(H'mpste'd

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Muntz, Philip A.

Thorburn, Walter

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Murray, RtHn A.Graham(Bute

Thornton, Perey M.

Houston, R. P.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Howell, William Tudor

Northcote, Hon. SirH.Stafford

Viscent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Webster,SirR.E.(IsleofWeight)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Pilkinton, Richard

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Williams Jos, Powell-(Birm.)

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Priestley,Sir.W Overend (Edin

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh.N.

Kemp, George

Purvis, Robert

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

Kenyon, James

Pym, C. Guy

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

Kimber, Henry

Rankin, Sir James

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Wyndham, George

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Ridley, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Lea, Sit Thomas (Londonderry

Robertson, Herbert(Hackney

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

L1ewellyn,SirDillwyn-(Swans.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Round, James

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb)

Ambrose, Robert

Gold, Charles

Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Gourley, SirEdward Temperley

Philipps, John Wynford

Austin, M. (Limerick)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Baker, Sir John

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Power, Patrick Joseph

Beaumont, Wentworth, C.B.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Rickett, J. Compton

Billson, Alfred

Hemphill. Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Birrell, Augustine

Hogan, James Francis

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarsh.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Joicey, Sir. James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burt, Thomas

Jones, William(Carnarvonsh.)

Souttar, Robinson

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHn SirU

Spicer, Albert

Caldwell, James

Kitson, Sir James

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

Lambert, George

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Cawley, Frederick

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr)

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Cahrles Philips

Colville, John

M'Leod, John

Ure, Alexander

Crombie, John William

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wallace, Robert (Edinb.)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Daly, James

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Davitt, Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wedderburn, Sir John

Dillon, John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Fenwick, Charles

Oldroyd, Mark

Woodall, William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Woods, Samuel

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Mr. Lough and Mr. Pickers-gill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as Amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:—
MR. STEPHENScontended that the sub-sections of this clause were clearly the pivot upon I which this Bill turned. Therefore, they ought to know exactly where they were, and the local authorities should not be left in doubt as to the position which they occupied under the Bill. He submitted his Amendment with confidence, for he thought no objection could be taken to the words he suggested, for it must be for the benefit of all that the rights of all should be clearly set forth.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 14, to leave out 'may,' and insert 'shall,' as the circumstances in each case may require." —(Mr. Stephens.)
Question proposed—
"That the word 'may,' stand part of the clause."
SIR E. B. FINLAYhoped that his hon. friend would not consider it was necessary to press his Amendment, for there was nothing to be gained by inserting the words which he had proposed. Who was to determine the circumstances of each case? Clearly, it could only be determined by the Commissioners or the Committee of the Privy Council. He maintained that to say "shall, as the circumstances of the case may require" was only saying, in a longer form, what was already provided for by the words "a scheme under this Act may make provision."
COLONEL HUGHESpointed out that if the Commissioners left anything out there would still be an appeal to the Privy Council, and they would have that remedy.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether it was intended to raise the question of boundaries upon Sub-section B.
SIR R. B. FINLAYreplied that the boundary question would be dealt with at a later stage by the whole House.
Mr. W. F. D. SMITH,
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said it was the intention of the Government to make the operation of Sub-section B as wide as possible.
MR. STUARTsaid there was one part of Sub-section B which he thought ought to be dealt with by some specific reference. The words of the sub-section would appear to place it within the power of the Commissioners to divide up the London School Board. No doubt that was not the intention, but he believed that this sub-section would give that power taken in conjunction with the School Board Amendment Act of 1875. He raised the question in order that it might be made clear that the School Board was not intended to be interfered with in that way.
SIR R. B. FINLAY: That point has not been overlooked, and it may be necessary to introduce a saving clause to that effect.
Other Amendments made.
MR. STEPHENSthought that the parties interested in the apportionment and transfer of property and liabilities should be allowed to accommodate themselves by mutual arrangement, and he moved an Amendment with this object.
Amendment proposed
"In page 9, line 30, at end, to insert '(e) for the apportionment and transfer of property and liabilities as may be done under section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1894."—(Mr. Stephens.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he hoped his hon. friend would not press this Amendment, because they had already made provision to prevent any injustice in this respect. The Amendment was not really wanted, because the power of adjustment had been given to the body who had to prepare the scheme. If the parties ever arrived at a fair arrangement they would embody it in the scheme, and they would have power to make the adjustment if no agreement was arrived at. He hoped the hon. Member would recognise that the general words which they had already inserted in the Bill provided for the object which he had in view.
MR. STEPHENSasked leave to with-draw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9,line 31,after' Act', to insert other than The London Building Act, 1894."—(Mr. Courtney)
Amendment agreed to
MR. LOUGHsaid that, on behalf of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, he begged to move the next Amendment standing on the Paper.
Amendment, proposed—
"In page 9, line 36 at end to insert '(2) A scheme or order may be made for amending any scheme or order previously made in pursuance of this Act, and may be made by the same authority and after the same procedure as the original scheme or order.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question Proposed
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERpointed out the object of this Amendment was already provided for.
MR. LOUGHurged that this was another instance of the unfortunate system of legislation by reference. Unless the Government could point out some obvious objection, he thought it would be better that the words should be inserted in the Bill, and he supported this Amendment.
Amendment put, and negative.
MR.STUARTsaid he wished some provision to be made for enabling the new councils to spend money upon technical education, and he should also like to know whether this Bill would affect the Technical Education Act administered by the London County Council, or the grants made to the metropolis for technical education.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I may inform the hon. Member that there is no intention to interfere with the powers of the London County Council in regard to the Technical Education Act, or with reference to the grants made to the metropolis for the purposes of technical education.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 9, line 36, at end, to add, '(g) and for enabling borough councils to expend money on technical instruction, Provided that nothing in this Act alter the powers of the London County Council in respect of the Technical Education Act and of the administration of the grant for technical education.'"—(Mr Stuart.)
THE CHAIRMAN: This Amendment cannot be moved here, because it would be necessary to transfer to the borough councils the power to spend this money, and it is not in order to move something for which the necessary power has not already been given Bill. The hon. Member ought to have raised this question at an earlier period of the Bill.
MR. STUARTsaid he should raise the question upon the Report stage. It was a very important point, and he could give facts to show the right hon. Gentleman how important a matter it was. Before the clause proceeded further he should like to raise it upon the clause as whole. Perhaps the Attorney-General would he able to answer the point.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERreplied that this was not the right place to deal with it, although he did not believe that under the Bill as it stood the powers of the London County Council would he interfered with. With regard to the power of the new councils to spend money upon technical education, that would have to be provided for in a new clause.
MR. STUARTasked if there was any intention of interfering with the Technical Education Board?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly not.
MR. STUART,in moving the next Amendment, said a proposal might become law without coming before Parliament, but he thought that if the persons interested, or a certain proportion of the inhabitants, petitioned during a certain interval, then the scheme should not be brought before Parliament.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 4, after 'deemed,' to insert 'otherwise than for the purpose of lodging a petition.'"—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
Question—
"That those words be there inserted,"
put and negatived.
MR. CAUSTONsaid that he believed the Government were fully alive to the necessity of the Amendment he now proposed.
Amendment proposed,
At end of Clause to add: "The Mayor, Commonalty, and citizens, and the Court of Aldermen, and the Coroner, and other officers of the City of London, and their deputies, shall also be deemed a local authority within the meaning of the said provisions so far as relates to any powers exerciseable by them respectively within the ancient Borough of Southwark."—(Mr. Causton.)
Question proposed:—
"That those words be there added."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government are entirely in accord with the views of the hon. Gentleman, and I will accept the Amendment, with the proviso that if further inquiries which we are making render it necessary to extend the words on the Report stage, we may extend the provisions to other cases.
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the Government would see, after having considered the matter, that the words he now moved to add were necessary. An Amendment had been accepted which provided that the local authorities should be heard, and that there should be an inquiry in each of the localities before the Privy Council before schemes were decided, but he did not think it was quite certain that the Amendment would cover the case of the London County Council.
Amendment proposed:—
At end of Clause to add: "The London County Council shall be entitled to make representations to the Commissioners and to the Committee of the Privy Council in respect of any of the matters referred to them by this Act, and shall be entitled to be heard in support of such representations."—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed:—
"That these words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be desirable to accept the Amendment. There is no provision that I
768
am aware of in this Bill by which schemes will be decided which affect the London County Council, and that being so, it would not be proper to introduce such a clause as this into the Bill. It might possibly complicate matters, and I do not see that the interest of the boroughs would be in any way safeguarded by the words now suggested.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood that the clause was put in to safeguard the London County Council. He did not see why that body should be put into a worse position than it at present occupied under the County Councils Act, under which it had the power, upon the incorporation of any borough, to object if they thought proper. He thought that with regard to some of the outlying districts it was possible that their views on the subject might be advantageously expressed. It was evidently intended to put the county councils in a worse position.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will see that there is a broad distinction between the position of the London County Council under this measure and that of the provincial county councils under the Act of 1888. Where, under the Act of 1888, a new borough was constituted, something was carved out of the area under the control of the county council, and, therefore, it was quite proper that the county council should have the right to appear, but so far as I can foresee the operation of this Bill, the London County Council will in no way be affected by the sub-division of its area into these local boroughs. Whether they shall be larger or smaller is a matter which concerns themselves, but it will surely not be contended than it concerns anybody else.
MR. STUARTwas of opinion that the Amendment might properly lie accepted; it would not give the London County Council any undue power of interfering with or preventing the operation of the clause. The Amendment, as a matter of fact, was one which would simply enable the knowledge and information of the County Council, which were very great, to be laid before the Commissioners. He thought the information which it could give would be of the greatest assistance to the Commissioners, and so long as the

769
London County Council was not in conflict with the local authorities it would be a great advantage to have their views. He thought that allowing them to have a right to appeal would lead to a valuable solution of the whole question. It would, of course, be seen that there was no want of cordiality between the County Council and the new boroughs.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt the County Council is in possession of very valuable information as regards the whole of the county, but the hon. Gentleman will perceive, from the Bill that there would be a full Commission sent down to inquire into any scheme winch it was desired to adopt in any area, and it would receive information from all sources. Necessarily one of the sources of information would be the County Council. I think it would be better to follow the procedure of the Privy Council in the Act of 1888, which I think will meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.
SIR BLUNDELL MAPLEwas of opinion that the London County Council should have a right to appear.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it will be necessary when we come to the next clause to introduce words giving the County Council a right to be heard when an area which has been subject to the County Council is proposed to be altered. I think that is necessary, but the best way to meet the views of my hon. friend will be to insert words in the next clause.
MR. LOUGHsaid he had every disposition to accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought he had not recognised sufficiently the fact that the Bill did not materially alter the position of the London County Council. Most of the clauses which interfered with the County Council had either been modified or struck out. No step could be taken in any of the areas of London without affecting them. Unless words were inserted in the clause expressly admitting the County Council, the County Council would have no right to appear.
COLONEL HUGHEScontended that the County Council had no right to appear at every local inquiry which might
770
be held, though he admitted that in some cases they might properly claim a right of appearing; but that matter would be dealt with in the next section. He for his own part would be very sorry to see the County Council appear in every local dispute and become a partisan of one side or the other.
MR. HALDANEsaid, as he understood the matter, the right hon. Gentleman contemplated that there should be full opportunity given to everybody concerned of being heard before the Commissioners or the Privy Council. If that was all the Bill contemplated, that was all that was desired; but he wished to understand clearly whether the only judicial hearing would be the hearing before the Commissioners. He thought the latter should have discretion to hear anyone they thought fit, who could throw light on the subject.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand the matter, there will be a hearing before the sub-Commissioners, also before the head Commissioners, and if thought desirable—though I think this not likely—before the Privy Council itself. So there is a possibility of three hearings. By the time a hearing has taken place before the sub Commissioners and the head Commissioners it will probably not be thought necessary to go before the Privy Council, but in an extreme case it would go there. A hearing before the Privy Council will lie in the background.
Question put, and negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:—
MR. LOUGHrose to move to omit the words "outside the City." The clause provided that every part of the administrative County of London should be in some borough or parish, but he pointed out that some parts were inside the City.
THE CHAIRMAN: So far as the hon. Member addresses his point to meet the words "outside the City," he is in order; but he is out of order in taking the point he is now taking.
MR. LOUGHadmitted that that was so, and unless some further Amendment

771
was made it would be impossible to carry his intention out.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 17:—
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON*MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.) moved to omit the words "or of constituting a satisfactory area for a borough." He thought no parish would necessitate division in that way, but it might be sought to divide Hackney into separate portions. He did not in the least object to adjustment of boundaries, but he did object to a parish being cut into two distinct parts.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, lines 11 and 12 to omit the words 'or of constituting a satisfactory area for a borough.'"—(Mr, Herbert Robertson.)
Question proposed—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware, any more than my hon. friend, of any case in which it would be either necessary or desirable to cut a parish in two in the sense of leaving a portion in two borough areas. At the same time I do not think it is necessary to cut out the sub-section. Probably the Commissioners would come to the same conclusion as my hon. friend, and, indeed, the Amendments accepted will prevent any rash tendency to cut parishes asunder. On the other hand, there may be cases where it would be extremely desirable to make small adjustments, and this, if my hon. friend's Amendment is carried, will be prevented.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he was satisfied with the explanation of the First Lord of the Treasury, and would therefore withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
SIR CHARLES DILKE SIR CHARLES DILKE moved the omission of Sub-section 1, for the purpose of asking a question of the Government, which properly arose on that sup-section, and which at an earlier period he pressed on the attention of the Government—the difficulty that arose in relation to the distribution of parochial charities when a
772
portion of the parish was detached. There was no doubt that theoretically the rights of the parishioners were preserved under the general law, but how they could be practically enforced for the benefit of the inhabitants in the detached portion he could not conceive. The matter was of great importance to the inhabitants of London, and he mentioned it in order that it might receive the attention of the Government.
Amendment proposed—
"That Sub-section (1) be omitted."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed—
"That Sub-section (1) stand part of the Clause."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he had listened attentively to what the right hon. Baronet had said, but he failed to see how the Bill would affect the question of charities in any respect. Existing rights would be preserved by the general law. He did not himself think the constitution of these boroughs would make any difference, but he was prepared to consider the matter further.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it would make a difference to the people who now received the charities if they happened to live in that quarter of the parish which was cut off, because they would be unknown to the governing body charged with the distribution.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he could not see his way to insert any general words, but if the right hon. Baronet would be kind enough to move to insert a new clause he would consider it.
MR. STEPHENSsaid that if one part of a parish were included in the new borough, there would be no body remaining by which the charities could be administered.
MR. BOUSFIELDthought it would be very easy to provide a scheme by which the Commissioners might deal with the transfer of a portion of the charity.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid it seemed to be a matter for the trustees of the charity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTS MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster) moved to add after the word "observed"—
"Provided that whore any such detached part is geographically situate within any borough containing the principal part of the parish which shall be part of that borough."
The object of the Amendment was to avoid ambiguity or contradiction between two parts of tins Hill. The scheduled borough of "Westminster contained the hamlet of Knightsbridge, part of the parish of St. Margaret's, and although he was quite satisfied that it was the intention of the Government that the whole of the parish of St. Margaret's should be included in the borough of Greater Westminster, yet it would come directly under the description of the first three lines of clause.
Amendment proposed—
In page 10, line 22, after 'observed,' to insert, — Provided that where any such detached part is geographically situate within any borough mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, it shall remain part of that borough.'"—(Mr Burdett-Coutts.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid the Government would accept the Amendment, but it must be distinctly understood that they reserved to themselves the power of making a verbal alteration on Report.
MR. WHITMOREsaid he could not understand why the proposal should be accepted in the case of one borough, while the Commissioners were to be left to deal with the rest of London.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid he thought the case would be met by the insertion in the schedule of the words "including the hamlet of Knightsbridge."
MR. BIG WOOD MR. BIG WOOD (Middlesex, Brentford) moved to omit Sub-section 2 of the clause. The matter to which the Amendment referred was of great importance to the inhabitants of Middlesex, and one upon which they felt keenly. The detached portion of South Hornsey, which was
774
evidently alluded to by the Amendment, was an isolated portion of a parish surrounded by London, but it was a thoroughly well governed district, and was complete in a variety of ways. The effect of this transfer would be that Middlesex would lose upwards of £2,000 rateable value, and, moreover, it would materially interfere with the conditions of the elections for councillors and aldermen, resulting in financial loss. Under the County Council Act of 1888 there was a clause which stated that when any transfer of a district was made it was competent for the inhabitants to be heard before the Local Government Board. Upon this point he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether ho could sec his way to accept the opinion of the inhabitants. Quite recently a poll was taken, and of those who voted 98 per cent of the inhabitants were opposed to the transfer of the area to London. He had not heard that such transfers could be made against the will of the community. It was a monstrous thing that a man who was suddenly shifted into another area, to find that his rates were doubled, had no redress. If the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to accept the Amendment, he suggested that the area might be absorbed in the County of Middlesex.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 10, line 23, to leave out sub-section (2)."—(Mr. Bigwood.)
Question proposed—
That Sub-section (2) stand part of the clause."
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsupported the Amendment. The County of Middlesex felt very strongly on this point, as it was a very poor county, and if the suggested part of South Hornsey were detached there would be a loss of £2,000 to the rateable value. The reason why Middlesex was so poor was because, in consequence of its contiguity to London, it had an enormous police bill to pay. When a vote of the neighbourhood was taken it was found that there was almost an unanimous opinion against the transfer. He thought the Government ought to take some means to meet the views of the people.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure my hon. friends that I sympathise with the difficulties which they have laid before the House. It does unfortunately happen that whenever we attempt by legislation to deal with areas, a great deal of local feeling and dissatisfaction is inevitably aroused. I am the last person to view that feeling with satisfaction or indifference, or to refuse to do anything I can to mitigate its intensity. I think my hon. friends will themselves see, however, that to leave this extraordinary anomaly unredressed when we are dealing with the subject of London government would be quite impossible. Anyone who looks at the matter will see that a Middlesex island is stuck down in the middle of the County of London, and that it really is a matter which it is impossible to leave un-dealt with in this Bill. Now, Sir, my hon. friend has complained of the financial loss which would ensue from cutting off from Middlesex so much of its rateable value, and I agree that it may be a very serious difficulty. But I would point out that under the existing law, which would be embodied in this Act, it is possible that schemes may be made by which financial injury to Middlesex may be mitigated or altogether removed. I am informed that courts of law have held that when rateable value is thus transferred from one county to another it is within the province of those who make schemes for carrying out the necessary adjustments to adjust, among other things, such alterations of the financial burden as may prevent the loss inflicted upon the county from being so onerous as it otherwise must be. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, who knows more about these questions than I can pretend to, tells me that not only is it done, but that as a matter of fact it is always done. I understand it has been laid down by a learned judge that it was the duty of the Local Government Board, or the authority concerned, to see that such redress should be made. I hope, therefore, my hon. friend will recognise the absolute necessity of carrying out this reform of boundaries. We feel that the injury to Middlesex, although it cannot be removed altogether, is really not so severe or so pressing as might be supposed.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEventured to intrude
776
in the discussion because in 1889 the matter, up to a certain point, came before the Royal Commission of which he was a member. If they would look at a map of the metropolis the Committee would see in a moment that what the First Lord had said was really unanswerable. They could not leave islands of Middlesex in the middle of the metropolis. Was there anything unusual in the proposal which the Government were making? The Government were only acting in strict harmony with previous legislation. With regard to the financial objections, Middlesex would, according to the principles laid down, be entitled to all the rates or liabilities they stood to lose.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDasked whether the rateable value for which compensation was to he paid referred to the present rateable value, or to the rateable value which might accrue in the future.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had spoken of the loss that would be incurred by the district, because when it became part of a borough they would have to pay School Board rates. He contended that they ought to pay these rates, because they had the benefit of the London school board schools. If compensation were to be paid at all, it ought to be paid to the County of London for the past use of these schools.
MR. STEPHENSthought that his hon. friend was quite in error. It was stated that Hornsey had built schools to accommodate children of this island district, but these schools were largely used by children from the County of London. He objected to this question being dealt with simply on a financial basis. The only reason assigned for the proposal was that the district did not look quite as it should upon the map. The First Lord of the Treasury ha said, the course of the Debate, that he was very much averse to dividing parishes. Well, South Hornsey was a little planet by itself; it was a distinct local entity. It had an urban council, a population of 10,000, and a rateable value of more than £50,000. It had a fever hospital of its own, and had put fir operation many adoptive Acts. Moreover, the inhabitants were passionately attached to their own system of local self-government. In 1894 a poll

777
was taken, when 1,667 voted against amalgamation, and 33 for it. Another poll was taken recently, when only 30 voted for amalgamation. Surely the wishes of the inhabitants expressed in so emphatic a fashion as that ought to lie respected. It was most completely equipped, most successfully managed, the rates were lower than its neighbours', and it had very little local debt. He would make a practical suggestion—to omit Sub-section 2 altogether, and allow the whole parish to come under the operation of Sub-section 3. By that means the whole case would be presented to the Privy Council, and dealt with after full inquiry and consideration, and the difficulties and inconveniences of an arbitrary decision would be avoided. The Privy Council Commissioners were sure to guide themselves by the expressed feelings of the inhabitants.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was an admitted amalgamation that a little portion of Middlesex should be left in the centre of the County of London. It led to great inconvenience, and it ought to be dealt with in a Bill of this sort. Hon. Gentlemen had made one point as to compensation, but that would be met in a fair and just way. The hon. Member who last spoke said that the matter had been placed before the ratepayers, who had voted against amalgamation by a large majority. He would like to know the form in which the vote was taken, for in those boundary questions they could get a vote in any way, according to the manner in which the question was drafted. He did not think the votes of 1,600 people ought to stand in the way of a reform which should have taken place many years ago.
MR. BIGWOODsaid the question of police had been introduced into the Debate. Now Middlesex had not a single policeman of its own; it was policed entirely by the Metropolitan Police. Every hamlet in Middlesex—where, by the way, a policeman was seldom seen—had to pay 5d. in the pound for the support of the Metropolitan Police.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. LOUGHsaid there was a little peninsula of Middlesex which stretched down into the County of London, which
778
created quite as great an anomaly as the island about which they had been speaking. Clissold Park, which was very thickly populated, was partly in the County of London and partly in Middlesex, and so was Finsbury Park. The great thoroughfare of Seven Sisters Road ran for a. considerable distance through the County of London, them through this Middlesex peninsula, and then into the County of London again. Then the works of the New River Company were partly in the County of London and partly in Middlesex. If the Amendment he now proposed were adopted by the Government, a very necessary rectification of the boundaries of the County of London would lie made.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 23, after 'surrounds,' to insert 'wholly or for the greater part'; and in the same line to leave out 'detached.' "— (Mr. Lough.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: thought that the Amendment would carry the policy of the Bill too far. Objection had been raised by his hon. friends to the absorption of a district wholly surrounded by the County of London, but they would still more object to absorption of a part not so surrounded. He could not consent to extend the provisions of the Bill in the direction pointed at by the Amendment.
MR. STUARTsaid, on the whole, the point raised by the hon. Gentleman could be made on the next sub-section, which provided that inquiry should precede absorption, whereas if the Amendment were made on this sub-section the absorption would be compulsory.
MR. LOUGHsaid there was as much to be said for the principle of this Amendment as for the last; but if the right hon. Gentleman could consider the matter on the next sub-section, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid there was nothing to prevent the administrative County of London making proposals for the alteration of boundaries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STUARTsaid that the purpose of his next Amendment was to leave out the portion of Sub-section 3 which required that the detached portion of a parish to he annexed to the County of London must necessarily comprise the larger portion of the population. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave the whole subject to the consideration of the Commissioners. There was no doubt that in that particular part of London where Hornsey met Stoke Newington there were bad boundary lines, and he thought it would be a great improvement to take in that peninsular portion after full inquiry into the circumstances of the case.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 10, line 28, to leave out from London,' to 'the whole,' in line 30.—(Mr. Stuart.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he had also an Amendment of the sub-section, by which annexation of a detached part would not he contingent on any probable estimate of the population.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think it would be fair to make the alterations in the Bill which had been suggested.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid he had not yet received any answer to his question as to whether compensation was to be paid on present or prospective value.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he could not answer offhand, but the matter would have full consideration.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:—
Amendment proposed in page 11, line 10, at end—
Add "(3) Nothing in this Act shall prevent, the council of any borough from continuing to make any contribution for the purpose of technical education hitherto made by any local authority.(4)Nor from exercising its existing powers to carry on a market."—(Colonel Hughes.)
Question propose—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he had no objection to the Amendment; but, as its object was simply to protect the rights of Woolwich, he would prefer to insert, after "borough," the words "consisting of or comprising Woolwich."
COLONEL HUGHESassented to this suggestion; and the proposed sub-sections, as amended, were read a second time, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:—
MR. THORNTONsaid he was informed that vestries had hitherto had the guardianship of the mortuaries in and around London, and there was some anxiety as to what was to be their position in the future. The Bill did not provide for the control of these buildings, and he should like to know what were the intentions of the Government with regard to them.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 11, line 37, after 'hall,' to insert 'or mortuary.'"—(Mr. Thornton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he would suggest to his hon. friend that he should adopt more general words. It would be better to leave out, in line 39, the words "vestry or town hall," and insert "buildings which belong to any body whose powers and duties are transferred to any borough council by or under this Act." And then it would also be necessary subsequently to take out the words "of the borough in which the hall is situated."
MR. THORNTONsaid that under the circumstances he begged to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
MR. PICKERSGILLpointed out that Sub-section 3 provided that certain duties

781
now performed by the churchwardens in a borough should in future be performed by or under the direction of the town clerk, and he proposed to substitute for the town clerk the borough council. He did not see why those powers should be conferred on an officer of the borough council. It seemed to him that they ought rather to lie vested in the body as a whole. Attention had been drawn to the matter by various vestries, who were pretty unanimously of the opinion that the power should not be entrusted to the town clerk, but should be conferred on the borough council. He was glad to see; that several hon. Members had put down Amendments in identical terms to his.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 5, to leave out 'town clerk,' and insert 'borough council.'"—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'town clerk' stand part of the clause."
Sir. R. B. FINLAY: said the attention of the Government had been drawn to the point. It was one which ho thought required consideration, but he believed it could be better dealt with elsewhere. He would be glad if the hon. Member would not press the Amendment at that stage.
MR. STUARTsaid he could not see why the question should he left over, unless, indeed, the hon. and learned Gentle-man wished to consider it in connection with the question of overseers. It did seem to him most extraordinary that these duties of churchwardens should be handed over to the town clerk, and not to the borough council. In his view they ought to get rid—in all civil procedure—of the antiquated anomaly of the churchwarden. Personally, ho would be glad to see a much more sweeping Amendment carried.
Silt K. B. FINLAYsaid he had informed the Committee that the matter required consideration, with a view to the introduction of proper words. In the meantime, however, he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CAUSTONsaid he wished to point out that there was no provision in the Bill for appointing the trustees of parochial
782
charities, a duty which was now performed by the vestries. He thought that the Amendment upon the subject which stood in his name would commend itself to the Committee, and, without wasting time in discussing it, he would ask the opinion of the Government upon it.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 12, line 5, at end, to add, 'Where before the passing of this Act the duty of appointing trustees of any parochial charity or of any board of trustees constituted by an order of the Charity Commissioners has devolved upon the vestry of any parish, such duty shall he transferred to the council of the borough in which the parish is situate: Provided that in the future election or appointment of such trustees only those members of the council shall be entitled to vote who represent the parish or any portion thereof to which the charity is applicable, and where a parish has been divided by the operation of any scheme made under this Act, such scheme shall make provision for the proportion in which the trustees shall be appointed in like manner by each of the borough councils exercising jurisdiction over portions of the parish.'"—(Mr. Causton.)
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I will agree to this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGH CECILsaid he wished to raise the question whether this covered the case of ecclesiastical charities. It might he that there were such charities affected by some local or general Act which might pass under the control of the borough council, and he wished to make the Bill clear upon the point.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 5, at end to add 'no ecclesiastical charity (as defined by the Local Government Act, 1894) shall be affected by anything in this Act.'"—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he was entirely in accord with his noble friend. He did not think the Bill did affect such charities, but he should prefer that the words go in, it being understood that, if he thoughts it better to have a t definition of parochial charities, he would incorporate the words in the interpretation clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:—
MR. BURDETT-COITTTSsaid he had to move an Amendment providing that the, newly constituted area of Westminster should be called the "City of Westminster." He earnestly hoped that the Government would accept his Amendment, because he hold that it was consistent with the desire they had expressed to respect local traditions. He would like to assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was not intended by the Amendment to claim exceptional treatment of any kind for the now borough of Westminster. They did not claim, neither did they pretend to a right to any of the privileges which in London attached to the name of city. They did not even desire a new title the Amendment simply gave recognition to the title which the area included in the borough had possessed for over three and a half centuries. There were some 350 Acts of Parliament which referred to the area as the City of Westminster, and he thought he might well illustrate the justice of their claim to the title by quoting the fact that hon. Members themselves wore summoned to Parliament, "to meet in the City of Westminster." They only wanted to retain their ancient title, which he trusted the Government did not desire to destroy, and which, if not retained for the purposes of the new, borough, must necessarily disappear altogether, with the result that Members of Parliament would in future be summoned to meet in a place which really did not exist. He trusted it was not asking too much of the Government that this ancient and interesting title should be retained for the borough of Westminster.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 6, after 'shall' to insert 'direct that the area of Westminster, as constituted by this Act, shall be called the City of Westminster, &c."—(Mr. Burdett-Coutts.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend knows that I heartily sympathise with the views he takes with regard to what is now to by called Greater Westminster. I
784
have no doubt the area is worthy of its long traditions. But my hon. friend asks me to single out the borough of Westminster, and give it a distinctive name, different from that given to all the other borough councils which this Bill proposes to establish. It appears to mo that that is asking me to take a course which would be greatly resented by the other boroughs. I have no doubt that the term "city" would be habitually and ordinarily applied to Westminster in the future as in the past; but that we should describe it in an Act of Parliament by a name different to that which we deliberately apply to the other municipalities called into existence at the same time, by the same Act, under the same provisions, and subject to the same conditions, would be an anomaly which, I think, would be not unnaturally resented by other districts which are as large in point of population as Westminster, although doubtless not so rich in historical associations. The Government do not see their way to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsuggested that it was desirable, so as to provide for the first meeting of the borough council, to make another Amendment, which he accordingly proposed.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 12, after 'duty' to insert and give such directions as to tins first meeting of tins borough councils."'—(Mr. Attorney General.)
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 16, to insert 'The Order in Council under this Act, shall provide for the revised list of voters in the administrative County of London, outside the City being, in the year 1900, printed and signed before October 20, and coming into operation as the register for the purposes of the borough election on November 1."—(Mr. Attorney-Generall).
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he hoped that the Attorney-General would give his attention to the case of registers of parishes which were divided by the Bill, and added to other parishes.
Mr. BOUSFIELDalso pointed out that in some cases the Parliamentary borough might not be coterminous with the borough boundaries, and he wished know if those cases were sufficiently provided for.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid it had been pointed out it was not quite clear whether proper provision had been made for the existing members of local bodies remaining in office until the new bodies came into power. He thought it would be well to Sub-section 8, section 79, of the Local Government Act, 1894.
Amendment proposed—
"To insert: 'On the day on the first borough councillors elected under this Act come into office, the persons who are then members of elected vestries or district boards shall cease to hold office, and until that day the persons who are, at the passing of this Act, members of elected vestries and district boards shall continue in office as if the term of office for which they were elected expired on that day, except for the purpose that no further election shall take place.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
Question—
"That those words be there inserted,"
put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 amended, and agreed to.
Clause 23:—
MR. COHENsaid the Amendment to this clause, which stood in his in his name, depended a great deal upon what decision the Government came to in regard to Clause 11. He would formally move it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 12, line 41, to leave out the words from the word 'council,' to the second word 'the,' in page 13, line 1.'"—(Mr. Cohen.)
Question proposed—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the words had better stand part of the clause at present. As my hon. friend observes, we have yet to deal with the postponed Clause 11, and when we do that we shall be able to see whether or not any modification is required in this clause. It is necessarily a question of drafting, and we have first to decide the question of policy.
MR. STUART: suggested that the same course should be adopted with respect to this clause as was taken on Clause 11. Its consideration had far better be postponed until after Clause 11 was disposed of, as otherwise they would have great difficulty in reconstructing the Amendments to it. In fact, it would lead to a waste of time.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I do not think it is necessary to postpone the consideration of the clause altogether.
CAPTAIN NORTONpointed out that the whole clause was bound up with the question of overseers, and there were a great many Amendments on the Paper which certainly could not be decided until Clause 11 had been disposed of.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid he hoped the Committee would go on with the clause. If the hon. Member looked at it, he would see that it required very slight modification indeed, and it would be very inconvenient to postpone it.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONagreed that it was a Matter of convenience, but held that there was a great deal of force in what had fallen from his hon. friends, for undoubtedly the clause would be discussed with greater efficiency and rapidity when they knew exactly how they stood in regard to Clause 11. The sooner they decided the question of overseers the better.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 94—(Division List No. 152.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy

Banbury, Frederic George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Balcarres, Lord

Bartley, George C. T.

Ascroft, Robert

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

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Begg, Fordiuand Faithfull

Bigwood, James

Hanbury, Rt. Hn Robert Wm.

Pender, Sir James

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Penn, John

Bousfield, William Robert

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Percy, Earl

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampste'd

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hoare Samuel (Norwich)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bullard, Sir Harry

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Houston, R. P.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Butcher, John George

Howell, William Tudor

Purvis, Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Rankin, Sir James

Chaloner, Captain R. G W.

Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice-

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J.(Birm.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson

Charrington, Spencer

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Round, James

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

Kimber, Henry

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

Rutherford, John

Coghill Douglas Harry

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sidebotham, J.W. (Cheshire)

Cranborne, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Llewelyn Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R.

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

Cross,Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Spencer, Ernest

Curzon, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool

Stewart,Sir Mark.J.M 'Taggart

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lowe, Francis William

Strauss, Arthur

Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dixon-Hartland SirFred Dixon

Macartney, W.G. Ellison

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

Doughty, George

Macdona, John Cumming

Thorburn, Walter

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Maclure, Sir John Willam

Thornton, Perry M.

Doxford, William Theodore

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'IverSir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

M'Killop, James

Valetia, Viscount

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Malcolm, Ian

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

Webster, R.G. (St. Peneras)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Webster, Sir R.E. (Isle of Wight

Fisher, William Hayes

Meysey-Thomson, Sir H. M.

Went worth, Bruce C. Vernon-

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Middlemore, John T.

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Monk, Charles James

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Forster, Henry William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Williams,Joseph Powell-(Birm

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

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

Garfit, William

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

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

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Wyndham, George

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Morrell, George Herbert

Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

Gilliat, John Saunders

Morrison, Walter

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Morton,Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Younger, William

Gordon, Hon John Edward

Mount, William George

Gorst, Rt. Hn. SirJohn Eldon

Muntz, Philip A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gosechen Rt.Hn. G.J (St.George's

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Nicol, Donal Niuian

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Daly, James

Hogan, James Francis

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardigan

Horniman, Frederick John

Baker, Sir John

Davitt, Michael

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Beaumont, Wenrworth C.B.

Dillon John

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Billson, Alfred

Doogan, P. C.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Broadhurst, Henry

Dunn, Sir William

Lambert, George

Burns, John

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan

Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cumb'land

Burt, Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Leng Sir John

Buxton, Sidney Charles

Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith)

Lewis John Herbert

Caldwell, James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lough, Thomas

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

Lowies, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macaleese, Daniel

Carmicbael, Sir T.D. Gibson-

Griffith, Ellis J.

M' Arthur, William (Cornwall

Causton, Richard Knight

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Cawley, Frederick

Haldane, Richard Burdon

M'Leod, John

Channings Francis Allston

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

788

789

Morton, Edw. J.C. Cecil (Devonport)

Rickett, J. Compton

Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Weir, James Galloway

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

Robson, William Snowdon

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Sinclair Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Oldroyd, Mark

Souttar, Robinson

Wilson, John (Govan)

Paulton, James Mellor

Spicer, Albert

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Stanhope, Hon. Phillip J.

Woods, Samuel.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

Steadman, William Charles

Yoxall, James Henry

Philipps, John Wynford

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thomas, David Alfr. (Merthyr

Mr. Chohen and Mr. James Stuart.

Price Robert John

Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Amendment Proposed—
"In page 13, line 7, after the word 'officer' to insert the words 'whose office they may deem unnecessary; but any officer required to perform duties such as are not the same or analogous, or which are in addition to those which he is at present required to perform, may relinquish his office, and any officer so relinquishing his office, or whose office is abolished, shall be entitled to compensation under this Act."—(Colonel Hughes.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have great sympathy with my hon. friend's Amendment, but it appears to me that the wording goes rather too far. I should suggest that before the word "analogous," the Words "the same or" be left out, and instead of saying "which are in addition to" if the hon. Member would consent to insert "which are an unreasonable addition to," I will accept his Amendment in that modified form.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he looked with same suspicion on this clause, and if this proposal was accepted it would give rise to a good deal of difficulty. He hoped the Government would consider the Matter and see whether their own sub-section did not meet the difficulty.
COLONEL HUGHESpointed out that the word "unreasonably" would have to be decided by somebody, but as all these questions were decided by the Local Government Board, he thought the alteration was not unreasonable, and he begged to move his Amendment in the amended form.
MR. BARTLEYsaid they should be very, careful not to any injustice upon any existing officer. On the other hand this Amendment was very wide, and he though they must be careful in what they did to protect the
790
ratepayers also. He thought some little modification was required in the Amendment to make it impossible for men to be given pensions when they might fairly be kept at work.
Amendment amended—
"By leaving out, in line 3, the words 'the same or,' and by leaving out the word in', and inserting the Words 'an unreasonable,' instead thereof."
Question proposed—
"That the words whose office they may deem unnecessary; but any officer required to perform duties such as are not analogous, or which are an unreasonable addition to those which he is at present required to perform, may relinquish his office, and any officer so relinquishing his office, or whose office is abolished, shall be entitled to compensation under this Act be there inserted.
MR. PICKERSGILLhoped the Committee would not accept this Amendment in its amended form. He felt sure that the words went too far, and they would inflict a very great financial difficulty upon the new councils. He could not himself see why such an alteration should he made.
MR. JOHN BURNShoped the First Lord of the Treasury would look at this matter with the object of economising in local affairs. If this Bill was going to perpetuate the emoluments and dead-heads of the present parochial system, he trusted the First Lord of the Treasury would stick to the simple words of the. Bill, by which the councils might abolish any such offices without giving those officers any better terms than they got before. This was a Bill for simplifying local government, and not for quartering lot of useless gentlemen upon the rates. He hoped these officers would not be given any more advantageous terms than were given to them under the Act of 1888.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that in Sub-section 2 the Government were preferring the Act of 1894 to the Act of 1888, although the latter Act gave these officers all the requisite compensation and protection which they ought to have. He did not see why the Government should, at this point, add words which he was quite sure would lead to a very great deal of friction. When an officer was put to work for which he was unfitted, and for which he was not engaged originally, he was entitled to compensation. If this was legislation by reference, let them stick to it, and not add words which, in his opinion, would lead to a great deal of expense and unnecessary friction.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman in regard to legislation by reference. Surely there is nothing in what we have done which prevents us adding to or modifying our proposal if we think that course is desirable. The hon. Gentleman opposite (the hon. Member for Battersea) and others who have spoken seem to think that the terms offered in this Amendment, as amended, are unreasonably favourable to the officers. No doubt the Amendment is very favourable to the officers, but what I ask is, Is it unreasonably favourable? It is most important, as my hon. friend the Member for Islington pointed out, that this Bill should come into operation under conditions which will make it likely to succeed, and I cannot imagine any condition more likely to make it succeed than the feeling of the officers connected with the existing authorities that their interests have been duly considered, and that no unnecessary hardship has been inflicted upon them by the transfer of powers from the existing vestries to the new boroughs. I do not think that, as far as this Amendment goes, it will inflict any undue burden upon the ratepayer; neither do I think that it carries favour to the officials to ally absurd or extravagant extent. Let us suppose that it was in the power of the new boroughs to require an officer to perform other work, or to add to the duties which an officer had hitherto performed an unreasonable amount of new work at the same salary. Everybody would say that man was most unfairly treated, and the new borough council in order to avoid the necessity of
792
paying compensation to that officer, might so apply the torture to him as to compel him to resign. It may be said, mid with perfect justice, that the new boroughs are very unlikely thus to misuse their power; but if that be so this clause inflicts no hardship upon them, while it will do something to ease the minds of those officers who are, unfortunately, perturbed by the passage of this Bill. One cannot help feeling considerable commiseration for those officers who will be affected, and anything that can alleviate this injustice ought to be done.
MR.. JOHN BURNSsaid the right honourable Gentleman was talking as if the whole of the officers who would be transferred and dealt with under this clause were officers who now devoted the whole of their time to the service of the ratepayers. This was not so, because a number of the officers who would he transferred were in many cases men who only gave two or three hours per day to the ratepayers' business, or probably two or three days per week. It did seem to him that the interests of the ratepayers ought to be safeguarded, and in the event of a transfer taking place, those persons who devoted only a portion of their time to the public service should not be treated as if they had devoted the whole of their time. It did seem to him unreasonably extravagant that any larger salary for slightly larger duties should he paid to these officials, who had only been in the habit of devoting a portion of their time to the duties of their office. He thought these officers were safeguarded in the most ample form in the Act of 1888. He therefore asked the Government to stick to the terms of their own clause. The right honourable Gentleman could rest assured that the word "unreasonably" would be construed by a number of clerks and assistant overseers in a very extravagant way, and he saw no reason why any of the officials transferred under this Bill should be given an opportunity of objecting to do the same or analogous duties. The word "unreasonably" would be very extravagantly interpreted, and he appealed to the right honourable Gentleman, in the interests of economy and efficiency, to remember that the London ratepayer had a right to consideration, and that these officials should not be allowed extravagant indulgences at the vest of the ratepayers.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid that the ratepayers were duly considered in this matter, and all that the Government desired to do was to see that justice was done all round. An officer might say that his duties were unreasonable, but unless the borough council agreed with him the matter would have to be decided under the 120th Section of the Act of 1888 by the Treasury, and he thought that those who had had any experience of the Treasury in such matters would agree with him that they were not a body who were likely to allow extravagant compensation.
MR. JOHN BURNSdisagreed with what the right honourable Gentleman had just stated regarding the Treasury, because in the matter of emoluments, compensation for officials, and pensions somehow or another the Treasury had the knack of condoning with the permanent officials, both Imperial and local. He had no faith whatever in the assertion that the Treasury were the friends of economy.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I may say as one who had something to do with the Act of 1888, that I can assure the honourable Gentleman opposite that in those cases which came within my knowledge, when an appeal was made to the Treasury, they had dealt with the matter in anything but what I have considered a liberal spirit.
SIR T. G. FARDELLdid not think that it was at all fair on the part of the honourable Member opposite to make such charges broadcast against the officers.
MR. LOWLESsaid his own experience led him to conclude that those ratepayers who treated their officers well were best served by those officials, and they retained them for a greater number of years. He had seen parishes where the officers had been changed continually because of the bad treatment they received, and such officers were continually on the look out for fresh appointments, with the result that their places were filled by men who did not possess the same local experience as those who had served the parish for a
794
long period of time. Under this Bill there was going to be a great deal of concentration, and many officials would be thrown out of employment. Although the ratepayers ought to be protected, he thought the officers concerned also deserved consideration. Local government was best served by officers who were treated well, and the ratepayers would lose nothing by this suggestion of the Government.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked whether or not, in the opinion of the officials of the Local Government Board, there had or had not been any hardship in this respect in past times, because that would naturally weigh with the Committee.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)replied that all the cases under the Act of 1888 had now been practically worked out, and none had been before him since the time he had accepted office under the Local Government Board.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the First Lord of the Treasury had told them that this Amendment was necessary in changing from the old system to the new. That change, however, was not greater than the change made in 1888. Some reference had been made to the question of pensions for the officer's, but that question applied quite as much in 1888 as it did now, and nothing had been said to show that any injustice had arisen under the Act of 1888. The noble Lord below him had challenged the front bench to make any statement or give any illustration showing any hardship or injustice which had been done under that Act, and there had been no response. Therefore, they were entitled to ask why should this change be made, and why should the officers not be content to rely upon that Act, which had worked perfectly well, with justice not only to the officers but also to the ratepayers, lie could not imagine anything more likely to create friction between the existing officers and the new bodies than to introduce this vague and unsatisfactory word "unreasonable." If they wanted to make mischief between the new borough councils and their officers they would do it most effectually by introducing this word
MR. JOHN BURNSasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he understood from his statement that no hardship had been inflicted on any officer under the Act of 1888?
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that all the cases under the Act of 1888 had been worked out in the specified time, and De ease had come before, his notice since he took.
MR.JOHN BURNSsaid he gathered from that statement that since the honourable Member had been at the Local Government Board—and he had been there nearly five years—no cases of serious hardship had occurred owing to the operation of the Act of 1888. That being so he did appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury not to institute a new departure, under which all the officials would set the machinery in motion for a more favourable consideration of their pensions by the addition of the word unreasonable. The Act of 1888 set them an excellent precedent which he hoped
the right honourable Gentleman would stick to.
CAPTAIN NORTONurged the First Lord of the Treasury to stick to the Bill as it was framed, because he was perfectly satisfied that if this word unreasonable was introduced the result would be to immediately create friction between the new borough councils and the officers and the consequence would be that the officers would not be in such a good position as they were at the present time. If they relied upon what other officials in similar positions had been allowed then they would be on firm ground, but if they were going to be dealt with under a strictly new set of rules which might be interpreted in different ways by different people, he was satisfied that the officers themselves would suffer. Therefore, iii the interests of the officers the ratepayers he hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes, 61. (Division List, No. 153.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Ascroft, Robert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Macdona, John Cumming

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fisher, William Hayes

Maclure, Sir John William

Balcarres, Lord

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M' Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinboro'W

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

Forster, Henry William

M'Killop, James

Barnes, Frederic (Gorell

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

Bartley, George C. T.

Garfit, William

Marks, Henry Hananel

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

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M.

Blakiston-Houston, John

Gilliat, John Saunders

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bousfield, 'William Robert

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Monckton, Edward Philip

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Monk, Charles James

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Goschen, Rt. Hn. GJ(StGeorge's

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Cecil, Lord Hugh

Goschen, Rt. J. (Sussex)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

Morrell, George Herbert

Carrington, Spencer

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Morrison, Walter

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Houston, R. P.

Mount, William George

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Howell, William Tudor

Muntz, Philip A. [(Bute)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. Graham

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Nichol, Donald Ninian

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Percy, Earl

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Kemp, George

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Curzon, Viscount

Kenyon, James

Pierpoint Robert

Colonel Philip Hugh

Kimber, Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawrenee,Sir E.Durning-(Corn

Purvis, Robert

Davies,Sir Horaio D.(Chatham

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Rankin, Sir James

Denny,Colonel

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Doughty, George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Douglas, Bt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Doxford, William Theodore

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Fardell Sir T. George

Lowe, Francis William

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh,

Fellowes,Hon.AilwynEdward

Lowles, John

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

Spencer, Ernest

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh, N.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Valentia, Viscount

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

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Wyndham. George

Sturt, Hon. Humaphry Napier

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Thorburn, Walter

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

NOES.

Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Robson, William Snowdon

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Baker, Sir John

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Bayley, Thomas Derbyshire)

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Souttar, Robinson

Broadhurst. Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvon)

Steadman, William Charles

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lambert George

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Campbell-Bannerman Sir H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Causton, Richard Knight

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, Davied Alfd. (Merthyr

Cawley, Frederick

M'Leod, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Montagu, Sir S. (Shitechapel)

Weir, James Galloway

Daly, James

Morton, Ed. J.C. (Devonport)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cadigan

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, John Carevell (Notts.

Donelan, Captain A.

Oldroyd, Mark

Wilson John (Durham, Mid)

Doogan, P.C.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Woods, Samuel

Fenwick, Charles

Phillips, John Wynford

Yoxall, James Henry

Fergusson, R.C. Munro (Leith)

Pickard, Benjamin

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. John Burns and Mr. Pickersgill.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Rickett, John Compton

Grifith, Ellis J.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Question, "That those words be there inserted" put and agreed to.

Sir. T. G. FARDELLtrusted that the Government would accept the Amendment standing in his name, which was, as an Amendment to Colonel Hughes' Proposed Amendment, to leave out all after "but," and insert—
"The Borough Councils may distribute the business to be performed by the existing officers in such manner as the Councils may think just, and every existing officer shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Council".
MR. JOHN BURNSasked whether the honourable Gentleman was in order in going back. He thought the matter had been disposed of by the Division.
THE CHAIRMAN: The honourable is entitled to move the Amendment as an addition to the words already inserted.
Amendment proposed, after the words last inserted, to add the words—
"The Borough Councils may distribute the business to be performed by the existing officers in such manner as the Councils may think just, and every existing officer shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Council"— (Sir T. G. Fardell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure that I follow the object my honourable friend has in his mind by moving an Amendment to the Amendment. If it was to be brought in at all it should have been brought in before the decision of the Committee was taken on the Amendment. I cannot imagine what power these words would give to the Borough Councils. The distribution of the business of the council is its primary right, and it will not be abused by the councils. I do not see that anything would be gained by accepting the Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 7, at end to insert—
"If any officer is transferred by or under this Act to the service of a Borough Council, and within five years from the date of transfer is removed from his office for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, his office shall be deemed to have been abolished within the meaning of this Act and of the enactments applied by this Section."—(Colonel Hughes.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
MR. JOHN BURNSasked that some argument might be adduced by the honourable Member in favour of the

799
Amendment, as it appeared to him that an Amendment of this character required some evidence on its behalf before a decision was come to on the matter.
COLONEL HUGHESexplained that it was in the interest of economical and efficient administration, and to safeguard those officials who might be placed in positions which they might not be able to fill. By the union of districts into a borough there would be consolidation and sometimes reduction of staff, and officials would have a claim to compensation on the abolition of their offices, but an officer might be considered eligible for other duties, and should be encouraged to attempt to undertake them. If, however, having made the attempt, he should be found unsuited to his new position, his claim to compensation for loss of his original position should not be prejudiced. He thought if some such clause was not put into the Bill that there were a great many men who would retire upon the abolition of their present offices instead of being transferred, which might do a great deal of harm to the new Borough Councils.
MR. W. F. D. SMITH: in support of the Amendment, drew attention to the fact that he had information that an actual case occurred under the Local Government Act of 1888, where a gentleman whose office was abolished accepted a new post—that of the Treasurer of the Middlesex Council, and lost his position within two years after the passing of the Act, and was awarded no compensation whatever. It was quite possible that such a case might occur on the present Bill becoming law. An officer might be found unnecessary under the new condition of things, but if he honestly attempted to perform other duties which he was incapable of, he thought he was as much entitled to compensation as if he retired on the abolition of his original office.
MR. JOHN BURNSthought that any person who required more than five weeks to consider his position—let alone five years—was a man who merited instant dismissal. The honourable Member for the Strand seemed to think that if anybody had to suffer it should be the public as they would have the gain. But there must be no such extravagance. What was it likely to lead to? It had been suggested that the duties of six parishes
800
might be amalgamated, and one man might do the work which six had hitherto performed; but that would mean that five men would he dispossessed, and they were going to be asked to compensate them. He objected to any extravagant compensation, and characterised it as a robbery. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury not to yield one iota to the pressure which was being brought to hear upon Members of Parliament by municipal officers' organisations to an extent which, he said, had become a positive scandal. Their electoral influence was considerably exaggerated, and in so far as it was used to press improper claims the House of Commons ought to resist the pressure. He sincerely trusted that the Amendment would be rejected, as it was one of such an extravagant character that no person could possibly support it.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsupported the Amendment, because he thought that some such provision as suggested should be made to meet the entirely new state of things which would be brought into existence by this Bill. He reminded the Committee that there had been no active legislation to meet such a case as this, which would necessitate the transfer of a whole class of public officials He thought that a serious injustice would result to these men if the Government did not make some provision for those who hail entered into a civil career, and who had up to now performed their duties with credit to themselves, and who would find their livelihood taken away from them by this legislation. The Amendment was drawn to meet that contingency, and he trusted it would be accepted.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEdid not see what the new clause was to effect, seeing that they did not know the nature of the various Acts of Reform which had been passed. Only one instance had been brought to their attention where a grievance existed, and that was in the case of the treasurer of the Middlesex County Council. Under the old arrangement that gentleman was a highly paid official, but he was not a man who had a right to look for a pension. There was no grievance in that case, and that was the only one they had heard of. If there were ally others they ought to be brought before the attention of the Committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the whole, I confess I do not see any reason why this particular tenure of five years should be given to the officers after these new borough councils come into operation. As I understand, this proposal, formulated by my honourable friend, is unnecessary. As the Hill stands, any officer dismissed at any time after the Act comes into force through the amalgamation of duties resulting from the Act, would be clearly entitled to compensation. Therefore it is clear that the persons it is contemplated to deal with here are not persons who have been dismissed on account of the Act, but on quite other grounds. I think those persons have no right to compensation or pension by the vestries if this Act comes into force. These officers are now serving a public body which has a right to dismiss them. If they are so dismissed, I do not understand, unless there is a special contract, why they have any right to such compensation as is now the subject of the Amendment before the Committee. If by the change from a vestry into a municipality the office is abolished, we provide ample compensation. I do not quite understand why officers who have agreed to serve the vestries without this right of compensation should obtain a new and superior tenure from these boroughs, to whom their duties are transferred. Under the circumstances I do not feel that I can accept the Amendment. I believe that this Amendment is framed on the analogy of the Irish Local Government Act of last year, but that Act is not analogous to London Government. I do not think any injustice will be done.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid he did not see how the position of these officials was to be secured without some such clause as he had proposed was accepted. What he foresaw was that if they accepted office under the new councils and afterwards they were dismissed, they would be without any compensation whatever. If the term which he had suggested was too long, there was no reason why it should not be made shorter; but it was manifestly unfair to these men, if they accepted new duties under the borough councils, and wore subsequently dismissed, they should have no compensation. It was only fair that some amount of time should be given on both sides. Six months was better than nothing at
802
all; but if the borough councils appointed these men to new offices which they were unable to fulfil they ought to be entitled to compensation for loss of their old office.
MR. STUARTpointed out that in almost every case the borough councils would be constituted by the same people who formed the vestries, and their officials would be the same as those who now served them. He thought it ridiculous to give them this five years' tenure.
MR. JOHN BURNSprotested against the insinuation which had been imported into the discussion. The County Council employed a considerable number of officers and men, and the honourable Gentleman who moved the Amendment knew perfectly well that such a case as he assumed had never occurred. He challenged him to give one instance where, an election having taken place on November 9th, any man was sent suddenly about his business on November 10th because the Council wanted to economise. He appealed to the honourable Member not to press the Leader of the House further than he had already done, otherwise formidable difficulties might arise with regard to this Bill. He thought that the First Lord of the Treasury had gone as far as he could in the matter.
Question put and negatived.
COLONEL HUGHES*COLONEL HUGHES moved to insert at end of Clause 23 the following words:—
"All service by an officer under any authority or authorities to whom this Act applies shall be aggregated and reckoned for the purposes of this Act, whether the service has been continuous or not, and whether his whole time has been devoted to the service or not."
The object of the Amendment was to enable a municipal officer to secure a pension on the total number of his years of service in London, irrespective of his having changed from one district to another. He was prepared to admit that there might be cases which would not be met by this proposal, but it was impossible to make a law to meet individual cases.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13 line 7, at end, to insert 'all service by an officer under any

803
authority or authorities to whom this Act applies, shall be aggregated and reckoned for the purposes of this Act whether the service has been continuous or not, and whether his whole time has been devoted to the service or not."—(Colonel Hughes)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment, which seemed to be a rather dangerous one, as it covered more than a temporary break of service.
MR. STUARTsaid he fully endorsed the view of the Attorney-General.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it seemed to him that the Attorney-General had touched the spot of this particular danger. In illustration of this he mentioned the notorious case of the Clerk of West Ham, who recently held 17 offices. Within the last month they had been reduced to 14, but he believed that was still the number, and these were some of the officers the honourable and gallant Member wanted to compensate! But the honourable and gallant Member went further. Supposing an officer left the whole of his offices for 12 or 15 months and then reverted back to them, he would still count that disconnected work as continuous service. It seemed to him preposterous, and outside the "Mikado" he knew of no parallel for such a proposal. He could not understand what the honourable and gallant Member wanted the clause at all for. Supposing, for instance, the clerk of the Shoreditch local authority was transferred to Mile End. He had had, say, 25 years in Shoreditch and under the Bill five years in. Mile End. The honourable and gallant Mendier for Woolwich knew fully well that that man would claim and get 30 years' superannuation and compensation for his time and emoluments. But that was where a man properly devoted the whole of his time to the work. The honourable Member proposed that a man who field three or four offices under one body, with subordinate duties, should group the lot of them, and there would probably arise the ridiculous case of a man of 35 years of age who had had seven or eight years' service in five or six offices, walking off with a pension aggregated upon
804
those offices, whereas had he been a Civil servant he could not possibly have acquired it had he lived to 80 or 90. In the interests of the ratepayers of London he thanked the Attorney-General for the just, sane and sensible view he took of the Amendment.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid he was prepared to modify his Amendment by inserting the words:
"Where service had continued without a break for more than three months."
MR. OLDROYDsaid he did not know what the experience London was in this matter, but there was no doubt that if the Amendment were adopted it would seriously affect the position of municipal authorities throughout the country. The Attorney-General had pointed out a very fatal spot in the Amendment, but a more serious one still had not been touched upon—viz., that superannuation should be made whether the whole of the time bad been devoted to the service or not. A large number of solicitors were employed as town clerks and held other offices, the result being that they did not devote the whole of their time to their municipal engagements. Although it was a great advantage personally to the specific solicitor to have the emoluments of his office in addition to the income derivable from his profession, yet the clause would give him the further advantage, after he had received all the emoluments arising from office, of compensation in the case of the abolition of his office. That would be a great injustice to the ratepayers generally, who had to find the money, although' it might be a very convenient and pleasant thing for the solicitor. He trusted that the Government would be firm in their opposition to the clause, which would, he was sure, be opposed by the public generally, and by a large number of Members. He hoped, however, that the time of the House might be saved by the withdrawal of the proposed amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sin T. G. FARDELLin moving the next amendment, said he had taken the words from the Bankruptcy Act of 1869.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 13, line 11, to leave out all after the second council,'and insert,' If any person

805
to whom a compensation annuity is granted under this Act accepts any public employment, be shall, during the continuance of that employment, receive only so much(if any) of that annuity as, with the remuneration of that employment, will amount to a sum not exceeding the salary or emoluments in respect of the loss whereof the annuity was awarded, and if the remuneration of that employment is equal to or greater than such salary or emoluments, the annuity shall be suspended so long as he receive.; that remuneration.'"—(Sir T. G. Fardell)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid there Were two matters involved in the Amendment. The first was the omission of three lines with reference to expenses being paid out of the general rate. That, of course, had nothing to do with the Amendment he subsequently proposed to add. The honourable Member was so enamoured of legislation by reference that he was anxious to cut out the case which the Government had put in the Bill. All that the Act of 1894 provided for was that expenses incurred should he paid out of a common fund. It was by no means clear that that would entitle a borough to provide a fund for compensation for loss of office, and therefore it was necessary that a specific direction should be put in the Bill, that these expenses should he paid out of the general rate. He now came to the additional sub-section proposed by the honourable Member. He did not know what the honourable Member meant by "public employment." He thought that if a man earned his pension, after long service, he should not be discouraged from en deavouring to improve his position by earning a little more. He thought, that the enquiries which would have to be embarked upon would make the game not worth the candle. By accepting the Amendment the Committee would practically indicate that when public servants quitted the service at the age of 65, after which it was believed the present day that no one was competent to do anything, they should remain in absolute, idleness.
SIR T. G. FARDELLsaid that the point was whether a person in receipt of a pension of public money, whether from the Civil Service or from a local government body, should be entitled to take a second office in either the one or the
806
other without surrendering a portion of his pension in the way indicated by the Amendment. He knew that there were pensioners who had received a pension charged on the Consolidated Fund, and who were also in receipt of a second pension charged on some other public fund. He maintained that that was not right; it was most unfair to the taxpayer, and it was to meet these cases that he had drafted the Amendment.
MR. BANBURYagreed with his honourable friend. If a man retired on a pension from one public office, he did not think he was entitled to take work in another public office. That was not the object of granting pensions.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 18, to leave out the first may,' and insert'"—(Colonel Hughes.)
Question proposed—
"That the word may stand part of the clause."
LORD EDMOUND FITZMAURICEsaid that the word "may" was the right word here, for if "shall" were inserted, it would compel them to go on with the case without discretion.
Cause as amended agreed to.
Clause 24:—
SIR T. G. FARDELLsaid he rather hesitated to move any more Amendments, but he ventured to make this one and trusted he might rely upon the support, of his right honourable friend the Attorney-General.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 13, line 26, to leave out from 'clerk,' to may,' in line 29, and insert 'who.'"—(Sir T. G. Fardell.)
Question proposed—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the cluse."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he did not know whether his honourable friend was aware that the Government

807
had come to the conclusion that the clause was unnecessary, and they therefore proposed to withdraw it.
MR. JOHN BURNS: asked whether the withdrawal of the clause meant that the town clerk could not appear in any cases?
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid the town clerk could appear without the clause.
JOHN BURNSasked whether in a preliminary summons, say in an adulteration case, the town clerk could appear?
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid yes, he could. The words in the clause to which exception had been taken were those which said that the town clerk might appear "before any court, or in any legal proceedings." The dropping of the clause would not interfere with the usual practice by winch the town clerk was authorised to appear in the summary courts.
Question put and negatived.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25:—
COLONEL HUGHESwas about to move an Amendment, when
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he had an earlier Amendment.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment of the honourable Member, and those of several other honourable Members, were out of order, because they sought to alter the London Equalisation of Rates Act. The Amendment of the honourable and gallant Member for Woolwich was in order, because it sought to retain that Act.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid that if the Parishes were grouped, and the money from the equalisation of rates was paid to the new borough councils, some of the parishes so combined would receive less than they received now. He could best illustrate his point by the statement of an actual case. The parish of Plumstead received £7,300 per annum from the Equalisation of Rates Fund, and the parish
808
of Woolwich received only £800 per year. But if these two parishes were combined in the new borough, the 17,300 and the £800 would be put in one cheque to the borough council and put into a common fund, and distributed according to rateable value. The result would be a loss of £2,500 a year to Plumstead. Similar losses would be realised in the case of many districts by the combination of rich and poor parishes.
Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 8, at end, to add—
"Provided that any sanitary district existing at the time of the passing of this Act shall not gain or loose under the London Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894, in consequence of it being absorbed into a municipal borough; but continue to pay and receive through the borough council on the same basis of rateable value and population as if this Act had not been passed."—(Colonel Hughes.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, if he understood his honourable friend aright, his point was that the equalisation of rates was now levied and distributed according to parishes, but that under this Bill there might be, and probably would be, a certain redistribution of parishes, and that the result of that would be that the governing authority substituted for the vestries would have to deal with a somewhat different unit than now existed for the distribution of the Equalisation Rate. His honourable friend would see, he hoped, that the Bill did not materially interfere with the principle of the equalisation of rates. His object was to give the groups of parishes the funds which were given to these parishes separately. As a matter of fact, the parishes were grouped under the existing law, and the District Board had the command of all the money, and not the parishes. That was the system which they proposed to perpetuate by the Bill. It was quite true that a sanitary district might be different from that which existed, but the distribution of parishes did not alter the principle on which the equalisation of rates was based. There were in existence powers by which two parishes might be amalgamated, and if they were so amalgamated there would be some alteration in the distribution of the Equalisation of Rates Fund in the

809
combined parishes, as compared with the distribution in the parishes separate. But nobody would say that because they were combined there was therefore any disturbance of the principle of equalisation. As regarded the particular instance mentioned by his honourable and gallant friend, it was quite true that Woolwich would gain by the junction with Plumstead: but, on the other hand, it was equally true that Plumstead would also gain by the higher rating value which Woolwich enjoyed. It was quite clear that if under this Bill the richer parishes gained something by equalisation of rates, the poorer parishes gained something by enjoying a share of the higher rateable value. He hoped his honourable and gallant friend would not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
COLONEL, HUGHESthought there would be an alteration in the operation of the Equalisation of Rates Act, but not of the Act itself. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. BARTLEYsaid that the difficulty to which the honourable Member for Woolwich referred showed how stringently the Equalisation of Rates Act worked. Instead of picking out the districts which really wanted relief, relief was given to every district whatsoever. A district got so much money because of its dense population, and that actually increased the density of the population. Instead of the Act relieving the poorer districts, it encouraged relief to districts whether they were poor or not. He thought the Equalisation of Rates Act was a bad measure, and was working badly.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid that if any great hardship were to occur under the clause, the Commissioners would look after it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. PICKERSGILLin moving a new sub-section, desired to revert to the question of the London School Hoard. When the point was raised earlier in the evening, he understood the Attorney-General to say that the proposed subsection giving adequate protection to the London School Board would properly Come in as a saving section at the end of
810
this clause. The London School Board had drafted the section which provided for such cases as Hornsey, and at the same time gave protection to the Board against the very general words of Clause 15.
Amendment proposed—in page 14, line 9, to insert as a new sub-section:—
"Nothing in this Act, and no order or scheme under this Act, or under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, as amended by the School Boards Act of 1885, shall a bridge, alter, or affect the the powers, rights, duties, and jurisdiction of the School Hoard for London over the area which for the time being shall constitute the administrative County on London."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26:—
MR. JAMES STUARTsaid that he wanted to know really what the words "earlier or" in line 12 meant. The appointed day was the day on which the members of the borough councils first selected under this Act came into office, and the old vestries would remain in office until then. He could not understand how new powers were to come into play under the Act six months before the constitution of the boroughs. He could not understand the alteration or reservation, but perhaps it would make the, Amendment more simple if he moved that "or such other day, not being more than six months earlier or later" be omitted. It seemed to him that they were introducing enormous confusion into the whole affair.
Amendment proposed—In page 14,line 12:—
To omit the words "earlier or."—(Mr. Stuart.)
Question proposed:
"That the words, 'earlier or,' stand part of the Clause."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid an examination of the subsequent part of the clause would show the real object of the words, There Were certain preliminary

811
matters which would have to be got rid of under the Act, and the whole object of the clause was to enable them, if necessary, to fix a given day for such things to be done.
MR. STUARTsaid that after that explanation he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, but he thought it was due to the House they should know what those matters were.
COLONEL HUGHESpointed out that the new borough registers, which were not to be published until October 1st, were to come into operation on 1st of November, and it was therefore absolutely impossible for the Privy Council to make the appointed day any earlier than 1st November. To his mind the word were entirely inoperative.
MR. BOUSFIELDsuggested that it was contemplated to have a different appointed day for different boroughs, whereas Section 4 appeared to provide that there should be only one appointed day.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid there were not to be different appointed days in that sense. It meant that on the appointed day in each case each vestry should cease to exist.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27:—
MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he had been requested by the honourable Member for South Hackney to move the following amendment:—
Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 26, at end, to insert "and that expression 'elective vestry' means any vestry elected under the Metropolis Management Act, 1855."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
COLONEL. HUGHESsaid he wished to point out that in some cases the words "County Council" were used, and in other cases "London County Council." He thought it should be made clear that
812
the London County Council was referred to, especially as there were outlying councils dealt with in the Act of 1888.
Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 26, at end, to insert:
"The expression 'county council' means London County Council."—(Colonel Hughes)
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he could not accept the Amendment now, because they had adopted an Amendment which brought in adjoining areas and gave to other county councils, where a portion of their area was to be taken, the right to appear in certain limited events. His belief was that wherever the London County Council was intended, it was either specifically mentioned or the context showed that it was the London County Council. However, between now and the Report stage the Bill would be scrutinised in order to see if there was any ambiguity upon the point.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid that on the understanding that "London" would be put in wherever it was required he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
COLONEL HUGHESsaid he had another Amendment dealing with the rating of Government property. He was anxious to secure that when the words "rateable value" were in question the Government property should be included. There was £90,000 worth of Government property in Woolwich, and it was therefore important that this point should be made clear.
Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 26, at end, to insert:
"The expression 'rateable value' shall include Government property upon which a contribution in lieu of rates is paid."—(Colonel Hughes.)
MR. JOHN BURNSsincerely trusted that the honourable Member for Woolwich would not press his Amendment. The way in which some local authorities had, for rating purposes, made a raid upon Government property was, in his opinion, disgraceful. They had followed up their attacks upon Government Departments by attacks upon police stations, police courts, and notably upon Woolwich

813
Arsenal. This policy loomed largely in the honourable Member's division, where they were making similar raids upon the County Council Pumping Station, upon the Metropolitan Asylums Board Hospitals, and upon School Board property, to an extent which was not creditable, and which did not show any regard for the public bodies which served London as a whole. He did not happen to have Woolwich Arsenal in his constituency, but he took under his protection an excellent prison at Wandsworth Common and he was glad to think that they, at any rate, had not sought to profit by the existence of that institution. He protested against the grasping habits of the vestries in laying violent hands upon the property of Government departments and central bodies. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment and let the First Lord of the Treasury, between now and the Report stage, see if he could not cut off some of the tentacles of these local bodies.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid the Amendment did not mean another sixpence in the shape of rates.
MR. JOHN BURNS: You will sec.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he was surprised that the eagle eye of the honourable Member for Battersea had not grasped the real meaning of the Amendment. The only object was to secure that when a proposed area contained Government property worth £50,000, that amount should be included in the amount going to make up the necessary total of £500,000. It seemed to him that the Amendment was one which ought to be accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that at present they had two sets of burial laws. The Acts had their advantages and disadvantages, and those districts which had to provide cemeteries were left to choose which they would adopt. The consequence was that, some adopted one and some adopted the other. He contended that the inhabitants of London should be placed upon the same footing as the rest of the country, and that was what he proposed to do by the Amendment he now moved.
Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 31, at end, to insert:—
"The Public; Health (Interments) Act, 1879."—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid his recollection was that the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, was not an adoptive Act at all. If the honourable Member would look at line 31 of the clause, it said, "the Burial Acts 1852 to 1885," and that was a comprehensive way of citing the whole series of Burial Acts. If the Act which the honourable Member alluded to was not an adoptive Act it ought not to be brought in at all.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSpointed out that, under the previous Local Government Act, Marten's Act was made available, and he contended that it should be made available under this Act. He very much doubted whether the statement of the learned Attorney-General that the words provided included Marten's Act was correct. At any rate, no harm could be done by adopting the Amendment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that perhaps the Attorney-General would be willing to look into the matter.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSasked if he was right in assuming that the matter would be cleared up on the Report stage.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid he did not think that there was anything to clear up. He would undertake to see whether or not it came within the series of adoptive Acts.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28, agreed to.
Postponed Clause 11:—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be within the recollection of the Committee that we had an animated Debate last night upon Clause 11, the result of which was that the clause was postponed until the rest of the clauses had been deal with, and that consummation had now been

815
happily arrived at. The contention was I between, I frankly admit, almost the unanimous voice of the London Members and myself as representing the views of the framers of the Bill, and it turned upon this point. They were anxious that the borough councils should be the overseers in all cases, as they now are in about fifteen cases in the metropolis. I was anxious that the question of the personal responsibility of the overseers should not be wholly merged in corporate responsibility, which would have been the result of the view of the London Members being adopted in an unmodified way. Let me state that the fact that Parliament has in successive private Acts given the powers and privileges of the overseers to these fifteen bodies is undoubtedly an argument for extending similar privileges to every one of the remaining municipalities. It is universally admitted that it is desirable that the system in London should be a uniform system, while it is obviously difficult to withdraw from bodies which have by statute already obtained certain powers, the powers which they have thus contrived to induce Parliament to give them. On the other hand, I do not think there is any serious attempt to meet the view which I venture to put forward, that in certain aspects the corporate responsibility was but a very poor substitute for individual responsibility. The responsibility of the overseers obviously deals with two quite separate sets of duties. There are the duties connected with the collection and the levying of the rates and the making of the rate. That is one set of duties entirely financial in their character, or, at any rate, principally so. There is, in addition to the duties which are financial and local in their character, the duty of making the lists of voters, which is only secondary and partially of a local character, but which is mainly of an Imperial character. It does not affect the finances of the district for which the borough council is responsible, but it does affect the Imperial rights of all voters within that area. It may be true—and I think it is in part true—that even on the financial side personal responsibility may be, in certain cases, important. My honourable friend the Member for Hastings, speaking last night as representing one of the boroughs outside the metropolis, urged upon the Government the acceptance of an Amendment making the borough councils the overseers, and he did
816
it avowedly, as representing the opinion of his constituents. In my honourable friend's constituency, I understand, there lately was a difficulty about the rating. The collector of rates absconded, and made away with rates to the amount of about £1,500. Under the existing, law the overseer was, of course, responsible, and from the overseer, as I understand the matter, no inconsiderable portion of that money was obtained. Had the law been modified, as my honourable friend desires to modify it, the whole of that money would have been lost, because the borough council would have been responsible, and the persons who would have suffered would have been the ratepayers. I quite admit that the financial part of the question is a subordinate part, although not an unimportant one. I will give another case. In one of the vestries in London I believe there was an attempt made to refuse to collect the School Board rate for the metropolis on the ground that that rate was excessive in its amount. I believe the School Board threatened legal proceedings, although, as a matter of fact, the matter never went further, but had the vestry in question behaved as I remember the Corporation of Limerick once behaved during the time of Lord Spencer's administration in 1882 or 1883, it would have been found impossible to deal with them. I can assure the honourable Gentleman opposite that it is not an easy matter to imprison a whole corporation. But I think there is a case for personal responsibility on the financial side, and although I think that the two instances I have given are of some importance, I do not think, broadly speaking, it is necessary to press them, and I am perfectly ready to give up any idea of maintaining personal, as distinguished from corporate responsibility, with regard to this question. I however, it would be desirable that there should be some responsibility retained in regard to the imperial side of the duties of the overseers, namely, that of preparing the lists of voters, and I think that probably the views of all parties might be met if we were to lay down that the corporations of the new borough councils should be the overseers for all purposes connected with the levying of the rote, but that the town clerk, the officer appointed by them, should be responsible for making the lists. That seems to me to meet the views which I ventured to express last

817
night, and which, at the same time, meets the widely and almost universally expressed opinion of the London members. I do not know that there is anything more which I need add in explanation of that view. If the House were prepared, as I hope it is prepared, to accept this as reasonable compromise, the best plan would be to accept the Amendments standing in the name of my honourable friend the Member for Wandsworth. It is a long series, but I will read the clause as it would stand amended. In addition to my honourable friend's Amendments, of course sonic proviso will have to be put at the end of the sub-section to provide that the town clerk of the borough should have the duties and powers and be subject to the liabilities of the overseers with respect to the registration of the electors within the borough. If the House will permit me, I will read the first two sections of the clause, which are practically the important sections, as they stand amended by the combined effects of my honourable friend's Amendments and the one which, on behalf of the Government, I intend to propose. These two sections will run:—

(1) After the appointed day the council of each borough shall have the duty and power of overseers of each parish within their borough, and shall appoint such officers as may be required to assist in the transaction of their business, and shall defray the expenses of and incidental to the performance of the duties of overseers.

(2) The council shall have all the powers and duties, and be subject to all the liabilities, of overseers, except as aforesaid, and any document required to be signed by overseers may be signed by the town clerk.

There are other consequential Amendments standing in the name of my honourable friend to Sub-section 5, while Subsection 4 will, of course, go out altogether. That, I think, in a general way, curries out the policy of the great body of London Members, and I think will form a model on which any future reform of the borough councils of the country on this subject may very well be formed, and in that case London would take the lead. The change appears to be very popular, and, as my right honourable friend reminds me, is not less desired in other parts of the country.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the proposal which the right honourable Gentleman had just made met the views which had been generally expressed from all
818
sides of the House. As they had stated before, they did not wish to make this question in any sense a party question, and although it did not go so far as some of them might have wished, it seemed to him to meet, substantially, the views which were expressed the other night. He understood that the right honourable Gentleman's real reason for making that distinction was that one was in imperial question and the other a local one. He was very glad to hear what fell from the right honourable Gentleman, to the effect that this proposal might lead to the extension of this system to other parts of the country. He thought that would be a very great advantage from the point of view of efficiency and economy. As far as he was concerned, it seemed to him that the right honourable Gentleman in this Amendment had met the substance of their objections.
MR. W. F. D. SMITHsaid that far as he was concerned he was perfectly ready to accept the proposal of the Government. This was the proper course to take if they had any confidence in the new councils at all, and he thought his honourable friends would be ready to accept the suggestion of the Government.
MR. LOWLESsaid that, as the first Amendment referred to stool in his name, perhaps the Committee would allow him to tender his thanks to the right honourable Gentleman for the statesmanlike concession he had made.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that so far as he was able to follow the proposal, there was no specific reference to the preparation of the jury lists, and he thought the effect of this new proposal would be to leave the preparation of the jury lists in the hands of the borough council. He wished to know whether that was the intention.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the point raised by his honourable friend was a very important one, and he trusted that the First Lord of the Treasury would take cognisance of it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The intention is that the jury lists, like the other lists, should be prepared by the town clerk, an I believe the words I have suggested carry out that intention.
MR. STUARTpointed out that the lists were now prepared by the overseers in virtue of an Act which vested that power in the overseers, and he thought they would find it advisable to deal with the powers of the churchwardens. What the right honourable Gentleman had done had been to go a very considerable distance towards what they wanted, and so far as he had gone he had shown a spirit of conciliation in the matter. The new system might very well be adopted in the rest of the country, and it would be a great advance in many parts of London. He should like to have seen the powers which already existed reserved, but he would not move any Amendment to disturb the unity which the right honourable Gentleman had created, and the great advance he had made in many parts of London. He should, however, like to reserve his consideration of the matter, because he was not yet quite clear whether the transference of the two duties of the overseers to the town clerk might not, in the end, duplicate the officials. No doubt the right honourable Gentleman would be as anxious as he was to avoid that duplication, and it might be necessary to introduce some sub-section which would enable the officers to be used in common for those two duties.
MR. JOHN BURNSwas exceedingly glad that the right honourable Gentleman had done what he had done, and he identified himself with everything that had been maid about this proposal. But after all, town clerks, like overseers and members of Parliament, were only human. He wanted to know whether the First Lord of the Treasury intended that both the jury and the voters' lists, which were to be taken from the overseers to the town clerk, would be subject to review by the borough council as a whole after the lists were prepared, because he was not prepared, however virtuous and immaculate a town clerk might be, to leave the official preparation of the jury or voters' lists absolutely to the dictum of one man; and unless this was subject to the criticism and review of the council, it seemed to him that the right honourable Gentleman was simply taking from the hoard of overseers these powers and putting them into the hands of one man. If the borough council had power to review them he quite agreed, but he knew one or
820
two constituencies where the town clerk might he susceptible to outside influences.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONdesired to know how far the borough council would have the control of the town clerk in regard to the preparation of the lists, for he thought it was a matter of some importance.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course the town clerk would be in the position of the assistant overseer and would be controlled by the revising barrister, and he would be personally responsible to him for any failure in carrying out his duties. He would, to this extent be responsible to the borough council for this part of his duty—if he did his work in a slipshod or slovenly or partial manner he could be turned out at the end of the year. If in this connection the work of the town clerk did not come up to the standard of efficiency which they had a right to expect, the council would unquestionably he justified in dispensing with his services.
MR. STUARTsaid the right honourable Gentleman was obviously extremely anxious to deal fairly with the matter, and he thanked him for giving them a very great deal more control than existed at present. He must say, however, that there was a great deal in what the honourable Member for Battersea said about the want of control in this matter, because although a town clerk might be a bad hand at arranging the lists he might be a good hand at something else. That was his justification for placing this matter before the Committee.
MR KIMBERsaid the question arose as to what honourable Members opposite meant by control over the action of the town clerk in preparing the lists. If the power of the council upon this question of control was to extend to revising the names inserted in the list it would be a very serious matter. They wished to see these important duties in the hands of a statutory officer and to secure the general performance of those duties in a business-like manner. It would never do to invest in a borough council, which might become actuated and

821
governed by political sentiments, the Mower to coerce or direct an officer as to the names of the electors that he should insert or omit in the lists which under the statutory duties imposed upon him by this Bill he ought to insert or omit. He thought, from what the First Lord of the Treasury had said, that the intension was that the town clerk should be an officer appointed directly by Parliament, who would have complete control of the matter. He thought the provision proposed by the Government was a very wise one, and his view was that it would be better to accept the Amendments as they were.
MR. THORBURNpointed out that the Government's proposal was based upon the system which had been adopted in Scotland, and which had worked excellently. He hoped his honourable friends opposite would accept the proposal of the Government.
COLONEL HUGHESthought they would find out that some further Amendments would be required on the Report stage. He did not know whether they meant the parochial voters or the Parliamentary voters.
COLONEL MILWARDsaid the Leader of the House had stated that if the town clerk did his duty in a slovenly manner he would be liable to dismissal at the end of the year. From his own experience in this matter he was not quite so sure about that.
The series of Amendments indicated in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury were put and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 41, after 'clerk,' to insert 'upon such date or within such period as the Local Government Board may prescribe, so that all the rates collected in a metropolitan brought from any person may be included in one demand note.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Questin proposed—
"That those words be there added."
SIR R. B. FINALYsaid that although it was desirable that as far as possible
822
there should be uniformity as to the day, he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment, because it would throw upon the Local Government Board the duty of prescribing the date on which the precept should be issued. Moreover, the effect of the Amendment went rather beyond the scope of the measure, as it interfered with other bodies empowered in issue precepts.
Mr. STUARTsaid, of course, if the Amendment went beyond the scope of the Bill he would not discuss it, but if it were within the scope of the Bill he would urge the Solicitor-General to consider it with a view to securing uniformity in the issue of precepts by local authorities. Five authorities issued precepts——
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the honourable Member has himself shown that the Amendment would be outside the scope of the Hill, as it would affect the Acts regulating these different bodies.
MR. LOUGHsaid that it would be vary desirable to insert a provision simplifying the form of the precepts now issued.
THE CHAIRMAN: That would raise practically the same point which I have just ruled out of order.
MR. JOHN BURNSasked whether it was not possible, before the Report stage, to devise a means by which uniformity as regards precepts could be secured.
SIR R. B. FINALYhoped that the different bodies would act together as far as possible.
MR. LOUGHsaid the point of his Amendment was that the ratepayer should know the purpose for which he was contributing any particular rate.
THE CHAIRMAN: The honourable Member, by inserting these words, would be affecting the Act under which the London County Council issues its precept.
MR. LOUGHsaid he hoped that the matter would be considered before the Report stage.
Question put, and negatived.
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONasked if before Thursday the clause would be printed, as it would be a great convenience in discussing the schedule?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give an absolute pledge. I believe it can be done, and if it can it will be done.
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought the London County Council ought to be substituted for the Local Government Board in the clause.
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid the matter was clearly one not affecting the London County Council.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be in the recollection of the Committee that at an early stage of our proceedings the question of audit came before us, and I pointed out that it could hardly be advantageously discussed at that period, but that I would bring up a clause at a later stage after the whole question had been considered. We have decided to adopt the suggestions offered by Members on both sides, and to fall back on the system of audit now in force in the London County Council. I do not wholly like the system of the Local Government Board, because it is essentially official in its character, and there may be times when more elasticity is desirable than it is possible or right for a Government Department to permit. The County Council system has been well tried, and it has certainly secured absolute honesty and conformity with the law. I therefore move to insert the clause I have drawn up.
New Clause—
"After the appointed day the accounts of the council of every metropolitan borough,
824
and of any committee or other statutory body appointed by the council, and of their officers, shall be made up and audited in like manner and subject to the same provisions as the accounts of the London County Council, and the enactments relating to the audit of those accounts and to all matters incidental thereto, and consequential thereon, including the penal provisions, shall apply, accordingly."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
brought up and read the first and second time, and added.
SIR. B. FINLAYsaid he had a clause to propose dealing with cases where it might be necessary to alter the wards or the number of councillors. The matter was mentioned at an earlier stage, but was reserved for consideration. What he proposed was that if the Local Government Board were satisfied that a, alteration were desirable they should make such an inquiry as they thought necessary, and make the alterations accordingly. The clause he would propose was as follows:—
New clause—
"(1) Whenever the Local Government Board is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for a proposal for the alteration of the number of wards of a metropolitan borough, or of the boundaries of any ward or of the apportionment of the members of the council among the wards, the Local Government Board may cause such inquiry to be made and such notices to be given as they may think expedient; and if satisfied that the proposal is desirable, may make an Order accordingly.
"(2) Notice of the provisions of the Order shall he given, and copies thereof shall be supplied, in such manner as the Local Government Board may direct.
"(3) The expenses of and incidental to the making of the Order shall be paid by the borough council."—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That the clause be read a second time."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked why the duty of making such alterations was to be taken out of the hands of the London County Council. The only reason given was that the borough councils should not be in any way under the authority of the County Council, But it was

825
not a case of placing their under the authority of the Council. The Council had discharged the duty very well, and if it were transferred to the Local Government Board it would lead to delay and expense. This was a retrograde proposal and would not be to the advantage of the borough councils, the County Council or anybody.
MR. LOUGHsaid the Solicitor-General had not given a single reason why the powers which had been exercised by the County Council to the greatest satisfaction in every part of London, and were also exercised by councils in the provinces, should be transferred to the Local Government Board. The principle was antagonistic to all the principles on which local government rested. The County Council had representatives front every district; London; it had the machinery; and it was admirably adapted for doing the whereas the Local Government Board had no facilities whatever. Every session they were depriving the Government Board of some of its duties. He believed the Solicitor-General had no faith in the proposal, and he hoped hon. Members on the other side of the House would oppose it.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he was not prepared to deny the statement that the London County Council had performed the duty satisfactorily, but his honourable friend was quite wrong when he said that that duty was also performed by county councils in the provinces.
MR. LOUGHasked whether the duty was not discharged by county councils in county boroughs.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that both in county and non-county boroughs it was discharged by the Local Government Board. The boroughs had perfect faith in the Local Government. Board. The local inquiry was always admirably conducted. He was not prepared to say a
826
word against what the London County Council had done, but he dissented from the view that the county councils ever had any right to interfere in any way whatever in county or non-county boroughs.
MR. LOUGHsaid he was not referring to the boroughs, but to the county area outside, and the argument he wished to draw was that the county councils generally throughout England discharged an analogous duty over rural areas to that discharged by the County Council in London.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he understood that a municipal borough had the power to arrange the wards within its own area.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The arrangement of the wards is done by a Government Department after local inquiry.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid under the Act of 1894 the county councils had the power to re-arrange the parish and district council areas. During the last ten years the London County Council had rearranged the wards for vestry elections, and they had performed that duty fairly and impartially. Why should that duty be taken away from them and given to the Local Government Board? The best authority for this work was the County Council. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury, who had conducted this Bill with great fairness to the London County Council, not to mar the effect of the graceful concessions he had made by stripping the County Council of this power, which they had hitherto exercised in a satisfactory manner.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 166 Noes 64.—(Division List No. 154.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Mount, William George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Muntz, Philip A.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh 0.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Murray,RtHnAGraham(Bute

Arrol, Sir William

Green,WalfordD. (W'dnesbury

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

Gretton, John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Penn, John

Baird, John George Alexander

Gunter, Colonel

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Hamilton,Rt.Hn.Lord George

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Balfour,RtHnGerald W (Leeds

Hardy, Laurence

Prety man, Ernest George

Banbury, Frederick George

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Purvis, Robert

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

HoareEdw.Brodie(Hampstead

Rankin, Sir James

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

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Beckett, Ernest William

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bethell, Commander

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Richardson,SirThos (Hartlep'l

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Ritchie,Rt.Hn. Chas Thomson

Brassey, Albert

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Jesse], Captain Herbert M.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Butcher, John George

Kemp, George

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kenyon, James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Kimber, Henry

Seton-Karr, Henry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.

Lawrence,SirEDurning(Corn.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sidebottom,William(Derbysh.

Charrington, Spencer

Lea,Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.

Stanley,Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk .

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stephens, Henry Charles

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Long,Col.CharlesW(Evesham

Stewart,SirMarkJ.M`Taggart

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Long, RtHn. Walter(Liverpool

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Strauss, Arthur

Cranborne, Viscount

Lowles, John

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Curzon, Viscount

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Talbot,RtHnJ.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Thornton, Percy M.

Denny, Colonel

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Tomlinson ,Wm. Ed w. Murray

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Macdona, John Cumming

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Maclure, Sir John William

Valentia, Viscount

Doughty, George

M'Arthur' Charles (Liverpool

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Douglas, Itt. Hon. A. Akers-

M`Killop, James

Webster,SirR..E.(IsleofWight

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Manners, Lord EdwardWm.J.

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

Fardell, Sir T. George

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.

Fellowes, Hon.Ailwyn Edward

Marks, Henry Hananel

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Finch, George H.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Williams Joseph Powell(Birm

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Monckton, Edward Philip

Wyndham, George

FitzGerald,SirRobert Penrose-

Monk, Charles James

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Fitz Wygram,'Greneral Sir F.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Young, Commander (Berks, E

Forster, Henry William

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

More,Robt.Jasper (Shropshire

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Garfit, William ,

Morgan,Hn.Fred(Monm'thsh.

Sir William Walrond and

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Morrell, George Herbert

Mr. Anstruther.

Gilliat, John Saunders

Morton,ArthurH.A. (Deptford

NOES.

Allen,Wm.(Newe.under Lyme

Causton, Richard Knight

Hazell, Walter

Asquith,RtHn.Herbert Henry

Cawley, Frederick

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Channing, Francis Allston

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

Baker, Sir John

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

Horniman, Frederick John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Clough, Walter Owen

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Billson, Alfred

Doogan, P. C.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Lambert, George

Broadhurst, Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

LawsonSirWilfrid (Cumb'land

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Macaleese, Daniel

Burt, Thomas

Griffith, Ellis J. .

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Baxton, Sydney Charles

Gurdon,Sir William Brampton

M`Kenna, Reginald

Caldwell, James

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Scale.

Morton, Edw.J. C. (Devonport)

828

829

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Williams,JohnCarvell (Notts'

Oldroyd, Mark

Steadman, William Charles

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

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Philipps, John Wynford

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Woodhouse,SirJ.T(Hudd'rsf'd

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Trevelyan, Charley Philips

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Robson, William Snowdon

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Mr. Lough and Mr. John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Walton,JohnLawson(Leeds,S.

Burns.

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Whittaker, Thomas-Palmer

Clause added.
COLONEL LOCKWOODmoved the following new clause:—
"The council of each metropolitan borough shall within six months of the passing of this Act, at their own expense, provide and keep a supply of pure and wholesome water in all the drinking fountains and cattle troughs now belonging to the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Trough Association situate in their respective boroughs, and shall maintain and keep the same in good repair and condition."
He did not desire in any way to overdo the Bill; he merely asked the Government to provide reasonable facilities for the supply of water in London.'
New clause (borough council to provide supply of water)—(Colonel Lockwood)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the clause be read a second time."
SIR R. B. FINLAYagreed that there should be a proper supply of fine and wholesome water, but he submitted that it was hardly proper to insert in a Bill of this kind a clause dealing with such details.
MR. STUARTsaid he was so delighted to find himself at last in agreement with the honourable and gallant Gentleman on a water question - that he hoped the honourable and gallant Gentleman would divide.
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he should certainly support the honourable Mem-
830
ber if he divided on the matter, because there was no doubt that the vestries who had the management of the fountains in certain parts of London had not kept them in a proper condition. He was personally interested in one of the fountains, which was erected by members of his family in commemoration of a certain event, and he was certainly ready on behalf of those who were interested in the fountain to put it in proper repair, and then hand it over to the borough council. But at present there were great difficulties with regard to this and many other fountains, because in some cases the vestries had taken them over and put them in proper condition, and in other cases had not. He thought it would be a very great advantage to the metropolis as a whole if the matter were handed over in every case to the borough council. The clause seemed to be a very proper one.
MR. BANBURYsaid he admitted that it would not be advisable to put on. the new borough councils the management of all sorts of philanthropic institutions. This, however, was a very small matter. It was already undertaken by some of the vestries, and unless some intimation on the subject was given in the method proposed to the borough councils it would very likely escape their notice. It must, however, be remembered that the fountains were provided by private subscriptions; those private subscriptions might cease at any moment, and then would also cease a very good and useful supply of water. He hoped, under these circumstances, the Government would reconsider this very small question and accept the Amendment proposed by his honourable and gallant friend.
MR. LOWLESsaid he thought this was a very proper and wholesome proposal. To empower local authorities to

831
keep water—sweet, pure, and clean—in the drinking troughs would encourage the provision of such troughs by kindly persons and benefit the animal world in London. The only alternative was water troughs outside public - houses. He strongly supported the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course everybody must sympathise with the object of my honourable friend in wishing to benefit poor dumb animals. There is no dispute about that. But let honourable Members consider what they are doing if they introduce this clause. This is one of a large number of functions which it may be possible to place upon the new borough councils, and I understand that an honourable Member has already suggested cabmen's shelters as another. I think cabmen's shelters are quite as important, but it would be inexpedient to go through all the possible philanthropic duties which may be incorporated in a Bill of this description. If the House thinks it necessary to throw on the new authorities the duty of supplying water for cattle and horses, well and good; but you must clearly leave it to them to devise the method by which that is to be carried out. To transfer to their shoulders the care of cabmen's shelters and drinking troughs, in addition to the heavy responsibilities already undertaken by them, would be inexpedient, contrary to legislative practice, and could not with advantage be adopted.
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought that the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill really misunderstood the clause. As far as he (Mr. Lough) understood it the object was not to compel the council to do anything in the matter, but to give them power to do so. He thought a certain latitude should be given to them to discharge these duties if they thought fit. The right honourable Gentleman had announced himself in favour of the principle of the clause, and he (Mr. Lough) asked the Government to adopt it. It seemed, perhaps, a small matter, but there, was a great deal in it, involving as it did the comfort both of human beings and of animals of all kinds. He
832
thought the clause might be made permissive, and in that way adopted.
MR. MARKSsaid it was not a question of a permissive clause. To put on every borough an absolute obligation to take over the drinking troughs and fountains of the Metropolitan Drinking Fountain and Cattle Troughs Association would certainly be a very strong order. Moreover, the water was to be provided at the expense of the boroughs. There were some honourable Members who had had experience of the methods of the London water companies in their treatment of the wants of man who might he disposed, not unnaturally, to think that they might make some compensation for their treatment of man by supplying this water for the beasts at their own expense; and if such a proposal were made it would certainly receive support from some honourable Members who represented East End constituencies and knew something of the water question there.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the proper way to secure the realisation of the humane and excellent object of the honourable and gallant Member was for all honourable Members who had any influence with water companies—and there were many who had more than he (Mr. Burns) had—to put down at their next board meeting a resolution to the effect that borough councils that applied for permission to have the fountains and troughs under their control should have such water as they required supplied free of charge. If the honourable and gallant Member for Epping and the honourable Member for Peckham would move such a resolution at the next meeting of the Wrest Middlesex or the East London Water Company it would be the best stimulus for the borough councils to discharge these duties they could possibly give them.
Question put—
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 60; Noes, 151. (Division List, No. 155.)

AYES

Allen, W.(Newc. under Lyme)

Gunter, Colonel.

Philipps, John Wynford

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

Grunion, Sir Wm. Brampton

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Baker, Sir John

Hardy, Laurence

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Banbury, Frederick George

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Billson, Alfred

Hazell, Walter

Robson, William Snowdon

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kimber, Henry

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lambert, George

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Caldwell; James

Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'land

Steadman, William Charles

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Stevenson, Francis S.

Causton, Richard Knight

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lowles, John

Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

Macaleese, Daniel -

Wedderburn, Sir William

Clough, Walter Owen

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Colomb, Sir .John Chas. Ready

MtLaren, Charles Benjamin

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Doogan, P. C.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Monk, Charles James

Wilson, John (Govan)

Gladstone,Rt.Hon.Herb.John

Motton,Edw.J. C. (Devonport

Woodhouse, Sir j.(Huddersf 'd

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mount, William George

TELLERS for the AYES—Col.

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Lockwood and Mr. James

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

Stuart.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

Muntz, Philip A.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

Arnold-Forster, Hugh 0.

Garfit, William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Arrol, Sir William

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Oldroyd, Mark

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bagot,Capt.Josceline Fitz Roy

Gordon, lion John Edward

Penn, John

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gorst, Rt.Hon. Sir .John Eldon

Percy, Earl

Baird, John George Alexander

Green, WalfordD (Wednesb'ry

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Gretton, John

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pretyman, Ernest George

Barton, Dunbar Plunket -

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Purvis, Robert

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

Hamilton, Rt.Hn.Lord George

Rankin, Sir James

Beckett, Ernest William

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bethel], Commander

Hermon-Hodge,RobertTrotter

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bond, Edward

Hoare,Edw.Brodie (Hampst'd)

Richardson,SirThos.(Hartlep'l

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

Brassey, Albert

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hutchinson,Capt. G.W. Grice-

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Burns, John

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Butcher, John George

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Cawley, Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kemp, George

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Kenyon, James

Sidebottom,William(Derbysh.

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

Lawrence,SirE. Durning-(Corn

Stanley,Hn Arthur (Ormskirk

Chamberlain,J.Austen(Wore'r

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stephens, Henry Charles

Charrington, Spencer

Llewelyn,Sir Dillwyn (Sw'nsea

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

Strauss, Arthur

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Lough, Thomas

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (0xf'd Univ

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Cranborne, Viscount.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Tomlinson,Wm.Edw.Murray

Curzon, Viscount

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dalkeith, Earl of

Macdona, John Cumming

Valentia, Viscount

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Maclure, Sir John William

Webster,SirR.E.(Isleof Wight

Denny, Colonel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.

Doughty, George

M`Killop, James

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Marks, Henry Hananel

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Wyndham, George

Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

Massey-Mainwaring,Hn.W.F.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Finch, George H.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Young,Conimander(Berks,E.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

More,Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

TELLERS for, the NOES—Sir

Fishier, William Hayes

Morgan, Hn.Fred.(Monmk'thsh

William Walrond and Mr.

FitzGerald, Sir Rt. Penrose-

Morrell, George Herbert

Anstruther.

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Morton,ArthurH.A.(Deptford

Lords Amendment to Commons Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

It being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE EXCHANGES).
Return presented,-relative thereto (ordered 16th May; Mr. Provand); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 201.]
QUESTIONS.

  THE TRANSVAAL — ARREST OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  On the Motion that the House do now adjourn,
  MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had heard that certain British subjects had been arrested in the Transvaal for high treason, and whether he could give the House any information on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have seen a telegram to that effect from one of the Agencies; but I have no official information of any kind.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  JONES'S DIVORCE BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2a; the same was agreed to: Bill read 2a; accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: acquainted the house that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY. SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.
  Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
COBHAM GAS BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments.
GROSVRNOR CHAPEL (LONDON) BILL [Lords].
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
OWEN'S COLLEGE, MANCHERSTER BILL [Lords].
To be read 2a on the first sitting day after the recess at Whitsuntide.
BROOKE'S PARK (LONDONDERRY) BILL [Lords].
Read 2a,
TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LISBURN TOWN COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to proposed by the Committee of Selection.
PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL, SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
ST. ANDREW,S BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Commons agreed to, With Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [Lords].
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [Lords].
    Read 2a (according to order).
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL [Lords].
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 93).
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
    To be read 2a, on Thursday next.
    WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
    The order made on the 5th instant appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
    ARMY(PRELIMINARY RETURN).
    Preliminary Return of the British Army for 1898; with abstracts, &c.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
    Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland; with appendix, 1898ߝ99.
    POLICE (SCOTLAND).
    Forty-first Annual Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, for the year ended 31st December, 1898.

    TRADE REPORTS.
    Annual Seriesߞ
    No. 2,259. France (Dunkirk).
    No. 2,260. Persia (Ispahan and District).
    No. 2,261. Italy (Sardinia).
    No. 2,262. Turkey (Aleppo).

    IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
    Rule dated 29th of April, 1899.

    POST OFFICE (PARCEL POST WITH PORTUGAL, INCLUDING MADEIRA AND THE AZORES.)
    Agreement for the express delivery of parcels exchanged between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Portugal, including Madeira and the Azores.
    Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

    PRISONS (IRELAND).
    Order in Council, approving of a rule made by the General Prisons Board, dated 5th May, 1899; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PETITIONS.
    VACCINATION ACTS.
    Petition for repeal of; of Guardians of the Poor of St. Mary's, Islington; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) ACT, 1872.
    Petition for amendment of; of Urban District Council of Wimbledon; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
    HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
    First Report from the Select Committee, made; and to be printed; and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 91.)
    SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons and agreed to, with Amendments; Commons Amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to, with an amendment; and Bill returned to the Commons.
    LINCOLNSHIRE CORONERS BILL [Lords].
    Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 94.)
    PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE, OF OFFICE) BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee with an Amendment. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed us amended. (No. 95.)
    INFECTIOUS DISEASE (NOTIFICATION) ACT (1889) EXTENSION BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee with out amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
    PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee with out amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
    LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL [Lords].
    Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  ISOLATION HOSPITALS ACT (AMENDMENT)BILL [Lords].

    SECOND READING
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, the Hill which I am now asking your Lordships to read a second time has been introduced with the object of amending certain recently-discovered flaws in the Isolation Hospitals Act of 1893. That Act applies to England and Wales, but not to Scotland, Ireland, the County of London or County Boroughs. It empowers County Councils to provide or cause to be provided within their respective administrative areas isolation hospitals to serve the district, and it also empowers the County Councils to contribute out of the county rate towards the maintenance of these hospitals. Though the Public Health Act of 1875 has been in operation for 24 years, it has not succeeded in covering the country with isolation hospitals to anything like the extent which is now thought necessary. That is no doubt owing to the fact that the Act is entirely permissive. In Staffordshire we have only one-sixth of the necessary hospital accommodation, provided under the Act of 1875, and to remedy this state of affairs our County Council has lately promulgated a scheme whereby, under certain conditions, they agree to contribute towards the annual expenses of hospitals established under the Act of 1893, and they have also prepared a tentative plan under which the county is divided into suitable hospital districts. We have in our county something like 57 authorities, urban and rural, but under the scheme now proposed we hope to divide the county into only 16 suitable hospital areas. These hospitals are intended to serve a very large population, but in almost every case, except where there are scattered rural districts, they will not be more than five miles from any part of the population they are intended to serve. It seems obvious that a scheme of grouping, such as I have mentioned must he conducive lour to economy and efficiency. It will be conducive to economy, because where you have a large hospital the expense per bed for construction is less than it would he in a small hospital; and where you have a large hospital serving a large district, the number of beds pro rata of the popu-
    694
    lation necessary, is less than the number of beds required in a small hospital serving a small district. This grouping also contributes to efficiency, because in a large hospital the staff would be more likely to be up to the times and efficient, than the staff of a small hospital where cases may only be admitted perhaps at intervals of weeks or months. What is occurring in my own county is also taking place throughout the whole of England and Wales. County Councils are desirous of taking advantage of the Act of 1893, and in some cases, indeed, they have already taken partial advantage of that Act, but unfortunately a serious flaw has recently been discovered in it. It had been assumed that where efficient Hospitals were in existence, built under the Act of 1875, with the assent of the local authority and the Local Government Board, they might be transferred to the new Hospital Committees, and that the County Councils might contribute to such hospitals if they so pleased. Unfortunately, the Local Government Board have decided that in neither of these cases is it legal so to act, and thus the operations of the Act of 1893 are seriously imperilled. In fact, at the present time there is a deadlock existing in many counties. It will be obvious that, where a comprehensive scheme is initiated by the County Council, in all fairness the Council should he able to give assistance to all parts of the county throughout the administrative area; but the effect of the decision of the Local Government Board will be that where the local authorities have done their duty and have established efficient hospitals, they will he doubly penalised. In the first place, they will be unable either to sell their hospital or obtain a contribution from the County Council. In the second place, they will have to pay their proportion of the county rate to maintain hospitals in other districts in their county which have not been so forward as they have been in providing proper hospital accommodation. Under these circumstances it is cry essential that there should be some alteration in the law. I should not have brought this matter forward on my own responsibility or for the benefit only of my county. But this is a matter of great importance to the whole of England and Wales, and I am bringing in this Bill with the assent and the

    695
    full support of the County Councils Association of England and Wales, who are most anxious that a change should be made in the law as speedily its possible. I will very briefly refer to the provisions of this Bill. Clause 2 provides that any district council and any joint board constituted under the Public Health Act, 1875, which has provided or acquired under the Public Health Act, 1875, or under any local Act of Parliament, a hospital for the reception of the sick may, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, agree to and carry into effect a transfer and conveyance to the council of the county within which their district is situate, of such hospital and its appurtenances upon such terms and conditions as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board. Under Clause 4 power is also given to county councils, where they deem it expedient so to do for the benefit of the county, to contribute out of the county rate, on such conditions as they may prescribe, a capital or annual sum towards the structural and the establishment expenses of an isolation hospital or hospitals provided either before or after the passing of this Act by a District Council or a joint board under the Public Health Act, 1875, or under any local Act of Parliament, or to either class of such expenses. Clause 5 gives power to County Councils to borrow money, which they have not the power to do under the Act of 1893. Many County Councils prefer to contribute to the building of these hospitals rather than to give an annual grant, and it is very much desired that they should have the power to borrow money. I am afraid I have troubled your Lordships at some length, but I was anxious to explain the position as best I could. I hope my noble friend who represents the Local Government Board will be able to advise the House to allow the Bill to be read a second time. If there are any points on which we may not be quite agreed, they may be left over for discussion, and, I hope, settlement, in committee If the Bill is read a second time I do not propose to put down the Committee stage until after the Whitsuntide recess. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Moved—
    "That the Bill be now read 2a."
    LORD HARRIS: My Lords, so far as
    696
    the provisions of the Bill give power to a County Council to contribute towards the expenses of a hospital that has been provided by a local authority or Joint Board under the Public Health Act, 1875, or under a local Act, and so far as they give power to the County Council to borrow for the purpose of acquiring the hospitals, the Local Government Board see no objection to the Bill, and quite approve of it; but they are not so satisfied as regards the proposal for taking over a hospital already in existence, and they would prefer to reserve their opinion upon that point until an opportunity is given for further consideration of the subject. The noble Lord cannot, I think, take the Committee stage until after the Whitsuntide recess, and that will give the Local Government Board an opportunity of looking further into the Bill.
    On question, agreed to.
    Bill read 2a (according to order) and committed to a committee of the whole House.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    House in Committee (according to order).
    Clause 1:—
    VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: The Amendment which I now move is a very simple one, and provides that the money required for the construction of works under the Bill should be raised by the companies actually constructing the works. The whole of the companies are agreed as to the desirability of this Amendment, which will avoid administrative inconvenience. For instance, if one company should have to raise £5,000 for the construction of works under this Bill, it is desirable that that company should raise the capital itself amid not be required to go to the other companies to ask them to raise separately £600 or £700 apiece. It was simply owing to an oversight that this Amendment was not put in upstairs in Committee.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 2, line 1, to leave out "and maintaining"—(Viscount Hampden).
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I accept the Amendment of my noble friend.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment moved—
    "In line 2, after 'borne' to insert 'and the money required for the construction of such works shall be raised by the issue of debenture stock under the powers of this Act by the company actually constructing the same, but the interest on such stock shall, subject as herein-after provided, be borne.'"—(Viscount Hampden).
    Agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2:—
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, the Amendment which I now move is rendered necessary by the subsequent Amendment which I have on the paper to strike out the whole of Clause 3. This Amendment raises a question which is certainly not without importance, and I think a few words from me are necessary to explain to your Lordships why these in charge of the Bill have thought it right to take exception to the finding of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House with regard to the sinking fund clause. The inter-communication of the systems of the water companies was proposed in order to avoid the recurrence of a water famine, and the water companies cheerfully undertook the obligation. But your Lordships must understand that the expenditure which they will have to make in order to effect this inter-communication never can produce them any return by way of profit. When this question of inter-communication came before Lord Llandaff's Commission, that Commission recommended that in respect of the capital raised for this purpose the usual sinking fund clause should be introduced. It is upon that recommendation that the Government introduced this Bill in the House of Commons without, any sinking fund clause. When the Bill came before the House of Commons the insertion of the sinking fund clause was not insisted upon, although the London County Council is strongly represented in that. House; but the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to which the Bill was referred have inserted the clause. The
    698
    responsibility must rest with this House in Committee, but the Government still adhere, and strenuously adhere, to the original decision of these who framed this Bill and conducted it through Parliament. It is clear that the sinking fund clause ought not to be inserted in this Bill. Consider for one moment the origin of this clause. Twelve or 13 years ago a Committee, presided over by Lord Claude Hamilton, recommended that if the water companies in the Metropolis borrowed capital money there should be a sinking fund clause inserted in any Bills giving them power to raise that further capital, but what was the object of the recommendation? The object of inserting the clause was that when the companies came to be purchased there would not be a large amount of capital to be paid for by the purchasers. But the capital to be raised by this Bill is not to be used to earn profit, and, therefore, the Government think that the justice of the case requires the omission of the sinking fund clause. The companies will have to perform this duty for the benefit of the consumers without profit or return, and therefore should not be made to contribute to the sinking fund. I know great respect ought to be paid to the decision of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I can only say that I have read every word of the argument that was used by the London County Council before that Committee, and I cannot find one suggestion to reply to the reasons that I have given why this sinking fund clause should not be inserted, except the repeated phrase, "You ought to follow precedent." The precedents cannot affect this case, which springs from another and different condition of things.
    Amendment moved—
    "On page 3, after line 7 insert 'Provided that a company shall not be required to carry to a sinking fund a percentage on the amount of money for the time being raised by the issue of debenture stock created under the powers of this Act.'"—(Lord James of Hereford.)
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, as Chairman of the Select Committee whose action you have just been asked to override, I should like to say a few words on the question of the sinking fund clause, and give to your Lordships the reasons which influenced the Committee to put

    699
    the sinking fund clause into the Bill. The noble Lord who has just moved the rejection of the clause lays great stress on the fact that this Bill is in a different category as regards the sinking fund clause to all other Metropolitan Water Bills. To a certain length I am in agreement with him. It is different because it proposes to transfer powers which have been most jealously guarded and exercised by Parliament to a Government Department, but the noble Lord advises you to further intensify the difference between this and other Metropolitan Water Bills in a most important and far-reaching way. He invites you to cut out the sinking fund clause which has been inserted by the Select Committee, and which, upon grounds of public policy and public in-interest, Parliament has inserted since 1886 into every London Water Bill, and which now applies, I believe, to something over nine millions of capital. Who were the parties to the suit who came before the Select Committee? The parties were the Government and the water companies, and, taking the opposite view of the case, the London County Council and the Corporation of London. The question I asked myself, and which I still ask myself, is, which of these authorities are most likely to understand all the bearings of this great problem of the water supply of London in the interests, and the just interests, of the public of London? Is it the Government and the water companies who tell you that you are to omit this sinking fund clause, or is it the London County Council and the Corporation of London who strongly urge, and as far as they can, insist upon the clause being inserted? With all respect to Her Majesty's Government, it seems to me that the London County Council and the Corporation of London are the bodies most directly responsible, and, further than that, the bodies most directly informed, conversant with, and alive to, all the conditions of this great question. The London County Council came into existence in 1889, and I believe the London water question at once began to absorb its most strenuous industry and investigation. They tried to master it in every possible way. In 1891, they came to Parliament with Bills dealing with the whole question. The Committee presided over by Sir Matthew White Ridley reported that as the representative municipal authority of London
    700
    the London County Council should examine and deal with the whole question of the water supply of the Metropolis, and recommend a policy which, for financial and other reasons, it was desirable to adopt. Over and over again I believe that has been affirmed by other Committees and Commissions, and it has been recognised that this water question is the peculiar province of the representative municipal body—namely, the London County Council. What was the view of the London County Council? Acting in most close and notable concert with the Corporation of London—notable because it is very unusual— the London County Council came to Parliament and told us in the strongest possible way that the capital proposed to be raised by this Hill should be treated as all other capital has invariably been treated by the wisdom and by the foresight of Parliament, and that, in the interest of the consumers, and especially having regard to the fact that a Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Llandaff, is just about to report on the whole question of the London water supply, a sinking fund clause should be put into this Bill. I will now come to the other point made by the noble Lord, which is the main ground upon which he says the sinking fund clause should not be inserted—namely, that the capital proposed to be raised under the Bill is dead money, and that the companies will not get a shilling out of it. He relies for that statement upon two or three sentences in the Interim Report of the Royal Commission, which, of course, I refer to with the greatest possible respect, but which I venture to think are exceedingly ambiguous. I confess that the argument put forward that the capital to be raised under this Bill should be exempted from the sinking fund clause on the ground of not making a profit does not appear to me to hold water even in a Water Bill. I think you might just as well say that the large sums of money which Messrs. Pears and Lipton spend annually on advertising are not profit-earning capital, as to pretend that the money to be raised under this Bill will not be profit-earning capital. What are the conditions that have brought this Bill into being? The default of the East London Water Company. I am not using the word in an offensive way; it constantly occurs in the Report of the Commission. The default of the East London Water Company to carry out its

    701
    obligations naturally caused a great deal of feeling, and brought the whole question of the London water supply, as it were, to a head. That default other companies felt threatened their existence, and they very naturally, in self-preservation, decided to take joint action. They are most ready and most willing to meet the Government's view, recognising that this Bill would enable them to raise additional capital which would be a most valuable insurance against risk, and would enable them to carry on their business and continue to earn their profits. In this connection I should like to quote the learned counsel for the water companies—Mr. Pember. Speaking with all the cogency of which he is a master, he said, when he was urging us not to put in this clause, that if the clause was inserted it would—
    "seriously amend the Bill against the water companies, for whose benefit, in a very great degree, the Bill was conceived."
    I was so surprised at this statement that I gave him an opportunity of correcting himself by saying that I thought the Bill was introduced for the benefit of the public, but he did not avail himself of the opportunity.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: He did correct himself. He said it was for the benefit of the public.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: I quite agree with Mr. Pember that this Bill will prove of enormous benefit to the water companies, and will give them a new and unlimited lease of power and authority. The Select Committee were unanimous in the course they took, and I have a letter here from Lord Newton in which he says he is unfortunately obliged to go away owing to his Yeomanry inspection, otherwise he would be very glad to corroborate my statement as to the unanimity of the Committee with regard to the insertion of this clause. I defend the Committee's action on three main grounds—namely, (1) that the London County Council and the Corporation of London are better judges of the just interests of the people of London, present and future, than Her Majesty's Government and the water companies; (2) that the capital to be raised under this Bill, inasmuch as it adds to the dividend-earning and paying capacity of the water companies and to the stability of their undertakings, should be
    702
    treated as these issues of capital have invariably been treated since 1886; and (3) that no good economic or financial reasons can lie shown for interrupting the practice of Parliament and the continuity of legislation by omitting the sinking fund clauses which have now been applied by Parliament to nine millions of capital.
    VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, in my opinion the Committee have taken up a false position in regarding the money to be raised under this Bill as dividend-earning money. The money is to be raised for the special purpose of saving the water consumers from the very painful and distressing evils from which they suffered last year. I am not going to defend the East London Water Company or to attack them, but I would point out that the other companies have not failed in any way to supply their customers with water. They felt, however, that for the benefit of the water consumers of East London inter-communication should be made between the various companies. This inter-communication will benefit the company which fails to give water and the consumers, but it does not in any way benefit the large majority of the companies. If the companies were raising money for the purpose of earning more dividend, then certainly the sinking fund clause ought to be put in. But this money is to be raised for a special purpose; no profit can be made on it, but interest will have to be paid upon it. I fail to see any ambiguity in the Report of the Royal Commission, who distinctly expressed the opinion that capital raised for works of intercommunication might fairly be raised without the imposition of the sinking fund clause. Not only has the Royal Commission decided in this way, but a Special Committee of the House of Commons decided against the insertion of the sinking fund clause in this Bill, and an attempt to reopen the same question on the third reading of the Bill was negatived without a Division. The House of Commons itself has practically decided against the insertion of this Clause three times, and I hope your Lordships will have regard to that fact and accept the Amendment of the Government.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I will not go at length into the general question, but I should like to address my-

    703
    self straightly and frankly to the points raised—first, that the particular capital referred to in this Bill is not dividend-earning capital; and, secondly, that any contribution to the sinking fund that is paid in respect of such capital would come, not out of that particular capital, but out of other dividend-earning capital. I hold, and I think I shall gain your Lordships' assent, that in taking a mass of capital applied to a particular enterprise it is impossible to differentiate between the dividend-earning power of one sovereign and another sovereign. The fact of the matter is the whole of the capital is applied for the benefit of the particular enterprise, and that in a larger or smaller degree the whole of the capital earns interest. This is particularly the case with regard to the capital under this Bill, because it is not to be applied to any particular works. It is not even laid down that it shall be applied to works of inter-communication. It is laid down that it may be applied to any works whatever which may receive the sanction of the Local Government Board.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: For that purpose.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I contend, in the strongest possible manner, that there is no limitation whatever to the works which may be performed under this Bill, with the exception that they are not to be works for the purpose of obtaining water from new sources, and that the works are to receive the sanction of the Local Government Board. Under this Bill (and I challenge a denial) it is perfectly possible for the companies to make new reservoirs, new filter beds, and new service mains out of the capital authorised by its provisions if they only get the sanction of the Local Government Board. They can spend £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 during the next ten years on the various works to which I have alluded. I now come to the question whether this particular capital ought to be liable to a charge for the sinking fund or not. I contend that it should, because the new capital and the old capital must be added together in one lump. If the interest on capital at present issued amounts to 8 or 9 per cent. and the interest on the new capital amounts to only 3 per cent., the dividend on the capital as a whole is diminished.
    704
    The new capital must come into the reckoning in a perfectly fair and straightforward manner. I must say that the circumstances of this Bill are such as to create no little surprise. The noble Lord rather put it that the water companies were, being hardly treated by the insertion of this clause. You have given to these water companies a monopoly over one of the greatest necessities to human life, and especially to human life in this great city; and if you give these companies a monopoly you require from them certain duties, and I will put it to noble Lords in this House whether they can honestly say that they consider these companies have rightly discharged their duties in the past. I quite admit that you may differentiate between the different companies, but it is impossible to say they have fulfilled their duty of supplying the people of London with water either in sufficient quantities or of sufficiently good quality. The water companies themselves admitted the desirability and the necessity of the inter-communication which is proposed in this Bill, and at the beginning of the session they introduced a Bill which would have gone before the Private Bills Committee and passed through Parliament in the ordinary course, and which, I have no doubt, would have contained the Sinking Fund Clause. The Government came forward and said this was a matter they would deal with themselves, and in framing the Bill they have violated the practice of Parliament for the last thirteen years in regard to the sinking fund clause, and have taken out of the hands of Parliament the power of saying what amount of capital should be issued and to what works it should be applied. That is not a fair way to deal with London or with this House, and I hope your Lordships will at any rate so far mitigate the harm which may be done by this Bill by rejecting the proposal of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy.
    Viscount HAMPDEN: My Lords, the noble Lord who presided over the Select Committee has marshalled together before your Lordships a number of authorities. He named the Government, the water companies, the County Council, and the City Corporation, and he then asked which of these authorities was the I most deserving of consideration. He replied himself to this question by stating that the London County Council knew

    705
    more about the subject than any of the other authorities. I admire the courage of that argument, because, as a matter of fact, when the Committee gave their decision that the sinking fund clause should be put in, they had heard the counsel for the County Council, but had not heard the case for the water companies. I disagree with the statement of the noble Lord who has just spoken that the money raised under this Bill can be applied to other than works necessary for inter-communication. When he charges the water companies with not having fulfilled their trust, my answer to him is that the Lambeth Water Company, of which I am a shareholder and a director, have always fulfilled their duty to the public, and that they only come into this Bill because they think it is necessary to act on the invitation of Her Majesty's Government and take measures for insuring against such a state of things as occurred in East London a few years ago. I can quite understand the opposition id the County Council to the existence of the London water companies. This opposition has been so often expressed that really no Hew development could have taken one by surprise; but I should have thought the County Council would have come to the conclusion that it was almost time to stop spending the ratepayers' money on litigation and leave the issue to be decided by Her Majesty's Government and Parliament, now that the question is before a Royal Commission. I should have thought that they would have treated with equity and consideration the great interests they are attacking. The Royal Commission has reported that it would be undesirable that this sinking fund clause should be applied to expenditure on inter-communication. The Government have introduced a Bill without that clause, and a Special Committee in the other House have endorsed the action of the Government. Under these circumstances, I should say there was a considerable amount of authority demanding and justifying the exclusion of the sinking fund clause, and that when the matter came before a Committee of your Lordships' House, that Committee should have been very careful not to come to any decision without hearing both sides and every argument that could he addressed to them. I have the shorthand writer's notes here, and what happened was this: the noble
    706
    Lord the Chairman of the Committee was asked whether the Sinking Fund question could be treated as a matter to be discussed on the preamble stage or the clause stage, and it was pointed out to him that if it was treated on the chaise stage the counsel for the water companies could be heard. The noble Chairman said the question should be treated on the clause stage, and the counsel for the water companies made no speech on the preamble stage. When the counsel for the London County Council had finished, I the Committee deliberated, and then they gave their decision that the preamble was proved subject to the condition of the sinking fund clause being put in. I do not charge the noble lord with anything more than an error of judgment, and, indeed, he saw himself afterwards that an error of judgment had been made, because when his attention was called to the fact that the other side had not been heard, he said it would be best that they should treat the thing with an open mind. But that was impossible when fettered by a decision given in open court. What made it more unpleasant for us was that the noble Lord who has just spoken, who is an active member of the London County Council, was present in the room. He was perfectly within his right in being there, but he went further and instructed one member of the Committee as to the character of the sinking fund. I certainly think this was an imprudent act on his part. What would he have said if I, as a shareholder in a London water company, and a member of your Lordships' House, had been present in the committee room and given advice as to the sinking fund.
    LORD TWEKDMOUTH: I absolutely gave no information whatever. It is true that I did give to one member of the Committee who was in doubt as to what the sinking fund clauses were a very short statement as to the way the fund worked.
    VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: That is my point.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Does the noble Viscount impute to me a desire to influence the Committee unfairly?
    A NOBLE LORD: You were certainly

    707
    not the proper person to describe the clause.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am sorry if I have offended in any way, but I assure the House that I did not express any opinion one way or the other. Anything I said might probably more likely have been taken an argument against my own view than otherwise.
    VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: I accept the noble Lord's explanation, but I am sure he took a course which was open to misconstruction. In conclusion, I would urge that the principle of the sinking fund is not applicable to the expenditure contemplated under this particular Bill and which is incurred entirely as an insurance against the recurrence of certain emergencies which may perhaps never have to be encountered. To apply the sinking fund clause to this expenditure would be to inflict very great injustice on the shareholders of these companies.
    LORD DAVEY: I am not going to follow my noble friend in discussing the conduct of the London County Council in opposing this Bill and in seeking to have this clause inserted, nor am I going to follow my noble friend in his criticisms of the conduct of the Select Committee. I desire for a few minutes to recall to the House what is really the issue before us. As I understand, it is admitted on all sides, and it cannot be denied, that for a long number of years it has been the custom to insert a sinking fund clause into all Water Bills which come before Parliament seeking to raise further capital. Nor is it denied that it would be proper to insert it at this Bill, except for one circumstance. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment said this capital will not be dividend-bearing or profit-producing capital—that it is expenditure which will not increase the income-producing capacity of the undertaking, and will not result in any financial benefit to the shareholders. I venture to say, my Lords, that that is a most astounding fallacy. In the first place, I would point out the utter impossibility, when you are calculating the dividend which is paid by a company on its capital, to distinguish one part of its capital from another. You do not pay a dividend on one part of the capital, but on the whole, and for the purpose of ascertaining the dividend you
    708
    must take into consideration the whole expenditure. What is this expenditure for? It is for the purpose of improving the water supply of London, and enabling the water companies the better to serve their customers; and it is new to me to be told that because a shopkeeper, a tradesman, or a merchant, provides greater facilities for the supply of a superior class of article and with greater permanence and regularity to Ins customers that then, the money he expended with tins object is not to be treated as dividend-bearing expenditure. I should have thought it was the very essence of dividend-bearing expenditure, spent for the purpose of producing that which would in turn produce the income. This expenditure is in the nature of a mutual insurance by the companies of each other against a deficiency of supply, and it would be certainly strange if anyone were to say that money spent by a shipowner on premiums for insuring his vessel is not part of his dividend-bearing expenditure. If that is the only argument for striking out this clause, I venture to think it is an entire fallacy, and I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken is under a total misapprehension as to the obligations which are cast upon the companies by this Bill. He has spoken of the impossibility of separating capital, and has said that you will be unable to discover whether money spent is earning capital or not; but the effect of this Bill is far different from such hypothesis. By this Bill, if, in the East of London, a water famine is anticipated, then the Local Government Board calls, not upon the East London Water Company, but upon all the companies to contribute a fund for the purpose of bringing water to East London to meet the needs of that district. The primary object of the measure is to enable relief to be given to the East London Water Company in the event of drought or other emergency. Such companies as the Southwark and Vauxhall Company may be called upon to pay something like £50,000 under the Bill, but may not benefit by it. How is the interest on that sum found?
    LORD DAVEY: If the Vauxhall Company's supply falls short, it will have the benefit of the Act.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Yes, but the Vauxhall Company never has run short, but certainly will have to pay if any company runs short, and why then should yon anticipate that it will receive benefit? It never can, in any reasonably probable event, receive money from any customer in return for that £50,000, and inasmuch as it will not benefit it should not be subject to the sinking fund clause. Strange language has been used I think, and misapprehension shown by the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee, He has spoken of this as a water Bill and has referred to precedents. A Water Bill is a measure promoted and introduced by a water company asking for further powers in order that it may supply a greater area and thereby obtain larger returns. This Bill, on the other hand, is not promoted by a. water company, but is a Bill introduced by the Government to compel the water companies to connect their mains and to come to the relief of a company whose supply is not adequate to meet the needs of the district. There is no precedent between former Bills of the water companies and this Bill. The noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee said the Committee asked themselves who were likely to know more about this question—the County Council and the Corporation of the City of London, or the Government and the water companies? The Committee listened to the counsel of the London County Conned, but they did not hear the counsel on behalf of the Government. Why? Because they said "the Government know nothing about it, and the County Council know everything." What an amount of trouble the adoption of this procedure would save my noble friend the Lord Chancellor! All he would have to do would be to ask himself which of the suitors who appeared before him would be more likely to tell the truth. He would say "A is likely to know more about this than B. I will decide in favour of A, which will save me the trouble of considering the arguments of B." This was the method by which the Committee arrived at their decision. The Committee received a visit during one of its sittings from the noble Lord (Lord Tweedmouth), whose presence must have been of great moral assistance to the Chairman of the Committee.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I was in the
    710
    Committee room for half an hour or twenty minutes while counsel was making a speech for the County Council, and then I left the room.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The noble Lord gave the Chairman his moral support.
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Not at all; that is a most unworthy suggestion.
    LORD RIBBLESDALE: I saw present Lord Tweedmouth and the noble Lord opposite—[Earl COWPER.— "I was there to give evidence"]—but I did not ask Lord Tweedmouth to give evidence.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: At any rate my noble friend Lord Tweed-mouth himself says that he explained to a member of the Committee, while he was acting as a member of the Committee, what was the effect of the sinking fund clause. My noble friend (Lord Tweed-mouth) may take one view of what is the effect of the sinking fund clause, and another noble Lord may take another view. May I ask my noble friend, would it not have been better for him to have gone into the witness-box?
    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should have gone into the witness-box if I had been asked.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Why should the explanation not have been given before the public rather than to one member of the Committee. I think the House ought to understand that whilst this matter was discussed the counsel for the London County council very forcibly and at great length argued in favour of the insertion of the sinking fund clause, and that the counsel for the Water Companies was given to understand than he could reply to these arguments the Clause stage. The opponents to the sinking fund clause, therefore, did not say one word in answer to the arguments of the County Council on the preamble, and it was to the astonishment of everybody that the Committee announced that the preamble was proved subject to the insertion of a sinking fund clause. Lord Tweedmouth said it was impossible to tell the dividend-earning capacity of one sovereign as compared with another, but under certain conditions it is easy to

    711
    tell. If you have a fund paid in for a specific purpose you ought not to apply it to another. You can well separate one fund from another, and a Government auditor would require this money to be kept separate. You would be able to determine then what each portion of the capital raised under different conditions is earning.
    LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, my reason for intervening is that I have received a communication from the chairman of the Surrey County Council, whose interests he apprehends may be affected by this Bill. I must say my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill seemed in his observations to have lost the faith he originally professed in the merits of his proposal, and to have resorted to a contrivance to divert the judgment of the House from fair consideration of the merits by appeals to prejudice not conspicuous for good taste. My noble and learned friend suggested, in fact, that the Chairman of the Committee was in some way under the mesmeric influence of my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, and that under the influence so exerted upon him he did not exercise that judicial faculty which his position required. The question, however, is not one to get excited about. A vital point has been put when it is shown that in water Bills for thirteen years the sinking fund clause has been invariably introduced. The onus, therefore, lies upon my noble and learned friend to justify the making of this Bill an exception on special grounds. The special grounds are that the expenditure which is involved or may be involved under the operation of this Bill does not come within the category of dividend-earning expenditure. I agree with my noble and learned friend (Lord Davey) that that is an entire misconception of the position and a complete fallacy. This is a Bill which enables the London water companies, which for this purpose are to be treated as one, with certain differentiations, to do what they have not legal power to do at present. I am not a water company director, nor even a water company shareholder. I approach the matter, therefore, entirely unbiassed, and I will take the illustration that has been given. The Vauxhall Company, for example, want no additional supply, but they may supply a company which wants water. Is the company to
    712
    be paid for that supply or not? What is the answer to that question? If they are to he paid, how can it be said that it is not part of an operation involving their earning power? The East London Company, on the other hand, want to Increase their supply because they know that they cannot get their water rates unless they supply water. Accordingly, the Vauxhall Company supply them with water in order to satisfy their customers and to earn the water rate, and it is paid for such supply. Is not that increasing the earning power of the company?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SA LISBURY): My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord has omitted a contingency in respect of which no dividend-earning power can avail—namely, that there is no use whatever of this machinery which is to he put up. This machinery has been put up, perhaps rather in alarm, in consequence of the very unusual drought which occur red two years ago, and as far as we can judge of the future by the past the same difficulty may never occur again. The machinery has been put up, because the East London Company failed then to do its duty; and therefore it is undoubtedly to that extent an addition to the resources of the East London Company annul to tire remedy of their defects. But it will neither cause the company nor any other companies to give more water or to receive more water; and therefore neither of the two sides which constitute the alternative which the noble Lord has conceived to be irrefragable can prevail, nor will the Vauxhall Company derive any dividend whatever from the money which you force them to spend. Of the East London Company alone can it be inferred—and only in an indirect fashion—that this money is in addition to their dividend-earning power. For the rest the money has been spent, not by the desire of the companies, not at their request, but by the obligation imposed upon them by the Government; and there is no pretence for saying that it adds to their dividend-earning power. There is, therefore, no reason or justice in adding to the exaction imposed upon them by requiring them to provide a sinking fund as well. That seems to me the whole state of the case. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that there

    713
    have been sundry personal matters which have inevitably found their way into this Debate in consequence of the manner in which matters were conducted before the Committee. I do not think, however, that they have added to the clearness with which we can come to a decision. We heard of something being said to one of the judges secretly when the decision was in question. I confess it reminded me very much of the secret dossier; and I am almost inclined to regard the noble Lord opposite (Lord Tweedmouth) as part of the "General Staff" of the London County Council. I think, however, we may dismiss all these circumstances from our minds. What is meant by a water Bill is a Bill asking for power to raise capital to provide water; but this is not a water Bill, and therefore it is not touched by the 14 years' precedent cited.
    THE EARL or KIMBERLEY: I wish to say one word which bears on what was said by the noble Lord in charge of this Bill. I understood, the noble Lord to say that this obligation was imposed on the companies, and that the companies had not taken any step ill the matter. I have been informed that the companies themselves brought in a Bill containing to a very large extent the provisions of the measure before your lordships. The Government, however, took the Bill out of the measure is the result. The companies themselves had, therefore, felt the want of a Bill, and they were ready to come to Parliament for powers. Why? Because the companies perfectly well knew the danger and insecurity of their position when these water famines occurred, and when they could not supply water, and they felt that they would add to the security of their position by means of a Bill of this kind. Is it not a fact that this provision is in the nature of insurance for all these companies, whether they have to supply water or not to another company? Does anybody believe that the companies would not add to the safety and security of their capital, and to the probability of their long being allowed to continue in their present position, by obtaining the powers given wider this Bill? After all, I suppose we have to consider first the interests of the public, and I contend that the interests of the public loudly require that these companies, which undoubtedly have failed—
    714
    some to a very considerable extent—in supplying water, should be put in a position to adequately perform the duty which they originally undertook to perform when they were given this monopoly. To me it seems mere justice that when the time comes for these companies to be bought out at the expense of the London ratepayers the capital which has been raised under this Bill to enable them to properly perform their duty should not he treated as capital on which they are to receive compensation.
    On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 51; Not-contents, 20.

    CONTENTS.

    Halsbury, E. (Lord Chancellor)

    St. Albans, L. Bp.

    Devonshire, D. (Lord President)

    Aldenham, L.

    Ashbourne, L.

    Cross, V. (Lord Privy seal)

    Brampton, L.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Bedford, D.

    Calthorpe L.

    Northumberland, D.

    Churchill, L. [Teller]

    Westminster, D.

    Cottesloe, L.

    Farquhar, L.

    Abergavenny, M.

    Forester, L.

    Lansdowne, M.

    Glanusk, L.

    Salisbury, M.

    Harris, L.

    Heneage, L.

    Bradford, E.

    Herries, L.

    Brownlow, E.

    James, L.

    Cowper, E.

    Kelvin, L.

    Dartmouth, E.

    Lawrence, L. [Teller]

    Ducie, E.

    Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

    Dudley, E.

    Lichfield, E.

    Mount Stephen, L.

    Onslow, E.

    Penrhyn, L

    Romney, E.

    Rosmead, L.

    Rosse, E

    Rothschild, L.

    Selborne, E.

    Saltoun, L.

    Stanhope, E.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington

    Strange, E. (D. Atholl)

    Yarborough, E.

    Ventry, L.

    Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

    Hampden, V.

    Knutsford, V.

    On Question, agreed to.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Buckinghamshire, E. [Teller]

    Aberdare, L.

    Burghclere, L.

    Carrington, E.

    Coleridge, L.

    Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

    Davey, L.

    Kimberley, E.

    Monkswell, L.

    Russell, E.

    Reay, L.

    Spencer, E.

    Ribblesdale, L.

    Russell of Killowen, L.

    Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Thring, L.

    Peel V.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Portman, V.

    LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The next Amendment standing in my name I move because I think it is right that a limit

    715
    should be fixed as to the amount of capital to be issued under this Bill. I think the noble Lord will agree that the circumstances under which this Bill is brought in are exceptional and peculiar. Moreover, it is urged that it is only a temporary measure for a temporary purpose, and that it docs not pretend to be a final solution of the water question, and is only intended to tide over a temporay difficulty until a final settlement is arrived at. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
    Amendment moved, at the end of Clause 2, to add—
    "And provided that the total amount of such stock shall not exceed £500,000."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I should be glad if I could meet the wishes of my noble friend, but the whole question is left to the discretion of the Local Government Board, who will see that no undue sum is expended. If my noble friend will put down his Amendment on the Report stage I will in the meantime consult my right honourable friend the President of the Local Government Board on this point, but I am afraid he will not give way.
    LORD TWEED MOUTH: I withdraw my Amendment now, and will put it down on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
    Other Amendments agreed to.
    EARL COWPER: On the Second Reading of this Bill I pointed out that Subsection 2 of Section 1 went further than was at all necessary for the purpose of the Bill, and might have a very dangerous effect in enabling the companies to take water from places outside their present water limits. I also called attention to the immense harm which is being done owing to our springs and rivers being drained dry by these companies, and I expressed the desire which we all feel that this evil should not be increased. Lord James of Hereford received my remarks in the most courteous manner, assuring me that in his opinion there was no danger and that he did not interpret the clause in the way in which I had interpreted it.
    716
    The noble and learned Lord added that if there should be any doubt it would be removed, and stated that the promoters had no intention of allowing any more water to be extracted from Hertfordshire than was taken at the present time. When this Bill went into Committee a clause was agreed to by the promoters protecting Hertfordshire. Unfortunately Hertfordshire was mentioned by name, but there are other counties concerned. This clause was unexpectedly thrown out by the Committee at the instigation of the water companies. I cannot conceive that the water companies should have opposed this clause unless they took the same view as our legal adviser did—namely, that this Bill would give them extra powers. I think it is now generally admitted that there is a danger of what I have suggested happening if something is not done. We have never been heard in this matter. We have had no opportunity of saying anything either in the House of Commons or before a Committee of this House, and I am sure your Lordships will think with me that it would be most unjust that powers such as I have suggested should be conferred on the companies by a side wind against the intention of the promoters and without any argument whatever taking place on the subject. This seems to me so self-evident that I feel sure there can be no opposition to the new clause I now propose.
    Moved, to insert the following new clause—
    "Nothing in this Act shall authorise the construction by any metropolitan water company of any works for die purpose of utilising any supplies of water drawn from wells outside the water limits of the metropolitan water companies not now utilised under the powers possessed by such companies."—(Earl Cowper.)
    EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, as Hertfordshire only has been alluded to, perhaps I may be allowed, on behalf of the County Council of Kent, to say how much importance we attach to this Amendment. We are somewhat alarmed that the water under our chalk hills may be extracted for the benefit of London, and I have every hope that my noble and learned friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
    LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: On the Second Reading I was authorised to

    717
    state that the Government did not wish by the Bill to give the companies any further powers of taking water, and I therefore accept the clause, which was not inserted by the Select Committee owing to some misunderstanding. The clause proposed by the noble Earl carries out exactly what the Government intended, and therefore, as I have said, I gladly enough accept it.
    Standing Committee negatived: The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Standing Order No. 39 to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 92.)

    SOLICITOUS BILL [Lords].
    Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
  QUESTIONS.

    SIERRA LEONE.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I desire to call the attention of the House to the state of affairs in Sierra Leone or West Africa; and to ask what are the steps to restore order which the Secretary of State contemplates taking. With regard to the troubles in Sierra Leone, the first I heard of them was through the complaints of the head of a Manchester house doing a large trade with West Africa, I was told that he represented Mr. Chamberlain asdestroying the trade of West Africa. The Aborigines' journal of February last contains this extract from the letter of a leading Liverpool merchant:—
    "What can we do to put a slop to the shooting and hanging of these natives of Sierra Leone? It is a terrible business all round. Not only there, but in the Oil Rivers and up the Niger the conversion of the negro by means of lead is going on merrily, and so it will do. I fear, whilst the military rulers have the power in their hands unchecked, and every incentive in the; shape of pay, honour, and promotion to cause them to get up wars by which they may attract public notice. We want the whole system of government altering."
    The same journal describes these troops as "recruited from escaped and liberated slaves of defeated chiefs," and from "war-boys" no longer able to gratify
    718
    their savage inclinations in their old ways. Allegations are also made against the men and their officers that they compel aborigines with kicks and blows to carry their goods without wages, and that they abduct their daughters and ravish their wives. Here we have a repetition or revival of Kirke's Lambs, and they are being brought into this country. On Monday, the 8th, Crewe Station was swarming with West African negro troops going South from Liverpool, and the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State's reason for absence from London last Sunday and the days before and after was that he was training troops. Were these West Africans among them? And are they to lie named his or Mr. Chamberlain's Lambs? I hope he will have the Paschal lamb restored to their regimental Hag, so as to inculcate greater suavity than they are now manifesting in Sierra Leone. In January, 1898, an arbitrary demand was made for a hut tax m the way of rent, and by a Protectorate ordinance a claim was made of absolute ownership by the Crown of all the land of the country—outside the colony—with which we had treaties recognising the independence of the people, and obtaining only trading opportunities. The remonstrance of the Aborigines Secretary of October 10th, 1898, was in vain, and on the 24th Mr. Chamberlain sent a curt answer, saying that steps would be taken during the dry season to restore order in all parts of the Protectorate. One can readily imagine Mr. Chamberlain, whilst dictating that answer, chuckling and murmuring:—
    "A fico for the world and Quakers base, I speak of Africa and golden joys."
    The Aborigines Protection Society contains many Quakers, but the golden joys the Secretary of State thinks of are a full treasury from a usurped hut tax. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State, has, however, fully assimilated and adopted this spurious Imperialism of grasping new territories, whilst neglecting old, well-established and loyal colonies, for in his speech at Glasgow University on the 3rd May he again endeavoured to make the worse appear the better reasons for seizing on what he called unappropriated portions of the earth; and he sought for support in a recent speech of Lord lord Rosebery's, forgetting that it blamed extremes, such as the policy followed in Sierra Leone, and the disregard of Australian interests shown in the

    719
    duties on Australian wines. The noble Lord thinks ho has found a material justification for a usurpation of sovereignty and Crown rights over land in the needs of manufacturers for new markets; let him read Mr. Frederick Greenwood's article in the Nineteenth Century of April on the neglect by manufacturers of the markets they already possess. The argument that a commercial nation must die if it had not trade on which to live did not justify the enslaving of negroes hitherto free. There is one point upon which the noble Earl and myself are quite agreed, and that is in objecting to tinkering the Prayer-book. If the Commutation Service had not been set aside, the noble Earl would have been reminded that "cursed is he who removeth his neighbour's landmark"; a denunciation which applies as much to Governments as to individuals. The noble Earl went on to found what he called a moral justification for taking these now lands, in that
    "Their aim was to bring to them the blessings of liberty, of law, of peace and of civilisation."
    How can such an assertion be made in the face of the Sierra Leone Press, and the publications of the Aborigines Protection Society, which have not been contradicted or disproved by the Colonial Office. It seems to mo to be a cause for regret that the noble Earl is endangering the consistency of his character by continual advocacy of the Colonial Office acts and policy. For instance, his speeches in the Laymen's House of Convocation show that he goes as far as my noble friend Lord Halifax in his opinion of the incompetency of the Judicial Committee in spiritual matters, and I agree with them on that point.
    THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have never mentioned the subject.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think my noble friend is travelling outside the borders of his Notice.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: In a short time the noble Earl will be placed in a dilemma, should the Government persist in refusing to the clergy the relief as to rates given to other owners of land. If the noble Earl elects to retain the Under-Secretary ship in that contingency, it is only fair that I should give him notice
    720
    that I shall contest with him the next election for the chairmanship of the Church Defence Committee.
    THE UNDE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (the Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, the noble Lord's question was, to ask what steps Her Majesty's Government were going to take to restore order in Sierra Leone. My answer to the noble Lord is that order is completely restored in Sierra, Leone. If the noble Lord wished to have a general debate on the subject of the recent disturbances I would suggest that he should wait until the Blue Book is published. The noble Lord has made a reflection on the action of the officers and men in the service of Her Majesty in the colony. Under circumstances of great climatic difficulties, of complete isolation in many cases, and in dealing with absolutely savage tribes, on the whole the officers who go out from this country show marvellous patience, great tact, and great humanity; and I repudiate altogether the reflections which the noble Lord has passed on their conduct. As regards the bloodshed in Sierra Leone, no one has been executed who was not tried by a judge sent out from this country and convicted of actual cold-blooded murder. With regard to the allegations that the Crown had provoked disturbances by claiming all the land in Sierra Leone, there is not the slightest shadow of a foundation for any such statement.
    House adjourned at a quarter to Seven of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.