asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that Mr. Oliphant, Private Secretary to Sir Salar Jung, was summarily dismissed by order of the Indian Government, in opposition to the wishes of Sir Salar Jung; and, if so, whether he will state to the House the reasons for that course of proceeding, and will lay upon the Table the Papers and Correspondence relating to his dismissal?

Sir, by a well-known Treaty, negotiated in 1798, between the British Government and the Government of the Nizam, no European is permitted to enter into the service of the Nizam, or to remain in Hyderabad territory, except with the consent of the British Government. Subject to these provisions, Mr. Oliphant became some time back Sir Salar Jung's secretary. The Government of India having recently reason to believe that Mr. Oliphant's presence at Hyderabad was not conducive to a good understanding between the two Governments considered it necessary to withdraw the sanction previously given to his employment. The Secretary of State does not consider this a matter upon which, with advantage to public interests, Papers could be laid upon the Table of the House.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any arrangement has yet been made for treating the Mechanic Writers of Her Majesty's Dockyards as salaried clerks, or whether they are still to be treated as ordinary workmen at day pay?

Sir, the Question to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred is part of the larger one of the clerical establishments of the Dockyards, which are now being considered by a Committee. I admit there is a great deal to be said in favour of the proposition; but I am unable to deal with it until I have the Report of the Committee; and I may also add that Treasury approval will be required for any change in the status of the persons employed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will use his influence to postpone the consideration of the Bill promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purchase of the Water Companies at a cost of many millions sterling, until that Board have, in accordance with the spirit of his recent reply to the Board, taken the necessary steps to prevent the recurrence of Floods on the Surrey side of the water?

in reply, said, he had not done so, neither did he see what right he had to take the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He might take that opportunity of stating that he had received from the Metropolitan Board of Works, in answer to a letter which he had sent to them some time ago, a communication which induced him to hope that the arrangements they intended to make on the subject would be satisfactory.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the New Irish Court of Appeal, constituted by the Irish Judicature Act, held its first sitting last week in Dublin to hear an Appeal of great importance; and, whether Lord Justice Christian, one of the permanent members of the Court, declined to attend the sittings; and, if so, on what grounds did he so decline?

Sir, I have been informed that it is an error to suggest that Lord Justice Christian declined to attend the sittings of the Court of Appeal; he was merely absent from one particular case, which was heard by four Appellate Judges. I do not consider it to be my duty to inquire what were the grounds of his absence. The Government do not expect from the Judges any account of their attendance in particular cases, and I should be sorry to take any action which might be construed as a precedent for interference on the part of the Government with the independence of the Judicial Bench in Ireland.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the rules for sub-postmasters in charge of money order offices, 1877, have been published by his authority containing, among others, the following rules:—

(76.) "Officers of the Post Office may now vote at elections for Members of Parliament, the former disabilities having been removed; but they are still prohibited, under severe penalties, from exerting their influence cither for or against any particular candidate, or otherwise intermeddling in elections."(77.) "This prohibition is contained in the forty-fourth section of the Act ninth Anne, chapter ten."

in reply, said, sub-postmasters were now in possession of knowledge as to their right of voting at elections of Members of Parliament.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact (as stated by the First Lord of the Admiralty) that the Officer commanding H.M.S. "Beagle" has, by order of his Commodore, held a Court at which a person, not a subject of Her Majesty, was tried by an unauthorized process for an offence not committed within Her Majesty's jurisdiction, and was, by sentence of such Court, put to death on board H.M.S. "Beagle;" whether such proceedings were warranted by the Laws of the Realm; and, if not, whether the person by whose orders the trial took place, the members of the Court, and the persons by whom the sentence of the Court was executed, are not all guilty at law of the crime of murder?

Sir, when one of Her Majesty's ships of war is lying- off the coast of land inhabited by savages, where no law prevails and no redress for outrages can be obtained from any Government or in any tribunal, and British subjects residing in this region are attacked and one of them is murdered by the Natives, it seems to me that the captain of such vessel is placed in the same position as is occupied by the Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in the field in time of war, and has the same duties cast upon him and possesses the same rights and powers. If this view be correct, I shall be justified in stating, in answer to the Question which is asked of me, that the person by whose orders the trial alluded to was held and the members of the Court and the persons by whom the sentence of the Court was executed were not guilty of murder or of any crime whatsoever. I should give this opinion with great confidence, were it not that the fact of the Question which appears on the Paper having been put to me induces me to believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham, who has earned for himself a great reputation as a lawyer, appears to take a contrary view and to consider that some of Her Majesty's servants have committed a dreadful crime, for the perpetration of which Her Majesty's Government are bound to subject them to condign punishment.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Why the special allowances to the officers and men of the Perak expedition promised last Session have not been paid, and when they will be?

in reply, said, he was sorry that those allowances had not yet been paid. The reason of the delay on the subject was that Correspondence was obliged to be held upon it between four Departments—the War Office, the India Office, the Colonial Office, and the Admiralty. [Mr. Serjeant SIMON: Where is it now?] The matter was in the hands of the Treasury, and he had reason to believe that it would be speedily settled.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether after the statement to which he has referred, and which I presume he is about to make in Committee of Supply, seeing that it will probably be one of very great importance, he will be willing to agree to report Progress, after, of course, such explanations as may have been asked for have been given, more fully to explain the proposals of the Government. I wish to ask whether he will be willing to report Progress in order that the House may have some time to consider the character of that statement and the proposals of the Government?

Sir, the statement which I shall have to make to the House as soon as the House is in Committee of Supply will be one no doubt of great importance, and one that will be seen to contain some new matter. I think it will be advantageous and convenient to the House that the course suggested by the noble Lord should be followed, on this understanding—thatweshouldbeallowed at once to go into Committee of Supply, and that I should make my statement before any discussion is raised, such, for instance, as that suggested by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) on the Speaker leaving the Chair. On that understanding we should be willing, after my statement and any explanations that may be necessary to elucidate our proposals to the House, to report Progress till to-morrow, in order to enable the House to consider what course it should take on those proposals. Under those circumstances, I think we should lose no time, because we cannot expect such a debate to close in one night; and I hope that hon. Gentlemen who have Notices on the Paper for to-morrow will consent to waive them to allow us to proceed with the debate.

said, he had no hesitation at all in acceding to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

also promised to postpone his Motion standing in his name for to-morrow.

said, lie need make no apology if he prefaced the introduction of the Bill, of which he had given Notice, by a few preliminary observations. As was well known, the idea of county financial administration was very different from what it was 20 or 25 years ago. At that time the general feeling was simply that the ratepayers of the country had no adequate representation in the body that administered the financial affairs of the country—that was to say, the court of quarter sessions. It was not disputed that the magistrates who constituted that court discharged their duties honourably and well; and that, being themselves ratepayers, as well as owners of property, they had a large interest in the proper administration of the county finance. But it was at the same time felt—and it was true—that the great mass of the ratepayers had no sufficient representation on the court, and had no direct control over the increase or diminution of the expenditure for which they had to provide. It was true that a very large part of the expenditure of the county did not depend upon the discretion of the magistrates, or of the ratepayers, but was imposed and levied under express Acts of Parliament. For this expenditure the magistrates were in no way responsible; they did not originate it, and were no more than the agents of the legislation which imposed it, and consequently the collection and expenditure of the county rate was to a great extent a matter of administrative necessity. Nevertheless, within the 20 years preceding the period to which he had alluded, there had arisen, not only a great increase of expenditure, but also a great increase of indebtedness, in consequence of the establishment of the county police, the building of new prisons, and the requirements of the Pauper Lunatic Acts; and the dissatisfaction which had arisen from these circumstances found expression in various Bills which were introduced into Parliament attempting to provide a more effectual system of regulating and administering the county finance. In 1852 a right hon. Gentleman, then President of the Board of Trade, but no longer a Member of this House (Mr. Milner Gibson), introduced a Bill for the regulation of county rates and expenditure, the principle of which was the establishment of a county financial board, to be composed half of ratepayers elected by Board of Guardians, and half of magistrates elected by the court of quarter sessions. This Bill was referred to a Select Committee, but was not afterwards proceeded with. Mr. Hodgkinson, the Member for Newark, in 1860, and Sir William Gallwey and Mr. Wyld, then Member for Bodmin, in 1868 introduced Bills dealing with the subject. In 1869 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) introduced a Bill which went no further than the first reading, and was then withdrawn. In the year 1871 the measure of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) was introduced, but not proceeded with, and since then no legislation on the subject had been attempted. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought there were good reasons why the proposals which were renewed from time to time in these Bills failed to command the assent of the public; because, from the time when this series of measures began —namely, 1852, down to the present time, no new functions had been given to the magistrates, nor had any new burdens been thrown on the county rate. The policy of Parliament, on the contrary, had been to avoid any measure of that kind, and the uniform practice of successive Governments, and the recommendations of Committees of both Houses and of Royal Commissions had been, when new functions were required to be discharged in country districts, that these functions should be relegated to the Boards of Guardians. That had been now the practice for a good many years. The Guardian was, in the first instance, a parish officer; but afterwards became, by the Union Chargeability Act, the representative of a union. He was then required to construct the valuation lists of rateable property. He was afterwards required to exercise the functions of sanitary authority in the rural districts; and only the other day was suggested and matured the idea of making him an educational authority throughout the Kingdom. This being the case, we had nevertheless lately had a revival of the old feeling for a county board, and various views had been put forward with regard to it. He would first of all notice a well-known expression of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who said we wanted municipalities for counties. He quite agreed with this expression to a certain limited extent; it was a half truth of some importance, and, so far as it was true, he hoped the Bill now to be introduced would carry it into effect. As far as regarded the representation of the general interests and policy of counties; in that sense, no doubt the expression of the right hon. Gentleman was strictly accurate. But what was the more material object of municipalities? It was to provide for the population certain comforts and conveniences which they could not provide for themselves, but which, as population grew, became necessities of existence— such as the scavenging, paving, and lighting of streets, the sewage of towns, the providing a gas and water supply for houses. But, as far as these duties required a municipal authority for their discharge, he must contend that they were already provided for by the rural sanitary authority. In the Public Health Act of 1875, which summed up and consolidated the preexisting law, would be found a complete code of municipal management for the rural districts laid down in successive stages under the head of "urban powers," "parochial committees," and "local board districts," and he must assure the House, in spite of the prejudice which had been thrown on it, that the institution of local boards was growing in favour in populous communities. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Bath-bone) sometimes alluded to the establishment of county boards as a sort of panacea for the existing wide-spread, disorder and confusion of area, as if by a stroke of the wand a county board would be able to turn chaos into order, or extravagance into thrift, and complications into facilities; but he could assure the House that if the local government of this country had become more or less confused to the eye of the outward spectator, it was known perfectly well what rights and liberties were given by these local institutions, and he doubted very much whether it was in the power of this or any government, or of any county board, to diminish or detract from the independence or the privileges now enjoyed by those commu- nities, although, perhaps, their increase might be in future, to some extent, restricted. Now, he was as desirous as his hon. Friend that attention should be paid by the county authority to the condition of separate local areas within the counties, and he hoped to give sufficient place in the Bill for that function. He also hoped to improve the financial powers of the local authorities, and that economy might be the result. He thought the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had been misled in supposing that the heavy indebtedness of local authorities, to which he had so often drawn attention, would be held in check by any county authority. The greater part of that indebtedness had been contracted by independent urban communities, which no county board could check. There was one point, however, upon which all would agree—that there was room at this moment for a local authority to be set up which would satisfy the principle contended for in former days of giving representation to the counties, and also satisfy some urgent needs which were now beginning to be felt, and which the law as it stood at present had no means of providing for. There was, for instance, the grievance arising from the state of the main roads of the country as the turnpikes fell in; there was the grievance felt in counties from the enormous expenditure on lunatic asylums; there was the grievance so prominently brought forward last year connected with the flooding of various districts. All these and other things seemed now to have been brought to that point that the attention of Parliament had been sufficiently called to them, and would enable the Government, with effect, perhaps, to deal with them; and he hoped to do so by this Bill. At all events, the Government were of opinion that the time had come for constituting a new county authority which would rectify grievances, discharge certain new duties, and guide and direct county policy. The Government were most anxious that the body which they would set up should possess certain qualifications; that it should be of such a character as to represent both owners and occupiers; that it should have a sufficiently extensive standpoint from which to survey and direct the general interests of the county; that it should engage the services of the most competent and experienced men of the county, and thus be such a body as to attract the general confidence, not only of the ratepayers, but of the public; and lastly, that it should, if possible, be free from political bias. Now, in approaching the subject, the natural and obvious method was to collect from the various local institutions of the county a body which would be sufficiently independent, and which should take charge not only of the matters to which he had alluded, but also of a great many other things besides; but the objections to this course were found on examination to be insuperable. The Government had accordingly determined upon a plan of identifying the county board with the court of quarter sessions in its executive capacity. One felt that it would be extremely undesirable to have two authorities dealing with a county rate; if the two authorities were kept separate it was obvious that there were a great many executery functions appertaining to the idea of justice, which could not conveniently be removed from the authority of the magistrates. It was felt that the existing county officers, whose time from year to year was less and less called upon, might have the new services consolidated with their former duties, and most of the functions at present discharged by the magistrates could be transferred to the new county authority. He had every reason to think that the transfer of business might be effected without friction, and without inconvenience or injury to those who were interested out-of-doors, or to the officers themselves. He thought there had been eight or 10 Bills on the subject, and they had all proceeded on the assumption that a certain number of magistrates should form the nucleus of the county board, and all but one of them vested the election in the Boards of Guardians. The great question was as to the elective element. It was quite evident that the ratepayers could not be brought together to vote in one single centre on a matter of this kind. What divisions were there that they could have recourse to? There were the unions and the petty sessional districts. There were grave objections to the use of unions for the purposes of the Bill, for nearly one-third of them overlapped the county boundaries. The cases of overlapping were 400, although the number of unions concerned only numbered 180. Another objection to the use of unions was that they included, as a rule, the quarter sessions boroughs, with which this Bill did not propose to deal. The decision of the Government had been to adopt the petty sessional district as the elective area. Each parish had its Guardian, and he would vote as the representative man of his parish. Let it be observed that there was a very great advantage in this plan. In addition to avoiding complication they took the guardian away from the workhouse, where he had not really in this capacity so much to do, to the central town of his district, where he would vote in public, not as a member of the Board of Guardians, but as the representative of his parish, and that in a place at which every Guardian in the county could readily attend. Of course, there were objections to the petty sessional areas; but, on the whole, they presented not at all an inconvenient basis for the formation of county boards. It had been said by some of the newspapers, in criticizing what they supposed he was about to say, that the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and of the Metropolitan Asylums Board was not satisfactory; because the members were appointed by vestries, and there was no direct representation of the ratepayers. He would not stop to defend those bodies, though he did not concur in the criticisms to which he referred; but he might point out that the plan he laid before the House was a very different one from that under which they were constituted, for the Guardians would not be called upon to vote in a hole-and-corner fashion as it were, but would come out publicly for the purpose. In order to show the advantage of selecting the petty sessional districts he would quote a few figures. In Berkshire, out of 15 unions, 11 transgressed the county boundaries; in Devonshire there were 20 unions, and 15 of these overlapped; whilst in Radnorshire, where there were five unions, all of them overlapped. In fact, out of a list he had of 10 counties, he found there were 137 unions, 105 of which overlapped the county boundaries. One of the arguments in favour of the plan he proposed was that they had the division ready to hand. Of course a Royal Commission might, in half-a- dozen years, lay out a better plan, but they wanted one for immediate application. The constitution of the county board was contained in eight clauses of the Bill. County magistrates were to elect at Michaelmas two of their body to serve on the county board in respect of each petty sessional division of their county. In the month of November in each year the Guardians would be summoned from the parishes within the county to assemble at the petty sessional head-quarters, where they also would proceed to elect two members to serve on the county board in respect of their petty sessional divisions. Then there came the question of the boroughs. It was not proposed to include in the Bill the quarter sessions boroughs, which were, for the most part, independent of the county rate. There was, however, a class of boroughs of great importance, which had a separate commission of the peace, though not a separate quarter sessions. The whole of these boroughs contributed to the county rate. They varied much in size, and were about 92 in number. It was proposed to deal with them by a somewhat rough method, which, however, seemed on the whole to be most convenient. It was proposed that all of these boroughs which had less than 20,000 inhabitants should be dealt with as parts of the county. They would by their Guardians contribute to elect the elective members for the petty sessional district to which they would be attached for this purpose. With regard to the boroughs having above 20,000 inhabitants, it was proposed that they should be treated as separate local areas, and should be represented on the county boards by four members, to be nominated by their town councils. Taking all these points into consideration—and great care had been taken to arrive at a proper quota of members for the county—he believed the numbers fixed would be found sufficient and satisfactory. He would mention a few as examples of all. Berkshire would have 48 members; Derbyshire, 52; Durham, 78; Essex, 68; Hereford, 44; Kent, 68; Lancashire, 150—not at all too large a number—as there were 800 county magistrates who now had the opportunity of attending the county sessions; Norfolk, 96, not too large a number for so extensive a county; Northamptonshire, 36; Northumber- land, 56; Shropshire, 76; Somersetshire, 86; and Wilts, 72. Without going through the whole list, he thought that he had quoted sufficient to show that the number of the members of these county boards would be by no means in excess of the duties that would have to be discharged by them. Very important new functions were to be assigned to these boards. It was proposed that the management of the main roads should be transferred to them, half of the expense of keeping these roads in repair being defrayed from the county road fund, and half by the parish through which they ran. One clause he had inserted in the Bill with considerable hesitation, inasmuch as it empowered the county boards, in certain cases, with the consent of Parliament, which would always be required, to establish turnpike gates. He should be prepared to show that there were some cases of extraordinary hardships, of which the House could scarcely be aware, in which it would be most unfair to throw the cost of the repairs upon the county board or upon the parish. Thus where there was a large mineral traffic to and from a railway station, or where the communication between two large towns ran through a small parish, it would be manifestly fair to raise the funds for the repair of the road by some such means as tolls. It was also proposed to give county boards power to enforce the repair of the roads. They would also be empowered to take upon themselves the duties of river conservators, and likewise to put in force the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act. He admitted that owing to the different interests which were affected by rivers this power would involve difficult and delicate duties; but any improvement in the management of our rivers seemed hopeless unless a beginning were made, and he thought, therefore, the present opportunity a golden one for transferring the conservancy of rivers to a county authority. Acting in this capacity they would have power to remove obstructions, to improve outfalls, the navigation of the river, and the flow of water therein. On this point he should be most happy to receive suggestions. He did not propose to deal peremptorily with the provisions of the existing Acts; but there was reason to think that there were a large number of rivers the con- servators and. trustees of which would gladly avail themselves of the opportunity of getting rid of their duties and responsibilities. The county boards would also be entrusted with the provision and care of asylums and schools for the imbecile paupers, and for idiotic and other pauper children. And they would be empowered to prepare schemes for forming the whole or parts of their county into one district for the purpose. The word "school," he should add, for the information of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gravesend (Captain Pim), was defined to include "training ship," so it would be competent to a county board by themselves, or in union with other counties, to establish a training ship on the coast. It was also proposed, with a view to prevent the inconvenience which arose from the overlapping of unions, parishes, and other districts, to give power to the county board to propose schemes for the dissolution of existing areas, and for the rectification of existing boundaries, where it was thought desirable to do so. This power already existed in the hands of the central authority—the Local Government Board; but it was found extremely difficult to put it in force, as regarded unions, although a good deal had been done in the way of re-constructing the divided parts of parishes. The next was, he feared, one of the most radical of all the provisions of the Bill; but he believed it was one which would meet with but little opposition on either side of the House. It was proposed that the time-honoured institution, according to which coroners were now elected by the freeholders, should no longer exist, and that the election of coroners should be committed to the county board. There was also proposed to be given power to the county boards to borrow money on the security of general rates, not only for the purposes of the Act, but also with a view to lend money to smaller bodies, thus forming financial centres, which it was hoped and believed would work beneficially. They would enable Guardians and other bodies to borrow on easy terms, and be an inducement to the people of the locality to lend money on good security, and they would also bring under the notice of the county authorities a general view of the financial condition of the respective districts. He had now gone through the greater number of the 48 clauses of the Bill. The remainder gave directions as to how the various functions of the county board were to be discharged, and defined the administrative business which was to ro-main in the hands of the magistrates and that which was to be transferred to the county board. They also contained directions as to the mode in which the elections were to be conducted, the term of office being limited to a year, and provided the necessary machinery for the elections. His statement would not be complete if he did not refer very briefly Of course it would be said that the elections should be direct by the ratepayers, and not through the agency of the Guardians. He believed direct election would be very unpopular, and it would certainly be very expensive. They had some evidence as to expense in what had occurred in connection with school boards. He found that, in 1876, 150 school board contests had cost the ratepayers not less than £23,000. Assuming that there would be contests in every parish, the cost of an election direct by the ratepayers would be not less than £100,000. That might be thought an extravagant sum, but it was founded on a careful estimate, and its correctness was singularly illustrated by a recent experience of his own on a small scale in connection with an election relating to the New Forest. There was a natural feeling against expenditure of that kind, but he went further, and said there was no occasion for it. The great interest of the ratepapers was in the election of the Guardians, who spent 2s. 6d. in the pound, not in the administration of the county rate, which, when the Prison Act was in full operation, would amount to no more than 1 ½d. in the pound; but what did they find as regards the interest manifested in the election of Guardians? "Why, that in 1875, out of 14,000 parishes in England, there were 456 contests only, and those, for the most part, in populous towns where Party and political feeling ran high and was brought freely into play. Was it too much to ask that the House of Commons would set an example to the country at large and treat this serious question apart from Party considerations? That was a bold thing to ask with regard to the first matter mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech; nevertheless, he was encouraged in making the request, partly because of what was said in the debate last year, and partly because of his own experience in these subjects. The question was too important to be dealt with in a narrow spirit. He was glad to say, and he acknowledged it gratefully, that since he had been in office he had received the utmost consideration from both sides of the House, and he had found there was a disposition to keep questions arising in his Department apart from politics. He highly appreciated the indulgence which had been extended to him in former to two measures which, at a later period of the evening, he would ask leave to introduce—one was their old friend the Valuation Bill, and the other the Highway Amendment Bill. With respect to the former, the House was already familiar with its leading provisions, and he might add that some new clauses wore introduced, one of which would specially charge the county board with the duty of enforcing the uniform rating of unions inter se, and some of the Amendments placed on the Paper last year had been adopted. The second was what was generally denominated an omnibus Bill, and proposed sundry amendments of the existing law, which he hoped would be considered satisfactory by the House. Among them was a proposal that when a highway district was to be repaired the rate for the repairs should run over the whole district, although geological or geographical considerations might lead to a division of a particular district. "With respect to the Bill he was about to ask leave to bring in, he hoped nobody would say that it was not a bond fide and thorough-going measure. It did not go so far as some hon. Members might desire; on the other hand, it went further than other hon. Members might approve; but Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that if new and ample powers were not to be placed in the hands of the county boards they were not justified in proposing so large a change as the Bill, if it passed, would effect. It would provide the means of meeting real grievances and might be put into immediate operation. It might be objected that it bore too quarter sessional an aspect; but he hoped at the proper time to show that that was not the case, and it should be borne in mind that it would be attended with this ad- vantage—that it would secure the experience and knowledge of the county officers and of the most active and competent of the magistrates in the carrying out of its provisions. It might be said that petty sessional districts varied in size; but there was no separate interest in one petty sessional area as compared with another. It was not like one town against another town, or a town against a county. It was more like the relation of one ward compared with another ward of a borough. He believed the arrangement he proposed would provide adequate representation. Sessions. Unless this conciliatory spirit were acted upon such a difficult subject as that of local government would never be satisfactorily settled, nor could such questions as the consolidation of the Sanitary Acts and the purification of rivers have been dealt with as they deserved. All he asked for the present measure was fair play. Although, therefore, he did not presume that this measure would do other than stand or fall by its merits, he believed he would find a disposition on the part of the House to see this great experiment carried into operation and a workable and satisfactory Bill passed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Administration of County business, and to make further provision for County Government.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had made a clear statement of the principles and scope of the proposed measure, and might with certainty anticipate that it would be discussed with impartiality on both sides of the House. There was a general desire to keep local government reforms free from Party action, although it was not always possible to do so, as he had good reason to recollect. Passing over the functions and powers to be assigned to the boards when they were established, he would make a few remarks upon the constitution of the boards and the mode of electing the members. In this respect he doubted whether the Bill would give satisfaction or be adequate to the occasion, and he would give the reason why. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that it was not desirable to move the rural mind more than was necessary. The country districts, he appeared to think, did not wish to be disturbed by elections. They had hitherto been apathetic, and they should not have another election to stir them up. Now, he and many along with him on that side of the House differed fundamentally from that view of the question. He desired that the rural districts should be more interested in local government than they had hitherto shown themselves; and the reason why he feared the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman might prove to be inadequate, was because it would not interest the great mass of the rural electors. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be unpopular to give them an additional election because of the expense; and he therefore suggested that the Guardians should elect half the members of the county boards. The effect of this would be simply to add one more duty to those of the Guardians, and there the matter would rest. Now, in the first place, he thought the whole system of election to the various local offices should be revised; these elections should, if possible, be combined into one to be held on one day, and if that were done, instead of apathy, real interest would be excited among the ratepayers in the various localities. Tried by this test, he thought the plan of the right hon. Gentleman would not be satisfactory. Contests, even in local elections, were not entirely without their advantage. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to avoid expense, which might frighten the electors; but was it necessary that large expense should be incurred? It was part of the plan of the late Government to combine all the local elections, so that they might be held on one day; and this amalgamation of elections, far from involving an increased expenditure, would save expense. It would increase the local interest in elections, and put them on a more satisfactory footing. He hoped when they came to consider the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, it might be possible to amend it in this respect. They had moved very rapidly during the past eight years. The position which the county franchise had reached was not without its bearing upon this question. Though he might not take the same view as his right hon. Friend upon that question, yet it was believed on the Opposition side of the House that the county franchise was sure to be granted within a limited period of time, and, if so, he would like to see the county elector better trained for his work in the county. In the boroughs the constituencies had been trained by municipal and other duties for their political duties; and on his side of the House there was a desire to see the electors in the rural districts put into training, so that they might feel a greater interest and take part in the government of the public institutions in their own localities. It would be a subject of great regret if this opportunity should be lost by establishing county boards simply through the means of giving the Guardians one additional function.

said, he did not take precisely the same view as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen); but he certainly had hoped that a measure with a much larger scope would have been proposed. In his opinion, the board should have been constituted in such a way that it could gather from all the different localities the amounts it would be necessary to raise in the year for each parish, whether for poor rates, sanitary, or other rateable purposes; so that the ratepayers might know at the beginning of the year what amount they would be called upon to pay. At present enormous discrepancies existed in the assessments; but a county board would be able to make one general assessment which would be fair to all. The spending powers of magistrates in quarter sessions were at present exceedingly limited. To the extent of about five-sixths they were entirely governed by Statute, and merely carried out the duties imposed by special Acts of Parliament. They had no control or discretion; but, notwithstanding all this, it seemed to him that the county board, which it was proposed to establish under the present Bill, would in those respects be very much in the same position as was the case at present. Unless wider ideas were imported into the measure, it would run the risk of dying a natural death towards the end of the Session; but if a strongly constituted Board were entrusted with the powers which he thought it ought to possess, considerable economy might be effected in expenditure, the assessments would be fair and reasonable, and many complaints which were now made would cease to be heard. Whether the elections of members were to be by Boards of Guardians or by direct representation—which, like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he would prefer himself—the machinery was as nothing compared as to the objects for which the county boards were constituted.

said, he could not agree with the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney), for it appeared to him that the Bill set out a good deal of important work which ought to be done, and which, if well done, could not fail to be of great service to the counties. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had stated that the members of the county boards would be elected for one year only. But men elected for one year only could scarcely take the same interest in the various duties imposed upon them as if they were elected for a long period. In his opinion, men who entered upon the numerous and important duties which the right hon. Gentleman had indicated ought to be left in power for three, or, as he would prefer, for five years. In that way, if engaged in any work, they might be able to bring it to a conclusion. His right hon. Friend had not said anything about the chairman of the board, who, in a body of this nature, would be a most important personage. His right hon. Friend probably intended that he should be elected by the persons over whom he was to preside, and they, no doubt, would make a very proper choice. His right hon. Friend had said that the roads would be under their direction, and the rivers also to a certain point; and he had stated distinctly that he was going to introduce the principle of re-erecting turnpike gates in his Highway Bill. That might or might not be very right; but he ventured to think, however much they might believe that tolls ought to be imposed on certain districts, it would be a very invidious thing to do, and would not recommend itself to the ratepayers of the country. We knew that most of the traffic came from the great towns, and if turnpike gates were to be erected at all, they ought to be erected just outside the great towns. If the county rate were extended over the whole county area and the towns paid their fair proportion, which he thought they would do sooner than have turnpike gates set up outside their boundaries, that would be a fair solution of the difficulty. With regard to rivers, he hoped his right hon. Friend would consider whether the area, which at present only extended to the flood level, ought not to be enlarged. The enormous quantity of water which came down from the higher grounds flooded the lower, and yet it was the lower grounds only that were required to pay. Only one word more. He could not sit down, after listening to speeches on a subject of this kind, without being reminded of a Gentleman who had long sat in the seat below him—his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). In all matters of this description—in the Highway Bill and in the Rating Bill, which were to be introduced, and in the measure which had now been brought forward—there was no man whose practical experience would have enabled him more easily to point out defects and difficulties. Nor was there any man who had been more useful than their esteemed Friend, who had been a Member of the House for so many years, in criticizing every measure of importance brought before Parliament, be it what it might. There was no man whose common sense was of so much use to that House, and especially to those Friends who sat around him, in guiding them aright to the views they ought to take; and there was no man whose loss they would more regret and whose memory would be more lasting in the House than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire.

said, the subject was one of too serious and practical a nature to be discussed then, and therefore he should only give expression to some general views with regard to the subject. The question of local government and county boards had greatly grown of late years, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had very accurately shown how much our notions with regard to the functions of county boards had enlarged since 1852, when Mr. Milner Gibson introduced a Bill for establishing county financial boards to be elected directly by the ratepayers. Since then the question had entirely changed, and they had ceased to look upon it as the establishment of mere financial boards; but as general administrative boards with new administrative functions, extending over a larger area than a parish, or a union, or a borough. The President of the Local Government Board had shown his appreciation of this change by the new functions he proposed to assign to county boards under this Bill, although in his historical sketch he hardly succeeded in presenting a correct picture of the growth of the county boards question and its effect on the general question of local government. The most important point of view was the effect of the constitution of these boards upon the whole system in strengthening the principle and re-vivifying the life of local government. He was prepared and willing to admit that the proposed change was no inconsiderable one for the better with regard to the functions—that of the proposal to assign to them the charge of turnpike roads, and so on—and he cordially approved the proposal to confer on county boards the conservancy and prevention of the pollution of rivers. He assented to the proposal that the modification of unions should require the assent of the Local Government Board, and that the county boards should have the election of coroners. So far, therefore, as the proposed functions of these bodies were concerned, he cordially approved of them; but he was unable to do so with regard to the constitution of the boards. He was sorry to find that the election of the members was to be taken from the unions and given half to the magistrates and half to the Guardians in petty sessional divisions. He must say that he preferred the unions to the petty sessional divisions as an electoral area. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had said that the members of the county boards should command the confidence of the public, and they and their elections should be free from political bias. But according to the scheme of his right hon. Friend, half of the members were to be county justices, and would hon. Members opposite be prepared to say that they would carry on elections without political bias? ["Yes, yes!"] Those hon. Gentlemen who said that certainly made a very bold assertion, for the appointments of county justices were to a large extent political appointments. Instead of the proposal of his right hon. Friend, it would be better at once to accept the idea of the direct election of members of county boards by household suffrage. ["No, no!"] Well, that was his opinion. If that course were adopted, it would add to the self-confidence of the members, and to the amount of public confidence to be reposed in county boards. There was scarcely a petty local body that was not elected by popular suffrage, and the question of the extension of the household suffrage in boroughs to counties was one which, he believed, would soon be settled. The Government was a strong Government; it had a powerful majority; and it could pass a strong Bill. His right hon. Friend had appealed to that side of the House not to treat this as a Party measure. He replied to that appeal by another to his right hon. Friend—namely, that the Government would not persist in saying what they would and what they would not accept; but that they would make this, like other measures before it, a House of Commons Bill.

who said he had had considerable experience in local administration, congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board upon having skilfully grappled with this difficult question. He hoped that the quarter sessions, in electing the members from the petty sessional divisions, would not be restricted to magistrates belonging to those divisions; and as regarded the appointment of coroner by the new board—of which he entirely approved—he would suggest giving them also power of dismissal, or at least suspension. In opposition to the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), he strongly approved of vesting the election in members of the Board of Guardians, and believed that in this way better men would be chosen than by direct election; for, if such a system were adopted, many who were the most qualified for the position would decline to come forward. In regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax as to political bias, that was a thing from which, in the administration of county business, the magistrates were entirely free. He was in favour of extending the term of office to three years, as had been suggested, instead of one year; and he believed, if these boards worked satisfactorily, as he had no doubt they would, their functions would become shortly very much extended to other matters. He trusted that in dealing with this Bill political considerations would not be obtruded, and felt sure that if the best men on both sides put their heads together they would be able to make a satisfactory Bill.

said, he thought it would be a mistake to enter much into the discussion of a Bill before they had it in their hands. He had, however, always felt that the great reform which was wanted in that matter was not so much in county management itself as in regard to our primary local authorities, many of which were expending large and rapidly increasing sums of money in an unprofitable manner. He could not join in the optimist views taken, whether by past or by present Local Government Boards, as to the existing state of things; and he conceived that the great test by which they would ultimately have to judge that Bill was whether it would facilitate or impede the reform of our primary local authorities. One of the great improvements to be aimed at in that matter should be the establishment of one area for all purposes of local government.

did not wish to discuss that Bill, but to make a few observations on the general question to which it related. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had spoken about the apathy of the ratepayers with respect to that subject. Now, he acknowledged that that apathy existed on the part of the ratepayers; but what was the reason for its existence? It was that the ratepayers knew very well that, upon the whole, the business of the counties was very well managed at present. The taxation by county magistrates was, no doubt, more or less anomalous, the principle being that taxation and representation should be co-ordinate. That had been brought about by Acts of Parliament and Statutes, and no doubt constitutionally the Parliament of this country, as having the right to taxation over the whole country, had the right to delegate the power to any other body. If the magistrates exercised the right, they did it by virtue of Acts of Parliament, and it was a great mistake to suppose that the magistrates were an aristocratic body, representing aristocrats and great landowners. Most of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen present were magistrates, and they would bear him out in saying that some magistrates were very small landowners, and that there was not a more mixed body than the magistrates; complaints had even been heard that some magistrates had an insufficient qualification or status. In levying rates they had managed very well and economically, and they did so because they had themselves to pay the rates they levied. The apathy of the ratepayers was a very good proof that there was no substantial ground of complaint in the present state of things. As a large ratepayer himself, he could bear testimony to matters being well managed. He thought Her Majesty's Government had done wisely in giving attention to the cry for something more representative in the magisterial body in counties by adopting the principle of double election. Hon Members opposite did not approve of it, and they had clearly shown why. If there was a system of direct election by taxpayers of the body which was to make rates and administer the funds, he thought there would be a great deal of jobbery, which would be extremely dangerous, and the funds of the county would no longer be economically administered. It would be a Party fight with a view to a county election, and men would become candidates for the county board with a view to becoming Parliamentary Representatives. He preferred to see the present apathy, for by Party fights the rural mind, naturally apathetic, would be sharpened, and there would be no end of jobbing. With regard to the management of rivers, he hoped the Government would in Committee consider this matter, as he believed it was absolutely essential, with a view to the conservancy and management of rivers, that there should be one authority over them from their source to mouth. If there was a distinct authority over them in every county through which they ran it would be most unsatisfactory. It had been found to be so in the case of the Thames, but the evil had been partly remedied by Acts of Parliament. He should support this Bill, not because he thought it was necessary, but because he really thought upon his conscience that the magistrates of counties used the best discretion with regard to the management of the county funds.

said, as the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give county boards the management of the rivers, he hoped he would in his Bill take into consideration the question of floods, which introduced the question of the rating. The great Act which governed the management of the rivers was the Act of 1862; but that Act dealt with agricultural land merely, and under it there was no power whatever of rating a town so that immense improvements might be effected up to the very borders of a town, and many—in some cases—of its streets freed from the liability of being under water; and yet there was no process by which the town so benefited could be brought to contribute its share in the expenses which had been incurred. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give power to rate towns for the purpose of securing them from the recurrence of these floods; but he thought it a matter which was worthy of consideration. With reference to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), who thought there would be political bias in the elections, he would say that though magistrates as town councillors might also be elected through political bias, when they dealt with county matters he was confident there was nothing further from their minds than allowing any political feelings to influence their conduct.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that Her Majesty's Government meant business, and certainly, on the first available night, they had introduced their measure, and it was the first measure, too, mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. He thanked his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board for having so fully redeemed the pledge given by the Government last year that this subject should receive their serious consideration. He was glad his right hon. Friend had not accepted the principle of direct representation, not that he was opposed to direct representation, but there were many evils connected with it which entirely counter-balanced the good. The expense would be enormous, and they could not by any possibility divorce politics from the election, whilst he wished to exclude politics altogether from the board. They would not under the system of direct representation get the best men; because they want edquiet, practical, business men, who would devote their time and attention to the business of the board, instead of the oratorical gentlemen who would, in all probability, be elected by direct representation. He could not quite agree with his right hon. Friend on the constitution of the board. It ought to be a representative board, but he thought the representative element which his right hon. Friend would introduce would be much too small. One-half of the board would be magistrates. Why half, when upon the assessment, school, and other committees, they were only a third? One hon. Gentleman had said that the magistrates paid all, or nearly all the rates. He was prepared to say that directly they paid scarcely any. He wished to impress on his right hon. Friend that one-third of the number on the board would be quite sufficient for the magistrates. It appeared, too, that the magistrates in quarter sessions were to elect magistrates. Why, then, should not the Guardians at their meetings elect Guardians? It was quite possible under the Bill to have three-fourths of the board magistrates. A statement had been made that the magistrates were going to be deprived of a great deal of their power. Why was that power given to them? Not because they were magistrates, but because they were the only authority in the county to whom the power could have been given. There was a deviation from the fines he had marked out in taking petty sessional districts instead of unions. He must say that had rather disappointed him. He thought the Board as proposed would be too numerous—90 or 100 members being too many for practical purposes. It was to be hoped that care would be taken that the Board had power to appoint committees, not only for rivers but for many other purposes. He hoped that when they had the Valuation Bill before them, some such suggestion as that made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rod-well) would be adopted, and that the Board should not only have power to equalize the assessments, but it should be the ultimate Court of Appeal.

said, he also begged to thank the Government for having so soon redeemed their promise on this subject. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the measure would get rid of the notion of re-erecting turnpike gates. There were many ways of getting out of the difficulties which existed without doing anything so unpopular. The real point in the Bill was the area, and he did regret that the petty sessional area had been chosen. It invited one, first of all, into an inquiry as to the history of the mapping-out of the petty sessional divisions. He thought it would be an instructive inquiry to go into before adopting the area chosen. The magistrates under the Bill had far too much the best of it. He would have preferred direct election; but he would ask his right hon. Friend to consider how he had abandoned one of the advantages of indirect election. It was desirable that the election should fall on one who was well known and respected by a body of men amongst whom he was accustomed to act; but under the Bill the Guardians were taken away altogether from the places where they were known, and from those with whom they had acted. This was done, it was said, in order that they might vote in the light; but if that was the case, he would rather they should vote in the dark. If they held out to the ratepayers the concession of one-half the representation, care should be taken that they did not get the notion into their heads that after all the magistrates were going to have the best of it. Let the ratepayers have their half with the utmost impartiality. From their knowledge and experience the magistrates would always have enough power if they only had one-third of the representation. There was one other objection to these petty sessional areas. Were they to be merely for elections or for administrative purposes? If not for administrative purposes, how long would they remain so? The union area was for sanitary purposes. The most frequent cause of conflict in the country was between the highway authority and the sanitary authority, and the adoption of the petty sessional area would increase and perpetuate many of the evils of the present very complicated system. He was glad the Government had taken up this question before the small rural authorities to whom they had recently given large borrowing powers had had time to saddle themselves with debt. It must not be understood that he was hostile in his criticisms, but he wished the points he had mentioned to be taken into consideration.

said, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) was a centralizer of the centralizers, and had attacked the Bill on the very grounds on which he (Mr. Knight) thought it was most excellent. The great tendency of modern legislation was to absorb all local power, and to place it under the control of London Boards. Those who originated the new Poor Law had the idea of breaking up by their unions the unit of the county, and thus pave the way for putting everything under the central authority, until the local authorities could not give a pair of trousers to a poor lad without referring the matter to the Poor Law Board in London. He was glad, therefore, his right hon. Friend had taken the county as the unit, and divided it by the petty sessional divisions as now existing. Young men who wanted to know the effect of this centralization, and how the attempt to stop out-door relief led to riots and outrages in 1837, could not do better than read the novel of Sybil, which gave an exact description of the state of England at that time. The effect of the Bill would be that the counties would entirely govern themselves and be as independent of London as the court of quarter sessions. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had made a division between much-frequented roads and those in purely country parishes; but the former, he thought, ought to have the benefit of public grants.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for the Bill; but was of opinion that in various particulars his proposals might be improved. He thought it would be found that the new Boards would be more under the Local Government Board than was supposed by the last speaker. Whatever plan of election was adopted, we might get good working boards. He should prefer direct election, which, unfortunately, involved expense, though he did not think it would be so great as some imagined, and too great to deter us from resorting to it. There were great objections to election by Guardians in petty sessional districts. It would be a departure from recent legislation to adopt these districts, which varied much in size and population, including unions with separate interests, the larger and more important of which would be inadequately represented. The overlapping of county boundaries by unions was a difficulty, but in time it might have been got over; and he should have preferred that the union, which was the unit for many purposes, should have been chosen for this also. It was not necessary that magistrates should have equal representation with the ratepayers; and he would give two-thirds of the representation to the ratepayers. The magistrate of his own district would not be dissatisfied with the smaller amount of representation. It was gratifying that so much work was to be given to the Boards, and in time, no doubt, their functions would increase in importance. There was an objection to annual elections, which even now were objected to in the case of Guardians; and certainly triennial elections would involve less expense than yearly elections.

in reply, said, he had adopted the petty sessional area because he thought it preferable to the unions as they existed at present; but if the unions could be rectified, he should not object to their adoption. With respect to the proposal that the tenure of office should be for three years instead of one, he was quite willing to try the experiment; and, in point of fact, he had given directions that the experiment should be tried. He hoped that in Committee it would be found possible to amend any faults which might exist in the Bill.

contended that the way wardens, as well as the Guardians, should have a voice in the election of county boards. At the same time, he saw great objection to the principle of indirect representation.

argued that there was nothing in the circumstances of England justifying the imposition of tolls at a time when tolls were being abolished in Scotland.

suggested that it would be well to leave the discussion of matters of principle until the Irish Bill on the same subject was introduced. These points in the two measures could then be taken together.

said, that he did not rise for the purpose of stopping the introduction, or even taking part in the observations on the proposed measure, beyond asking one single question, and pointing out a difficulty which was not very uncommon in the North of England. First, he should like to know what was to be done in a case like that of Leeds, in which borough there were no less at this moment than four different Boards of Guardians? One administered the Poor Law affairs of what might be called Leeds proper, while each of the other three bodies were severally located within the ambit of the Parliamentary Municipal Borough, and severally administered those of the suburban districts. The area, however, over which these suburban Boards went "overlapped "—to use the language of the hon. Member for Oldham—considerable tracts of the country outside, and it might therefore be difficult to adjust each area correctly; and, moreover, it might be desirable to treat such special cases somewhat exceptively. At all events, it would be absolutely necessary, when legislating on this matter, not to lose sight of the fact that such cases, being exceptional in their circumstances, would require careful investigation, and, perhaps, even specific arrangements. Then there was another class of cases, of which the union for the district in which he himself spent his younger years — that of Goole — formed an excellent type. That union was upwards of 20 miles long, with, comparatively speaking, but few resident magistrates; and in such cases, too, great care would be requisite to provide a fair, and at the same time adequate representation on the proposed Board. He merely mentioned these matters, in order that sight might not be lost of them in dealing with the measure ultimately.

said, he would not oppose the Bill, as he understood it was to be sent to a Select Committee. Unless certain of its provisions were modified by the Select Committee to which it was to be referred, it could scarcely be considered as a redemption of the pledge given last Session by the President of the Board of Trade. The grievance of seamen was that at the present time they were exposed to an extremely hard and rigorous law, and were not allowed that emancipation conceded to every other class of industry in reference to breach of contract with employers. The Bill really contained nothing but two clauses, except what was discussed at great length in the Bill of 1875, and approved of by the House.